Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SJP

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.

SJP

FINAL (13/18/4); withdrawn by candidate[1] and closed 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SJP (talk · contribs) - The beauty of the vision of wikipedia is great. A free encyclopedia with accurate information, that anyone can get to. I strongly believe in the importance of Knowledge, and I am a wikipedian to make sure the knowledge here stays accurate. I have been here at wikipedia for just about a year, and I have had plenty of time to learn. I have made mistakes, and I have learned from them;which is very important. The reason why I want to serve wikipedia as an admin is because I feel as if we are, and always will be, in need of more admins loyal to the vision of our great encyclopedia. I feel as if I am fit for this duty. SJP 21:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, of course:)


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?
Those who are familiar with me know that my main work here at wikipedia is anti-vandalism work. I believe vandal fighting to be very important because vandals ruin the credibility of wikipedia. Because of vandalism, my school has banned us from using wikipedia. We need to work to revert vandalism ASAP.
I fully understand that I can fight vandalism fine without the admin tools, but I feel as if getting the tools can expand my fight. On many occasions I have run into vandals, reported them, and they were not blocked soon enough and vandalized a handful of articles before being blocked. It would be helpful for the community here if I could block there people right away. My main focus as an admin would be blocking vandals who have been given a last warning both on AIV, and the ones I run into on my vandal fights.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
I am not a article writer. I suck at writing informative articles. I find that to be extremely hard. I much prefer to write essays:) Also, I really do not enjoy editing articles:)
I feel as if I can serve wikipedia better by just being a vandal fighter. Many of my content edits just get reverted anyway;) I would have to say, my anti-vandal work is the thing I am most happy with. In the past, not so much in this month, I have devoted many hours to fighting vandalism. Sometimes during summer vacation I stayed up all night to fight vandalism. That is how important it is to me.
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?
Sadly, I got into 3RR way back in March. I am feel bad about disrupting wikipedia, and I apologize. Since then, I have worked hard to improve, and learn from the situation. That is the important part. I believe, that the most damaging mistakes are the ones we do not learn from. We must learn something from our mistakes and use it to improve.
All edit wars do is create stress. In the future I will use kind words to help. If that does not work I will use the mediating process. I would rather stay out of conflicts when not needed though because they cause stress even when civil.

Optional question from TwoOars

4.Can you elaborate about your understanding of NPOV? (in your own words, with suitable examples if you can find them)
Hello TwoOars, and thank you a lot for the question:) For a article to be considered NPOV, I personally believe it must have a balance in its information. What I mean by this is that it should have roughly the same amount of negative, and positive information. You should never have an article with all positive information, and you should never have a article with all negative information. This is going against the idea of Wikipedia.
Also, for an article to be NPOV, you can't write from your point of view. Blogs are for that:) Not wikipedia. If you need to have a backup question, please ask me and I will answer ASAP:) Hope this helped.--SJP 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: it should have roughly the same amount of negative, and positive information: How can you possibly do that, say, on an article about a mass murderer? - TwoOars (Rev) 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer this tommorow. I have had a long day, and was up late last night, so I am tired.--SJP 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Bearian

5. How have you improved since June's Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir james paul?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Cremepuff, I am a teen:) I am not the best spellar:)--SJP 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're applying for adminship on the 8th most visited website of the world. Your age is irrelevant. Your ability to communicate is, however. Just a thought. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your opening statement you say "I strongly believe in the importance of Knowledge, and I am a wikipedian to make sure the knowledge here stays accurate." Then in #2 you say that you are not good at writing articles. With this, I am worried, because certain policies like BLP apply here. If you aren't experienced in mainspace, then I don't think you know what "fighting vandalism" actually is. This is why I am concerned with some RFAs and the RFA process as a whole. IMHO, mainspace equals at least 70% of the encyclopedia. Administrators simply do not revert vandalism. That's what some bots do. Administrators are expected to use the tools in a wise manner, know the process well, get along with others, resolve conflicts, et. cetera-- to the point of not getting bad publicity for the project or dramazors. Currently, Wikipedia is one of the top sites on the internet and is a target of publicity. Unfortunately, bad publicity is leaked due to inexperience with the tools, conflicts within the community/Jimbo, possible suing by a living person because of libel issues to the foundation. Due to lack of mainspace edits and inexperience, I cannot support at this time. I suggest you to take all of our opinions seriously--whether good or bad--because many people in the outside world think that administrators are the face of Wikipedia...sadly. Miranda 10:33, 31 October 2007

Support
Changed to oppose Yep, this user is good. After a conversation with him on IRC a while back, I have nothing bad to say, however maybe you need to de-bold the answers to the questions :) Although I have to say, that more article writing would be prefered, instead of just automated vandal reverts, however that is still an appreciated task. Qst 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Man oh man...I thought that SJP was a sysop...I guess not... nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I've known this user for a while and he has shown great maturity and trustworthiness.—treyomg he's back 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - SJP is a nice, friendly and polite user who will not abuse the admin tools. I know that this person will make a great admin. :-) --Roosa 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I see no major issues brought up, and your good vandalfighting is more than enough to outweigh any inexperience elsewhere. VanTucky Talk 22:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) change to oppose, see reasoning below.[reply]
  4. Support Seen this user around. Nothing wrong with this user. NHRHS2010 talk 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have encountered this user in many places around Wikipedia; civil as well. Should make a good administrator. Acalamari 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Definately a good faith user and a good vandal fighter as well.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hey, you told me that I'm allowed to (co-)nominate you! —DerHexer (Talk) 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support have a little faith in this user, very friendly and has shown some serious dedication --Pumpmeup 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not Mailer Diablo, but I approve this candidate nonetheless! —Animum (etc.) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I don't see any reason why not.   jj137 (Talk) 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I trust the user with the tools. PrestonH 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support He is a great vandal fighter. I believe that this user will not abuse the admin tools given to him. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Dustihowe 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Regretful Oppose No question that your anti-vandal work is top notch - 400+ reports to WP:AIV - wow! But a quick click on your deleted edits shows about three contributions tags for C:CSD and little WP:AFD work. I'm sorry, and if I was a developer I'd probably give you the "temporary block" button (if there was such a thing). But you can't have part of the tools. Basically nothing in article work, nothing in CSD/AFD mean I just can't support this. I'm the first one to say that article creation / expansion is irrelevant if you've demonstrated policy knowledge through other avenues - but you simply haven't. You're brilliant at reverting vandalism (via TW) but I have no evidence of much else. I'm sorry, but best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, he only mentioned AIV in Q1. — H2O —  09:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I know - that's why I said I'd love to just give him one (non-existent) button. But it's all or nothing. Pedro :  Chat  09:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point. — H2O —  09:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, with regrets. You're doing great work fighting vandalism. However, I'm not comfortable with your answers to the RfA questions. Taken in context with your lack of article writing, this raises concerns about your communication skills. Keep up the great work. Majoreditor 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not a chance quite simply, I don't trust you one bit. Your are not mature. This RfA alone shows you don't follow the advice of others. CO 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? WIll you give some examples please? I have been very mature. I have acted with civility with all, have made only a few mistakes since June, and I have made tons of constructive edits. I do not see anything that could be consider "immature". Also, yes I have followed the advice of others. If you take a look at my last Rfa, bitting was a problem. Right away I started to work on the problem, and I have new bitten a new user since then. Also, by not edit warring for a while I have proven that I have no intent to edit war. As for having no trust, I don't see why not, but you are free not to trust me.--SJP 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show the diffs please CO so we can examine further? PrestonH 03:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose I'm not usually one for "strong", "weak", or otherwise colorful votes, since we all know that RfA in practice is not a forum for discussion. But I digress. Although your fighting of vandalism is very admirable and your lack of mainspace contributions do not trouble me as I believe article writing is not indicative of the potential quality of admin work, I see little edits in project space or anything else that would indicate a firm grasp on policy or dispute resolution. If you show some evidence of policy knowledge in your next RfA via participation in deletion discussions, etc., I would be glad to support. Another thing to consider—and please don't think I'm being harsh—is that your command of the English language is not very good. Administrators should be able to communicate articulately with other users. (If you speak other languages, ignore the last two sentences: that's a plus in my book.) Cheers, east.718 at 02:59, 10/31/2007
  5. I (although I surprise myself by doing this) agree with CO. I find saying "I have been very mature." to be something very immature to say - I think you should let your actions, not your words, speak. And no, I don't have diffs to prove this, rather it's a trend I've seen in interactions (direct and indirect) with SJP. Oh, and while I don't oppose per this, I also prefer to see a higher level of fluency in English then SJP has demonstrated. But I don't oppose per that. — H2O —  08:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Pedro sums it up perfectly... regretful oppose. Jmlk17 09:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - per Pedro. Also, in your opening statement you say "I strongly believe in the importance of Knowledge, and I am a wikipedian to make sure the knowledge here stays accurate." Then in #2 you say that you are not good at writing articles. With this, I am worried, because certain policies like BLP apply here. If you aren't experienced in mainspace, then I don't think you know what "fighting vandalism" actually is. This is why I am concerned with some RFAs and the RFA process as a whole. IMHO, mainspace equals at least 70% of the encyclopedia. Administrators simply do not revert vandalism. That's what some bots do. Administrators are expected to use the tools in a wise manner, know the process well, get along with others, resolve conflicts, et. cetera-- to the point of not getting bad publicity for the project or dramazors. Currently, Wikipedia is one of the top sites on the internet and is a target of publicity. Unfortunately, bad publicity is leaked due to inexperience with the tools, conflicts within the community/Jimbo, possible suing by a living person because of libel issues to the foundation. Due to lack of mainspace edits and inexperience, I cannot support at this time. I suggest you to take all of our opinions seriously--whether good or bad--because many people in the outside world think that administrators are the face of Wikipedia...sadly. Miranda 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a good note, the candidate is indeed taking the feedback constructively an positively. [2] Pedro :  Chat  10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I abstain my oppose. I will leave my comments in the discussion section above for everyone to think about. Miranda 19:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretful Oppose I do not support Miranda's reasoning for this matterm as WP:BLP doesn't come in to it in anyway, however. This user stated on IRC, that they have the support of several users in good standind, one of these I believe to be Husond. However, I am in doubt supporting this, mainly because of the candidate's quickness in this RfA, it appears you want things now, and are not willing to wait. I personally think you'll make a good administrator, but all you do is revert vandalism, although still a valuable and good job in it's self, it would be nice to see a varitation of article work/creation/vandal reverts. I also must point out that it appears you are unwilling to take advice, I commented on IRC that it maybe a good idea to tone your userpage down, as it is very bright and in your face. However, you're still a great editor, but I think you should not plan your next RfA, and carry on editing, create some articles, revert some vandals, join in discussions. Don't limit your editing patterns on Wikipedia, keep you head up high. Qst 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - can't support when I see answers like "For a article to be considered NPOV...must have roughly the same amount of negative, and positive information." - this is blatantly incorrect. User doesn't seem very mature, very little outside of AIV. XfD is crucial. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir james paul. Not enough has changed, and I agree with the assertions made above. Failing to note your previous username (and hence failed RfA) anywhere in the nomination doesn't read well in my book, either. Daniel 12:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the distinction is largely irrelevant, the answer to Q4 makes me feel obliged to note my strong opposition to this nomination. Daniel 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose RfA's are about editors demonstrating that the community can trust them. Leaving out your prior RfA and identity does not lead me to trust you. Hiberniantears 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose lack of experience writing articles shows in things like the poor answer to Q4 about NPOV. I think this demonstrates how article writing is a necessary experience, it is the foundation for sound judgement in the use of admin powers. Failure to mention previous RfA doesn't help. Pete.Hurd 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Nothing personal - indeed I have no knowledge of this user beyond what's in this RfA - but the answers to the questions (particularly re NPOV) inspire concern rather than confidence. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - per Pedro. The little work in areas that are desired, can be come tricky when in the situation. Rudget Contributions 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. switching to Oppose per the absolutely infantile answer to the question on NPOV. Equal weight is obviously not about just the amount of information, and it is only one factor in NPOV. The candidate either has a poor understanding of policy or is unable to communicate clearly, either of which is a troubling thing. VanTucky Talk 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Unlike Kurt Weber, I don't have a problem with self noms. However, I agree with VanTucky and others that the answer to the NPOV question displays a clear misunderstanding of a major, if not THE major, principle guiding article writing on Wikipedia. AvruchTalk 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The answer to the NPOV question is extremely poor. We can't give the tools to someone who doesn't understand the undue weight clause. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Regrettably, i will have to oppose your request for adminship. Your answer to, in particular, question number 4, shows an insufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I also question your choice of words, although this is probably due to you not being a native speaker of English (i suffer from this myself). --Aqwis 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, per Pedro (talk · contribs), above. For me, it's simply not enough to oppose, but I do think article creation/focus on upgrading articles in quality-type of experience is needed at least to some high degree. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Neutral - answer to Q4 is concerning. Addhoc 12:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral– I don't want to oppose, but I think you still need to do some work in mainspace. Ksy92003(talk) 13:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Another neutral I strongly regret. I offered to nominate SJP some time ago for the valuable work performed, but I confess I also share some of the concerns raised by the opposers. More time is needed to fix those concerns, sorry. Don't be discouraged though. Húsönd 18:38, 31 October 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/SJP&oldid=1091449259"