Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JP06035 2

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

JP06035[edit]

Final (0/14/5); Withdrawn by candidate 22 January 2007 21:19 UTC

JP06035 (talk · contribs) - Hello there, I'm Jared (aka JP06035). I had previously nominated myself for adminship here in March of last year. Since then, I have accumulated more edits and gained a much stronger hold of wiki policy. As well, I have plenty more experience in all namespaces. Being am admin would allow me to get more involved in the closing process of XfDs, to which I occasionally contribute, and allow me to sift out some of the vandalism that wikipedia gets way too much of! I also recognize that my being an admin is not just for my benefits and uses to do things I see fit, but also to help out others in need of help who wouldn't have the same capabilities as I would. I would frequent WP:AN and its subpages so I can better help the wiki community. → JARED (t)  13:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, but: → JARED (t)  13:12, 21 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 participants:

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: I have no set intentions if I become an admin. Rather, I plan to use my adminship where it's needed in a more general sense. I would probably help out with speedy deletions and XfD closings. In addition, as said above, I would go to WP:AN and its more specific pages to look for problems other users are having and take care of those. As far as the backlogs, they would definitely be something I would tackle on a regular basis.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Since I've joined, I've been particularly fond of the Olympic Games and thus found myself filling gaps in that niche of Wikipedia. Having been a member of WP:OLYMPICS for almost the same time I've been a user, I've definitely contributed a lot to specific pages on under its jurisdiction (see 2008 Summer Olympics for the most prevalent). More importantly, though, I believe that my fellow wikipedians and I have made great strides on the talk page of the WikiProject when it comes to the general structure of the pages (i.e. the way the pages/subpages look like and the naming schemes of the events). Besides the Olympics, though, I have come out to create such pages as Connecticut Route 20, Connecticut Academic Performance Test, Will Shade.
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: With people having strong one-sided opinions roaming around Wikipedia (which could be all of us at some point!), it is difficult to stay out of conflicts. Regardless, I never get stressed because I know it is part of life! Sometimes, people will differ from you and you just have to know how to deal with it. It may have been only 1 or 2 times that I escalated the conflict because I was so irritated with the other person, but it would have only been because of outside issues; I am generally a peaceful person! Usually the best thing to do is apologize, even if you know it wasn't your fault (see Talk:Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident#POV Check). Usually, as in this case, the other person will also apologize and escalation of the conflict will cease. In the future, I will probably deal with things the same way because I don't want to have to block any users or refer them anywhere; I think that if you can peacefully stop a problem, it's the best way to go.

Optional Question from Asics (talk · contribs)

4. During your first six months on wikipedia, excluding first month which as for most wikipedians is less than any other, you achieved on average 613 edits a month, quite an impressive amount. However, the last six months saw an incredible drop in average edits per month, reaching only 174 edits per month, meaning probably only around 66 edits were in the mainspace. Why did it drop so much, did you simply lose interest after failing this process before, as that was when the decline was?
A: Oh of course not! I'm still editing now, right?! Seriously, though, I think the problem was that I had other things going on, like school work I needed to focus on, etc. Please know that I have other things to worry about in life, especially school! Wikipedia is not my first priority by any means, but I am doing it for the good of the community and I would like to have the extra tools so that I can help others when I have the time. → JARED (t)  15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions by Sandstein

See talk

General comments


  • NOTE: In light of the absurd amount of oppose votes in the AfD, I hereby withdraw my candidacy. For the sake of not getting into arguments, I do not want anyone to respond to the following comments:
An admin should not have to have any specific needs for the tools that one would have. If a user has enough experience, then he or she should be qualified to get them, and whether they use them or not should be up to them. The fact that I have not listed "legitimate" reasons for wanting the tools is not a valid reason to oppose.
In regards to the edit conflict (if that's what you want to call them) I got in, I think that I have a right to my own opinion on things, and if an administrator on WP cannot exclaim their opinion, then this project is going nowhere. Just because someone wants to speak their mind doesn't mean that they are automatically ineligible to become an admin.
I thank everyone who gave legitimate oppose or neutral votes for speaking their mind, but if all you said was one of the above, that does nothing to help me on my road to adminship. If anyone has anything specific they would like to say to me regarding this, please kindly address it to me on my talk page. Thank you, everyone. → JARED (t)  21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose - fails my criteria, hardly any contributions to mainspace recently: [1] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose, don't need admins like this, especially not if you can't understand WP:NOT a crystal ball. – Chacor 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoted from the page: "...I'd just hope that those people...understand where I'm coming from and maybe take this into consideration next time you come into a predicament on this realm of Wikipedia." -Jared. As well, see my answer to general question #3. 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - The candidate has almost 5,000 edits, but very few of those are in areas that require admin action. I don't see that Jared needs admin tools at this point. Jeffpw 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I remain unconvinced that the tools are useful to you and that you understand policy at anything like the expected level. In reply to my request on the talk page to provide diffs indicating your understanding of policy, you provided diffs that are distinguished by not citing one single policy; in fact they are mostly WP:ILIKEIT-type XfD contributions. Finally, although it may sound petty, a six-line signature is close to being disruptive, as far as I'm concerned. Sandstein 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose In your nom you say that you realise that "being an admin is not just for your benefit....". It's not meant to be even slightly for your benefit, it is expected to be for the benefit of the project. ONLY. I cannot do other than oppose if you see a personal advantage in being an admin.--Anthony.bradbury 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you misconstrued my statement, but what I mean by "my benefit" is those things that I choose to do for WP personally (e.g. closing debates, reverting vandalism). The things that I do at others' requests would therefore be I would have never said that it would personally benefit me. Thank you for pointing out my error. Please note the change in the intro. Again I repeat that in no way do I think that being an admin equates to a personal gain. → JARED (t)  17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Protocol dictates that when you change your words, you strike them out rather than overwriting them; yet another thing I'd expect an administrator to know. Sandstein 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, Jared did indicate in his post above that he had changed the wording, but your point is well taken. Jeffpw 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm not an administrator, am I? Haha. The thing about being an admin, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you learn to be one as you go along. Sure you can have good credentials to be promoted, but certainly you won't know everything. It's like getting your permit for driving: you know the techniques of driving, the rules of driving, the etiquette of driving, etc. so that you can get you're permit, but you don't learn your own skills and techniques for real-life situations until you're actually on the road. I see similarities between this and becoming an admin, but, again, it's just one person's opinion. If you don't believe I have what it takes, I respect what you think. ☺ → JARED (t)  17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin is much more like a drivers license. That you have to seriously injure someone to lose. With a permit, you get all sorts of restrictions so you don't hurt anyone while you learn, and many things can get it revoked. With adminship, you get all of it, with no restrictions, and you have to seriously mess up to lose it. Besides, you can learn how to deal with real admin situations before becoming one, unlike with driving, so there's no reason we shouldn't make sure you can. -Amark moo! 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per lack of "recent" activity (under 1000 edits in 5 months? sorry, but no).--Wizardman 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose- Per comments above--SUIT42 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to a lack of recent edits, and per other reasons stated above. Hello32020 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. No credible reason given for wanting the tools (occasional xFD closure is hardly a compelling reason); lack of recent activity (we don't need more inactive admins); and several credible questions raised over understanding of policy, adds up to an oppose from me. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above; need lots of activity in admin-related tasks, including XfD closure, comments on WP:AIV/WP:ANI/WP:AN, and RC patrolling. Yuser31415 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Yuser31415. Carpet9 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose hate to pile on, but in addition to the above comments, please please please simplify your sig. Opabinia regalis 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose - some gaps in knowledge in policy. Not too comfortable about supporting yet. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose not experienced enough. User makes mistakes you wouldn't expect from an admin candidate. I suggest withdrawal. ← ANAS Talk? 12:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral for now; please reply to the questions I've posted to the RfA talk page. Sandstein 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see above. Sandstein 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral-Charcor made a good point, but everything else seems okay, which is why I can't oppose you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs).
  2. Neutral reasonable contributions but I can't really see a need for the tools. The Rambling Man 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Upon first glance I was ready to support, but then I took a look at the opposing votes. Know, for me that's not enough to really sway my vote, neither is your drop in edit count (I understand real life tends to hurt edit counts), however your answers leave much to be desired. All of this together has left me indifferent. Sorry. Ganfon 15:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I believe that although this user has a great deal of edits, not a high percentage are in the mainspace. However, I believe in only a few months of continuous editing, the user could be ready to be nominated again. However, if school work is still in the way, I suggest forgetting completly about any nominations until all exams are complete. This user seems to work hard, that is partly why my vote is not oppose. AsicsTalk 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral as I believe a little more experience is in order before twiddling the bit. Please come back in 2-3 months and I may support at that time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:10, 21 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/JP06035_2&oldid=1079937858"