Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JLaTondre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] JLaTondre

Final (60/2/0) ended 0:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

JLaTondre (talk · contribs) – Here comes another great candidate. I met JLaTondre a long time ago while patrolling Special:Shortpages - he kept beating me to the punch! I was positively impressed with this user's contributions to the project. See here for an example. Since then, both of us continued to work with that report - and kept running into each other. The best thing about this guy is that he continues to do excellent work without getting a lot of recognition. I am guessing not a lot of you know him by sight - and yet he has 9454 contribs since August 20, 2005! Since then he has not taken a single month off, contributing steadily. And he's so professional, he makes me envious. These are the kinds of qualities that make a terrific lowkey administrator. It's high time we give him the recognition he's been missing all this time.

Here's your rundown (stolen from RfA/Gwernol):

  • Edit count - 9454.
    • WP:space and Talk edits are each 10% of mainspace edits.
  • Time around - Steady since August 2005.
  • Civility? - Yes.
  • Edit summaries - 100% all around.
  • Mistakes - Nothing! Not a cloud over his talk page & archive.
  • Email enabled? - Yes.
  • Userpage? - Super-professional. Cyde will be proud.
  • Any edit warring/blocks? - No blocks and no wars.
  • FA participation? - Not sure. Tell us, JLaTondre.
    • Nope, sorry! -- JLaTondre 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great guy. Give him a mop - now! CrazyRussian talk/email 06:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- JLaTondre 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. '''Bold text'''Support, good user. — Jul. 2, '06 [18:52] <freak|talk>
  2. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. High-caffeine-content super nominator support - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - Looks good to me. --WinHunter (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. I like your answer to question 1. Maybe you can help me clear the CAT:PROD, as I do this nearly daily.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support sounds like the tools will do him well and he'll do well with the tools. Yanksox 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. So qualified it makes my teeth hurt. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Rama's Arrow 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian {T C @} 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per nomination. NOVO-REI 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Looks like a good choice. Nephron  T|C 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support He is the kind of candidate I look for in RfA and he is extremely professional, a point that I like in my administrators. Good luck! --WillMak050389 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support been here 11 months, appears to contribute heavily and revert vandalism well enough. This makes me want to support.--Andeh 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yeah!. What else?--Tdxiang 07:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Holy crap support, clearly has more use for the admin tools than most of the candidates I've come across. Meets my criteria. Grandmasterka 07:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per above and below (Qs) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nominator. - Patman2648 08:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. DarthVader 10:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. SushiGeek 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. What-the-hell-else-am-I-to-vote Support. RandyWang (raves/rants) 11:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support This is my ideal candidate..quiet, doesn't make waves, yet does stellar rock solid work. TruthCrusader 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support I think this user has the potential to be a phenomenal admin based on a brief overview of his edits and the community support above hoopydinkConas tá tú? 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support. A very good editor. --Scarbor 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - A very good contributor. Afonso Silva 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC) - I changed my username. Mário 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Seems to be a good candidate for the mop and bucket. Good answers to questions below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support: yes. --Bhadani 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Of course! An outstanding user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Textbook candidate. --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support no reservations. Just zis Guy you know? 18:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - I remember seeing this RfA somewhere... Iolakana|T 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I've seen you on RFD, you're a great contributor. Roy A.A. 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. (1) Seems to know what s/he's doing. (2) Seems additional buttons would be useful to and well used by this user. (3) Seems trustworthy in general, honest in approach and, from a quick glance at contribs and answers below, level-headed. That'll do nicely. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Lots of edits... not that this matters but you also show good initiative when fighting the vandals.Abcdefghijklm 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support for work on Special:Shortpages and other experiences. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 03:50Z
  36. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, a very solid user; lack of talk page edits balanced off by Wikipedia space edits very nicely. Great job! — Deckiller 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - --Klemen Kocjancic 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. OH **** I'm out of CLICHE's SUPPORT - per Tawker -- Tawker 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Good editor. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, no complicated line of reasoning needed. Alphachimp talk 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Another good editor that will make good use of the tools. --Alf melmac 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, Kindness, good contributor, and also experienced. *~Daniel~* 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support - dedicated users make good admins abakharev 05:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support I see no reason to oppose.--Jusjih 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Joe I 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Overwhelmingly qualified. --Vengeful Cynic 17:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. About freakin' time. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support, regardless of notable article edits. Excellent contributor. Isopropyl 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support, great editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Strong support. A very good editor. -- Szvest 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  52. Extremely strong support, whoa awsome editor! Definatly deserves it. -- Michaelas10 12:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. Civil, and a regular RFD participant. — TKD::Talk 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Great credentials, and persuasive recommendations above. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Deserving one. --Terrancommander 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. Great answers, seems he has the kind of attention to minutae that is best put to use by an admin. Themindset 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support: Looks pretty solid and could put admin rights to good use. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support... very qualified.--Isotope23 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fad (ix) 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    As this is not a vote, please can you clarify your reasoning in order that your opinion will be counted? Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    It is somewhat of a vote, at least in the de facto sense. SushiGeek 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Notable article edits are unacceptably low. Anwar 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment What do you mean by that? I'm sure you didn't mean notable as in notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I don't quite see what you mean by "low". Nearly 10,000 edits isn't good enough for you? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment, he's obviously referring to the stats from Voice of All's script. Unfortunately it's not incredibly accurate in that column. I've checked contributions analyses for various "writers", i.e. users who make at least a dozen of what I would call "significant article expansion" edits per week, but the tool output doesn't seem to reflect that. I've checked diffs and noticed that the addition of two whole paragraphs of text (new paragraphs, not reversion of section blanking) can still be categorized as "superficial" somehow. It's a useful tool, but it needs work.
    But that's neither here nor there. Prose-writing ability has nothing to do with suitability for adminship. — Jul. 5, '06 [17:53] <freak|talk>
    After some IRC chat and additions/debugging, I think that the accuracy issues for some users have been dealt with. Also, that number is mainly there to help user's with lower edit counts to show there true contibution quality. Either way, having a high number of large article edits has little to do with adminship.Voice-of-All 03:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments

User's last 5000 edits (updated).Voice-of-All 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user JLaTondre (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 162 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 07, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 28, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 96.02% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 19.25 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 570 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.18% (9)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.84% (92)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 52.76% (2638)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 77.05%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4051 | Average edits per page: 1.23 | Edits on top: 24.66%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 31.26% (1563 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 45.04% (2252 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 19.84% (992 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 3.66% (183 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 72.52% (3626) | Article talk: 1.66% (83)
User: 1.08% (54) | User talk: 11.66% (583)
Wikipedia: 10.32% (516) | Wikipedia talk: 0.86% (43)
Image: 0.16% (8)
Template: 0.28% (14)
Category: 1.26% (63)
Portal: 0.08% (4)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.12% (6)

 Username JLaTondre
 Total edits 9454
 Distinct pages edited 8076
 Average edits/page 1.171
 First edit 13:55, 20 August 2005
 
 (main) 7583
 Talk 103
 User 97
 User talk 731
 Image 15
 Template 20
 Template talk 4
 Category 80
 Category talk 3
 Wikipedia 759
 Wikipedia talk 43
 Portal 16
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Special:Shortpages (as Crzrussian mentions above) is where I spend a good amount of time. In my patrols there, I have probably tagged hundreds & hundreds of articles for speedy deletion. The ability to delete these myself is the primary reason I am interested in becoming an admin. I believe this would be more efficient for Wikipedia. I also come across quite a few cut-n-paste moves there that it would be nice to be able to fix. I hang out in WP:RFD and will close obvious keeps (disambig conversions, etc.). While this is not typically a page with a large backlog, occasionally it will build up & I'd like to be able to help with deletion closures as well. I'm sure I'll wander in and out of other areas, but these are the two primary ones where I know I'd use admin tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While this may the antithesis of those who prefer content over clean-up, my clean-up activities are what I view as my greatest contribution to Wikipedia. Whether it's Special:Shortpages, fixing incorrect links, fixing red link categories at Special:Categories, or other clean-up activities, my goal is to improve the overall usability of Wikipedia. I did contribute Abnaki class fleet ocean tug along with a few of the associated individual ship articles (and I plan to finish the series), but I'd be the first to admit that these are not significant pages and that it's been slow going. Lanxin railway, Linda O. Johnston, Mistawasis First Nation, & Hawk-i are all articles that started off in pretty bad shape, but that I feel I was able to make at least palatable if not stellar.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In general, I think I have been pretty good at dealing with other users. Most conflict I've had has been users not understanding what I've said / meant. In these cases, I have simply tried to re-explain my point and it's usually worked. An example of this, would be the RFD closure for Liancourt Rocks. Unbeknownst to me at the time, this was an emotionally charged issue. I closed the RFD as it was in reality a page move request that belonged at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Some folks viewed my closure as an endorsement of the one title over the other vs. what it actually was (a procedural issue). It spilled over on a couple different pages, but after explaining it a few different times, people seem to have understood. The article at the center of this deletion debate is probably the most pertinent example for this question. Since it's deleted, I can't review the edit history to validate the exact chronology, but as I recall, I came across it after someone had posted comments within the article denying the accuracy. I moved the comments to the talk page and did a little research on my own. Not coming up with anything definitive either way, I added a {{disputed}} and explained both sides as best I could on the talk page. The article started receiving quite a bit of vandalism from article detractors and also removal of the dispute tag from article supporters. My reverting of both ended up with my user page being repeatedly vandalized by AOL IP addresses. Since both the supporters and detractors were AOL, the vandalism seemed isolated to my user page, and it was reverted very rapidly, my solution was simply to let it ride as the collateral damage of asking for an AOL block was more than the damage to my page. I also decided not to ask for page protection for my user page as I'd rather they get bored of vandalizing it (and they did) then have them move their vandalizing to article space. In general, with the exception of a small area (attack pages, etc.), most issues on Wikipedia do not require an immediate resolution and my philosophy is to take a break and think about my answer before responding when it starts to get a little heated.

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz

  1. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he returen before you start to do longer blocks?
A: It would depend upon the nature and extent of the vandalism. If it's localized & minor (like described in my answer to standard question 3 above), then I might choose to limit my response to reverting or page protection. If it's wide spread & disruptive, then blocking would be necessary and I'd go by the guidelines specified at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Expiry times and application for dynamic IPs. I see no reason to vary from community standards. While situations may occur that would require a different response, I would rely on advice from more experienced admins until I gain sufficient experience to ensure I’d be doing more good than harm in those cases.
  1. If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
A: Given the warnings at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Range blocks and m:Range blocks, I don’t expect to utilize range blocks in the short term. If I saw a need for a range block, I’d contact a more experienced admin and have them assist me in order to ensure it was done correctly and to also use it as a learning experience. As the guidelines are “range blocks should be as brief as possible”, I would ensure that I had the time available to monitor it or coordinate with other admins to either make the block instead or monitor it for me.
  1. After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
A: Yes. I understand that autoblocking can cause issues for other users and would double check to mitigate this. I would also be conservative in blocking usernames as I would assume good faith unless it was obvious.
  1. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
A: No. However, I would not be thrilled if it did happen to me so I can imagine how this can be frustrating when it does occur.
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.