Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jhfireboy 2

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.

Contents

[edit] Jhfireboy

Final (5/23/10); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jhfireboy (talk · contribs) - I regularly participate in vandal fighting (mainly using Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool and Twinkle). After each case of vandalism reverted, I try to leave an appropriate message on the user's talk page (see here and here. I have made some errors in the past - such as with the portal I created, but this was because I did not know about that part of Wikipedia; I feel I have grown because of mistakes like that and it has made me a better Wikipedian - I am not hiding from the fact I have made mistakes, but I am telling you that I have learnt from then. I am an editor that always assumes good faith and have also placed my name on the list of editors that are willing to help new editors (Adopt-a-user) but, unfortunately, have not received any requests. my edit count is not extensive - and know this -but I belive that it is not the amount of edits you have, but what the nominee plans to do with the admin tools (see question 1 below for what I plan to do). Jhfireboy Talk 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to use the admin tools to further my efforts in fighting vandalism, from the ability to protect and semi-protect articles and temporarily block users. I will also use the role as admin to help with WP:AIV - a page on Wikipedia I have only recently started using.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably, my best contribution to Wikipedia is Portal:British Army. I have created the page myself with some useful input from Carom - such as making the "Selected..." sections randomised. Although I have worked extensively on this portal, I am more of a WikiGnome and WikiElf and do not work on one page extensively often. When I have a project, I spend a lot of time on it (such as Portal:British Army and Carre's Grammar School).
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: In the past, I have made some inadvisable edits (such as a contribution hierarchy for the British Army portal) and have had them deleted. However, they have not caused stress but have, in fact, been a relief as it has allowed my knowledge of the policies of Wikipedia to grow. I have had no proper "conflicts" in the sense that I think it is meant here but my user page has been vandalised at least 33 times.


Optional Question by DarkFalls

4. Define the policy for the biography of living people and your understanding of it.
A:People that live out there, that are famous, are defined by the media attention they receive. Wikipedia is used as one of these media sources; therefore we need to make sure we get it right. That means that the page has to be neutral, it has to be verified by an appropriate secondary source. I see "being verified by a secondary source" as being that it has to be quoted in a piece of published work that is independant from the person in question. An example: for [Jeremy Clarkson]], you can use an online newspaper but you cannot use Clarkson's own newspaper.
4A. As a follow up question, which course of action will you take if an article is in violation of the policy?
A: If it is a new article then I will speedy delete it but if it is a long-running article then I will revert it to a previously policy-abiding article revision. Jhfireboy Talk 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith T/C 05:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A:This is a hard question. In three years, I want to see Wikipedia going as strong as it is now; maybe even more so. it has a lot of regular editors that add to it a little part of their hard work making this website as good as it can be. I would like it to still be an encyclopedia that is going strong and is still as widely used as it is now; possibly more. It is currently growing and becoming a more integral part of education and a household name and I think it should keep growing in this fashion.

Optional Questions from Nat

6. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?
A: A block is a way of preventing an editor from contributing to Wikipedia, while a ban is a social construct that formally stops a user's editing rights and privelages. other important differences are: a user is, basically, banned by the community (not blocked) when no administrator would consider unblocking them; a blocked user is able to create a new account and use it as long as they edit properly but a banned person is not; a blocked user can edit their user and talk page but a banned user is unable to; a block is only on an account but a ban is on the person that uses the account.
7. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: First I would inform them, politely, of what they are doing. If, after a short preiod of time, they are still being a POV pusher then I will block the user for 24 hours and inform him of the reason of the block. If they repeat again after the block is over then I will block for a 3 day period. Again, I will block for re-offending for a period of 1 month and increase incrementally up to an indefinate block.
8. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: Criterion #8 of WP:NFC says that non-free content can be used as long as its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If the person is retired, or dead, and their notability rests on their performances in earlier years then a non-free image is acceptable but an image of a person active in why they are notable will result in it being unacceptable because a free image is still, retaively easily, able to be produced. I would add the image Image:No free image man (en).svg or Image:No free image woman (en).svg (or similiar) to the page in place of where the introductory image would be best placed.
9. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Yes, I would because I believe that becoming an admin is not a right to always be an admin but they have to keep to the standard, and improve on that standard, that they had achieved when they were granted administrator privelages.
10. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: WP:IAR is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Under any circumstance this rule applies but the editor must be aware that someone else may not agree and revert your edit: do not take harm from this but explain your point of view to the user who reverted your efforts adn resolve the issue. WP:IAR is highly subjective and what is deemed necessary by one may not be deemed necessary by all.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 07:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

11. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I was not aware but since you have posed this question, I have researched it. From what I have found, I take it to mean that a biography of a living person may be removed if it significantly violates any of the criteria of WP:BLP. The deletion may be contested but ultimately it is the work of the original creator and all subsequent editors to make sure it does not violate the criteria - not the admins.
12. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: I would not just undelete the page. That is the first and foremost thing. Secondly, I would open up a discussion on the subject and await a consensus either way. If the consensus says that the page should be left deleted then I shall leave it, but if they say it should be undeleted then it should be brought back. At no point should I deal with it myself (solely) because I did not delete the page in the first place - it requires a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfireboy (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
12A. Where, specifically, would you have such discussion? 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:44, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
A:I would take the dispute to the page designed for them: WP:DRV. I apologise for not mentioning it earlier, it slipped my mind.

Additional Questions From Epthorn (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

13. I notice that back in February you asked another editor what about your chances of succeeding at RfA, given your contributions up to that point. In a reply[[1]] that same editor mentioned a need to increase activity particularly in areas like RfAs, namespace and AfDs; he or she also suggested you find someone experienced to nominate you when ready. Similar concerns were raised at your subsequent (unsuccessful) RfA. Do you feel that you've met these recommendations? If not, do you disagree with them?
A: This is an interesting and highly relevant question in my RfA. I beleive that I have taken some of the points on board (increased edits in RfA, partially, and other non-article namespaces - especially the portal namespace) but ultimately I beleive that my understanding of reasons to achieve adminship have changed. I gained priceless information from Prodego and from my unsuccessful RfA but since then I have changed my editing pattern (less article namespaces except to revert vandalism, and portal) so what I need for my RfA, in my opinion, has changed. I use to think that becoming an admin was based almost solely on edit counts but I now know the that this is not the case, so I have come back to RfA - asking again - because I beleive that my requiremnts have changed. Adminship is not the same for everyone: some people use it to help fight vandalism and others to help with writing articles; but both require a different set of criteria, in my view.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Jhfireboy Requests for adminship/Jhfireboy 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jhfireboy before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • So, um, why hasn't this been withdrawn/snowed yet? With all due respect to the candidate, and bearing in mind the many discussions at WT:RFA, this is surely a case where there's no hope of passing. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support, good vandal-fighter. Would like to see less of a narrow focus and more actual contributions, but I don't see that as a reason not to bestow the tools in your case. Lankiveil (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  2. Weak Support - Good vandal-fighting, and good work with portals; you're more than qualified to carry out routine admin work, such as blocking vandals at AIV (where you've made plenty of reports recently). I would like to see more experience in the Wikipedia: namespace, however, particularly with XfDs; I could only find one or two XfDs in your recent contrib history, so I can't be 100% sure of your understanding of deletion policy. Answer to q4 could be a bit better as well (being neutral and verifiable are big parts of BLP, certainly, but the policy also emphasises the need to be 100% certain of accuracy and to remove unsourced controversial comments on sight). However, assuming that you don't intend to launch straight into closing controversial XfDs etc., I'm happy to trust you with the tools. WaltonOne 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Very strong support He will actually use the tools. No reason to think he'll abuse them-Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to take some concern with this support. Sure the editor involved wouldn't abuse the tools, but with only a few edits in Wikipedia namespace where most admininstrators spend there "Wiki-time", I doubt since (s)he's had insufficient experience there, they may (inadvertently) use them incorrectly, creating....? Rt. 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    He might, but many new admins might, andd I still have complete faith in him--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Changed to Support. Maybe not the edit count that everyone wants, but I have decided that this user can probably be trusted despite everything. The answers to the questions were good. Good luck! Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. support mmmm --.snoopy. 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Sorry, I don't think you have been active enough recently, as you have only been editing sporadically. As well as this, your grammar is sub standard, as I noticed serveral mistakes throughout this nomination, yet you opposed a user here on partial terms of poor grammar. As well as this, all I see are vandalism reverts, with the odd contribution to other areas, sorry but all of your edits appear to be in an attempt to follow an aspiration to become an admin. I'm sorry but I just see general inexperience in dealing with admin related tasks, and this is not a good sign, either; whether your account had been hijacked or not, a potential admin candidate or experienced user should know how to react in these type of situations (for example, explain to the user who warned you about "vandalism", then leave it, so if anyone asks, you would explain it to them). Sorry, Qst 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    As to the hacking of my account: not everyone knows every aspect about Wikipedia and I was faced with a problem that I had not come across and handled it as best as I knew how. I thought that writing about it on WP:AN/I was the sensible option. Usually I look at current policies of Wikipedia and make the relevant choices for the given problem but there was no information on it from what I could find.
    To make the record clear, my main aspiration is not to become an administrator but it is something I would be pleased to be. I just feel that being an admin would be useful in my role on Wikipedia. I think that QST seeing my edits as being geared to becoming an administrator proves how my edits are not necessarily to make me become an admin but that being an admin would be the best course of action as it would be most useful for the type of edits I make. Jhfireboy Talk 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose (Changed to neutral, below) pending the possible answering of questions above. For me, edit counts are not important unless they are a deviation. In this case yours are underwhelming and seem to be somewhat irregular which would make me look for some mitigating factor. I don't yet see answers to some optional questions- I may change my mind if I later check back and am impressed. Edit counts are only one way to judge experience, effectiveness and reliability- an imperfect metric of trustworthiness. Given some of the problems mentioned above (including the hijacking of your account) I think you could use some more time before asking for the mop. Additionally I picked up on something like Qst, above- grammatical errors and a general je ne sais quoi that makes me wary. I'll check back to see what develops and if the answers to the questions are on-the-mark (assuming you answer any more of them - optional).Epthorn (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I can't determine whether this candidate has good policy knowledge. Low edit counts in the Wikipedia namespace, where most administrator work occurs, makes this questionable, also the answers to the questions would seem to prove the user in question does not have the correct amount of experience, of either with policy or dealing with other users. Rt. 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose The year and a half of experience is a plus, but the edits are sporadic and mostly minor in nature. I'd like to see more evidence of familiarity with policy. However, aside from inexperience, there are no negative traits or habits to worry about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose because of relatively low levels of activity in article talk, substantial article creation/editing or project space. At least one of these should show a level of consistent activity, and this would be a good place to concentrate in the future. Also, response to Q.7 a little imprecise for me. The blocking policy does not explicitly say that POV pushing is grounds for a block. Of course if this kind of activity reaches the level of edit warring or revert warring (asd specified in the policy) a block might be appropriate. But it would be the edit war, not the POV pushing, that would be the reason. Despite all this: would be happy to support this editor trying again in 6 months or so, having acquired broader experience. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorrowful oppose. Switch to neutral. Clearly, you are moving in the right direction. I would have preferred more overall experience. Would suggest reviewing the policies, and continue participating In AfD, RCPatrolling, new page reviewing. I look forward to supporting a future RfA. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC) almost forgot-- Dlohcierekim at work. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I do believe that Jh is a good editor, but I am unable to support due to his lacking of a concrete, overall experience. Jmlk17 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose due to a low edit count, espically in the Wikipedia name-space. I think this Jhfireboy shows a lot of promise, but I'd like to see a little more consistancy in editing. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weak Oppose - The number of edits is not an issue for me, only the lack of WP:Namespace Edits. Also, the fact that you Opposed somebody in an RFA for poor Grammer and then experience that same problem leads me to oppose. Your Vandal work is excellent though. Keep up the good work. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - not ready, yet. Miranda 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - This user isn't ready yet. Participation levels in mainspace, Wikipedia space and in total show a user that's not really active enough at the moment. Lradrama 12:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. A controversial matter, such as material that has been through OTRS and the like, can never be put up for public discussion. At best, discussion has to be private. 哦，是吗？(review O) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
  11. Oppose per Q12 and Q12A. You state that you will go to deletion review, and therefore not contact the person who deleted it and asking them first, which is really quite bad. This is especially worrying because the question related to sensitive information in a deleted living persons biography. This worry duplicates for all administrator actions (protection, deletion, and even general editing), as it shows that you may not understand the concept of courtesy to your fellow administrator and rush straight to the appropriate noticeboard/review page without first discussing it with the administrator involved. Inexperience and ability to express yourself, noted above, wasn't a strong concern although I can understand where the above opposers are coming from. Daniel 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. oppose lack of experience in substantive areas. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Answer to question 7 is far too lenient and yet harsh at the same time, if they continue extreme POV pushing after multiple warnings and a block, they don't plan on being a constructive user. There is no point in such an escalating series of blocks. I'm curious though about the "polite warning, wait, then block" part though. What is the purpose of the waiting? If you leave the message on their talk page, the big orange banner means there is no excuse for not seeing it. If they continue to POV push, why wait before taking action? Then you block after having given them only a polite warning. Also, while a hijacked account is bad, a hijacked admin account is really bad. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Per answer to 4A. If a new article is in violation of BLP, you remove the offending sentences. Only if the entire article is unsourced, POV or libelous, and if the article has no prior revisions to revert to; do you delete --DarkFalls talk 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. No record of discussion of policy to support a "support", and very woolly answers to questions. Also publishing IQ on a user page indicates arrogance, which is the last thing we want in administrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose. Everything else seems fine, but I strongly disagree with the statement that a short or new article in violation of BLP should be speedy deleted. The implication is that he would disregard the notability of the subject (assuming lack of notability is not the reason for deletion under BLP) and delete the article, even though potentially libelous information could easily be removed. If it seems irreparably bad, perhaps another form of deletion should be used unless it is obvious that notability is an issue. Sorry if this is confusing and/or incomprehensible. --Qmwne235 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose I have strong concerns about the answer for #7. I'd also like to see more experience in dealing with conflict caused by others -- just about any time you pull out the mop, there is a potential for someone's feathers to be ruffled.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - No actual Wiki experience; vague and questionable answers to all questions, including optional. Suggest withdrawal.--WaltCip (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong Oppose Talk page message indicates a vandalism edit on Oct. 31, less than two months ago. Whether it was in error/miscommunation/something else or not doesn't make it or break it for me either; things stated above make me worried. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Weak oppose Experience concerns. Try again in few months and I will support you. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Nothing to do with me worrying about an abuse of powers. It is solely the fact that I almost have as many edits in two months that s/he has in over a year. with more activity I would support in a few months. Sirkadtalksign 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose on incivility and all above opposers. Sorry, but even tiny mistakes you don' recognize can have huge consequences using sysop tools. I'm sure you want to help, but mistakes happen (and may be likely to happen frequently in your case) and can ruin someones day when you're using the tools Pumpmeup 05:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. No. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I forgot to say why, sorry. I basically agree with what has been said. Please retry in a few months time, when you have mroe experience. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Commendable efforts fighting vandalism; however, most of your recent contributions are either reverts and warns or edits to the British army portal. I only see one AFD comment in the last two months; I'd like to see some more involvement with the inner workings. Sorry! Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Spends lots of time on Mainspace, but a bit too much on portal. Although he seems like a good vandal fighter, he doesn't seem ready enough.Doesnt seem like he needs tools, either.¤~IslaamMaged126 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral. Get more experience in other things, and come back later. Malinaccier (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Per Master of Puppets. Possibly getting more involved with other aspects of Wikipedia. Good vandal fighter though! F9T 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Per Master of Puppets and F9T; you're a great vandal fighter though! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Switch to neutral. Nom is right on the cusp Clearly, you are moving in the right direction. I would have preferred more overall experience. Would suggest reviewing the policies, and continue participating In AfD, RCPatrolling, new page reviewing. I look forward to supporting a future RfA. (If this does not make it).(Dlohciorekim at work) Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Switch to neutral. My concerns above still stand as such. I think maybe this user is a little too intent on being an admin, based on early actions. The answers the user gave for questions, while not particularly striking in their originality, also did not push any big red DANGER(!) buttons for me. I'm not going to support based on this, but I'm going to strike my oppose for now and stay with neutral since I don't see anything really glaring. Epthorn (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - Same as IslaamMaged126. Otherwise, more activity would help.Mitch32contribs 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral due to concerns noted by other users. However, he states on his user page, "My 1st and 10th edit show some inappropriate editing but I was explaining how Wikipedia works to some people I know and how anybody can edit it but will be found out. I reverted the edits." This shows some growth. Needs more substantive editing, perhaps to create another article, and wait until 2008. Sorry that I can't support right now. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I want to support you, but your work on Wiki doesn't cut out for you to be an admin. You will make a great admin one day, but for now, just keep up the good work.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral Portal is good - some Good Articles and avoiding disruption should see you through next time. Not confident this is a net positive at this stage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 21 December 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.