Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir james paul

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] Sir james paul

FINAL (3/12/1); Ended 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir james paul (talk · contribs) - I have been a editor of wikipedia since November of 2006 and started to become active in December. The areas in wich I am most active are vandal fighting and I also vote in Mfd's and Rfa's.James, La gloria è a dio 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accept as nom--James, La gloria è a dio 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The admin work I plan to do is Csd, blocking vandals, and blocking user with bad user names. I have helped in the blocking of over 140 users and I would like to be able to block them myself so they do no more damage to wikipedia. I have also reported almost 30 bad user names and almost every time there is a backlog. I would like to help keep both the backlog down.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would consider my vandal fighting my best contributions. I am proud of my vandal fighting because I feel that wikipedia needs vandal fighters.
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: I have had a conflict with the Evolution article. Back it March I violated 3RR on it. In May I discussed it on the talk page but I stopped because it was causing me stress. In the future I will take a break if something at wikipedia causes stress.
Optional question from Pomte
4a. Why aren't IPs allowed to "vote"?
A: I thought they were not suppose to on anything at wikipedia but I that is just for Rfa's. I checked with someone on IRC, and I fixed my mistake. James, La gloria è a dio 03:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
4b.I'm not sure if that answers the question, although it might be sufficient to the editor who posed the question, I would actually like to hear why you think IPs should, or should not, be allowed to vote. --wpktsfs (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - A user who is very active on Recent changes, I feel he will make good use of the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support, my interactions with this user have been good. Answers could be a bit stronger, but still admin material. I have to learn to start checking block logs before I !vote.--Wizardman 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support-I support Sir James Paul's run for Rfa and although I have only known him for a very short time(from countervandalism wiki) he seem to be very intelligent and I feel he would make a charismatic admin. Since my name is taken, I am James-001 from Halopedia and countervandalism wiki. Peace. Spartan-James 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)— Spartan-James (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ({{spa}} added by Sean William (talk · contribs) GracenotesT § 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
  3. Strong Support An avid vandal fighter who clearly would use the tools responsibly. ~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose - I have had the honor of working with Sir James Paul over multiple wikis, and I'm quite convinced that he lacks the maturity to become an administrator. Recently, last December, he submitted two RFAs at the Simple English Wikipedia (here for both), the second one day after the first was snowball closed due to the fact that Sir James Paul canvassed his RfA across many talk pages. Then there was this attempt to create Esperanza on Wikiquote, which would not be a problem normally, but he logged out and proceeded to vote-stack the VfD. You can't see the deleted edits, but the IP also nominated Sir James Paul to be president of Esperanza (read the VfD for proof). Sir James Paul also recently justified edit warring with WP:IAR ([1]), which is not good at all. Some of these events were a while ago, but I honestly don't think that Sir James Paul has matured since then. Sean William @ 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment These where when i was new to wiki's. Also, it has been a while since these things happened. Since these events I have matured a lot and I have learned a lot about policies and guidlines. Thanks for the comments though:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Knowing policies and guidelines is one thing. Knowing when to ignore them is another. Your edit-warring incident in March proved that you don't understand that yet. Sean William @ 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too much of the POV edit warrior for me to support. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per concerns of KC (the evolution matter was straight out POV pushing) and the concerns raised by Sean. JoshuaZ 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I have not been editing that article for weeks and I do not plan to edit it unless I am reverting vandalism.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    Almost irrelevant. The level of POV pushing and your general behavior on that article is not that of someone I'd trust with admin tools, regardless of whether they intended to continue editing the article in question. JoshuaZ 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I have not had any interaction with this user, but I feel that he is not good around controversial topics. To his credit, he brought up the conflict at Evolution himself, but I feel that I have to oppose because of it. He dredged up an already settled debate that is discussed in the FAQ for the article, and as late as two weeks ago was trying to insert a sentence into the article against consensus:[2]. (Note the uncivil edit summary) He was called for (among other things) incivility by another editor a short time later: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=next&oldid=134223500 Also note that he seems to feel that "Ignore all rules" gives him the right to edit war:[3]. He looks like a good vandal fighter, but overall I feel that he is not ready for adminship at this time.--Danaman5 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per KC. FeloniousMonk 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per KC (and personal observations) I strongly oppose - someone who is this prone to POV edit warring is definitely not the sort of person we need as an admin. It isn't a matter of whether he will edit the article or not - that sort of edit warring says a lot about the editor's temperament and judgment. Strong oppose. Guettarda 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose based on contributions. The nomination hardly tells us anything about him except that he fights vandals. It's hard to find the edits he makes that aren't vandal fighting, but I've found a few and don't like what I see:
    • In January, he "retired" from Wikipedia out of frustration at "a few sysops" [4], and made sure to let everyone know he was doing it on their talk pages. He made his glorious return two hours later [5]. This shows me a lack of maturity and an inability to handle stress, which won't make him a very good admin in my book.
    • While he fights spammy, non-notable external links, he's added some links himself that don't look any better, with argumentative edit summaries [6] [7]. He even added one of those controversial links to multiple pages [8].
    • The relative lack of non-automated edit summaries makes it difficult to tell what he does.
    • To use his own argument, he has not shown he understands what adminship is.
    rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose This edit indicates this editor's lack of understanding of NPOV and verified sources for neutral articles. This edit exhibits more of the same along with a lot of personal attacking. And of course, there is this edit which is the final one of a series of exchanges in the Talk:Evolution arena. And we can't forget when he spammed 23 user talk pages on May 28, 2007 to get soldiers for his POV war against certain parts of the Evolution article. And that's just one article. I haven't the time nor the inclination to do the same for many other articles where the same modus operandi was used. This applicant needs to have a better understanding of NPOV and civility before I would ever consider voting. Orangemarlin 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment With the evolution article I was not trying to push my POV. I was just trying to make it more NPOV. In March I was a little to agressive with my attempt to do that, and I apologize for that.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • NPOV is only one letter away from MPOV (my POV). Be sure to keep the two separate. Sean William @ 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • (EC) First of all, please use edit summaries. Secondly, learn how to format lists. Thirdly, where else did I hear that line about "everyone else was POV, I was trying to NPOV"? Oh right, that would have been Sam Spade. Sorry, you claiming you were "trying to NPOV" does not make it an accurate statement. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment You can believe what you want about my intentions on editing the Evolution article but my intentions were not to push my point of view but to make it more NPOV.--James, La gloria è a dio 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
          • This has nothing to do with my hypothetical "belief" in your intentions. I would not presume to pretend to be a mind reader, but it doesn't matter. I don't care about your intentions. I don't even care about your personal point of view. I am speaking solely about your actions, over an extended period of time, of edit warring to promote your POV over consensus, without citations, without working with others, and with multiple incivilities and NPA violations. You are unsuited to have the block and edit protection buttons in your care. That is my considered opinion, and it is based upon your actions. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The issues raised by the opposers above lead me to believe that editor might misuse tools. PGWG 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, mainly per rspeer's diffs, but several other small things in the questions have set a few of my sensors off. In particular, the diff provided in Q4 is worrying, as XfD is a discussion, not a vote, and that is an important distinction I would hope anyone with the power to the things would know well. Also in Q2; "I would consider my vandal fighting my best contributions" is not a statement I'm fond of. If there are no particular articles you've worked on worth listing in your answer, then I suggest you go and write something. Heed the other oppose votes, come back in a few months time with more experience and I'll likely support you. - Zeibura Talk 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Mainly because, despite being counseled many times about it by well respected users (see his talk page archives & history), he still doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between good-faith edits which don't meet policy, and vandalism - which leads to biting the newbies as shown in this very recent edit. --Versageek 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose per Sean William but not as strongly. Sorry, mate. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I think his war on vandalism is quite extensive but i dont think he is a strong character nor that he could keep the war going for long (fighting vandalism is boring but if he could bann people himself hi might get a little fire in the nest). Peacekeeper II 04:45, 12 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.