Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jayvdb

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

Jayvdb

Final (54/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 05:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 08:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jayvdb (talk · contribs) - John Vandenberg has been in the project since November 2004, and have been actively editing since March, 2006 where he has over 20,000 edits. John's main focus is on AFD debates where he is a active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. He also participates in them where his agruements are sound, and have a good meaning of policy. In articles he mainly deals with Australian and academic journals topics and articles such as JasperReports. He is also experienced with vandal fighting. I think he would make a excellent admin. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. John Vandenberg 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: In short: whatever my hand finds to do.

The only aspect of admin workload that I am confident in all aspects of policy and guidelines is on AFD, so that is where I expect to make the first use of the new tools. Afd isn't an area that is sorely in need of more admins to do the typical closes (delete or keep), so I will be initially focusing on closing Afds where the consensus is that a merge is needed. I will also be using the admin capabilities to improve and maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js to make it easier for admins to close AFDs in a consistent fashion, as newer admins often forget steps, such as recording the outcome on the talk pages.

The next type of admin work I intend to take part in is dealing with images. Since a plea for help with images on enwiki-l ("Fair use issues; we need serious help" July 11), I have been becoming familiar with the image policies, Ifd practises and the situation here and on commons. As a practical way of preparing myself for working in this area here on Wikipedia, I have been auditing of all images on the English Wikisource (which has a policy which says "no images" in a long winded manner). In the last week I have started running a bot there to process all of the images that need to be removed. I am quite keen to see the day when the English Wikipedia is free of all public domain media!

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

A: Some of my more important contributions are:

• assisting with the efforts to fix all of the invalid ISBNs that were on CAT:INVALID, because it was a fairly obvious hole in our quality.
• creating User:Jayvdb/Deletion sorting tool to keep up with the onslaught of Afds, because the input from a domain expert is often sorely needed. I have delsorted a lot of Afds.
• As Jaranda has said, I often chime in on Afds, and where work is needed I put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and work on the article in order to turn around an Afd. A few examples:
  • I grappled with the Hungarian language for a few hours in order to add a source for most of the key facts on Ferenc Berenyi (this would not have been possible if it wasnt for our interwiki links and wiktionary which I used extensively).
  • I expanded our article on Almodad, because I believe topics that have an entry in other encyclopedia, no matter how short, should have an article here. I hope it sets an Afd precedent along the lines of "even Almodad has an article". There are four other sons of Joktan that as yet dont have articles. Accius is another short article I've contributed (copied from EB1911).
  • Karrinyup Shopping Centre was never going to fail Afd, but it needed attention. It is now a B class article.
• encouraging and assisting new users:
  • Spinality (talk · contribs) wanted to write articles about topics that he was initimately familiar with: CP/CMS, IBM CP-40, VP/CSS and others. In addition to helping him learn wiki syntax and wikipedia guidelines/policies/conventions, I provided advice on how to steer clear of the COI by telling him to write drafts in user space, and use the talk pages to ensure others are happy with his contributions. During this time, I also started articles on Cambridge Scientific Center and IBM Type-III Library.
  • Pudupudu (talk · contribs) was keenly working on W. H. R. Rivers, but needed guidance, especially on citations and where to put some of the long quotes and source documents, so I started working on wikiquote and wikisource to assist. As part of this, I digitised a number of his works on s:Author:W. H. R. Rivers. The Rivers article here is now up to a B class.
• helping address the backlog at User:Alai/prevcat-Jan07b.
• setting up {{Missing species}} to help Ricardo_Carneiro_Pires (talk · contribs) work on organise missing species articles.
• I have been involved in Wikipedia:List of missing journals (see also WP:LOMJQ), and recently set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals to continue that effort.

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 have had differences of opinion with people on a lot of Afds (Filterset.G caused me the most stress, and JasperReports was a horrible mess that went on for weeks), but have only rarely had a conflict over editing. When it does occur, I have two practical approaches to direct my energy and manage the stress:

1. I start researching the topic of the dispute, usually creating a few new articles along the way, in order to put as many facts on the table as possible. Usually this results in either me realising I was wrong and being pig headed, or the other person realises that they didnt know everything and they are usually appreciative of my efforts. Only on one occasion has this approach failed. It started at the AFD for Islamic Research Foundation where Proabivouac (talk · contribs) objected to me writing an article about Peace TV during that Afd, and then got a bit antsy when I then started another article Saudi Gazette (I may have started others as well), as it was being used to describe a source used for the Peace TV article. (see User_talk:Jayvdb/Archive_1#Rollback Tools)
2. Do something else. There is always real life things to do, and I have plenty of ways to spend my time on the Wikimedia projects. Except for Afd where the article becomes inaccessible to non-admins, I am always happy to let a particular problem grow, because there are others that can take the slack and there is always tomorrow. One example of this is I recently grew tired of working on Afd, so I spent the majority of my free time over on Wikisource for about a month.

As I dont have enough conflict in my wiki life, I have also tried to help others that are in conflict, such as on Mammed Amin Rasulzade, Paytakaran, and Khachkar destruction.

Optional question from User:Krator:

4. Single purpose accounts. As an editor experienced in deletion discussions, how would you prevent, recognise, and deal with single purpose editors? Should their arguments be recognised in a discussion, and should their voices be counted in determining consensus? User:Krator (t c) 08:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Content is king! Whether that is mainspace contributions or relevant discussion on an Afd. WP:SPA is a convenient way to warn new users and summarise how/why we deal with a specific type of disruption; ultimately it is the disruption that needs to be considered rather than the SPA nature of it. Recognising most SPA's is simple; they are new accounts or primarily involved on the page being discussed at Afd. Beyond that, someone will need to advise me. I am also going to need to read up on ways to find sockpuppetry, and on when it is appropriate to investigate that.

Moving onto preventing it, I am not sure whether it is appropriate to protect an Afd to limit it to established users, but that did help on a RailPage Afd so in extreme cases it is probably appropriate. In less extreme cases, putting up the SPA notice may help, but I havent seen that it is effective. If SPAs are being excessively disruptive, I think a short term block would be the trick. I dont know the ins and outs of blocks so until I do, I would be refer the case to a noticeboard for someone else to deal with it.

Dealing with SPAs is the fun part. Most SPAs are potential motivated contributors, so unless there are more serious problems with the user I would be reticent to "deal" with them. Often they are advocating an article that is of margin importance, and that involvement is not to be ignored lightly, and should be directed if possible. Articles of margin importance are also sitting on the fringe of wikipedia, and need more caretakers which SPAs could be if they can be quickly instructed on the way to be a useful member of our community. An example is Roma Virtual Network‎ which is not, in my opinion, sufficient notable (and that says a lot as I like fringe topics); in order to "deal" with that problem I created European Roma Information Office which has a broader relevance, and I put in it everything that I could find. I had a few facts wrong, so Valery Novoselsky (talk · contribs) fixed them and added a few unsourced facts that I subsequently sourced while keeping the hordes of COIN members at bay. The point I am making here is that she knew things that I couldnt find.

Regarding counting, that is an aspect of Afd that I will need to wrestle with when I am on the field as I have rarely had reason or inclination to double-guess the counting being employed by closing admins (I usually limit my DRVs to cases where consensus was silly and counting is useless: ALF_(programming_language)). My thoughts are that if an SPA has good points they should be counted; if there are a lot of SPAs that have probably all come from the same source, aggregating them all into a single "vote" would be appropriate. John Vandenberg 11:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from xDanielx:

5. Say an orphaned image under fair use is tagged for speedy deletion. It was not previously tagged and placed in CAT:ORFU, but the uploader is inactive and the image was never used in an article. As an admin, what action should you take and why?

A: I am not 100% sure what process I am required to follow in this and many other image cases, so there is a good chance I will be asking image-familiar admins a lot of questions and unnecessarily listing a few images on Ifd until I am confident.

What I would do depends a lot on which CSD was used by whoever tagged it, how long ago the image was uploaded, and a quick evaluation of the contributor who uploaded it. If the CSD provided is appropriate (e.g. it is a modification of a copyright image like Image:BobbyandJessie.JPG), then I would be intending to delete it. I may still go through some additional steps in order to feel confident I have done my best, but wasting too much time on trivial cases is time that I could be spending on more interesting cases.

That said and having reviewed CAT:ORFU and WP:CSD, I would be aiming to replace the general CSD with either of the tags mentioned on CAT:ORFU, in start the clock for CSD I5 to run its course. I would also leave a message on the users talk page just in case they became active or someone else is watching their talk page.

However as far as I know there are no tools to work out that an image was never used in an article so I would also be to trying to find out why it was orphaned by any or all of the following measures:

1. looking for articles that it has probably been ophaned from (esp. if the image page indicates which page fair-use is claimed for),
2. checking the user contributions around the time they uploaded the image if that is feasible, and
3. if the inactive user had email enabled, asking the directly

If I find that it was previously used, I would start trying to work out why it is no longer in use (e.g. vandalism, fair-use dispute, replaced by a free alternative) and acting appropriately.

If it really looks like it was never used on an article, I would be looking to put the image into use myself:

1. does it look like it is PD and could be moved to the commons
2. is the fair-use rationale still valid and our related articles in need of the image

This may be overly cautious, however I think it is appropriate to be careful when it comes to deleting contributions of inactive users, esp. if the contribution appears to have been useful. John Vandenberg 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say that the image was tagged under WP:CSD#I5 as orphaned yet failed the 7-day requirement -- my fault for not being more specific. Anyway, your answer is already largely satisfactory to me -- thanks! — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Could you please explain what you mean by "I am quite keen to see the day when the English Wikipedia is free of all public domain media"?

A: I have touched on this at User talk:Jayvdb#Minor nit-pick on your RfA, and there is a project dedicated to this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons, but I will elaborate with my own motivations. There are many historically important PD images that are on enwiki. Whenever I am looking for a image of an text that has been digitised on Wikisource, the images will be here. This is in part due to a lot of important images being uploaded to enwiki before the Commons project started, partly due to current enwiki members not feeling confident uploading onto Commons, and a small part due to images that are probably PD but not quickly provable PD and therefore it is easier to make a fair-use claim. The result is that enwiki needs to deal with both PD and fair use; which unnecessarily complicates the processes here. Also by moving all images to commons: we are encouraging the growth of Wikipedia in other languages, and other Wikimedia projects. John Vandenberg 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jayvdb before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support. Excellent candidate who will use the tolls well and safely. --Bduke 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, I fully trust Jayvdb. Sebi _[talk] 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Definatly. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support However I take serious issue with you registering an account and then not using it for 18 months. Given what you've acheived since you actually started editing I reckon we've missed out on about 30,000 extra civil, knowlegable, helpful and supportive contributions to Wikipedia from this candidate. :) Pedro |  Chat  07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support No major concerns here. A good editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Jayvdb would make an excellent admin. Grandmaster 07:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - No concerns. --Tikiwont 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Fantastic answers; best I've seen in a long while. Daniel 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Per EVERYTHING. I like what I see! Jmlk17 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
10. I rarely comment on RfAs lately, it seems, but I have seen this user in action here, and on WikiSource, where I urged him to stand for admin... I think he'll make a fine admin here because he "gets it", "has a deft hand" and is "unlikely to delete the main page".... SO: "More candidates like this one, please!^TM" ++Lar: t/c 09:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. A good candidate, which I have my trust in Baku87 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Jayvdb has all the qualities needed for a good admin. - Epousesquecido 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Will do a great job. Recurring dreams 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per excellent answer to my optional question #4. User:Krator (t c) 11:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support seems to have high levels of clue ~ Riana ⁂ 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Shows geat knowledge of policies and procedures, eager (and able) to help, presented a genuine need for admin tools, gave well-thought-out and non-condescending answers to questions, and shows low levels of powerhungriness. Roadmr (t|c) 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Is a great canidate Luke 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support I've seen this editor around a lot with the AFD categorising, was surprised that he was not an admin yet. Melsaran (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - I don't always agree with your positions at AfD, but I absolutely respect that you are willing to put in the effort to improve articles that you support. Your answers and actions also indicate an appropriate level of caution about unfamiliar areas. I believe you would be an excellent admin.--Kubigula (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. A longtime editor who I often see helping out the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. ♫ Cricket02 17:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. He's been very active at WP:AfD, and he always makes excellent comments for the better good of WP (even if we disagree sometimes). He will make an excellent admin. Bearian 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support He is a darn good editor, and he be good as an admin. Pat^{Politics rule!} 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support goodness me, you mean he isn't already...? The Rambling Man 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong support. I've been very impressed by his work at WikiProject Deletion sorting, and in other areas. I'm sure he will make a great admin. the wub "?!" 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
28. As nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Thought you were one, man! --Groggy Dice T | C 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
30. support I don't think I've ever used the "but I thought...already was" before, but now I have. Pete.Hurd 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
31. support Q.4. Skimmed talk page and was impressed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Good editor, very good answers to the questions posed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support, obvious support on this one! I look forward to your contributions! *Cremepuff222* 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, very good contributor. I hope you become a good admin too. Carlosguitar 07:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Good contributor with sufficient experience. utcursch | talk 07:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Will make good use of the mop --Ben^complain 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Good Luck! Brianherman 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support A valuable contributor with an even temper. JavaTenor 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - good pedia building, would love to see an FA though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    I consider my lack of a GA/FA to be my primary weakness, especially as I have stated (it may have been off-wiki) that it is my intention to bring W. H. R. Rivers up to FA. If someone would like to do a few days worth of delsorting I would be happy to get back to that. :-) John Vandenberg 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

40. Support. Dedicated and knowledgeable, definitely deserves adminship. Parishan 06:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. Great contributions, nice history, and excellent answers. Seems to be a very trustworthy editor. Dreadstar † 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. I thought he already was an administrator. Unflappable contributor to deletion debates. Will use the tools well. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Clique #1. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. No concerns. —AldeBaer 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support No concerns, answers questions like an ideal admin, appears to have act together. Royalbroil 03:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Will not abuse tools. --Banana 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support no concerns. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support. Long-term editor with many excellent contributions especially to AfD sorting. Espresso Addict 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support - I'm confident the candidate will use admin tools very appropriately. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Excellent candidate, I actually worked with this user years ago and found him to be professional, hard-working, thorough and with good listening skills, and he has proven to be the same here in a very different environment. His understanding of policy shown at AfD debates is solid, and the mop would be safe in his hands. Orderinchaos 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. Sorry for the cliché, but I thought he was an admin already. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Good answers! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Great Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.