Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/95jb14


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

95jb14
'''Final Tally (4/24/6) withdrawn by candidate. Non 'crat closure by –Katerenka  (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)'

Nomination
– I have been an editor since September 2008 and have contributed nearly 700 edits. I have taken to learning about much of the behind the scenes work involved in Wikipedia and enjoy that more that contributing articles. This involves reverting vandalism, work on WikiProjects (I created WP:Latin), wikimarkup and reading the 'Wikipedia:x' articles. I can handle any vandalism that comes in my way too. It would be a privilage to be an editor! 95jb14 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to fight vandalism using the specialist tools, I have recently been looking into protocols etc. I admit it may take some time to get into but I learn quickly and will enjoy the privilages. I will also enjoy being able to help new users and give advice.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I feel my best contributions are, firstly, St. George's College of Technology. I felt it was nowhere near good enough so I spent months editing and finding sources for it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Secondly, WikiProject Lincolnshire because I have changed the layout, tagged many new articles, created a barnstar and learnt so much from it and an admin called Kieth D.


 * I feel that I have tried to undo vandalism and I feel that this is always a valued, if not sometimes unnoticed, contribution; not from the vandal though! I do my best to revert it and enjoy doing so.


 * 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 not been under stress and always try to keep a cool head, I have had no major edit conflicts. If I did, I would get an administrator involved if it got too serious but I tend to find it is easier to walk away. If I were an admin then I would try to resolve the situation and perhaps get a more experienced editors advice.


 * Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
 * 4. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
 * A:I would most likely created a legitimate sockpupper called 95jb14b just in case my password isn't deemed to be secure or something, I will declare it though. I did have User:Jetthedog1195û but regretfully lost the password. I think I may have another one but I am not sure whether it was one here or not, I have lost the password too and it was a couple of years ago anyway.


 * Additional optional questions from Malleus Fatuorum
 * 5. Would I be correct in deducing from your username that you are 14 years old?
 * A: I do not comment on my age over the internet normally but I am 14.
 * If you "don't normally comment on your age", then why did you pick such an obvious username? Is your pasword equally easy to guess? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, this account was created more than a year ago. So either the user was 14 then, and is 15 now, or was 13 then and chose a username that just happened to have 14 in it.  Majorly  talk  17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the 14 at the end is actually just random, it's based on a user name I have at the school I attend, the year of birth, initials and then a random number so aas not to create a clash in names. The password is actually very personal so no, it's not easy to guess. 95jb14 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jb14 (talk • contribs)
 * Is the "95" at front, your year of birth if you're 14, also random? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're trying to ask, I was born in 1995, the fourteen is a completely random number and thus a coincidence. 95jb14 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for 95jb14:
 * Edit summary usage for 95jb14 can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/95jb14 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Just keep in mind that you are an editor already.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No evidence to suggest he's a threat to the project. Can't find any negative words spoken of or by him. In fact, I've found quite the opposite. Good worker, polite, and an asset to the project, even if he doesn't edit every day. So what if he has less than a thousand edits? since when did 5,000 robotic script edits actually increase someone's experience? This isn't a 'moral' support. This is a real support. Those opposing based on experience need to consider just what experience means. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support You have a clean blocklog and a nice mixture of different contributions to the project, by the standards of a few years ago when RFA was working you would be admin material. As it is sadly you won't make it this time; weak support because I think you could do with a little more experience and because you haven't picked up the unwritten rules, such as not to go for RFA until you are way over qualified for it. I'm not greatly bothered by your frequently forgetting to leave an edit summary, but I suggest you set your system to default to prompt you for edit summary after this because its precisely the sort of petty thing that can derail an RFA (and edit summaries are often useful)  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support.  I've looked over quite a number of your edits, and they look good to me.  However, I think you may have put the wrong copyright tag on File:Menu key screen.jpg, so I have taken the liberty of changing it (but I did not know which version of Firefox you used, so please fix the link in the new license template).  Also, I should be appreciative if all candidates for RFA would please answer the question (#4) about alternate accounts.  (I understand you have a disclosed alternate account; correct?) Bwrs (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
 * For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
 * However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
 * The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
 * As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
 * 1) Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
 * 2) Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
 * 3) Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
 * 4) Negotiate a compromise.
 * Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
 * Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
 * If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
 * My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. ArcAngel (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience first. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Probable WP:SNOW closure.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Candidate response: I appreciate your comments. To be honest I did think it was a risk.
 * 1) Oppose with Moral Support I'm sorry, but you need a little more experience. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per ArcAngel. SluggoOne (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW and in answer to Hammer above - experience on wikipedia is only quantifiable through edit quality and quantity. That does not mean an arbitary number of edits, but it does mean edits across the work, including both project and mainspace. Whilst technically in 300 edits one could write an FA, get an essay to Policy status, non admin close fifty AFD's accurately and report 80 vandals in reality this does not happen. Edits and tenure may be horribly rough metrics but they are often all we have to go on. To the candidate, NOTNOW is a useful guide, as is the advice above. Your hard work is not unappreciated but more evidence of your understanding of Wikipedia policy and norms is required, IMHO. Don't lose heart! Pedro : Chat  20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - While no administrator candidate should be expected to know everything about the job beforehand, and it's good to have a willingness to learn (and I'm sure there's a lot of on-the-job learning when you start) there's a certain amount of knowledge expected regarding policies and guidelines, and generally the community wants to see examples that you've been able to apply that knowledge during the RfA process. It's good that you have a humble approach and acknowledge your shortcomings, and think you might be a good prospect in the future. Perhaps you'd want to check out Admin Coaching if this RfA doesn't pass? --  At am a  頭 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - More experience needed. Since there is little chance this request will pass muster, may I suggest you withdraw now, spend time working to learn more about the Wikipedia adminship role and what it requires, and try again next year? Best wishes, Jusda  fax  21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Try working in some place where your bound to run into "dramaz", such as vandal fighting. Admins are often dispute resolver, at least in the eye's of newer users, and having experiance in conflicts is something. Abce2 | This is  not a test  00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Oppose-I generally dislike to oppose on the grounds of edits, but in your case...it appears as though you don't have the necessary "history" to sufficiently demonstrate your knowledge/dedication to the project. Consider making more contributions and reopening an rfa in a few months.Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) I was going to make a neutral comment, but looking a bit further, I'm going to have to oppose. 80-odd mainspace edits just isn't enough article experience and honestly, the article edits I looked at left me with a number of concerns. Leaving aside your various user subpages, you have nearly as many edits (73) to User:95jb14 than you do to articles! Neither is 80 project edits sufficient. Outside this RFA, all your project edits seem to be to wikiprojects with none in any admin-related areas. While you started editing in September 2008, until June this year you only averaged about 11 edits per month and then after June 2009, you've averaged about 115 edits a month (overall its about 48 per month). I'm not just looking strictly for edit numbers but also their quality, but this really is not enough for you to get sufficient experience or for me to get a good picture of you and evaluate your suitability for adminship. Also note that most "admin jobs" don't actually need access to admin tools and can be done by non-admins, and if you wish to be an admin, it would be good if you got some experience with that sort of work. Your answer to question 1 is a bit concerning and I suspect from it that you don't have a great understanding of the role of administrators on Wikipedia. You said: "I learn quickly and will enjoy the privilages". Adminship is just a maintenance-type job ("a janitor") rather than a privilege to be enjoyed. You also said you would like to fight vandalism, help new users and give advice, but you don't need to be an admin to do any of this work and you can do it now as a regular contributor. I feel you need much more and broader experience and I would encourage you to get more involved and join in community discussions, as well as doing a lot more article content work before returning to RFA. Addit: Sorry, I was going to be neutral, but I've noticed you also seem to be using non-free content (which includes the copyright WP logo and name, the Microsoft Windows logo and a bunch of other copyright logos at the bottom) decoratively on your userpage in violation of WP:NFCC, and all up I feel there's enough reason to oppose. Sarah 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Not yet have the experience to be an administrator, sorry. Maybe in the future. &mdash; RyanCross  ( talk ) 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose due to WP:NOTNOW. Unfortunately, the lack of mainspace edits is a killer. Echoing Sarah above I don't know if you have an actual NEED for the tools at this point, you can do a lot without the tools and would definitely benefit from gaining more experience and trying out various sectors of Wikipedia to find your strengths. After establishing yourself some more I would say seek Admin Coaching and then reapply. Valley2 city ‽ 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Though I see you have put in some effort into anti-vandalism, I simply feel that your experience is far from what is expected. Also, the lack of WP mainspace edits is a big concern. I'd say you would make a good candidate in the future, after you get more experience on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose. Peachypoh (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose because of what you had in User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area which was visible for over a month till 12 August. Admins can't go around insulting those they are trying to help out. Thanks for blanking it however! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per Graeme Bartlett. User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area was way out of line. decltype (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I have to oppose on grounds of lack of experience. With regard to Graeme's comment above, lack of civility and contempt among Admins. is a major issue for me and it seems to be an increasing trait. Keep your nose clean before your next RfA and always consider how you would like to be addressed and how you would feel if someone was uncivil towards you. It wouldn't be tolerated face to face and nor should it be across the ether. Keep up your efforts. Leaky  Caldron  14:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Lack of experience alone should have made this a NOTNOW closure, I would have thought. Normally I wouldn't pile on, but "They are tits, idiotic twats who don't care for anyone but they're own shitty reputation and disrespect and corrupt everything that exists in wikipedia"? And now you want to be one of these twats? Tan   &#124;   39  14:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * candidate respnonse: yes I noticed that, I think someone got my password or something, I will change it to prevent it from happening again. I meabt to but forgot. 95jb14 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jb14 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Strong oppose I normally wouldn't pile on either, but Tan makes a very convincing argument. Until It Sleeps  T •  C 15:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Graeme and Decltype. Not at this time. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above concerns. Although it is an unwritten rule, you generally want to be squeaky clean in the preceeding months before an RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Looking for more experience, sorry. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area ("They are tits, idiotic twats who don't care for anyone but they're own shitty reputation"), combined with a lack of experience, forces me to oppose. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the user claims someone hacked his account. I'm having difficulty assuming good faith here, and even if that statement were true, then I'd have to worry about security. Sorry, but something isn't right here. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose At the risk of piling on, I'm piling on. You have less than 1000 edits total.  We have tremendous editors with 9000 edits that aren't passing RfA's.  Maybe you're above excellence, but how do we know with such little work?  Although being an admin is no big deal, there are some serious requirements and trust that need to be met. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I find your enthusiasm and desire to help absolutely wonderful, and from what I can see you are learning about a number of different ways to do so around Wikipedia (e.g. improving articles, vandal fighting, working with templates). Other editors here have expressed that you have a good record, and what you've done already is really the only way to judge how you would do with admin tools.  I believe a larger edit history under your belt will make it easier for people to support you, but to my knowledge there is no age requirement for this position.  Keep up the good work.--otherlleft 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral: Seems to have good intentions but needs more experience.. South Bay (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per WP:NOTNOW, but thank you for your commitment and please do get a few more thousand edits under your belt. We need you! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Keep working against vandalism, but try doing more as well and an RfA shouldn't be a problem in the future.  Grsz 11  02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral as I don't want to pile on to the opposes. It's admirable that you created a WikiProject (I thought one for Latin already existed, but apparently not). I think you need to spend a little more time working in the various areas in which you'll work, especially given the low number of total edits you have. I suggest coming back in six months or so. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral While I really appreciate your enthusiasm and contributions to the project, personally I feel you need more experience.If this RFA fails, please understand that it has nothing to do with your commitment or good intentions. Keep up the good work --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:06, 8 October 2009 (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.