Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPxG

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

JPxG[edit]

Final: (248/2/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC) - tally amended, vote reinstated. Fram (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

JPxG (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlefolk, I have the pleasure of co-nominating JPxG, the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, who is already a rollbacker, autopatroller, mass message sender,page mover, new page reviewer, and pending changes reviewer. I have been consistently impressed by JPxG's work at WP:AFD and his careful sourcing of articles and GA/FA work. He's created hundreds of sourced articles, including many articles on islands. He's been very active on Wikipedia over the past three years. I think he would make a very good admin, and I think the community does, as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I had a Wikipedia account when I was 11, and I acted like it (said account is not sanctioned, its identity has been disclosed to arbitrator Barkeep49, and I am now 30). JPxG, HooptyBot and WegweiserBot are my only accounts; I do it for free, and have always done it for free. jp×g 08:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I think if every single person on the planet were given free access to the sum of all human knowledge, it would rule. Everything else is implementation details. The two administrative tasks I feel I can speak most authoritatively on are deletion discussions and recent changes patrol: I've commented on a few hundred AfDs, wrote the Signpost's deletion report for a few months, and done a couple myriads of anti-vandal edits. These two things are a major part of what keeps Wikipedia a reliable source of high-quality information: removing good stuff is bad, and keeping bad stuff is also bad. Doing this requires someone to have a good understanding of many policies, guidelines, essays and principles, as well as a good ability to judge consensus (even if they do not agree with all of it). It also requires you to be good at realizing when you have messed up, and promptly correct yourself and apologize for it. I may not be the wisest man in Athens but I think I can help make this website be good instead of bad.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've done a bunch of stuff here that I would consider useful: I did 1,650 articles on a WP:CCI once, I've cleaned out old maintenance categories, worked on backlog drives, taken a Featured Picture, made a couple templates, and created a bunch of articles (including 43 DYKs, 28 GAs and 1 FA). Maybe the thing I enjoy most is the little interactions I get to have with people who aren't veteran editors, who are frustrated and not making any headway with what looks to them like a vast faceless bureaucracy: BLP subjects who want their articles deleted, musicians who want the right photos to come up when someone Googles them, antique car photographers trying to prove they aren't plagiarizing their own photos, television writers who disagree with their tweets being misquoted, et cetera. Usually, people in these situations are not acting in bad faith, there's just a lot of context (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE combined are over 11,000 words); of course some people are just determined to stay mad, but oftentimes a human person explaining things in plain English can work toward a mutually agreeable solution, and we end up with one less person in the world thinking "Oh, Wikipedia? That place is a clown show." Sometimes this can get pretty stressful, like when a hundred people show up to get mad about the same thing at the same time and I have to write some big FAQ about it, but on the other hand, afterwards I guess I get interviewed by Slate, so I guess it balances out.
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 have certainly been some things that have not developed to my preference, and some things that have given me heartburn. I've created articles from redlinks that were nominated for deletion; one of these (the most-!voted-on AfD of August 2021) actually got canned. So it goes. Sometimes a RM moves an article I've written to a title I hate. So it goes. What I do in all of these cases is basically the same: I look at the information, I form an opinion, I express it as reasonably as possible, and do my best to show people the merits of my perspective. Whether I succeed or fail in any given case, the process serves its purpose. I laugh, I cry, and I move on with my life. Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact that everyone you disagree with is another human being who decided to spend their free time writing an encyclopedia. There aren't many people with this particular condition, so you're going to be running into the same ones for quite some time. If we hate each other, it slowly turns the place into a hellhole. Of course, there are some people who aren't here to build an encyclopedia, or whose conduct is so completely at odds with doing so that intervention is needed; even then, however, "getting mad online" is rarely a good intervention.

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.

Optional question from Folly Mox

4. I notice this RfA is substantially similar to its initial recension from a year ago. Has anything changed in that time that you'd like to bring up?
A: I was pretty busy then, and have become somewhat less so. At some point last week I decided to circle next Wednesday on my calendar, and told my friends to mock me relentlessly if I didn't have it submitted by then. Somehow this ended up being October 25th, the exact date of the original nomination. Frankly, for this to have been a complete coincidence stretches even my own suspension of disbelief, so I suppose either Providence has a sense of humor or I unintentionally did it on purpose. Perhaps both.

Optional question from Moneytrees

5. Do you intend on working at CCI/in copyright areas if you become an admin? My vote is not predicated on this.
A: I like to go on long walks, and these take me all over the project; I don't know if I could honestly commit myself to a specific amount of work in any area. I do hear often that the CCIers are drowning in backlog, so if I can lend a hand, it seems prudent — either going through casepages and diffs myself, or helping out with tools and scripts. I hesitate to call myself an expert in copyright policy, so anything higher-level than that may involve a lot of remedial questions on my part.

Optional question from Banks Irk

6. What in the world was going on in January 2023 that you made 15,999 edits - over 500 per day? And why stop one short of 16,000?
A: In the last few months I've embarked on a somewhat ambitious project to clean up Signpost stuff and introduce/automate some features; per {{Signpost/Number of pages}} (which I made in July), "Signpost stuff" encompasses some 12,870 pages. Running a newspaper, with its own publication scripts and template stack, on top of the English Wikipedia for nearly two decades is a quite intricate task that required the efforts of many wise people over many years — it is my own welds joining steel forged by many — but you can see what I was up to in January in the history of, for example, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-09-19/ArbCom election. Most of those 16,000 edits were me integrating a bunch of the old category system into the 2015-vintage tag system, delinking dates in bylines, and harmonizing all articles to use the same header and footer templates that give consistent formatting, emit title and author metadata, etc. This involved a lot of extremely complicated and/or cursed AWB find-replace, so I did it in a few runs, across a few thousand articles. The result, though, is that stuff like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Author was made possible (and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Author/Michael_Snow, for example, really does go all the way back to 2005). As for why it's 15,999, I can only surmise another instance of divine humor — there is probably some marginal template redirect that could be undeleted to bring it back to a round 16k, but there is also a certain perfection in imperfection.

Optional question from Espresso Addict

7. Are you open to changing your signature to make it easier for new editors to reach your talk page?
A: I try to keep it short so it doesn't get in the way of conversations or clog up the source code of pages I comment on. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' is only 49 bytes, which renders to four characters. But maybe I am due for an upgrade. Maybe I have earned some color. How about this: jp×g🗯️ 11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from EggRoll97

8. How would you approach an area that you have not worked in before, but have the technical ability through the administrative toolset to perform advanced tasks at?
A: In general, the same way I approach other things: read the documentation, read the policies, read the guidelines, and then try to talk to somebody who knows what they're doing and figure out how much of the stuff I just read was true. Something like history merging, for example, I would want to spend significant time messing around with in userspace. On the other hand, when I was given mass message sender permissions, it was sort of an emergency deputization because a Signpost issue was running late and nobody else was around to do it, so I had to figure it out pretty quickly. I did, mostly. However, in most circumstances I'd prefer (and will almost certainly have) the luxury of a little more time :^)

Optional question from EggRoll97

9. How would you, in your own words, explain copyright to a new editor?
A: In the mid-15th century, some guy in Germany invented a device which allowed us to post freely, in 1886 some guys in Switzerland created a law to allow creators of intellectual works to derive a limited term of exclusive profit from their posts. Subsequently, there have been battles between brave wizards and a powerful mouse. None of these things are necessary to understand how copyright on Wikipedia works. What I could say to a new editor to explain it to them might be something like: Wikipedia is not a "tech", nor is it a "corporation", nor is it a "big" of either of these things. It does not have investors trying to make an exit at an IPO. It is not trying to look pretty for a Series D. It is a collaborative project which seeks to shine the light of knowledge upon humanity. This is the only purpose. We are not trying to exert ownership of our content, nor to make our content safe for monetization, nor to unduly bias ourselves in favor of any company or politician or nation. Our freedom in writing and our lack of corporate control go hand in hand. The right to do what we want, to say what we want, and to tell people the truth about the world they live in without fear comes from the fact that we are not beholden to anybody, and cannot be. If we were to become fail in some way, the patriotic among us could (and should) take all we've written -- not the embers, but a full-sized flame -- and light it anew somewhere else. They're free to do this because our content is all under what's called a "copyleft" license -- to be more specific, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. What this means, essentially, is that we, the writers and editors and maintainers of this encyclopedia, use our rights under copyright law to provide for the free and unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of our copyrighted content. We give everyone in the world to read what we write, forever. But it cannot be made free to the people of the world if you do not release it to us of your own will. It cannot be under the chain of somebody else's copyright -- it cannot be taken from another website or from a book or from anything else that isn't released under a compatible license. There is much to be written about this, many volumes, for the borders of the mouse's territory are jagged and confusing, but these volumes have been written, and you can begin to traverse them here. But if something has that fearsome © All Rights Reserved, we cannot use it -- it is someone else's, and not yours, so you cannot give it to us to make it ours, which means we cannot give it to everyone. In this case, the only way to make something free is by the ingenuity of your own mind and from the industry of your own hands. It is complicated, and it is difficult, but it is the only way for us to exist. This is why, if you love freedom as I do, and you wish to shine the light of wisdom on the world as I do, you must read our copyright policy and follow it with all your heart.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

10. Can you please give one or more examples of your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia, addressing either content disputes or conduct disputes?
A: I don't have specific examples at hand and thinking about it for a while didn't bring anything to mind, so here is a bullshit non-answer. I linked to a few things in the answer to Q3; beyond that, I have given statements in a few arbitration cases, and on what have illustriously been called "teh drama boardz". I've stumbled on a good number of edit wars and resolved them (if not the whole issue, then at least the most visible part) by either proposing a solution that benefited both parties or by assisting in opening up an RfC so that a consensus could be built. Most of what I do in conflict resolution is attempt to find something that all of the people involved can agree on, or at the very least help to create the sort of enviroment that's conducive to them doing so. In situations where I am personally getting into conflict, I do my best to believe things that are true, advance my point in a way that's fair, be earnest and have some honor about it. Sometimes I end up being wrong, and it is always hard to make yourself drop a pwn, but to continue is only folly.

Optional question from Fermiboson

11. What are your feelings on the phenomenon of minority opinions being flooded with opposing comments, at RfA or elsewhere?
A: I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do a full go-off about the RfA process while I am in the middle of one, but I suppose I will be honest: it's fucking sad. While nobody has individually chosen to play the part of the villain, the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. The number, right now, is 222/1/1: but is that real? Who knows. Maybe there are some people who think I'm a complete piece of trash, and are simply choosing not to throw themselves upon the bonfire by saying so in public at a 222/1/1 RfA. I guess we'll never know: I have been given the gift of a potentially high ratio, at the price of a potentially dishonorable victory. But what else could have been done? What else were they supposed to do? The options seem to have been to do that, or to say nothing and let it stand.
On one hand, I did strongly disagree with the oppose voter's claim, and I do feel like the process benefited from the mistake being pointed out, but on the other hand, did it really warrant 7,200 bytes of response? Perhaps a better question is why we've decided that it is uncivilized to have a candidate respond directly to accusations, but it is highly civilized to have a dozen other people respond nebulously on their behalf. The circumstances behind an oppose vote, especially one based on something that happened a long time ago, are generally arcane and half-remembered even by their participants; why would bystanders be better-equipped to address them? I feel like they usually aren't, which is part of the reason people make up for quality with quantity, and we end up with giant walls of text below every oppose. I don't know how this could be formalized, but it seems to me that if you see an oppose that's so goofy you feel you absolutely must take action, it's probably better to channel your outrage into asking the candidate a somewhat open-ended question that lets them address it.

Optional two-part question from WaltCip

12. What is your interpretation of WP:MEDRS in terms of providing medical and/or biomedical information?
A: As regards the comment I made which was brought up in the "oppose" section below, the full sentence I said then was "The raison d'être of WP:MEDRS (to which this is a supplement) is to make a tradeoff between our ability to write an encyclopedia (as we prize for every other article) and the imminent risk of injury or death that results from people finding incomplete or misleading information about medical conditions, diseases, treatments, medications, et cetera". When I made the comment referred to there — on June 1, 2021 — the first two sentences of MEDRS were "Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information". There was indeed a big RfC about this later in the month, after which point said sentences were reworked. But the central point, I think, is the same: bad medical information is substantially worse than other kinds of information.
At the same time, heavy restrictions on sourcing make it much harder to write articles, so it's a tradeoff. And since it's a tradeoff that makes articles much harder to write in whatever topic area (i.e. there are going to be fewer of them), it is important to draw sensible boundaries around what does and doesn't constitute medical information. In WP:BIOMED, for example, there is a long list of things that are expressly not (i.e. business information, economics, religious and mythological beliefs, social stigma, historical treatments, et cetera). While it's natural for there to be some disagreement and confusion around the edges, e.g. is "the number of people who are prescribed a medication" biomedical information (population data) or non-biomedical information (commercial and regulatory information), I think at its core the distinction is robust and reasonable. This is not to imply somehow that death or injury are the only consequences of bad medical information, just that they are the most severe among them.
13. How does this interpretation correspond to any duty of care that Wikipedia has to its readers in providing or not providing medical advice?
A: On one hand, there's a rule that Wikipedia "does not provide medical advice". We can choose to interpret this as a mysterious sequence of runes carved into rock, that simply came into being one day apropos of nothing, or we can choose to interpret it as something that exists for a reason and is attempting to accomplish a goal. Sure, it may be for some nebulous purpose of legal liability (there is nothing about this in WP:MEDRS or WP:BIOMED or even WP:WMEDRS that I can see), but even so, legal liabilities themselves derive from a reason, i.e. why this would be bad. Laws are not just made by writing some nouns on a board, throwing a dart blindly and outlawing whatever it lands on. The reason, as I understand it (and I'm not aware of any other) is that if people read incorrect medical information online it's much worse, and much more dangerous, than if they read incorrect information about what trim options came standard on a '67 Stingray or what year the Battle of Hastings happened. Unlike most of our articles — and of course it's still bad when people get incorrect information on general topics — but on medical topics, bad information can cause them to suffer poor health, undertake dangerous treatments, fail to take action on urgent issues, or waste their money (and endanger their health) with quack nonsense. While I don't think it is reasonable or feasible to say that random CC-BY-SA text on the Internet has any kind of obligation to provide medical care — we certainly do not represent ourselves as doctors and charge people to read our articles! — and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know specifically what legal obligations we have to not say things that are false. But I think that, at least from an editorial and moral perspective, it makes sense to have a basic bright-line rule of not including medical information that we know (or ought to know) is false.

Optional two-part question from User:Smallbones

14. You were a bit unclear on the issue of whether you've ever edited for pay, saying that you "do it for free". The usual response is "I have never edited for pay and never will." I don't really want to drag you over the coals on this, but for clarity, does the quote properly answer the issue for you?
A: Hell yeah.
15. Have you ever given advice for pay about Wikipedia matters? (You know the big RfC at WP:VPP on this - we might as well get a new tradition started).
A: Hell no.


Discussion[edit]


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

Support[edit]
  1. Stephen 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Thank you for volunteering. I like the answer to question 2. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Was aware of this one stuck in development hell for a while, and did all my research back then. No concerns. And per HJ Mitchell, anyone who can stand their ground at FAC and persuade people absolutely has the right temperament to be an administrator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support - While I have not had a lot of interaction with this candidate, I have found their contributions to be intelligent and level-headed. Net positive.Onel5969 TT me 09:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support. In addition to an impressive record of content creation, being the editor-in-chief of The Signpost for more than a year speaks volumes of your dedication to the project. Very happy to support someone who knows what we're here for (e.g. free as in freedom), whose interactions with me has been nothing but positive. Keep up the great work! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support from Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Thanks for all your hard work, which is much appreciated. Schwede66 09:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: experienced editor, civil, net positive. Schminnte [talk to me] 09:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support net positive - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 09:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. No issues from where I'm looking. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. ltbdl (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. I've known JPxG for a while, and although I hardly agree with them on everything, I strongly admire their thorough responsiveness to criticism as well as their persistence and passion for contributing to the project. They would be a significant net positive as an admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support seen them around a while and don't recall them ever doing something that would warrant an oppose. AryKun (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Powder House Island/archive1 is enough on its own to gain my support. Not only did you write an FA from scratch but you were challenged quite strongly on your sourcing. You did everything you could to assuage the concerns and dig up more and better sources and comply with the FA criteria and you never showed any frustration (it's difficult not to feel it when your hard work is challenged, but we have to remember that the aim is to make the encyclopaedia better). If you apply that zen approach to adminship, you'll be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Can use tools, won't abuse tools. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. zoglophie•talk• 10:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Strong support: a solid content contributor, experienced in policy, helpful around many areas of the site and technically adept. CCI is the Aegean stables of Wikipedia and we should give anyone a mop if they're willing to go anywhere near there. JPxG has a good sense of humour and proportion that serves them well in contentious areas, whether it's articles on hot topics, The Signpost or internal discussions like XfD. Thank you for running! — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Have had positive experiences working with JPxG on Signpost technical matters. Strong support. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support - dedicated editor, knows what they're doing. No concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support — I was very positively impressed with how the JPxG defended 0xDeadbeef and their own RfA. JPxG made excellent arguments and came off as a very friendly, down-to-earth kind of person. Exactly someone I would feel comfortable with as admin. Good luck! Brat Forelli 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Easily comfortable with them having the tools. Net positive if given admin rights. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support.—Alalch E. 11:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support - seen them around and I haven't seen any problems. The response to Q2 about helping people out made me smile. SmartSE (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - thought you were already an admin to be honest Mujinga (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. SupportKurtis (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support: Exactly the sort of editor we should welcome to the role of admin. Your experience, credentials, and accomplishments all demonstrate both aptitude for and need of the mop. Good luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support happy to see this RfA happening. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. This editor is in my "I could have sworn they were already an admin" mental compartment.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. Promising editor, plenty of experience, and great contributor. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 12:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support. This is one of those rare "Well, yeah, obviously" ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support – no concerns, a net positive to the project. Edward-Woodrowtalk 12:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support, despite doubts as to whether they are old enough to use a mop responsibly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having been prompted, I now recall promoting their FAC nomination. The voting here looks to be near unanimous, but if anyone should doubt the candidate's suitability for adminship, on grounds of youthful inexperience or any other, I suggest they read it - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Powder House Island/archive1. Grace under pressure and a fine example of Wikipedianshipness. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe this is sarcasm I didn't get, but is 30 really too young for adminship? AryKun (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm guessing it's a joke. If it is not, then I will note that the sitting Arb writing this comment is close to a decade younger than JP. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Strong support. I recall only positive and productive interactions. Has a clue. Needs a mop. BD2412 T 12:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support, net positive, helpful user, let's give JPxG a go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Meets my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support No concerns, nice work on the Signpost. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support no concerns, positive impression of their work on the project. Skynxnex (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support I know people say this a lot, but I honestly thought that he was already an admin. He is certainly qualified for the mop. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support: No brainer. Although, just out of curiosity, I wonder what happened a year ago (in reference to Optional Question #1). It's me... Sallicio! 13:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support: ...well, duh. Given that the user has already demonstrated a great capability in the numerous important roles at Wikipedia, it is certain to me that they will thrive in an administrative role. No complaints, no 'wucking forries', as I like to say. Good luck. - McBuggie "Bugs" 13:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support net positive! Tails Wx 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support based on overall impression, past interactions, and a more recent (re)review. I don't always agree with everything JPxG does or says, but I feel he is ready for the tools and would be a net positive. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Strong support. JPxG is both thoughtful and competent. I thought he was already an admin; time to fix that. DFlhb (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support. Of course. ULPS (talkcontribs) 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Thought they were one already (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support, willing to tackle CCI (I ought to start helping out there myself again, but it's a slog to be sure), long-term editor with a lot of positive contributions and a clearly solid knowledge of how to do things. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Oppose, as this RfA has been overdue for a long time now. Shows a significant lack of judgement on the candidate's part - they should have known they were fully ready a long while back! In all seriousness, though - ideal candidate for the mop in my view. JavaHurricane 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    JavaHurricane, just a thought, did you mean to vote Oppose in the support section? Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Yoshi24517, I think JavaHurricane meant to support, as indicated by the rest of his comment. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support Why not. -- 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support appears to be a nice person, which IMO is way more important than any skill (that one could learn, unlike the former). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support, I genuinely thought you already were an admin. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support one of the fairest and finest editors on this project. 100k edits, much content creation, reasoned posts in drama boards, and great AfD participation. 100% A+ Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Noah, AATalk 14:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support. Sure, why not. Outstanding Move! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 14:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Strong support. Been waiting for this one. Clyde [trout needed]
    (edit conflict) Also, 2 RfAs at once? It's a October 26 miracle! Clyde [trout needed] 15:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Why not? Lightoil (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Strong support for JPxG. Outstanding editor. Didn't know you could have someone nominate you and accept a year later. SWinxy (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. WTF. A classic case of "I was sure he was one already" syndrome. Let's fix that. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Strong Support - No concern. Kind regards~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Strong support - never seen anything but beneficial edits, positive contribution, and a helpful demeanor from candidate. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support nihil obstat. I thought that JPxG was already an admin for a while. #prodraxis connect 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support No objections, and since this nomination has aged/marinated/fermented for a full year, I guess it's ripe by now. Banks Irk (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support spryde | talk 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support, no concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support, no-brainer, an instant yes. Blythwood (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support. I know how trite this rationale is, but I thought they were already an admin. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support they wrote a GA about a molecule looking like a caterpillar. That alone should suffice, but also eminently nice to work with and competent. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support No concerns, the editor is strong in many areas and seems level headed. Bruxton (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Will make good use of additional tools, from what I've seen —siroχo 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Wingwatchers (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Leijurv (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Looks great and proven in every area that I can imagine.North8000 (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Helpful editor across many different types of tasks. Good demeanor in discussions will help as a future admin. Thanks for volunteering for the mop! Loopy30 (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support In the list of users who I thought were already admins until I see their name at RFA, JPxG might be at the top of that list. Very levelheaded editor who I have seen a fair amount in different parts of enwiki and who has been helpful anywhere they have been. TartarTorte 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Skilled, helpful, experience in areas that are good training for adminship. Good temperament. Definitely a net positive. Donner60 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support. I expect a good Signpost article written about this :p –MJLTalk 18:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support My personal interactions with and past observations of JPxG convince me that they would make an excellent admin. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. (edit conflict) Strong support an RfA I've been waiting to support for over a year now. You had to transclude while I was asleep and make me support 89, didn't you? :) Vaticidalprophet 18:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support: Big fan of theirs for a while now and I'm quite pleased to see this. Even if they're not perfect off the get go, I'm confident they'll be a great asset to the admin corps. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support A stellar candidate. Glad to finally see this RfA go live. Curbon7 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support Handling of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Powder House Island/archive1 was impressive, especially for a first nomination and an article written from scratch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support as nominator. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Frostly (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Full Support. Didn't even realize they weren't an admin. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support: ya love to see it. I had something longer written out for whenever this happens, but... meh, just excited this is happening! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Strong support, it will be an honour for Wikipedia. They should have been offered the mop ages ago, no need to run an RfA. — kashmīrī TALK 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support: More admins crushing vandalism! --TylerBurden (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Does good work and varied experience. Long timer for his age. GenQuest "scribble" 19:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support No issues. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support --Minoa (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support. No concerns. RegentsPark (comment) 20:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support. Read this candidate often, and each time I just assume they're already an admin. Need dozens more like this one! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support No concerns. Ruy (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support, no issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support unreservedly. Good Q2. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - Happy to see this. Candidate was on my short list of editors I was hoping would become an admin. Tons of clue, common sense, and helpfulness. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support I think this is the third time I was surprised to see someone at RfA because I thought they were already an admin. :) – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support I already thought this user was already an admin because of their temperament and the crazy amount of content creation. Crazy to think that we have 2 RfA open and both are most likely going to succeed. Nagol0929 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support. Excellent candidate- no concerns. VickKiang (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support. Good temperament, no black marks, and a willingness to work in the trenches as well as the ivory towers. Should have applied sooner. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Andre🚐 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support solid, steady editor, like the responses and their willingness to help out further. Ravensfire (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Yes Alpha3031 (tc) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support I doubt we need 7 days for this (one). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support - The thoughtfulness and thoroughness in the standard and optional questions, along with a quality content editing history, and clear dedication to the project through The Signpost make this an increadibly easy vote. Good luck! —Sirdog (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support - I respect the candidate for his cleanup work and his many GAs/DYKs. I have seen him around quite a bit and think he would be a net positive addition to the admin corps. Though my only question is why he didn't run sooner...Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support I have always had great experiences working with JPxG. Legoktm (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support - no concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support Very experienced guy. He deserves to be admin. Mox Eden (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support I like the statement removing good stuff is bad, and keeping bad stuff is also bad. Great philosophy. Joyous! Noise! 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support: experienced editor, civil, net positive. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Support 1146 out of 1200 admin score, good candidate. ScratchyGamer314 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. JPxG is always irreverent, sometimes annoying, and occasionally massively wrong. This was once the prevailing admin archetype, and who says Gen X and Boomers should have a monopoly on it? He knows what he's doing, and I've never once seen him motivated by something other than the best interests of the project, nor seen him refuse to back down when it turned out everyone else had a different sense of those best interests. He knows how content works, and knows how the community works, which is 1 more of those 2 things than most candidates have. Support. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support – no problems here; has done good work on The Signpost. Graham87 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support Another "He wasn't yet?" candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Glad to Support Volten001 05:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. I don't really know JPxG in the mainspace, but it's been a pleasure collaborating with every editor on the SP, and judging all the answers and support rationales, I'm an unwavering supporter of this RfA. GeraldWL 05:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support can be trusted with the tools Polyamorph (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. I believe the smooth running of the signpost is enough to demonstrate competency, and I would say that they aren't going to make a complete mess with the tools (don't quote that if they do mess up please ;) ) so I Support Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Don't recall personal interactions with them but "Not a jerk, has a clue" applies.--NØ 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support, wish we had a dozen like this editor up for admin. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support - no issues, thought they were already an admin to be completely honest. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support has a clue, no concerns KylieTastic (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support have read their Signpost content, and their work there alone shows me that JpXg is sufficient as an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuxtaposedJacob (talkcontribs) 12:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support. Easy call to make, especially for a fellow JPG. JPG-GR (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support. Very competent editor who is clearly here with the intent to improve the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Suppport I mean, why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support No concerns from me. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support for the muckraker admin.  Spintendo  13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support Seems trustworthy to me. WaggersTALK 14:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support I trust JPxG with my life. — GhostRiver 14:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support No concerns. Industrious editor. – SD0001 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support – Seen the candidate around a lot, mostly top experience, even on their bad days never so below standard that it would be problematic in an admin. As others have said, should have applied sooner, will be a huge plus as an admin. Glad to see all editors agree though (that one oppose at the moment is based on a misunderstanding and so doesn't really count). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. SupportRhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Sure. I'd also like to give a heartfelt thank you for giving your all into helping keep the Signpost running. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Cant see why not. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. SupportTheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support - I see no issues with this person who has shown dedication to the project. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. I have seen the candidate around many times over the last few years, and have long thought they would make an excellent administrator. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support. Seems more than apt for the role. Sole oppose doesn't provide anything of persuasive value. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Go for it. — Fox 19:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support ResonantDistortion 19:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support, but of course, with due reluctance. The editor does much more astronomy article work and DYK editing than Plantipedia editing looking over the 500 most recent edits. Just one plant-ish article edit, I-17 Mystery Christmas Tree. Sure, all those bright lights in the sky are like, important, or something, but would it kill ya' to improve some more plant articles? (Seriously, though, thanks for applying for a mop.) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support: JPxG is a prolific editor and their dedication to Wikipedia is evidence from their hard work modernizing The Signpost. They'll be an asset to AfD! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support, with no hesitancy and with high enthusiasm. Obviously intelligent and very articulate. I've seen the candidate around, and everything has been positive. Really checks all the boxes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support. Absolutely; great candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Support I know I'm not the first person to say this, but it bears repeating: I already thought he was one. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. ja — Absolutely no concerns from me. Only positive interactions with this user. Everything I was thinking has already been stated above.  LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support. Certified to drive a forklift. Folly Mox (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support. Very good contributor, obviously very qualified for the position. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support I still remember you beating me during WP:RCP when the pandemic was bad. I was wondering if you would ever run. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. SupportKavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support Hey, those are my initials! - No concerns here. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support, very much a no-brainer. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support, trusted and reasonable person. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  176. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. It's been a long time coming. I'm glad to see JPxG finally run, and I'll gladly support. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support - pile-on remark that I'm surprised they're not already an admin. Good content work, good technical work, lots of experience with thankless and tedious tasks. Seems ideal candidate for the even more thankless and tedious tasks that become available once a mop is bestowed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support Why not? -FASTILY 08:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Easy Support working with JPxG at SignPost is a pleasure. They have a can-do mentality and no nonsense approach to bullshit while avoiding getting caught up in drama nor taking criticism personally. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support great editor that would make a great admin. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 16:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. Support I've had this page watchlisted since last year; glad to see JPxG has decided to start this nomination. I've seen them around and I have no concerns. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Support - good idea - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support - with no hesitation. A trustworthy, skilled editor with a strait-forward communication style and good disposition. Would make a great admin. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Support Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support, don't think they'll abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support - No issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support not a jerk. HouseBlastertalk 23:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support. Per review. Kierzek (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. SupportStewpot (Talkcontribs) 02:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support. As a Signpost alum, I'd like to thank you for the work you've done for the publication and I wish you the best of luck with the admin tools you'll probably be getting soon! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support no issue. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support. Competent and calm. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support Renerpho (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. Support, as a signpost reader. No red flags visible, has done good work. Do more with more tools. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. Support: I see no reason why JPxG should not have the mop, and we do need admins. He's done wonderful work. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Support. i honestly thought they were already an admin, and we need more admins. no reason why they shouldn't get it, all things considered. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Support. Seems well-qualified and I've only seen good things about the candidate. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  203. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Duh. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support. Has been quite pleasant to interact with the few times we've intersected. No concerns. Also seems to be a talented and motivated gnome. Fixing up all those Signpost pages is no small job. Finally, I get a wiki historian vibe from this editor and have enjoyed their articles on things like the history of BRFA and bots. Happy mopping! –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support I see you on AfD excessively. —darling (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. I've interacted with JPxG in meatspace a great deal, in fact I think he's still the only wikipedian who has been over to my house. I was trying to 100% Tinykin at the time, failing at some time trials, and showing JPxG some of the speedrun strats to get the best times. This is to say, I have trusted him with the buttons on my PS5, so I think he can be trusted with some encyclopedia buttons (which as we all know are comparable). In all seriousness, JPxG is a circumspect individual who is dedicated to the project, and my only concern is how long this one has incubated for (which I will rib you for later). Wug·a·po·des 05:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support I cannot find a single glaring fault that would so much as need to be weighed against a support. If there were such a thing as too clean, he'd be that. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. support would be a capable mopper Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  210. Support Terasail[✉️] 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support - I see no issues. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support Looks good. Answered questions in a satisfactory matter. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support No issues with me. Looks like someone who came back and resumed editing because of COVID lockdowns. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. SupportCrunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support Obvious choice; edit summaries are often good for a laugh ;) AviationFreak💬 18:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support Looks good. —MdsShakil (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  218. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  219. Support - liked the answer to q9 :D Frzzltalk;contribs 00:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  220. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  221. Support Chlod (say hi!) 03:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  222. Support Tolly4bolly 07:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  223. Haven't been online much lately, missed this - happy to be able to lend my support before the time is up. Girth Summit (blether) 11:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  224. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 16:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  225. Support - an excellent candidate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  226. Support A highly qualified editor, and has been doing great work with the Signpost. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 16:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  227. Support, as I've encountered JPxG around the place and have no reason to doubt that they'd make a good admin. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  228. Support Another case of "they aren't already an admin?!" ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  229. Support I thought they were admin already!
  230. Support Very trustworthy editor. -- King of ♥ 00:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  231. Support Seems clueful. gobonobo + c 00:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  232. Support Very qualified for the mop. ZsinjTalk 02:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  233. Support - trustworthy. Thanks for volunteering. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 05:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  234. Support. I like the cut of your jib. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  235. Somehow missed this one between the other two, so all i can do now is offer a redundant pile-on support. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 12:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  236. Support. An excellent editor and a credit to the project. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  237. Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  238. Support - from what I've seen of JPxG around the place they are an excellent Wikipedian, no skeletons in the cupboard and lots of good content work so it's a yes from me.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  239. Support xRozuRozu (tc) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  240. Mild support (pending answer to questions 14 and 15), despite being the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, he's ok. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  241. Support. We need more administrators now…3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 19:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  242. Support - There are a lot of good edits, and lots of user rights this user already has. Therefore, this signifies that the user can be trusted with user rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsTHEwolfTime (talkcontribs) 01:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  243. Support No reason not to. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  244. Support Qualified.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  245. Support I thought the editor-in-chief was already an admin. I don't see any reasons to not support the request. ─ The Aafī (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  246. Support Thank you for volunteering. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  247. support. my previous interactions with jpxg have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  248. Support. Fully qualified. An excellent addition. BusterD (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
(struck) oppose by Cupkake4Yoshi and followup discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose. In this diff[1] there is a long explanation offered by the candidate of Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidance, which supposes they are for staving off "imminent risk of injury or death" and so shows a misunderstanding not only of them, but of Wikipedia's legal obligation not to give medical advice. Of course, anyone can misunderstand things in the WP:PAGs, but to make that the mainspring of a forceful argument about the wider philosophy of Wikipedia (the gist of that post) is not what I look for in an admin. Maybe relatedly, in this[2] a comment (full disclosure: it's mine) is redacted as being a personal attack, yet the comment redacted is a challenge to another editor's invocation of a 'cabal' for some routine maintenance work on a supplemental page, and that original 'cabal' charge is left intact. Again, I do not want admins who are super-tough on challenges to problematic bad-faith accusations, while apparently thinking those original accusations are a-okay to stand. A third concern is this[3] diff at ANI about ivermectin and COVID-19; the aside that the government is "often untrustworthy" in this context does not inspire confidence. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding grievence one, the main subject of the comment is that the source of the virus should not play into WP:MEDRS. MEDRS itself states that as long as the fact isnt jeopardizing ones health (e.g. where the source of the subject) it does not fall under MEDRS. Can you explain where the misunderstanding is coming from? ✶Mitch199811 11:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both the nutshell and first sentence of the MEDRS guideline link to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which sets the scope, which is very much not "jeopardizing ones health". Bon courage (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not wish to discuss this in the "oppose" section, but if an optional question were given on the subject I would be happy to elaborate further. jp×g🗯️ 04:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Under the section discussing what biomedical information is, it makes no mention of the source of the disease (though it might fall into the et cetera in epidemiological statistics). However, it could just as easily fall under history or beliefs in the what biomedical information is not. ✶Mitch199811 13:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    BC, may I give you somewhat open-ended question that lets you address your concern more fully? The candidate's position was in concert with that of the portion of the community that expressed an opinion at the RfC. Notwithstanding that, the closer said both sides have valid arguments. What do you think the problem is here with the candidate as it pertains to their adminship? Aren't they supposed to be generally aligned with the community, and give cogent reasons for their positions, both of which I believe are true in the case you pointed out? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both sides may have had made valid points in that RfC (and I was on the same 'side' as the candidate), but this specific aside about the content and intent of MEDRS was so far adrift of the guideline as to cause me concern. Bon courage (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. I could have been content to sit this one out, except that the answer to Q1 is a whole lot of happy horseshit. Specifically, the statements "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" and "a reliable source of high-quality information". People just love throwing around that Jimbo quote, don't they? Reality check: for years upon years now, the "free" in free information = "you get what you pay for" across far too much of the encyclopedia. The sum of whatever detritus people have found lying around the web today within the past X number of years ≠ the sum of all human knowledge. This community has created the former and conned itself into believing that it's actually created the latter. You know, just like the subject of a rather famous work by Hans Christian Andersen. It's no surprise that the 20th anniversary optics placed all the weight on edit count instead of article count. The 20th anniversary closely followed the six-million-article milestone. I've pointed out multiple times how six million articles is absolutely nothing to brag about when placed in the context of the true breadth of human knowledge. The fact is, we have allowed there to be two different Wikipedias. Familiar topics found in a million other places on the web, and high-profile and/or controversial topics that certain editors can war over incessantly, are treated as valid encyclopedic topics which are open to collaboration. Everything else on the encyclopedia is treated as some individual editor's vanity project and open to attacks of various sort. Witness the high arrogance of throwing around the term "my article" and the use of draftspace as an anti-collaborative venue intended primarily to bury certain topics, even inherently notable ones. Too many articles in the latter category and even many articles in the former category are chock full of the worst sources imaginable, because the community has willingly confused easy sources with quality sources and encouraged newcomers to do likewise. Also, while not as vital, this RFA is almost over and the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to again request that, especially in light of there being three hours left in the RfA, people not jump in and try to beat this guy's ass on account of his oppose rationale. jp×g🗯️ 05:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Bureaucrat note: Oppose struck as the rationale is false in some parts and a rant about Wikipedia in others; less to do with the candidate as it otherwise ought to be. Acalamari 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    unstruck as the vote wasn´t " false in parts", as determined at WP:AN. Fram (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. JPxG has nominated an article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexus. I click to search for reliable sources giving them ample coverage, and easily find it. The only problem with the content of the article was easily removed. To rush to delete an article instead of fixing it, is not something anyone should do, especially not an administrator who can close AFDs. I looked over his past participations in AFD and find him a reasonable person who looks over information and thinks for himself. So I am confused about his current mistep here. Dream Focus 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be honest, I would consider it a WP:TNT situation, too. Glad that a deletion discussion mobilised an editor to work on it – this is one of reasons why we have AfD in the first place instead of simply deleting worthless articles. So I see nothing questionable about the nomination. — kashmīrī TALK 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it can be saved by a simple rewrite, then it was not a TNT situation. Serial 14:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obviously it's your call how you !vote, but if we're talking about a single questionable AfD, rather than a more persistent pattern of behaviour, then that seems harsh to me. Perfection is a big ask, of anyone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tbh, I don't really see the point of voting neutral. It's effectively just laying on your back, waving your legs in the air and crying, 'Hi! I'm over here.' Serial 16:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AfD mistakes: Editors make mistakes and to DremFocus' point here is another AfD issue. The candidate made a rather large mistake at an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cones Lake providing RS for the wrong lake. I was a lone voice in the wilderness trying to explain that JPxG was wrong. The article was kept based on their wrong research and it was sent to AfD again where it was deleted. I then wrote an article for the correct lake. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]



  • Some well established editors with similar names to JPxG: JzG, and JFG —usernamekiran (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.