Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jrockley

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] Jrockley

Final (7/15/9); Ended Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:32:44 (UTC)

Jrockley (talk · contribs) - Hi, My name is Jack, and I've been editing since 22 October 2005. Racking up just under 5000 edits (3489 in the main namespace), I've gained a good understanding of the rules and regulations that govern the site. Occasionally I get accused of something horrid (don't we all?), but I do my best to diffuse it with guidance, civility and the knowledge that no-one's really evil. I mainly cleanup references, correct small errors, stub-sort, dabble in WP:FPC, as well as full-time looking after a select few articles, such as Vitamin C, ASIMO and Nottingham, among others. I almost always use edit summaries, and I mostly deal with science related articles, but I know enough to correct errors across a wide variety of articles. Recently working on WP:GAC, I've had a few successful noms, as well as a bunch of featured picture finds under my belt. I've worked with the prolific Essjay, on Wikipedia:User access levels, none the less. I have an account at commons, and I love playing with images, considering them a very important part of an article. I'm not sure if it's a faux pas to nominate yourself, and I hope it won't dent my chances! — Jack · talk · 01:35, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept — Jack · talk · 01:35, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

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?
A: Mainly, I just look forward to being able to edit protected pages without having to request permission. I plan to be bold, but not rash. Also, I'm sure I'll put the extra buttons to use — activities I intend to do (more) include: advising newbies, helping with protecting/unprotecting on (sensible) request, and helping with reversion of vandalism. Also, as a stub sorter I come across a lot of articles that earn a {{notability}} tag, and as an admin, I'd be very happy to use sysop tools to close discussions at WP:AFD (or any other WP:XFD). And should a rainy day come, the backlog offers plenty to do!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Quite a lot, really. Erm, getting Vitamin C to good article status, or fixing all the references in an article where they were pretty messed up. Mostly stupid lil stuff. I really like the template {{fusion power}}, which I mostly made myself. Oh, and recently initiating a successful sidebar redesign was just a bit awesome!
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: My very first problem arose over non-specific info in the ITER article, which is (rather poorly) documented here. As you can see, I dealt with it rather badly, with a rebuttal verging on a personal attack. Also, I totally violated WP:OR and WP:OWN with my article Yukaysh, which was eventually deleted (though in my defence I intended it to be eventually deleted, and was nothing more than an experiment in how Wikipedia finds and deals with new articles that clearly don't fit). However, this was all a long time ago, and since then I've vastly matured, and a more recent conflict is documented here, where I advised a newbie on the difficult task of maintaining neutrality. As I did there, in the future I plan to disperse hostility with civility, and a fine acquired knowledge of the rules.
General comments
  • See Jrockley's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • General note: Answer to q1 was changed here, so some of the "!votes" below may look to be irrelevant. – Chacor 04:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • In defence of me longing to be "able to edit protected pages", I sincerely promise I will not do anything too extreme (like deleting the main page), and most of my edits will be minor and wikifairy-esque. The most extreme example I can remember is when I totally overhauled commons:Template:Delete, a high-use and high-importance template, which is for some reason not protected. I doubt I will do anything like that in a rush, but if I deem an edit necessary, I shall not see it pass undone. — Jack · talk · 02:52, Wednesday, 4 April 2007
  • I've never violated 3RR, and I tend to stay away from controversial subjects, especially biographies. As in the two links above, I've only been in two minor edit wars over 18 months, and the latter was a three-way, where I was trying to move content to a talk page to gain consensus. I will make a firm goal never to be in a wheel war — Jack · talk · 14:29, Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Support

  1. Support checked his records and contributions, he has done a lot in different areas, and the mistake in Q3 is long time ago. So I support. Wooyi 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support You look like a good user to me, but I have one concern. In Q1 you talk about wanting to edit protected pages. Though this is a noble goal, the purpose of a protection is to prevent edits. This suggests to me that you want the tools to get around protections. Though I suppose I am not following WP:AGF, that being your main reason for adminship really makes me wonder... Captain panda 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'll do it because i'm generious. HP 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support The answer to question one is controversial, but this candidate has the ability to recognise the errors he has made in the past, and I doubt that he would abuse the admin tools if given them. (In response to other criticism) I also see no problem with users having a different signature name to their user name, a lot of users do it. Camaron1 | Chris 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I don't mind if he will only be a "fair-weather admin". Abeg92contribs 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, I don't think that this user having the tools will be of a detriment to the project. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Due to your answer to question 1--$UIT 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Mainly, I just look forward to being able to edit protected pages without having to request permission. Why do I oppose this? Because, what if a user and you engage in an edit war over a tidbit. Pages are protected for a reason (i.e. WP:3RR, WP:BLP, and the list goes on). If a controversy arises between admin and user, the best thing to do is to discuss all options on the talk page. If that doesn't go, follow WP:RFC, then WP:MEDCABAL, then (if all discussions are at stalemate), go to WP:RFArb. Real96 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - user has poor understanding or appreciation of what adminship is for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose just not sure the editor is ready for the tools, and having to revise Q1 after accepting nom shows lack of preparation and understanding. The Rambling Man 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose bad answer to Q1, although I appreciate the honesty --Michael Lynn 10:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose You want to be an admin because you want to edit protected articles? Rethink your strategy, and looks towards doing sdomething more productive than editing articles, there are many things admins need to do, so be sure to look over the rules again, and the guides as well. Tails0600 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Abaddon314159, and I don't agree with those supporters who say adminship is no big deal. The matter should be taken seriously.Rlevse 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per the revised answer to Question 1. The eagerness to edit protected pages is a little off-putting and the user has not shown that they require the tools or would even them in a neutral manner. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I find the answer to Question 1 very troubling. If a long-time registered user such as myself cannot edit a fully protected page, then it stands to reason that an admin should not take it upon him-or-herself to edit a fully protected page, other things being equal. There are rare and obvious exceptions to this general rule, but this user seems to have a very poor understanding of the limitations that an admin should impose upon him-or-herself. // Internet Esquire 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, I don't think that you need the tools and your answers aren't very thorough. Please try again later when you find the need to use your tools and when you have a bit more experience. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, due to the unsettling answer to the first question. Protections are in place for a reason. --Dariusk 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, answer in Q1 worries me a little. I feel that you don't really need the tools and the answers are weak. Try again in future when you have more experience with administrative processes. Terence 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per answer to question #1. This is not a good enough reason to warrant adminship. Michael 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I am afraid that answer to Q.1 blows it for me too. Admins are chosen in order to maintain the integrity of the project, not for their own convenience. It is not intended that fully protected pages should be edited except in the most unusual circumstance, and usually by consensus.--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose The answer to Q.1 scares me a bit. Having not been in any major disputes, we cannot see how'd you handle them. Oppose for now, try again in a few months after you get a bit more experience. HornandsoccerTalk 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Does not seem to understand admin tools, per Q1. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning towards Oppose. The answer to Q1 is very weak, not demonstrating the need for sysop tools. Xiner (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Answer to Q1 doesn't exactly inspire any confidence in the candidate. Neutral for now, leaning oppose. – Chacor 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Answer to Q1 is not very good, you also say about helping revert vandalism which can be done without sysop tools, I was thinking about supporting but because of the Q1 answer it puts me off slightly. Good luck! Tellyaddict 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral While I do not think you would ever abuse the admin tools, I am not convinced you will really need them either. --Ozgod 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral why doesn't the sig include the username? feydey 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral The idea of a fair-weather admin doesn't really appeal to me. Are you really only prepared to assist with admin backlogs when you have nothing better to do? (aeropagitica) 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I'm a little nervous about your answer to question 1. Sorry. --Valley2city₪‽ 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral you probably should better familiarize yourself with the role of administrator.-- danntm T C 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I tend to oppose as per your answer to Q1. I've been an admin for more than a year and i only edited protected articles twice; to be exact. I am voting neutral because of your dedication to wikipedia. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:06, 6 April 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.