Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/King jakob c 2

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


King jakob c 2

[edit]

Final (7/9/7); ended 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate — ΛΧΣ21 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) – Hi, my name is Jakob and I'm self-nominating. I've been a Wikipedian for about 16 months (since August 2012) and have made around 7,300 edits (6 months of service and 973 edits came from my old account, King jakob c, for which I lost the password). I've tried to keep cool and stay out of drama and controversy as a rule. I'm a major content editor, but naturally, I've done work in admin areas as well. Mostly I focus on UAA reports and tagging pages for speedy deletion, but I've done a little bit of work at AIV and RFPP too. For what it's worth, I'm also an administrator over on Wikidata. Overall, I think that I am a fairly reasonable and experienced user who could do some extra helping out around here if given the mop. Thank you. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Like I said in my nomination statement, I mostly intend to patrol UAA and take care of speedy deletions. Most of my speedy deletion tagging currently are A3s, A7s, and G11s. I mostly expect to work with article-namespace speedy deletions (especially the ones that I typically have tagged), and not with image-related ones. I've made something like 180 UAA reports and tagged around 300 articles for speedy deletion. I may venture out into other admin tasks, such as AIV and RFPP after a while, but I currently don't intend to close XFDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) is probably the best example of content that I have created. I took it from a two-sentence microstub to an article with over 40k characters of readable prose. It's a GA and I hope to get it to FA. I also wrote Fishing Creek Confederacy from scratch and it is a GA. Other GA and B class articles I've created/worked on are Nescopeck Creek, Chalcogen, David Jewett Waller, Sr., North Mountain (Pennsylvania), and Filamentous carbon. I also think that my 22 DYK credits are pretty good.
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 usually try to stay out of conflicts, but when I do get involved in a conflict, I'm usually pretty civil and don't recall having made any personal attacks. I don't usually revert an edit more than once (except for repeated, blatant vandalism), before discussing it. When discussing it, I usually come to a satisfactory conclusion with the other user(s). I intend to continue discussing things on talk pages instead edit warring.
Additional question from Coffee
4. Explain why you felt this username violated our policies.
A: That was reported somewhat hastily, and by mistake. I will be considerably more careful when performing admin actions, assuming I'm promoted. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • I withdraw this request. It's obvious that this just isn't going to happen . If I run again at some point in the future, I'll keep in mind the advice of the opposers/neutrals, especially about being more careful at UAA. Thank you all for participating. --Jakob (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. First vote! Awesome! Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - passes my usual standards, has active and in-range of consensus at WP:AfD, has been good in reverting vandalizing. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: I've seen King jakob around, often at UAA, and I believe that he would make a great admin. Matty.007 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support looking at this users History and responses to the questions look good.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Though that what Jasper Deng mentions in the oppose section below is true, I don't feel any distrust in the candidate. On Wikidata, I had the feeling that Jakob has learned pretty fast from his little mistakes and messing up abuse filters is a thing which already happened to far more experienced admins. Vogone (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Moral support as it looks like it's not in the cards this time around. I like your pie chart, lots of content edits and good work for the project. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a content writer needs the validation of blocking and deletion buttons. We don't. You're probably about a year off on having sufficient tenure to get over the RFA hurdle and you should be sure to have an established, trusted Administrator nominate you next time since they can vouch for you a bit and help run interference with the inevitable opposes. Keep up the good work and, seriously — you don't need to be validated by undergoing this process. best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support. He has done quite a lot for the wiki. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. The candidate holds adminship out at Wikidata, but only passed on the third RFA, and generally I haven't been that impressed with their admin actions there. This isn't a NEVEREVEREVER, but it's a not now from me. --Rschen7754 19:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm not convinced that this candidate's maturity is suitable for adminship and I also opposed adminship for him on Wikidata. He has made multiple mistakes there and I'm not convinced that he'll be careful enough with the tools here. For example I had to correct a mistake he made when modifying one of Wikidata's abuse filters, and he made a username block that was not condoned by local policy. If he can't work well on a project with minimal policies, he cannot work on a wiki with vastly more policies and administrative features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I don't think "Scream about" in the signature is a really mature thing, personally. The rest is an inference from the comments he's made on Wikidata RfCs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Since the candidacy went up earlier today, I have been looking through their contribs and I do see good content work which I believe is a plus for an admin, experience, a need for the tools and active work in administrative area on this project and other projects is a requirement for me really. I have shared Jasper's concern for a while though I think maturity is no longer an issue just competency with the tools. I am going to simply state now, I have no issue with the users contributions here nor most of their work. Their usage of the toolset on Wikidata is the concern I have with some of their UAA reports here being marked at not a blatant policy violation (even looking at them, I can make no link for a few). Their blocks on Wikidata are fine mostly however there are cases of making inappropriate use of restrictions such as email removal and such. A few blocks they did are either unwarranted or undone by other administrators. So really, it is just a competency issue with the tools so for now I am saying WP:NOTNOW. Also I do not see an actual need for the tools at the moment. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any Wikidata blocks that were reverted, except for the one self-revert a couple months ago, maybe I'm missing something? I can justify the email blocks: I was following instructions at WP:LTA/Grawp when revoking email access here. The other revoke of email access was a misclick. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Based on Jakob's answer to Q4, I do not feel he is ready at this time to assume the role of administrator here. He needs to slow down a bit, and remember that quality is always more important than quantity when it comes to actions that affect others. As the saying goes: haste makes waste. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, Not entirely impressed with Q4, Nor do I think the editor's ready and If I'm honest doesn't seem mature enough for adminship just yet. Good luck for the future tho!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNOTNOW. Legoktm (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah!, thanks for that. delinked. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Per Jasper Deng. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as the candidate wishes to work in UAA, the UAA error is troubling. Errors there can be more damaging than an inappropriate CSD tagging or AIV warning. CSD work looks clean based on a paucity of speedy declines on talk pages and numerous taggings. The concerns about Wikidata admin work gives me pause. Candidate should gain more experience and try again some time. Dlohcierekim 03:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Self nominations are one of the toughest RFA's because the candidate must go above and beyond the normal platform to persuade the community of their intentions and trustworthiness. I have to say that in looking through your contributions I see everything that says you're a good contributing editor but not much evidence of an understanding and implementation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in relation to custodial tasks. I mark this because you've specifically put forth that it is in deletion that you are interested in administratively. Finally, when your edit history makes it difficult to gain a clear picture of your readiness, I find the brevity of your answers to be equally as cloudy making me unsure that you have enough experience. I think in time and a more solid track record I would be willing to support but for now I am in this section. Mkdwtalk 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose maturity not yet demonstrated. -- Scray (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets try this again... WP:NOTNOTNOW. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Don't know you that well.. but I see you had some good edits. Tritario (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I will sit here while I make up my mind. — ΛΧΣ21 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'll sit with you. He's got content creation (not that that worries me...). I've seen him around and can't recall any problems, and I'm sure there isn't an admin in this place that hasn't made a mistake. But I'm just not sure. Yet. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until Jakob has explained his understanding of our username policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whilst undoubtedly capable, I'm not liking the number of self-reverts after rollback. Sure, mistakes like that are easily fixed but I wonder about bigger mistakes made with adminship tools and whether they are as easily fixed. As I said, undoubtedly capable... Just not likng a few things I'm seeing so I'm going to have stay neutral on this one. ~Frosty (Talk page) 22:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Waiting to make a decision. User has good content work but lacks adminship roles and responsibilities in Wikidata showing user will have lack of adminship roles if a sysop. ///EuroCarGT 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm torn. I like this user, and have worked with him in the past, and have found him to be polite and open to advice, which I think is quite important. However, as others have mentioned, I am somewhat concerned by his somewhat high number of mistakes, and am worried that he may use the tools on a whim, instead of after checking the situation. Basically, it really comes down to whether his openness to listening to others outweighs his possibly high mistake rate, and I'm not sure it does. Have a few more months (or maybe even weeks) of few mistakes, and I'd gladly support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Mostly good contributions, but this CSD rationale is concerning. A weak AfD argument here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:34, 17 December 2013 (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.