Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JetLover

Add links
Source: 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.

JetLover

FINAL: (1/6/2); Ended 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC); Withdrawn by candidate.

JetLover (talk · contribs) - Well, to describe him...he's me! OK, I joined in Mid May of 2007. Since then I've amassed 4500 edits, including more than 150 AIV reports, more than 100 UAA reports, and about 30 something RFPP requests. I'd like to become an admin so I can become a bigger part of that blue line that seperates WikiPeace fromt he vandals. And don't worry,

Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
As my contriubtions suggest, I plan to help out at the AIV, UAA, RFPP, delete CSD candaidates, and I also plan to give MUCH needed attention to the SSP, where cases can go un-noticed for weeks.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
Vandal-fighting, of course. Not only that, I pride myself for the fact that I do this stuff with out any fancy tools.
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?
On the page Ace Combat, I had a conflict with Sam ov the blue sand when I added a "goofs" section. He removed one that said planes can get hit with a missile and soldier on, saying that there were instances of it happening. I reverted, with a reaon in my edit summary. He reverted again, so I took it to his user talk page. We debated and we settled on leaving it there.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JetLover before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I have run into this user in the past, and he has always been civil and kind. For this reason, I can trust that he will not bite the newbies. Also, his vandal-fighting work is commendable, and he will be an asset to the folks at AIV. Neranei (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to my comment: As it looks like this RfA is going downhill, let me offer some constructive advice for you. First, get involved in article writing, perhaps through a WikiProject that you like. Second, get involved in WP:XFD; it will help you learn deletion policy. Also, about your userpage, I could redesign it with my code, if you like. If you need anything, email me or drop me a line on my talk page, I'd be happy to offer advice and such. Good luck! Cheers, Neranei (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose- I am unsatisfied with his mainspace work, which is mostly vandalism reversions, although the requests for protection are excellent. This talk page edit warring is also not of my linking. I also doubt his ability to correctly delete articles, per this; that's what {{stub}} is for. --Boricuaeddie 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that warning an editor with a level 2 template on their first offense is also something I'm not comfortable with. --Boricuaeddie 23:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DerHexer does the same thing. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs do not make a right. --Boricuaeddie 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was he assuming good faith? No. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean the vandal is assuming good faith, it means the editor giving the template is assuming good faith in the offending editor, for instance, that the edit the user made was simply a test. Which is good practice on a first offence unless it's something really blatant. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume the assumption of good faith :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at his edit? And besides, it's obvious he's not Assuming good faith when he does it twice. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Firm opposeI'm sorry JetLover, but I'm completely unimpressed by your nomination statement; it doesn't give me confidence that you'll be a good admin. You start with "Well to describe him... that's me!", a rather poor joke (and this is a serious forum), and end with a rather rude statement that Nixon is a crook. Also, you've got virtually no mainspace contributions, only reverts. In project-space, you only file reports at UAA, AIV, and RFPP. Your answers in the RfA are rather short, and the answer to question 2 is poor. I suggest you concentrate much more on article writing, instead of reverts. Maxim(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    About the jokes, I was only quoting Nixon and I don't know what else to put on the "discription."
  3. Oppose. UAA concerns - I'm not sure why he believes having the name of a real place in a username to be a blatant violation of policy ([1]) and also CSD concerns - this A7 tagging was inappropriate as the club's member list and references provided are clear assertions of notability, and also I seem to recall it was this user who created {{db-pov}} (pushing for a new speedy criterion to deal with "POV violations") without first proposing a new speedy criterion on WT:CSD (which he did after the template was deleted, and the proposal was swiftly rejected). I don't quite trust this user with the block or, moreso, the delete buttons just yet. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. VERY Weak Oppose Your edit count is ok, but I just feel like you need some more experience. Try again soon, and I'd be happy to support! Politics rule 23:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose Doesn't seem to have any article-writing experience (I'm sure you've all read my "why I think they're necessary" ramble by now). The user page is a total mess, which while not a reason to oppose in & of itself makes me reluctant to give this user power to edit the look & feel. Also (again not a reason to oppose in & of itself) has my least favourite userbox — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you're opposing me because of my userpage? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He said he was not opposing per that. He is just making a comment. Politics rule 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sigh - guess I'll have to wheel out my "why mainspace experience is important" essay one more time. As I specifically state, I'm not opposing on the grounds of your userpage, although doing so would be a valid reason; check out this RfA for an example of someone failing an RfA due to to issues with their user pages. Cut & pasted from another RfA yesterday but applies equally here:
    I know some editors disagree but I don't think it's possible to apply policy correctly without experience; being an admin isn't just zapping articles you don't like with your magic button, it's explaining to irate writers why you've deleted the article they spent three days working on, and with no article creation experience I don't see how you'll be able to reply to them — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. General inexperience and (to be brutally-honest) maturity issues, from past experiences with user that left a sour taste in my mouth (as an observer to correspondance between this user and others, not me personally). Further, the distinct lack of any encyclopedic additions doesn't inspire confidence. Strongly suggest withdrawal. Daniel 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Comment This is probably going to move into one of the other categories, but I want to get some thoughts down. I know they'd be more useful to everyone else if I backed them up with diffs etc, but I haven't the time to do so atm. JetLover's heart is definitely in the right place, from what I've seen, but there also seems to be a certain lack of understanding what it means to be an admin (ie, a janitor, an editor with a few more tools) that makes me a little uncomfortable. The big header saying "vote!" on the candidate's userpage linking here also doesn't inspire confidence. It's not enough for me to oppose though, and I could swing the other way depending on what other evidence I see. SamBC(talk) 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say "vote for me", though. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use #: when replying to comments here. --Boricuaeddie 23:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Looks like he might be a decent admin, but the short and joking responses make me think he's not going to take this seriously. I know it's "no big deal" to be an admin, but that's not to say that it's not a serious business selecting them. I'd like a little more detail about what this user has done and what he plans to do as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JetLover&oldid=1144565898"