Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JayJ47

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

JayJ47

(1/4/0); Scheduled to end 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:SNOW. Rudget (review) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JayJ47 (talk · contribs) - I have been an editor since October 11, 2007 and has since made over 1000 contributions to wikipedia. I focus on mostly music-related articles but occasionally also edit game related articles, and on rare occasions anime related articles. I am a member of the Grand Theft Auto Task Force and the Userbox WikiProject. I am also a Good Article Reviewer. I have uploaded several images, and also enjoy creating new userboxes. JayJ47 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 take part in all aspects of admin work. I will be taking part in AfD's, Image deletion, Merging page histories, Performing requested moves as well as Protecting and Unprotecting pages. I will also take part in fighting against vandalism, and am interested in helping new users to understand Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

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

A:

I am proud of all my contributions to wikipedia, good and bad. Bad because they have helped me learn from my mistakes, and understand more about what and what not is acceptable on wikipedia. I am especailly proud of all my contributions to music-related articles, whether it be the uploading of images, creation of articles, or the information I include in various music-related articles. I am also proud of all the userboxes I have created, and my contributions to game-related and anime-related articles.

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 haven't been in any conflicts at this point, but if I ever get involved in one in the future, will approach the situation calmy and rationally, and sort the issue(s) out with the associated users. I was however one of the many users who contributed to a heated debate on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Talk Page when a discussion was going on about the removal of fair use images from this article's character page.

Questions from George The Dragon

4. If Wikipedia is trying to be a serious encyclopedia, are there any advantages to having editors who would not be employed by a paper encyclopedia?

A:

5. Is it right that anonymous users can edit biographies of living people in such a way that could cause serious real-world harm?

A:

6. Should there be an age restriction on administrators and why?

A:

7. Should there be an age restriction on editors and why?

A:

8. Should any form of social networking be allowed on Wikipedia?

A:

9. Would the project benefit if all admins had to prove their real-life identity?

A:

10. Would the project benefit if all editors had to prove their real-life identity?

A:

General comments

See JayJ47's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for USERNAME: JayJ47 (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/JayJ47 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Moral Support Clearly an editor with his heart in the right place. I suggest that perhaps you focus more on articles and less on your sub-page lists, which seem to have little value to Wikipedia. I also suggest that you force edit summaries (it's in "your preferences"). Perhaps an editor review may help you with some pointers? I'd also recommend you read up on our image policies. Sadly, you RFA is a bit premature. Candidates are normally (it's not set in stone) likely to have a fair few more edits and be able to demonstrate policy knowledge through XFD contribution, WP:AIV reports and the like, as well as article work. Please don't be dejected though - you're clearly providing some valuable edits to articles of interest to you, and I'm sure a future RFA will be a success. Until then, Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose --sorry too little experience in admin related areas. Sorry! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose First, 1000 edits is not alot. Second, almost every single one of them is to your userpage or userspace subpages. No experience in article writing and admin-related areas, including vandal fighting, AFD XFD, UAA and such. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per above While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with just about 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with about 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- WP:Admin
- the admin reading list.
- Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
- Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
- Article building is viewed by many as essential to adminship. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to fulfill this. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be acceptable.
- My suggestion to any nominees with about 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Half of your edits are to your user pages, and your edit summary usage could be better. Plus, as above, not enough mainspace edits or participation in admin related areas. ArcAngel (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.