JRM is an amazing editor. He's well known among admins, as he has been helping on policy issues since forever. He has razor-sharp insight, and the patience to track down obscure information from around the wiki. His dedication to the project is unquestioned.
He enjoys being told of his greatness, and the calls of "WHAT? I can't believe you weren't already an admin" have long brought warmth to his heart. Because of this, he has turned down offers to nominate him for adminship not once but several times, preferring to be "the perennial newbie".
Bishonen |
talk 00:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC) (nominator 2 (All together now: "You mean he wasn't an admin already? I can well believe it!"))reply
In recognition of the dogged persistence Kim has shown in getting me to accept, and in recognition of the patience Bishonen had to show while sitting on that joke, I accept. I've sold my soul to Wikipedia anyway; let's make it final.JRM ·
Talk 09:58, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Strongest possible support.
JuntungWu 13:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong support. Absolutely yes. One must be as a newbie to enter the cabal-kingdom of Wikip... er, I mean, JRM is trustworthy, diplomatic, perceptive, and has for a "perennial newbie" an awfully good idea of what Wikipedia's about.
Mindspillage(spill yours?) 13:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support: JRM is one of the most precise, educated, and careful of those who work to make Wikipedia a useful and reliable encyclopedia, instead of merely a social club. (But remembering someone else's grudge only sustains it.)
Geogre 18:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. You're trapped now.
Kelly Martin 19:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Support. It is a pleasure--and, to show the proper frame of mind, I must say, "Because the Queen insists." :) Do you remember the Duke and the Lady in the white dress in Le Roi de Coeur? ---
Rednblu |
Talk 04:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. "$user isn't an admin already?" –
ABCD 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)reply
And a fine soul it is. Support.
sj, I believe (signature added by
Bishonen)
Support in the strongest possible terms. All the reasons why are already listed.
Filiocht |
Blarneyman 07:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support for being an "anti-authorist" and a "moderate eventualist". We need more
JRMists. --
Silversmith 19:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support for all the reasons above.
Zzyzx11(Talk) 02:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Really, wonderful - I read your page twice: like you I also want to remain always like a new wiki. Wish you all the best, in advance, in your role.--
Bhadani 19:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, of course
Sietse 19:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. No question.--
MikeJ9919 20:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Surprised that JRM already isn't an admin. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk 21:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Support - As with Bishonen's nomination, through my own interactions and the opinion of others listed above me, I think JRM would make a good administrator.
Ben Babcock 02:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)reply
Whole heartely support.
Project2501a 00:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (Not releated with JRM's adminship)COMMENT: Voting process should change.' Why, you ask? Wild guess, but I'm willing to bet that the last 10 RfA, came out of #wikipedia. What's wikipedia's user base, anyway? how many admins do we have? what's the ratio of user to admin? how many of them are in the same time zone? how many admins do we need anyway? hm?reply
Care to elaborate? I think I have a pretty good idea what your particular beef is.
Assume good faith and
no personal attacks, right?
This exchange in particular? Please correct me if I'm wrong, and/or add other indications of questionable behaviour on my part—people need to know what sort of person they're voting for, and I can't be unbiased for obvious reasons.
JRM ·
Talk 18:51, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Editing those little nooks and crannies that are (nearly) always protected, when the need arises (see
Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges, for example, I had to disappoint someone), blocking especially prolific vandals, regretfully but resolutely blocking 3RR violators, unblocking those people who promise to be nice,
protecting pages if nothing else will do, and unprotecting everything that doesn't have a damn good reason for being protected. I'd like to tell you I'd sink lots of time into cleaning out
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion as well, but you wouldn't believe that any more than I would. I'll try, though. Oh, and I'd promote the cabal at every opportunity, but that goes without saying.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
Orange (word) because it was my first taste of research on a topic I'm not an expert in (however modest).
Sollog because it was my first taste of truly cooperative editing, even with people who had no interest in cooperating.
List of atheists because, even though I didn't make a single edit to the thing myself, I managed to
spark the reform that made this one of the most valuable and accurate lists of Wikipedia today—all credit to the actual contributors, though. Last and certainly least,
Template:Toomanyboxes because it's my favorite contribution to end up on Best of BJAODN (the first one was
exploding Wales, but I like Toomanyboxes better). Er... wait. This is not good for an admin, right?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. What's a conflict? I've never been in a revert war or a shouting match, but there have been times when things didn't go as smoothly as I would have liked. Conflict is inevitable; it's what you do when you have it that counts. I'll be honest: I can't claim any serious success in dispute resolution, mostly because I haven't entered disputes. Nobody else has ever caused me stress; I cause myself stress when I start taking myself too seriously and lose track of the goal: building an encyclopedia. The best (worst?) example of me losing it is
here. I also have a tendency to not keep my mouth shut when it's the only reasonable option, and waffle instead—see
here for the most recent instance of that. I will deal with this in the future as I've dealt with it in the past: step back, think about why everybody's doing what they're doing, and what needs to be done to get back on track. Of course I'm going to fail every now and then, which is why we collaborate. You watch me, and I'll watch you.
Wikipedia will not fail.