Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JohnCD

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


JohnCD

[edit]

Final: (77/1/1); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

JohnCD (talk · contribs) – JohnCD is an experienced, dedicated user who has been actively editing since October 2007. He specializes in several administrative areas such as deletion discussions, speedy deletion, reporting users to AIV (412 edits), and listing problematic usernames at UAA (426 edits). His thorough experience with deletion is evidenced by 13,300+ deleted contribs [admin only], of which the majority are CSD tags. John is also a consistently civil and calm user who has shown excellent communication abilities, especially with providing advice to new editors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

I would like to point out that John has no GA/FA article contributions to his name—however, carefully patrolling new pages is one of his greatest characteristics. He knows how to see potential in new articles (example) and will assist page authors by making improvements and sourcing new submissions. John also frequently watches CSD tags and has experience in adjusting them to better criteria, or removing inaccurate ones (example) – in short, he's "already at the job". I believe that JohnCD's thorough knowledge and careful eye would be of great benefit with the extra tools, and hope that the community agrees. JamieS93 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Tikiwont: I had already approached JohnCD earlier due to his excellent work related to new pages and Jamie has summarized his other merits well. While some would expect more work with respect to content creation, working two years composedly, efficiently and effectively in administrative areas is no small feat. I believe that he would use the sysop tools in the same proficient manner where he already has ample experience and see no reason to fear that he would suddenly get involved in an ingenuous or high-handed manner elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and something extra from Mentifisto: I think JohnCD is ideal for the job because what he does is mostly adminny. He's courteous, attentive, and efficient. His dedication is shown through the sheer fact that he's been at it for more than two years now... and I think that is what should convince most people to trust him, as we also need more active sysops. I'm sure all this makes John reliable enough to meet most people's standards. -- Mentifisto 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you all for your kind words and your encouragement. I accept. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I would start in the areas I am most familiar with: CSD, PROD, AIV, UAA, closing AfDs (starting cautiously with those where consensus is clear). If there are other areas where there are particular backlogs (RFPP, RM?) I would see whether I knew or could learn enough to help.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions have been in two areas: (a) advice to new users asking why their articles are nominated for deletion, and to less experienced NPP-ers, because Wikipedia has a long learning curve and we need to help and encourage those who are struggling up the lower slopes; and (b) removal of hoax articles, because they damage Wikipedia, and some of them are plausible-looking and backed up by fake web-sites and references, so that considerable research is required to make a convincing case for deletion, e.g. Office for Entrepreneurs' Relief, Charles 'Flip' Fairbanks, Platinum Chewing Gum, Trisk, Macacalbius.


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: Not seriously; nothing that I would call more than a sharp exchange or two. I have been abused by vandals, of course, but who hasn't. My strategy for not getting stressed is basically WP:DGAF; I am aware that as an admin I may get into more contentious areas, but I would cite this exchange, already quoted in the the nomination, as an indication that I can remain calm under fire.


As a general preamble to answering optional questions of the "what would you do in this situation?" type, the answer in practice is likely to be "ask advice, or leave it to a more experienced admin to decide"; but I will not use that as a cop-out and will say what I would do if those options were not available.

Additional optional questions from Coffee
4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A.That's hard to answer without more facts, but guiding principles (which might conflict) would be: the strength of the arguments on the two sides; no consensus defaults to "Keep"; WP:BLP, in particular "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and notability per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E.
I have been asked (by Seraphimblade in the "Neutral" section below) for additional clarification. Without more to go on, the best I can do is to indicate what my choice algorithm would be: if clear consensus, considering the arguments put forward, is to keep or to delete, then go with that; if not, consider whether WP:BLP gives any guidance which would indicate that I should delete; if not, then default to keep. I might add that no admin is obliged to close a particular AfD; I can envisage coming on one due for closure, finding that I disagreed with apparent consensus, and deciding to lay aside my mop, cast a !vote explaining my reasons, and leave the closure for another admin.
5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A.I think WP:BLP itself is fine, but not applied as well as it should be. It is worrying that Category:Unreferenced BLPs contains 54,000 pages. This is not a thought-through proposal, but I think we need some means of at least preventing too many new additions to that category, perhaps automatic listing for deletion of new BLPs still unsourced after a month, or moving them into the WP:Article Incubator to give another month for anyone interested to find sources.
I have not been much involved with BLPs, apart from speedy-tagging innumerable db-person A7s and explaining WP:BIO to those who complained. I have taken part in some BLP AfDs arguing for deletion on grounds of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. I recall (but can't find the reference) realising that an apparent vandal trying to delete parts of a BLP was its subject, calming him and pointing him to WP:BLP/H, and I am at the moment advising this musician who has submitted an autobiography but appears to be notable.
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
6. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?
A: Out of those proposals I prefer #4 Community de-adminship, though I would set a lower threshold - 6 editors in good standing to initiate (admittedly some danger of an offended pressure-group ganging up, but they would be seen off in the debate). The required majority to de-sysop needs some thought - the implication is that the level required would be the same as for RfA, so that a 60% majority for de-sysop would not succeed, and I don't think that would be right. Also, rather than minimum 100 participants to demonstrate community involvement I would prefer a minimum number, say 50, of votes for de-sysop.
Question from Otterathome
7. Why did you feel the need to respond to a user banned for personal attacks on your talk page, still attacking and trolling the same user on your talk page instead of ignoring/reporting/reverting them? link to relevant history on talk page
A: Because, when the IP butted in on our conversation on my talk page to attack you, I considered that a dismissive reply would probably be more effective than blanking his message, which would be likely to lead to an edit war with him replacing it.
Background for other readers: This is one of the "sharp exchanges" I referred to in my answer to Q.3 above. For those who want the full detail, start in the linked history at 23:15, 22 May; for those who do not wish to wade through all the changes, the final state is here, and the summary is: a civil discussion with Otterathome, who disapproved of my pointing a hoax article writer to Uncyclopedia, was interrupted by an IP, apparently a blocked user continuing a feud with him. There ensued an edit-war to remove and re-add each others' comments, until I finally told them both that I would decide what was kept on my talk page, and they should take their feud somewhere else.


General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support per above.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But you're the first! Doc Quintana (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I meant my co-nomination above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tough room....Doc Quintana (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -#...--Tikiwont (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Based on positive previous interactions. TNXMan 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support John is one of our very best users in deletion areas. He always uses accurate CSD, and is kind towards newbies. I trust him not to abuse the tools, and think he would use them very well in deletion and blocking. I agree with the nominations, and think it would be a great benefit to a number of areas if John got the admin buttons. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nom. JamieS93 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Clueful user who has demonstrated a lot of skill in different areas. I am aware that he has not got good or featured articles to his credit but improving the small things, sourcing and cleaning up articles otherwise doomed to be speedy deleted and helping new users writing articles is just as important to the continued growth of this project. John has shown that he is knowledgeable in many areas of the project, polite and civil when dealing with other users, especially newbies and that he is willing to learn and improve what he does not already know. In short, I think we can all agree that he is a great candidate for the mop. :-) Regards SoWhy 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per my nom and all others. -- Mentifisto 20:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per noms and SoWhy. AtheWeatherman 20:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, trusted and experienced editor with a well-written series of nominations. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A commitment to both the encyclopedia and communication with other editors, a good grasp of the relevant policies, several years of diligent application of them, and a courteous and constructive approach with others. Highly successful work over two years in anti-vandalism, anti-hoax and various gnomish activities. Some more article contributions would have been nice, but not the end of the world and nothing compared with the hard work over the years. Euryalus (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sounds like a great candidate! Glad to Support! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support The anti-hoax work is impressive. I kinda wish I could see what those pages looked like. Keepscases (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support SoWhy took the words out of my mouth.--Coldplay Expert 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Everyone knows how I like strong article work; however this editor has done great work and I'm inclined to look past the lack of article content. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I like how you work with authors to improve new articles, rather than consigning them to the flames of deletion. Keep up the good work! Cocytus [»talk«] 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent work related to new pages. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Why not. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak support not the heavy content work I would hope for, however does have above-average CSD work, a level head on his shoulders, good answers to the questions and no immediate issues on browsing his recent AfD and general contribs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – – B.hotep •talk• 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per nom. Sole Soul (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Secret account 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Solid candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I am happy to support this wonderful editor. Warrah (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. On examining this user's contributions, it's a straight support from yours truly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support - From personal experience, I'll say that JohnCD is an awesome Wikipedian, incredibly helpful, and would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. -- Atama頭 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Impressive tenure and edit count, satisfactory answers to questions, clearly has clue. GlassCobra 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Another experienced maintenance worker, who will make a good admin. ceranthor 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Intelligent, thoughtful candidate.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support from numerous favorable experiences with his editing, temperment, and knowledge. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. iMatthew talk at 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Keeper | 76 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Amazingly Super Strong Elastic Support I'm happy with this editor. He is positive of having a go, as I have seen with his contributions.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Shows strong knowledge and experience in the areas mentioned and does great work. Excellent candidate, no doubt for adminship. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Have had very positive interactions, and see him around a lot. Looks good to me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, JohnCD. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support – This user is not an admin, yet? MuZemike 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Valley2city‽ 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: Why not? South Bay (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: Great editor. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, thank you for clarifying, and that's a well considered position on something that's been very problematic recently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support: Not familiar with him but he seems like an excellent candidate. I was especially impressed with some of his observations about the BLP process. 54,000! Sheesh. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yup. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Ran into him here, checked out some of his work on hoaxes and new page patrolling, wondered why he isn't an admin. Quite literally stumbled across this RfA - how fortuitous! All the best. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Tan | 39 14:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support: This is a near perfect Candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --NotedGrant Talk 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Good work overall - an impressive candidate. Good luck! UltraExactZZ FOREVER 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Not the most exciting editor, but meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: User is ready to be an admin. *Pepperpiggle**Sign!* 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I see no problems here. Impressive record. RP459 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support JohnCD is truly a wonderful candidate. I've seen him at AfD before, and I'm routinely impressed by his well-reasoned arguments. In examining his RfA and his contributions, I think his anti-hoax work stood out to me more than anything else. His expansion and sourcing of stubs also impressed me. No complaints here; adminship for JohnCD can only be a benefit to Wikipedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - an excellent editor who blows my requirements away! Also, per MuZemike :). Airplaneman talk 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – has been behaving like an admin in many ways for a long time, despite not yet having the tools. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. support While I often feel that admins should have great contributions to main articles GA's, FA's, and such, there is something to be said for the amount of work this editor does with less-rewarding projects and helping new users. Mrathel (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Staberinde (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Very experienced user, no real issues apparent. Will likely excel in administrative functions and put the tools to good use, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - not an admin already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I haven't had any direct interactions that I recall, but I have seen JohnCD around and I have no issues at all with his contributions, etc. Based on what I have seen, I anticipate no problems with abuse of the tools. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Good rounded editor. Have personal experience of his speedy tagging which IIRC I have never had reason to decline. Nancy talk 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Three thumbs up (extra thumb due to a cloning-related incident) -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per the opposer. If that's the best "dirt" that can be found in looking at every comment the candidate ever made at AFD, I see no problem with them as an admin. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support no question.   pablohablo. 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support per nom. Btilm 17:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Seems like a good editor, who will make a good admin from what I can see -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support John is an exceptionally impressive candidate and I have no doubt he will make an equally great administrator.--chaser (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, no obvious concerns. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Like User:Aaroncrick, I would have preferred seeing a more active record of article editing, but John's long-term and clueful contributions to deletion debates and new-page-patrol have convinced me to add my support. Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Isn't already? That can't be right! GedUK  10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Seems like a fine editor with the appropriate knowledge and understanding of policy. The hoax spotting is particularly impressive. I'm sure JohnCD would make a fine administrator and would make good use of the tools. HJMitchell You rang? 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong Support. All answers satisfactory, in my opinion 1 & 2 especially... no concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Now the following are by themselves supportable as reasonable stances: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]; however, the next batch are opposable for the indicated reasons: [12] per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, [13] (verifiability is sufficient), [14] per WP:PERNOM and WP:PRESERVE, [15] per WP:PERNOM, WP:JNN, and Wikipedia:Merge and delete, [16] as Plot is disputed, [17] per WP:PERNOM, [18] per WP:JNN and WP:V being all that really matters, [19] per not indicating how, [20] per WP:ITSCRUFT, and [21] per WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. I give the candidate credit for having never been blocked, but as the above suggests he seems much too inclined to delete rather than to improve per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and as such I do not trust the judgment/unbias in closing AFDs. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of your examples (and all of the negative ones) are older than a year, while some of your "reasonable" examples are from this year. Isn't that an indication that he has improved in said area? Regards SoWhy 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually make sense of the most incoherent and rambling oppose I have ever seen at an RfA? 81.154.10.44 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    81.154, that is wholly unhelpful.--chaser (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not persuaded by much of this, but WP:MAD (Wikipedia:Merge and delete) is a serious issue. Has the candidate since read and understood the essay? If not, could he do so? Thanks.--chaser (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply by candidate: the first "merge and delete" example cited was nearly two years ago. Since then, yes, I have read and understood WP:MAD, the point of which is that where content is preserved the attribution history must also be preserved, so that "merge and delete" would require a complex history merge; thus plain "merge" leaving a redirect is almost always preferable, and if the title is not a suitable redirect, "move" to a suitable title followed by "merge" leaving redirect is usually best. The second example cited as a !vote for "merge and delete" is not: it was a simple "delete", as the content of the stub article under consideration was already present in the target article, so there was nothing to merge. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I'm not sure it is entirely unhelpful. A Nobody's !vote consisted of various WP: links which mean nothing to anybody, and then you exacerbate the situation by adding your own to the pool. Have you lot never heard of piping a link? This is an encyclopedia we are making, it shouldn't require a degree in WPology. See WP:FFS. 81.154.10.44 (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral, clearly a good editor, but I'm a little bit concerned by the nonanswer to question 4. I would like to see some additional clarification there before making a decision, and an understanding of the current status there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Moved to support.[reply]
I have rephrased my answer to Q4, above, to try to make it clearer. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I cannot support a user who gives a block-evading abusive user a platform to continue their antics. Administrators are supposed to stem this type of behavior, not encourage it. See question 7.--Otterathome (talk) 17:42, 14 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JohnCD&oldid=1258014716"