Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John254


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

John254
Final (2/19/3); Ended 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

- John254 appears to be a work horse around here, making meaningful contributions to articles and cleaning up vandalism as well. He has been active since 20 May 2006, with 18484 edits. When my user page was attacked yet again by vandals, John254 cleaned it up. Instead of just giving him a barnstar, I decided to look at his edits and quickly realized that he would be a good administrator. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored to accept this nomination. John254 00:21, 29 May 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: Access to administrative tools would allow me to block vandals directly, rather than reporting them on WP:AIV, which would greatly improve the efficiency of my anti-vandalism efforts. In many cases, I could have stopped persistent vandals much more quickly had I been able to block them myself.  I would also respond to reports on WP:AIV and requests for speedy deletion.  Having closed a number of AFD discussions whose outcome is "keep", I have the experience with AFD necessary to close discussions which will result in deletion.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The article I created, Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing, represents excellent research. I have created several commonly used warning templates, such as Template:Blp0 and Template:Spam4im.  The explanation of circumstances under which significant content removals are not considered to be vandalism which I  added to Vandalism has greatly enhanced the clarity of this portion of the policy. I also wrote the "United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence" section of Anti-pornography movement, much of the "Criticisms" section in Sex-positive (not including the POV claim in the last sentence), as well as adding an explanation of the treatment of human sexuality in many societies predating Christian influence to Sex-positive.  I have been involved extensively in vandalism control efforts, as well as newpage patrol.


 * 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 generally discussed the content in dispute in preference to reversion. See, for example, my edit to Community sanction noticeboard/Header, its reversion by ChazBeckett, and my comment on ChazBeckett's talk page.  Last year, I was involved in a few edit wars over policy pages (which I very much should not have been). In these situations, I ended my involvement in the conflicts by refraining from editing the pages in dispute, or by introducing a compromise version of the disputed language.  This year, however, I have avoided most such conflicts altogether, and have used simple reversions quite sparingly, except when reverting vandalism, WP:BLP violations, or edits by banned users.  Similarly, as an administrator, I would minimize the reversal of good-faith actions by other administrators, and would generally attempt to discuss the matter with the administrator performing an action, or seek consensus on WP:ANI prior to reversing an administrative action.


 * 4. Optional Question from JodyB I believe you were blocked for 24 hours back in January. Can you explain what happened and why.  Jody B talk 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A.The block was completely inappropriate, as explained in Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence, and falls well below the standards of administrative conduct that I will uphold should this RFA succeed.


 * 5. Pretend this is DRV. Can you elaborate on why you thought the AFD for Elk Mountain Ski Area was an unambiguous keep? ··coe l acan 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A:Users at the AFD discussion made convincing arguments that this ski area was notable and that third-party reliable sources could be found -- see, for example. Additionally, the number of established users favoring keeping the article greatly exceeded the number who favored deletion.  Now, of course, AFD discussions are not decided solely by vote counting, but, in ordinary circumstances, quantitative considerations do play a role, in absence of any compelling policy arguments to override them.  If the page were, for instance, a clear WP:BLP violation or copyright violation, it would need to be deleted even if there were unanimous support for keeping it.  Furthermore, if many new users arrive to express opinions at an AFD discussion, their comments should be given no quantitative weight (though any arguments they make should still be considered.) Without serious policy considerations which mandate deletion, with arguments for deletion being no stronger than those for retention, and absent any evidence of canvassing for the AFD discussion, the strong supermajority of established users favoring retention resulted in the article being kept.

General comments

 * See John254's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for John254:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/John254 before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I believe relevant concerns (including mine) have been sufficiently expressed. Let's not make this more of a demoralizing pile-on than it has become already. Newyorkbrad 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support, The edit count speaks for itself. --  Random  Say it here! 00:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh no it doesn't.  Majorly  (talk | meet) 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, edit count isn't everything. I nominated him because of the quality of his edits and his contribution.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nom. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow.  Although I started editing on WP in 2005, there is just so much more going on here than I realized.  This is the first time that I have nominated anyone for RfA.  I honestly thought this would be an easy call for adminship based on the amount of work and time and effort that John254 has put in here.  I did not know about his conflicts with other editors, as described below.  This is obviously concerning, although benefit of the doubt tells me that he cares a lot about this encyclopedia.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 06:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - sorry but you don't understand how wikipedia works, your edits to arbitration pages recently have been bordering on disruptive, although you've got a great edit count, that isn't everything.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any diffs?  Majorly  (talk | meet) 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask the same. Any clear examples where he does not "understand how wikipedia works."? &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry I was just hunting them out, take a look at the contributions to Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop specifically these diffs: and the responses on the page from other editors.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to, the diff shows a clear understanding of the purpose of the three-revert rule, which is to prevent edit warring by restricting the reversion of legitimate edits, not restricting the reversion of edits through open proxies and other such abuse. John254 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one new the user was using a proxy before checkuser was run - so it's still edit warring.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to add to that, this RFArb submission in an attempt to get Dmcdevit infront of the panel, I question the users ability to correctly calm conflict.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to, I would note that the checkuser policy is more than just a Wikipedia policy which we can attempt to override with WP:IAR -- it's a legal agreement between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia editors. When a user entrusted with checkuser privileges breeches this policy by gratuitously disclosing checkuser information with no legitimate purpose, the checkuser policy prescribes a request for arbitration as an appropriate remedy: "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access." If the request for arbitration is to be introduced in this RFA, it demonstrates only that I have attempted to ensure that users continue to have confidence in the privacy of their own checkuser information. John254 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But they weren't your only reasons for filing that request, this seems to show that you were out to get Dmcdevit and as picaroon puts it below - it's quite simply harrasment. That coupled with the fact you attempted no other forms of dispute resoution, or attempted to talk to Dmcdevit about it is not befitting behaviour of an administrator.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's factually incorrect. I did discuss the issue with Dmcdevit prior to filing the request for arbitration -- see, for example.  Had he simply oversighted the improperly released checkuser information, and promised not to improperly release such information in the future, I never would have filed the request for arbitration.  I brought the matter directly to the committee's attention after such discussion only due to the urgency of the situation. John254 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit released the information due to the account hijacking problem, per checkuser guidlines, a checkuser can release IP's "where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers" - this case was clearly appropriate.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the release of checkuser information was not appropriate at all. To "assist in the targeting of IP blocks", a user with checkuser access need only block the IPs himself, releasing no information beyond  .  Indeed, Dmcdevit did block BuickCenturyDriver's IP address himself.  The user with checkuser access shouldn't reveal which account(s) are associated with a specific IP address (unless the IP is directly used for editing without an account, as a sockpuppet).  Revealing the exact IP from which an established user, BuickCenturyDriver, was editing served no legitimate purpose in "assist[ing] in the targeting of IP blocks", nor was "a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers" contemplated. John254 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was relevant, to determine whether or not BCD was responsible for the account hijackings.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit himself should have made the "determin[ation] of whether or not BCD was responsible for the account hijackings". Users are given checkuser access precisely because they are entrusted to examine the raw checkuser data, and make such determinations accurately, while protecting the confidentiality of the checkuser information itself.  If Dmcdevit wanted someone to double-check his interpretation of the checkuser information, he could have e-mailed it to the Arbitration Committee privately.  Releasing raw checkuser information on WP:ANI for reasons of mere expedience is a significant violation of the checkuser policy which the Wikipedia community has trusted Dmcdevit to uphold. John254 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with you there, as did ArbCom and all other respected users that made comments at WP:RFArb.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Irpen stated that "I agree that there was no compelling reason to disclose the precise IP info even though the said disclosure was not ill-intentioned even being unnecessary." I, for one, certainly regard Irpen as a respected user. Furthermore, at least two administrators in good standing who aren't involved in any disputes with Dmcdevit have raised concerns over this issue at WP:ANI   . John254 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For those interested, the final disposition of the arbitration case, reflecting several more users' comments and the arbitrators' votes, is here. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, harassment of on multiple occasions (here, here) are worrisome behavior that admins should be above, not involved in. Picaroon (Talk) 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop is not "harassment" -- it's a legitimate complaint, as described Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. If entrusted with administrative privileges, I will surely never issue an unjustified block against a user with whom I am engaged in a content dispute, then ask that a fellow administrator be desysopped for less, as Dmcdevit did in Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. John254 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Until such time John254 buries his hatchet with Dmcdevit (the above responses suggest that this has yet to happen), I cannot approve of his promotion. TML 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per past behavior; (JS reverts, arbitration against Dmcdevit). -- Renesis (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Many, many, encounters with this user have lead me to question his judgement, most recently this. Overly legalistic interpretation of rules is bad, and it does take quite a lot for me to say something is overly legalistic. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose - The confict with Dmcdevit is very concerning, as are this user's responses to critique in this RfA. When someone is not prepared to accept and take on board comments against them, I don't think they'll go very far as a sysop.   G1  gg  y  !  04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I'm concerned about John's request that Dmcdevit be desysopped over a dispute about a block four months earlier. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I question his judgement based on the diffs provided above. Sr13 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Your filing of the ridiculous RfAr request against Dmcdevit with regards to the checkuser block was a) misfounded, and showed a lack of knowledge of policy; b) poorly-judged, and showed that I can't trust you anywhere near the extra tools; c) utter nonsense and uncalled-for against an established member of the community, without prior dispute resolution attempts; and d) a continuation of an obvious conflict which you quite clearly lost, given the absured request to have him desysopped in a prior case (a proposal which was killed with fire by the arbitrators, and rightly so). For all those who missed the somewhat-funny-to-read RfAr request, see this.  Daniel  06:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I object, because of John's overly formal and bureaucratic approach to just about anything, tendency to "throw the book" at people, and tendency to talk about people (generally requesting sanctions) but not responding when those people want to talk to him. He fundamentally misunderstands that Wikipedia is not a rule-bound bureaucracy, and persists in treating it as such.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I'm all about non-edit warring, assuming good faith, and whatnot. As it seems here, this user has gotten into heated arguments with others. I'm not quite sure if I would trust him to not abuse the tools in a future edit war or dispute.  hmwith  talk  11:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Change from Neutral to Oppose After a night's sleep and a complete review of the Zeq/Zero case I am convinced that you were being vindictive and opportunistic in trying to drag Dmcdevit into a completely separate action. Furthermore, I am just not convinced that your ban was a simple and misplaced as you suggest. Given your recent conduct in this case I cannot support your request to have administrative tools.  Jody B talk 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong OpposeThe confict with Dmcdevit is very uncivil and shows he doesn't interaction with other users is poor.<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">Arnon Chaffin <font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2">Got a message?  12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) After reviewing the facts, I have to Oppose. Everyone who knows me on Wikipedia knows that I generally support most RfAs, and do not oppose lightly. But, although I have no involvement in the Dmcdevit or Swatjester cases, I have to say that the diffs provided by Ryan Postlethwaite are very worrying; attacking another user's working methods and bringing up his background in the military (which is something that should be respected and honoured, not criticised) is an ad hominem and underhand way of disputing. As to the Dmcdevit case, I don't know the rights and wrongs of it, but I'm not generally in favour of promoting someone to adminship while they are involved as a party in an arbitration case; it would tend to escalate the existing conflict further, IMO. Although the candidate is certainly experienced enough, I'd advise waiting a minimum of 2 months after the closure of the ArbCom cases involving him, and then re-applying after everyone's cooled down. Walton <sup style="color:purple;">Assistance!  12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair I don't think he's involved as a party in any current arbcom case. His involvement in the Miskin case is not as a party. Just adding the stuff about Swatjester and military background and to push a point of view that using an open proxy means you are a banned user and thus anyone is free to edit war with you without fear of WP:3RR (despite not knowing that you are using an open proxy and despite using an open proxy not being a bannable "offence") --pgk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Walton and others. No need to say more, really. Cheers, Lanky ( YELL ) 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - I'm also involved in the Miskin arbitration and I've seen your comments over there, which I felt were highly inappropriate & bordering on an overt personal attack on SwatJester. I've also seen other incidents of incivility and dubious behaviour on ANI. I'm not one to oppose on RfAs but am quite uncomfortable about this one - A l is o n  ☺ 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per some of the other points of view above, trying to lawyeer rules and taking a bureaucratic approach suggests he is not ready for adminship. --pgk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per diffs provided by Ryan Postlethwaite. Sorry, but that seems simply too pointy. —AldeBaer 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per all the dmcdevit diffs. Alas, this may very well be the 2nd RfA ever that was closed via snow despite someone nomming him... it's a shame, since in terms of encyclopedic contributions he's done good work.-- Wizardman 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) John254 is a dedicated user with a lot to offer the project, and I hope that he can become an administrator at some point in the future, but filing an arbitration case against Dmcdevit on the night that Dmcdevit was involved in urgent checkuser activity to investigate a hijacked admin account and mainpage deletion reflected poor judgment. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can't put my finger on it but there seems to be something missing here about that block. Both seemed to be clearly and rationally stating their cases and then the block. While much turns on the Zeq/Zero0000 case there just seems to be more beneath the surface. I could be wrong but I'll wait for more. <font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial Bold"> Jody B  talk 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Re Q5, we do still require sources to keep articles around. Elk Mountain Ski Area is in fact a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. With the lack of sources raised clearly in the AFD, I can't see how you felt this was "unambiguous", which WP:DPR, though currently disputed, has long required. Surely a good faith act on your part, but I'm hesitant to support. ··coe l acan 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, lots of edits, that's good. However, the diffs provided by the user and the case against Dmcdevit shows that his judgment is poor. His conduct shows that he is not ready for adminship at the moment. Terence 09:23, 29 May 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.