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

Jinkinson[edit]

Final (2/15/5); 09:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) - Strong consensus for early close; encouraging candidate to gain the experience !voters recommended at this RfA and to consider running again in the future—John Cline (talk)

Nomination[edit]

Jinkinson (talk · contribs) – I created my account on January 27, 2013. Since then, I have made about 8,500 edits and have created 145 articles, 4 of which were DYKs at one point or another. I am, as my userpage notes, particularly active in new pages patrolling, using Stiki, and nominating vandalistic pages for speedy deletion. I also exhibit some traits of a WikiGnome, such as working on the backlog of pages with incorrect ref formatting or categorizing new pages. I have also made several requests for page protection, as well as a few reports to AIV and UAA. Jinkinson talk to me 20:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Likely much the same stuff I do now, namely working on deleting things tagged for speedy deletion, as well as blocking vandals and people with inappropriate usernames and semi-protecting pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As mentioned above, I have created 145 articles, and while none are either Good or Featured articles yet, I have put a lot of work into autism omnibus trial, which I created from scratch, and am hoping to get it up to GA eventually (it has been waiting at WP:GAN untouched for a month now).
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: Yes, but usually, it's just a result of me doing something I now regret. However, one time, Michael0156, who I had run into before on YouTube, repeatedly tried to whitewash the article on NaturalNews. The conflict broke out when I called him an "anti-vaccine troll" (something I based on the comments he had posted on YouTube, which I was familiar with already). He then started a report involving me at WP:DRN, claiming that I was stalking him. As noted above, this is untrue, and I knew about him already only because I had seen his comments before. However, this is now resolved--Michael0156 has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and I have apologized for calling him a troll.

Additional question by Jprg1966

4. When does incivility require a block by administrators? What is routine incivility and what is egregious?
A: Well, people are not always nice to each other in real life, so we would not expect them to always be nice to each other on the Internet. What I would define as egregious incivility would include attempts to out other editors, as well as uses of words such as the n-word, anti-Semitic remarks and calling someone a "f****t". If continued over a long period of time, this is definitely grounds for an indefinite block.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Moral support. I believe that you can be a good admin one day. Keep editing for 6-12 months and then reapply. Good luck in your future RfAs if there is any. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support, an honest user. Wincent77 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Too green, too keen with just a hint of bauble collecting to raise my concern even further (reference being made to the recently submitted and quickly withdrawn application for consideration at ACE2013). Leaky Caldron 20:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Just looking at your edits from today alone, and only looking at pages you either made a substantive edit to or categorised and thus must have been aware of the contents of the page (as opposed to anti-vandal tools where you don't necessarily see the whole page), you don't seem to have noticed any problem with [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] or [6]. If you were willing to let all those pass, and I emphasise that these are just from a sample of one day, I don't think you're ready to be making decisions which have a lasting impact on Wikipedia. I'm also not impressed with the fact that either you tagged InventHelp's INPEX Invention Trade Show as spam without making any effort to contact the author, or you did look at the author and didn't see anything untoward about his username. Mogism (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. Five months active editing. Of 23 AfD voted on, only 68.2% mqatched the result. There are self-admitted errors that are too recent. Requests for user rights were all made recently within a few weeks and unfortunately I had to remove one 10 days later that I had already accorded. Jinkinson requested feedback only a few days ago on a possible nomination, which, as I usually do, I replied to by email; he has apparently chosen not to follow my advice (which of course is his prerogative). I'm afraid all this demonstrates, to me at least, that he is too eager to become an admin and still has some way to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. Five months active editing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Red flags include those pointed out by Kudpung and Mogism, and also in the answer to Q3. I don't like it when people bring off-Wiki drama on Wiki, and I don't like the idea that the candidate thought that tossing insults at someone that they had prior disagreements with was a good idea. Their description of the incident itself is also a problem, because it reads as "I insulted someone I disagreed with, and then they complained about me, but that's okay because they got indeffed", which is... not a proper attitude. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose In addition to the above concerns which seem persuasive at this time, the candidate's responses to questions pertaining to the withdrawn ACE2013 show that the candidate is a college freshman and wishes to be the "nice guy." Despite extensive recent activity, I am concerned about the candidate's ability to make a long term commitment to the project. I certainly don't want to encourage arbitrary, overbearing or nitpicking behavior but some decisions on blocks or deletions may not be popular even though they will be objectively correct. I think the candidate needs more time on the project and more "seasoning" before being further considered. Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose - I'm sure Jinkinson could be a fine admin one day, but he needs to slow down and work on his accuracy right now. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per above. I would also caution that exposing your date of birth and IP may be opening the door to harassment in the future. With that said though, age is not the issue, the apparent maturity is. Being enthusiastic about the encyclopedia is a good thing, but just try to not get carried away. I also advise that you withdraw this RfA and try again later.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose I would like to see a little more familiarity and a deeper understanding of the guidelines. Mkdwtalk 18:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose as too soon IMO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Unfortunate Oppose -- Recent copyright violations do not inspire confidence. As stated by Coffee, he could be a fine admin one day, but the copyright violations are an immediate sink. Sorry. Sportsguy17 (happy holidays!) 23:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where is it that you read he's been uploading copyright violations? Or are you referring to his having failed to notice some copyvios while scanning recent pages? —Soap— 23:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Soap, the copyright violations occurred at Walter Orenstein and it resulted in autopatrolled being revoked. Sorry if my statement was not clear. Sportsguy17 (happy holidays!) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay thank you. This candidate has one of the best track records for a ~6 month editing history I've seen in a long time, but still has a lot of problems to overcome. Having seen the copyvio from just 2 months ago, though, I agree he can't be an admin this year, but certainly has a good chance if he decides to try again down the road.
  12. Oppose for many of the same reasons. Jinkinson has done some good work, and I wouldn't question for a moment his sincerity and dedication toward improving the project. I think that if he continues with such meaningful efforts, gains a better understanding of policy, and perhaps a little maturity, he will in time make for a great candidate. For now it's simply too soon. We all make a few spills here and there, but we need to be able to trust that it will rarely be the guy with the mop. — MusikAnimal talk 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose - per most of the Opposes above. Suggest a speedy close. Jusdafax 02:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Definitely too soon. Maybe in a year or so. Prolific editor with good intentions, but too much in a hurry. Many of the stubs created on academic journals, for example, could easily have been fleshed out a bit more (following the advice on WP:JWG in only bare minutes, but at this point they don't even get tagged for the appropriate wikiproject. Excellent record for a relatively new editor, will most likely become an excellent admin in the future, but not yet now. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Suggest speedy close or withdrawal. Alex discussion ★ 09:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Has been here long enough and more than enough edits and articles written. However, the error rate on speedy deletions and other "administrative" type edits seems to be a bit too high from what I see on the talk page archives, so I am not fully comfortable with giving admin privileges right now. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral early indications here don't look too promising, but I just wanted to say that having a page listing his mistakes should count in his favour. We all make mistakes, and the ability to own up to them and not to take oneself too seriously and self-righteously is a valuable one. I hope you'll become an admin at some time in the future, Jinkinson. --Stfg (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral You've done some good work, worked in a number of different areas and I encourage you to keep at it. You have my moral support. But the fact that you just enter your name as a candidate for ACE 2013 (later withdrawn) just last week, discourages me from giving you a full endorsement. I have to give this a WP:NOTNOW...but soon!Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral Has the right attitude, but has just made too many recent errors for me to have the courage to support this candidate. As long as he learns from his mistakes and doesn't infringe copyright when creating content, I might like to support him one day. Minima© (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral Looks like he'll be a good candidate soon, but too many people opposing right now for me to feel comfortable bucking the trend. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category