Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3

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

[edit] Jtkiefer

Final (5/30/2) Ended 17:10, 2006-08-11 (UTC)

Jtkiefer (talk · contribs) – I'm Jtkiefer, I am a former administrator, and a Wikipediaholic. I was an admin for a little less for a year before giving it up due to issues both online and off I was having, during a short wikibreak I decided to continue editing under a different nick, that nick was Pegasus1138 (talk • contribs), I edited under that account for several months and even went up for adminship unsucessfully four times under that nick which were unsucessful due to my "lack of experience" as people did not know the full history. I have since abandoned that nick and have decided to continue editing under this nick and as such I requested the bit back however Jimmy Wales has stated that "it would be best to simply go through RfA again". Another issue which perusing through my history will show is that I accidentally dual voted on several RFA's during the period between the two nicks, I have privately and now apologize for that however it was a mistake which I am unfortunately unable to rectify or I would otherwise do so.

A little about my history at Wikipedia, I began here in mid 2005 and became an admin about 3-4 months in. I have not strayed away from controversy however I do my best to avoid starting it and to calm it whenever possible. I admittedly have not yet been able to get an article up to FA status despite my best efforts at articles like Megatokyo. I also had a failed run at the arbcom in the January elections which did not meet with success but definitely was a good learning and reflection experience.

I know it's a cliche statement but I think I would be a good admin (again) becaue I have a great amount of experience, I know how Wikipedia works. I proved myself time and time again that I am a trustworthy editor and a trustworthy admin and did not and would not abuse the tools or the position. If anyone has any questions for me please don't hesitate to send me an email using the email user feature or leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll reply ASAP. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous noms:

Jtkiefer:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer - failed due to my utter newness and lack of experience

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 2 - Passed

Pegasus1138:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 - Failed, lack of experience

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 2 - Failed

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 3 - Failed

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138 4 - Failed

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would help with the stuff I used to do and love doing, including closing AFD's, working on templates for deletion and categories for deletion, I would use the tools to continue vandal fighting and I would of course keep an eye always open on the request for page moves and request for admin assistance pages in case editors need help with either.

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

A: As I always say I am proud of most of my contributions, but I am especially proud of my work on Megatokyo and the attempts to get it up to featured status, as well as my work in helping resolve conflicts that pop up here and there.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, I was involved in the Muhammed image controversy, the wikethics proposal controversy and several of its offshoots most notably. I handled those by trying to remain calm and civil and talk the issues out with my fellow contributors and if I got stressed I stepped back for a little while to try to help me and to help the other participants stay cool and calm. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Optional question from Dlohcierekim. Hi, Jtkiefer. I’ve seen you around as Pegasus. Please elaborate on why you gave up adminship and changed user id’s. What has changed since then? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)<

A:

5. Can you offer an explanation as to why you opposed your own RfA and why you requested bureaucratship at the same time you requested adminship on Pegasus1138, in March? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A:

6 If your most recent RfA with Pegasus1138, just a couple of weeks ago, had been successful, would it have affected your decision to return to your original account? Also if you were an admin with the Pegasus account: what would you have done differently, and what additional steps do you think you would have taken before switching accounts? -- Rje 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A:

7 Are there any other user names, other than Pegasus1138, under which you have edited Wikipedia? Kelly Martin (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A:

Comments

• Comment Looking forward to Crat early closure. To quote Joseph_Conrad, “The horror." :) Dlohcierekim 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• See Jtkiefer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See list of desysopped admins requesting adminship. Could someone update that page for this complicated case, I have to return to my wikibreak :). NoSeptember
  • Done (enjoy your wikibreak :)) --james^(talk) 11:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support per nom. Kimchi.sg 09:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support good to see a couple of ex-admins asking for their bits back. --james^(talk) 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   heard on the grapevine that there was a bit of a backlog here and there and several of which are in areas that I used to heavily tread back when I was an admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   You heard right :) --james^(talk) 11:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Support, no reason to say no, I think. Kalani ^[talk] 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Support pending learning something I don't know now. I opposed last time based on "not quite there yet". I guess you've been there and back already. The recent incivility does trouble me; I'm leaping out on faith that you've left the past in the past. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Vote stricken after learning things I could have never imaginined. :) Dlohcierekim 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Whoa. That's a shock. Support per Pegasus RFA3. (I would prefer if you remained civil more often, though.) Chacor (formerly NSLE) 11:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Whoa. That's another shock. Sorry, I think the recent revelations have made me seriously reconsider my vote. Chacor (formerly NSLE) 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Support, very shocking news to me. Nevertheless, you are a great user. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Per several things, for example especially this edit summary. --Ligulem 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Normally I don't respond to most opposes but this one I feel I need to clarify, I was in a very bad place at the time and me and JDG were having huge issues which I deeply regret, but that was a very long time ago and I feel that it would be unfair to hold that one edit summary which I admit was a huge mistake which unfortunately can never be undone. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Well, it was on April 11, 2006. I'm sorry to oppose here, but I would find it rather unfair given the current admin standards here. Please note that this is in no way anything personal against you. Your regret is well noted, and I hope you continue to be a good contributor, but I think your RFA is at least too early. We have a lot of admins on this site already. Other Wikipedians also have to learn to accept not being an admin. Adminship is not a trophy and not needed for a lot of tasks on wikipedia. --Ligulem 09:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Sorry, but no. I am extremely uncomfortable not just with the fact that this is technically your sixth RfA and failed 5 RfBs in total, but more of that the processes and statements in the course of all these has really cast doubt to me about your sincerity towards the community. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   • Strongly suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per number 1. I know there's nothing you can do to take back mistakes on a system that saves every edit, but April was not really a "very long time ago". It's good to know you regret that, but I've opposed for far less incivility than telling other editors to die... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose I don't really believe this story, to begin with. You opposed your own RfA? And you ran for adminship on Pegasus while you were running for bureaucratship on this account (in March 2006). That doesn't seem right... But if I were to believe you, you'd have three RfAs (albeit one successful) on this account, five RfBs on this account, and four RfAs on Pegasus. You made a rallying exit from Pegasus, and it's very obvious that the first thing you did upon restarting this account was request adminship. This is entirely too strange for me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   ...although I'm not sure why anyone, especially a former admin, would make this up. This just doesn't seem right. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per joturner. This just makes me extremely uncomfortable - sorry. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment followed by stunned silence- Opposed own RfA?!? Well, this certainly qualifies as learning something I didn't know. Waiting for the dust to settle before I sweep my support vote down into the dust whence it came. :) Dlohcierekim 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose joturner highlights one of the interactions in the opposing of the rfa, there are the both voting in rfa's which are mentioned by Jtkiefer which appear a few days apart so could easily be a genuine mistake. However we also have this edit somewhat ironically on Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics with Jtkiefer discussing a 3RR issue, one of the participants from a few lines up is User:Pegasus1138, a few minutes before he had notified himself of his intention not to block himself for the 3RR. He also lends User:Pegasus1138 support on a bot approval here. --pgk^(talk) 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   So he knowingly broke 3RR, and then acted both as judge and part in the same matter, and deceived everyone by posting a phony message to himself forgiving the breach?? This gets more and more saddening by the minute... :( Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose unfortunately. Something just feels creepy too me; Am I correct, is your seventh RfA?! This is totally unacceptable - but this just freaks my out. Sorry - Glen 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. Republitarian 14:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose No way, everything that has been brought up shocks me. This is your seventh attempt, YOU VOTED AGAINST YOUSELF, and that edit summary from April--definitely not admin qualities. Why did you oppose your own rfa? I cannot figure that out. Wikipediarules2221 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose — My reasons are personal, and prefer not to disclose them to the general public. I'm sure Jtkiefer can figure them out if he tries hard enough to remember. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose I'm sorry, but the way you reacted to the failure of your last RfA didn't impress me. I would have been prepared to overlook that, but the behavior listed above is unacceptable. Voting against your own RfA is simply bizarre and is not what I'd expect from a reliable, open, trustworthy admin. Unless you have a very good explanation for this and other cited behavior, I cannot support you having the admin bit. Gwernol 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, indefinitely. Having read this page, I'm nothing short of appalled. I no longer have any faith in this user. —freak(talk) 15:28, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, voting in own RfA demonstrates either malicious intent or serious lack of judgement, either of which disqualify you for the sysop bit. Eluchil404 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    There are other possibilites I shudder to think of. :) Dlohcierekim 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    We don't count votes from anonymous IPs. Please log in to vote! Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Opppose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Categorical oppose, this is the very definition of sockpuppet abuse. I suggest taking this to WP:AN/I and handing out some long blocks here. Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose I supported the latter three Pegasus requests but of course can't support this one, per, to name three, Mailer, Joturner, and Phaedriel, and inasmuch as, as Pegasus, he tagged his talk page with {{db-owner}}, from which one can infer either a nonconversance with policy or a profound lack of judgment; neither quality is particularly auspicious in a prospective admin. Joe 15:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Please spare me the explanation, in fact. This is too much to digest and forgive like nothing had happened. I'm utterly disappointed and saddened by all this. What a shock. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This editor has doublevoted on three RfAs (including one of his own). He abused my trust by extracting my promise not to reveal his sockpuppet, then running for admin with his sock while remaining an admin on his previous account. His behavior at Wikimania did a great deal to further convince me that this is not the sort of person who should be an admin on this or any other Wikimedia project. Perhaps after some time has passed and Jtkiefer has had a chance to develop more personal maturity, we can reconsider his role in this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm confused why you wouldn't tell him that breah of trust invalidated the promise, or at least tell him in blunt terms he needed to withdraw the double and thus fraudulent RfA? How could you let someone you knew was already an admin do that? - Taxman ^Talk 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    I did in fact discuss it with him and tried to convince him to withdraw the RfA. He refused, and attempted to pressure me (based on my promise) not to reveal his actions to the Arbitration Committee. I told him at the time that there was no way that I could sit by and do nothing, and he grudgingly allowed me to discuss the situation with Jimmy Wales. (I had already discussed it with the one other person I knew he had shared his secret with, and we were in concurrence that we could not do nothing.) Shortly after I contacted Jimmy, Jtkiefer "voluntarily" resigned his adminship. I consider my promise to him voided by his conduct, and furthermore consider him unworthy of any level of trust. It will be a long time before I consider extending trust of any sort to him again. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    Wow. I thought there was indeed no way this could be true; I didn't want this to be true. But apparently you have confirmed it, Kelly. I'm at a lost for words; I have never seen something so disheartening in my time here at Wikipedia. I sure hope other users don't get the wrong impression about all admins because of this. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

20. oppose The reactions of Pegasus1138 (talk · contribs) at the end of the fourth RfA attempt was just too much melodrama. i could get diffs if people can't find them. Adminships is not a right, and should not be a reward for longevity. It is a role for those that stear the project in the right direction. Given the recent outbursts i do not trust the user. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. This is all too weird. Themindset 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Very Strong Oppose. Based on the RfA nom., as well as my own history with user (see his RfBs), I believe user is not trustworthy. That's about as kindly as I can put it. Xoloz 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose - sets a bad precedent. bd2412 T 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I am stunned and appalled. I used to have considerable respect for Jtkiefer, but now I don't know what to think. Sad day. Dragons flight 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
25. For what it's worth now, oppose. Chacor 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Holy $#*%! Giving up one's adminship and then taking on a new identity to request adminship (without much behavioral change and actually making "mock" communications & votes between the two accounts) overwhelms me so much that I'm struggling to find the right word(s) to describe this ordeal. Editor88 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose Explanation needed? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. It appears User:Thygard is also another Jtkiefer sock. See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates where he apparently forgot which account he used to close an FPC nomination. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong strong oppose See his fublings over at Featured Picture cantidates here, I don't think he or his sockpuppets know what a consensus is. -Ravedave 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. Changed from Neutral below per continuing revelations of abusive sockpuppetry. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:08, 11 August '06}

Neutral

1. Neutral I am utterly confused. Didn't you just run for adminship [1]? -- Samir धर्म 09:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   I did go up for adminship before on that account however that was before being convinced at Wikimania to return to this account permanently and leave that account permanently. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   In which case, I strongly suggest withdrawal of this nomination -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   If you mean due to the percieved arbitrary time between noms that many people ask for I think that most people would be willing to waive that considering the circumstances. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Arbitrary time between noms? You announce a second identity on RfA and ask for adminship 2 weeks after your other ID failed. The circumstances make absolutely no sense. Again, suggest withdrawal -- Samir धर्म 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry but I am unconvinced - let me explain: As soon as you (Jtkiefer) left Wikipedia, you gave Pegasus1138 access in #vandalism-en-wp (may have been #wikipedia-en-vandalism at the time), against channel policy and without discussing with other staffers, insisting "he won't be bad", or words to the same effect. This, to me, appeared like slight abuse of the trust you had been given by Essjay, in having the ability to confirm users into the channel. Now I know this was an off-wiki event, but it is wiki-related, and it makes me unsure about a further abuse of power (I'm not saying you will, but I am saying it's happened once, which makes me uneasy). I may change to support depending on if/how you decide to respond to my concerns. Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:36, 11 August '06}

   Changed to oppose. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:08, 11 August '06}

2. Neutral leaning towards oppose - I understand that on and off wiki stress and issues hit us all, and I also understand the draw to come back even when we've left (I did a fair bit o browsing during my last wikibreak). I'm uncomfortable enough with the deception of using the pegasus account that despite my good recollections of you as an admin I don't feel I can support this RFA at this time. I'm going to think on it for a day or two though. Syrthiss 12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   Shocked neutral. Dear Jt, I have a very positive image of your time as an admin, and know that your name has been at my missed Wikipedians list for months; but I'm stunned to learn this. A clarification of the issues brought here by Joturner and Pgk would be most welcome. Please notice that I'm not opposing (yet), but waiting for an explanation. Changed to oppose. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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