Wikipedia:Administrator review/J04n


 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although I have been an admin for three years I have recently become more active in closing AfDs and assessing prod notices. I would appreciate a little constructive feedback to ensure that I'm living up to our community's standards. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My review of your work here
I would like to draw attention to the deletion of the Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust article. The editor who created the article went above and beyond what was asked of them, including adding free content images to the project, your actions in deleting the article seem very arbitrary and capricious to me and putting huge obstacles in the way of a perfectly fine article being seen. I'm not familiar with the rest of your contributions, but I checked your page due to the deletion of Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust, and in that case I would say that someone who would do that should not have admin. credentials.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 24.0.133.23, you have a complete misunderstanding here. First of all, J04n did not delete the article, she transferred it to the author's user space so they could continue to work on it and find further sources indicating significant, non-local coverage. Secondly, the closing admin acts on the basis of the consensus of the participants, weighing the degree to which the various positions expressed are policy-based. There were 3 editors !voting either delete outright or userfy, and 2 (one of which was the article's creator) !voting keep. That is not a consensus to keep, at all. The closing admin does not override the consensus, they simply implement it. The deletion review seems to be overwhelmingly endorsing her actions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Very helpful person (both as an editor and also as admin). I have seen your recent contributions and they are excellent. Keep on doing great work. All the best. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw you at AfD, and I like what I see. Keep up the good work! All the best,  Mini  apolis  03:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of this editor's work, but I am very concerned that he deleted Harry Kiyoshi Ishisaka without checking to see that the author had been notified. Had I been notified it would have led to the article being salvaged. Clearly notable. Jo4, in future, always check to see that the article creator has been notified of an AFD. Also, having one or two people comment, and people without a user page or IP addresses at that is rarely indicative of consensus, it would have been better to relist it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd like to note that I think that this administrator (User:J04n) actually did the right thing here by relisting the AfD after discovering that "The page's creator was never notified of this discussion". This administrator even took some unjustified flak for doing that in that AfD discussion and on their own talk page, which I thought was undeserved. It's never a bad idea to err on the side of having more inclusion in AfD discussions IMHO. From what I've seen of this administrators actions over at least the last several months, they are doing a good job. Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I really really really like this admin. The fact that J04n is willing to close controversial AFDs is something that few admins do and even less are willing to do on a regular basis. In cases where it's been taken to DRV, he's been very open to alternative options. Mkdw talk 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason you deleted my wikipedia page? "22:25, 2 April 2013 J04n (talk | contribs) deleted page Tosan Popo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tosan Popo)" It has information concerning my career that can provide others with the necessary statistics and background. I feel that this action was very unnecessary


 * I want to know why Vibhinta Verma is deleted. There were lot of new references are there. I had added nearly 20 references to support the model and film actress. The comments on discussion page were really biased. The editors who discuss, are biased and have personal dislikings for me. I think This admin should have waited for more comments instead of having comments of just two editors who look like to have some personal conflicts with the page creator. DAR (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep deleting the articles without giving any reasons. A good admin doesn't do that. He should improve his behavior. I think a good admin shouldn't count the votes for deletion. Votes may have been given by an inexperienced user. He should himself look into the article. He should learn a lot to be an impartial and good admin. Dradilramzan (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears that the above two accounts are the same editor socking (and likely paid editing), see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Candicell. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am aware of J04n's editting work from participation in Unreferenced BLP Rescue. As a regular controbutor to AFDs, I've seen J04n close AFD's wereh I have been a participant.  I've not seen any instances where I would question the close as not representing consensus.  As Voceditenore mentioned above, the role of an admin at an AFD is not to determine for him or herself whether the article should be deleted.  Rather, the admin's role is to determine the consensus from the discussion based on policy and guideline based arguments put forth in the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You deleted the Page Jim_Elvidge without giving me the chance to answer the objections, the Page had references from IEEE and US Patent Office, and the Wikipedia User who proposed the Page deletion on the first place did it because of his Religious Beliefs, contrarian to the author Jim_Elvidge thesis, the only Page created by the user who proposed the Jim_Elvidge Page deletion is a Page for a Catholic Jesuit University, the believe in the Holy Trinity and that God created the world in seven days, the oppose any other worldview. GuillermoAyala 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While this page has devolved into individual case grievances, I just wanted to thank you for your impartial AfD work. I've observed your participation (both closes and !votes) to be precise, clean, and fair, especially within the last month. czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I came across this admin review when Success Academy Charter Schools was deleted. The article may have contained far too much promotional content and COI edits. In this case the article could have been stubbed, deleted, or userfied to salvage sources. Articles are rarely actually deleted from servers but merely hidden or removed from article space. With so many articles that shouldn't exist then bold deletion may be the best solution. Editors can have them userfied, edited, reviewed, and then moved back to article space if they truly wish to keep them. I came across a few more of these and started a thread about them at Category talk:Photography by genre that so far has no input. The best way to deal with this category may be to delete and userfy the questionable ones until they are merged our sourced as being GNG. Deletion and userfication may be the best way to solve these issues and we need admin to do it and take the flak for it. No reason to flip the bit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You are a very shit admin, constantly deleting articles that hold significance. I've looked through your delete history and it's appalling. An utter embarrassment, give up your admin rights immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.21.54.222 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 September 2013‎


 * I came across the notification that your admin account is under review when I found a deleted article on the mixed-martial-arts fighter Cody Bollinger. You had deleted this article back in March 2013, but the subject of the deleted article has since become a featured fighter on the tv show The Ultimate Fighter season 18, further cementing the notability. Thankfully, I had found an archive of the deleted article at . Please restore it. Cdetrio (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.