Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JForget

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

[edit] JForget

Final (9/14/10); Ended Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:16:30 (UTC)

JForget (talk • contribs) I have contributed to Wikipedia for about a year with over 10,000 edits and 100 created articles since my start especially on local articles, weather events, Quebec politicians, etc. I am a member of the WikiProject Ottawa. After being more familiar with Wikipedia, I have started to help on by cleaning vandalism, warning and reporting IP users and requesting page protection/un-protection. I have started to think about being an admin about a few months ago but decided to wait until I have a high-edit count before giving my nomination. I will especially concentrate on vandalism as it was the case before my nomination.JForget 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

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 will particularly concentrate on reverting vandalism, but I could also block users and protect/un-protect pages as well as deleting un-notable pages.

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

A: The recent February 2007 North America winter storm article that I have started and made major contributions. While being, a good article candidate, this is the article with the highest rank (tied with the Stéphanie Lapointe article) and was also on the main page as in the top headline news. Another article that I have made major contributions, the January 2007 North American ice storm article, was also on the main page.

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: I haven't been involved into major and long conflicts - they were generally brief with anon users.

General comments

• See JForget's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support I am able to trust this user with the extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, per experiance. Has over 10,000 edits. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I trust this user with the extra tools; I recognize him from WikiProject Ottawa {he is a regular contributor). I looked over the contributions, and I feel he and the community merits him having the extra tools. The Evil Clown 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Looks like a great contributor. Unless someone finds something that suggests future abuse by this editor, I see no reason to oppose. The user's vandal-fighting is tempered by an understanding of article-writing. The user's large number of reverts throw normal ratios out of proportion, but this shows precisely why it makes no sense to formally weigh candidates based on more-or-less arbitrary norms of editing. Wikipedia space is low, but user seems to have some experience in page protection, and that's good enough reason for the tools—dovetails more nicely with vandal fighting than sometimes supposed. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Very Very Strong Support Seems to be a fantastic editor. To the people who say he does not need the tools what about vandal fighting tools? And as for Vandal fighting not being everything that is true it is not the most important thing that is article writing/ rewriting/ adding to articles, but anti-vandalism is also a crucial task. Will make a great admin.--St.daniel 14:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Support good edit history sustained over a period of time with good percentage of summaries for major edits. I would trust this editor to be an admin. In my experience how you use the tools will evolve once you get them.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Very Experienced..--Cometstyles 14:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Support, go for it. Ruralendeed 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Vandal-only account. – Chacor 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

   Why do you say that it is a vandal account?--Cometstyles 05:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

   Learn to check their contribs before asking obvious questions. This user has been indefinitely blocked. – Chacor 07:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Support per AfD criteria set forth on my user page. Edivorce 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You look like a good contributer to the encyclopedia, but I don't know why you want to be an admin. You don't need the tools to revert vandalism, and your contributions to project space are quite low. —Dgies^t c 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - doesn't show need for the tools and needs more experience with the admin areas. BJ^Talk 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, I am not convinced you need the tools, especially per that answer to q1. Reverting vandalism doesn't need adminship. – Chacor 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I can not trust people who only do vandal fighting with admin tools. (Article writing is perfectly fine, but I don't find it relevant to adminship). Vandal fighting is too much "gotta revert vandals fast", which is not good for an admin. You also don't have the policy discussion I want, and it really does not help that you started really participating in AfD right after listing this. That looks far too much like "Oh, well, I should do AfD so that people will support me!" -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Nice edit count, but poor nom, short answers, 36% edit summaries for minor edits. You are a good user, but I have not been shown that you will be a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Your mainspace edits are way, way higher than your Wikipedia edits. Work on that and I'll support next time--SUIT^-n-tie 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, good user, but lacks of experience in admin work. Answers are weak and vandal fighting is not everything, there's xFDs and other stuff as well. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Candidate hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools. Answer to Q3 did not satisfy me, I need to know how you deal with stress. Candidate has nearly 8000 mainspace edits, but only 170 Wikipedia project space edits, the difference is substantial. Dionyseus 19:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose for use of fair use image in a userbox within their userspace. See [1]. Although the user had initially created it in Template space and it was moved by another use to his userspace, the user of fair use images in template or user space are not allowed by the fair use policy, and an admin should know at least this one clear rule of the policy. --MECU≈talk 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Forget about it: Low project involvement, mixed summary use and poor answers above. Sorry; try again during the summer. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per the concerns brought up above. Yuser31415 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose Inexperience in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose Image:Stephanielapointe.jpg, which this user uploaded 18:49, 11 February 2007 is a fair-use "image of a living person that merely shows what they look like," which is an express violation of WP:FU. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - the user's contributions demonstrate that he/she has no requirement for the mop and bucket at this time. In addition, the answers to the standard questions don't even come close to informative, in particular Q3. In another note (not related to the oppose) I don't actually think the RfA has been accepted yet, or at least signed. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I am torn between supporting or opposing you. I will add some questions for you and then, I might make up my mind.The Phoenix Enforcer 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral-Your edits seem good but you show no big need for the tools. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral I viewed your talk page and edit history, section by section, and while you do seem helpful in fighting vandalism and reverting it, I would not venture to say it is your focus here on wikipedia - I would rather abstain from supporting or opposing since I am swinging either way. While you do seem like you could have use for the tools are they really going to be tools that you are going to use? --Ozgod 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Good article-writing and edits, but I really want you to elaborate more as to why you want the tools. Your questions are woefully inadequate. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral clearly a good contributor to the mainspace but limited participation in WP-space and no real clear need for the tools. The Rambling Man 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral A good editor but all that you want to achieve can be done without the admin tools. If you work in the policy space some more over the next few months then I'll reconsider a future application. (aeropagitica) 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral no real need for the tools; edit summary usage needs some work. - Anas ^Talk? 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral I do not doubt your ability as an editor, but I am not convinced you would greatly benefit from the extra tools. Will (aka Wimt) 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral you have a great track record, but the short answers give me doubts about your need and dedication for the tool.-- danntm ^T _C 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral: You seem to be a well-rounded editor with a substantial number of great edits, however, one does not need adminship to revert vandalism (per point 1). I would like to see more of an extended description for all three answers as what you provided are too brief to be adequate. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 2 March 2007 (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.