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

(5/24/11); Scheduled to end 07:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Shubinator (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Frankcom (talk · contribs) – I am 34 years old, I live in London. I am a trainee teacher. I have Bachelor of Arts with Honours (BA Hons) in International Relations from Staffordshire University, England. I have taken part in archaeological digs and actively research areas of historical interest to me with a view to future publication. I enjoy reading Wikipedia and have contributed many wikis and parts of wikis since 2005, mostly on British history but also geographical and topical subjects further afield. It gives me particular joy to research something so far missing from Wikipedia and adding to this record of human knowledge. I have become concerned that too many people with Admin controls are career-editors rather than contributing editors, sometimes some over zealous admins can undermine the confidence the contributing editors have using and expanding the site and this threatens the whole wikipedia project. It is important to remember the time and effort taken by contributing editors to add content and how quick, easy and often unfair it can be when people delete their work. I would seek to be constructive and assist editors to improve their own work to meet agreed wikipedia standards. James Frankcom (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Resolving editorial disputes when asked to assist. Encouraging and assisting broad based discussions between numerous editors for edit conflict resolution. Fixing broken links and other administrative tasks as requested.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugra: very informative, multiple source material, illustrated, concise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Zvonimir: a topic previously neglected, explorative, illustrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librazhd_District: a work in process, previously consisted of a few lines in very bad English,I used original material supplied by the local authorities when in Librazhd, other editors now have something to add to and work upon.

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:I have disagreed with other editors in the past and when asked to make my case provided as much information and reasoning as I could. If the conflict began to deteriorate I asked for mediation and took third party opinion. I feel contentious areas of fact should be resolved by having the different points represented and justified rather than one particular view point made pre-eminent excluding all others.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

4. Most of things you say you would do in your answer to question 1 do not require the administrative tools to accomplish. You say you would do "other administrative tasks as requested." Could you provide some specifics? For example, is there a particular noticeboard where you might go looking for requests to fulfill? Would you review WP:CSD nominations?

A:

Additional optional questions from TomPointTwo

5. Your intro leads me to believe that you seek admin tools to fix what you see as behavioral problems of other editors. How will being given these additional editing tools help you mitigate what you seem to perceive as nonconstructive behavior by other established editors?

A:

6. Can you demonstrate a history of clean up or maintenance work in your editing history that was impeded by not having these tools in the past?

A:

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

7. In your nomination statement, you talked about how quick, easy and often unfair it can be when people delete [contributors'] work. One of the tools which you would have as an admin would be the ability to delete articles and other pages. Could you explain in your own words (referring to policies and guidelines as appropriate) the circumstances under which you would delete articles and pages?

A:

Additional optional question from TheWeakWilled

8. In your own words, can you describe CSD #7?

A:

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/James Frankcom before commenting.

I have been a contributing editor and a first-editor of thousands of wikipedia articles since 2004.

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support if an incomplete RfA is going to go ahead then why not. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support mainly per deliriousandlost. Additionally, I don't think you're likely to break anything. Best of luck. ···Katerenka (討論) 08:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support because I fell that James Frankcom understands the duties and responsibilities of an admin, is prepared to take the role serious and will continue make worthwhile contributions. We have collaborated on a few articles; he has always been supportive of my work and responsive to my questions. I wish him the best of luck should he be granted adminship. Dymuniadau gorau. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Anyone who doesn't support James Frankcom for administrator does not understand the role of an administrator. JF has thousands of edits massively skewed toward building the content and improving the credibility of the encyclopedia. That, in a nutshell, is the only reason any of us should be here in the first place. He has been here since 2005, and thus proves he sees this as a long term intellectual commitment. He has never been blocked, thus proving he understands the norms of responsible behavior within the project. Most importantly, he's made no effort to do the traditional admin ass kissing campaign in preparation for an RfA, thus proving he is genuinely seeking a few extra buttons to do a few extra things that will inevitably help build the encyclopedia. Show the man some respect. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   He's placed at least one copyvio on the site in the past two months (an entirely unsourced BLP on top of that) and if you look at his, erm, contributions, you will discover that he generally eschews sourcing. Thems big, big problems and should not garner any respect at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This unsourced BLP he wrote last year, Tamati Kruger, also appears to be a copyvio of this [1]. I'm fairly confident i could find many more examples.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hiberniantears, I'm sure that most if not all the !voters participating/commenting on this RfA have a thorough understanding of what entails an "Administrative" role (most of which is targeted purely towards maintenance of the site) we aren't opposing or !voting neutral to "disrespect" this individual we have genuine concerns, mine, if you read my comment below, is mainly based around the fact that JF has very few edits/experience in Administrative areas. The fact that this editor has been around since 2005 is irrelevant if he has no experience in the areas he intends to work in with Administrative tools. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Honestly, your counter-point would carry more weight if you had been here prior to 2009. The fact that you began editing in 2009 and can so casually dismiss the experience of an editor who has been here since 2005 does not speak well of your understanding of Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't. When someone calls me stupid, I always assume they know everything. I can't argue with knowledge like that, so I've dutifully opposed as required. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hiberniantears -- is their some tenure system by which editors are freed from mundane details like sourcing articles and avoiding copyvios? If so, i'd like to learn more about this.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   @Hiberniantears And so would yours if the editor in question that has been here longer than I have didn't have less edits than I did even when disregarding my bloated edit count of 8.7k automated edits. I'm not totally dimissing his experience because he is experienced certainly, I just don't feel the experience gained simply article building is enough experience alone to have enough experience overall to handle the tools, tools, which, are intended to assist in maintenance of the encyclopedia. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   All well and good, but you clearly overestimate the level of intelligence and skill it takes to be an admin, which reflects on your inexperience. Don't get me wrong, you're clearly on the fast track to the mop, but your comments make it apparent to me that you have no idea what the role entails. You say that it is all about maintenance, but I see no indication that you actually believe that. I do believe it, because I do it, and I can tell you that it ain't rocket science. Outside of the Kurt Webers of the world, and extremely green editors, just about anyone can be trusted to act responsibly with the mop. We'd probably be better off if that was the case. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Pointy support. He's trustworthy and no more likely than anyone else to f**k things up. You're not quite ready yet, though. Try spending a few months familiarising yourself with some admin areas (pick one that interests you- if you like dispute resolution, try WP:AfD or WP:ANI) so you can tell the community "this is what I'm doing now" and "this is what I'd like to do with a few extra tools. HJMitchell You rang? 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Not enough edits outside of the article space for me to think that this person is safe with the tools. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Partly per coffee, but mainly because you don't need to be an administrator to do any of those things. WFCforLife (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Having a sporadic editing history, and having few edits outside of article space so I cannot accurately judge this candidate's experience in the admin related areas. ArcAngel (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reluctant Oppose It pains me to do so, as my opinion on adminship makes me very reluctant to oppose anyone who seems unlikely to, either through malice or ignorance, misuse the tools. James Frankcom also seems capable of keeping his cool under pressure, my favorite trait for potential admins. Still I oppose, because quite simply, he doesn't need it. As many above have pointed out, both his past edits and his Q1 answer show a strong focus on article content. And there's nothing wrong with that. Admins aren't a better kind of Wikipedian, they're just a different kind. James Frankcom just doesn't seem like an admin. He's an editor, and there's no shame in that. Angrysockhop ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 08:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong oppose—of your self-nom statement, well over a quarter (I did a word-count, it's just under 28%) is irrelevant preening of your academic standing. You then devote about half of one sentence to your article-contributions to Wikipedia. I can't even begin to imagine what the phrase, "I have become concerned that too many people with Admin controls are career-editors rather than contributing editors," actually means. So, sorry, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So, you're opposing on personal grounds? Just wanted to clarify. —what a crazy random happenstance 23:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose I hate opposition over 'no need for the tools', but in this case, your answer to Q1 leads me to believe you don't even know what sysops do on Wikipedia. Fixing broken links is a task that anyone with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can do. Conflict resolution, likewise, can be done by any editor with the temperament for it- the "mop and bucket" is not four stripes on your sleeve with some kind of authority in dispute resolution. If I thought you'd use the tools sparingly, but correctly, that would be one thing. When I can't perceive that you even understand what you're asking for, I'm forced to oppose. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose largely over the fact that he adds reams and reams of unsourced information to the website (and much of this of questionable notability). Doesn't seem to have a grasp on basic researching skills and as such, should not be in a position of responsibility over content. The unreferenced BLP Gennady Alamia, created in November, is a case in point.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not only that, it was initially a copyvio. ArcAngel (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow, missed that. Haven't clicked on an article he's created without major problems yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Strong oppose Per Q1 and I have to see more experience in areas an admin has to be versatile in. BejinhanTalk 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak Oppose per Coffee and your answer to Q1. Sorry. However I will be open to persuasion. Good luck!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose With under 400 edits outside of article space I do not think that this editor can understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia sufficiently to be an admin. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - You really don't do things that you require the tools. You can handle disputes without the tools, and it doesn't look like you have gave out too many warnings with less than 100 user talk edits. Per WFCforlife. smithers - talk - sign! 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Way too few edits outside of the article space, lack of experience in admin-related areas, and per response to Q1. You just don't seem to understand what adminship is, let alone demonstrate a need for it. Laurinavicius (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - per Q1. Adminship isn't needed to do the things that you listed on Q1. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Not enough work out of the mainspace, doesn't really provide a good reason for needing the tools.  fetchcomms☛ 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose I don't understand the role of an administrator according to James Frankcom's supporters, so I'm required to oppose. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (please see discussion moved to talkpage) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose The real life credentials would indicate the type of person who very much should be an admin. The arrogant way they have been presented however - very much not. I would suggest the candidate may have had enough feedback now, and this should be snow closed Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per "It is important to remember the time and effort taken by contributing editors to add content and how quick, easy and often unfair it can be when people delete their work." This is an arguably true point, but here, it comes off like JF will use his adminship to get revenge on people who've crossed him. Please close per WP:SNOW. Şļџğģő 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose No admin history, edit summary count low, not enough expirence outside mainspace. --MWOAP (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose In this case, I see no reason why this user needs the tools. True, he has contributed to the content building of the project, but he has no significant history of performing any maintenance that would require him to access the tools. Opposition is not a bad thing. There is simply not enough evidence to suggest this user needs sysop tools. ERK ^talk 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Maybe you can reapply in a few weeks if you learn to use all the tools that non-admins use and when you find more of a need for admin tools. Also try to do more article work. Btilm 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose on heavy concerns of lack of understanding in large vital areas of policies and guidelines. Though I respect the boldness of nominating oneself on the very generic "suggestions" listed for a presumably good candidate (vs much higher ones used by some editors), my oppose is firmly rooted in the lack of time spent in vital areas. No time on patrols, almost no user interaction, essentially zero contributions in the "Wikipediaspace". A burden of meeting the "can be trusted with the tools" standard insurmountable. Also, I'm left a bit confused by the admin as "career contributors"-- not because I disagree with the idea, but because the nominee has no time spent in NPP or RCP, next to none in XfD and none in DRV CSD or ANI. I'm not sure how this alternate view of administrator actions could be offered if even the normal view is an unknown? With that as the core reason given for becoming an admin, I can't say nominee has shown evidence that I feel it could benefit the community overall in any way to have tools ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose As this editor doesn't seem to be malicious or nonconstructive I was leaning toward a neutral position barring some extraordinary revelation in his answers to concerns raised. Unfortunately this editor can't seem to be bothered to keep up on his own self nom by answering any concerns raised so far. This should be closed per WP:SNOW as no one seems to be getting anything else out of keeping this open. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose, unfortunetly I recall seeing this user upload some copyvio images he had found on Google (armorial), and passing them off as if he created them himself. I agree much with the sentiment in Bali ultimate's comment. Not admin material IMHO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose - Not active enough, barely any experience outside article space. And you can resolve editorial disputes without being an admin. Having the tools doesn't give you any additional authority over content disputes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am taking the neutral per Q1. These activities the candidate wants to perform as an Admin do not necessarily require Adminship. And Adminship doesn't give him any more authority to perform these "better" than other editors. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I uphold this neutral vote, and would recommend the candidate to withdraw per WP:SNOW. Nothing personal, but by your Q1 answer and given your limted experience, this RfA is unlikely to succed. You're always welcome to try again. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral The candidate does not require adminship to perform the tasks stated in Q1. They also have almost no activity in "admin" areas (such as CSDs, PRODs, AfDs, AN/ANI, etc), so I cannot judge if they would use the tools wisely. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Mainly per Phantomsteve. LouriePieterse 08:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral - One of the most legit edit histories I've ever seen, 0 page patrols, but a standard non-assisted edit history for nearly 5 years. That's nuts. In a good way. I don't want to discourage anyone this dedicated. I like to see some editing of the variety that is required of admins these days. There's not a lot of that. A few years ago someone like this would be a shoe-in. I think this editor is probably an amazing candidate, but I would like to know more about their disposition towards those all-important admins quantities. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral per RUL3R. —Terrence and Phillip 11:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not going to bother opposing. James, you seem well-intended and a good contributor which is always a great start. But looking at your edit distribution on the talk page, I see you have no experience in admin related areas which makes it very hard to get an idea of how you would handle situations as an admin and how you interpret policy in dealing with admin matters. For example, you have only 17 edits to the Wikipedia space, including edits to this page. And 8 edits to Wikipedia talk. All your Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits seem to be to Wikiprojects you're involved with and you don't seem to have ever touched any admin noticeboards or particapated in any community discussions. You also have only 96 edits to User talk and 119 to article talk. It's great that you're a content contributor but I don't think you have sufficient experience in other areas and there's just not enough there to get an idea of how you would be as an admin. I think you just need more much broader experience. Sarah 12:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral I have no concerns other than the James' lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, a look at their editorial stats on the talk page shows that they've only 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace which has lead me to vote neutral this time round as I feel that the candidate is just simply not experienced enough as of yet in the Administrative areas of Wikipedia to handle the tools efficiently at the moment. I'd be glad to support the candidate in a future RfA however, once the above issues have been addressed. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. In agreement with the above comment by Sarah. I've got no reason to doubt you're a trustworthy editor, and you've certainly done good work thus far. I just think a few more months of exploring various adminy areas like AIV and ANI would be a good idea. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. You are just a few steps away from becoming a reliable, solid contributor. In getting there, you'll come across and be involved with all kinds of pertinent WP issues that'll invariably lead to an active involvement in the admin side of things. This is the best introduction to the complexities, understanding and interpretation of policies and guidelines, and you'll know its started to really happen when your in-and-out Talk Page rate threatens to go through the roof. You'll find out if you truly have a taste and aptitude for the swab-count side of things. There's a wealth of help and hints on offer here. Make the most of them. And enjoy yourself. All the best. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate is already a reliable solid contributor. Lambanog (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sourcing, copyvio probs (see Opp 7). Plutonium27 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. I'll not pile-on-oppose. I see an editor focused on content (and note the concerns above). I also see an editor not needing the tools and not properly familiar with those already on offer. Above, he offers:

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugra: very…
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Zvonimir: a topic…
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librazhd_District: a work…

    which should be formatted as internalwikilinks:

    • Yugra: very…
    • Crown of Zvonimir: a topic…
    • Librazhd District: a work…

    in the initial post of Gennady Alamia he links to a site with:

    • Abkhazia.org[2]

    which would be better formatted as:

    • Abkhazia.org

    which it later *was*, by another editor.

    So, WP:NOTNOW, and I recommend developing greater facility with the general toolset and addressing the ref and copyright concerns before requesting the other tools. Jack Merridew 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral per above. Good luck though! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing what editing outside "mainspace" is and being unfamiliar with much of the jargon used by many people I think I had better withdraw my candidacy.

I am quite excited to have caused so much consternation! Over the years I have contributed actively to the site and many well developed pages can thank me for starting them. I hoped to be able to help some of the rather beleaguered contributing editors by constructively helping to resolve edit conflicts so as to retain as much of their content as possible. There are many people who are administrators on wikipedia (I'll not name them) who I think are inappropriate for the task. I believe they are inappropriate because they have no discernible academic credentials, they often do not understand or respect the research contributing editors put in to their work and they do not contribute anything themselves to the site, other than enthusiastic participation in edit disputes. They can be far too aggressive and heavy handed when revising new work when constructive criticism and simple, practical advice about how it should be improved (e.g. help with referencing) is normally all that is required. The behind the scenes play and the perception of a clique can be extremely off putting for new editors who can often find themselves confronted by what can appear to be a protective "in-group" who exercise barely disguised arbitrary resolution tactics and appear to be far more enamoured with the process and the power rather than the end result. The end result should be a comprehensive, accurate, evolving encyclopaedic resource. The number of contributing editors on wikipedia is rapidly declining.

I'm not interested in responding to the various attacks some people have made, except to question point (23) by Yorkshirean and say that what he has said is entirely untrue. I have worked alongside other editors to research and publish many coats of arms and in some cases I have traced and recoloured existing online examples. I have never posted anything directly from the web and then said I created it entirely by myself. It is easy to find fault in five years of contributions.

Nevertheless, clearly, I do not know enough of the jargon and technical arrangements of the site, I have also occasionally made mistakes in the past when adding new content and of course this undermines my case. I should note that when problems have been raised re-edits in conjunction with other editors have always resolved them satisfactorily. Thanks for those who supported me. However, I think I'll just stick to writing my book, I'm not sure I want to go through this again.... James Frankcom (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (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.