Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.delanoy

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

[edit] J.delanoy

Final, (2/7/2); Ended 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) by AGK (contact).

J.delanoy (talk · contribs) - J.delanoy has been around since October 1, 2006, and he fights vandalism at a speed of a bot. He also makes plenty of reports on WP:AIV and made at least 500 edits in the last 6 hours and more than 1000 edits in the last 24 hours. He has also been a constructive editor as well, so it is unlikely that he will abuse the admin tools. So ladies and gentlemen, J.delanoy! NHRHS2010 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and I must say I am somewhat overwhelmed at the prospect of being an admin. I never thought I would be nominated this soon. I do have to explain my contrib history, though. When I first joined Wikipedia, I mostly read articles, only correcting typos and similar things occasionally. I had progressed to actively participating in adding content to articles when someone told my parents that my contributions to Wikipedia could be a liability to my future as Wikipedia was, quote, "unreliable". So they (my parents) kicked me off Wikipedia for around six months. (I still live at home. Their house, their rules.) After a while, I convinced them that Wikipedia was not a bad thing and they let me re-join. After that, I continued with the same pattern I had followed before. Then I discovered Recent Changes, and I started to combat vandalism on a large scale. A week or two ago, (I can't remember) I got huggle and that is why I have so many edits this month (February).

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: Well, as I said above I was a recent changes patroller for a while, and I recently got huggle, so I will probably block vandals myself rather than reporting them to WP:AIV and delete nonsense articles myself rather than tagging them for speedy deletion. I will also most likely look at AIV periodically to block problem users and IPs and I will also look for speedy deletion tags as well.

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

A: I converted most of the refs in Eli Manning to the citeweb format myself and I tried to make the sections about Manning's career into prose, rather than a collection of unrelated sentences. I think I greatly improved the refs and I also think I improved the general flow of the article. In addition, I wrote much of Panasonic DMP-BD30K. Although it is not very long, I am happy that I was able to create a meaningful article, as most everything of note already seems to have an article. Apart from those articles, I revert a ton of vandalism, and I feel I have done a lot to help Wikipedia remain the best encyclopedia in the world.

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 was briefly involved in an edit war in Comparison of high definition optical disc formats right after Warner Bros. announced that they were going Blu-ray exclusive. Although some of my remarks were not entirely civil, I think that overall, I was able to control my temper and give my opinion clearly, concisely, and civilly. Also, because of my anti-vandal work, many times people leave comments on my talk page saying that their edits were not vandalism. Early on, I used to respond and sometimes I got into arguments. I think I remained civil most of the time. After I came across WP:TROLL and read the section about "don't feed the trolls", I usually only respond if the person brings up a valid point in their argument.

4 (I added this question myself because in other RfA's, it usually gets asked.) Are there any contributions or edits you have made that you are not proud of?

A Unfortunately, yes. With this edit, to put it nicely, I did not assume good faith and jumped to conclusions. Although I tried to apologize as best I could, the user has not made any edits since February 8 and I fear I may have driven a valuable contributer away from Wikipedia almost before they joined. Since then, I have only used a level 4im warning once, when a guy was creating multiple accounts in order to vandalize evolution.

[edit] General comments

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

• Links for J.delanoy: J.delanoy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. Nominator Support NHRHS2010 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per nom meets my standards. With all due respect to the opposers, I gotta support anyone who makes 3000 edits in a month. The tools do not require great writing skills. Just knowledge of when to block users and delete or protect pages. Sure, out of 3000 edits, you will find a few mistakes. However, I saw a lot of good AIV reports and speedy deletion notices. If this does not succeed, I hope to see you back in 3 months and 3,000 edits. Please use the time for article building and taking part in community discussions as well as the admin robot-like tasks. Heed all the good advice that is likely to come from the opposers especially. Balance out your portfolio as Pedro suggests. Dlohcierekim 14:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   More free advice. Definitely slow down and look at edits from a couple of angles before reverting and warning. It's very upsetting and disruptive when we make mistakes reverting constructive edits instead of vandalism. It only gets worse if we block as well. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 16:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose 3,000 machine like edits with no content contribution does not impress me. Also this C:CSD tag is, well, totally wrong. I'm sorry, I see nothing outside of whack-a-mole vandal fighting. Now that's great, don't get me wrong, but I'm afraid I'd like to see a demonstration of policy knowledge (e.g. via further article writing, WP:XFD, WP:RFPP and maybe WP:HELPDESK or WP:ANI etc etc) before granting +sysop. Pedro :  Chat  10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   I do have to agree that I have a comparitively small number of edits that are not vandalism reverts, but the only reason I accepted the nomination in the first place is because I thought that it would be much easier for me to block vandals myself rather than reporting them to AIV. Also, as to that one speedy deletion tag, when I applied that tag, I had had Huggle for a total of around 10 hours, and I had only been using it for probably 7 or 8 because I had trouble getting Vista to decompress the zipped folder, and then I discovered that I could not use the IRC for some reason, and then I got called to eat supper.. In any case, prior to my aquisition of Huggle, I had really never used speedy deletion tags because when I patrolled Recent Changes unaided, I was just too slow and someone else nearly always applied the tag before I could. So basically what I am saying is, 8 hours before I did that, I had practically no experience with speedy deletion tags. When the admin who viewed it said on my talk page that the tag I used did not apply, I could not think of anything that would be appropriate to respond, so I said nothing but I noted what he said and I think (I can't remember for sure) that all the articles I tagged after that have been deleted. (No one has said anything on my talk page about any of my speedy deletion noms) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   I know that there have been some issues with people getting used to Huggle - it's not a problem. Don't be down-hearted by the current pattern of your RfA. I agree with your senitment of wishing to have the block button to save you reporting to WP:AIV but sadly the tools come as a "box-set" so you get delete and protect as well. Your edits so far have clearly demonstrated you ability to identify bad additions and to warn and report accurately. But at present there really isn't a lot else to judge how you would work at say CSD, RFPP or to handle requests from other editors that require you to use admin tools. You admit yourself you have probably less than four weeks experience judging articles against the strict criteria of CSD but also in your Q1 state that is an area of interest. I think I'm not alone in wishing for you to demonstrate a period of less Huggle reliant editing before you run again, participating in some of the areas I highlighted above. Again, please don't be down hearted and note that all the opposers here admire your work so far and are supportive of it. The extra tools will come, but probably not this time round. I hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2. [1] seems to contradict your Q2 answer (unless it's a different batch I should be looking at), while Panasonic DMP-BD30K shows a lack of knowledge/proficiency with MOS that I'd hope an admin would have. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I did my editing around January 20 and the Super Bowl is probably why my edits are no longer on the top. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   For the record regarding Eli Manning: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en&page=Eli%20Manning Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Also, not to seem overly defensive, I patterned Panasonic DMP-BD30K after an almost identical article, Panasonic DMP-BD10, as I thought that the latter did a fine job of describing what is (in my opinion) a rather mundane device. After I created Panasonic DMP-BD30K, someone else apparently added the "reception" section and I have not had a chance (not having paid attention until now) to review (and hopefully improve on) his/her additions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - per Pedro, and the fact that vandalism fighting is not a game, though some scripted tools do make our job easier, creating content on wikipedia is also appreciated and as pointed above by Pedro, policy knowledge is also very important..--Cometstyles 10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose I have a couple issues with this nom. Only 722 edits through the end of 2007, and only utilizing one area of WP (fighting vandals). Admins, by default, shouldn't be "one dimensional" as this user appears to be. Rather - they should encompass ALL areas of WP. While vandal fighting is a noble cause, it is not enough to be an admin. I would recommend withdrawing your nom until your WP experience is more rounded. ArcAngel (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Agreed. Lack of versatility. Only reverting vandalism and making robotic reports to WP:AIV (while having merit), by itself does nothing for me. Answers to questions demonstrate a premature understanding of Wiki-policy. Recommend a withdraw as I'm convinced this nom will ultimately fail. You should be fine next time around though if you branch out a little more. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - User appears to have good intentions; regrettably, I must oppose due to the lack of experience outside vandal fighting. —Travis^talk 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Neutral. To avoid a pile-on. You show no knowledge of writing skills, and only of what constitutes vandalism. Sorry, sysops need to know more. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I don't want a pile on. Though your anti-vandal work is good, sysops need a wider range of skills. Spencer^T♦C 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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.