Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JFBurton

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] JFBurton

Final (0/15/0); Ended Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:36:04 UTC

JFBurton (talk · contribs) - A Decent Wikipedia User Who Has A Lot To Offer. Specialising In Sport and Geography. JFBurton 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I Accept My Nomination Of Adminship JFBurton 20:50, 28 January 2007 (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 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 am involved with the WikiProject for Cheshire and I have proposed a WikiProject on Derbyshire too. I hope to get to work on it soon. I am also involved with the football Wikiproject. I would always be happy to participate in any chores that need doing, especially checking backlogs during peak times.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Definately Kettleshulme. I started this article and I am fully satisfied with it now. It is very detailed and it was one of my first articles that I did. Also all my edits on Cheshire villages such as Higher Hurdsfield, Mottram St. Andrew and Pott Shrigley. I hope to improve these in the future.
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 have been. I have always involved an administrator in the situation. I dont like to take the matter into my own hands. Some users do cause me stress from time to time, I know it is better not to get annoyed about it. I intend to do the same in the future.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Definitely not per recent entry in block log, no need for tools and this. Also, failed to add this RFA to main listing. – Chacor 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Super strong Oppose - I'm sorry but if you need to be told that you don't add people to project proposal lists and tell the person complaining to "chill out about it" couple with this, this and in particular this demonstrate you don't have the skills for the job. --Fredrick day 11:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongly Oppose -- 1) See this. 2) I'm somewhat biased against self-nominations. Keesiewonder talk 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. This user doesn't seem to have any idea what an admin does after reading the answer to Q1. Also the vote-forging incident, although possibly an honest mistake, doesn't show very much in the way of good judgement. Grandmasterka 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Strong oppose after reading those diffs provided by Fredrick and that block log. You need to learn to communicate effectively with people if you want to get anywhere on Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Chacor Kamope · talk · contributions 11:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per everybody. Too early, too recently blocked, too recently subject of an AN/I thread, bad answer to Q3. —xyzzyn 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I suggest quick withdrawal of this nomination. ← ANAS Talk? 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose per everybody else, and because the article Kettleshulme, with which you are "fully satisfied", is almost completely unsourced and reads more like a travel agency advertisement than as an encyclopedic neutral article. I don't ask that admin's write FA or even GA (I know I don't and probably can't do it), but at least you should realise when an article is far from perfect and needs a lot of work. To be fully satisfied with an almost unsourced article shows that you are not familiar enough with the aims of Wikipedia. Fram 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose In addition to points made above, you have only 332 edits in total, which I regret to say shows not only a lack of experience in the project but also a lack of understanding as to what an admin needs to know and do. I suggest withdrawal of your nomination; you might well re-apply when you have another four to six months experience and another three or four thousand edits, evenly spread over mainspace and namespace.--Anthony.bradbury 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. 1. Lack of edits; 2. Incivil attitude bordering on hostility; 3. Block log; 4. Adding the names of others to a WikiProject you proposed shows ill will if it was deliberate, and a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works if it was by accident. AecisBrievenbus 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. No. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per all above reasons. S.D. ¿п? § 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Chacor. Blocks were too recent, and it is way too early (332 edits and 2.5 months). Suggesting withdrawal. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 13:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose sorry, block log is to recent, incivility, lack of edits. Come back in about 5 months when you work on your behavior. ~ Arjun 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for all the good reasons above, plus you don't need the tools. The Rambling Man 13:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.