Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn

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.

ronjohn[edit]

Final (0/23/0); ended 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW —Tom Morris (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

ronjohn (talk · contribs) – Many years of Wikipedia page page creations and edits. Wikipedia financial donor Ron John (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Deletion request, vandalism discussions/request
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: During the 2008 campaign I added information regarding Senator John McCain's vote against the Martin Luther King federal holiday and I think this help inform voters. I created the Upromise page which educated people who visited the page on the company since it's advertised everywhere. I created the following notable pages: The Affair (1995 film) article, Media Take Out, and Rhonda Cornum.
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: Yes and I've allowed administrators to make decisions and followed Wikipedia guidelines
Additional question from Bwilkins
4. Please explain how you meet the requirements listed in WP:GRFA, specifically:
  • strong edit history and varied experience
  • positive user interactions
  • observing consensus
  • a clean block log
A:
Additional question from Bwilkins
5. Please explain how you have been able to avoid the issues in WP:GRFA, specifically:
  • Intransigence
  • Long gaps in editing
  • Incivility
A:


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Please note that I have closed this per WP:NOTNOW earlier. I have reversed this closure. Bmusician 09:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also: the editor has requested this remain open. Please do not close as WP:NOTNOW, no matter the obviousness of the outcome. Perhaps the editor will use this as their "editor review" at the same time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose adminship, support a block for this user. Has a complete disregard for our BLP policy, adds "citation needed" tags to "facts" he inserts himself, starts edit wars, logs out to continue the edit war anonymously, transcludes his RfA inside someone else's RfA instead of following the directions, isn't interested in listening to good-faith advice from people who tried to dissuade him from requesting adminship, and posts things like this, repeatedly. 28bytes (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BLP issues aside, having under 2500 edits is basically an automatic fail. Candidate did not understand why it was not a good idea to run for adminship, even with BLP issues aside.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose. As well as the problems outlined above they've also introduced copyvios, e.g. Taxation in the Bahamas of [1] (admins only as I've just G12'd it) and Cocaine Cowboys 2 of [2] which I've just started to deal with. I suspect there may be more and a CCI may turn out to be needed (although thankfully quite small if it is). Dpmuk (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this should be closed and Ronjohn at least warned, if not blocked, in view of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose and support a competence block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, forget adminship, This user needs a block as far as I'm concerned. For starters there is edit warring and sockpuppeting going back over 3 years to restore a blp violation, [3], copyright violations, [4], then there are personal attacks:[5], a complete misunderstanding of how sourcing works, [6], his inability to actually file this rfa [7], [8], [9] and the fact he ignored the advice of multiple experienced editors in running, instead choosing to take that advice as an insult: [10], [11], [12].--Jac16888 Talk 09:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not a chance. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose and support a block per Jac16888 Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oh god no. I'm sorry, you don't have what it takes to be an admin yet.Please try again a year from now.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Less than 1,000 edits over four years, inconsistent editing, two logged blocks (3RR and disruptive editing), incivility, lack of experience in administrative areas of WP... this would be enough to put me off. The interaction with those attempting to advise him about this RFA does not inspire confidence that Ron would be able to judge consensus.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to see you again here Catfish.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 10:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "Stop providing me your opinions please". Not an attitude I want to see in an admin. Amalthea 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose. I had previously closed this RfA per WP:NOTNOW but undid my closure per the user's request. This user is completely unqualified to be an administrator, per his overreactions to the helpful advice he has been getting. He also has a long history of disruption – BLP violations, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and copyright violations. He has also been blocked twice for edit-warring and for re-creating a spam page thrice. The immature overreactions with users trying to give him advice about this RfA clearly shows that he is nowhere near ready for the tools yet. To conclude, I strongly oppose adminship, but I strongly support an indefinite block for a long history of disruption. Bmusician 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose clearly unfit. Agathoclea (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strongest possible oppose Besides no desire to improve, a general snotty attitude, an utter inability to follow simple directions for even submitting an RFA, not only is this candidate not even marginally qualified to be an administrator, based on their contributions I'm not even sure they are a net-positive to the project at this time. Both Wikipedia and Adminship have learning curves - but in order to learn, one has to actually have a desire to learn from others. Apparently however, this editor knows everything, and does not need/desire to listen to at least 3 respected (or respectable?) editors/admins when it comes to this RFA alone. Being a "financial donor" does not give special privileges, and it's offensive to see that as a supposed "qualification" for the job. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose and annoyed at this waste of time. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose(edit conflict × 3) Not fit enough to be a admin. Attitude, edit count and experience does matter. Question 5 Answer Point 3; is that an answer.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Serious issues regarding general competence, personal attacks, aggressive attitude, edit-warring, AGF failure, BLP violations, copyvio, IDHT... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Clearly not ready yet. Everyone makes mistakes, but everyone should listen to good advice and make use of it. Edit count is not high, but I see no evidence of work in admin-related areas, and can see no sign of any actual need for the tools. When an understanding of the policies is shown, and evidence of work and/or participation in places like CSD, AfD, the noticeboards, RfA and such, then might be the time for a retry. As of right now, no. Peridon (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose - User lists a violation of WP:UNDUE (and a WP:POV violation, as well) as his strongest contributions. Achowat (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose"Admins dole out Justice. Not sure this editor would be "across-the-board just" based on previous actions. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose not enough experience with admin related portions of Wikipedia for me to consider a support, my apologies. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —SW— confabulate 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Any number of reasons already listed. I was especially put out by this comment, which just goes to show how little he knows about how things work. Not ready to be an Admin at all. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose not good enough as an editor, let alone an editor. I think this should be re-closed per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. GiantSnowman 14:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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/ronjohn&oldid=1140259064"