Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/YborCityJohn

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

Final (1/14/2); ended 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Glrx (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YborCityJohn (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER YborCityJohn (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: To see that edits conform to Wikipedia rules and standards by reviewing article and making corrections to spelling error, reviewing article to whether it falls within applicable notability and thus is worthy of being an article on Wikipedia. Reviewing articles and taking appropriate action for edits made by registered and unregistered users alike.

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

A: The adult swim article because I have been a regular viewer of their programming since the first day of their broadcast in 2001 and have extensive knowledge of the network, their programming and inter-workings.

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: No.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

• Links for YborCityJohn: YborCityJohn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for YborCityJohn can be found here.

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

1. Support. While you are not quite ready yet, you are doing the right things. If you stay active, make high quality edits, and maintain a professional demeanor, the mop is a natural progression. You are doing well so far, but need more experience, especially in deletion discussions, policy knowledge, and communication. Keep up the good work. I personally believe that you would be a net positive for the encyclopedia today if you were given the tools (hence my unconditional support), but suspect my peers are unlikely to agree.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose WP:NOTQUITEYET. User does not appear to fully understand what adminship is. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Per WP:NOTQUITEYET. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per lack of experience, poor answers to questions (including listing non-admin tasks in question #1 and having no experience with conflict), and failing to provide any nominating statement. Clearly does not meet any sensible criteria for adminship. Recently created The 2017 Boston TV affiliate realignment, which was deleted at AfD. Stats at AfD are very bad, with only 24 delete !votes, no keep !votes ever, and half of their delete !votes coming back with a keep result. That's where I stop my review. This may seem harsh, but it's more intended as a reality check. Your contributions appear positive, and I'm glad you're a Wikipedian, but please don't ignore the giant banners all over the place stating what the RfA standards are or directing you to where you could find out. See WP:ORCP or WP:RFAADVICE for further advice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak Oppose - Even though the user is a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer, I agree with Ramaksoud2000. J947 05:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC) _{moved to neutral}[reply]

4. SNOW oppose. Frankly not sure this is serious. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Sorry, but it seems like you haven't done any of the prerequisite reading for RFA. You do not meet my RFA standards. Mkdw^talk 05:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. SNOW Oppose I don't think this has any chance of passing. I would suggest either the nom withdraw or a SNOW close. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Snow Oppose - Clearly didn't do the pre-requisite work even for this RfA. So WP:NOTQUITEYET for that and lack of even fundamental basics required for adminship. -- Dane ^talk 05:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose answer to q1 does not require the admin tool set - and makes me think the candidate does not understand the role of administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Snow Oppose. I think the project and the editor would be best served by more work in other areas first, perhaps more work at AfD? I know many of those red cells are several years old but AfD's a good place to make sure your policy knowledge is current, as well as to demonstrate that to the community. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose you didn't do your homework here. Lepricavark (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. Snow Oppose per the above. This is someone who is neither ready for nor understands what an admin does. Recommend withdrawing the nomination right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose WP:NOTNOW, per BU Rob13. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose This should be speedily closed per WP:SNOW. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. _{moved from oppose} Neutral - As per tazerdadog. J947 05:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. WP:NOTYET, it's too soon and it is apparent that you aren't sufficiently familiar with the RfA process. I recommend sticking to your editing and slowly getting involved behind the scenes. A year or two from now, if you are still confident consider re-applying. Right now, this is going snow out. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Tazerdadog, it may be a wise idea for the candidate to withdraw, before this becomes a depressing rejection-fest. It's very possible that the candidate may well be an excellent admin—someday. That day will require more work, more familiarity, and more trust-building. We hope you're up to the task. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. J947 05:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I likewise concur. Lepricavark (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no realistic chance that this RfA will pass, and a withdrawal or a SNOW closure is likely appropriate. I wish the candidate the best of luck, and hope to see him here in the future. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2016 (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.