Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jerem43
Jerem43's edit stats from here as of 11:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC):
General user info
Username: Jerem43
User groups: autoreviewer
First edit: Sep 09, 2006 01:10:02
Unique articles edited: 6,706
Average edits per page: 4.56
Total edits (including deleted): 30,602
Deleted edits: 1,650
Live edits: 28,952
Namespace totals
Article 9993 34.52%
Talk 3573 12.34%
User 1431 4.94%
User talk 1820 6.29%
Wikipedia 2647 9.14%
Wikipedia talk 683 2.36%
File 517 1.79%
File talk 423 1.46%
Template 2921 10.09%
Template talk 503 1.74%
Help 1 0.00%
Category 1310 4.52%
Category talk 401 1.39%
Portal 2652 9.16%
Portal talk 77 0.27%
Graph
Month counts
2006/09 34
2006/10 25
2006/11 168
2006/12 87
2007/01 105
2007/02 91
2007/03 101
2007/04 301
2007/05 232
2007/06 406
2007/07 301
2007/08 183
2007/09 404
2007/10 1321
2007/11 836
2007/12 869
2008/01 389
2008/02 491
2008/03 637
2008/04 487
2008/05 549
2008/06 1099
2008/07 1930
2008/08 2051
2008/09 677
2008/10 273
2008/11 205
2008/12 1296
2009/01 3288
2009/02 1096
2009/03 580
2009/04 2301
2009/05 2821
2009/06 2700
2009/07 618
Logs
Pages moved: 750
Pages patrolled: 192
Files uploaded: 103
Top edited articles
Article
* 722 - Burger_King
* 405 - Burger_King_products
* 331 - Burger_King_legal_issues
* 330 - Burger_King_advertising
* 272 - Framingham,_Massachusetts
* 222 - McDonald's_products
* 183 - List_of_cuisines
* 180 - Whopper
* 168 - KFC
* 149 - Wendy's
Talk
* 181 - Burger_King
* 131 - Burger_King_legal_issues
* 111 - Korean_cuisine
* 79 - Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica)
* 50 - KFC
* 48 - McDonald's
* 47 - Burger_King_products
* 44 - McDonald's_products
* 42 - Ronald_McDonald
* 41 - Burger_King_advertising
User
* 54 - Jerem43
* 26 - Jerem43/Humor
* 22 - UBX/Userboxes/Food
* 20 - Jerem43/BKli
* 15 - Jerem43/Burger_King
* 12 - TinucherianBot/Autotagg/WPFOOD
* 9 - UBX/User_beer_before_wine
* 9 - Tanner-Christopher
* 8 - Jerem43/User_boxes
* 8 - Jerem43/ubx-saab
User talk
* 246 - Jerem43
* 89 - Tanner-Christopher
* 68 - Happy-melon
* 36 - Funandtrvl
* 32 - Xeno
* 29 - IvoShandor
* 27 - Badagnani
* 23 - Youngamerican
* 17 - Zlerman
* 15 - ChildofMidnight
Wikipedia
* 149 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
* 110 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
* 109 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 70 - Requests_for_page_protection
* 61 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Banners
* 59 - Bot_requests
* 57 - WikiProject_Adoption,_fostering,_orphan_care_and_d...
* 53 - WikiProject_Ice_Cream
* 40 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Foodservice_taskforce/r...
* 38 - Requested_moves
Wikipedia talk
* 196 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
* 52 - WikiProject_Beer
* 44 - WikiProject_Wine
* 31 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Article_guidelines
* 19 - WikiProject_Mixed_Drinks
* 14 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Herbs_and_Spices_task_f...
* 12 - Requested_articles
* 10 - WikiProject_Ice_Cream
* 9 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink/to_do
* 9 - Userboxes/Ideas
File
* 13 - Burger_King_Logo.svg
* 7 - Sitting_king.png
* 7 - Bertolinis_logo.PNG
* 7 - Le_Guide.jpg
* 6 - Creepy_King_Bed.png
* 6 - Sitting_king_logo.png
* 6 - Bk_king_simpsons.jpg
* 6 - McDonald's_Corporate_Logo.svg
* 5 - ChilisSmall.png
* 5 - BKkidsclubgang.png
File talk
* 4 - Sitting_king.png
* 4 - Sitting_king_logo.png
* 2 - Butter_sculpture.JPG
* 2 - Burger_King_Logo.svg
* 2 - SenecaLogo.png
* 2 - McForeverYoung.jpg
* 2 - TacoBellWausau.JPG
* 2 - Bun_festival_veg.jpg
* 2 - Pomegranate03_edit.jpg
* 2 - Plums.jpg
Template
* 127 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
* 84 - Project_information
* 82 - Burger_King
* 49 - Project_information/doc
* 48 - McDonald's
* 42 - Herbs_&_spices
* 38 - Infobox_McDonald's
* 37 - Selected_biography/doc
* 36 - Infobox_Pub
* 35 - Project_wikimedia/doc
Template talk
* 36 - Herbs_&_spices
* 14 - WPBannerMeta
* 13 - Articles_by_Quality
* 12 - ArticleHistory
* 10 - Medicinal_herbs_&_fungi
* 10 - Did_you_know
* 10 - WikiProject_Food_and_drink
* 6 - Alcoholic_beverages
* 6 - WPMIX
* 6 - Commercial_herbs_&_spices
Help
* 1 - Section
Category
* 15 - Drink_templates
* 13 - Drink_user_templates
* 10 - Soft_drink_user_templates
* 9 - WikiProject_Mixed_Drinks_templates
* 9 - Food_templates
* 9 - Coffee_and_tea_user_templates
* 9 - Unassessed_Bartending_articles
* 8 - Beer_user_templates
* 8 - Beer_templates
* 8 - Food_user_templates
Category talk
* 4 - WikiProject_Spirits_templates
* 3 - Pubs_Taskforce_templates
* 3 - Images_of_cans
* 3 - Beverage_logos
* 2 - Wine_navbox_templates
* 2 - Start-Class_Food_and_drink_articles
* 2 - Coffee_and_Tea_Taskforce_templates
* 2 - Drink_user_templates
* 2 - FA-Class_Beer_articles
* 2 - Whiskies
Portal
* 38 - Drink
* 37 - Beer
* 32 - Wine
* 16 - Food
* 15 - Drink/Selected_article
* 14 - Beer/Selected_article
* 13 - Food/Selected_article
* 11 - Massachusetts
* 11 - Drink/Selected_ingredient/2
* 11 - Drink/Selected_ingredient/6
Portal talk
* 13 - Beer
* 11 - Food
* 9 - Wine
* 5 - Drink
* 2 - Drink/Selected_article/7
* 2 - Food/Selected_picture
* 2 - Lyon
* 1 - Food/Selected_recipe/10
* 1 - Food/Selected_person
* 1 - Food/Selected_recipe/9
Oppose conversation
[edit]Oppose for now, see comment below; I think admins should know basic rules of how to create disambig. pages. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I respectfully submit that is incredibly nitpicky. Creating disambig pages has nothing to do with the admin skillset. Have you any reason to believe the user would not be capable with admin functions? → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I must agree with roux. If putting a template in the wrong spot disqualifies one from adminship, I can think of a couple of places where arbcom could have stripped me. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(Following moved from oppose section, in response to I feel that this comment should be removed; my contribution history has nothing to do with Jerem43's RfA... if this is contested please revert me nd address me @ my talk page))
- Without making any judgment one way or the other, perhaps we can attribute this oppose to being a reaction to CrazyInSane's own RfA, closed just 4 days ago, in a similar vein as this comment. Frank | talk 11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Frank, I think that's a little below the belt. While I don't agree that one mistake in 30k edits is enough to oppose someone's adminship, people do have different standards. CIS is opposing based on the candidate's knowledge of the basics of editing, and has every right to do so. Assuming external motives without sufficient evidence isn't exactly assuming good faith in your part. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment, to the degree any is necessary, on my talk page. Frank | talk 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why you would wikilink "attribute this oppose" to Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy is beyond me; it's quite ironic, actually. My oppose (as noted, "for now") is due to the candidate's apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm. Knowing the basics of introducing an article is a bare minimum prerequisite for adminship, I would think. Nonetheless, I am continuing to review his contributions and may change my vote if deemed necessary. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Frank, I think that's a little below the belt. While I don't agree that one mistake in 30k edits is enough to oppose someone's adminship, people do have different standards. CIS is opposing based on the candidate's knowledge of the basics of editing, and has every right to do so. Assuming external motives without sufficient evidence isn't exactly assuming good faith in your part. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(end of moved text)
I've avoided commenting further, as I thought the minor thing I had to say was concise and on-topic, but it seems what I intended was not what was received, by at least two editors. The removal of my comment prompted me to move the sub-conversation here.
The primary point to be made here is that one's past contributions are most definitely relevant in any discussion. We see discussions all the time about whether one is an "inclusionist" or a "deletionist", about whether one is a "regular" or a "noob", about which continent an editor is from, what language is primary, whether The Who are a rock group or is a rock group...the list goes on and on. Here at RfA, there have been many discussions about discussions; there's no point in digging any up because all you have to do is watchlist WT:RFA. Two heavily-trafficked conversations specific to RfA over the last year or two involved User:Kmweber and User:DougsTech.
When this oppose was entered in the RfA, it was the first oppose and it was very early in the discussion. I was not the first person to have the opinion that putting a template in the wrong spot on a page is probably not sufficient to oppose. (I'm not drawing the other two editors into any responsibility for what is entirely my own comment; I'm just pointing out that others had a similar opinion.)
So my reaction was to think a little bit. I recalled that CrazyInSane's own RfA had recently closed early as unsuccessful, and further that CrazyInSane was clearly hurt by the result of that RfA. I drew this conclusion by reading CrazyInsane's own words, copied here and linked above: "Support, if for no other reason than to ensure you don't feel as unwanted as me :(. "
I did not make any judgment about the oppose itself. I did not suggest it was invalid to oppose this candidate, although certainly it is reasonable to believe I didn't support the reasoning. I was merely trying to avoid a continued pile-on and "discussion about the discussion" and provided some context for others reading the discussion and, eventually, for a closing bureaucrat. I explicitly began my comment with "Without making any judgment one way or the other" to indicate exactly that: I was not making any judgment. I linked WP:AGF precisely because I was doing exactly that: assuming that the oppose was made in good faith and not as a "lashing back" for perceived slights elsewhere.
In other words, I was acknowledging that things had not gone well on-wiki for CrazyInSane very recently and that even if some editors might object to the oppose, there might be extenuating circumstances to be considered.
CrazyInSane reacted to the reaction by going neutral with this comment: Neutral for the time being. Given the response to my oppose vote, I've realized that basing my vote solely on one aspect of knowledge in mainspace editing may have been misguided. This was followed by a return to the oppose section, with no additional comment.
Now, clearly this RfA itself hasn't gone well. There have been other opinions given about the candidate's suitability, and yes - some are related to knowing "what goes where", which was first shown by CrazyInsane's oppose. Just as I didn't make any judgment early in the process, I don't make any judgment about that either; people are entitled to their opinions, and - just as important - others are entitled to question and comment on them, and also, people are entitled to change their opinions during the discussion, which often happens.
I do feel pretty strongly that others discussing the oppose - or the recent history of the opposer - is in no way inappropriate in a discussion. I do not feel that is personal or, as one person suggested, below the belt. And, while it's not in keeping with our usual policies to remove the comments of others in a discussion, I'm not challenging that either, instead bringing it here to the talk page. This might have been the best place for my comment to start with.
This all assumes anyone cares; I'm not sure about that but I hope my views are a little better known. I'm not sure if there's much else to be said, but certainly if someone cares to, I welcome additional comment. Frank | talk 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine Frank, no hard feelings, I just felt it would be better for both of us if the comment was removed from the main RfA page to avoid any unnecessary negative attention drawn to the matter. I agree with your decision to move the conversation here; and I don't think this needs to be discussed any further. Cheers. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)