Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonjonbt

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] Jonjonbt

FINAL (1/9/1);ENDED 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonjonbt (talk · contribs) - Jonjonbt is on Wikipedia almost every day to revert vandalism and he wishes to block the vandals from doing their sin. I am inspired by User:RickK and I wish that Wikipedia could be a good, clean encyclopeia. Howver, due to the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia, my wish may never come true. I will work hard to revert vandalism. Thank you for any consideration.Jonjonbt 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
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:

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jonjonbt before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Moral Support - clearly a dedicated user, but not enough experience to pass RfA at this time. (I must say that I don't like the opposers' dismissal of the candidate as a "middle schooler", however; a user's age is of no importance on Wikipedia, and should never be brought up in RfA discussions IMO.) I would advise Jonjonbt to withdraw his candidacy now, get some more experience and come back in a few months; I would be happy to offer help and advice on achieving adminship in the future. WaltonAssistance! 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - placed {{banned}} and {{protected}} tags on User:Vovovarun despite the user neither being banned nor protected. Not sure how this user plans to fight vandalism; seems more interested in protecting his side of a content dispute. Also not sure about notability criteria or proper use of images (see his talk page). --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wicked-Strong Oppose you've made a very unimpressive total of 87 edits since you joined. I have a feeling your a middle schooler from West Plains, MO who likes Dairy Queen, as thats all the articles you've really contributed to. Black Harry 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose based on a variety of reasons, including the image problems and really low number of edits. Cheers, Lanky TALK 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose: Not a bloody chance. Middle schooler with 87 edits total, been an editor for all of three months, and almost all the edits are to a single article for which he's solicited admin help on his user page. His putting the {{banned}} tag on another user's page might be explained in that there was a content dispute with that user on the Nicktropolis article. I've seen few admin candidates less qualified.  RGTraynor  15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose based on self-nom statement that the weakness of wikipedia is the fact that anyone can edit. Lipsticked Pig 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I agree with that statement b/c the fact that anyone can edit it leads to 1) vandalism and 2) alot insults about WP in the media Black Harry 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Such as this quote from The Economist from last year that I feature on my user page: But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality.  RGTraynor  17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    You both are far most experienced here than I, and I have to give weight to what you say. But if WP can't ever become a "good, clean encyclopedia" because anyone can edit, why are we here? Regardless of the weaknesses that introduces, its the greatest strength and cornerstone of this project, no?Lipsticked Pig 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Agree with the point that it is also WP's strongest point. I can't remember the last time i visited another online encyclopedia except for college papers Black Harry 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Elkman, and request the closing of this RFA per WP:SNOW. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. No-Choice Oppose and Suggest Withdrawal - I hate to oppose, but for someone with this little experience, it is necessary. Edits must be wide-ranging and, though I hate the editcountitis debate, a higher number of edits is needed. Also, the candidate has not answered any of the questions, which only goes to show further their lack of experience. --tennisman sign here! 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose and strongly urge a withdrawal of this request. Candidate has very little history on which to judge their contributions or level of understanding of policy, and the fact that none of the questions have been answered means it is impossible to support this candidate. Arkyan • (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Way too inexperienced. Agree with Pheonix2 on closing RfA. Its starting to snow. —Gaff ταλκ 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comments for Jonjonbt Saying that User:RickK is your inspiration might not be a good idea, since he left Wikipedia in frustration some time ago. Also, consider requesting an Wikipedia:Editor review in the future, to get a sense of how you are doing. Good luck and keep up the good work! —Gaff ταλκ 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral voting neutral to avoid a snow pile-on. If you are serious about this, buckle down and edit edit edit. Jmlk17 17:15, 1 June 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.