Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJ King

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.

[edit] CJ King

Final: (2/4/2); Ended 02:50 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CJ King (talk · contribs) – I have been with Wikipedia for eight months and while I have been here, I have made several articles for Christian recording artists. I am also very used to leadership positions, having been a patrol leader for my Boy Scout troop. I feel that I am very ready to handle the unique challenges that being an administrator would bring. CJ King 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. I accept.--CJ King 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this self-nomination.--CJ King 02:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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 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.
I really want to help out with the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion. I think that if more attection was paid to that page, it would be a little less stress for everybody. I also want to help in deleting images and articles, and, as wiith a lot of other people around here, I want to block vandals and uncooperative users. Basically your everyday admin chores.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am really happy with the time I have spent on the dc Talk article. I aim to one day make it a Featured Article.
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?
I have not been in any direct conflicts with any users, although some have caused me stress. I think that sooner or later, all conflicts can be taken care of, the question is how to go along making that happen.

Optional question from Jpeob (talk · contribs):

4. How do you justify 1437 edits to your userpage over 8 months?
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. (see below) Support, had this on my watchlist. User has displayed the tact, analytical ability and judgement to be a good sysop. The general test: "Will Wikipedia be better if this user has the mop"; my answer for this candidate is yes. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Although I normally hate doing it, after Amarkov's comments, I checked the list on the talk page. I personally thought CJ had more projectspace contribs than that (I've seen him around there much more than the number would indicate), however due to this valid concern I have to switch to weak support. Sorry, but I echo Amarkov's comments that some experience would benefit your admin skills. However, I stand by my original comment regarding the state of the Wiki, and hence I keep this in the support section. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. (Mostly moral) support - because I truly believe this is an honest editor, and he would be very careful with the tools to not delete anything he shouldn't. Projectspace count is too low, but I think he would be a good editor anyway. -Patstuarttalk|edits 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Mainspace contributions are good, but they don't show knowledge of policy which admins need. There's nothing wrong with NP patrollers, vandal fighters, and article authors, but you need projectspace edits too, and you don't have enough. -Amarkov blahedits 00:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Note that I might have gone with neutral, except the majority of your projectspace edits seem to be to Esperanza. Perfectly fine project, but edits to it don't show much. -Amarkov blahedits 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    Further, I'm not quite sure how much I like the nomination statement. I don't really think adminship is a "leadership position". Admins are supposed to have the technical tools to do certain things, but they're not really supposed to lead much. -Amarkov blahedits 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose adminship is not leadership, edit summaries are low, contributions are in two main areas only --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose For the most part I agree with Amarkov's reservations. Your comment about "leadership" suggests that you view adminship as something which it is not (an elevated position). In addition to this, your answers to the questions are rather short and generic, and you seem to lack experience in the projectspace. Depending on how you respond I may change my vote in the future. Chairman S. TalkContribs 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all the above. See what Wikipedia:What adminship is not. Nishkid64 02:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Mostly per Amarkov's concerns. Also, I find your edit summary usage quite lacking, which might impede referential communication to a certain but important extent. However, I see no other problems whatsoever (as of now), and I strongly urge you to improve on these areas. --210physicq (c) 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Answers are disappointing, if they were fleshed out a little more I'd consider a support. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:20, 22 December 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.