Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Reaves

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] John Reaves

Final: (56/5/5); ended 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk · contribs) - I’m glad to nominate John Reaves for adminship, one of my collaborators in WikiProject Harry Potter . He’s joined Wikipedia since 2005 but specially been very active for the last 4 months with nearly 7000 edits in total. What impresses me is his remaining balance between a good editor and a hard-working wikipedian with Wikipedia work. A dedicated member in Harry Potter project , an industrious editor with huge contributions in mainspace (takes up approximately 50% out of total), a diligent recent changes patroller and new page patroller who readily reverts vandalism, sends warnings to users who have done wrong and tries to prevent them from further vandalizing. John frequently appears in WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:VP/T etc. He’s also helpful to welcome new users and often answers questions in WP:HD. I strongly believe that if entrusted with sysop, he’ll make use of it in the most effective way. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination - It is my pleasure to co-nominate John Reaves for adminship. Having worked with him in WikiProject Harry Potter, where he has an active role, I've been impressed to see his dedication to the Project in particular, and to other fields of Wikipedia in general.

John is a tireless vandal-fighter, and is highly involved in recent changes patrolling, as Causesobad already mentioned. He has made over 100 accurate reports to WP:AIV. John actively contributes to AfD, MfD, RfD, etc; his constructive work includes nominating articles and miscellanies for deletion [1] [2][3], getting involved in the discussion[4], giving useful comments [5] . He also helps out with closing XfDs [6] [7] . His throughout contributions indicate that he has a deep understanding of the policies and that he would apply them rationally using his common sense.

John is a helpful Wikipedian, he is quick to come to the aid of other users and can often be seen at the Help desk. He answers Help Me requests [8][9][10] and warmly welcomes newbies to acknowledge their contributions [11][12]

John has experience of participating in some other Wikipedia spaces such as WP:RFPP [13] and WP:RFC/U [14] [15], where he is a regular visitor.

He has non-controversial signature and userpage, good edit summary usage, and his email is enabled.

John Reaves is a fair, responsible and trustworthy editor, reasonably well-qualified for administrator status. I hereby recommend him to the community. PeaceNT 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. John Reaves (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd of course do the usual work at AIV and other everlasting backlog such as CAT:CSD and WP:AN/3RR. I'd really like to help sort out and take care of the occasional misplaced reports at AN/I and AN because they seem to slip by pretty frequently. request for protection , requested moves and redirects for discussion don't get nearly the same amount of attention as other pages (like AIV and AN/I) so I would help keep them clear along with various XfDs. One thing that especially bothers me is when pages remain protected for too long because it isn't in the spirit of the project. So I would be on the look out at requests for unprotection and just generally checking to make sure pages haven't been protected too long (assuming vandalism has died down and the article isn't a vandal magnet). I'd also like to help out at copyright problems, requests for edits to protected pages and the relatively new Wikipedia:Request an account
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I wouldn't say that I have a specific article that I'm proud of, but some of my best work in the article namespace has probably been on random page patrol when I manage to clean-up an article and when I occasionally find some of the dreck that slips by new pages patrollers and deal with it accordingly. I've been pretty active in WikiProject Harry Potter and I feel the work I've done there has been pretty worthwhile.
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've been in a few since starting here. The majority have been with one editor, over various things. The final straw, for me, was when we ended up being briefly blocked for what I would consider one of the lamest edit wars ever. After that, I decided enough is enough and decided no more conflict and rudeness. So I can assure you that I'm done with this type of thing. It's unconstructive, stressful, stupid, useless and not for me. I find that I am much more constructive and able to contribute a better level when I'm not involved in conflicts or when I handle them civily. Also, you'll notice (in the interest of full disclosure) I was blocked for reposting something I made up 2 years ago. I was dumb and completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia and what a great project it is. I encourage you to consider my recent contributions, not my idiotic one from 2 years ago.
Optional Question from Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs)
4. As indicated above and in your block log you have been blocked for edit waring. Wheel Waring is the equivalent of edit warring only in admin actions. Why is wheel waring a bad thing and what steps will you take not to become part of one?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Wheel warring is detrimental to Wikipedia and the community therein because it is disruptive and creates unnecessary drama that distracts us all from doing better things. Basically, if I oppose another admins actions, I'll discuss it with them or on the administrator's noticeboard if the user is unavailable or if I still disagree with the action.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support only seen good things from this user. Majorly (o rly?) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support. His AIV reports are accurate, contradictory to what I had previously said (see neutral). Sorry about that mistake. Good article editing, AIV, XfD participation. Everything looks good to me. Nishkid64 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems to be a strong editor, could find use for the tools. Ganfon 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. With over 7000 edits and over 1 and a half years experience, of course I support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks like a fine user and an especially fine admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support As he said, we've had our run-ins, but as he also said, it ended, largely due to his efforts. I can't think of any non-admin more conscientious about the rules, or in ensuring that they are followed - so I would expect him to do better still as an admin. Michaelsanders 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. SupportMy only concern was his block, but I'm convinced he learned from it.Rlevse 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support naturally as co-nom. PeaceNT 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Great contributor. Artaxiad 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oh-very-much-yes support. Daniel Bryant 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - I like the various ways in which this user communicates with other users (test1,2,3, etc., user talk, & welcomes). This is, to me, an important part of effective administration. Kukini hablame aqui 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, (me? the nom) of course, sorry for the late vote. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Michael
  14. Support all my experiences with him have been excellent, definitely would make a great admin james (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support: I appreciate the openness that John has provided us in the questions above. I've worked with this great editor on numerous articles in the past and have seen no ill-deeds. His experience and work with various tasks (AIV, etc.) shows that he has the will and persistence to go the extra mile. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support looks good, and the answers are refreshingly honest.-- danntm T C 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support definitely :). Yuser31415 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support good user with a good record. Should be a fine admin. - Anas Talk? 11:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - good answers to questions 3+4 are enough to not worry about the block, otherwise an excellent candidate. Addhoc 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - Very Good Vandal Fighter and also posses a good record..--Cometstyles 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Neil (not Proto ►) 12:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. G.He 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support per being a great editor and per not a big deal. The Rambling Man 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I was thinking of nominating this user myself, he is a regular at WP:XFD and I would definitely trust him with the mop and bucket.Tellyaddict 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Looks to be a good editor and we sure need more good admins. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Looks like I was the one to issue the most recent block. Irony of ironies. Looks like John "learned the lesson" and has become an even better editor since then. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Yes please, so he can stop filling up AIV and get on to some real work! :p – riana_dzasta 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - my fellow Wikipedians have said all there is to say. anthonycfc [talk] 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Checks out just fine. Bubba hotep 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Respectable edits, hangs out in needed areas, seems to have learned from block/revert experience. Not a difficult decision for me. Go. Pigmandialogue 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support looks good, should benefit the project. skip (t / c) 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Terence Ong 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support, good contributor. Appleworm 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - although I was a bit dubious about the block and edit war, I've never voted anything but Support in any RfA, ever, and I'm not going to start now. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per noms. Sarah 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support: A fine candidate for adminship in my opinion.  ~Steptrip 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. It's-about-time support. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support -- Looks like a good candidate for sysop tools. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Garion96 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support While I'm a little troubled by the 3RR and some recent comments, he seems sincere in his apology and I'm willing to give him a pass on those issues. Otherwise, appears to be a great editor.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support --Cao Wei 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Thought John was an admin already support. — S.D. 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I've seen him around admin areas for a while now and have only gotten good impressions (although their have, of course, been the occasional mistakes and slip-ups). I think John will make a good and helpful addition to the administrative team. Cbrown1023 talk 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Have seen the excellent work he has done around WP:WPHP firsthand and believe he will make an more useful and greater addition to Wikipedia as a sysop. RHB Talk - Edits 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support An excellent user with a lot of wonderful contributions. --Meno25 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Despite the recent mis-step mentioned below, this editor doesn't seem to make a habit of bad behavior. The answers to the questions above are very good, and the editor seems to be very level-headed. I think this editor can be trusted with the twiddled bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support User:brianherman
  51. Support A very fine user, would do great work with the tools, especially at WP:RPP and WP:RFD Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support, another good user who won't abuse the tools.--Wizardman 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support, an great user who helps out on many Xfd's. meshach 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support --dario vet (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Cleared for adminship Great vandal fighting work. —Pilotguy (go around) 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support - good editor, issues are not enough to deny adminship. Will not abuse tools, will use them constructively, will help project. Part Deux 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I hate to be the nay-sayer, but it is only six weeks since this editor has blocked for "3RR & Edit waring", the episode in question can be seen here. The edit summaries there seem to me grounds for civility concerns, which pop elsewhere, too, for example here and here (made in response to this and this). Bucketsofg 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your concern. The block and war were the result of a previously long standing issue between myself and the other editor which has since been resolved (he's even given me his support in this request). As I said above, I regret my instances of incivility and have since stopped because it is "unconstructive, stressful, stupid, useless, etc" and does nothing but hurt the project. John Reaves (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose Im a little worried about the edit on Pyrobooster's talk page. I think the level of anger in the response isn't very appropriate, and ought to be explained. Changed to support. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    See this diff. The page he was referring to was John Reaves (he created it new before the current version) which contained the text:

    John Reaves, former pizza delivery man for Dominoes (TM) now censor for the internationally renowned Wikipedia.com. He has enjoyed a successful career, and is probably not American but an underpaid IT professional in India. Pyrobooster 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    I admit, I was overly sarcastic, but it wasn't anger, just an annoyed reply. John Reaves (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose - John is a tireless worker and certainly worthy of being in Admin eventually but I'd like to see him mellow a little first. He can be gruff and aggressive on User Talk pages; which is not a quality to encourage in administrators. In a discussion with me about edits to the Ollivander page, where I posted my views initially for discussion and then made changes (see here), he reverted my alterations within one minute and became quite harsh during the ensuing discussion (see here and here and full conversation here under "Reply"]]). There were certainly faults on both sides - I accept that. However, conversations such as this with new users might discourage them from adopting WP:BOLD or even, in extreme cases, coming back and editing. I will be happy to support him in a couple of months if he relaxes a bit. Coricus 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose Bucketsofg post above worries me. --- SAndTLets Talk 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose Bucketsofg points out some rather dismissive comments, not so civil comments. Calling somebodies message "completely worthless" and saying "You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important." are not the type of responses I would like a user to get when the talk to an admin. I am glad you have decided that uncivility is unproductive, but that was just in Feb, perhaps at a later time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - BucketsofG's diffs make me feel that this user should not be an administrator. I want all admins to be level-headed and calm. - Richardcavell 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Would have opposed, but I've seen good work from this user. My only concern is the sometimes-inaccurate AIV reports. I have handled some of these reports by John Reaves, and have had to remove some since the user had not violated the last warning. IIRC, I saw this just less than a week ago. I see he has made many more reports, and they don't seem to be inaccurate, so I might change my mind and support the user by the end of the RfA. Nishkid64 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that I doubt you, because we all make mistakes, but do you have any diffs? I'd like to try and figure why I would do that. John Reaves (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Good thing you doubted me. I couldn't find any of those diffs. I don't know what happened. I've seen you at AIV loads of times, but I guess I might have mistaken your identity. Please accept my apologies. Nishkid64 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. The issue Bucketsofg brings up of relatively recent 3RR violations and civility concerns bothers me. It is certainly understandable that this particular issue has been resolved, but I think it may nonetheless show poor judgment in disputes. The issue is neither severe nor recent enough for me to oppose, given that it has been peaceably resolved, but it does raise some questions. —Cuiviénen 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Bucketsofg. I think civility is one of the most important things for an admin to have so that they can handle disputes smoothly. It has been a while since the diffs (people can change in a month) and John seems to have learnt from the incidents so I'm going neutral. James086Talk 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Looks like a good vandal fighter but recent 3RR and civility troubles are a little worrying. Keep your nose clean, come back in a month and I will support. —dgiestc 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral as per Dgies. Come back in a month and I will support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Reply to all neutrals: If it helps, I'd be willing to place myself in Category:Administrators open to recall. John Reaves (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per Coricus, leaning to support per Category:Administrators open to recall. Good idea, admins should generally be open to recall. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2007 (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.