Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonathan

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

Jonathan

(3/12/1); Ended 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan (talk · contribs) - Hello. I made my first edit here under an IP on March 28, 2006, and I joined under this account soon after. In December of that year, I lost the password to that account and joined under this account. I then forgot about Wikipedia (I have NO idea how that happened. :D) and stumbled upon the 'pedia again on February 2. During the months of February and March, I made a total of 5 edits. Then, in April, I started editing more seriously and my edits went up and up and up until October when I made almost 550 edits that month, which is a record as of the time that I typed this. I then started having burnouts and then retired in and out, and I apologize for that, as it was actually my real life that was affecting me, so, I'm sorry. Also, this month, I made a rather controversial post on the admin noticeboard about IRC, and I also apologize for that as I was just somewhat mad at that user. I currently have almost 1,900 edits, and I now feel I'm ready for the mop and bucket. I thank you deeply for any comments or criticism, and bye! Jonathan — end transmission 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to help out with deletion discussions and speedy deletion, and I also want to help out at WP:RPP, but I really haven't had the chance to be there yet. I also intend to help users, which I think is a commonly-overlooked job for admins. I want to help out at new page patrol, and help fight vandals. Also, I will be open to admin recall. Other than that, I will edit like I am now.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I really think my best contributions are to Nicktropolis ( an article I created), which is currently a good article nominee. Other than that, I treat all of my edits impartially.

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 been in a few edit conflicts, and some users have caused me stress at some rare times. I have dealt with it civilly and I intend to in the future. One of my edit conflicts was on Nicktropolis, when a user continually added a games section that was written like an ad. The other edit conflicts I have had were minor, and I still dealt with those civilly.

General comments

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

• Links for Jonathan: Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Jonathan — end transmission 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note this is the candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Support per my appreciation for Jonathan's dedication to Wikipedia and bearing in mind my comments on his editor review yesterday. The community may judge that this RfA is premature, but let's avoid a pile-on scenario here. Newyorkbrad 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger...so be it..a dedicated wikipedian should be power hungry or else those not interested will leave in a couple of days or fore go their sysop bit ..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Sadly, this RfA won't pass. I suggest you listen to the constructive comments in the oppose section, and try again in a few months. Best wishes. Acalamari 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — To clear up the murky waters of confusion, in my opinion, behavior on IRC is far different than any op action, as the latter is reversible and may be accidental; behavior is not. After seeing the way you've behaved on IRC, I can't support you with the nagging notion in the back of my mind that it may spill over onto wikipedia. Also, the AN thread about Trey didn't speak highly of you either, as Ryan said. —Animum _{(a rag man)} 20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
2. (ec) I hate to be the one who has to do this, but I just don't trust you with the admin tools. You show a lack of understanding for criteria for speedy deltion [1], [2], [3] [4]. Deciding to retire, then changing your mind less than 24hrs later [5]. I am failing to see much maturity and stability (stability including your repeat Wikibreaks, and decision to retire), for example immaturity [6], [7]. "If you care enough to see when I'm coming back" [8] - seemingly looking for attention and peole to beg you to stay. And this seemingly telling random users that you're going to be renamed. I don't think you're familiar enough with Wikipedia policies (especially the deletion policy) in order to become an admin. I hate to bring this in to matters, as I don't support ageism, but I find the concept of an eleven year old administrator being able to handle uncivil and rude vandals hard to believe, and to have the stability not to be offended when trolls start swearing and making personal attacks. Qst (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm also opposing because of your signature, why even that appears to show immaturity (i.e. Go Green), I just see a lot of immaturity. Qst (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Note, I'm not opposing because of th signature, it just seems immature to repeatedly change your sig to things like "Go green" and your current one, 99.9% of my reasons for opposition are in the long and boring paragraph. Qst (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - sorry but you brought up to AN/I Trey's conduct on IRC for wider attention[9]. This alleged misconduct didn't even happen in a wikipedia channel - I really wouldn't like to see what you'd do if you had the block button in that situation. Then there's originally opposing Cremepuff222's RfA because he banned you from his own IRC channel because you were being disruptive[10]! This isn't an IRC oppose, this is because I think you lack judgment on wikipedia by bringing non wikipedia IRC related conduct into serious discussion venues. Supporting your own RfA doesn't do you any favors either, sorry Ryan Postlethwaite 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I supported my RFA, I may not have voiced the support in the support column, but why is that a bad thing. I don't understand. Mercury 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   It inflates a support count and this isn't how we do things on this project. I've opposed for the other reasons primarily. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I understand where you are coming from now, however, the closing crats are not counting. Mercury 20:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   In an ideal world, no, but in reality I don't think that's quite the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose Users recent ANI thread about IRC shows that this user does not understand wikipeida policy. Experience in administrative areas could be better also. Please try again in a few months when you have more experience.—trey^{omg he's back} 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Also, on the ANI thread discussed above, Jonathan claims that I am "Acting the way I was before I was blocked", which looks like a bad faith assumption to me. —trey^{omg he's back} 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   You can assume bad faith in some cases. Jonathan — end transmission 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, when it has been proven that the person of whom you are assuming bad faith is clearly not acting in good faith, it is acceptable to assume bad faith. Trey may have exhausted good faith on IRC, but that's where the incident should have been resolved, not on AN/I. —Animum _{(a rag man)} 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Ryan and Trey. Basically I would recommend more experience in admin areas, and it would help to make more edits in the mainspace, as only about 1/3 of your edits are actually there. Also try and get more work in vandal-fighting as this will help you understand Wiki policies. Try and get more experience under your belt, the longer you are here, and the more edits you make, the better chance you have of running into different experiences and help you to become a better editor and ultimately an admin. Good luck!
   Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Supporting your own self-nomination appears to me that you have a power-hungry desire to become an admin. I would suggest that you reconsider your action. Also, I would suggest that you have more experience in admin related areas in order to be familiar with adminship as a whole. Icestorm815 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I don't particularly think anything is wrong with power hungry. Can we get some more folk hungry to be an admin apply? We only have 1,386 on the project. Mercury 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   His action conveyed a sense to me that he felt that adminship is a trophy, and I believe that should not be the case. Icestorm815 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I must be missing something here; how did he imply that adminship is a trophy by supporting his own RfA? I see it as a good-faith mistake, not power-hunger. Acalamari 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   I have to echo the above, I can't relate the same. Mercury 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess point taken with WP:Faith. However, I still feel his experience in admin related areas is lacking. Icestorm815 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose per Qst. Sorry, just not ready. Also, you can't support yourself. GlassCobra 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Why not? Mercury 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   What, why can't you support yourself? I'm pretty sure that's a rule, or at least pretty standard procedure. It's sort of assumed that you support yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be nominating. GlassCobra 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, but the candidate is not supposed to cast a numbered !vote in support of himself or herself. I think it's a forgiveable mistake, however. Newyorkbrad 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but I still would have opposed even if the candidate hadn't voted for himself. GlassCobra 20:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Sorry, but I'm not sure if your mature enough just yet. Ρх₥α 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Although he has some good traits to him (especially being able to code easily), the immaturity on Wiki and IRC is really not accepted among administrators. The user is acting like I used to, immature. You should read the oppositions then build off them. Admin coaching or an editor review also works well.^Mitch32^contribs 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry, but I do not think you've been seriously editing long or seriously enough. Maybe in a few more months. Bstone 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Qst and Animum's rationales. I'm not thrilled at the prospect where you have access to Special:Blockip. Maxim 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Opposesupporting your own nom is all I need to know. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Why?Mercury 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. To avoid pile on I#ll stay neutral. This will probably fail--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   May I ask how that comment is at all constructive? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, I suggest he withdraws, does some WP:XFD work and hang around WP:AN for a while before re applying--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 November 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.