Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamyskis

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] Jamyskis

Final (6/6/6) ending 13:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jamyskis (talk · contribs) – As of the 25th I'll have been a Wikipedian for exactly one year. I have over 1500 edits to my name (plus a number of anon IP edits prior to registration). In terms of general mainspace contributions, I'm usually involved in contributing to articles relating to video gaming, Germany and Plymouth, but I pop in on other articles from time to time during RC patrol if there's anything that doesn't look quite right. I've also been involved in a lot of vandal fighting, although it's hard work keeping up with the vandalism at times, especially when no admins are around to help speed it up. This is my main reason for requesting adminship - to try and help streamline the process of fighting vandalism a bit. Will be glad to answer any questions anyone has. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Willing to support, although she is not very active. She has certainly been on long enough. I suppose adminship will keep her busy. Krashlandon (e) 02:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support good experience, good edits. looks active enough to me ... people have jobs & lives, missing a month or two just means you're not obsessed. Derex 22:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. The Land 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support. I must resist my initial impression that was based solely upon the user's edit count. After reviewing his contributions, I am confident that he has enough experience and can be trusted with adminship. --TantalumTelluride 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support--Bling-chav 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    This user's only edits have been made today, all to RfAs. The Land 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no major problems.--Jusjih 10:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Long time user who has decided to get more active recently. Would be a trustworthy admin. NoSeptember talk 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per Gurubrahma below, relative inactivity for many month before this one, I believe needs more experience. Other than the edits seem fairly well distributed so looks good for a future nomination. --pgk(talk) 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not too bad, but a few things that lead me to a weak oppose. Just keep up the good work and I'm sure you'll make Sysop in the future. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, I'd like to see more activity over a prolonged period of time, unlike what is mentioned below in the neutral section. Keep on editing, and in a few months, you'll be a shoo-in. --Zsinj 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Zsinj above. Seems good, but not active for sufficiently long period of time. Try again in the future, though... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Pgk, will support in a few months --Jaranda wat's sup 05:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per above. Just not enough done. Staffelde 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as per above. I'd like to see another few months of solid editing before I'd consider supporting. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I like what I see so far, but considering that almost 2/3rds of total edits have been made in this month alone, I vote neutral. --Gurubrahma 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, per Gurubrahma. Reasonable responses to the optional questions, though some of them (such as question 4) do show that you could use a little more experience. At 1500 edits, most of them made this month, you're a little below my personal standard of 2000 edits for self noms. Just continue contributing the way you have been and take a look at some of the admin activities, and I'm sure you'll be a shoo-in for your next RFA nomination. --Deathphoenix 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Gurubrahma. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, needs more time and experience. Pschemp | Talk 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, otherwise checks out, but I have to vote neutral per Gurubrahma, as most of the edits are in this month. JIP | Talk 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral as per Gurubrahma. --King of All the Franks 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Seems like a good candidate but I have the same concerns as Gurubrahma, Zsinj, etc. Keep up the pace of edits for a few more months and you should be good.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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. Mainly vandal fighting and blocking particularly nasty IP editors, but I'd also like to be able to help sort through the backlog of images with no license.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. There's a couple. I did a lot of the work on Wonder Boy, and I was quite pleased with what I did on Sennelager. I think the work I did on the video gaming section of Lord of the Rings was well-received. A lot of other articles that I've started or done most of the work on still need a lot of work, or have been a collaboration for which I feel I can't take much of the credit.
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. I don't think there's been any real conflicts as such, but then aside from a quick pop-in to the Abortion article once in a while I've not really tackled anything controversial beyond simple vandalism reverts. There's been a couple of brief disagreements - I received a bit of criticism for a comment I made on the Lord Voldemort article, but I just let it be because it's not an area I'm hugely familiar with.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. To be honest, I don't use {{bv}} - I use {{test2}}. I understand the point of your question. I tend to try and lay a focus on using test1 to begin with, but I find that with many incidents of vandalism that it isn't a case of simple experimentation, in which case I use test2 straight away, as test1 really does sound like a robot. I don't like bv because the hand looks very intimidating - not helpful when what really does look like vandalism is really just an experiment, and I'd rather encourage these people to contribute creatively.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. It all depends on the situation. If they're a beginner, it might be worth warning them about WP:3RR first, because they may not be aware of Wikiquette, even if the edits are NPOV. If someone is reverting from obvious vandalism or blatant NPOV, then you can't really penalize them for that, even under the provisions of WP:3RR. If someone is reverting back to these vandal/NPOV edits, and has a history of vandalism, that would be a good time to consider a block.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. As a rough guide, I do a quick Google on the name in question. If it turfs up less than 30 non-notable results relating to that specific person or group, I'll nominate it for speedy (or would speedy it as an admin), if there's more than 20, or if some of the links are of some note, then I'll put it through an AfD and see what others think. I've violated this rule-of-thumb once, with the article Joseph Knoll, when I judged it to be a vanity article from the style in which it was written - as it turns out, this was one of the times I was wrong.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. If it's a subject I have particularly strong feelings on, then I avoid it like the plague, or ask in the talk page before changing anything. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but to err is human. It is all too easy to allow NPOV creep into an article, even unconsciously. That said, I've managed to deal with some issues on the Abortion page without letting my pro-choice opinions get in the way.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. Anon IP vandalism is probably my greatest annoyance. As I've said on my user page, I really do believe that allowing people to edit without registering encourages vandals and makes it more difficult to fight vandalism, and while semi-protects to a page work to a degree, it just takes time away from admins and users who I imagine would rather be doing something more constructive.


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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.