mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JForget 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JForget_2

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

JForget

[edit]

Final (73/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JForget (talk · contribs) - JForget has been a Wikipedia contributor since March 2006. He is a prolific editor and has created over 300 articles. For those interested in numbers, he has made over 17 000 mainspace contributions (24 000+ edits to Wikipedia in total). His main areas of contribution are articles relating to Canada (he is a member of WikiProject Ottawa) and Tornadoes. He has shown the full range of editorial skills - adding well written and referenced content, categorisation and general cleanup. His interactions with other editors appear to be calm and civil at all times.

JForget is an efficient vandal fighter and has made over 100 reports to AIV. He gives appropriate warnings and his report can my experience always be relied upon. He has also requested page protection on over 100 occasions and, again, I believe he does so in appropriate cicumstances. JForget's contributions to AfD discussions are thoughtful and show a thorough understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. His deleted edits show a good knowledge of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. He had a previous unsuccesful RfA from March where issues were largely lack of Wikipedia-space experience, low edit summary use and little need for the tools. These concerns have evidently been addressed and I think that, given the wide array of admin-related work he is now involved in, JForget now not only has a need for the tools but would be able to make sensible and skillful use of them. WjBscribe 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.JForget 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: As an admin, I would intend to work in several areas, including deleting articles issued from AFD or TFD discussions as well as candidates for speedy deletion - I also started to do some new page partols via the recent changes. Since after my first RFA nomination last winter, I have also been more involved in discussions regarding to article deletions, and more recently at a lesser extent templates and categories for discussion/deletion which is why my number of Wikipedia edits have nearly ten-fold since February.
Of course, being a vandal fighter for several months, I intend to clear up possible backlogs when it happens on WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and WP:3rr and thus blocking offenders of vandalism, personnal attacks, offending user names or edit warring as well as protecting and unprotecting articles (the latter one seems to have several being protected for an extremely long period of time). I could also intend on working on WP:RCU and WP:SOCK if I improve the understanding on the sockpuppet policy which I believe I've mixed the two at times when I made reports.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have worked in numerous domains throughout the encyclopedia since I started to be a member in March 2006 and thus it is the reason why I'm involved in multiple WikiProjects (although the main one been WP:OTT). So far I have created over 350 articles related to politics in Quebec, as well as local and geographical features, Quebec Provincial Highways, Quebec artists and singers and just recently Quebec municipalities - the most recent ones being as of today. However, it is difficult for me to pinpoint what were my best contributions so far since I have made so many especially since I have made 13 000 edits since my RFA.
Although among those that I have created, and/or participated a lot, are the articles about Meteorology/Severe Weather events, because they are the ones that had the highest assessment-class including a GA article for the February 2007 North America winter storm as well as a likely-future GA or possibly higher rank-article being, the May 2007 Tornado Outbreak (waiting on conformation on some of the content). What contributes to the quality of those particular articles, is that many were currents or historical events, that meteorology is a domain that I am very interested of following (although not for a career) that sources are more available via multiple parties (like the NOAA in particular) and that many veteran editors are also involved.
Two other articles, (although clean-up and splitting would be needed soon) is both the Foreign policy of the Harper government and Domestic policy of the Harper government articles which, much like the George W. Bush sub-articles, discuss about the policies made by the current Conservative government and are extremely rich in sources and elements. Although not assessed, after a clean-up, it may be close to a GA-class article.
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: Obviously, when I had to do vandal fighting I had disputes sometimes with various IP or users which resulted in edit warring (most often on the user talk page). Following policies, those disputes if it persisted generally resulted in a report to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP or WP:3rr depending on the case, generally without being too stressed.
However, the biggest dispute has been with the editor that I called the AOL vandal (the 172.xxx) who has been vandalizing, via numerous computers at the AOL headquarters, several articles on left and center-wing politicians (the vast majority Canadian ones). After giving repeated warnings, he started to make-up/posted personal attacks again and again until I finally decided to stop warring with him. While I did not experienced a lot of stress, I did requested a RFPP and haven't issued warnings anymore to the vandal after some time (although I had reverted a lot less of his vandalism - mostly due to the timing (or maybe he got caught at work). Maybe in the future, I can wait more longer before protecting my page and also maybe I should also try to not feed too much the trolls which I have also been told in my talk page.
Outside of vandalism, I have been not very often involved in major disputes - as I am not necessarily someone who wants to start or doing a dispute. However, I do sometimes participate in some of the dispute discussions by giving up my point of view and remained WP:CIVIL. If someone criticizes something, I often do some fixes suggested or at least some compromises (like the Quebec Road Templates). In my earlier months on Wikipedia before I became more familiar with some of the policies on notability, I had sometimes short-term disputes on local articles which were in AFD's due to lack of notability but I had fixed most of them per more experience obviously.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JForget before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Support as nom. Impressive and thorough question answers too - all looks good to me. WjBscribe 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I don't overlap with you at all so have dip-sampled more thoroughly than usual into your contribs, and I can't see a word out of place — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — excellent participation at AfD and the main namespace. --Agüeybaná 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Have come across him a lot, always satisfactorily. A very good editor with a thorough grasp of the policies. Will be a great admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support I wanted to nominate... JForget is a brilliant editor with a great deal of experience here and a lot of common sense. Will be an exceptional addition to the admin crew -- Samir 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - WJBscribe covered it perfectly. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support yes, looks excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Will be excellent. -Lemonflash(do something) 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks like a good candidate to me. CitiCat ♫ 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've seen JForgot around a good deal, and I'm sure he'll do just fine. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Candidate is obviously ripe for adminship. Not to call you a fruit or anything... VanTucky Talk 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Can't see any problems here at all. Good luck, ELIMINATORJR 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Jmlk17 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support All interactions so far have been positive.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --Oxymoron83 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support ON WHEELS! Excelllent editor, thought he was an admin already! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent candidate for the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Another RfA-cliche moment! Obviously skilled and trustworthy. Xoloz 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support civil editor with lots of experience. Melsaran (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No major concerns here. He will make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Major concerns here. I'm majorly concerned he's not an admin yet. Bo-yah! Dfrg.msc 07:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Shoo in. Recurring dreams 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No reasons to turn down.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support no obvious problems here + the nom from WjBscribe sealed it! --Chris  G  10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Great contributor. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - the questions raised last time have been strongly addressed in the answers and the extensive contribution to WP. Beware the troll-feeding, though your past experience will probably make this less likely going forward. Euryalus 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – Excellent vandal-fighter. — madman bum and angel 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I read through the user's edits and it is impressive. Phgao 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. As with anyone wanting to do speedies - I look at deleted edits to see whether they understand the criteria. S/he does. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - looks good to me, and if WJBscribe trusts 'em.... - Philippe | Talk 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Excellent editor. Good luck!--SJP 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Good editing, the tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. excellent work at WP:AFD and many good articles. Fantastic number of edits. Bearian 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as per co nom WjBscribe. Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Decent editor. Acalamari 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Qualified. -Sharkface217 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Looking forward to welcoming you into adminship. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support Great Wikipedian! I think he will do a great job as an admin. RS1900 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Excellent editor. R O A M A T A A | msg  15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I don't mean to pile on, but I have to support. Editor seems to have addressed all issues raised in previous RfA, plenty of experience and a top-notch contributor (over 300 articles!). faithless (speak) 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I'll pile on. What the heck. I've seen quite a bit of his work and have been impressed by it. Into The Fray T/C 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per all of the above. Marlith T/C 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great user. I am shocked he is not an admin already. Good luck:)--SJP 23:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for supporting JForget. However, you already supported him at 34, and you're only support. I realise you really want JForget to admin, but I'm afraid WP:IAR doesn't apply here. :D Maxim(talk) 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support We can always use more new page partollers. Great editor, as far as I'm concerned. Caknuck 00:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. In addition to the answers he gave above, I've had opportunity to work with him (probably on AIV). And he left a positive enough impression that I saw his name and said, "I need to weigh in with support here." So I have. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support' - No concerns. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I think your well prepared to be an admin. Good Luck! Icestorm815 01:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. This is an editor I am familiar with and would trust with adminship. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support After a trip to Ottawa, I became interested in reading more about the city/local attractions/culture. JForget has made some superb edits in this regard.--Hokeman 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Yes, of course, can be trusted and is well liked. ScarianTalk 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, don't see a reason not to. Wizardman 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose ;) - More AfD! :P LaraLove 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (Yes, it's a support vote!)[reply]
  58. Strong Support This candidate is extremely familiar with many vital aspects of Wikipedia. JForget has been an excellent editor for well over a year, consistent in style and tone, with a highly impressive record of created articles. In addition to the editor's devotion to creating articles about places, the contributions to politics and weather are superbly helpful. With consistent contributions to both WP:AIV and WP:AFD and WP:RFPP, JForget demonstrates a knowledge of policy and procedure with ease, as well as the ability to properly communicate guidelines and policies to other editors. I am impressed by this editor's use of the appropriate warning level, and the use of helpful edit summaries, that specify what warning level was given and for what infraction, i.e.: (t2 Olivia Chow), as illustrated here. This is extremely helpful to other editors and administrators, and shows a respect for the process. Additionally, the editor seems to have experience with, and good judgment regarding WP:SSP, identifying and appropriately tagging several suspected alternate accounts of Puppetmaster Jagjagjagjab, a particularly prolific abuser of the system, and My words can laugh. All of these things add up to someone who is not only careful and considerate, but an editor who would be a most valuable member of the community in the role of administrator, and I look forward to JForget's successful promotion. Ariel♥Gold 05:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, excellent contributions, you have the experience to be an admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you said at #30 ;) --JayHenry 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, Excellent involvement in all areas of the project, great knowledge of policy, demonstrates a need for the tools, and Wikipedia will definitely benefit from his editing in an administrative capacity. Arky ¡Hablar! 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I've seen this guy around and I like what I see - He's level headed, well rounded and would benefit well from the tools. I can't see him abusing them, and surprisingly, as far as I can see, he meets every single one of my RfA Standards. One big support from me. You deserve it. :) Spawn Man 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support--MONGO 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Good judgement and amazing contribs. Just what we need in mop-wielders. No doubts here --Bfigura (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support JForget is both a talented editor and vandal fighter combined. I've seen him around numerous times. I'm sure he'll make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Everything looks great. Kudret abiTalk 04:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Looks good.--Sandahl 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - has done superbly since last RfA. What a turnaround! No problems at all here - Alison ❤ 05:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Yes. I've seen ya around the wiki. You've always seemed civil, and, you seem to understand the policies. Do I beleive you can be trusted with the extra buttons? Yep. Keep up the good work! :) SQL(Query Me!) 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support seen this user around the project a lot and have liked what I've seen. —Moondyne 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support—no concerns. --Paul Erik 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - definately a very fine candidate here - hardly any faults at all. This user is experienced and knows what he is doing and will make a great admin. :-) Lradrama 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Hiberniantears 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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.