Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimp

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

Jimp

Final (75/4/0); Closed as successful by Maxim_(talk) at 00:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Jimp (talk · contribs) – You might notice that a fair proportion of my editing at WP is in the template namespace. I have created and or improved quite a few templates. My problem is that the templates I'm working on tend to get protected due to their ending up being used on hundreds or thousands of pages. This slows the process down significantly. I must resort to edit requests for the most minor fixes. This not only takes up a lot of my time but it takes up a lot of admin's time.

The template {{convert}} is in constant need of work as we strive to keep up with the demands of this ever-expanding encyclopædia. Minor fixes are a routine thing (we've even got a talk subpage specifically for edit requests) but what we'd really benefit from is a major restructuring. It would be impractical to do this through edit requests. I would like to be granted admin tools so that I can contribute more usefully to the template space.

Now, I don't actually restrict my editing to the template space nor do I expect this to be the only place I apply the mop. In my six odd years here, amongst my roughly fourty thousand edits, I have also made contributions to the mainspace and the Wikipediaspace. I've reverted vandalism, split and merged articles, organised articles, brought articles in line with MoS guidelines, worked on the said guidlines, etc. I spend a good deal of time on talk pages discussing various issues. I expect my admin work, if granted adminship, to be similarly varied.

I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to the many admins who have helped me out with tasks an ordinary user cannot perform. If granted adminship, I'd like to repay the dedt by helping out others as I've been helped out. I've put in a number of edit requests; I'd like to take some up. I've put in a fair few speedy deletion requests; let me repay this debt too. I've brought various templates to TFD; let me try my hand at judging. I believe I am somewhat aware of the pros and cons of protection; let me help in the process. JIMp _talk·cont 22:39, 7 June 2011 (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: As noted above, my main concern will be with editing protected templates. However, this won't be my sole concern. I have often called on admins to help with tasks which I couldn't perform as an ordinary user. I would be glad to help out like this. In particular I see myself being involved in deletion requests, page protection and editing protected pages. These are the kinds of things admins have helped me out with in the past; let me return the favour. Of course, as I get more acustomed to the role, I'm sure to find other ways in which I can help.

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

A: In 2007 I redesigned {{convert}}. The original version was a very large {{#switch}}. The new version uses an array of subtemplates instead. The redesign allowed the template's usage to be expanded far beyond what it had been capable of up to that point. It also introduced various features such as input-sensitive rounding. I have been working on it ever since. The template now appears on hundreds of thousands of pages.

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 don't believe I get stressed about Wikipedia. Of course, though, I have disagreements with respect to how best to do things around the place. I tend to deal with such situations by recalling that I don't own WP after all and that things are done by consensus. Sometimes this issue has a broader scope than the particular page it starts on. I'll often bring things up on MoS talk pages in order to gain a better feeling for what consensus is.

Recently the question arrose as to whether we should use calorie or Calorie for the ~4.2 kJ unit (the large/dietary/food/kilogram calorie as opposed to the small/gram calorie). An editor had requested that it be capitalised in {{convert}}. I disagreed and stated as much on the talk page. But, of course, this is a broader question than should be handled on a template talk page so I brought it to MOSNUM. Before bringing it there, though, I decided to do a little homework. I examined the approximately 2+1⁄2 thousand mainspace pages which a WP search turned up and found that the capitalisation was used in something like 2% of cases. I then brought it back to the {{convert}} talk page for a second look (see further details via the link).

It's important, I think, in dealing with disgreement, to create discussion like this. I believe that it also makes a lot of sense to take a look around (as I did with the above mentioned issue) and see how other editors are doing things as this is also an indicator of consensus. I intend to continue handling things through consensus (note that I do not intend to use admin privaledges, if granted, to bypass the extensive discussion & consensus gathering mentioned above).

Additional question from TCO

4. To which article have you added the most citations? Please tell me a little about the citations additions (number, type, etc.). (NOTE: I'm not looking to burden you with some huge analysis. But just give me a little report back so that I get a picture of how much cited content you've added. Also, of how you do a little analysis and communicate it.)

A: I'm not that big on adding material. I'm more at home organising it. Though I do add refs here and there. It's a bit old but here's an example of some refs I added to {{Aust Beer Glass}} which appears on Australian English vocabulary and Beer in Australia. JIMp _talk·cont 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Hobit

5. Would you clarify what you mean in Q1 when you say "I see myself being involved in deletion requests". Are you referring to WP:CSD, WP:AFD, or something else? Could you indicate what experience you have with deletion-related issues?

A: I'm not the kind of person to delete things willy-nilly. Though, I have tagged a number of things for speedy deletion. These have mostly been unnecessary or unusable templates or subtemplates. I'd be looking mainly at routine tidy-up like this. I've also brought a number of templates to WP:TFD and participated in discussion there. Until I've had a decent amount of experience in deletions I would stick to the more clear-cut cases. I suppose that most of my deletions would be subtemplates of some template I'd be working on ({{convert}} in particular). JIMp _talk·cont 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Croisés Majestic

6. In your own words, Could you please describe the importance of the ability of administrators to keep certain information confidential?

A: Putting the confidential information into the wrong hands can have devistating effects. An administrator at WP may have access to user's private information. A blocked user, for example, may send an e-mail to the administrator asking for assistance or advice. As with any organisation, WP has a responsiblity to keep private information private. This is not only common courtesy but a good way of keeping out of legal strife. JIMp _talk·cont 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Scenario: CDelano starts passing out certain confidential information. He says that he lives in Redding, California, and is 13 years of age. And the names of numerous family members and friends. What are the steps you would take as an administrator? What is the policy(ies) that support your decision?

Note:

A: Assuming that he really is thirteen he might not understand the danger of positing information on the Internet. I would first post him a message on his talk page giving him a friendly warning about the Internet and explaining that I would like to remove the posted information (and probably ask for his help in locating it). I would proceed to remove what personal information I could. I would expect that he would be cooperative, however, if he were to continue to post such information, I would suspect there was a problem, in which case I would direct the editor to the relevant policy. The policy can be found at WP:PRIVACY, which states that posting another person's personal information is harassment (actually it isn't as clear as it could be, first saying "editor" then saying it refers to non-editors also). Such violation of policy would be grounds for a block. I would give the editor another warning. If the editor continues to ignore these warnings, I would bring the matter up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents suggesting a block on the account. JIMp _talk·cont 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jimp: Jimp (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jimp can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. —mc10 (t/c) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support I have been waiting for this one. Jimp has been an immense help with programming and debugging some of the most highly transcluded templates. I have always known him to be extremely civil and levelheaded. I believe he would make an exceptional admin. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Strong support; long overdue. There is no reason why anyone should oppose this request; it is a slam-dunk. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Strong support; clear need, clueful longtime. He probably should have accepted when someone offered to nominate him a year ago ([1])! jorgenev 00:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Your contributions have been invaluable to this project and will continue to be with the mop :) Best of luck--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Support I think we need more admins who specialize on article templates, and this user fits the bill. SOXROX (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Sure, active trusted user. No doubt in my mind that he'd use the mop well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Support - Redesigned {{convert}}? Wow.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Support per his answer to question three. He seems to be very neutral and objective in his arguments. I believe he would be a perfect candidate for admin. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Support - To be honest Jimp seems almost overqualified for the admin role, that's the only negative I see in this RfA. -- Atama頭 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Clear, well-articulated need for the tools. Well-qualified.--Hokeman (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
13. Support Will obviously put the tools to good use. First Light (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
14. Support per awesome template work.--v/r - TP 02:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
15. Support No concerns here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Support. Access to protected templates would help enhance an already-impressive contribution record here, and provide us with an excellent admin into the bargain -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
17. Support —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Good job. Keepscases (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
19. Why not? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
20. Support – I see absolutely no reason why not to support. —mc10 (t/c) 04:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Check of a month's worth of communication indicates that the candidate is more than capable of comporting himself well and he clearly needs the mop. --Danger (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - Capable, knowledgeable and fully qualified candidate. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:20pm • 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Can see no reason to oppose and we need all the help we can get - pass the mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
24. Support - Candidate needs +sysop to continue their demonstrated capability in areas restricted to members of that usergroup. Clearly capable, not going to do any damage with the extra bits. Content contribution is not limited to writing articles - templates and navigation are very much part of this encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
25. Clueful longterm uncontentious editor who has a clear need for the tools. I like the clean blocklog and saw nothing to worry about in the deleted contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. Don't see any reason not to—the candidate clearly knows what he's doing and how to go about the said doing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 8, 2011; 14:28 (UTC)
27. Support I think it is unfortunate that admin is needed to work effectively in the area of templates, but being that it is, and that the candidate has an extensive history working with them, I see no reason not to support. Just be cautious using the mop in areas where you are less familiar. Monty₈₄₅ 14:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
28. Support - Yeah, he seems fine. I think can be trusted with the tools. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
29. Not overly impressed with the content work, but the candidate is trustworthy and has clearly expressed his reasoning for the tools, so I don't see why I shouldn't support. ceranthor 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
30. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
31. Samir 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
32. Support per pedro Dlohcierekim 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
33. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
34. Support I'm impressed, TBH. Swarm ^X 02:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
35. Support: As someone who also works on templates, I have seen his contributions, and I have no reservations with handing him a mop. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Would make a good level-headed admin. LK (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
37. Support I've looked through this candidate's contributions, and they are more than qualified for the mop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. I get the impression that some of the answers to questions are not very direct; but having reread them, and having looked at a random sample of contribs, I'm confident that Jimp is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop - definitely a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
39. I find no reason not to support, and it is always handy to have template editors who can edit protected templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
40. Support - Candidate performs useful service and could do with the tools. I have no issues with his editing history. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 12:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
41. Support I've not come across Jimp directly, but as I don't work on templates that's not surprising. Lack of content creation? Aren't templates a specialised form of content? Apart from which, I can't see that someone who has managed to do what's been done so far going wild with deletions, or closing AfDs as Keep when six regulars have !voted delete and one SPA has !voted keep. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
42. T. Canens (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Support As per above. L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC) User has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. !Vote indented. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

43. Support, switching from neutral per the comments I made there. Martinp (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
44. Support. Jimp makes a good case for needing the mop, and nothing I've seen suggests he'd do anything but good with it. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
45. I prefer specialized admins who know where they're going to stick to, not sure why others don't actually. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
46. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
47. Support. Has a very valid need of a subset of the tools, and nothing in the history or his demeanor suggests that he would misuse the rest - frankie (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. I'm delighted to find that Jimp is taking the plunge. He is very knowledgeable in his field, level-headed, aware of WP:INVOLVED, and just the kind of admin we need. Contrary to some of my wikifriends' views, I see no reason an admin should have a stellar record in article writing. The skill-base can overlap with the kind of admin protection we need, but in many ways it does not. Tony (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    There's a difference between stellar and "zero" though. I really don't know that the fellow has EVER done an inline citation or written a sentence of prose. (The answer to my question was a list of links, not referenced content, not even a referenced stub.) This is a big endeavour so it is not reasonable or efficient to expect someone to know everything. But SOME experience in what is the biggest part of this thing would be helpful. Especially given that admins can and do have an influence on content in the future and have tools for deleting pages and banning users in conflicts. Also recall we had an Arb who was plagiarizing DYKs. Surely that hurts the project to not have people like that have a real experiential knowledge of what it means to research and write a page. (And I think admin is a high enough level with the types of things they can come into...that this is not just a useful check for arb elections.)TCO (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    I've read your points carefully and have taken them on board. Jimp shows knowledge of and empathy with the business of article editing, writes good prose in his posts, and is good at interacting with content editors. I could tell that he thinks about article writing from my first interactions with him in 2005. Inline citations: not my strong point, either; but I'm very willing to grumble about reforming/rationalising the syntax. "admins can and do have an influence on content in the future and have tools for deleting pages and banning users in conflicts"—yep, but we have the protection of the WP:INVOLVED policy. Tony (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

49. Support. I've seen his contributions over a long period. He's done a huge amount for the project. I think he's shown a great deal of gravitas and patience with both with novices and old-timers. I think he'll make an excellent admin. Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. I decided that template and article contribs are great. Doesn't really matter what number of edits he makes to each namespace. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 18:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
51. Support, no evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
52. Support. Looks good to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
53. Support. It's ridiculous that the admin tool set is bundled in the way that it is, but that's not the fault of the candidate. As Pedro says in his comment in the oppose section, it's either all the tools or none of them, but clearly Jimp has a legitimate need to edit through page protection, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
54. No one has brought up any trust issues in the template work Jimp is doing already. Given his record, I also trust him to either confine himself to that area or be cautious in expanding his use of admin tools.--Chaser (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - consistent activity levels, active in templates which is an area that has much to offer. nice level of temperament and common sense approach to things. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
56. Support Seems a relevant choice...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
57. Support per this assurance; despite your limited experience in admin-related areas, I trust you not to misuse the tools. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Competent, level-headed, and a pay it forward attitude. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
59. Secret ^account 16:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
60. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
61. Support - Extremely strong candidate, and incredibly knowledgeable with regards to this place. Orphan Wiki 11:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - Because no lessor right exist to allow this user to effectively function and I trust the candidate. My76Strat ^talk 17:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
63. Support. The candidate is fully qualified for the tasks he wants primarily to focus on, and I trust him to move cautiously in expanding his use of administrator tools to other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
64. Support - Candidate seems knowledgeable about policies and guidelines and fit my criteria completely. Great answers to my questions as well. Good luck. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 02:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
65. Support - See no reason to oppose, knows policies and guidelines and editing looks good. GB fan (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
66. Clear need for editing protected templates, obviously trustworthy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Administrators who specialize in the template department are desirable and can help to improve the project immensely. Jimp is knowledgeable, experienced, and all in all well-qualified to use the tools to work with protected templates and at TfD. The addition of referenced content to articles is preferable for most candidates, but this is one of those cases where I think it's unnecessary because of the excellence of other contributions. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
68. Support This is a judgment call. I think on the balance that he'll learn to do it well, and will correct his mistakes when they are pointed out to him. Usually I think it best for someone to learn a little more first, & show it by a longer record, but this is close enough. When in doubt, I go a lot by how someone handles the AfD, and I think he's doing it right. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
69. Support The template work is essential and he needs the backstage pass. We occasionally grant the tools for specialists and as this is such a case I'm not worried about him not meeting all my criteria. I have every confidence that he will use any other tools wisely when he gets used to them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
70. Support trustworthy, has need of bit. That's enough. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
71. Support. On the one hand, the candidate is going to contribute in a specific area for which he is extremely well qualified, and where there is a need. On the other hand, per the kinds of issues that are discussed in Jim Miller's oppose, I ask myself what the risks might be if, hypothetically, the candidate later decides to move into other administrative areas. Given how long he has been here with a clean block log, and with no evidence of drama that I can find by going back over his talk history, I figure that the risks are low. Thus, a clear net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Per review of contributions, a clear if narrow immediate use for the tools. The contribution record suggests this editor has cluefulness and demonstrates appropriate levels of caution should they ever move into new areas. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Jimp does wonderful work in the template namespace. I don't have any concerns. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
74. Support We need more template specialists to handle editprotected requests in that namespace. Courcelles 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
75. Support. Good addition.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry. I was looking for more demonstration of adding referenced content. For someone with that skill with templates to be doing references that are not inline citations, that are just renamed websites. Would support you after seeing some work on the content side. Think it is important for our admins to have some experience with creating the content as well. Would be fine if you concentrate on coding, but need to see at least some more experience in writing referenced paragraphs. Looks like you basically have not done it practically at all. TCO (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Not sure why this user needs the admin bit. If the admin bit were more nuanced, like, say, any modern security system, perhaps I'd consent to this limited scope, but the admin system we have isn't... and I see no record or history that makes this blanket adminship the least bit necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   I don't understand why "need" for adminship is a problem here. He's volunteering to be a leader of the encyclopedia. "Need" doesn't really apply. SOXROX (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   The issue here is that the admin tool set is bundled - an "all or next to nothing" choice. Whilst I think it's unfair to penalise this candidate because his main requirement of +sysop is one part (edit-protected) it's still a fair enough reason to oppose - if one assumes that their edits indicate they may misuse/abuse the other rights (block, delete etc.). Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Soxrock24, adminship doesn't make you "a leader of the encyclopedia". Some might say that there's a double standard between admins and non-admins, but I don't think "leader" is nearly the right word. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Overlords? TCO (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think "leader" isn't wrong at all, WP:ADMIN states that administrators are supposed to "lead by example". In that sense, admins are leaders. I don't think that has to imply any special kind of authority, but rather just a higher standard of conduct. -- Atama頭 22:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Then reword the policy. Adminship is not, or rather should not be a leadership position. I am also rather sad that people here consider adminship to be anything more than a toolkit, which should be given to any trusted user who displays a need for it... Also, I still don't understand how content improvement is even remotely related to adminship. As I've said many a time before, there is no "canimprovearticles" right in the sysop package. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   If one grants it true that admins should "lead by example", the question at hand is whether this candidate does that. I think he leads by example both in his dedication to the 'pedia and in his conduct, which is what I based my vote on. It is true that he is not often at ANI or XFD, but it is also true that he comports himself well, and works extensively in an esoteric and critical area which often requires the admin flag on one's account. We have a template specialist who works on templates that are transcluded sitewide. Templates that are transcluded sitewide are generally full-protected. In particular, {{convert}} is fully protected, so we have a situation where the main developer of the page permanently cannot edit it without an intermediary. The remarkably thorough way in which he has handled the controversy over the capitalization of cal/Cal in {{convert}} convinces me that if there is an admin function that he is not already intimately familiar with—as there is for all of us—that he would take a very careful look around before jumping in. And out of respect to the candidate, folks, let's please save philosophical discussions for WT:RFA, okay? --Danger (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   As if it really needs to be said, I object in the strongest possible terms to Soxrock24's fanciful notion that administrators are "leaders" of the encyclopedia in any sense at all, and find it impossible to reconcile that idea with the tired "janitor and mop" analogy. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   In a general sense, an administrator is someone in charge of running something, a "leader" if you will. Admins aren't "in charge" or the "leaders" of Wikipedia, but it's very easy to assume that they are. Soxrox is relatively inexperienced in the WP space, and I think we should all take a deep breath and give them a break. Swarm ^X 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I understand Jimp's request to handle protected templates. However I can't seem to find even a single XfD contribution. (I have looked back to October 2010.) I do not want to see Jimp given the deletion tools or authority to close XfDs. Content contribution isn't great either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   On the contrary, I can see three TfD contributions from last month alone (see 1, 2, 3). Looking further back than that, he has also contributed to RfDs in the past year (although TfD is, unsurprisingly, the XfD that Jimp most contributes to). Jenks24 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing those out. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose I regretfully oppose this RfA on the basis of a lack of significant content contributions. Templates are an important part of making things work, and a difficult part to master. I do not believe that specialist admins are the right way to go in furtherance of the project. If the admin bit did not include the delete button, I would gladly support this user for the editprotected right to do the work that they have shown a great ability to perform. Alas, the admin bit should not be given to those who do not write content, and I cannot support this nomination. I understand that this is still listed as an argument to avoid in an RfA, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

   This isn't directed at you specifically, but I for one find it supremely ironic that people oppose over content creation when, in content disputes, admins are supposed to function as normal editors. By extension, this means that admins aren't the only ones able to resolve a content dispute; anyone can. In fact, I've done so as a non-admin, and I'm fairly light on content contributions (a lot of CSD tags and UAA reports). Content creation and dispute resolution are two different skills, and being good at content creation doesn't necessarily mean someone will be good at dispute resolution, which is one of the primary roles of admins. If becoming an admin doesn't give you an upper hand in a content dispute, why is it so important that admins be exceptional content writers? I'm not saying there isn't any legitimate answer, and I understand reasonable people can come to different conclusions, but I've been wanting to ask this for a while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

   What they're supposed to do and what they actually do are two different things. That's why so many insist on significant content creation from admin candidates. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

   That hasn't been my overall experience, but I've also not been around nearly as long as you. Perhaps my opinion will change overtime. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral (leaning towards support). I would like to see the user spend some more time in the mainspace. Other than that, I think the user could use the admin tools. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Moved to support.

Neutral, leaning support. It seems Jimp needs the admin bit to do what he does better, we need more of what he does, and he appears to be a trustworthy communicator. These are all good reasons to support in a "specialist" RFA - didn't we have a "visitor" from another wiki who went through a somewhat contentious RFA wherein he said he'd only work with the blacklist or somesuch? We made him admin and he hasn't broken the wiki as far as I recall. And yet: Jimp doesn't seem to view this as a specialized role, and is saying he sees himself eventually playing "a variety of roles". Like some others, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with him closing XfDs or blocking users - yet! I'd be willing to extend trust and the bit if he undertook to not using the delete or block buttons until and unless he spent a reasonable amount of time active in related areas without using the admin buttons there first. Martinp (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of jumping right into areas where I have little experience. Deletions and blocks are not something that I would take lightly. I believe it perfectly reasonable of you expect significant participation in the relevant areas before an admin begins using a given tool. I will undertake neither to close an XfD nor to block an account until/unless I have made a reasonable contribution in the relevant area. Such participation is part of the getting "more acustomed to the role" I mention above. What I mean is that I not unwilling to help out elsewhere but my interest is mostly templates and that's where I expect to be using the tools. I don't consider myself a specialist, just someone who's gravitated towards templates. JIMp _talk·cont 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Switching to support. I might not accept these assurances from anyone, but feel comfortable with them given your history. Martinp (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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