Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator review

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J04n (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 20 February 2013 (→‎Open review requests: let me know how I'm doing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Administrator review/Front matter

Open review requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Another editor suggested I could profit from an Administrator Review and I liked the idea of receiving feedback on my admin actions; so, here I am. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for participating here. I think that it always reflects well on anyone who does so. And in your case, I've definitely seen you around a lot, and everything I've seen has looked spot-on to me. I cannot think of anything where I would object to what I've seen you do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking all of your admin logs, I just found that what you said on my talk page, you don't really go for media, Giving users file mover rights is like working with media. But that is just an opinion. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
    Contribs     18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the very recent day or so, you unblocked someone and got a lot of blowback for doing so. Two suggestions: (1) keeping in mind how ArbCom recently addressed the so-called second mover advantage, you probably should have been slower to make the unblock, especially considering the lack of clear support at ANI, and (2) about that emoticon, this was one of those places where humor doesn't play well on the Internet (and don't I know that!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvio was particularly helpful regarding a matter I approached him about; took the time to explain and encourage me. I felt very positive about the whole interaction and wouldn't hesitate to approach him again in the future. This for me in the pinnacle of what an admin and ArbCom should be. Mkdwtalk 06:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had interactions with Salvio on a number of occasions over a year or so, and have always found him to be balanced, firm and fair. Keep it up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We interacted twice. The first time I was impressed how boldly you talked to a blocking admin about unblocking in a difficult case. The second time (now as arb) I was surprised how firmly you defended the overly simple concept that banning a single editor would solve a problem, while I still believe that bringing a few selected projects in line with the majority of Wikipedia as shown here would be the more promising approach. For how long should classical composers and their works not be available for DBpedia because some authors of their articles get arb support for owning them, while authors of other articles are restricted to not have their articles as they wish? Kafkaesque comes to mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For fairness (I asked another admin on review the same question): what do you see in this diff? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Well, I've been an admin for about a half a year now following the success of my RFA. I've been taken to task over a couple things and usually managed to clear the issues up. However, I've never really gotten much feedback at all over how I'm actually doing as an admin, so feel free to post your questions and comments below. I have thick skin, so I can take getting called an asshole, but I'd really appreciate it if you could give me a reason why. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I always thank administrators for participating here (in fact, I probably am starting to sound repetitive...), so good for you for doing so. I've seen you around, and I cannot think of anything that I would find fault with. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good man, great administrator. Relaxed personality, no drama, healthy humor, always a pleasure.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Ditto! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor blocked revision to a page (Jamie Comstock) without weighing the evidence and considering the issues. In particular, he has refused to recognize that the revisions I placed in the article are supported by documented sources. This does little to advance the cause of truth in Wikipeida; in fact, it does just the opposite. — Sanchopanchez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:39, January 24, 2012‎ (UTC).
Sanchopanchez's only edits on Wikipedia have involved a BLP. Protecting the page and reversing Sanchopanchez's edits were a necessary consequence of our BLP policy. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:Yunshui had no opposes at his RfA. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been laughing my rear off at those stocks for the past 10 minutes. Thanks for pointing them out Den. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper was very helpful with me in the chat area the other day, I totally messed up my page by moving my article all over the place and he cleaned it up for me! (Iknowball 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

  • Outstanding. An example I will try to live up to, if I ever get in enough experience and time to consider the commitment of an RFA. Even in rejecting an application I made at PERM, he was an excellent and cool admin, and explained to me what was up in a totally non-dick manner. Given his track record to date, in a few months I would be pleased to support an RfB for him,if he were to be interested in switching gears to a different level.The Illusive Man(Contact) 22:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: You deleted the article I submitted for creation and appeared to call it "vandalism". If so I ask that you justify labeling my efforts as "vandalism". The article was a good faith representation of the usage of the term "mangina" in the collection of hundreds of websites called the manosphere which is viewed by millions of users around the world collectively. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mangina. I'm quite certain I was neutral and represented the manospheres usage without expressing any opinion for or against usage of the term. If you had feedback on the article, providing that would have been more useful and less heavy handed and arbitrary. (Deletion log); 18:51 . . Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mangina ‎(G3: Vandalism) Ethicalv (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Stop Blocking Me

Reaper Eternal keeps blocking me and removing truthful comments on talk pages simply because he disagrees with what I'm saying, and that is unacceptable. I'm posting now via another address now because he has blocked me. The campaign of censorship on Wikipedia by users such as this one must end now.220.168.56.66 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great admin. Good work at WP:PERM. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a nice admin! Keep it up! Forgot to put name 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to offset some of the other IP comments here. Reaper Eternal is a very calm and level headed admin who often tries to calm things down at the drama boards. RE's greatest strengths are at WP:EF/R and other technical related areas. Before his successful RfA, RE was one of only a handful of non-administrators to become an Edit Filter manager. Our project has very few of these technical users and we are lucky to have their help. I agree with Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) in that an RfB is in the future if RE wants to take on those responsibilities. Personally, I see a lot of parallels between RE and our last successful crat. The technical ability, calmness, wise decisions and helpfulness are all similar. My greatest fear is that the drama that has overtaken our project will have a negative impact on our editors and I hope this doesn't happen with RE as it would be a loss to the community. RE seems to be immune, but it does take its toll on all of us and it's in our best interest for everybody to stay away from the drama, as we are all here to make a high-quality resource for our readers. 64.40.54.93 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great admin. Acts to calm things down in heated areas, takes necessary action promptly and on his own initiative. Keep it up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only crossed paths with you once, but I can stated, based on that "path crossing", that you look for applicable ways to do more than what is requested of you by the privilege requests and templates that call administrators to their attention. Keep on doing what you are doing in the same manner in which you are doing it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one interaction. He reverted an edit I made from a blocked editor. He was incorrect on policy and when he read the actual policy he tried to change it. When that failed, he justified it based on "Ignore all rules." He then claimed that all the comments on his talk created drama though all the comments were required because he was unfamiliar with policy. In fact, he simply favored his content over policy and that is very shaky ground. As an administrator he should not be choosing actions against policy based on his personal beliefs. This is a very poor practice for admins. --DHeyward (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish there were 1000 more like him. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaper Eternal is not someone I've interacted with extensively (if at all), but we have most definitely seen each other's names around on a fairly consistent basis and my general impression thus far has been positive. There have been many occasions where I've read his comments and thought to myself, "I disagree with you on that point, Reaper", but his is an opinion that I can respect as informed and reasoned. The only thing I would suggest to Reaper Eternal is to try and moderate your tone a little more, particularly around RfA. This is a recent example of commentary that I felt was altogether too harsh on someone who is otherwise generally a productive and valuable contributor (and I say this as someone who also opposed that RfA, see oppose #20). Then there's this, which was a very valid reason to oppose, but it also comes across as a bit too blunt in delivery — especially considering the significant improvements in Ktr101's editing habits since his CCI was first initiated. Other than that, keep up the good work! You are a huge asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This admin has a keen eye on taking care of the unusual, as he states, without drama. I think we need more of that at Wikipedia, and think Reaper Eternal is doing a great job!Patriot1010 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never encountered Reaper Eternal before today, and it is unfortunate that our first interaction was him blocking me. But, I deserved it, and after I posted a sincere apology for losing my temper and flying off the handle, he unblocked me. In both cases, he was forthright and direct and honest, which are exactly the qualities I want in an admin. I hope he remains one for a long time to come. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad admin at all. He protected an article that was being vandalized by I.P.s; I gave him a barnstar as a result. No complaints here, one of the better administrators on Wikipedia from my experience. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up one of my goofs like a sysop who knows what to do. Definitely going to say I approve this admin. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is still up, I'll give my opinion: Reaper Eternal is an excellent editor and administrator. He's always civil, reasonable and sensible; I have no complaints whatsoever and am glad that he is around. :) Acalamari 09:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Wow, has it really been two years since my last Admin Review? Back then, I had a little over 27,000 admin actions, now it's over 68,000. I've been an admin for just over four years and a crat for about two and a half years. Also an oversighter, steward, and BAG member. I suppose it would be a good time to get some feedback. See also, User:MBisanz/Done. MBisanz talk 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're probably imperfect, but you're good at hiding it. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be an exceptionally dedicated and trustworthy volunteer, well worth your keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for seeking feedback. Definitely no complaints from me, all good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this is all out of love, and respecting your request for feedback, not sycophancy. These are not complaints, either:
    • http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=MBisanz shows a damning "vote didn't match result" of 36.8%; we've just had a snow closure on an RfA with 36.6%. I'll grant you they're not recent results, and there are a lot of other riders, but it's something to reflect on; your voting seems indicative of a deletionist attitude.
    • You've closed one AfD in the last 3 years. It might be an idea to keep your hand in; close one a month perhaps? I've reviewed some of your non-consensus closes, and they seem perfectly reasonable. Coupled with the above, it indicates you are very good at assessing the consensus of opinions presented to you, but perhaps your independently formed opinions don't jell with the broader community.
    • A review of your use of edit summaries shows 100% use; an examination of your edits shows a use of meaningful, useful edit summaries of about 1 or 2%. A summary ought to reassure me that there's no need to examine your edit in detail; "d" could mean done, or it could mean "deleted nonsense, replied to another point"; it's obvious that "cmt" is a comment, but what was the gist of it; and why even summarize it as a comment, it is a talk page after all? Was it approval, disapproval, a vindictive-bile-filled-rant, a surprising new point, some hard data? I have over 2200 pages on my watchlist, and I don't want to review every edit.
    • Your editing rate in article space has really died down. I understand and support you becoming administratively focused. It might be an idea to keep your hand in 'tho.
    • This is not backed up with any data: You seem to have a permissive attitude to bots; when closing BRfAs/approving trials I'd appreciate an explanation of your reasoning.
    • Let me join in with the other editors in showering you with praise and words of appreciation. Thanks for your extensive efforts to build an encyclopedia. Josh Parris 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like this! I will respond in the morning. MBisanz talk 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was a fascinating review that confirmed some things I already knew and gave me other points to work on.
      • I'm probably more deletionist than inclusionist, but being a deletionist or an inclusionst has never seemed to be determinative as AFD has enough voices to balance out outliers like me on individual topics. I also see AFD as a sort of common law process by which interpretations of policy change overtime. I'll note that DGG is at 28% in the other direction. But a fair point of feedback.
      • Yes, this makes sense to me. While I see commentors in AFD as article advocates (for or against deletion), I see AFD closers as judges or umpires. Even if they think something differently then the community, they have to call the balls and strikes fairly to maintain the community's faith in the process. I'll try to close more going forward.
      • Also something I was aware of. I edit a lot of fairly low-traffic pages or engage in a lot of mundane issues, so I don't necessarily think of people as being interested in what I've done or said. Hence, the undistinctive edit summaries. I can't promise I'll be more informative at places like CHU/BAG where I am usually the only person, but on actual discussions like AN, I will try to be more descriptive.
      • I long for the day I can expand our coverage on certain topics. There are a number of buildings I want to write about and I even had Sonia make me a map for a future series on the FHLBs. Hopefully as law school winds down, I'll feel the creative urge to write more.
      • I am very permissive with BRFAs and this is a change from the perspective I brought in say 2007/08. Most bot operators know their limitations and know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them extra leeway because they're usually right or fix it when they're wrong. Also, most bot tasks are super-uncontroversial, so I would rather not delay tasks with unnecessary bueaurcracy. In a few cases (Kumiko) this is not the case, but overall, I think operators appreciate the additional discretion and don't run away with things. Also, BAG is always understaffed and there is the desire to keep things moving.
      • Thanks again for the feedback. I do appreciate your time in reviewing me. MBisanz talk 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewed per request. It is very clear that you spend a considerable amount of time greasing the wheels of Wikipedia's internal workings, and for that alone you receive a passing grade. Your continued efforts to welcome new Wikipedians (You were the one to welcome me to EN Wikipedia back in 2009 even) and providing valuable input in consensus discussions only heightens my rating of you as an essential component in the Great Wikipedia Machine. Thank you for your contributions. - Kenneaal (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another admin that closes AFDs very well. Appreciate his willingness to take on even the very long and complicated AFDs and usually does so very fairly to the consensus. I also appreciate his summaries when the discussion is particularly controversial. Mkdwtalk 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

So, it's been a while since I subjected myself to scrutiny somewhere - any thoughts? BencherliteTalk 01:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm embarrassed to say that I can't really remember having crossed paths with any administrative actions you've taken, so at least I don't have any complaints. (I've seen your entry here for a couple of weeks, and I felt that I really ought to say something.) I do feel very strongly that it's a good thing to seek feedback here, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

After 10 months of being open I am going to close this. Thanks for all the comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been an admin for 9 months now and want to see what people think of what I have been doing. GB fan 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking over other comments here, it's not surprising that "GB fan" has been combative about changes I've made to an obscure article of which I am the sole author. If anyone in any position of power on this website ever considers giving this person authority, I'd hope they'd seriously consider everything written here. GB_fan's actions are, apparently, often not in the interest of the community and are more about some sort of internet power trip. Polyatail (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I would like to ask about the deletion of the "Dan Patlak" article. Dan is a Cook County politician and represents more people than US Representatives. I see even state reps and senators have pages. Joseph Berrios had the same position and had a Wikipedia article. Did I need to add more information before publishing it? I was in the process of gathering external references. Thanks! Bithmus Feb, 4 2013.
  • Hey GB fan, I was wondering why you deleted the MondoClub entry I posted. It wasnt much different from blogtv's wiki entry and I use stickam and blogtv but wanted to share info on this new platform that is out. Let me know what I should have done differently and thanks in advance. Happy new year as well.
  • I know we've crossed paths, but I can't remember any specific instances at the moment. It must not have been a terrible experience. I know that you recently deleted a page I created in error and tagged for CSD. Your response was quick, and it ended up a painless learning experience for me. I appreciate that. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my first wikipedia editing experience, I edited a page for a local educational organization. Two days later you deleted every one of my edits in one fell swoop. This is unnecessarily inflammatory and not constructive. There is certainly a more constructive way of being an "administrator".
  • It seems strange that you have deleted the World Series of Fightings Wiki page. A major organisation which is due to be televised on NBC and to millions of MMA fans worldwide certainly deserves a wiki page. I was going to add some new roster additions to the page only to find it is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.187.23 (talk • contribs) 20 September 2012‎
    • Below is the entire contents of the article I deleted:
  • As I see your work, you seems to be faster to delete others works than to create your own. I created a page for a candaian country musician. Same day you deleted my edits because of you think that a musician is no relevant. There is no necesaary to make millons to be relevant neither in music as in many other arts. As other people said here, there is certainly a more constructive way of being an "administrator".

{{Infobox company |company_name = World Series of Fighting |company_logo = |company_type = Private |foundation = September 2012 |founder = |industry = [[Mixed martial arts]] promotion |parent = |company_slogan = |homepage = http://www.mmawsof.com |location_city = [[Las Vegas, Nevada]] |location_country = United States |key_people = }} The '''World Series of Fighting''' ('''WSOF''') is [[mixed martial arts]] [[Promoter (entertainment)|promotion company]] in the United States. GB Fan has kept adding false information regarding involvement with Activision in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Alvey The citations he keeps referring to mention nothing about any sort of involvement with Activision of the individual, yet GB Fan keeps replacing the uncited (cited with citations that have nothing to do with what was mentioned in the article) information. ==External links== * {{Official website|http://www.mmawsof.com}} * {{twitter|MMAWorldSeries}} {{tl|MMA organizations}}

Continuation

    • As you can see the information you talk about is not in the article. There is nothing there to say the organization is notable. If you think it can be expanded I am willing to put it in a user sandbox to be worked on. GB fan 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • GB fan, Your User Page has been on my Watchlist for a very long time because you provide good advice for new (and not so new) Editors. I especially like your tips. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed#User:C_Coligniero, and you denied me on the basis that my article wasn't yet finished. I was unable to find this rule anywhere. Could you please point me in the right direction? I need to be able to upload images, and would rather not be forced to wait 4 days to do so. I cannot see why it is necessary to complete the entire text of the article before I am allowed to upload images. --C Coligniero (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are not any rules anywhere that describe under what circumstances an admin adds the confirmed right. WP:CONFIRM gives the guidance on granting the right. It is a judgement call made by the reviewing admin. The admin decides whether to ignore the 4 day - 10 edit rule put in place by the community. I do not see any reason in this case to ignore that rule. If you feel that you need to upload the image before you become autoconfirmed here, you can log into the Commons and upload the image there and use it here. GB fan 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is very confusing. You told me that I had to work on the article before I could upload images. Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe it's because I'm new to wikipedia, but it seemed that you were clearly giving this as the reason for denial. As a result, I've been tearing my hair out trying to find a way to complete the text portion of the article so that I may be allowed to upload images without waiting four days. Now, from what you just said, that's not the case? I am brand new and you are an admin, the very last thing I want to do is get on somebody's bad side, but I don't understand all of the rules here, please help me to understand them, I am new and this is extremely confusing. Somebody help me. --C Coligniero (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my judgement you need to work on the article and not worry about the images. So in my judgement there is no reason to ignore the rules for becoming autoconfirmed in this case. There is still the option of uploading the images to the Commons. GB fan 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I acidently reverted you and you politely asked me why instead of throwing a temper tantrum and sagging me to ANI. Are you sure you are an admin? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please block this user:GB fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryat (talk • contribs) 6 November 2012‎
    • For anyone who is interested this has to do with my AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune. GB fan 05:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not remove my edits. Gregoryat (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not believe I have ever removed any of your edits any where. If I did it was by mistake. GB fan 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moving it to the bottom removes the context, though. It is not clear who "this user" is that Gregoryat meant.[2] Feel free to block Beeblebrox if that is who they meant - that way you and B can find out if you are really an admin. (Just kidding, I do not recommend blocking anyone without reason, although my recollection is that blocked admins can just unblock themselves). Apteva (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think from the context of Gregoryat's edits it is very clear who he was advocating blocking. The comment was originally posted as a level 1 bullet under beefyt's level 1 bullet. So if we are to assume Gregoryat meant this as a level 2 under that bullet then why since the 2 of them have not interacted. Now if you look at the interaction between Gregoryat and me you can see that he has a real problem with my AFD nomination of his autobiography. If you look at my talk page you can see where he even advocates for my deletion because of the gross negligence in my comments. So the context makes it clear he was talking about blocking me. As far as an administrator unblocking themselves, it is possible, though anyone doing it probably wouldn't be an admin very long. GB fan 16:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was sort of a serious question. A Bureaucrat would not be able to effectively block an admin, because they could just unblock themself, but could yank their adminship. Unblocking yourself to evade a block that was imposed for cause is as mentioned, a real quick way to lose the tools. Apteva (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bluntly deleting a AFD template is NOT how it works. You have to contest it like everybody else until a consensus is reached. You cannot decide this alone like if you were God of Wikipedia. The AFD for "Descent 4" is very well justified as this article has nothing but speculations and rumors regarding a project that died in September 2008. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not nominate the article at AFD you nominated it for speedy deletion. A single admin does have ability to decline a speedy deletion all by themselves. GB fan 01:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I apologize. I became angry when my request was bluntly removed by some "higher power" that I believed didn't follow the rules. To me, "AFD" and "Speedy deletion" was the same thing, but I'll do my homework because I do believe the article should no longer exists. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not followed your efforts very closely, but I have never seen anything of concern. And given the nature of the cases on this page where people seem to have had issues, only bolsters my opinion that you are doing a good job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never knew you existed before you cleaned up my minor {{db-author}} mess this morning. But, in the spirit of eBay: A+++++++++ GREAT ADMIN! WOULD SCREW UP AND REQUEST DELETION AGAIN. :D Neo Poz (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that I've support your RFA, I think you're doing okay. As long as you're patient you'll be just fine. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how many thousand people have played or do play pro football (grown men paid to run up and down the park kicking a ball). I don't think that gives them any more notability than say a pro plumber. Will Wikipedia find room for all of them? I still think Noah Cantor should go, and many more. John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 12:56, wikitime= 04:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is deleting information in korean language, even though he does not speak korean. He should be deprived of all administrative privileges. MarkusGuni (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether I speak korean is of no consequence in this situation. I am removing information that you are adding to an article without any sources. If you have a concern you should discuss it on the article'd talk page as was explained to you on your talk page. GB fan 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are generally a good admin and I usually see good things from you. However, the incident surrounding this gave me cause for concern. There was a dispute going on between two users at Gwiyomi regarding the translation of some Korean material and the sources used for that translation and you seemed to support the user who was trying to remove the dubiously sourced material. That in itself is fine; however, when I came to review the report, I noticed that your actions seemed to exacerbate the edit war, rather than calm it down. While you never broke 3RR, it should have been obvious that continuing to edit the article was unhelpful (even when you tried adding cn tags instead of removing the material). The other editor was obviously not going to budge and, although attempts at discussion had been made, they could have gone further. The situation really needed you to cease editing the page and either engage the user in discussion or, failing that, report him as a disruptive user. In the end, your continuing to edit the page helped the edit war continue. I don't think you were terribly out of line here; however, an administrator should have the insight to to stop editing a page when it is obviously ineffective and pursue alternative methods to resolve the problem. In the end, while you were not really guilty of edit warring, you could have done more to mitigate the edit war that took place. I am sure this is a one-off incident; I've not taken time to review the rest of your contributions thoroughly but, as I saw that you were admin review, I thought I'd mention it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback, I should have tried other steps. It probably had to do with the editor saying I was vandalising the article and when trying to talk to them their only answer is to delete information off their talk page and continue the allegations. Once again thanks. GB fan 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MikeLynch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

It has been nearly 6 months since I passed my RfA, and I'd like to see what the community thinks of my actions during this period. I thank HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) for helping me out with admin actions in my very early days as an admin. I would love to have your inputs and suggestions so that I can improve wherever necessary. Lynch7 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yunshui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm now in my third month of mop-wielding, and seem to have done little else since passing RFA. However, I'd like to make sure that I'm getting it right, so I'd appreciate feedback on people's views of my tool use (and conduct generally, of course). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't believe it's the third month already. As you have no doubt noticed I've come across your admin actions a few times, and the only ones which I see problems with are where you're still learning what a particular action does and when to use which particular bit of the tool (referring to the soft block thing). But these are the sorts of things which I would imagine you to pick up along the way. Whenever I've had a question or comment about something, or had an issue with one of your admin actions you have always been helpful, respectful and demonstrated a desire to do better rather than try and cover it up or excuse yourself. From what I've seen with your dealing with other editors you are always civil and try to do your best to explain the situation. I'm also quite impressed with your willingness to give editors second (and third) chances when it comes to unblocking (and before blocking). As well as your willingness to reinvestigate things and offer what you see to be the best outcome, such as your suggested unblock of Iamthemuffinman (talk · contribs). Thanks also for working through the almost constant backlog at WP:RFPP. I think my comments can be summed up with "keep doin' what your doin'" :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've this added this to the list at Wikipedia:Administrator review. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yunshui is a very friendly, leveled-headed, patient, and easy to approach admin. He is always eager to help new editors, such as myself, and I feel comfortable going to him if I ever need any assistance. :) SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 11:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good Administrator: Yunshui has been a great help when a few know-nothings decided to use my School's IP Address to try and annoy me, he's also helped me change my Talk Page Signature and has correctly applied 'only warning' to an account clearly made just to continue damage after the IP Address was blocked. I very much would say that Yunshui is doing a very good job as an Administrator. Meva - CHCSPrefect - (GIMME A POTATO CHIP! C:) 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Forgot to mention how he originally helped me with the userbox chaos on my user page. Add that to the list of the great things Yunshui has done to help me out :) Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Give cake?) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui is VERY friendly and patient when it comes to new users. He responds to vandalism quickly and effectively, and as his adoptee, I know that Yunshui has done a lot to help both me and the Community. Three cheers to Yunshui!

KazLabz (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A wikipedia Guru Mr yunshui has been tremendously helpfull and very simplisitic in expliaining things to new bees, very experienced and a pot of knowledge base on how wiki works and also in guiding people Shrikanthv (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very helpful and good editor as well as administrator. Keep continuing doing good works. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem a bit weak on the issue of confirmed users. I've clarified the docs to be more direct, but "confirmed" is just a shortcut-method for reaching autoconfirmed status. Adding it to an already-autoconfirmed user's account is pointless. The reason confirmed exists is so that if a brand-new account needs to have the same rights as an autoconfirmed account (oh, because the WMF hired a new employee, maybe), then you can skip the four-days-and-ten-edits requirement. Once you've passed the four days and ten edits, though, it's just a waste of time to give them this "right". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC) I miscounted; Yunshui was right that the editor wasn't autoconfirmed quite yet.[reply]
  • Welcoming, helpful, patient, encouraging, friendly, polite - all these (and more, all complimentary!) are words I would use to describe Yunshui. I came across him when he responded to some of my mundane questions at the Teahouse and he has been a tremendous help. Wikipedia is huge and can be very daunting to those not familiar with its intricacies, so it's great to know there are approachable people like Yunshui. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very calm, pleasant admin. Keep up the good work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the most level headed and 'professional' acting admins I've encountered. Yunshui is probably one of the few admins I would feel comfortable going to about anything I needed help with. Mkdwtalk 10:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really admire your judgment, temperament, composure and communication skills. Try for Crat or Arbcom next year. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed this because of [3]. Please be aware that moves may be misleadingly presented as non-controversial though a db-g6. In this case, the page had been moved before (and had been requested by same user, even), so just looking at the logs should have indicated that this wasn't a simple move. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I would not dare to criticize my teacher, but I would like to point out he has been unblocking a lot of users with the edit summary containing "per WP:ROPE" Yunshui, I hope I don't offend you, but as a community member I would kindly ask that you be more careful with unblocking as I have found multiple users who you have unblocked then proceeded to become heavy vandals again. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good, welcoming and a humble editor. He's always welcoming to new users like me when I was starting to become active in this wiki. Also, he's tireless to fulfill WP's needs and he is a role model for users to be a good Wikipedian. Cheers Yunshui! :) Mediran (t • c) 10:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I'm afraid I've not really come across your admin actions, so I'll just try to comment from the point of view of an editor who is unfamiliar with you and who is trying to understand who you are/what you are about. So, from that perspective, given your username, it would be useful IMO if your userpage contained – or, if it already does somewhere, then contained in a more prominent position – (a) a brief explanation of what your username means (and not just how it's spelt/pronounced), and (b) Babel boxes, including xx-0s, as appropriate. It Is Me Here t / c 16:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove admin flag. This admin blocked me for the first time in six years of my useful work. Without any talks, without any warnings, without any analyze of the situation. For technically "3RR violation". But Reverting vandalism not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR. I was blocked for reverting of vandalism without blocking of real vandal. It was removal of two relevant templates without any real reasons: [4] [5] [6] [7] Four vandal reverts, no? With two reverts using sockpuppetry ip with insults: [8] [9] I just reverted that removals. But real vandal was not blocked, only my account. He renamed the aricles [10] [11] without discussion by moving text! NickSt (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent Admin and Mentor This guy is just a doll! Absolutely pleasant 100% of the time, even when faced with anger. Always willing to help even experienced editors. I have known this person on Wiki for a year now and I am still just as impressed then as I am now with his abilities. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very pleasant Admin: He is always calm, patient, and polite. LatinWolf (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just nice. Had interaction with this admin once, when s(he) attempted to discuss my block with the blocking admin. Despite s(he) did not solve the issue, their comments were decent.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated a good candidate in Mkdw for adminship. Miniapolis 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He knows what I think, and why, because I've taken care to be explicit, rather than speak in terms of Wiki-cliches like "get a clue" and "don't be a dick" and "have some tea" and "quit digging a hole" and "death by Admin" and "BOOMERANG!" and all those brain-eating dumbed-down templated expessions that pass for real thougth/insight/understanding/comprehension. (If we continue to use those play-doh cliches, we will become robots with maybe 1,000 cliches in our memory banks, and we will only be able to speak and think in terms of them. They are not virtues, but the culture here treats them as though they are. 1984 anyone?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A knowledgeable and patient admin, Yunshui has been very helpful to me at the Teahouse a few times. Thanks for that! Robvanvee 17:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very good Administrator: A tireless contributor, gives others positive encouragement. Faizan 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a wonderful guy and wonderful mentor!!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Addshore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Addshore (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

My first admin review (although I would like to think this wasn't just admin action specific but a bit more general)! I have always been welcome to feedback on my talk page but never in a centralised place such as this! I have been an admin for 4 and a bit years now per my second RFA (which means my first was unsuccessful). I have had my account for 7 years although would only really count myself as an editor for 5 due to various spouts of inactivity, I tend to hop around and fill the gaps where admin work needs to be carried out. Other interesting things that you might find useful to know. I am involved in the botty side of Wikipedia with Addbot and its tasks, I am one of the leads of Huggle (just converting to c# now), pending member of BAG (Bot Approvals Group) and love having the odd discussion on IRC or my talk page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my previous look into your history of administrative and pre-administrative work, I would like to sum with the fact that you are a great administrator but have the room to grow slightly in your interaction with one area. Your blocks and deletion a are quite good and accurate, regular relearning of your blocking right has actually shown to be effective. Your protections are mostly within boundaries possibly one of your salts could have been better with an expiry time. You are quite good in the promotion of users to the account creator and rollbacker permission but I would like to see you being more active in the wider areas of reviewers and auto patrolled. Apart from that, you are again a good administrator and I myself expect more from you soon. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

J04n (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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)[reply]

My review of your work here

I would like to draw attention to the deletion of the Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust article. [12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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. Mkdwtalk 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I am aware of J04n's editting work from participation in Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • 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 · · 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 [13]. Please restore it. Cdetrio (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_review&oldid=539218101"