Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJLL Wright

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

CJLL Wright

edit

Final (46/4/3); Ended Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:21:02 (UTC)

CJLL Wright (talk · contribs) – An editor for a year and a half, CJLL has put a lot of hard work into WikiProject Mesoamerica, and has accounts on no less than six other-language wikis. He is a good agent against systemic bias and knows his way around the more obscure processes when needed. Overall a solid candidate. >Radiant< 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Many thanks for your kind nomination, Radiant. I accept.--cjllw | TALK 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Although I intend to continue as best I can with article writing, organisational and project-related tasks, I would welcome the opportunity to expand my contributions here into other administrative areas, should this candidacy succeed. In particular, I could see myself pitching in to resolve and clear copyvio backlogs, which IMO need to be dealt with as soon as possible. Over time I have detected a fair few text and img copyvios, a number of which had been in existence for many months. When dealing with these in the past I have quite often performed extensive background research to establish the material's bona fides, including talking through wikipedia policy with the contributor/uploader. I think this sequence of exchanges demonstrates persistence in getting to the bottom of things while maintaining a civil manner, and this discussion shows that I'm equally prepared to presume the good intentions of the contributor while explaining why the contrib cannot be accepted.
Other admin tasks I would likely be active in include completing requested/obstructed moves, and closing speedy and normal-term XfDs- while not a daily or even weekly participant in those discussions, I believe that through my accumulative experience in nominating and discussing entries my grasp of the procedural niceties there is sound.
As a frequent and watchful reverter of vandalism on the several thousand pages I keep tabs on, I will monitor the likes of WP:AIV, WP:RFI and WP:AN/I to help out with investigations and consequent sysop actions. Over time I would expect to explore other admin and dispute settlement tasks, once I had a 'feeling' for the role and requirements.
In general, I'd be available to help out where I can, and aim to strike a comfortable balance between editing and admin contributions without neglecting either.--cjllw | TALK 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There's Sylvanus Morley, which I wrote back in Oct '05 and brought to FA status shortly thereafter (nomination here). I've also helped out on a couple of other FA candidates, most recently collaborating at Mayan languages, which is getting there. Other substantial article contributions which come to mind include Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque, Yuri Knorosov, Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg (rewrite from EB1911 version), Maya calendar (some), Trepanation in Mesoamerica, and Chicomuceltec. I think that my rewrites of the indigenous peoples article, which were among the first of my mainspace edits (beginning here), have stood up reasonably well, although these days I am much more finicky about providing cites & references.
Project-wise, I am quite pleased with the development of WikiProject Mesoamerica, which thanks to the dedicated efforts of a number of talented and knowledgeable participants has made some progress in improving the quality and coverage of Mesoamerica-related articles. I've also participated in the development of several other collaborations, such as WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Ethnic groups and WikiProject Endangered languages.--cjllw | TALK 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Occasionally I've been involved in content discussions that have been vigourously contested, but when these arise I think I've managed to maintain overall an even-handed attitude without responding tit-for-tat fashion or throwing my toys out of the pram.
Probably the most heated series of dialogues involved a protracted months-long dispute re population figures at Romanians and related articles, contra now-banned users Bonaparte, NorbertArthur and their socks. In the discussions I think I did my part in attempting reason and mediation despite some inflammatory rebukes (such as this exchange, also here, here and here), while maintaining focus on the integrity and balance of the disputed articles.
Other disputes or contentious articles where I've sought to diffuse editorial conflicts include this discussion on indigenous substance abuse, addressing some general comments on definitions at talk:Indigenous peoples, striving for more impartial reportage on the 2005 Cronulla riots, and providing some much-needed context to otherwise controversial claims, for e.g. here.
In short, I am not one to be easily offended or stressed by disputes, and at least attempt to constructively engage with conflicting parties.--cjllw | TALK 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

4. In the exchange you reference in your answer to Q1, you question whether the contributor has permission from the author to use the pictures concerned. Lets us assume the contributor was able to obtain permission from all copyright holders of those images. In your opinion, what would that permission have needed to say in order for those pictures to meet the relevant policies and be capable of inclusion in the relevant articles?
A: If the original authors of those images had been contacted, and had provided their explicit permission (preferably registered via permissions-en and per WP:COPYREQ), then that permission would need to specify that the image is released under GFDL or one of the GFDL-compatible free licenses, or placed in the Public Domain. There should be no restrictions attached regarding how derivatives or reproductions are used, other than copyleft or attribution. In any case the original images' authors and sources would need to be specified on the image pages, together with the free-license conditions (and not misleadingly tagged as the uploader's "own work", as was the case).
In the context of that particular article I would think it highly doubtful that any claim for Fair use would fly- as I recall, most of the 100+ images there were headshots of otherwise everyday non-notable individuals -students, academics, businesspeople, etc- which the uploader had trawled from the web on the basis that they 'typified' "Ethiopid characteristics". Such images therefore were exchangeable with others, would probably or at least notionally have free-use alternatives, and were not really all that encyclopaedic or useful in any event. Of those which were images of notable/encyclopaedic people, a fair-use rationale could possibly be maintained under the right circumstances, but only really on an article directly related to the image subject, and not on that article where they were used mainly to illustrate the uploader's own thesis on the topic. --cjllw | TALK 07:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chacor (talk · contribs)

Q5. Could you please give examples of any recent participation in WP:XFD discussion, or thoughtful responses to problems at WP:AN or WP:ANI, based on the opposes so far? – Chacor 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. (NB: I realise that this response probably goes a bit beyond the original question, but in view of some comments it seemed appropriate to explain a little further.)
Some recent diffs (past couple of weeks) of participation in XfD's I have provided in the comments section below; here are a several more: [1], [2], [3], [4]. True enough, I haven't been a regular XfD participant recently while I've been concentrating on other things (I've also been away for a couple of weeks). I tended to do more of that sort of thing earlier on in my time here- hopefully this filtered listing will make it easier to identify a few more of these. Generally speaking, I'll pipe up with an opinion on an XfD debate if no-one else has or I think it's going in a direction I disagree with, while if on the other hand it seems to be straightforward and a foregone conclusion I haven't seen the need to 'pile on'. At times my input has influenced the outcome (example), while at other times mine is the lone voice in support (example). In any event I'm reasonably conscientious enough to spend time doing the research before venturing an opinion on something I was not until that moment all that familiar with, such as these examples: [5], [6].
As for dealing with problematic behaviours, on the few occasions where discussion and direct warnings have not worked and the disruptive postings continue, I have put up an alert on the appropriate message board for assistance (example). But mostly I've done my best to prevent sticky situations from reaching an escalation point, by thrashing things out in 'the field', at Talk: and User talk: pages (for reference, see some of the links I posted in answer to Q3 above). More often than not this is effective; if they persist despite several warnings then I am quite well aware of RfC, WP:AIV, blocking, ArbCom and other options available. I do not actually recall making any specific postings to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, if I did it would only have been once or twice. I do periodically read stuff there, particularly when incidents have spilled over, but again the incidents I've kept track of have been picked up from experience in working on all kinds of articles, and my actions and comments have been at the place where they occurred.
It is also true (per Patstuart's neutral comment below) that my record contains very little in the way of active discussion on policy pages, and I can quite understand any reluctance to support on that basis. However, this does not necessarily mean I've no or little understanding of or interest in policy and how things (are supposed to) work around here- I have in fact very early on read those policies an guidelines, and (like probably most folks) readily understood them, for they are generally just extensions of sound common sense.
Now, I am glad that there are those out there who devote some of their time to policy development and discussion, since they do need to be codified in an open project such as this. For my own part, I've just preferred to spend the time I have available in other areas on wikipedia, while putting my understanding of policies and guidelines to practical use. If I was truly clueless about policy basics, you would think that in 15,000+ edits I would have accumulated at least one substantiated admonishment that I had transgressed in some respect, yet I've not to date been blocked, pinged for edit warring, 3RR, copyvio, pushing my own POV, original research or unverifiable material into articles, or repeated incivility. In fact I spend a fair amount of time and effort in discussing policy and guidelines directly with other contributors, reminding or explaining why great blobs of text from elsewhere cannot simply be pasted in[7], that regrettably we cannot accept OR[8], that images need their sources specified [9], that it's better to move rather than just redirect a page to a new title[10], and trying to make new and potentially valuable contributors feel at home[11].
Even so, I do appreciate that lack of discussion in some project-oriented pages can raise doubts. I'd be happy to answer any further questions on my understanding of policy, procedure or guideline.--cjllw | TALK 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Alan.ca (talk · contribs)

Q6. Did you previously edit under a different user name? I was reviewing your first 500 edits and it appeared to me that you had previous wiki experience.
A. No, I have not edited under any other username on wikipedia. Before signing up I had made maybe a dozen or thereabouts smallish unregistered edits, so I at least had some idea of the basics. I guess that I started out a little cautiously and did a lot of reading and looking around in the first month or so here, as well as experimenting with wiki markup in my userspace before getting on with more useful contributions. Otherwise I've essentially picked up things along the way.--cjllw | TALK 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • See CJLL Wright's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • It occurs to me that part of my answer to Q1 can be read ambiguously. For "expand my contributions here into other administrative areas", read "expand my contributions here into other administrative areas that require sysop privileges". Apart from my article and project work, I have also in my time here done a reasonable amount of janitorial and other common admin-like tasks, such as participation in XfD, RM and CV discussions, vandal-chasing and general category cleanups. It does fluctuate a bit, but even when substantially occupied in article research and writing I do try to keep my hand in, some examples in the past couple of weeks: [12],[13],[14]. --cjllw | TALK 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support admin wrights. >Radiant< 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support muchly. Maunus 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support see WP:MESO, Sylvanus Morley, etc etc. --Ling.Nut 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. What's with the malapropisms? bibliomaniac15 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support solid history as an editor, excellent work in dealing with troubled users (if you haven't read the links in quesiton 3 you should) --Matthew 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per great answers and edits.--Wizardman 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am Arjun and I "trust" this user. Arjun 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support your answer to question one could be stronger, but you will still make use of the admin powers, and your great deal of experience means you will probably not misuse the tools. Dar-Ape 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support. What kept me from going with my original inclination to say "neutral" was the fact that adminship is no big deal and because this nominee's record, while very weak on indicating a need for the tools, does indicate that the candidate is trustworthy. My hesitation relates to the fact that the nominee does not participate much outside the mainspace, other than when a matter comes up relating to mesoamerican issues. In the last several months, I found very little AfD participation other than in the few mesoamerican-related nominations; same thing for image-related matters. I also find little evidence of knowledge of the "more obscure processes". While this indicates little, if any, need for the tools, what participation this candidate has made outside mainspace has been thoughtful and cogent - the candidate always takes the time to explain his position and supports his arguments and reasoning credibly. Even if it turns out this candidate conducts admin functions at a rate well below average, I am certain that the quality will make up for quantity. Agent 86 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I'm new to RfA, so I'm not sure what to say here. I think the candidate has answered all the questions appropriately. YechielMan 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have seen this user being helpful, knowledgeable, and dedicated in the context of WP:MESO. Eluchil404 06:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The ammended answer in the discussion section does serve to assuage any fears that may have arison from question 1. I don't see any real reason why we can't trust good editor to become a good administrator, even when they don't state lots of needs of the tools. It's a pleasure to support. alphachimp 06:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No concerns, comes well recommended. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support. Good editor of longstanding repute. High quality edits both in mainspace and projectspace. XfD contributions show strong policy knowledge- that he hasn't been involved very recently doesn't seem like a problem, I doubt he's forgotten anything. Oh, and his answer to my question (Q4) is absolutely first rate and completely allays the fear I had when I asked it. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 08:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support not likely to abuse the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Terence Ong 12:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 12:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, we have a paucity of admins knowledgable about some of the more esoteric areas of Wikipedia, and Mr Wright seems like he wouldn't misuse the tools. Proto::► 12:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He has made many, many solid contributions to articles and has a calm demeanor when dealing with other editors, even on contentious subjects. Would make a good admin. And, not that it matters for RfA, but he has a very nice userpage. Coemgenus 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Great answers, appears to be very dedicated, sign him up. Ganfon 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tentative support, looks good, but would like to see the answer to my optional question. – Chacor 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, for all the good reasons listed above. There are other things that need admin attention beyond XfD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, you will be a great admin! Yuser31415 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support - one of the best editors I know on Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A solid Wikipedian who could really use the tools well. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Unreserved Support I know this editor from Aztec-related articles. He is a good editor and a great project coordinator. Cool and level-headed. Absolutely 100% civil. It may be true that lack of Wikipedia space edits may be indicative of lack of exposure to policy discussions but that can be learned. This is an editor that can be trusted with the admin bit. If there is an "Ignore all rules", there should also be a "Ignore all arbitrary RFA criteria when the situation calls for it". This is a situation that calls for it. --Richard 08:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per excellent response to Chacor and otherwise near-impeccable credentials. --Dweller 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Trustworthy wikipedian, excellent nominator. Xoloz 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support. Contribution history and answers to questions indicate a very responsible and excellent candidate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support - keeps the fundamentals of Wikipedia in his day to day work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Solid Support I have no problem supporting a candidate who plans to use admin tools for article cleanup and maintenance instead of user interaction. He's a great editor. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... I'm sorry, but how do you use admin tools for article cleanup? -Amarkov blahedits 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Not likely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support This user seems like a proper, expierienced editor. He has sucessful contributions by reverting. I'm in. --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support for maintaining NPOV − Twas Now 09:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. PeaceNT 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I would rather see more XfD participation if that is an area you feel you may work in as an admin, however, on the balance of things it is not enough to make me oppose. Sarah 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support contributor with more than adequate experience to make sound judgements in the use of sysop powers.--cj | talk 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support -- I share the wish for more XfD experience, but I am swayed from "oppose" to "support" based on Richard's compelling comment above. Good luck (and please participate in 10 to 20 XfDs before closing any) --A. B. (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per above :).--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Devoted editor unlikely to abuse the tools. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing admin-related work. That, plus your answer to question 1, implies that you don't actually do much like that now, but intend on branching out into it if you become an admin. I can't support a candidate like that for adminship. Just keep on doing what you're doing now; you're doing well, and you don't need admin tools to keep doing well. -Amarkov blahedits 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm with Amarkov. A browse through your last 500 contributions doesn't show a single XfD or posting on any admin board, or am I missing something? You have great work in the Meso project, and that can continue without the extra tools. --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. agree with the two above (plus use spellcheck).--Juju 05:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose no xFD experience, and lack of maintenance experience such as vandal-fighting, etc. --Arnzy (talk • contribs)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Carpet9 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason? You're not inclined to give a reason, I'm just not used to "blank" neutral votes.--Wizardman 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, good candidate but not enough XfD participation (needed if you say you want to close XfD discussions). Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending response to Chacor's thoughtful question. --Dweller 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC) !vote changed to Support, above --Dweller 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning toward oppose - I hate to oppose an editor (did I not believe that becoming an admin is no big deal, it would be oppose). But almost all of your project space contributions are to Wikiprojects, which shows that you have been involved precious little in policy discussions, and likely don't know many of the basics. -Patstuarttalk|edits 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CJLL_Wright&oldid=1146561530"