Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/joeferret

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] Joeferret

Final: (1/5/0) Ended 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Joeferret (talk · contribs) – Joeferret has shown great admiration for the purpose of wikipedia as learning tool and has made thoughtful edits and corrections to numerous entries. His conduct in discussions is exemplary. He has kept his patience with less than polite users who commit vandalism and/or resort to personal attacks rather than participate in an open dialogue. Joeferret is a user I can trust and would be proud to have him as an admin. Thank You for considering him. Hosedeck 10:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.Joeferret 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  I humbly accept this nomination to adminship.  I thank Hosedeck for nominating me, I truly wasn't expecting this.  It just goes to show that the hours that you put into making Wikipedia better can pay off in unexpected ways.  I hope that all of you voting out there will recognize my commitment to the Wikipedian lifestyle.  Thank you.
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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate helping take care of the wikipedia and administrative backlogs, in all of the various categories. I think I have a good eye for vandalism and practical jokes, so I'll probably be spending a lot of time researching disputed articles and deleting them if deemed deletion material by the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Ironically I'm most pleased with an edit of mine rather than with any particular article creation. Specifically, my edit of the article on Larry Elder. Someone who had heard the show but had obviously not heard the show as extensively as I had written that Larry charges shipping to democrats who win his "Eagle Eared Elderado Exam". However, I know from experience that he doesn't do this, he only jokes about it. It feels good to right a wrong perpetrated on the great Larry Elder.
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: Yes I have had conflicts as any perusal through my history will attest. My most heated conflict was with SchuminWeb over my article Anarcho-homosexualism. This was in my early days as a Wikepedian, and I wasn't entirely knowledgable about the rules and mores of editing and article creation. Hence, I created an article that was deemed non-notable and un-verifiable. I naturally fought this charge, and others came to my assistance during the debate. However, Schuminweb, along with other users, accused these supporters of mine as being my sockpuppets. I can honestly say I have a clear conscience, as none of my supporters were sockpuppets. Unfortunately these users showed themselves to be vindictive and cruel, classifying me as a troll without the least bit of evidence. So yes, I've had my troubles on Wikipedia, but that was in the past, and I think I've built up my reputation and my contributions to Wikipedia, and my clear mind and level head will help me sort through problems that might crop up in the future.
Comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support. Joeferret has been nothing short of a model wikipedia user and has gone above and beyond in his conduct and manner. His edits are valueable and he always lends a patient and willing hand to newbies unfamiliar with wiki edicate. A great candidate for admin if there ever was one. Hosedeck 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I lend my full support to myself. Joeferret 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: I would of considred supporting you, but you have less then 20 contibs and you supported your self :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. User only has twenty edits, which isn't enough to judge if he'd be a good administrator. Stick around for a few more months and then give it a go. I also suspect the nominator of being a sockpuppet. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose way too few edits, also a history of creating vandalistic articles User_talk:Joeferret#Eugene_verkhovsky and doesn't understand the RfA process (supporting his own RfA). Gwernol 20:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, oppose - twenty edits, mostly to either this page or a page that was apparently deleted that this editor created and edited; no indication of knowledge of policy or experience to handle admin duties. Nominator has six edits, one to the AfD page of the above article. Give it a year or so, get lots of productive edits, and we'll see from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose way, way too early. --Alex (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose Twenty edits, half of them on an AfD and more than a quarter on this RfA? Sorry, admins need way more experience than that. --physicq210 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.