final (18/15/8) ending 02:07 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer has been a Wikipedian for about 2 months, but already has 1486 edits. He is active on RC Patrol, and could use a rollback button to help him. In all of my communications with him, he has always been trustworthy and dependable. I think that he would make a great admin. – AB C D ✉ 02:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC) Support

1. Support. Obligatory nominator support. – AB C D ✉ 02:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Conditional support. User must Exterminate! vandals. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Unconditional support. While Jtkiefer is relatively new, I've been interacting with him quite a lot since he got here and I am quite convinced that he'd make a fine admin. In fact, I would have nominated him myself if ABCD hadn't beat me to it. Kelly Martin 02:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - You've been here only two months, but you're obviously a very quick learner! ;) I see absolutely no evidence that you'd do anything wrong whatsoever and plenty that adminship would help you, adminship should be no big deal after all -- Joolz 02:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support. Ok, you haven't been here long, but I can't see you doing anything so horrific that would make me change my vote if given two more months. No big deal. -- Kbdank71 14:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support. He's the kind of user that would really benefit from adminship and, although he is a fairly new editor, has shown that he understands wikipedia policy. I trust him, and this is my only real criteria for adminship. Rje 17:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support good faith editor+not a vandal+reasonably civil+vandalism patrol=my support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support I pretty much assumed he was an admin already. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 12:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support. I don't have too much problem with length-of-service if the standard of edits/interaction etc is good in that time. Branch out a little, and you'll be even more useful as an admin. - Splash 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Support. At a certain point, you can tell if an editor's on the admin track. It's usually obvious well before 2 months and 1500 edits, and it's especially obvious in Jtkiefer's case that he's quite solid. And if being in major conflicts or writing great articles are requirements to be an admin, then de-admin me right now. -- Seth Ilys 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Strong Support although it's clearly not meant to be this time. Hedley 02:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Hasn't been here long but picks things up fast and acts responsibly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
14. User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
15. Is he a vandal? No. Is he likely to abuse admin commands? I don't think so. Support. kmccoy (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support Simple. -- RN 08:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
17. No Big Deal. And a fast-learner too. Time should not be a barrier for his route to better contributions and RC patrol to Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support Have had some interaction, all of which has been good. His answers to the questions below seem to capture the spirit of wikipedia more than anything. My only concern is we have not seen how he deals with controversy and major conflict, but my gut says he will do fine.-- Tznkai 18:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose edits and conduct seem fine, but come on... user since May 29th, which is less than 2 months. Would gladly support a couple months from now though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. A few more months active and I would support. Thunderbrand 02:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose; Distribution of edits is strong, and number of edits is acceptable. However, the period of time associated with Wikipedia is simply too short. I don't have a hard rule for amount of time someone should be here before becoming an admin. However, I do think an editor needs to have time to run into problems, bump into the walls, scrounge around in policies and guidelines, and spend time integrating the lessons learned into their Wikipedia habits. The TfD on sofixit is a clear case in point; well intended, but misdirected. We all have made similar errors. In time, we learn how not to. You will too. With more experience, you'd get my vote in a heartbeat, but not yet. All the best. -- Durin 03:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

   Comment Thanks for the comments, even though I think I've read quite a fair amount of the informational material I am sure that I have read nowhere near everything available on wikipedia and it's policies and if you have anything in particular that you think it would be helpful for me to read please drop me a note on my talk page. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose You just haven't been here long enough to get the full Wiki experience. Your answers to the questions below prove that you are not quite ready. You haven't been in any major conflicts. I believe it is important to experience them at some point so we can see how you handle it. You also said most of your edits were minor. That sells my vote right away. Take the plunge and write a few articles. I'm sure you would do an amazing job. -- Ryan 03:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

   Comment I would just like to clarify what I meant by minor, by minor I didn't mean minor as in marked minor edits I meant minor as in small in the overall scheme of things, though I definately understand why people are reluctant to vote for a user who has been here for as little time as I have. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

   No, I understand. Still, you might want to expand your horizons and start taking on some major contributions. -- Ryan 04:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose for now. He's good at reverting vandals, but I don't think that two months is long enough, and his edit count seems inflated by his number of edits to his user page and associated subpage (those edits comprise over 300 of his edits, compared to only 267 in the article namespace). I'd probably support in a few more months, as he does have a nice record of reverting vandalism, but I think right now is too early and would also like to see more edits in the article namespace. -- Idont Havaname 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

   Comment I totally understand the issue with the fact that I have only been editing for roughly two months which is not sufficent to gain the trust of many users and I will be the first to admit that I have spent way too much time and effort editing my userpage and it's associated subpages, it should be however that userspace edits include reversions of other user's pages which is are unfortunate necessity at times. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Needs more article edits. Write some nice articles! David | Talk 09:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose Not long enough. Dmn / Դմն 12:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, I have no negative comments to make, but then again, the editor has not spent enough time on the project for anyone to be able to make such comments. Come back in a couple of months and I am sure all will look into your nomination with fresh eyes. -- Sn0wflake 15:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
9. weak Oppose needs more time, needs more article edits Lectonar 11:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Weak oppose. One fifth of contributions were to his/her user page, and are more than the number of edits to articles. Let a few more months pass. I'd also like to see more contribution to talk pages. --  иAIя BRIAN 0918  21:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose I fully agree with Brian. Redwolf24 ( Talk) 22:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose Per Brian. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose Bit too green still --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose I have no hard or personal feelings but he has reverted personally several important edits that I made in good faith that improved the overall article. -- 68.0.39.140 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

    I'm sorry, but anonymous (i.e. unregistered) users cannot vote in a RfA. Please consider creating an account. Thank you. Redux 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

15. Oppose. Sorry, but two months is just far too new. Please come back in a few more. Jonathunder 19:35, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Good contributor but I would still prefer a few more weeks before promoting Jtkiefer. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral. Less than 1500 contributions and only two months contributing, but he seems to have an attitude between fair and good when interacting with other people on Wikipedia. I am also taking into account a comprehensive user page and liberal use of edit summaries. I would say give him some more time and I'm sure he might pass muster.   Denelson 83  02:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Haven't checked his edits, so I can't support, but folks, DO watch out for editcountitis eh? Kim Bruning 23:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Work is solid. Clearly has the makings of an Admin. All that is missing is the experience, and that can only come with time and editing. Keep up the good work over a few more months, and I'll absolutely support. Redux 05:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

   I've worked with him and have been watching him generally over the past month or so. I assert that he definitely has the requisite experience. Kelly Martin 11:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Could do with a little more time (just a month or two) and more article edits. the wub "?/!" 13:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral. I have no reason to oppose, but but as discussed above, a little more time on Wikipedia would be needed before I could support. Gblaz 02:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutral. You don't have to be here a long time to prove that you're not an idiot, and that you can be trusted with adminship priviliges. Everything I've seen of Jtkiefer suggests exactly that. However... I always like to see people having done some article work, just to show that they really know how this place works. Dan100 ( Talk) 07:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. Neutral Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

1. edit counts Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Something else that I forgot to note when originally posting my answers to the questions and am posting here now since I feel uncomfortable editing my answers after the fact. I have also recently begun working on doing image patrol to tag untagged and mis-tagged, even though I don't know much on copyrights and image issues regarding copyrights I am a quick learner as noted on the nomination and I feel that given the extra tools I could help deal with helping users delete duplicate images and helping deal with images that have been marked for deletion as per wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. Fine granularity rights would be very useful for active but new users. Granting just rollback wouldn't likely be controversial yet would help a lot with vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 27 July 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. I plan on continuing to do recent changes patrol which will hopefully be made easier by use of the rollback function, I'd like to help take care of some of the backlogs on speedy deletions and keep an eye out to make sure images are locked as soon as possible when being put on the front page though for the most part I'll keep doing the same things while doing a few extra things where I feel that I can help.

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

A. Unlike many users I have not written an article or contributed a large amount of content to any one article, most of my edits to articles have been smaller things like copyediting and fixing small grammatical or spelling errors, on that note I am proud of my recent minor copyediting of Megatokyo in which I did a fair amount of work touching it up though it should be noted that I can't take full credit for any one accomplishment since Wikipedia is a group collaberation.

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. Amazingly I have not had many conflicts with other users, I've had slight disagreements with other users, (see: here and here). I have also had a couple of minor disagreements with users but all have been resolved with the utmost civility.