Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Jeffrey O. Gustafson[edit]

Final (31/0/0) ended 07:16 November 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) – Ahoy fair editors! This is a self-nomination. I came to The Project a year ago next month, registered last December, but only started actively editing in April. Until this summer, I spent most of my time reading the wiki, following link after link, and aquainting myself with how it all works. By August I became a real Wiki-addict, editing stuff at random as I came to it (most of my edits are since August). I like to spend time at Special:Newpages helping articles off on the right foot (wikifying, cleaning up, stubbifying), or tagging for speedy/AfD where needed (which, I have discovered, is alot), and I recently got hooked on RC patrol. I am the creator, author, and maintainer of the Wikipedia:Former featured articles project page, and I close the votes on WP:FARC. The world would not run without the Janitors, and I'd relish the opportunity to be able to more effectively help things more behind-the-scenes. Thank you all for your consideration. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As noted, this is a self-nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support - looks like just the sort of Admin we need :). Plus, I always like people who use the word "Aforementioned". --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. What would the world be without janitors? And I always like the word ahoy. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Spoopport!— JIP | Talk 09:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks good. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Fine editor in my experience. Marskell 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support A little bit of "vandal-crushing" is fine; "process-crushing" would not be, but I'm happy with nominee's response and record. Xoloz 12:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good Editor --JAranda | watz sup 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support but why would you want to put vandals heads on fish? CambridgeBayWeather 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   

   Because nothing says "stay away" like rotting mackeral. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, user will make a good admin. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. I don't really know this editor, but he seems trustworthy, and letting him delete speedies instead of tagging them will make my life easier. -R. fiend 17:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, finally someone I feel as though is ready. Private Butcher 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Friday (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. El_C 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. (see comments below.) --Jacqui ^★ 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, 250%. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 05:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I notice that this editor does a fine job with Recent changes patrol and I think giving him admin powers would be a huge plus for wikipedia. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support seems sound. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support vandal-whackers. I even had to revert vandalism on this RFA (check the history), which is a good sign. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, takes vandalism seriously. Jkelly 02:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support.VoiceofAll ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 07:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support!  BD2412 ^talk 07:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Huge amount of anti-vandalism work Banana04131 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support and thanks for all the fish. Silensor 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support the aforementioned fine editor. Alf ^melmac 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Good anti-vandalism work, tools would be helpful in that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Shazaam! Adminify! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{05:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

• Neutral, leaning Oppose until my new question below is answered. Xoloz 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• My modest count can be found here. Analyze or ignore at will. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little concerned that his response to this and this bit of vandalism was this, rather than reverting. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, yes I should have reverted that completely. As I read it, it just seemed like page discussion on the page. I looked at the previous version but did not go deeply enough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do acknowledge, though, that this a place for a NPOV subsection for "criticisms" in many prominent theories? Xoloz 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, however it is never a given, and what I removed (instead of reverted, which I should have done) was talking about the page on the page, rather than in talk. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Question posted. Xoloz 11:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:JeffreyOGustafson-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Use of edit summaries is 69%, 99.6% over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is ~5.5 per day, 17.7 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually looking forward to Durin's chart, which reaffirms what I said about my level of participation above. Editcountitis aside, the 30-day total would likely be considerably higher if not for a wikibreak I took in the middle of this month (near non-activity over two weeks from October 6th through the 19th with essentially zero activity the 8th-16th see gaps towards the bottom of this contributions log). Excellentness from Durin, as usual. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't vote on a lot of AfDs because I don't know the users being nominated and I feel there's not enough information being given for me to make a good decision without investing hours and hours of time poring through edit histories -- and I'd rather be working on articles. Though I haven't worked closely with you, I feel that I have sufficient information to be confident of your abilities. (I did poke around a bit in your edit history, too.) And I must say, I am always impressed with a person who will cheerfully admit that he or she has made mistakes; shows an attitude with nothing to hide, which is perfect for a position in which a person's actions will undergo scrutiny. --Jacqui ^★ 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your kind words and for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Until recently, I'd never thought that I'd use the much-heralded rollback tool, but then I got hooked to RC patrol and have discovered what a help that would be. I'd likely spend alot of time closing AfDs, and speedying deserving candidates on New Pages patrol.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm rather fond of the previously aforementioned Wikipedia:Former featured articles (a lovely behind-the-scenes resource), but the thing I am most proud of is Spoo. An article about a fictional food/creature from Babylon 5 that was thrice-deleted and copyvio when I got to it, I wrote from scratch and took all the way to Featured status (!) this September.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I don't let myself get stressed out, not because it isn't worth it, but because stress (more than anything) drives people away from The Project. Relatively recently, I came accross Carlos Mencia which was copyvio, so I wrote a half-decent page. Within days it became a magnet for POV-pushers and vandals, so its been a bit of a battle. Although those trying to push one agenda or other have been largely anonymous, I'd like to think that I've drawn the main players out to deal with it on the talk page and have managed to guide the page to neutrality.

4. Your user page expresses support for the views of User:RadicalBender. Could you please explain in what ways, and to what degree, you sympathize with him? Possibly separately, what is your view on administrative use of WP:IAR as a justification for action?

A. To quote RadicalBender, "we MUST stop accomodating and enabling trolls through process," and "Vandals should be shot on sight and their heads should be placed on pikes as a warning to others," figuratively speaking, of course. Sometimes (I'm sorry, I do not have specifics here, just generalizations), there is too much tolerance for vandals, with users leaving multiple messages to clearly malignant non-users before doing anything while said vandal plugs away ignoring all threats. This isn't for all vandals: there are degrees of severity that need to be judged. Sometimes, users need to be guided in the right direction, yes; others, one warning is enough, then action should be taken. It's a judgement thing, and admins should use their judgement.

As for IAR, like I said, admins should use their judgement, one that hopefully reflects the spirit of the rules, and they must be willing to defend their actions. They obviously should never take action where there is a defined process for something, but then again this can be changed, too, for instance on AfD. It is about common sense, as noted in IAR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.