Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jor 2


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

Jor
Final (0/8/6) ended 08:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN -- Jordi· ✆ 08:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

� I have been a Wikipedia user since december 2003. My main areas of interest here are languages, history, and J.R.R. Tolkien's writings, although I have been involved with many other articles as well. I am closely monitoring not just my extensive watchlist, but also recent changes, and revert vandalism as soon as I come across it. Mainly to make this task easier, and also to be able to further assist the WikiProject Middle-earth where regularily pages have to be moved over existing pages (requiring admin help) I seek admin access. I have gotten myself involved in some annoying revert wars with a now banned nationalist troll back in 2004 (see here for example), and have learned from that. My previous nominations have failed because of this, but I feel my record of the past year(s) should show that this is all in the past.

I edited under a different username, User:An�rion from ca. April 2004 until June 2006. Under my normal account I felt harassed by trolling users (User:Wik, his socks, and his supporters), and wanted to get away from that. It came to a point where I felt I had to spend more time defending myself than edit the Wiki. I created a new login, avoided the articles patrolled by the trolls, and soon after stopped editing under my normal username.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination = accepted.

Previous nominations: April 2004 - withdrawn, Sep 2004, Dec 2004.

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: Primarily vandalism control, additionally assisting in page moves and other jobs only admins can do. I will assist in the backlog whenever possible.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Asides from some of the Middle-earth articles, I am very pleased with my work on Typographical ligature, Tintin, Long s, to name a few which now come to mind. I do not really keep track of what I work on: whenever I see something I can improve, I will do 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, as mentioned above. See Stettin (Feb 2004), Swinem�nde (Feb 2004) From it I've learned to keep a cool head and not be baited. Rather than participate in conflicts I now step back, and seek third-party opinions.

Optional questions from 
 * 4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
 * A: Provided the editor is notable: I would inform them of WP:AUTO, and try to help to add verifyable info to the article. Most likely the article would need rewriting as well. If the editor is non-notable, move the info to the editor's user page.


 * 5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
 * A: Vandalism by a single user. Just block the user instead.


 * 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: Is the company at all notable? Does it read like an advertisement? If so, strip out everything but the bare essentials. Can the information be verified? Add links or sources.

Optional question (or questions) from �� Eagle 101 (Need help?)
 * 7. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

'''Optional question (or questions) from
 * 8. When I was reading over your RfA from September 2004, here, I found it particularly interesting that your alternate account, Anárion, denied being associated with the user account that you're using now, Jor. Especially, these quotes here really concerned me. "The only 'doubt' here seems to be that User:Wik (who I remind everyone was banned for excessive vandalism and edit warring) made a claim that I am Jor's sockpuppet..." and "If I were a "sockpuppet" of Jor, wouldn't he have replied either sooner, and from the same I.P.?" Can you explain what was going on with the accounts during that time?


 * General comments


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



Discussion



Support

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose. You've done a good job in your edits, but even though you joined just over three years ago, you've only been active the first 5 months since you joined, then didn't come back until more recently. But after September, you still edited but remained very inactive (the past three months, not including this one, all had <200 edits). Also, the questions are unsatisfactory (and no need to bold your answers), and I expect more depth to show you have more experience.  Insane phantom   (please comment on my Editor Review!)  13:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. You mean well, but you haven't really been ative on Wikipedia (45 December edits? Red Flag), plu your answers are poor. -- Wizardman 14:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking both accounts into, um, account, Jor/An�rion has averaged an edit every two and a bit hours for over three years, with no completely blank months. Oldelpaso 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't se the second account at first. If you look at that though there's stil very little activity in 2006 on either acount, my decision stands. -- Wizardman 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - your answers to Malber's question 6 wasn't particulary correct; what if the company fails notability guidelines? Yuser31415 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, you have been a big contributor over your time with Wikipedia...but you haven't been that active recently and your answers leave something to be de desired.Gan fon  21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose One of the previous failed RfA's raises serious questions, and I don't see clear answers here. Crum375 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Admin work includes lots of dealing with trolls. If trolls are enough to make you abandon an account, you are simply not suited for adminship. -Amarkov blahedits 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Answers (which do not need to be highlighted, we can find them) are not really satisfactory, and if trolls can scare you off as an editor, what will you do as an admin?--Anthony.bradbury 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose Phantom said it all. Alex43223Talk 05:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Lot of vandalism reversions, but your answers are not satisfactory at all, consider revising. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral pending revised and expanded answers, with diffs where appropriate - especially question 3! I would be interested to know why you edited under two different accounts? (aeropagitica) 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Longstanding contributor, clean block log, etc. but I'd like to see some expansion of reasoning in the answers, particularly Q5. Oldelpaso 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per concerns brought above. Answers make me not so sure you need the tools. &#8592; A NAS ''' Talk? 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral- Haven't been very active but quite good answers. Cheers to   2007 !  Us  e  r:Sp3000  00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Suggest withdrawal. Given your past difficulties with trolls are you sure you really want to be an admin? It would be bound to make you a focal point for trolls once again and this clearly overwhelmed you last time. You can do great work for Wikipedia as an editor without getting that kind of attention, but its not really compatible with adminship. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Until my optional question is answered. -- lov e  laughterlife♥ talk?  05:31, 10 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.