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

Closed per Snow by Rje FINAL (0/12/1); Ended 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore (talk · contribs) - I have been editing Wikipedia now for almost three months, and have 1,000 edits. Before you let what you might feel as a sub-par edit count lead you to oppose, please review my contributins. Firstly, I have to say that I am extremely intelligent and have soaked up a lot of information in the short time I have been active, which has led to a dramatic and rapid improvement of my contributions and behaviour since I started. Furthermore, I have much experience in article building and collaboration, from stubs to thoughtful pieces as a member of "WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases." When not editing articles, I spent a lot of time reading up on policy, ANI, VPP and have quite a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and its history.

Sometimes I have been derided for my policy proposals, but I assure you that I know wikipedia policy and its application. I might propose novel policy extensions from time to time, but that is just my airing of new ideas and asking for feedback, and should not be taken as a misapprehension of existing policy.

I further argue to you that we need more admins who write articles. I also not only create articles and add content, but do little things like typo fixing and copyediting when I can. Wikipedia gotten bigger over time but not more complex, and thus the old standard of 1,000 edits and three months, when applied to my cause, should apply. I also possess an understanding of and participation in afd, rfa, drv, blocking policy, and others.

I love wikipedia and have grown vastly over time. Please vote for me. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Consensus building, edit disputes, AFD, and DRV.

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

A: I have a scholarly background in history and the law that allows me to contribute at a higher than average level to articles about court opinions, as I have been doing.

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: Since I have received a few helpful tips from User:Sasquatch, my wiki conflict and stress levels have dramatically diminished, almost to none. I will continue to take his suggestions to heart and avoid conflict in the future, now that I know how.

• See JeanLatore's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for JeanLatore: JeanLatore (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

• I have invited the candidate to withdraw but they have declined. Please note if considering a snow close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This one has to be closed per WP:Snowball. This one does not have a chance of passing. I can't believe the editor would not withdraw when it's 10 opposes. That's bad. America69 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to point out he has been blocked for harassment.Blocked America69 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider this from the RFA page, "Nominations which will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed.'" (emphasis added) Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also note that WP:SNOW is neither a policy nor a guideline. JeanLatore (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This RFA has no chance. Clearly hen you have 12 members saying oppose, something is wrong, and it isn't going to get better!! America69 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Many RFAs pass with 12 opposes. That's no big deal. Don't do this for me, I'm not taking anything personally. And I still am going to get a lot of support votes as the day progresses. JeanLatore (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That makes me wonder how you know that. America69 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose.Per the lack of understanding in answering questions. User is not givig enough reason why he hould be a admin. Very unalabrative. Lack of experience. 3 months is not eough time to be ready for adminship. Wait for another year.Gears Of War 18:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Inexperience issues, terse answers to questions. Also [1] is not something that I'd expect from someone wanting to work at AfD. Doesn't meet my standards for adminship support. Also, poor edit usage summary. This usually doesn't impact my decision at all, but it is important to be as communicative as possible, and in conjunction with the other issues, it's a red flag. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. As recently as a month ago you were seeking to delete a list [2] on the basis that wikipedia is not a collection if lists. It was snow kept. This says it all really. You clearly have insufficient grasp of our deletion policies to be an admin just yet. Come back when you have 5000 edits and at least 6 months experience. Some friendly advice, this is going to turn into a bloodbath please consider withdrawing now to protect yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose that Anal Sex with Sluts, an article you created, was speedy deleted as vandalism does not fill me with confidence about your judgement. nancy ^(talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - Nancy stole my answer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Consistently clueless. Friday (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - per your inappropriate contribs to Sluts and your lack of edit summary usage as well as your two recent blocks.--Finalnight (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Oppose Very limited experience both in terms of time here and in number of contributions. Very superficial and brief answers to questions. And on your userpage you state that you often edit wikipedia while high on marijuana, which means that your judgement cannot be relied on. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. Please do not let my use of cannabis influence your vote. All of those fine article edits I did on Supreme Court cases were while I was high. Marijuana bolsters my contemplative and communicative skills if anything. JeanLatore (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The communication and basic English skills evidenced from your statement above that included the phrase Wikipedia gotten bigger over time for example ? M♠ssing Ace 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose - but if Wikipedia ever starts a TROLLCOM, consider yourself my first selection. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strongest Oppose The answers are horrible, and RFA is not a vote. Badger Drink is so right!! Three months is not enough time to be an admin. His consstant vandlaism of "Porn" related articles worries me and the lack of edit summeries makes me wonder. This RFA does not stand a snowball's chance in hell, as in WP:Snowball. This user also says he's "autistic", which to me is an insult. I happen to know a dear friend of mine who's autistic. I don't understand why he would put that. America69 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sorry. WP:NOTEVER.... if someone cares to be realistic (or ABF as some would call it) enough to write it. Clearly unsuitable as an administrator per the comments above. If the candidate sincerely wishes to help Wikipedia then withdrawing this RFA would be a good start in demostrating this. M♠ssing Ace 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. JeanLatore needs to consider the reasons why so many of his edits are regarded as counter-productive. If he does this, and demonstrates consistently good quality edits and discussion, I would consider supporting him in the future. Axl (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - RFA is not a vote. –xenocidic (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2008 (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.