Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChrisDJackson

ChrisDJackson (5/21/4); ends 00:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ChrisDJackson has been making a lot of contributions on people in politics, including Al Gore, Dan Quayle, John Kerry, etc. He has been here since December of last year and has made about 1400 edits. He definately should be nominated for adminship. --Lst27 00:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Even if you don't trust him, just give him a chance. I am sure that he will do really well as an administrator if you all just give him a chance. He has a lot of experience, and worked very hard to improve Wikipedia. According to his User Page, his goal on Wikipedia is to contribute fair and balanced information on issues that have meaning to him. He hopes to add the most concise and accurate information possible. He also always tries to find great pictures of famous people and people that he admires. He believes that a picture can tell a thousand things. Therefore, you will see him uploading a number of pictures to help tell the story of these famous individuals life. --Lst27 22:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Come on! Give him a chance!!! --Lst27 23:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks Lst27. I have been trying to do better and work within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have really not had any major problems here except with Anthony, which I hope people here can understand. After getting used to and taught the guidelines and rules, I have improved on things that I used to do bad such as adding sources and info on uploads. However, I am not perfect.

Anyone can see that I am not a troll or have disrupted on purpose. I am not one to revert for the simple reason of reverting. And most all the time, if I am involved in a rift, I can work a compromise out easy. I have either edited or started numerous topics, which you can see on my user page. I am a Democrat, but try to have an open and fair mind about things. Just look at the Dan Quayle page. I don't like him, but I re-wrote his article to have more content and used a NPOV stance. However, there is an ongoing dispute over which photo to use.

I believe if I have ever had a run in with a user here, I have apologized for my actions and have worked things out with them, with the exception of a few. At first, my behavior was bad. But now, users such as Kingturtle say I have improved alot. If I am entrusted with an adminship, you can rest assure that I will use my powers only for the good of Wikipedia. To make you feel even more comfortable about me as an Admin, look no further than my own website, the Al Gore Support Center. I have been an Admin there for about a year now and have done a great job! In closing, I will continue to try my best to continue to improve on my editing and behavior as I have been doing. The decision is yours, however, I am flattered just to be nominated. ChrisDJackson 02:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just an observation, but the person nominating, User:Lst27, has only been registered since March 28, 2004, and only has 111 edits to his/her name. That strikes me as odd, in addition to the sock puppet vote below. Fuzheado 03:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Lst27
2. Good nomination. I support. →Raul654 02:09, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. Support, the user looks as though he started out rough, but has made an effort to do good and work things out. I say it is worth a try for this kid. Buford2004 02:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • Sockpuppet? That was his 6th edit. →Raul654 02:40, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
     • And four of those edits were to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, a somewhat odd pattern for a new user. Isomorphic 02:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • Guys, what exactly is a "sockpuppet"? Buford2004 02:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • See Wikipedia:Sock puppet →Raul654 02:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
     • Thanks for the votes. I really appreciate it. ChrisDJackson 02:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
     • Ok, I see now. I was not really familiar with that term. Buford2004 02:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. He has put in his fair share I think he at least deserves a chance. GrazingshipIV 04:21, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
5. fully support, (I think RickK should be De-sysoped for vandalism), This kid looks like he knows what he's doing! Cormade Nick

Oppose:

1. You can't be serious. With his aggressive, confrontational style, and his POV attitude, and his refusal to acknowledge the existance of copyrights? Strongly oppose. Not to mention that he hasn't been here long enough. RickK 02:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • Rickk this user has been here since december 2003, seems like enough time to me considering how short a time others have had. Also is having such a "confrontational" style necesarilly a bad thing considering all the trolls wikipeida has to endure. You blocked at least 4 anons today. Why not at least give him a chance? GrazingshipIV 04:32, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
2. Hephaestos|§ 02:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. Decumanus | Talk 03:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Danny 03:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
5. Dori | Talk 03:04, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
6. Adam Bishop 03:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Fennec 03:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. I recall this user incessantly lying about some image on the Al Gore page, claiming he had taken it himself when in fact it was identical to a Reuters or AP copyrighted photo. This stubbornness and refusal to collaborate with others leads me to believe he would not be the best person to place in the position of an Administrator. So oppose. - Mark 03:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • Again, this was Anthony antagonizing that. The photo was not the same one he found. I never said I took the picture. I argued that it was not the same photo. However, I later realized that it was copyrighted because it was from the AP. You have to realize this is from when I first started here. ChrisDJackson 03:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
     • OK I'll accept your clarifications there, but it definitely was a version of the same photograph. Remember I did a comparison for you? One was just darker than the other. - Mark 03:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. I've witnessed Chris do too many rash and irresponsible things in Wikipedia. He has exhibited a short fuse and a harsh lip. I need to see many many months of him practicing good behavior before I can endorse him. Kingturtle 06:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. Of course not. anthony (see warning)
11. I was neutral until I was lobbied, because it made me believe that Chris isn't yet ready to accept the community's decisions. Perhaps in a while, but not now. -- BCorr|Брайен 02:01, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
12. His statement in support of Zero0000's nomination, quoted already by Anthony above, shows a serious misunderstanding of our protection policy. --Michael Snow 03:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

    I second this 128.83.133.206 05:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

13. Would not have voted, but I must agree with Michael Snow and Anthony that that statement is problematic. Isomorphic 03:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. Gentgeen 07:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
15. Mildly oppose. Caveat: the only thing that I know about this user is that he felt the need to spam my talk page with a request for a `yes' vote. — Matt 14:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
16. I was neutral until reviewing history. His statement supporting Zero0000 is troubling, and his user page contains an ad hominem attack. An admin should be experienced, respectful, and cooperative. Chris is not, yet. Cribcage 18:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
17. Oppose 172 00:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
18. Oppose. And I don't like all this campaigning on the tally page - and on people's personal pages. Moncrief 02:55, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
19. Oppose. ChrisDJackson started out as a problem user, and over time his actions and style on the Wiki have improved greatly. He's still a bit confrontational, last I checked his edit history, but he's coming to understand how things are done around here. A few months as a consistently civil and thoughtful WikiCitizen would change my mind, but I haven't seen it yet. I'd very much like to see him stick around and improve his style; I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to have contributors who have come around from being difficult to work with at first; it's a testament to the power of the Wikipedia community. Chris seems to have some *very* strong interests and beliefs, and even agendas -- we all do, actually, and I commend Chris for making his motives and biases very plain; I wish other editors would do the same. Like jwrosensweig below, I'd like to see him be involved in defusing disputes rather than instigating them before I could support an adminship nomination. Try again in three or four months. -- Seth Ilys 21:06, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
20. not yet. spammed my talk page (was unknown previously), engages in some rash behavior. note that the "anthony" user is not reliable on this matter, as the two vandalize each other. jackson seems likely to become responsible over time. Badanedwa 22:49, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see where I have ever "vandalized" ChrisDJackson. I have repeatedly removed plagiarism which he has contributed to Wikipedia. He may indeed become more responsible over time, but he still doesn't seem to grasp the concept that copying stuff from other sites without acknowledging those sites is unacceptable. anthony (see warning) 03:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
21. Stongly oppose, hasn't been here long enough. --Flockmeal 22:18, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Chris seems to have improved a lot, which is awesome, but I'd like to see some more time between his rebellious teenage years and his becoming a grand old man of Wikipedia. If his improvement in behavior continues, perhaps adminship will make sense, but I don't think this is the time. jengod 04:57, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
2. Evidence to oppose seems rather damning, though i have not seen it myself. Try agains in a few months. -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. Couldn't be more neutral. In his defense, Chris has changed a lot from the person he was when he arrived here: I appreciate all he's done to adapt to the way we work here, and I think that needs commending. But on the flip side, Chris had a lot of issues when arriving here (for a few days I thought we had JoeM's counterpart), and his great strides have not yet completely resolved things for me. I still worry that Chris seeks out articles where he is most biased, thereby putting himself in the way of edit wars. I worry also about the copyright issues, which Chris still seems far too nonchalant about to me. And I will say that, while Chris is much better about avoiding disputes, I have not yet seen him be active about defusing disputes, which is an important difference -- an admin should not simply be "mostly not in trouble", but show some skill at preventing trouble (of course, Chris may be doing these things, but I haven't seen it). I believe Chris, in a month or two, would be a good choice, but at this point I am not fully comfortable supporting him. Hang in there, Chris: a couple more months should put a lot of the opposition behind you, especially if you try to address the concerns being voiced. And should the vote go Chris's way, I'll take that as a sign that my concerns have indeed been addressed, and I just haven't been around to see it happen (I haven't interacted much with Chris in the last 3-4 weeks). Jwrosenzweig 16:16, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

   Thanks. As I said, I am improving but not perfect. But I haven't been into an edit war in a while. I have added alot of info to articles in a non biased way. Just look at the Quayle article. It was horrible before I fixed it up. There is no bias there. I could have mentioned how dumb he was, but I didn't. As I also have said, the only user I have had real trouble with is Anthony. But, if I don't get it this time, I will understand. And like you said, there is always next time. ChrisDJackson 20:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

4. I'm voting Neutral here because I can't give this nomination the time it deserves right now for a fully informed opinion. I sense that ChrisDJackson has the potential to straighten up and become good admin material. I don't see any way he can overcome so many negatives, so I think it might be a great idea to give it a rest, work diligently and come back in a couple of months, and perhaps he will get a much different reception. Cecropia 03:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I just noticed ChrisDJackson has been soliciting yes-votes for him from a whole bunch of people on their talk pages. I don't know if there's an official policy against this, but I thought I'd bring up the issue anyway (disclaimer: nothing personal against this user, haven't come across him before). Arvindn 03:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking others for support. Kingturtle 20:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is, however, something wrong with spamming lots of people's talk pages asking them to support you for adminship. anthony (see warning) 23:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)