Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JP06035

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] JP06035

Final (10/19/11) ending 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

JP06035 (talk · contribs) – My name is Jared and I have been an avid contributor to Wikipedia for about three months now. I have managed to contribute over 2,000 edits across a wide span of topics and namespaces, as my Wikipedia namespace edit count is close to my article edit count. I have spent enough time on Wikipedia to understand its rules, policies, and regulations. I am also in contact with many of Wikipedia’s users all the time to discuss articles’ formats. As a Wikipedian, I am looking become an Administrator because the things I look to do sometimes require the assistance of an admin, like closing debates, vandalism reverts, blocking users, etc. Things that make me different from other registered users is that I am a leader: I have created a project page where users discuss the format of Olympic-related pages (see here), and this page has made great strides in the format of these pages. Other notable things include contributions to the CT roads pages, many housekeeping chores (cleanups, merges, wikifications), my being on 3 wikiprojects, and even the creation of a portal. I hope that rather than bore you to death, this summary has allowed you to find out what a great sysop I could be. Respectfully, --J@red [T]/[+] 00:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: J'accept, certainement! --J@red [T]/[+] 01:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. He's made some excellent contributions to wikipedia, particularly in the context of the Olympics. - Richardcavell 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Good edit distribution, though a little light on overall count. John Reid 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: Good edit count and pretty good attendancy in Wikipedia. I'm 80% sure you'll become adminstrator. CrnaGora Talk 07:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Good editor! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. support: Strong contributor who is quite unlikely to abuse admin privileges. Though relatively inexperienced, conferring admin status in this case should not be such a big deal and a delay doesn't seem necessary. Ombudsman 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per Richardcavell and Ombudsman. Joe 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Superb contributions to Olympics. He might as well be the Olympicbot. --Andy123(talk) 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - You'd make a great admin. And I'll vote for you again the next time around (provided I see the nom). --Go for it! 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support - you should probably look at the standards and what your fellow RfA candidates have been doing, anyway, keep it up, you'll get it in a few months.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose too soon. Prefer admins to have experience in all areas of the project.--Looper5920 12:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above; you look like a great editor, but I would give it some more time. Weatherman90 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose "Better safe than sorry" vote only here. Editor's wiki-career is going well, but this is a little too soon for me -- more article-space experience is a good idea. Xoloz 16:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose sorry, a little too soon for my liking. Do stick around and keep contributing, and I would be pleased to support in a few months.--Alhutch 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, too soon and per comments and actions during the mfd at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions has too little experience, and needs more time to get to grips with policy and guidelines, epecially WP:CIV and WP:AGF. See [1] , [2],and [3]. Hiding talk 21:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: also slightly perturbed by the statement Things that make me different from other registered users is that I am a leader. Doesn't show an understanding of the consensual nature of Wikipedia to my mind. Hiding talk 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Still a little new for my standards. Moe ε 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. It looks like really only two months of regular participation. I'm sorry, but that's not long enough. Ifnord 04:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I've been here 3 months as well and there are still Wikipedia policies that I meet that I am unfamiliar with. Give it time. haz (user talk)e 09:37, 19 March 2006
  9. Oppose, too early. Try again in a few more months. --Terence Ong 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. I concur; it's too soon. Leave me a message in three months, and I'll vote for you then (unless you've gone insane in the meantime); for now, however, oppose reluctantly. DS 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per others. SushiGeek 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Per above. Please do try again in 3 months. --Masssiveego 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. I hate to do this... but Reluctant Oppose. Your contributions have been flat-out astounding, but with the length of time you have here, there no way we can judge dedication or maturity level. Leave me a talk page note in 3 months and you'll have my vote as long as you don't threaten to leave in a huff or trigger any other pet peeves of mine. -Mask 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, too early. Not enough contributions. Confusing signature. Stifle 15:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose try 1 or 2 months later Ugur Basak 22:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose on inexperience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose inexperience. Try again after 6 months (total). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmounties (talk • contribs)
  18. Oppose: please keep building the encyclopedia and consider trying again in a few months. Jonathunder 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. While he has made a great number of edits to the Olympics content, including templates, he lacks a basic understanding of many of the Wikipedia philosophies, including consensus. I would also agree with Hiding about his comments during the MfD process. Sue Anne 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Under 1000 article namespace edits just isn't enough for me. GizzaChat © 12:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral at this time. It looks like you're heading in the right direction. From Interiot, I see that the majority of your contributions have come in February and March, so while you technically have three months, your first month or so was not very active. Personally I like to see at least three months of activity, so to me you're almost at that threshold. I'm not as concerned about your quantity of Mainspace edits because it looks like the majority of your edits are in the Mainspace, so I feel like that's simply a matter of time if you keep going. I also feel that your editing seems to be centered around the Olympics, as almost all of your top edited articles are Olympics related. I'd like to see a bit more variety and breadth, it's good to wander off to different areas of the project now and again. I'm also concerned because I don't feel you have many contributions to AfD. Since you express an interest in closing deletion debates, I'd like to see a fair amount of contribution to AfD discussion. I think in general, you show great signs, and are moving in the right direction, but I feel you could use a little more time before Adminship. I would reccomend re-applying in two months if you don't gain consensus from this nomination. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral But like Evilphoenix mentioned, you are definetly close in my book. I liked your project page and your Connecticut Academic Performance Test article. Keep it up and you'll have my vote next time. --mmeinhart 17:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Looks good, but I think another month or two is in order. Prodego talk 21:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. On the fence neutral, would like to verify consistancy of edits by seeing more of the same, for a bit longer. — xaosflux Talk 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Good user, but too soon, and the oppose votes have a point.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Needs a little more experience. As an aside, could people please stop using fake "You have new messages" boxes on their user or user talk pages? They're very annoying. JIP | Talk 13:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    Come on, now...they're not that annoying! Wikipedia is so serious, we need something to break that up, now. Jared 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, better with more experience.--Jusjih 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, I agree with the lack of mainspace edits. You are heading in the same direction as me (hopefully). Computerjoe's talk 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Good balance of contributions to various namespaces, but too new. Keep doing what you're doing, and everything should be ok. — Mar. 24, '06 [15:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 08:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See JP06035's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. As a sysop, I will, as I have in the past, work on chores such as page cleanups, merges, and pages for deletion. On a regular basis, I check the Community portal for these, and if I'm not too busy, I will do a few of these housekeeping things. For most merges and deletions, I will only complete them if the consensus is good enough on the talk page.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. First, I am most pleased about my contributions to the Olympics pages. I have been steadily working on them since I joined WP and I have put a lot of effort into formatting them the same. More specifically, I think the Olympics conventions page I created has done a great job in getting the opinions of the general public. Other articles I have worked on were Monopoly: The Card Game, which was my first major contribution (and a lengthy one, might I add), and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test article, which I havn't finished, but it's coming along nicely.
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?
A. Throughout the time I've been on Wikipedia, I've only gotten in a few conflicts with other users. The argument was usually about something related to a WP policy that either I or the other user was unaware of. Through these "contructive conflicts" I have actually learned more about WP policy, but I also know that getting into a heated argument is not the way to go. With the few that I've had, I've been able to resolve the conflict with the other person civally and we both were able to get back to editing.


The above 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.