Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Just A Regular New Yorker

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: Unsuccessful application. BD2412 T 13:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My reading of past adminship discussions leads me to conclude that Wikiquote employs approximately the same high standard for promotion as Wikipedia, which is around 75% support. Here, we have three votes in opposition and five in support, which is about 63% support (even with diminished weight given to Coyotedomino's opposition, based on his minimal prior participation in this project, support does not meet a convincing threshold). The comments in opposition, and some in support, lend to an impression that a future bid would succeed, once the applicant has more experience under his belt, and perhaps takes greater care to avoid the appearance of canvassing. I would suggest continuing to participate diligently for another six months or so, and then apply again. BD2412 T 13:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Just A Regular New Yorker (talk · contributions)

I would really like to be an administrator because I have been editing Wikiquote for approximately 8 months and at this point, I feel I have enough experience. There are protected articles that I wish to be able to edit, and I feel that many sysops do not respond timely to suggestions on talk pages. Additionally, I have plenty of ideas for improving the site. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)(Edit - I would like to specify my statement as per Chetsford’s comment. Oftentimes, I am on Wikiquote at odd hours. During these periods I tend to encounter vandals that create multiple nonsense pages. Instead of being able to block them and roll back their edits, I have to tag the page for speedy deletion and report the vandal. The vandal sees this going on, and often tries to stop it. One even went as far as to blank my userpage. Additionally, I have encountered many protected pages that I want to edit. As explained above, the only way for me to do this now, is to contact a sysop, and ask, but by the time it gets done, (if ever) the edit may be distorted to not represent the original edit I wanted. I have no intention of abusing the privileges. I simply need the ability to do work without being constantly stopped, because I lack sysop privileges. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 11:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC))(Edit - To elaborate on "...I have plenty of ideas for improving the site.", I would like to share one idea. There was a request to create a Wikiquote app, similar to the Wikipedia app. I know people who entirely edit wikis using apps. Granted, Wikiquote will never garner the same viewership as Wikipedia simply because of the nature of the websites, but doing this will help bring this website into the public eye, and make it more user friendly. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 01:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

Vote ends: 18:21:00, 8 June 2018

Discussion

---

• Oppose I personally know this user, and they have an extensive history of vandalism on Wikipedia. I recommend against them being made Admin. Coyotedomino (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply I do not have an extensive history of vandalism on Wikipedia. You can check my Wikipedia edits here. I have vandalized Wikipedia, as stated on my userpage, but it was fairly minor, and a vote regarding my subsequent block [1] unanimously decided to unblock me. Either way, that point is irrelevant, since this is Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. I was told by a user on the Village Pump that a block on Wikipedia will not affect a sysop nomination, but I should try to get unblocked (which I have). J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure you have enough experience, but I believe you are well intentioned and unlikely to misuse the admin tools. (Should you be elected, please use them carefully – mostly to fight obvious vandalism and the like.) Good luck. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Weak Support The aforementioned vandalism on Wikipedia, on review, appears to be a single integrated incident from his youth (albeit a relatively recent youth) for which JARNY took full responsibility and has not repeated. His contributions to Wikiquote, over nearly 1500 edits, seem to be constructive. That said, his rationale for wanting admin tools is a little light, however, given the current paucity of WQ admins I would generally support extending them to him. Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Note - I've edited my comment to "Support" given the more detailed iteration JARNY offers about his need for admin tools. Chetsford (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I see no major problem with the candidate.--Jusjih (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support - There clearly aren't enough admins here to handle the load (requests, e.g. VfD, stay open way too long), and JARNY has shown good WQ contributions and community spirit. A youthful sin elsewhere should not count against this. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support with one condition: you promise to handle ALL copyright violations equally.--Risto hot sir (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The candidate canvassed my support. I do not think that this is appropriate in a RfA. However, I shall not formally oppose.--Abramsky (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply @Abramsky: I did not realize that this was considered inappropriate. My intent was not to request that you vote support, rather I simply wanted to notify you of the voting so that you may take part. However, I will stop doing this in the future. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 17:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I am sorry, but J.A.R.N.Y. is incorrect. The message on my talk page says unambiguously "Request for adminship Please share your support". I cannot accept as an administrator anyone who claims that this is not a request for support.--Abramsky (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply You are correct in that the post was poorly worded and perhaps not in good taste. In my defense, I asked BD2412 with a similar request, and he did not make any mention of him feeling that it was inappropriate to do so. His only response was, "I am also a 'crat here, so I will likely be closing the discussion. It would therefore be a conflict if I also proffered a substantive opinion". However, I understand what you are saying, and I respect your opinion which is why I have promised not to do it again. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 16:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This editor has made some worthy contributions, and certainly seems interested in being active here, but impetuousness and presumptuousness were two of the less admirable characteristics which I very strongly noted in some of the behavior of this editor, very early on. Though I believe that I probably have previously declined to be overtly critical of most of these actions and apparent attitudes, I certainly do not notice a clear decline in those two traits, though some manifestations may have become somewhat more circumspect. Every human being is unique in complex ways which defy any simplistic analysis, but there are behaviors of several past editors which to me seem much echoed in his, perhaps the closest match in many ways, to my current perceptions, being that of Zarbon (talk · contributions) — though thankfully this editor clearly does not seem so enamored of promoting quotes and ideas of Nazis or overt fascism as that editor often seemed to be. Forms of villain-worship was something so prominently an apparent characteristic of Zarbon's attitudes and mentality, and those he chose to promote, that I could not contemplate him ever having much chance of becoming an admin here. The impetuousness and presumptuousness which I continue to perceive in J.A.R.N.Y. is clearly in many ways less extreme and ridiculous, and more accommodating to many of the sensibilities of others, so I am not inclined to count him out quite so casually, as eventually maturing well enough to be worthy of adminship here. Certainly, at this point, he has actively gathered the interest and involvement of people willing to support him, more than those willing to be overtly decline such support, or expressly oppose his self-nomination, as I currently must do.
  I have been inclined to oppose this nomination from the start, but refrained from stating it to this point, as I contemplated what to indicate and not to indicate of my various objections, and permitting others to make their own observations. I hope my comments might perhaps persuade others to join in expressing their current reservations or objections, but in the coming week I probably won't have much time to extensively elaborate on many of my own. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC) + tweak

Reply Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed opinion. I understand where you are coming from, especially with regard to Risto hot sir and quote of the day. With regard to the latter, I even went as far as to make my own quote of the day page to 'beat you to it' in an act that was admittedly rash and poorly thought out. However, I feel that now that I have been made aware of the seriousness of my actions, now that I know that others care about how I handle certain scenarios, I will try to be more thought out in my editing. I would appreciate that if I do something that you feel is inappropriate, you reach out to me to let me know. I won't be insulted to get advice from a far more seasoned editor than I am. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 16:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.