Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jogers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jogers[edit]

Final (43/9/4); Originally scheduled to end 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 22:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jogers (talk · contribs) - Hello. I've been contributing to English Wikipedia since August 2005 and have made over 35,000 edits. I'm a bot operator and AWB developer. I mostly contribute to music-related articles and I'm an active member of WikiProject Albums. The reason why I decided to nominate myself for adminship is that I'd like to save other admins some work and do certain things for myself instead of requesting them. I frequently nominate articles for speedy deletion and I requested the retitling of an article on several occasions. There are also other areas where sysop rights would be handy from time to time like the ability to make edits to protected pages. Jogers (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 be happy to help to clear the backlogs in the areas I'm most familiar with including CAT:CSD and WP:RM. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1a. Would you elaborate on this answer? For example, do you intend to close deletion discussions as an administrator?--Chaser - T
A: I'm not particularly interested in WP:XFD at the moment. I'd prefer to focus on most uncontroversial maintenance tasks. I tagged many pages for speedy deletion and requested several uncontroversial moves and I thought that it would be more efficient if I was performing requested actions by myself. Jogers (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My most valuable contributions may be those that require technical skills. I spend a lot of time developing my bot to make it more useful. I'm also taking part in the development of AutoWikiBrowser, a piece of software used by hundreds of Wikipedia editors. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 had few discussions that were a little bit unpleasant but I wouldn't really call them "conflicts". The things I do on Wikipedia are usually minor or related to maintenance rather than article content and they are usually not important enough to argue about them. Besides, I'm not a kind of person who is easily stressed. Jogers (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Eddie:

4. Could you provide a link to an edit conflict in which you were involved?
A: The most serious disagreement as far as I can recall was about using my bot to allow reader's date preferences to work in case when piped links to years "in music", "in sports" etc. are used inappropriately as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (which seems to be disputed now) and Wikipedia:Piped link. This was my bot's first function and was approved here. The concerns were raised at several pages including my talk page and then moved to requests for approval page and Manual of Style. Sorry for the late answer, it took me some time to find all these links. Jogers (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3-part Question from User:carlossuarez46:

5. You have been active in CSD recently and at various times in the past, but most of the tagging in your deleted edits seems to be {{db-talk}} and {{db-empty}} which frankly are easy tags to place, and doesn't give me a sense of how you interpret the CSD criteria. With that in mind, please give me your take on three hypothetical articles that someone has tagged for speedy based on A7 (no assertion of notability) and you are the admin called upon to act on them: (1) an article describing a game and how it was made up in school one day; (2) a memorial article about a family's pet dog indicating how it graduated first in its obedience school, fathered many cute puppies, and was gentle with the children; and (3) the just-released self-published album of a band whose name is a red-link.
A: The first two examples are clear-cut cases. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day nor a memorial site so I wouldn't hesitate long before I deleted them. I would give some more thought to the third example. The red-link doesn't necessarily mean that the band is non notable. I would check if the band article was previously deleted on the grounds of insufficient notability and do some quick research in order to find out if the band may meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

Question from User:rspeer

6. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I make a lot of semi-automated edits with AutoWikiBrowser. My edit count could never be so high without this software. The idea to nominate myself for adminship just popped up in my head recently so I really didn't have a chance to change my editing habits. If I bothered to do things differently because of that I would probably focus more on wikipedia namespace instead of making lots of AWB edits. And it's not like mass edits doesn't require thinking. It's easy to press "Save" several times in a row when everything is set up but preparing good regular expressions is often a time-consuming task. Using my bot to update few maintenance pages is only a single-click task now but I had to write over 1200 lines of code first. Suggesting changes to AutoWikiBrowser also require some thinking. Making this single edit cost me several hours of experimenting, for example. I also like to start a new article from time to time or add some references to the existing ones but I must admit that I was focusing more on my bot and AWB activity recently. Jogers (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Black Falcon

7. Since you intend to focus primarily on speedy deletions, I would like to ask a question about that, similar in nature to the one by Carlossuarez46, but using examples that seem to crop up more frequently. Which of the following articles would you speedily delete and which would you not speedily delete (and, briefly, why)?
  1. An unsourced article, about a pamphlet that promotes anal sex, supposedly written by Winston Churchill in 1906.
  2. A 10-sentence biographical stub with four sources that does not make an assertion of significance/importance.
  3. An unsourced 3-sentence stub about a secondary school, with only an external link to the school's website, that does not make an assertion of notability and only provides the school's name, location (city, province, country), student population, and year of establishment.
  4. An unsourced article about a scholarly journal with a small readership that makes no claim of significance/importance.
  5. An unsourced article about a book that makes no assertion of significance/importance and is written by an author whose article was deleted at AfD.
  6. A one-sentence unsourced article about a song that makes no assertion of significance/importance, written by a band that does not have and never had an article.
  7. A two-sentence unsourced article about a village in Nigeria with a population of <150 that makes no assertion of significance/importance.
  8. An article about a South African footballer that contains no content other than a half-complete Template:Infobox Football biography and a stub tag.
Thank you, and my apologies for the length of the question. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Speedy delete as obvious hoax as per CSD G3.
  2. It strongly depends on the article content. Speedy delete if the subject is clearly insignificant.
  3. Not speedy delete. No assertion of notability is not a speedy deletion criterion and there seems to be no consensus on notability of schools, anyway.
  4. Not speedy delete. Not a person, group, company, or web content so CSD A7 doesn't apply.
  5. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
  6. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
  7. Not speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply.
  8. Speedy delete as very short article with little or no context.
Jogers (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jogers before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Oppose I don't think Jogers know what he is doing (with admin related tasks). And if this is a dicussion, not a vote why can't IPs voice themselves under the headers (support and the like...)? 82.165.187.34 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help if you could substain your claims that he does not know what he is doing (mostly for others to agree or disagree, which may provoke a change in some of the opinions). -- ReyBrujo 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Good editor, solid edit count, and I don't think he will abuse the tools! PatPolitics rule! 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have shared a lot of time with him at WikiProject Album. He is smart, approaches difficulties with a cold head, listen to people and is always open to suggestions. While I haven't been active lately, I cannot but support his nomination for the extremely good experience I had had with him. -- ReyBrujo 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Long term, courteous, experienced user w/ no indication of incivility in talk pages. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Sure. Absolutely. I'd trust this user with the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I can't see a problem with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - if this editor wanted to abuse their position they've had ample opportunity, I don't see what more they can do to prove trust. If they can change AWB so it doesn't display diffs in that horrible new font it's recently started using, change to strong support... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I agree with what (aeropagitica) said. I too, see no problem with the candidate using the tools. Acalamari 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Default support in the absence of anything valid to the contrary. —AldeBaer 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Despite the bot edits, I agree with the above. Experienced, trustworthy editor who would be a good admin. Recurring dreams 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - been here since 2005, 35k edits and clean block log. Addhoc 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Has proved and continues to prove himself to be a great contributor. κaτaʟavenoTC 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I am glad to see your application here. I think your work is excellent and will only improve with the additional buttons. Some of my colleagues are unhappy over automated edits. I would remind them that such edits indicate an efficient way to accomplish necessary tasks and duties. I see no controversies over these edits and would applaud the nominee for cleaning things up as he has. Adminship is about trust, which he certainly has, and about maintenance work, which he does. He should be given the keys to the mop closet. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support This user is a good wikipedian, and there is nothing that I see indicates he will be an abusive admin. Good luck.--Wikiholic 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I see nothing to indicate that this user will abuse the tools. That is, in my mind, the only question when it comes to adminship. --Haemo 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support; clearly dedicated to maintenance tasks, and shows no evidence of a quick temper or poor judgment. No arguments here. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, administrator jobs are all maininance tasks. He will obviously use the mop we..Marlith T/C 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great editor, and Eddie, that is no reason to oppose. There's nothing wrong with automated edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- I've read the oppose comments and I think the candidate's vast overall experience and demeanor outweigh concerns about recent edits being largely automated. --A. B. (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support 35,000 edits - he has the experience needed. Perspicacite 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Has a lot of experience and will not abuse tools. --Banana 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support no big deal, won't abuse the tools. Lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I understand the opposes, but I don't find them convincing. WaltonOne 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support this many edits shows vast experience and dedication. I see no reason to oppose.Rlevse 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Solid editor with a need for the tools. History doesn't leave one to think there may be an abuse of the tools. Opposes to RfAs as of late are, in my opinion, getting ridiculously nit-picky. LaraLove♥ 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support can't see him abusing the tools and has shown he can handle interaction with others effectively. Pascal.Tesson 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Edits don't mean experience, but this editor seems to be in the right place. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support answers to the questions are reasonable and balanced and this editor will be unlikely to abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support After consideration, I'm changing my opinion. His bot work and edits to images have convinced me that he understands how to work more of the Wikipedia framework than just articles. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as, even without the bot edits, has a solid experience at WP with images, etc. Can be trusted. Bearian 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A very prolific editor with over 35000 edits ,no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support concerns raised below are just miniscule glitches - nobody's perfect --Benchat 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Trusted user! Reedy Boy 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak support He's only participated in four AFDs, but has no interest in that area. His CSD work in mainspace is good, but not recent (I had to go back to February to find anything in mainspace). Still, I think he'll be a decent clearer of the CSD backlogs.--Chaser - T 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I trust Jogers completely, and that is mainly what I believe is necessary for an admin. —METS501 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Even though there are concerns about automated edits, the time spent and dedication speak for themselves. Phgao 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. "Gets it".  :) -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry canceling it my mistake but vote above stands. Pharaoh of the Wizards 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already voted once, see a few above. Jmlk17 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. While I can see where the oppose voters are coming from, he's obviously dedicated to the project and appears trustworthy. Wizardman 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, Jogers knows what to do with the extra buttons. Conscious 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - this is an experienced user and AWB dev who will not harm the encyclopedia. --After Midnight 0001 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No question. Flowerparty☀ 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. SupportSumoeagle179 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - recent mainspace contribs are all automated. I would like to see actual participation in that area. You also say you would focous your work on C:CSD, but I don't see much participation in that area. Finally, the answers are unsatisfactory, IMO. --Boricuæddie 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eddie, he is a good editor. PatPolitics rule! 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and this RfA will probably pass, but I just wanted to make my concerns known. --Boricuæddie 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    .Wouldn't be so sure, as of now it is at 67%. PatPolitics rule! 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Oppose per Eddie, since at least 3500 edits ago in May (as far as I felt like checking) almost none of your mainspace contributions were very signficant. T Rex | talk 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not sure why this is important for adminship which is mostly about maintenance, isn't it? It's probably not very convenient to browse trough thousands of my AWB edits but I've been adding content and writing articles as well (the most recent article I started is as far as I remember Maria Peszek) Jogers (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you say you want to protect pages. If all pages at WP:RFPP were protected, we could have a bot do it, instead of administrators. Mainspace participation is important to demonstrate that you have knowledge of what things are unacceptable in an article, and, therefore, know when to protect. --Boricuæddie 23:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that I would like to have the ability to make edits to protected pages. I found it frustrating when I had to wait few weeks for a simple change to be made to the {{Infobox Album}} template after I requested it. I'm not very interested in WP:RFPP at the moment but I think that after over 2 years of contributing to the project and spending hours reading its policies and guidelines I have a good grasp of what things are unacceptable in an article. Most of my recent edits are semi-automated because I prefer to focus on tasks that I'm able to do most efficiently. I had few thousands mainspace edits before I even started to use AWB. Jogers (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, Maria Peszek was 4 months and 3.5k edits ago. Since then your basically a bot. T Rex | talk 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per eddie. The answers here are not detailed enough, and you don't seem to be contributing enough recently to merit the tools and calm doubt that you will not abuse them. VanTucky (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? —AldeBaer 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    Talk about vague... VanTucky (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please explain? PatPolitics rule! 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From a combination of the lack of substantial recent edits (per eddie) and the terse, imprecise answers to questions on this RFA, I am not comfortable with trusting this user with the sysop tools. I mean, come on! One sentence in answering the first question? This user is obviously not ready for adminship. VanTucky (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the response succinct and to the point. Why waste words when one sentence sums up exactly what we need admins to be doing? I was unaware that verbosity is now a desirable characteristic in admins. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point. It's not about length. It's about clarity. I don't need a novel, but I need a satisfactory summary of your intentions that displays a comprehension of the role of a sysop. This, needless to say, doesn't do it for me. VanTucky (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very weak oppose A good editor but he/she not edited any WP:XFD pages, or made a single report to WP:AIV in there last 5000 edits and there is a relatively low amount of editing in admin related pages for 35,000 edits. -Icewedge 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Despite all those edits, there is very little experience in the wikispace, home of many admin-related tasks. Before one is given the mop, one should be familiar with the most common admin areas. Xoloz 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very Weak Oppose You seem to be a very good editor, but I have reservations about your experience in admin-related areas. Jmlk17 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "I have reservations about your experience in admin-related areas"; He's not an admin yet so how could he have experience there?--Phoenix 15 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, think wiki/project/namespace. In these pages, non-admins can gain experience in many of the areas admins tackle everyday. To be an admin, one ought to have "wet one's feet" there. Xoloz 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What The Random Editor said. Wikignoming isn't gonna demonstrate admin capabilities...sorry. What Xoloz said above me also applies :) Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I'm sorry to oppose after asking such a lengthy question, but your response does not really allay my concerns regarding the issues raised by various opposers above. I have no concerns at all that you would deliberately abuse the tools, but the response to Q7, combined with relatively little experience with XfDs and mostly uncontroversial CSD taggings to date (db-empty, db-user, or db-talk), make me think that you might be too quick to speedily delete articles. For instance, you stated that you would speedily delete the Churchill pamphlet (Q7.1) as an "obvious hoax". However, 'hoax' is not a speedy deletion criterion unless it is blatant vandalism; for instance, if I had said "written in 1862", that could be deleted because Churchill was not alive then. By the way, that example is based on the article Leck mich im Arsch, which was twice wrongly deleted as a hoax.
    Also, although you stated that you would not speedily delete an article about a book by an author whose article was deleted AfD, you said (in response to Q5) that you might delete an article about an album if the band article is redlinked. Though the fact that you would try to ascertain the notability of the band is commendable, an 'assertion of importance/significance' is distinction from actual notability. As neither albums nor books fall under CSD A7 (indeed, the addition of albums have been proposed and rejected at least twice), {{prod}} is probably a better option in both cases. Finally, I do not entirely agree with deleting the footballer biography (Q7.8) for insufficient context. An infobox like Template:Infobox Football biography usually contains enough information, even if incomplete, to allow 1-2 sentences of context-providing text to be written. I would certainly support if you had more experience in admin-related areas or were more conservative in your willingness to speedily delete articles. However, the combination of the two leads me to oppose at this time. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in reality I would never delete an article if I wasn't absolutely sure that it should be deleted. I just tried to answer the questions as good as I could. I can see inconsistency in my replies to Q5 and Q7 in regard to applying CSD A7. I guess it's because Carlossuarez46's questions seemed so straight-forward that I forgot that process is important for a while and used common sense instead :-) Jogers (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gasp! Rather than mechanically evaluating text and clicking buttons, you thought!?! Inconceivable! ;P
    I understand your point and realise that a strong case for speedy deletion can be made for each of the three instances I highlighted. I do not support a purely mechanical interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria and agree with Carlossuarez that your response to Q5 is "reasonable and balanced", but the fact that your speedy taggings seem to concern mostly talk pages makes me a little hesitant. For instance, looking at the article Leck mich im Arsch, I would have little hesitation speedily deleting it if it was unsourced, unless the speedy deletion criteria specifically excluded hoaxes. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose I am, as, I guess, Black Falcon, a bit disconcerted by the candidate's answers to questions five and seven, which, on the whole, seem to evidence an understanding of CSD that I think to be overbroad and, further, a bit inconsistent with the consensus of the community that the criteria for speedy deletion should be interpreted quite strictly, with one's erring always on the side of not speedying. There is surely nothing to suggest that this user should abuse the tools, and I am convinced that he is generally possessed of sound judgment, a cordial demeanor, and a measured disposition, but I am not certain that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools, e.g., by acting whereof his understanding of policy and practice is not precisely right, such that I cannot, I say with some regret, conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of Jogers's being sysopped should be positive. (Nevertheless, it appears that this request will succeed, and I can't say that I'm very troubled by that; I oppose, I suppose, only to echo the sentiments of Black Falcon, et al., in encouraging Jogers, qua admin, to be a bit circumspect, at least initially, in his applications of CSD.) Joe 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Minor edits are needed, and with 35,000 edits to the user's name, the lack of recent "big" edits is of no concern to me. However, the lack of contributions to Wikipedia cleanup is what puzzles me. You've worked on bots (4 of your own) and images (close to 1,000 edits), but this isn't mentioned in your responses. Could you please explain the significant disproportion of your edits to Wikipedia-space (only 360) when compared to articles (26,500+)? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned my bot activity in the introduction. The functions currently performed by my bot are listed on its userpage. I uploaded few hundred images (mostly album covers) and added some fair use rationales where appropriate. I haven't mentioned it in my responses because I didn't feel it was important enough for my nomination. As for the disproportion it may be partly due to the fact that I like to arrange maintenance tasks for myself (like maintenance pages located in my userspace and updated by my bot). Jogers (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I believe your image contributions could be an important part of your nomination. Image issues, especially concerning non-free content, is an important part of maintaining Wikipedia, a task that requires various administrators. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have probably mention it then because I have quite a lot of experience in dealing with non-free images. Jogers (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you have. Support. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - Well first of all you have done some good work, and I'm sure you have some experience. However, I see 360+ edits to the Project Space, and none of them except WP:RM are really, edits that require a understanding of policy. It would also be nice if you got involved in vandal fighting, and made a few reports to WP:AIV. You need to get involved in admin related boards before I support. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - minor edits =/= bad admin/abusive admin. lack of interests in admin related areas =/= bad admin. (Wikimachine 04:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Neutral. Weak Projectspace count. Will support later. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I was thinking about a weak support and then weak oppose, and then back to weak support, etc...so I am neutral. Get some more mainspace edits and try again and I will support it. Wikipediarules2221 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jogers&oldid=1090626705"