Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished User 8a9b4725f8376 (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 25 August 2008 (→‎JamieS93: tally-ho). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JamieS93

Voice your opinion (talk page) (46/17/4); Scheduled to end 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JamieS93 (talk · contribs) - Jamie has been a Wikipedian since November, and as I write this has 4444 edits in total. She is mostly an article writer, with particularly good work in the area of Christian music, with her two most worked on articles being Leeland (which is B-class) and Matthew West which is a good article. She is also a contributor to Spotlight, where she has done work on Thirty Years' War as well as other articles.

She also contributes to AfDs, and has closed a few of them already. She's also helpful to new editors, such as on the help desk and new contributors' help page. Additionally, I have recently seen her help out on Did You Know, which could always do with more admins watching it for updates. When I first came across her, she was one of those users who made me think "I thought she was one".

I offered to nominate her some months ago, but she declined. Now she has told me she will accept, which is excellent, since she will make an excellent admin. Majorly talk 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination by Juliancolton I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC. During that time, I've followed her contributions, which I've been consistently impressed by. She is a great content builder, getting Matthew West to GA, and most recently (today) she helped contribute to Hurricane Karl (2004), a GA. Despite this, here work doesn't stop in the mainspace, as indicated above. Otherwise, Majorly pretty much covered everything. Overall, I think Jamie will make a great admin! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and would like to thank my nominators for having faith in my potential. Jamie☆S93 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I intend to mainly work with DYK updates and the deletion process, two areas where I feel that I have decent experience in. I would help out with the CAT:CSD backlog, closing AfD discussions, and doing the Did you know updates. After a little while I may also ease into some of the more straightforward cases of semi protecting articles or blocking sufficiently-warned vandals at WP:AIV, since I have done some vandal-fighting and AIV reports in the past.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Majorly gave a decent synopsis of my work on Wikipedia. In my own words, however, my best contributions would be article-writing with the Christian music WikiProject including Matthew West which was promoted to GA. I have also contributed to the area of DYKs and helping with update preparation. More recently, I joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones and minorly helped get Hurricane Karl (2004) to GA status. I’ve always enjoyed helping out other editors, especially our newer users, and have been able to exercise communication and explanation skills on Wikipedia through that.
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 really haven’t had any major disputes or conflict of opinion with others on Wikipedia. Whenever there has been a rub with another user, I first always make sure that WP:CIV is kept in the forefront of everything. Second, fully explaining myself, citing policies and guidelines to back up my reason for an action, and encouraging further discussion if a compromise is needed in certain cases. If things get intense, stepping away from an issue for a few hours to keep a cool head and rational thinking always helps. Balanced communication is one of the most important aspects of resolving disputes, and as an admin I wouldn't treat having the tools as a distinction from others. For example, if a user were repeatedly personally attacking me to the point that they needed to be blocked, I would definitely ask another admin to handle it to avoid COI and possible use of "admin powers" to control people. That would simply go against the nature of trying to calmly negotiate opinions, so I think I'd handle conflicts about the same.
Additional questions from RMHED
4a.Which is the more important policy WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? Please don't explain your answer.
A: WP:CIVIL.
4b.Which in your opinion is the most important Wikipedia policy? Again please don't explain your answer.
A: Other than WP:COPY for technical/legal reasons, I'd say WP:NPOV.
4c.Do you consider Jimbo Wales to be the Founder or Co-Founder of Wikipedia? A one word answer will suffice
A: Co-founder.
Comment: This question about a historical event that took place before the candidate, or virtually any other editors participating in the RfA, had any involvement in Wikipedia, strikes me as putting this or any candidate in a "no-win situation" and therefore as unfair. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the question carefully you'll see it can be answered cleverly. RMHED (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, very clever RMHED. Looking for clue?--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

5. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. I view that having to face offensive language and personal attacks is simply part of the territory when dealing with vandalism. I've had some of it as a non-admin, and will strengthen to some degree if I were in the position to block a user.
As for the example: I would not grant the user's unblock request due to the fact that there is too much vandalism for one good edit tossed in there; 1 in 14 (I think) vandalizing edits is not enough to prove that this user wouldn't misuse their privilege. I'd decline the request explaining this reason, but invite the user to come back and constructively contribute to Wikipedia once the block's expired, giving them some basic information about the areas of Wikipedia. I'd also take the length of the block into consideration; in this case, one week isn't exactly a significant time span, and the user will hopefully coming back to make good dentistry edits.
6. This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A.

Additional questions from miranda:

7. What does BLP mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?
A. BLP is a policy meant to protect the biographies of living people from unsourced facts (especially negative ones). If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be ignored within reason. However, I have never actually seen a case where it was good to ignore that rule, so in general I'd say that it shouldn't be ignored.
8. Should IRC be used in order to make any decisions regarding GA reviews, policy violations, etc.? Have you ever used IRC in order to make these decisions (such as passing GA reviews)? And if so, how will that change when you are an administrator?
A. I feel that IRC should not be used to initiate any actual decision-making discussions such as GA reviewing as you were mentioning, or anything other than non-controversial duties or mild input and discussion with others about certain processes on Wikipedia. I personally use IRC to have some general Wikipedia discussion, getting quick links for things from the helpful folks there, or receiving casual input from others which may influence what I do in certain cases, yes. But instead I consider the suggestions I receive through IRC chat as merely opinions for less important actions that I do on Wikipedia. It definitely should not be used as a means of attaining some kind of consensus on an issue such as an article's content dispute. This is because it’s not recorded on Wikipedia, and it would be using something informal (IRC) for something serious or possibly controversial on Wikipedia. I hope that explains what your question was aiming at, thanks.
9. What does 3RR mean and why? When should one ignore the policy?
A. 3RR is a policy meant to prevent repeated unconstructive reverting and edit warring over two or more parties' non-vandalistic edits. In keeping with the BRD cycle, content disputes should instead be discussed between the two parties (with perhaps a third opinion), since endless reverting doesn't help the problem or get it anywhere. The only time that 3RR does not apply is when reverting vandalism, or if one party is inserting sensitive material like copyright violations or a clear BLP violation.

Optional question from RyanLupin (talk)

10. In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.
A.

Optional question from Jennavecia

11. Have you previously edited under another name?
A. No, this is the only account that I've used (I've never done any anonymous editing, either).

Optional question from Keepscases

12. Do you intend on attempting to become a Bureaucrat?
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JamieS93 before commenting.

Discussion

Are any of his questions? The "don't explain your answer" bit makes me wonder if he's just having a laugh.    SIS  23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Question 4c seems particularly outrageous. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my own reaction to that question above before I saw this portion of the discussion, and I agree with RyanLupin and Juliancolton on this aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Jamie will make a great admin! Majorly talk 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Kind editor and great article writer. Very experienced with Wikipedia and will be a major help to the DYK backlog. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - likes High School Musical :p Seriously, support. Sceptre (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Great interaction, although I had no idea she was female... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good editor. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, based on my interactions with her, I have found her to be a very mature user who will be an asset as an admin. We need more DYK admins, we've lost two in the last few weeks. Maxim (☎) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No good oppose reasons so far.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Even if some people think otherwise, I think age is not a reason to oppose. This user seems to behave more like an adult than many users here who are legally adults. As far as I could see, this user is civil and helpful and knows her work around Wikipedia. I also think that users who adopt others and work at the help desk show a certain willingness to help other users. Note: I may change this vote pending further questions. SoWhy 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Appears to be a trustworthy, level-headed user with no visibly troublesome contributions. Best of luck. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. (ecx2)Weak Support the weak comes more from my laziness as compared to any real issues that I identified with the candidate. From my quick review, it looks as if this user is respected and her input is sought out... those are overriding criteria in my book. While I would have liked to have seen more wikipedia/wikipedia talk contributions this wasn't enough for me to go neutral over. Also, while I generally pay more attention to younger candidates, age is not the sole guideline for maturity. Finally, if this doesn't pass (Even if it does) might I suggest responding to conversations on the page where they originated? It makes following conversations much easier---especially when multiple people get involved in the conversation.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support As co-nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good editor. No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – Kid? Yes. Behaves like one? Definitely not. —Animum (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support my first editor review was from her (I completely thought you were a guy, though!) —[[::User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] ([[::User talk:Cyclonenim|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Cyclonenim|contribs]]) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. naerii 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Don't let the ageist editors get to you. The fact you choose to disclose your age is admirable. People should consider looking at their maturity level rather than their age. After all, if she never said she was high-school-age there would never be such a dispute. CL — 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Nothing alarming. Looks good to me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes If I knew of this, I would ask to co-nominate. Amazing job in Spotlight, and I can't say anything about age because I'm younger.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Excellent editor who seems to continue finding new ways to support the project. I believe every indication is that she will utilize the tools responsibly. (Disappointed by the haters ageists.)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - looks good to me.   jj137 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - My experience with her on DYK has only been positive, both from seeing her work as a reviewer and as a contributor. Her articles have been solid, well-written and well-referenced. I can't see how she'd have a problem being an admin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I think she'll be a great admin, and... the ageism opposes. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. YES. Absolutely yes. If I had known about this, I would have co-nommed. Great editor. X! who used to be Soxred93 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support Of course. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 03:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Although she's a new editor to WP:WPTC, she has already proven to be a considerable asset to the WikiProject, and to Wikipedia at large. I'm also rather disappointed in the ageist opposition. I was promoted to admin when I was still "not an adult", and I didn't burn the barn down. I find it against the spirit of WP:AGF to oppose for that reason without any effort to find evidence that a candidate is not suitable due to any other circumstance. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Has done excellent work for the project. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support - Opposing someone based on their age is downright silly, its like ," Hi I'm 90 years old"..ohh no ..you are too old to be an admin..If you really can't find a valid reason to oppose, don't vote at all...I have known Jamie for a long time, and I trust her to use the tools wisely..Just look at this and tell me how many of those were actually "kids"?...Looking at her userpage, you can see that she is devoted to the Project, we need those type of people.and not those that never make any real contribution to mainspace..--Cometstyles 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - due to strong positive interactions with the candidate. Additionally, I feel that age can be a very impresice mechanism with which to calculate maturity. Gazimoff 10:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support — Looks like a good editor to me, with none of the issues that sometimes prevent good editors from becoming good admins. I feel that age is an issue only insofar as it impacts judgment — and in the oppose section, I see no major lapses of judgment that would be unacceptable for an administrator. Very unlikely to harm the project in any way, and very likely to continue contributing to it in whatever capacity she chooses. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, I've had a look, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Without looking at her user page, I would not have been aware she was a teenager, and she has so far displayed admirable maturity and good judgement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Strong support: Her work with the Spotlight is amazing, and she would almost certainly not misuse the tools Dendodge|TalkContribs 11:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Trust Majorly. Net positive. Ageism is not a valid oppose rationale. I'm really surprised to see this keep cropping up in light of the capable admins and crats we have who we would not under this age based rejectionism. Also, one need not have a GA or an FA, or even be a strong article builder to wield the mop. When you come down to it, most deletion or block decisions are pretty obvious. If the candidate has any doubt, she seems bright enough to seek advice or to discuss with those more knowledgeable, seek consensus at WP:AN/I, etc. Does not seem likely to go berserk, block out of spite or anger, or delete the main page. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS AFD is a consensus building discussion. Sometimes the discussion becomes intense. The candidate's ability to benefit the project with the tools should not be lost due to the nominator engaging in brisk debate with an opposer. It does not "punish" anyone for "bad behavior." It merely denies the project the use of the candidate's full capabilities. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Obviously, the candidate will need to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, seriously, if they wish to be a successful administrator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Snake! It's a Snake! Oh, no, it's a snake![reply]
  35. Strong support per nom, willingness to adopt and welcome new users, and overall sense of genuineness and maturity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support - Not just per nom by Majorly, but by personal feelings. I know Jamie well, and I really feel that she should be an administrator. To reply to Sandy, I had 4 GAs and 1 FA at the time of my RFA. I really doubt that's a really good reason to oppose. Also, to the ageism folks, does AGE mean EVERYTHING to you??? That is ridiculous. I am a high school student, and I passed as one as well. Age should not be a reason to oppose, even for freaking high school. If it was a 9-year-old I may see a problem, but there are adults who don't act as maturly as some teenagers do. Good luck, Jamie.Mitch32(UP) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support — How many teenagers have started a war? Matthew (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support - a great article writer and can be trusted. I see no reason not to approve --T-rex 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support You have my support. Bstone (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per 1) answers to questions and 2) disagreement with reasons to oppose listed below (particularly the maturity issue - the candidate has handled this RFA and the comments herein confidently, openly, and appropriately). Townlake (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support. I've had nothing but positive interactions with JamieS93, and I disagree with almost all of the opposes. So what if she isn't a certain age - she has shown exemplary judgement in my view, and that qualifies her for the tools. I'm pretty disgusted at how this turning out, to be honest, although I'm not going to go into details, but here we have a user who is more than qualified for it, and we're denying her adminship. People complain when people don't have enough GAs, and here we are with an editor who focuses mainly on building the encyclopedia, but doesn't have a big pile of GAs to show for it (Jamie is obviously an editor who focuses on the drive-by cleanup tasks), and I think thats as good as any number of GAs. Strong support, good luck. :) Qst (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support Not a problem with this user being an admin. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 15:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as good article contributor and due to no memorable negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. JamieS93's answers to questions and conduct during this RfA have been very good, and I'm not seeing any immaturity in them whatsoever. In fact, if she hadn't admitted she was in high school, no one would have guessed how old she is. Regarding Majorly's "badgering", I feel that is a word that is used way too often: we are supposed to discuss in RfAs, and labeling comments and responses as "badgering" does not contribute to a healthy atmosphere. By posting this support, I know and understand that someone may want to respond to me, and I welcome that. This user has contributed positively to the encyclopedia and will be a positive admin. Acalamari 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A good user who has done some article work (1 GA is fine for me and the article work is hardly some isolated incident; higher standards are fine, but 4 opposes about this is a little unusual), is reasonably mature (there are a decent amount of people on WP who are generally immature and it's not totally linked to age), because their conduct is great (opposing because the nominator tried to discuss a vote says nothing about the candidate) and because they don't use IRC as a social networking tool or a place to make decisions. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as a great editor, with great goals. She has exemplary judgement skills and maturity, even if some of her peers don't. Good luck, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute. Friday (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - High school? Too young, sorry. I'm not saying being under 18 equals being immature but I do believe that admins should have more life experience than a high schooler. They'll mostly be dealing with people who are adults, after all. That's not ageism, that's realism. Also, the 93 in her username (and the 90 in the username of her real-life sister WordyGirl90) lead me to assume she's born in 1993. In other words, 14 or 15 years old. If I knew for a fact she's 14 I would have voted "strong oppose".    SIS  00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also talk page.    SIS  02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as I would be rather surprised if this user has ever made a useful contribution to WP:AFD. By this I mean she has never ever, not once participated in an AFD where the article was not obviously notable/unnotable or consensus was not already clear. To illustrate this I will go over her last ten !votes to AFD's.
    This pattern extends as far back into her contribs as I a searched, I did notice that her input became more somewhat useful the farther back (that is weird, people should generally become better over time, not worse) but I had to go back to April before I found any input that I actually thought helped flesh out consensus.
    This !vote will most likely change later depending if anything else is brought up; If my reason is still the only one to be found here in the oppose section in a few days time I will probably !vote support but I am just not sure how well you learn WP:N by jumping on the banwagon. - Icewedge (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand correctly, editors aren't allowed to !vote in AfDs that have had previous !votes? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you don't understand correctly and I am sorry if my comment is hard to understand. What I am saying is that voting in an AFD where 10 users have already voted to delete and none have voted to keep is not very helpful. What good does it really do? That article is obviously going to be deleted so how does having the delete counter at 11 instead of 10 improve the encyclopedia. Such votes are not necessarily bad, but the fact that such behavior seems to be her only input to AFD is not so good. An admin should have experience with controversial AFDs and close call closes. Any user with 10 edits could correctly close something like this correctly, what we need are admins who know what to do with an AFD like this. - Icewedge (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still slightly confused. AfD is an attempt to gain consensus of whether an article needs to be deleted. Consensus doesn't and shouldn't have a limit as to how many people can engage in the discussion. More !votes simply push consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it better to have an article deleted 10:0 or 1000:0? Neither. Once consensus has been established there is not much point reinforcing that consensus. Thats sort of by the wayside though, my main point is that admins should be able to make close calls and as this user has never participated in an RFA where the result was anywhere new ambiguous I am not sure that she can. - Icewedge (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But many of the references you provided were one's where she was one of the first 3-4 people to participate in the XfD. I don't see that as waiting until consensus is finalized.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, in some there were not yet overwhelming numbers but it was already clear what the final result was going to be. Again, the fact that she participates in such AFDs is not a bad thing, it is the fact that she only participates in such AFDs. - Icewedge (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I noticed that as well, but I thought to myself, that an admin needs to be able to judge consensus and act upon it, not create consensus in the first place. If we think of admins as janitors (with the mop), their job is to clean up, not to create the mess. So I decided to support instead of going neutral or oppose because of that. SoWhy 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose My one interaction with Jamie was her poor judgment call on a recent DYK nomination I put forth (a senior editor immediately overrode her and took a rare step of chastising her take on inline referencing). Her enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but her RfA is extremely premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eco, could you provide a link to this?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of links that might help: the discussion at T:TDYK was here (last revision of the discussion). And the related user talk page comments were here. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jamie... so a mistake was made... it isn't the first time and won't be the last. I think she was civil in admitting her mistake. I don't see anything in the ref's to indicate a fallacy that warrants an oppose (unless you there is something not disclosed in Jamie's links?)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your input is noted, B-man, and my vote remains in this category. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, the editor is presented as mostly an article writer, but has no article above B class has only one GA and no evidence of strong content contributions. There isn't enough to go on here as far as knowing enough about this editor; if article writing is her strong suit, we should see some strength in that area. And this from her nominator isn't a strong endorsement: "I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... she has a GA (Matthew West) expanded from a three-line stub. Her edits are mostly content contributions. You can't be serious saying she's weak in this area - it's her main area. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck and re-phrased (unclear why you highlighted B-class in the nom blurb, Majorly). One GA, however, doesn't substantially change my concern, considering she is presented as a content contributor, and one of her noms appears to barely know her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One can be a content contributor without gaining trophies and medals in the form of GAs and FAs. A B-class article is an article in decent shape. And what do the nominators have to do with anything? This isn't requests for whether my nominators know me well or not-ship. It's adminship. Please evaluate the candidate on whether they'd make a good admin, not on other irrelevant things. Thank you. Majorly talk 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't badger my oppose; I support candidates who demonstrate competency, immersion and excellence in whatever it is that they do best, and to the extent that enough people know them, know their work, and know we can trust them with the tools. This candidate presents an mainly a content contributor, so I expect to find a solid record of contributions to articles, and strong statements from people who know her work in that area. Yet, she has significant contributions to only two articles, and one of her nominators appears to barely know her. From what I see on her userpage, I have no doubt that she is the type of editor who will earn my support once she has gained more experience, and has the maturity to realize that you don't accept an RfA nomination from someone who barely knows you. Nominating someone after a couple of weeks of chatting on IRC sets off all kinds of warning signs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't ask me not to "badger" you. You've made false statements and evaluated the candidate on something that's no fault of their own. I'm not going to stand by and watch the candidate I nominated get shot down with false comments from people. If you insist on opposing, at least get your facts right before commenting. Majorly talk 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in complete agreement with Majorly here. You can be one of the best article writers on Wikipedia and have few to no GAs to show for it. Just because an article worked by on by a devoted article writer, in this case, it is JamieS93, is't a GA or FA doesn't mean to say its not of a high standard. She doesn't need badges on her userpage to show she's a good article writer. Qst (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Sandy sums it up perfectly, so I won't repeat it. – iridescent 03:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to SandyGeorgia. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response to SandyGeorgia. Majorly talk 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose If article building is meant to be your trump card.... Also lack experience with dispute resolution/consensus building on disputed material/articles. — Realist2 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I hope you won't take this personally, Jamie, as you are obviously a great editor, and I thank you for your contributions. But given the substantial real-life impact admin decisions can have, I feel that non-adult editors should not be admins unless they have already demonstrated exceptional suitability for the job. The reasons above indicate that this is not yet the case here. In particular, I would expect a length of service of more than two years and/or an edit count in excess of 10'000, as well as profound experience in most areas of Wikipedia administration, from a non-adult candidate.  Sandstein  05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sandy, I'm afraid. (Yes, I've seen Majorly's response.) —Giggy 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, I'm concerned about knowledge of some admin areas you want to work in. Of the few AIV reports you've made, at least two ([1] [2]) were reported as "vandalism after final warning" when that had not taken place, the users had stopped vandalising after a level 3 or 4 warning had been given, then you reported them anyway. Combined with the lack of meaningful contributions to AfD that Icewedge highlighted, I'm afraid I'm just not seeing much evidence you really understand our blocking or deletion policies particularly well. I'll happily say your article contributions are well-done and you're a great Wikipedian, just not one I'd be entirely happy with as an administrator at the moment, sorry. ~ mazca t | c 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Sandy. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, reluctantly. Age is irrelevant, but Sandy, Icewedge and Mazca all make good points; I'm not seeing enough evidence that this (otherwise excellent) editor has a sufficient grasp on the policies that they will need to know. Black Kite 12:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - per age and (lesser so) Majorly's badgering of opposes. Qb | your 2 cents 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have all right to oppose, but I think you should not base it on Majorly's actions but only on JamieS93's. It's not her fault how Majorly decides to comment and she cannot control it and thus it should not reflect negatively on her. SoWhy 12:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not helping Jamie, Majorly. You taint her with your badgering. Qb | your 2 cents 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per mazca as well as the answer to Xeno's usual question. Any admin should never decline an unblock request to a block that they themselves made. Also, seriously guys, age doesn't matter. Think of every editor in this wiki as anonymous. In fact, that's why many of us made accounts to begin with, to be anonymous. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I would like to see more experience before I would feel comfortable supporting. MBisanz talk 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Sandy and Icewedge. Nothing really strongly sets me against this editor, and its likely that if she returns for another RfA at some point in the future she will have easily addressed the concerns I have relating to evidence of judgment. I do want to say that Majorly's conduct on this page and the talkpage (or rather, whats been moved to the talkpage) is damaging the candidate's chances. Avruch T 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Kind of uneasy about this candidate. When she answers my questions, I will think about my choice. miranda 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Awaiting answers, as Miranda. Synergy 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) And no badgering[reply]
  3. As above, waiting for answers. America69 (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral because I just can't make my mind up yet! I'll probably make a more firm support/oppose choice in the next few days. John Sloan (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&oldid=234168691"