Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SJK

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.

SJK[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (7/11/6); Closed as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW by — Coffee // have a cup // ark // at 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

SJK (talk · contribs) – I have been a contributor to Wikipedia since 2001. I hope that given my experience I might make a good admin. SJK (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would be interested in contributing, when I have the time, to administrative tasks like responding to WP:RFP, closing XFDs, responding to obvious vandalism, etc. I don't see being an administrator as being a major change from my current involvement. I see administrative involvement as orthogonal to editing articles -- myself I feel it is best to keep one's editing and one's administrative actions separate, to avoid the reality of (or even appearance of) conflicts of interest.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm really not sure. I have a lot of edits to my name, I'm not sure I could point to one in particular. Sometimes the best feeling comes not from making major contributions of content, but just from cleaning up things that are clearly uncited, or badly formatted, or so on.
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, I suppose the best thing to do is to try to involve other editors that have been previously uninvolved -- not in a campaigning way, but rather with the hope that other editors will rationally come to the same conclusion as I have, and I suppose what goes along to that is a readiness to give way when the consensus turns out to be against you.
Additional optional questions about xfDs from Phantomsteve
4. Could you please answer the following questions related to xfDs:
a. In an xfD, what would cause you to ignore or discount !votes?
A:
b. Could you explain in your own words how you would judge the consensus in an xfD?
A:
c. Under which conditions would you close an AfD before the 7 days have elapsed?
A:
d. In which cirumstances would you relist an AfD for another week to allow concensus to be reached?
A:
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
5. List several reasons why a file should be deleted.
A:
Additional optional questions from Mkativerata
6. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion tags: [1] and [2]? Note: I don't really care about the answer (reasonable minds may differ); just the reasoning behind it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional optional question from Mike Cline
7. Which of the following do you believe is the most important role of a Wikipedia admin and Why?
a. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are deleted
b. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are, when at all possible, improved until they do.
c. Mentoring new and established editors by helping them understand policies and guidelines in a way that allows them to write better articles and improve the encyclopedia
d. Fighting vandalism by blocking persistent vandals and IP addresses.
A:


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SJK before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Extremely longterm user, clean block log and diverse editing. Edit count is on the low side, but doesn't seem to have prevented the candidate from demonstrating clue and understanding of the wiki. However I would recommend issuing warnings to more of the vandals who you revert - aside from any deterrent effect it brings their subsequent edits to the attention of the hugglers. ϢereSpielChequers 12:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support: Longterm user, clean block log. Only issue is edit count which should be rectified before next RfA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support this isn't supposed to be that big of a deal; based on a link posted on WT:RFA recently, if this candidate had asked for the sysop flag back in 2002, I think he'd have been given it and no one would have noticed. So, support, even if it's almost moral the way this RfA is trending. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about this too, the editor was around when they were practically handing out sysop bits to anyone who asked. They probably would be an admin today if they'd asked back then. But, the encyclopedia has grown and changed since then. I don't think that RfA has a grandfather clause, nor should it. -- Atama頭 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Despite my impulse to oppose due to edit count, my sense is that this user will not abuse/misuse the tools. In any event, you might find User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA usefull. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate makes reasonable arguments in AfDs and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yes, recent activity may be down a bit, but that doesn't mean that the user won't make a good admin. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support User was around early, has clue, and answered questions well. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Regretful Oppose, my apologies, but your recent activity is very low, and have very few edits to the project space. Even in the long term your edit count is a little on the low side, and whilst that isn't a big deal, having a low edit count in both the short and long term makes it rather difficult to analyse experience. My recommendation would be to put a few solid months of work to both the article and project space to show and gain further experience. Best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. SJK provides a variety of helpful, albeit relatively minor, contributions in various areas, most obviously religious articles. However I don't see any consistency towards specific article building. This is particularly poignant in SJK's disappointing answer to question 2. From the answer to question 1, SJK is interested in closing XFDs. SJK contributed to a series of AFDs in September 2008. Since then, SJK has only contributed to four XFDs: 1, 2, 3, & 4. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Would like to see a bit more experience overall, and in particular in content quality work, as well as other areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I try to avoid editcountitis, and there are circumstances in which I'd support an editor with fewer than 3,000 edits. But there should be something really compelling, and there's nothing to compel me, unfortunately. Rather than go down a list of issues, I'd rather just offer some advice. Get involved in AfDs a bit more, try to demonstrate some good arguments in deletion discussions using policies and guidelines. Pick one or two articles (or create one) and try to build it up to at least a decent, sourced stub (or bring an article past being a stub). Find some area of Wikipedia space where you feel comfortable helping out other editors, perhaps one of the noticeboards, or informal mediation, or the reference desk. Doing so will not only show that you are good at helping others, but may show how you can handle disputes and your communication skills. After putting in some effort in that way I think people will be more willing to support you. Good luck! -- Atama頭 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, regretfully. I wish you hadn't started this RfA, and would recommend you withdraw it ASAP so it has minimal impact on your next, hopefully successful, one. Tan | 39 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I was going to list my reasons and some advice, but it would look a lot like Atama's post, so I'll just say per Atama.--SPhilbrickT 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Long term user perhaps, but I don't see a whole lot of general experience. I echo Tan's statement above. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Serious concerns with experience and policy knowledge. Longtime editor sure, but 0 edits during the three year stretch from '02-'05, and then the occasional editing which maxes out at ~20 edits a month per most months doesn't cut it. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, more experience required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: way too inexperienced. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose:Very little experience.--mono (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. neutralspeedy delete nominations seemed to have peaked around 2008, and there have been few since, also the upload log is blank, could some uploads have happened om commons> Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. Torn between supporting a candidate who I think is unlikely to cause any problems, and opposing because of lack of experience. I'd really like to see substantially more recent XfD work in particular, but answers to the optional questions (and any feedback on points raised so far) might well sway me - I'll hold off my final !vote for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. The candidate looks promising, but the edit count is too low. I would like to see a little more experience in order to get my support. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Am inclined to support due to apparent constructive long-term record of editing, but in the absence of much recent experience in admin areas (particularly CSD and XfD) I need more evidence of policy understanding and clue in those policy areas. Hence my question.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral lots of activity in XfDs, but very little in RfPPs. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Too few recent edits for me to support whatever the answers to the questions may be. However, after a quick look over a few of this user's edits I am not inclined to oppose either. Polargeo (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2010 (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/SJK&oldid=1144601081"