Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Milburn


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

J Milburn
Final (5/16/8); Ended 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

– Very smart, good Wikipedian, very active, would make a good admin, would use the tools carefully  Kamope ·  talk  ·  contributions   22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! J Milburn 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do 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: Administration jobs that I think I would be most involved with would be speedy deletions, as that is something that I use a lot already. Also, dealing with blocking editors and generally dealing with vandalism and spam. However, I feel that I could expand into whatever areas needed admin attention. I enjoy working for the project, whatever I am doing. I am willing to trawl through lists, dealing with everything there (as I do on new page patrol) or review things in intricate detail, as I do when I read through entire articles, sourcing every statement, or changing the citation style. I would be quite happy to do whatever was needed.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Yeah, there are a couple. Askam and Ireleth is probably my 'best' article- although I didn't write it, I sourced it up, took the pictures and added a lot of the information in it. Another article that I trawled through, providing sources and adding significant amounts of information to, is Voltaire (musician). The best article that I personally created would be Pro-jekt, but it certainly isn't a great one! Generally, I contribute through new page patrol, or editing whatever I come across while surfing the site, rather than by writing articles. I have also rewritten a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles. Dire animal is very long, I used writing it as a vent for stress I was feeling at the time. It isn't a stunning article, but I suppose it could show a commitment to the project.


 * 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: 'Conflicts' I have are generally with new users- people trying to defend vandalism articles, people not understanding Wikipedia policy and the such. I have never really been involved in an edit war or a heavy dispute. I think each dispute is going to be best dealt with in a different way, but, generally, I find that turning to Wikipedia's policy is usually the best route forward. As I say, as my conflicts are usually with people not understanding Wikipedia's policies, linking to the appropriate pages and explaining the reasoning for the policy will often diffuse the problem. Alternatively, when I am facing disputes that have not gone the way I expected them, I often turn to the Wikipedia IRC channel (Where I go by the name of J_Milburn) for advice.
 * 4. You mentioned that you would deal with blocking editors.Currently severly admins have taken up the habit of blocking indefinately and blocking IP addresses.Would you continue this pattern be more forgiving in your blocks?
 * A: I would say that I would only permanently block someone if they had NEVER contributed anything useful to Wikipedia, had ignored warnings and not changed their ways after lighter bans. Other than that, only very unusual circumstances (vandalising the main page in some way, setting up a macro to do some kind of damage, something like that) when someone was doing their best to destroy Wikipedia in some way) would I permanently block someone. That is how I see it now, maybe my opinion would change.


 * General comments


 * See J Milburn's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion



Support
 * Weak support. Just barely enough meta-discussion stuff, but there don't seem to be other problems. I can't say I understand opposing because of the nominator; being supported by Willy on Wheels would not automatically mean you're bad... -Amarkov blahedits 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (Changed to weak oppose)
 * But accepting a nomination from Willy on Wheels would no doubt earn someone lots of opposes regardless of their quality. – Chacor 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't Willy on Wheels. --Majorly 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might well earn them lots of opposes. But I would assume that they did not know how bad the nominator was. However, I notice now that the nominee has responded to you with "I knew that, but I wanted to be an admin", so I'm going to have to reconsider. -Amarkov blahedits 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Support. Most of the opposition doesn't make any sense to me &mdash; how does Q1 not show a need for admin tools? But whatever. I see evidence of helpful contributions to AfDs, and no evidence of anything wrong, except that diff cited by BigDT. Don't get too trigger-happy! Grand  master  ka  03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Maybe I'm biased and I want to see another Furness administrator. Many of the users opposing have given objections that he hasn't been involved in the administrative side of Wikipedia (e.g. lack of Wikipedia namespace edits). I don't think this is a legitimate objeciton.
 * Before I became an admin I don't think I even knew WP:ANI or WP:CSD existed. I didn't need to because I wasn't using them. Why on earth should he have contributed to the Wikipedia space? The user has proven himself to be a good article writer - OK, he's not done many but Askam and Ireleth has come on leaps and bounds. He's clearly willing to do the dull tasks, too, such as tagging speedies (one mistake is allowed every now and then) and contributing in AFDs - "I am willing to trawl through lists" sounds pretty good to me.
 * So I think this user should be given his chance with the mop. Why turn down a dedicated worker because he's not contributed to pages on which he's had nothing to contribute? If he becomes an admin he'll learn the policies he needs and do a damned good job. --Robdurbar 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I agree with the above - I see lots of admins who don't spend a lot of time performing admin-related activities ;-). ugen64 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. It seems that he will help Wikipedia in areas where it is currently being neglected. Rhythmnation2004 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. He has done few amazing things. However, he appears to be good at doing administrative work. He also appear to be willing to do the administrative work. No reason to oppose him besides his lack of amazing things. Captain  panda   Mussolini ha sempre tarche   Quis ut Dues  01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I haven't looked at all of the users contributions, but I have gone back as far as July 6th, 2006 and do not see any edits to the key pages such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AIV. Carpet9 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you accept a nomination from someone who has something like User:Kamope/Fun house (and a talk page at Talk:User:Kamope/Fun house, not even at the appropriate User talk space), I have to question your sense of judgement. – Chacor 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Oppose withdrawn. Needless fuss. – Chacor 10:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above; candidate does not show sufficient need for admin tools. Yuser31415 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - no requirement for the janitorial trolley at present; although his gnoming and minor contributions have been good, this is not admin material. Participation in XfD debates (such as AfD, TfD or MfD) and in anti-vandalism is needed to demonstrate even a basic requirement for sysop access. An excellent Wikipedian, but one who doesn't need the mop to continue his credible contributions. Dixi - Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 00:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Yuser, though I believe Chacor's reasoning to be flawed. His choice though.-- Wizardman 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I have no probs with the nominator, and I will not oppose on that reason at all. But more wikipedia space edits would be nice and I don't see any obvious need for admin tools at this time. Sorry. Arjun 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Chacor and Anthony_cfc. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 02:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per this edit which really has me scratching my head.  I think that you could probably use some more experience with the various administrative processes, but you are obviously a very dedicated editor and if you do reapply after some more experience a few months down the line (I hope you will) I will support next time. --BigDT 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit tonight.  Please read WP:CSD - if one of the criteria there doesn't fit, the article cannot be speedy deleted.  --BigDT 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per BigDT, and Yuser31415. Daniel5127 &lt;Talk&gt; 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Quite a close call. One speedy tagging mistake isn't the end of the world, you've got lots of edits, and they're good. However, the fact that you have accumulated less than 130 talk page edits in nearly a year of editing and your answer to question 3 lead me to believe there is a large area of Wikipedia you are unfamiliar with. The endless disputes (over content, over alleged personal attacks, over historical events, over religion, over sources, over the existence of IRC e.t.c. ad nauseam) that go on all over this site are something an admin has to be used to, because he's not going to get very far without getting his hands dirty as it were. Consensus and debate are the key to this project. Moreover, from what I gather, you haven't yet written a single article, and I'd heartily recommend you do (there must be something you can write a stub about). You'll find that after that, you'll be more careful to warn people when you nominate their articles for speedy deletion, and maybe you'll be more understanding of the irate responses you'll get from good-faith contributors who've just seen a good hour of work go up in smoke because of a three letter code a bunch of geeks have been citing. yandman  08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created numerous articles- see User:J Milburn/Articles for a list of pretty poor stubby type ones I created (mostly albums) and see Pro-jekt for the best article that I personally started. J Milburn 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, I didn't look deep enough into your contributions. yandman  21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per User:Yandman. Maybe sometime in the future when you have more varied editing experience.--E va b d  19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose You've been a great contributor to Wikipedia, but your answers and Wiki Edits show that you haven't been concentrating on admin.-related articles. Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you'd be the monst helpful admin. Gan fon  20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose per Ganfon. Alex43223Talk 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose a good encyclopedia writer, but does not need the mop. The editor is the researcher. An admin is just the janitor. -- Selmo  (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak oppose. I assumed that you didn't think to check your nominator, but you state that you did, and accepted anyway. -Amarkov blahedits 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Petr K 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Does not show sufficient need for admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral A good editor and no real problem with the quality of your edits. I would like to see participation in vandal fighting and related admin activities before sliding over to 'support'. (aeropagitica) 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per (aeropagitica) - need more experience. --Majorly 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral So far, off to a good start, but I think more experience is required, more XFD's to prove policy knowledge. More experience at vandal-whacking and dealing with the consequences would be good too, particularly as the candidate expresses a desire to work in the area with the mop.  The Rambling Man 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, but not taking into account who the nominator is. Needs more evidence that you are already doing admin-related work.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  11:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral needs more experience and XfD participation. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 13:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral you can use policy-oriented experience before getting the mop, but so for you are doing well as a Wikipedian.-- danntm T C 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, while I think this user is a good editor, he needs to have more participation in admin-related tasks like xFDs, participating in admin discussions as well as vandal fighting. Keep up your good work and try to do admin-related tasks. Terence Ong 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral. I see no need for this person to have admin tools. I do not think he would make a bad admin though. Get more active in vandal fighting, and Xfd's, the try again in a Rfa and I would support you. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:38, 21 January 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.