Talk:Andrew Harvey (journalist)

JPG-GR

Voice your opinion (talk page) (26/1/1); Scheduled to end 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) - Every time that I decide to take a look at the admin backlog, one of the most consistent areas where help is sorely, sorely needed is Wikipedia:Requested moves. So I've looked at it for a little while now, and since I'm not that great at move issues I generally don't do it myself, and presumably others are in the same boat? So who's doing the moves? Well, a non-admin is doing those where admin intervention is not needed, and is basically a staple of the RM page. That person is JPG-GR. With over 5000 page moves done, he is clearly an asset to his area of specialty. His 2000+ edits to the RM page have to be either the most or nearly the most out of all Wikipedia users, which shows his dedication. Obviously, he would be a great help to handling that move backlog, and making sure those are taken care of. His edits are, of course, more than just that. His specialty in article writing and discussion is radio stations, as seen by his frequent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Examples of his work include [1] and [2], which isn't a major edit but shows that he clearly understands policy. He also does some vandalism reversion as well. All in all, since he would be a specialist contributor as an administrator, and he shows that he would clearly be dedicated to that area, he would make a good admin. Wizardman 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As Wizardman indicated, I spend a lot of time working on move proposals at Wikipedia:Requested Moves and intend to continue doing so. Thanks to my use of {{db-move}}, I am well aware that the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion can sometimes get out of control and I'd be glad to help out there. As for the other staple areas admins work (WP:XFD comes to mind first and foremost, naturally), I have a help-where-needed attitude. I don't have any intention of jumping full force into any particular area or areas that I don't already spend time in without first spending plenty of time "feeling" my way around.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I helped spearhead the initiative to clean up the mess that were the United States radio lists (articles of the type List of radio stations in STATE) by working to coordinate the best format for said lists and then creating/fixing/updating them with info from the FCC database. A large portion of my content-related edits are to those lists and to the greater WP:WPRS-related framework. In general, I am much more "maintenance"-intensive than "content"-intensive (which should be clear from my work at WP:RM). I can't boast of any FAs written or impressive DYK counts. I account that to being much more of a math/science guy vs. a literature/arts guy.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I fear that if an admin knows me and it's not for something WP:RM-related, it's probably something User:Neutralhomer-related. We had a period late last year where we were both working toward the betterment of WP:WPRS but with slightly different perspectives. We butted heads more than once and both suffered from the need to have the last word. I pride myself that during all that chaos, while the CAPSLOCK may have been selected here or there, I never crosses the policy line. NH and I have since made peace. In general, I definitely have a "walk-away when angered" position now and find it's better to say nothing at all rather than to let the verbal venom fly.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 4a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: If said editor is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Personal attacks, violations of WP:BLP, continued vandalism after warnings, etc.

• 4b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: If said page is currently the victim of an edit war, IP vandalism from multiple IPs, etc.

• 4c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: If one or more of the criteria at WP:SPEEDY apply to said article. Be it something as complicated as a good looking though confirmed hoax or as simple as an article which has "uze guyz sux" as it's sole content.

• 4d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: Succinctly, if a policy prevents the maintaining or improvement of the encyclopedia. I can't cite a particular example - though if there were a common example, there would probably then (logically) be an associated rule, and then we would have a paradox.

• 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Sometimes the only thing more difficult than defining "consensus" is coming to a consensus. Article-wise, it's a combination of the actual editing and the content-related discussion on the talkpage. (I've always been a fan of Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg, despite it's less than descriptive name.) With the deletion-related discussion, there is obviously much more discussion. In those cases, the presence of a consensus is determined by input from both the involved parties and some uninvolved editors and weighing the strength of the arguments. It's debate class on a worldwide scale.

• 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Firstly, my natural curiosity would cause me to question why an editor has returned after not making an edit in over five years. All kidding aside, it would depend on the particular situation. If either editor has broken the three-revert rule, a short block for the offender(s) may be in order. If more editors have joined in, full page projection might be necessary temporarily. Either way, I would inform the involved editors on their talkpage that they would be best to take their seesaw battle to the article talk page to discuss the situation (and gather additional input) as back-and-forth reverting is more a game of tug of war than anything else.

• 7. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: "Wish" is almost too strong of a word. For instance, I wish that I'd win the lottery (probably would have to play first...). Basically, I've had a small handful of people comment in the last couple of months that I would make a good admin. I believe in the Wikipedia project and am willing to dedicate a portion of my free time to its benefit. If having a few extra tools would do that, as I believe it can, then I'm for it. If the community disagrees, sobeit. JPG-GR (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Blooded Edge

8:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?

9.:This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account.

Question from How do you turn this on

10. What made you decide to run now, instead of when I asked you if you would?

General comments

• See JPG-GR's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for JPG-GR: JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JPG-GR before commenting.

Discussion

• Any chance that you (JPG) are likely to enable e-mail? Not a deal breaker, so not a question for the above section. Pedro :  Chat  07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom support; specialist admins are okay, and this candidate has no warning bells attached. — Coren ^(talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Absolutely Go help that backlog at WP:RM. good candidate. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Definitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. I've seen this editor in action over at WP:RM and I respect his work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Specialist candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, Most Definitely. RockManQ ^(talk) 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. I see no problems. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 05:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong support - I run across this user frequently via his G6 tagging for requested page moves and have always found his work to be accurate, clueful and per consensus. WP:RM and Wikipedia in general can only benefit from JPG-GR getting the bit. Nancy ^talk 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support No reason to oppose really, although the issue bought up by Aude is somewhat concerning I don't really find it too concerning to the point where there's evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools, which is what I do care about when considering RfA candidates. We all have our learning experience and I think the user will learn from it. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Already knows how to handle the backlog, why don't we give JPG-GR the tools to help out more? per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - While not perfect (who or what is?), I liked a fair part of your answers, and my quick look over your edit history didn't ring any alarm bells. And from what I can tell you have a fairly good handle on consensus. We simply need more admins who understand that it's about weighing arguments, and not about counting "votes". - jc37 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. A fine candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Clearly a specialist in a sorely under "staffed" area that we urgently need to grant the bit to. Also the answer to Q7 was particularly pleasing - an excellent attitude / outlook. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Yes, we need more page movers, always more people moving pages, the faster the better </sarcasm> MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - We need more admins in this area, but I'd like to see email enabled. — neuro^(talk) 08:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. Looks like a fine hard-working candidate willing to take on tedious duties. I read the opposition by Aude, and while I can understand the annoyance, it is mostly a result of someone trying to work efficiently, not a lapse in judgment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Excellent moving work. —Ceran [speak] 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Looks good from what I can see and I think specialist candidates are fine. After all, we are all specialists in some area of admin work that we take part in and that is no bad thing. He does what he knows best to do and I am more than happy to support him to continue doing it - just a bit more effective. And as for the oppose, well, the candidate said he would learn from it. That's good enough for me. Also, I like the answer of Q7, admins need a bit of humor ;-) SoWhy 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong support - I assumed he already was one, he behaves professionally and manages janitorial tasks few want to bother with. Orderinchaos 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Great track has been around since Aug 2006 and over 19000 mainspace edits with over 40000 overall.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Good track record as Pharoah says above; help always needed at RM. Caulde 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
24. What Sjakalle and Orderinchaos said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support great amount of experience, I also like how he didn't jump immediately into an RfA when first approached. --Banime (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Seems good to me II MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Support i like the idea of specialist administrators and this one should be good at what he sets out to do.Mjchesnel (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Wizardman nominated; 'nuff said. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I am concerned about how JPG-GR handles the requested moves page. On September 23, I added a move request tag [3] to the talk page of the Islamic terrorism article. JPG-GR came by 18 minutes later and removed the tag from the talk page [4], with the edit summary "rm move request template - page not listed at WP:RM", because I hadn't yet added it to the requested moves page. Clearly a requested move was intended by my adding the tag, and removing it was impolite. I'm sure it was unintended, but JPG-GR also blanked most of the page along with removing the tag. Instead, the thing to do would be to add my request to the Wikipedia:Requested moves or leave a note on my talk page, or be patient. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and don't trounce on other users for procedural mistakes or not following the three requested move steps quick enough. Such actions only frustrate other users and have the potential to drive away contributors. Removing the requested move tag from the article talk page was enough of a problem, but easily reverted. Although admin actions are mostly reversable, more damage can be done. Speedy deletions, which JPG-GR appears interested in handling, is one area where being too quick and focused on process, can be a problem (see Frog Legs Rag which was subject of a recent Not the Wikipedia Weekly episode). I don't like opposing anyone at RFA, but given my experience, I'm not ready to trust JPG-GR with the admin tools. --Aude (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

   Firstly, I assure you that the blanking of a good portion of the page was not intentional and am somewhat disturbed such a large portion of text was removed and I didn't notice. As for removing the template, I do a run through of CAT:RM as part of my WP:RM "routine" and often find pages tagged with {{move}} only - with no discussion on the talk page nor proposal at WP:RM. Accordingly, it is possible that one of my random cleanings of CAT:RM will catch someone in mid-procedure. In the future, I will do a more consistent job of comparing the time of the addition of {{move}} to the talk page vs. the current time. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

   It took me 20 minutes to do step 2 of WP:RM, which is create a place for discussion with my move rationale (along with finding sources to support my request). [5] You need to be more patient with people. I'm concerned about the ramifications of such impatience when it comes to using admin tools to handle speedy deletions, and other tasks. If this RFA doesn't pass, I would be happy to reconsider at a later time. --Aude (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - waiting on question responses. - jc37 05:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For the first half dozen, can we just point to the appropriate policy/guideline and save a boatload of time for everyone? Tan | 39 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, my evaluation of the responses isn't wholly reliant on the quoting of policies/guildeines. - jc37 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)