Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonny-mt

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jonny-mt

Final (80/0/0); ended 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonny-mt (talk · contribs) - Folks, I present User:Jonny-mt. This is only my second nomination in 14 months. I have been coaching Jonny-mt since January 25, 2008 for a potential Adminship. He has been an excellent editor, with over 5,000 edits, of those 1,300 have been in Mainspce, almost 2,000 on user talk pages, and well over 700 in Wikipedia space. An editor since May 2006, he first became active at the end of September 2007. He now has rollback privileges. He has made several non-admin closures at WP:AFD, and has had many reports to WP:UAA, WP:AN/I, and WP:AIV, with the scars to prove his vandal-fighting abilities. He also has been of great help in tracking down the sockpuppets of User:Boomgaylove. While he has made a few mistakes, he will gladly admit to them, and has learned some good lessons. His edit summary use is not perfect, but does exceed 95 %. I hope that you all will agree to support his adminship. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept! --jonny-mt 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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: I'd honestly like to help out wherever I can, although I'll most likely start with deletion work. I am a long-time newpage patroller, and I feel comfortable enough with the speedy deletion criteria that I would like to help out in CAT:CSD. I also contribute to discussions at WP:AFD and WP:MFD and have closed a few dozen discussions in the two months or so since I watchlisted WP:AFDO, so I'd like to do what I can to keep that particular backlog down.

Although I don't intend to focus on WP:AIV, I have enough vandal-fighting experience and successful reports that I can help out there whenever needed. However, I have more reports to WP:UAA (which I watchlisted shortly after my coaching started), and so I would specifically like to help out there. In the image namespace, I would like to work on clearing out the non-free content backlogs as well as keeping tabs on CAT:NCT. And if all that isn't enough to keep me busy, then I'll be happy to lend a hand at WP:RFPP, WP:PUI, and wherever else I'm needed.

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

A: Content-wise, my single largest contribution is an effective doubling of the transfer pricing article, written back when I still signed my edit summaries as a test of my own budding knowledge. Since then, I've moved on to a number of other areas, starting with WikiProject Video games, where I worked extensively on Super Mario Galaxy. However, the systematic bias inherent in Wikipedia means that there is little I can really bring to the table for video game-related articles, and so my focus shifted to Hawaiʻi-related articles shortly after a trip there this past winter. Within that WikiProject, I would have to say that my favorite article so far is Papakolea Beach, which was my first DYK. I was helped immensely on this by User:Viriditas, who went so far as going to actual libraries (!!) in an attempt to gather information and nail down the proper name of the beach.

However, it's my social contributions rather than my content contributions that I consider to be my best work. Newpage patrol tends to bring you in to contact with a lot of newcomers in a situation where it's easy to WP:BITE, and so I do my best to handle them with care (after all, proper treatment during the deletion of my first article certainly contributed to my coming back). I am very proud of the fact that my talk page archives hold a number of discussions that start with a complaint and end with a thanks or an apology, because it means that I was able to communicate with them as people rather than simply treating them as text on the screen. Although the number of complaints--and thus opportunities for this kind of interaction--dropped to zero after I created User:Jonny-mt/CSD and linked to it from my talk page, I still make a point of taking the time to welcome new users and do whatever I can to ensure that they keep coming back.

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: Any amount of serioius editing naturally creates the potential for conflicts with other editors. Bearian mentioned my involvement in the Boomgaylove sock case--while I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a "conflict", I did find myself rather irked when one of the sock puppets presented itself as the victim.

I have also been involved (although in a less direct manner) in several conflicts regarding NPOV in articles related to Hawaiian sovereignty, during which both Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Hawaiian sovereignty movement were fully protected. However, further discussion and some prodding from administrators (specifically User:Scarian and User:Jossi) has resulted in a basic understanding that seems to be working well so far.

As for how I deal with stress...well, I just remember what I'm doing and where I am. Wikipedia relies heavily on consensus fostered through discussion and deliberation. Flying off the handle, calling people names, and basically being a dick will get you nowhere. Although I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade when appropriate, I tend to rely on discussion, the community, and the transparency of the system to resolve conflicts. Let's just say that with a support system like that, I don't get stressed very often.

Optional questions from Tiptoety ^talk

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban is a social restriction imposed on a user by Jimbo, the Arbitration Committee, or the community. It states that they are not welcome to edit Wikipedia, either in whole or in part (e.g. a topic ban may restrict a user from editing articles about specific subjects or participating in a particular namespace). Edits--even constructive ones--made by users who are banned from the project while they are banned are reverted.

A block, on the other hand, is a technical tool that restricts an account from editing. It can be used to enforce a ban or prevent damage to the project, but it is not a social restriction in the way that a ban is.

5. What is your opinion on WP:IAR, and when are you willing to use it? Is there a time you are not willing to use it? Should it be used in closing AfD's?

A: I see WP:IAR as a sibling of WP:BUREAUCRACY--it's there to prevent us from getting in the way of ourselves. It's funny that you should mention its use in closing AfDs, as my first non-admin close of an AfD (way back in November 2007) employed its principles, although I can't claim that I really linked the two together at the time. As a non-admin, I closed a discussion per WP:SNOW despite the fact that I had participated in the discussion and that one of the comments was a well-reasoned argument for deletion. An admin saw the close, endorsed it, and stopped by my talk page. We engaged in a little bit of discussion (this was back before I responded on my own talk page), where I explained that I closed the discussion early because it had taken a turn for the worse, with new commenters becoming increasingly uncivil. He told me I had made a good call and encouraged me to be more verbose in my future closes.

I've learned a great deal since then--for example, I would probably post on WP:AN rather than close the discussion myself today--but I think that IAR can be invaluable when used for the right purposes. It's hard to think of too many scenarios where it would apply specifically to an AfD, but an admin who is prepared to use it there should also be prepared to deal with the fallout.

6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A: I understand the thinking behind it, and I think that overall it is a good idea, but I don't believe I'll be adding myself to it. Although some users--particularly User:Lar--have come up with some great criteria, I think the fully volunteer nature of the program means that any actual recall proceedings would be extremely susceptible to Wikidrama.

As the recent case of User:Archtransit shows, it is not difficult to take away the sysop bit. However, I will go on record here as saying that if I ever lose the trust of the community due to my actions as an administrator, I will voluntarily give up the tools. That, to me, is as binding as any recall criteria I could think up.

7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Never--WP:BLOCK is pretty clear on this. Blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive, and cool-down blocks tend to exacerbate the situation rather than calm it down.

8. When is it appropriate to full protect an article on the main page? What about semi?

A: Page protection on articles listed on the main page is extremely rare. For example, although the featured article of the day is a vandalism magnet, it is intentionally kept unprotected to ensure that it can be edited by visitors. WP:NOPRO notes that full protection is almost never used and that semi-protection, when used, is set for as brief a period as possible.

Admittedly, I wrote an entirely different answer to this question outlining my understanding of the protection policy before I realized what you were getting at, so please feel free to set me straight/slap me around a little if I answered the wrong question this time, too >.<

9. You notice that a administrator is abusing their tools, (lets just say they are using them to gain advantage in a dispute), what action will you take?

A: The best tool here is communication. While really obvious abuse should probably be taken to the larger community in a timely fashion, I would prefer to contact the administrator directly about blocks or protections that simply look a little fishy to me, as there may be more to the conflict than I know. If they don't respond in a timely of satisfactory manner, then the next step is to put it up for wider scrutiny at WP:ANI. As a new administrator, I would be extremely hesitant about undoing another administrator's actions without seeing first if there is an alternate explanation--the last thing I want to do is start wheel warring.

Questions from Stifle

10. Can you please explain under what circumstances a non-free image of a living person may be used on Wikipedia?

A. Item 1 of the non-free content criteria states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is most often interpreted to say that, since a photograph of a living person could conceivably be taken, non-free images of living people are not allowed.

However, this is not the case, as it is not always possible to create new free images of certain living people. For example, the Crash Test Dummies no longer exist as a band--since it is no longer possible to create new free images of them, we have Image:Crashtestdummies.jpg. Likewise, Kim Jong-il is a living person, but the careful regulation of his availability to the press means that Image:Kim Jong il.jpg is the best that we're probably going to get. And if you want to really get down to it, I've successfully argued that non-free images of fictional characters are not replaceable despite the ready availability of free images of the actors who play them.

So to make a long answer short, a non-free image of a living person can only be used when there is no alternative.

11. Can you please explain under what circumstances a page may be deleted under CSD:G11 (spam)?

A. WP:CSD#G11 describes spam pages as "pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". This trick, of course, is figuring out when an article has crossed the line from encyclopedic content to advertising copy--I usually find that the adjectives give this one away. Spam pages tend to punch up their content with glowing descriptions, talk excessively about future plans, and otherwise focus on the intangible aspects of the company/product in question rather than giving the concrete facts required of an encyclopedia article. These are often accompanied by other tricks such as noting the URL (almost always spelled out) in multiple places throughout the article, providing a contact e-mail address, and urging the reader to visit their homepage/fill out their contact form/buy their widgets/etc. More often than not, these kinds of pages are written by accounts that just happen to share the same name as the company, website, or product being promoted (thus explaining why I have so many reports to WP:UAA).

Naturally, such an article should only be deleted if there is no good copy to revert to--articles that have been hijacked should simply be reverted to the neutral version or have their NPOV issues addressed through conventional means. As far as new articles go, if redeemable content exists then I generally prefer to tag the article with {{Advert}} in the assumption that the author simply got carried away. Although many of these are later speedied per G11, a recent example where this process was effective is the article for N-Gage 2.0, which I tagged as reading like an ad here and noted that the language had improved immensely here.

12. Do you think that admin candidates get asked too many irrelevant or poorly-relevant questions? Please explain your answer briefly.

A. I think the recent increase in the number of questions overall is good; it seems to be sort of a countermeasure to the creeping Editcountitis that finds its way into the RfA process. I recently used them to test the knowledge of a great editor who hadn't really participated in WP namespace work--their answers caused me to support them, although the RfA ultimately failed.

Now, as for the issue of how useful more irrelevant questions are, I think that as long as the candidates and commenters remember that all questions are optional, there is no problem. After all, this particular question is not immediately relevant to my qualifications as a potential administrator, but I chose to answer it because I think it's an interesting trend in the RfA process and my answer might give you a bit of insight into what I think about the whole thing.

As for some of the more surreal ones...well, whoever said that Wikipedia couldn't be fun?

Optional question from Irpen

13. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future. If you don't have and don't plan to have any relation to IRC, you do not need to answer the rest.

A. I think IRC can be useful in that it allows for realtime communication, but I don't really see a need for it in the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia and have no plans right now to participate in #admins. It seems to me that most items requiring administrator attention can be handled in a sufficiently timely fashion using the existing noticeboards, so I figure those will keep me plenty busy.

General comments

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

• Links for Jonny-mt: Jonny-mt (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/Jonny-mt before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong candidate. Rudget. 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Will ^(talk) 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Jonny-mt is certainly a suitable candidate with the skills to do the job. — E ^talk 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Good nomination, excellent answer to Q1 backed up by copius accurate deletion requests, civil and dedicated user, and not afraid to discuss contention issues in a calm, thoughtful and helpful way [1]. Very much a net positive to Wikipedia with or without the buttons, and can only help out further when granted the tools. Good luck and Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator Bearian (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support As everyone said above I think that this is a strong candidate and would make a good admin --Mifter (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Excellent answers to questions, great contribs, seems civil and trustworthy to me. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 14:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Feel very comfortable with said candidate.Balloonman (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Actually, I'm secretly tempted to oppose because of his brilliant CSD notice. Have you read that? I've read a lot of the "Why did you delete my page" subpages, this one is hands down the best I've ever seen. Why would that make me oppose, besides the unworthiness I feel when comparing my own meager writings to his? Because he's needed at New page patrol tagging articles and welcoming new users. I'm astounded at his level of patience. If Jonny-mt promises to share his CSD page with anyone who wants it for NPP now that he's moving over to the dark world of blocking and deletion, he has my support. (Actually, its under the free license, so I would say go steal it. Just give credit to J-mt when you do :-) Simply brilliant.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support great candidate. Being willing to learn is always a great admin quality. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - very strong candidate and per (most) of the above...Good luck! --Camaeron (t/c) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - great answers to questions, knows policy well, and knows how to do CSDs. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - I almost extended my support before even looking at the candidate's contributions/edit count given their answers to the main questions were flat out superb. Hands down. Seems extremely knowledgeable about policy, and I am thoroughly convinced that there is a "snowballs chance in hell" that they would ever abuse the tools. Nice versatile participation as well. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I can see no good reason not to give this editor the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I have come across Jonny-mt a number of times, most notably during the Boomgaylove saga. He's a calm, civil editor who demonstrates a clear knowledge of policy and its application. I have no hesitation in supporting this RfA. He'll do a great job. Gwernol 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Weak support. Answer to Q10 was a bit of a cop-out but other answers and experience pushes it over the line. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Definitely, great user, seen around a lot, great contribs, good luck with the mop! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support- I've had a look at the contributions the user has made and they seem to be good at helping/assisting admins, he could do with the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Solid. SilkTork *^YES! 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. Good candidate. Malinaccier (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Will not abuse the tools, well rounded. Spencer^T♦C 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support per, well, I agree with the above positive comments! —Travis^talk 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Good disposition to questions. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Shows solid knowledge of policy (and an ability to look them up when need be). Diverse contributions. No propensity toward abuse or incivility, and certainly not a duck. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Good user. Acalamari 02:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Level-headed, reasonable, etc. Probably could use the accompanying pay raise, too. Admins get raises right? --12 Noon ^2¢ 02:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - Sure, why not? Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support - lots of pluses here: reasonable, thinks things through, levelheaded, dispute resolution skills; in general seems very capable and ready for the tools. Shell ^babelfish 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good. --Sharkface217 04:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support' - Candidate is OK, no reason not to support. Lradrama 11:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Good luck! GlassCobra 11:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support: Meets my unwritten criteria, that's enough for me. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 13:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Editor seems to know what he/she is doing. Strong candidate. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support iMatthew 2008 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Excellent answers to questions. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい！} 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Sensible answers, nice chap. Normally I expect more experience and more article-writing/DR but his calming involvement in the troublesome Hawaii Kingdom-related articles, which I keep one wary eye on, demonstrate that he has the right instincts anyway. Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Very strong support. Excellent contributions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Track shows no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support --Hillock65 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Why didn't this happen sooner? Invaluable user. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support He could use administrative tools. I say go for it! Nothing444 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support There is no reason to oppose this user. Good luck. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. An editor with 5000 edits certainly deserves to become an Administrator. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Ridiculously strong pile-on support. Mop. Now. This guy. Here. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Oppose This user is a very experienced editor and he knows far more about wikipedia than me. Yes, the oppose at the start of this vote is a joke! TheProf | Talk 23:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - I like the answer to the question about Admins open to recall. Maxim_(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Like the answer about reverting other admins. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - solid answers, good experience with user. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Support In the 2000+ user talk edits, there is more than enough evidence of civility, friendliness, and a desire to help others. The editor also exhibited a sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines. I am reasonably certain that this user's judgment can be trusted to be exercised in a manner that will enhance the project. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Did I not yet support Jonny-mt? How dare I!!! Super strong support! Congrats, Jonny. ;) –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support. Approaching perfection.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Strong answers to the Qs. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - Overall contribution seems good--NAHID 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Good answers and solid contributions in such a short amount of time. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
58. I see several good reasons to support this contributor, and absolutely no reasons to oppose. Valtoras (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. Brianga (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support See no issues here. нмŵוτнτ 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. Good judgement, very friendly :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Trustable, no concerns. Lawrence § t/e 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
64. --Tnayin (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support, definitely, I've been impressed with his great work at the Hawaii project. --MPerel 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Okidoki - Answers to questions imply no risk of abused tools. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Strong support -- no objections at all. Brilliant Rfa, may even get 100 per cent...impressive! --Camaeron (t/c) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Indented because Camaeron has already voted above earlier. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

67. Support - net positive by sysophood. good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Pile on support. As Keeper76 said, this is simply brilliant. No worries about this editor's ability to communicate with frustrated users.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
69. Support - an excellent editor who is more than ready for the tools. --BelovedFreak 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Support. Although I was debating Opposing just so it wouldn't be unanimous :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Oppose This just smells fishy... — scetoaux (T/C) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Strong Support I really liked all of Jonny-mt's answers. I think this user will be a really good admin.--RyRy5 talk 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Yes a strong candidate, really good answers and experienced. Good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. Great editor. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
76. Support Clearly no concerns here. -WarthogDemon 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
77. Oppose :) Only joking, a definite Support this guy clearly knows what he is doing, good luck to him. 211.30.169.132 (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
78. Support I do worry that he only has 25% of his edits in mainspace, but that's not a fatal objection.--Habashia (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
79. Support! — Athaenara ✉ 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. The ideal Wikipedian. —Viriditas | Talk 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending answers to my questions. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.