Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
"WP:RFX" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.
Requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search)
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Useful pages
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Jo-Jo Eumerus 103 2 0 98 11:46, 5 July 2016 5 days, 5 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N
Anarchyte RfA Withdrawn 16 Jun 2016 81 53 18
FAMASFREENODE RfA WP:SNOW 31 May 2016 0 7 0
Tavix RfA Successful 30 May 2016 128 5 4
AustralianRupert RfA Successful 28 May 2016 174 1 1
Maile66 RfA Successful 2 May 2016 175 5 3
Amakuru RfA Successful 19 Apr 2016 179 2 0
Zppix RfA WP:SNOW 14 Apr 2016 0 8 0

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details and Template:Centralized discussion.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. There is, however, a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. Also forbidden are multi-part questions which are disguised as one question, but in effect are really more than one question and violate the two-question limit. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 05:52:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Jo-Jo Eumerus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/2/0); Scheduled to end 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) – Jo-Jo Eumerus has been with us since 2012, and has become particularly active in the past twelve months. His specialist subject is South American physical geography, and he's taken three volcano articles, Aucanquilcha, Uturunku and Coropuna to good article status. He's also a regular at Did you know?, with numerous volcano articles hitting the main page.

Outside of article work, Jo-Jo Eumerus has been busy checking copyright violations. He's got a prolific CSD log, with a particular flair towards catching copyvios on both articles and files. He's a regular at Files for discussion and Media Copyright Questions, and is keen to offer his opinion on the copyright status of images both here and on Commons.

In his own words, "both of which (FFD / PUF) need a bit of attention" and again, in his own words, "Wikipedia:Files for discussion has had a backlog going back a few months recently .... The venue could use some more activity, especially since many issues are not complicated copyright issues or stuff like that." He's right, we really do need more admins looking at these things, so here's one for your consideration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Jo-Jo Eumerus, who is obviously and eminently qualified to be an administrator. They are well-rounded, with almost a hundred articles created, including several Good Articles and several dozen DYKs. They understand deletion well and have a reasonable acquaintance with all the various noticeboards such as UAA, AIV, RFPP, and ANI - even Village Pump (policy) once in a while. But the majority of their work has been with files and copyright issues - areas that most of us have very little familiarity with. They are very active at WP:FFD and contribute helpfully at WP:Media copyright questions. They intend to use their admin tools primarily in those areas, where additional help is definitely needed. They have strong communication skills and an invariably courteous and helpful demeanor. I could find no red flags and no drama; I trust them with the tools; and I believe they will be a strong addition to our admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am gladly accepting the nomination.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Chiefly, image maintenance is my planned area of work. That is, to close WP:FFD discussions which have been open for a while and are backlogged, which would be my starting priority. As well as handling the various deletion requests (F9 and orphaned non-free images, for example) that concern images. I also plan on working on article copyright issues - I've interrupted that work lately because the copyvio bots were inactive most of the time. Later I may branch out to other areas of admin activity, but I don't have as much experience in them so they would not be a priority.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Expanding the various pitiful stubs such as Uturunku up to GA status, as well as the new articles I've been writing on Andean volcanoes, are probably the contributions I'd consider "my best" - and I have a list of articles to further write or expand. Yes, they are for the most part niche subjects but I do firmly believe that having good articles on each suitable topic is better for Wikipedia than having bad ones or none. Also, the cooperation with copy-editors on some of the aforementioned articles is something I value.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
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: There are two types of conflicts I've been in that gave me some stress. The first is when I get pointed out that I am wrong about some policy or copyright issue. In these cases I will listen and then usually study up on the policy in question to avoid a repeat of the error. The second type is when I tag a number of pages and files for deletion for being inappropriate in some way (for example, for being copyright violations) and the uploader/creator of the pages in question comes asking - either on the talk pages of the pages in question or less commonly on mine about what the problem was and how to fix it. In these cases I often try to explain the issue to them and suggest ways how to avoid it in the future - for example, suggesting that the uploader ask other Wikipedians who have access to a locality to take photos of said locality.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Tigraan
4. With all due respect, I feel you either misunderstood or intentionally evaded standard question #3. It is not about what situations could, possibly, lead to a conflict; it is about instances of real, open conflict involving you on one end. So, let me rephrase it as follows. Have you ever been interacting with another editor, on talk pages / via edit summaries / etc., with whom you disagreed, and felt that either of you failed to follow WP:CIVIL or was close to do so?
"No, I have yet to experience anything like that" is an acceptable answer; the question is more of an opportunity to admit and address possible skeletons in the closet. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
A: Technically, I was referring to real issues/disagreements I have been in, not merely hypothetical ones - true conflicts are something I try to avoid, I've certainly had disagreements. As for disputes that came close to violating WP:CIVIL, I honestly don't remember any dispute that went that far down, I tend to work hard at avoiding personal attacks and insults. I don't remember every single interaction I have been in, though, so I may be omitting something - I tend to remember positive interactions a bit more clearly than negative ones. Hope this answers the question a bit more clearly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Lourdes
5. Give a specific case where you will apply 30-500 beyond currently allowed conditions?
A: Theoretically if I got an article which attracts severe disruption from editors which can't be stopped by regular semiprotection and if blocking isn't called for (say because of persistent block evasion) but on the other hand the full protection of the article would cause too much hassle, for example if the article is very popular and receiving good edits from editors meeting 30/500 I'd consider applying that kind of protection.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Epicgenius
6. Do you plan to do any other administrative task outside image maintenance and copyright violations? I know FFD is backlogged, and I appreciate that you want to tackle the backlog, but, I was just wondering if you plan on doing other tasks at all, like anti-vandalism, articles for deletion, or page protection.
A: Yes, I do plan in working on AIV but as a lower priority sort of thing. And follow AN, I know the noticeboards don't have a good reputation but I like being able to help out people when I can, and I see such requests on AN from time to time. AfD and RfPP are less certain, I only sporadically work there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Cryptic
7. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 19#File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg? (Note that it's currently at deletion review, which feel free to read, but please ignore the recently-found free image noted there.)
A: Upon some thinking I would probably have relisted the discussion, with the consideration that a) an argument for the image meeting the non-free criteria in the David T. Abercrombie (ignoring the free image for a moment) article has been made and not contested so far and b) there hasn't been much discussion in either direction about its inclusion History of Abercrombie & Fitch; there is no entitlement towards including non-free images anywhere but I am not very comfortable with removing the image from that article on so little non-unanimous commentary. Alternatively, I would not have closed the discussion at all but asked instead whether there is an argument for WP:NFCC#8 being met in the history article, seeing as this is the more unclear aspect of the discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Glrx
8. Infamous pirate Jack Sparrow was born and lives in India. The King of England offers him clemency and the governorship of Jamaica if he gives up piracy. Jack accepts, but he needs a picture passport. In 1919, he gets an Indian passport and sets sail to Port Royal. There he dies of malaria in 1920; his possessions (including his passport) are sent to Ms. Sparrow (his wife) in India. In 1938, a British author asks his Nobel Laureate friend to drop in on Ms. Sparrow during his upcoming visit to India. During that visit, Ms. Sparrow gives Mr. Laureate the passport. In 1940, the Briish author publishes a book about pirates and includes the passport picture of Jack Sparrow. Mr. Laureate dies of leukemia in 1968. Today, Ms. Laureate claims to have the copyright of the passport photo. Who holds the copyright? When did or when will the copyright expire?
There are a few nuances that would influence the answer to this question, namely the process by which the photo was created and whether putting a photo on a passport counts as "publication". If it is, the photo would be PD in the US under the terms of {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and in India in 1969 as mentioned on commons:PD-India and §25 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, and the copyright claim of Ms. Laureate hence invalid (note, while it's in question whether the 1914 standard of creation date was superseded by the 1957 standard of publication date as noted on commons:Template_talk:PD-India#Before_1958, in this case it works out in the same way). That said, passport photos are generally not considered distribution to the public, they are usually for more restricted usage, so it's questionable if putting the photo on the passport in 1919 would count as "publication" for copyright purposes. The next possible date which could count as publication is 1940, when it was included in the British book - note that unless the British author was somehow granted copyright to the photo, merely including it would not transfer the copyright to them, although it'd count as publication still. This would also make the UK the country of first publication. In the UK, if reasonable inquiry cannot ascertain the photographer, the photo would be PD now under the terms of {{PD-UK-unknown}} but in the US in that case URAA recopyright would apply, seeing as the "unknown author" copyright of a work published in 1940 expires in 2010, that is after the URAA date. If the author of the photo is known before 2010, the copyright would expire 70 years after his death. US copyright would likewise depend on whether the book was published in the US and the URAA dates (note again the distinction between copyright of photo and copyright of book). A third possibility is that the publication of the book in 1940 did not publish the photo, say because said publication was not permitted by the copyright holder, and thus the work was never published at all. In the US that would mean either that it's PD by 2039 if the author of the photo is unknown or a work for hire case, or 70 years after death of the author. There are some other scenarios - such as the passport photo being published elsewhere - which would result in yet other provisions. Finally, as for the question of the copyright holder, it would most likely not be Ms. Laureate - merely being given a photo does not necessarily transfer copyright, nor would the Sparrows usually own the copyright to the photo - that would belong to the photographer and its heirs, or the employer if the photo was created in a work for hire scenario, or anyone the copyright was contractually transferred to but no clear evidence exists here for that happening. In order to clearly ascertain this fact we'd need to know the exact process by which the photo was created. As an aside, such multi-country multi-year copyright cases are very complex and I don't think all possible scenarios have clear cut answers, so if this question came up during say FFD I'd definitively ask for a second opinion - two people be less likely to make the same mistake if any of this is wrong.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up question from Lourdes
9. After the IAR protect move you undertook without going for the policy-defined community consensus requirement, as you have suggested you would in #5, there is a community discussion at ANI to ban you from using the protect button. Your detractors mention that as per defined policy, WP:30-500 can only be applied either through Arbcom/Arbcom enforcement or through clear community consensus – and that no administrator including you has been provided any leeway otherwise. You have an opportunity to post one paragraph at ANI to defend your stance of rejecting predefined policy in this area, based on which the community would either recommend limiting your admin protect tools or letting you go. What would that paragraph be?
A fairly context dependent question - my response is going to be different in a case were substantial criticism was raised than in a case which is heading for SNOW closure as "no, this doesn't call for a ban at all". Also it would matter whether it's the first complaint about an admin action I received or there were several before this particular incident. I would probably say something along the line of My reasons for using a protection option that wasn't really licensed for use outside of ArbCom issues use was that this article was attracting prolific vandals which are very good making innocent edits elsewhere for a while before attacking this page, making semiprotection useless. On the other hand while the vandalism was fairly severe and some kind of protection was necessary, as mere reverting was wearing people down, there are a lot of editors with good faith edits that were working on improving the article that would be locked out by a full protection and would require unreasonable effort to implement via edit requests. Policies exist usually for good reason and IAR should not be invoked lightly, but 30/500 is more an intermediary kind of protection between full and semi and I figure that doing something policy doesn't provide for yet but doesn't involve much risk was better than an ineffective semiprotection or an overly damaging full protection or letting the vandalism continue., for example. Another possible reply would be Hmmm. I was fairly sure that applying IAR was warranted in this case given the severity of the vandalism and the penchant for the vandals to evade semiprotection, but Example's point about only a few vandals actually getting through the semi is right. In retrospect I should have left the article at semi, there was really no reason to go for a harder protection as the breakthrough were well policed..Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
(Absolutely well answered. Lourdes)
Additional question from BU Rob13
10. Question 8 is complex and you correctly identified that the answer is based on many small details not specified in the question. Given that we are not legal experts and often can't establish all those details, sometimes editors have to make decisions based on less than perfect information. What should we do in such cases? Should we err on the side of deletion or inclusion when copyright issues are complex and a somewhat plausible but not airtight copyright claim has been made?
On Commons, there is a policy named commons:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which says that if we cannot be certain enough that an image is free, it should be deleted. This policy is frequently cited at enWikipedia's FFD too, while it doesn't strictly apply to enWikipedia the function/procedure of the former WP:PUF and the extant Template:Di-no license or Template:Di-no permission also call for deletion when media are under questionable copyright status and conversion to non-free use isn't called for. Now, I know there are a few more users well versed in copyright questions on Commons so in an uncertain situation I do sometimes ask there for comments on an enwiki copyright situation. If at the end despite all attempts substantial copyright doubts are left and converting an iffy image to non-free/fair use can't be done, in my opinion it is preferable to go for "deletion" lest we or anyone reusing our images lands in the hot water for copyright infringement.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional questions from Carrite
11. Have you ever edited English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons using another user name? If so, what was or were those names?
Yes. Under IP addresses registered in the United Kingdom for basic typo fixing, yes. When I don't bother to log in, I sometimes do such basic fixes even today under an IP but only sporadically. I only have this account, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Although this account was registered in September 2012, you essentially halted editing WP within 3 months and did not edit the encyclopedia again until May 2015. What was the cause of this break in activity and what activities were you engaging in in the meantime (other websites, real life hobbies, etc.)?
Other websites and university, during which I did not come to Wikipedia frequently for reasons other than mere reading, which I have done since I learned to read English. In May 2015 I did decide to become more active here, partly thanks to decreased time spent in other websites. During the course of that time I did realize that I could improve the coverage of volcano related articles, thus I began editing these volcano articles.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Optional questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards
13. A user nominates a Template Corruption in India used in over 50 articles for deletion and the nominator is the only user to comment ,a Non Admin closes as delete and marks it for Speedy deletion.But an admin declines to delete it stating Speedy Declined seems to be heavily linked to, consensus is weak .If you are closer ,which closure will you endorse and why ?
I'd probably have tried relisting another time where I a closer there - I agree that that was too little input especially for a template that was already discussed at TfD once.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
14. In the context of the question above if a File used in over 10 pages was marked for deletion ( not for copyright) and given the low participation in WP:FFD many files are deleted even if the nominator is the only user to comment or 2 users comment Example 29 discussions in April 17th will show , would you delete or close as No consensus  ?
That'd depend on why the file was nominated for discussion - for example, if the reason is that the file in question is false information (e.g a completely forged map, or a vandalism that wasn't caught for some reason) then I'd delete it on that consensus alone. If the nomination is because the file is of low quality and there is a better file, and no other reason to keep the low quality file (e.g attribution), ditto and replace the uses of the previous file. Otherwise I may relist, close as "no consensus" or not close myself and instead put in my opinion as a comment. In any case it would heavily depend on the details of the nomination rationale, there is no general rule - sorry for being so unspecific.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Optional questions from Andrew D.
15. What's your position, if you have one, on cases such as the monkey selfie, National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute and Reiss Engelhorn Museum. Andrew D. (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional question from Cryptic
16. At User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#RfA you state that you have the email-this-user feature disabled because your "email address is not wholly private for family related reasons". Do you have that email set in Special:Preferences and just have the "Enable email from other users" setting unchecked, or is it not set at all?
Question from Gerda
17. I like that you want to focus on image maintenance and not blocking ;) - Anyway, what do you think about talking to a user before blocking? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support Obviously. He's a good content creator, and will be an asset to the project as an admin. First vote! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support it'd be great to see an editor with such experience in FFD work be able to mop up the backlog, as well as help out with the CSDs they are so very apt at identifying. Would be a net positive and some -- samtar talk or stalk 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Good candidate. I have seen him doing good work here many times. Why not? Jianhui67 T★C 11:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. I said everything I need to above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support I've had my eye on this RfA for a while. My impression of the candidate has always been good and he works diligently in the file namespace and with copyright issues, areas where we really need more admins. I only say that I hope he does not burn out at FFD - I personally couldn't hack it, but let's hope Jo-Jo can. BethNaught (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Wait, you are not an admin? SSTflyer 12:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Yes, yes a thousand times yes! Excellent content creator, very level-headed and willing to tackle some of the trickier areas of adminship. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support I don't have any set criteria other than a single "quick-pass" criteria. If I look at a name and think "Wait, he/she isn't an admin yet?", then that's an obvious indication that they should be an admin in the absence of serious issues. ~ RobTalk 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support, based on review. Good content creation. As for the things that cause the editor "some stress", breathe deep and don't let them push your buttons. Overall seems to be one that would do okay with the mop. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support I have worked with him/her at GAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus is definitely hardworking and an excellent content-creator on volcanoes. He/She has always been collaborative with me and others I have seen him/her working with. All in all someone our community really needs. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support Babymissfortune 12:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support Net positive. Good record at AfD; good CSD record. Lots of general positives. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  13. Support – Of course. Has my full trust. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  14. Support Thanks for being willing to take on administrator responsibilities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  15. Support. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a qualified editor whose work evinces the qualities needed in a good administrator. In particular, I'm impressed by their copyright- and FFD-related work. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  16. Support as co-nom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  17. Support very qualified candidate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  18. Per co-noms. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  19. Support. Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  20. Support Based on such nominations, I think this editor is worthy of my support. In addition, I think we going towards a 100% endorsed admin. A first? Debresser (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Nope, not by a long shot. Unanimously supported RfAs are rare, but they do happen. I just wish it were a more common occurrence. Kurtis (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  21. Support Strong contributions and well-rounded candidate. Adminship is not a big deal and they will obviously be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  22. Support - I was expecting this RfA and I'm pleased to offer my support. Jo-Jo Eumerus is eminently qualified for the job. Kurtis (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  23. Seen them around, can't recall any problems. Here for the right reasons and has a clear admin area where they want to work. Ticks all the boxes really. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  24. Support (edit conflict) - This person wasn't an admin? --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  25. Support. (edit conflict) We need more admin help at wp:FfD deletions and elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  26. Support. We need more admins and Jo-Jo Eumerus would be a good one. They meet WP:RFA42's criteria of trust, experience, and content creation. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  27. Support, based on the high quality of the candidate's content contributions. Kablammo (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  28. Support. Yes. Good contributions and good head on shoulders. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  29. Support I have seen Jo-Jo Eumerus slowly working their way towards adminship over the past several months. While the direction has been obvious, it has luckily not been too obvious; they have not been jumping all over the place to earn extra points. Instead, they have done quiet work improving the areas they are genuinely interested in. Widr (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  30. Support I was wondering when this was going to happen. Good luck, and per above.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  31. Support Model editor. Hopefully, model administrator too... Lourdes 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  32. Suppport No substantive concerns. Quantitatively, mainspace edits are a bit low, but that seems to be because Jo-Jo does a lot with a little. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  33. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  34. Support - in the "negative" column, I found vandals reports without final warning and declined (but legit) CSD nominations from a year ago. Hardly anything, especially since "one year ago" is actually "11k edits ago". I cannot say I like the answers to question 3 (and 4) but I see they have been briefed this way, and frankly it is probably the way to go at AfD these days. In the "positive" column... Well, pretty much everything others said. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  35. Support Every time I see him make a request for admin action on a file, I wonder why he isn't one himself. (An admin, not a file. Though I'm sure he would make a fine file as well.). Katietalk 18:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  36. Support Good candidate. Deserves the job! Class455fan1 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  37. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  38. Support. Yep, FFD needs more admins, and I know the nominee has the know-how to get those discussions closed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  39. Support per noms. Looks to be an editor we should all strive to emulate. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  40. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  41. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  42. Support checks out good for me! Atsme📞📧 20:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  43. Support No concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  44. Support Fine candidate, especially since you want to work on copyright issues where we could use more hands. On that note, give toollabs:copypatrol at try! :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  45. Support Fully qualified candidate with plenty of experience under their belt. Wants to work in a highly backlogged admin area, FFD. Why the hell not? Omni Flames (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  46. Support I never had any interaction with JJE but everything seems fine here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  47. Support - Seems to have good judgement and demeanor.- MrX 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  48. Support. I'm ready to no longer be the newest admin and this is a great candidate to take my place on the totem pole. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  49. Support. No concerns + I need to support a fellow geographer. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  50. Support: yes, please. With such well researched co-nominations (and I too can find no negatives) I highly support. You win my trust in both areas of concern: knowledge and experience in the areas to which you wish to devote your skills; and secondly: no drama! Indeed, you do "display an invariably courteous and helpful demeanor". This is actually and faithfully my first requirement for an admin. Can't wait to see you mopping ツ Fylbecatulous talk 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  51. Support, no issues here. Nakon 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  52. Support, no issues, and a clear WP:NETPOS.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  53. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  54. Support as a valid reason for administrative tools has been provided and I don't see any concerns here. — Music1201 talk 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  55. support yes per all the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  56. Support Appears to understand AfD, would like to see some more BLP work done at some point, as they do not appear to have done much content editing on them or worked on the policy noticeboards. Collect (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  57. Support Happy to pile on. Good content creator, wants to work on the backlogs—what's not to like? Miniapolis 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  58. Support -FASTILY 00:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  59. Support Their history here gives me every reason to think they will make a fine admin. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  60. Support. We're in desperate need of more admins in media file-related areas, and I've seen nothing but exemplary work from Jo-Jo Eumerus in this area. — ξxplicit 01:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  61. Support A well-rounded contributor with experience in several areas, including content creation and DYK. Appears to be quite knowledgeable as to policies. Plans to work in areas with serious backlogs. Enough experience to show good judgment and demeanor. Trustworthiness fully established. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  62. Support Checking his/her contributions, most of his/her edits are in good article status, so I guess its time to have another good admin here in English Wikipedia. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  63. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  64. Support- I've run across Jo-Jo Eumerus here and there, predominantly from seeing their name on various speedy candidates. They seems to be a solid candidate and one that would work well with the administrative tools. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  65. Suport As a fellow admin who was promoted based on working with file deletions, I can say that there is always not enough admins working in that area because most of the new admins are focused on CSD and AfD. I haven't been supporting many RfAs lately but it appears that the requirements to become an admin went on an exponential scale which would make the current admin drought situation even more dire. So it is great to have fully qualified candidate going after an area that needs more attention (and love) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  66. Support - This user's contributions thus far indicate a solid history and understanding of the areas he plans to work in. Every reason to believe this would be a real net positive. Enthusiastic support for this editor. ERK talk 04:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  67. —Kusma (t·c) 10:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  68. Support. Trusted editor. — Mediran [talk] 10:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  69. Support, obvious. Graham87 11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    I thought the line was – "Obvious support is obvious." Heh. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  70. Support I have looked through Jo-Jo Eumerus' talk archives and I see no issues. On the contrary, the user has a fair amount of involvement with new editors and I found the responses and answers to new editors' questions diplomatic, friendly, and informative. I think that Jo-Jo Eumerus would do a great job at WP:FFD. A well-rounded candidate, I think that Jo-Jo Eumerus would be an excellent administrator. « D. Trebbien (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  71. Support This is the sort of worthy candidate of whom I've spoken in my comments in the various admin reform threads.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  72. Support Per all above :) Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  73. Duh. No issues, netpos by far. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  74. Support Although I personally found the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5 evasive, they clearly have the experience and knowledge to become administrator. Joshualouie711 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  75. Support solid need for the tools but also well versed in content creation, which I do think is important. Decent edit count, and consistent editing over two years, no skeletons in the cupboard that anyone's unearthed here. It's still early days here, but looks like you're passing this with shining colours so here's a premature welcome to the admin corps from me!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  76. Support Clear case of a positive addition to the admins —  crh 23  (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  77. Support I've found Jo-Jo's contributions on NPP to be rapid and effective. Considered together with content creation experience, he looks like a great candidate. Blythwood (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  78. Support: Jo-Jo Eumerus would make a great admin. Looks ready for the mop. —MRD2014 T C 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  79. Support Nothing to suggest they will misuse the tools, good track record, and knowledgeable in the area they intend to focus. PGWG (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  80. Support as I think this user is a suitable candidate with whom I have no issues. Also supporting due to oppose votes I can't get my head around. --PatientZero talk 18:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  81. Support for all the reasons above, and I wish the candidate well in attempting to build a bridge between the twin peaks of Uturunku :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  82. Strong support. Very well qualified candidate. The opposers' rationales are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  83. Support. Thought this was already so. WP:CP desperately needs more admins, and Jo-Jo has been an important contributor there, with careful and balanced reports that make evaluation easy and show understanding of the issues. Content work is excellent, too; Uturunku, criticised in the "oppose" section below, is a fine example of how to expand a stub. We need more like this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  84. Support. I would have liked to have seen more time spent on article work - a year of heavy activity principally devoted to uncontroversial topics won't have guaranteed that he's come across all of the problems and conflicts that have to be negotiated on other parts of the wiki. Nevertheless, from what I've seen, I think that he'll be a net positive with the admin tools. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  85. Support. I knew this was coming and in fact if I hadn't been busy for the last few days in RL chances are I would probably have done the nomination myself or at least co-nom'ed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  86. Support - Everything looks good, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  87. Support - Nothing I have seen of Jo-Jo Eumerus leads me to believe that he will be a bad administrator, quite the opposite. James086Talk 22:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  88. Support. We need more admins for routine maintenance, candidate is unlikely to delete the Main Page, reasonably clueful, and arguably more qualified than I was when I passed RFA. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  89. Support Trustworthy and clueful (and thankfully willing).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  90. Support. Q1 has good focus. Q3 is troubling. JJE has not been involved in any serious conflict, but I want to see admin candidates experience such conflict. Q3's two prongs raise issues. (1) JJE is stressed when an editor points out a policy or copyright mistake; embarrassment yes, but stress? People make mistakes. Instead of "usually study up on the policy", why not always study the policy? (2) JJE is stressed by editors asking "what the problem was and how to fix it"; annoyance yes, but stress? Maybe Q3 prongs are just an en-5 issue. I have some reservations about skills in areas outside of copyright, but Q1 suggests reserve. I asked the distractor-laden Q8; I would have been happy with any discussion that showed depth on key issues, but JJE nailed it. Glrx (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  91. Sure, don't see any reasons why not, and plenty for why. — foxj 00:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  92. Support No concerns from me, good answers, looks like a fine candidate that will handle the mop with care. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  93. Support - I default to supporting unless there's a good reason to oppose, and right now, I don't see any good reasons to oppose. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  94. Support – A little concerned about the account only being really active for about a year, but otherwise no worries. Good luck! United States Man (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  95. Support I am seeing a good balance between content creation and a willingness to take on the more thankless tasks that a mop-wielder would be required to do. A need for the tools is evident. No behaviour concerns. Answers to questions appear well-reasoned. A useful and versatile extra hand to aid the fast diminishing group of active admins. Good luck. Irondome (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  96. Support The community obviously views you as a valuable asset. Good luck!—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  97. Support Seems a reasonable user. So lovely too to see an RFA where people are (mostly) not nitpicking to try and find a reason to oppose! KaisaL (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  98. Support. Net positive. Enough said. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  99. Support Seems like a win-win to me. They get to be an admin, and WP gets someone who appears good for the job. Vyselink (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  100. Support - I see nothing to indicate that this editor will abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 03:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  101. Support It would be foolish to deny this user adminship. Good luck!! Guthix no more (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  102. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 04:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  103. Support Overall, this user seems well-versed in how Wikipedia works, especially how images on Wikipedia work. Images are always tricky here, and we need someone like him who knows how that system works. Gestrid (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I know it's unfashionable to oppose admin candidates on the basis of their content contributions, but really. The Uturunku article can't even be clear whether it's one volcano or two. I don't trust any admin who can't themselves write a decent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Corbett (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Discussion relocated to the talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Sorry, I'm just not gonna pull the trigger in favor of a lifetime appointment as an Administrator for somebody with only 13 months of true activity. I appreciate the work being done on behalf of the project, keep up the good work. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Neutral


General comments


About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
Shortcut:

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.


The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=727349519"