Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G1ggy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] G1ggy

Final (9/22/8); Scheduled to end 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) - Closed by User:El C

G1ggy (talk · contribs) - Hi, I’m G1ggy, and I’d like to nominate myself for an administrator position. I know I don’t have the greatest edit count in the world, but I don’t think (and I’m backed up here) that edit count is a relevant issue.

I am currently working hard on articles that fall under the scopes of Wikiproject Age of Empires, Wikiproject Video Games, Wikiproject Strategy Games, Wikiproject Brisbane, and Wikiproject Australia. As well as this, I participate in, and contribute to, XfD (especially AfD), RfA, Adopt-a-User, and Welcoming Committee.

Thanks for your time in considering my RfA ~ G1ggy! Chattin' 06:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: I currently spend a fair amount of time fighting vandals, and as an administrator this would only increase. The amount of vandalism on Wikipedia doesn’t appear to be decreasing, but I think the situation can be rectified (to an extent, at least) with more people being given the mop and bucket. And I’d be very happy to help in this regard.
If I become an admin, I would still attempt to continue with my work in the Adopt-a-User program and Welcoming Committee, so as to assist the Wikipedia community. I would also continue with my work in Wikiprojects, because the ultimate goal of the encyclopaedia is to make great pages. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m definitely not the best writer in the world, so my article work is not that great. But I am proud of the work I’ve done (in conjunction with RazorICE and Clyde Miller) on Age of Mythology. When I first encountered this article (which was around the time I started actively editing, in early April 2007), it was in very bad shape. Now, it’s been nominated for a GA, so fingers crossed!
I am also happy with what has been done to QASMT, simply because I feel a sense of pride in writing an article for my school. Once AoM receives GA, I’m going to try and get QASMT up there as well. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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 haven’t been in any major conflicts in the past. There was one minor case in which one user (find link) continuously added a line to the MySpace article in which he said that it was an American company. This line was being repeatedly reverted by a group of other uses when I noticed it. I left a note on his talk page ([1] [2]) explaining what was going on, and then suggested some alternatives to try and end the repeated reversions. In the end, the conflict ended nicely, with no harm done to either side. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Lankybugger

4. What are your thoughts on WP:Ignore all rules and how do you feel this should be applied when dealing with WP:BLP issues?
A:
Concerning IAR: I like to think of ignore all rules as an unwritten law, in the sense that no one should have to physically invoke it. Rather, it’s just there as a safety net of sorts, in case someone is genuinely bettering the project, but can’t quite justify their actions with a link to a document. So, for example, if one was to add an EXTREMELY useful bit of data to an article, but couldn’t fully cite it (for whatever reason), then I think it would be appropriate to mention IAR in any debates that came as a result of this.
I think that in the majority of cases, IAR shouldn’t be “invoked”, because WP’s rules and policies are designed towards the betterment of the project (notice how I said majority, not all cases). This said, there is never a right or wrong time to “invoke” IAR, it simply depends on the editor’s opinions on his/her actions.
Concerning BLP: I think that in cases of a lack of citation, IAR will apply heavily to BLP. Say there was a fact that made a very significant contribution to the article, but it couldn’t be cited properly (maybe the website we found it on was closed down, maybe it was just obscure, who knows…). If this was the case, I would ignore the rules (to an extent), and not warn the editor, with the idea that they were attempting to better the article. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/G1ggy before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I reviewed this editor's contribution history with respect to the article he listed as a collaboration in his statement. I did find some evidence of collaborative effort there, but not enough to sufficiently convince me of his experience and competency at collaborative editing. I'm reluctant to support with the minimal evidence I have to go by. On the other hand, no smoking guns appear, either, so I'm not going to oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. You sound great, I reckon you're going to make it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hayoungs (talk • contribs).
  2. Support. I reviewed this user's contributions, and, well, I'm pleasantly surprised by the knowledge of policy, intelligent AfD comments and overall thoroughness I'm seeing. I would give this user the benefit of the doubt. This almost certainly isn't going to pass unless the community reverses its usual traditions for once, but come back in about 3 months and this will be a WP:100 candidate. Grandmasterka 08:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as Grandmasterka said, this RfA will not pass. However, Grandmasterka also said about this user's knowledge of policy and good work, and I agree. I encountered G1ggy yesterday when I reverted some vandalism on one of their user subpages. G1ggy was very civil, and I was pleased by that. I must also say that the self-nomination is very good too. Due to these reasons, I will support this user. Acalamari 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. The editcount is certainly on the low side, but I'm impressed by the fact that 108 of his 631 edits are in projectspace, indicating prolific participation in XfDs. Projectspace experience is the most important thing for an admin. Remember also that adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Moral support - keep up the good work, and come back here in 2,000 more edits or so. You'll be a shoe in a few months from now. The Transhumanist 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Now, this user might not be so experienced and may need more edits, but I´m sure he would never ever abuse of administrative power; he is a trustfull wikipedian, so I´ll support him. ♠Tom@sBat 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support good attitude and always fighting the vandals, good luck man! Think outside the box 12:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support as G1ggy has shown good participation per Grandmasterka and Acalamari. I see no reason to believe the tools would be abused, and see plenty of reasons indicating they would be used effectively. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. I don't see anything to get my panties in a bunch over. I'm confident that if the candidate isn't sure about something, he will read the policy pages before taking action. --Spike Wilbury 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose. You mean well, and I hate opposing for edit count so... I'll oppose due to Q1. Most vandal-fighting can be done without admin powers, so if that's your only intent I'm reluctant. You're making great progress so far though, try again in 4 months or so and you'll pass easily.--Wizardman 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    That is not my only intent, as mentioned above (I think the indenting wasn't clear, but it's been fixed). And if vandal fighting isn't a good reason to become an admin, then why do we still need admins? Other then that, thanks for your comments. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Never said vandal-fighting isn't a good reason to be an admin. At least in my case though, my vandal-fighting plummeted once i became an admin as I did other things. I might move this to neutral or support, I'd need to do more searching on your edits. It may come down due to lack of experience though, my !vote...--Wizardman 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. There's a reason people keep coming up with edit counts or months of editing: experience. You've only been editing for a couple of days, really, and while you look like you're heading in the right direction, it's way too early to give you the tools. For instance, what you've done at Jane Harrison (changing an existing redirect (with articles linking to it), merging after virtually no discussion) shows (in my opinion) a lack of experience that would not be appropriate for an admin, and that's only three days ago. Try again in a couple of months. Oh, and please use edit summaries! --JoanneB 07:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. You need more experience. You have really only been editing for a month or so, and 4000 edits and at least six months experience will almost guarantee you adminship. I'm not really sure you need the admin tools right now. Sr13 (T|C) 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. In my opinion, has not shown sufficient dedication and commitment to the project, and also will probably lack some experience. Daniel Bryant 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - you're obviously a good faith editor, however a the moment you have only warned 2-3 vandals, which in the context of your answer to Q1, doesn't imply a requirement for the extra buttons. Suggest you reapply in 3-4 months. Addhoc 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Joanne. Although your enthusiasm is great, you've only been active for one month, so I think it's a little early. Also, one-fourth of your edits are currently to your userspace ... this would not matter if you had more experience (say, in a few months). Lastly, I disagree with your statement (in response to Q1) that "the situation [in regard to vandalism] can be rectified (to an extent, at least) with more people being given the mop and bucket". The only way that the "mop and bucket" can combat vandalism is by blocking users and that statement suggests you might be a bit quick to do so. Blocking users stems the tide of vandalism and is necessary, but it isn't a long-term solution (admins can't block more vandals than are reported at AIV or that they encounter). I think the only long-term solution is more monitoring of pages, but that's another issue. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose While I agree that Adminship is no big deal, you seem to be a little too trigger-happy. Items like this diff don't inspire confidence in your judgement, either. I'd suggest gaining a bit more experience and gaining a little patience. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning that diff, I'd have thought it was VERY clear that deletion was not an option. The nomination comments, in my opinion, were totally unrelated to the list (perhaps I misjudged since the CSD quoted contained the word "article", and I decided that this did not apply to this list). So I closed this AfD on the basis that deletion was not going to happen, and that the nom was fairly irrelevant. I apologise for any dramas this has caused. ~ G1ggy! blah, blah, blah 23:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I've still got to oppose. While it seems clear to me that there's not going to be too many objections to that article being kept, the fact that one person is arguing for it's deletion is enough to merit keeping the AfD. Two comments is never enough to close an AfD under the rules for WP:SNOW when you factor in the initial nomination. That, combined with your shaky understanding of WP:BLP contributes to my oppose. Contentious facts should ALWAYS be removed if they can't be sourced. WP:IAR should never be applied to WP:BLP problems. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Granted that edit-count as such is not a good parameter to work on, it does give a measure of the amount of experience that you have in admin-related tasks. Your present count is 631 edits, with, in my personal view, an insufficient contribution at this time in WP:NAMESPACE. Also, only just over one month of experience does not give me confidence. In another three months I am sure that you will sail through the application.--Anthony.bradbury 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Yes, you are to be commended for your enthusiasm. However, there is no substitute for experience. One month of active editing does not instill in me the confidence that you have really had a chance to learn all of the ins and outs that come from experience. Keep up your activity level and come back in a few months. Pastor David † (Review) 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. That answer to Q4 is troubling. The fact that a piece of information makes a significant contribution does not excuse it from BLP. In fact, when unsourced negative information has a significant impact is when it is most important to remove it and make sure it stays removed. Admins really need to understand BLP, since it affects use of all the admin tools. -Amarkov moo! 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose You have done great work so far as a Wikipedian, but think that you need some more experience before you can get adminship. Captain panda 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose More experience needed; try again in a few months. Jmlk17 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - doesn't seem to take BLP seriously.--Docg 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose. The userpage is under any reasonable standard, it hints of a sheep mentality, which is the least wikipedia needs. Voice of Britain 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate on this please? I don't see how a userpage (especially one where I don't see any major problems) could validate a STRONG oppose. ~ G1ggy! Reply 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose changing from neutral in light of the answer to Q4 re BLP — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Due to lack of experience for the time being Taprobanus 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Has been here a while, but a total of only 700 or so edits falls short of what I view to be basic qualifications.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per directly above. No need for the admin tools yet. --Phoenix (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Sorry not enough experience across the field.--VS talk 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Although I maintain that admins can be qualified without racking up thousands of edits (it's quality that matters, not quantity), I see little in G1ggy's contributions to convince me that he is ready to be an admin. G1ggy's view of the role of admins seems unreasonably focused on closing XfDs, and he also seems to be lacking experience in other areas. His proudest accomplishments in article space are, apparently, not-even-GAs about a video game and his school, he has not done any meaningful dispute resolution, and his policy ideas include using IAR against BLP to enable sources that are "closed down" or "obscure", an obvious recipe for disaster. This all stems from a lack of experience, but I want to counter the suggestion that G1ggy should just make a gazillion more edits and come back to RfA. He should reapply after branching out to other areas of Wikipedia, acquiring a broader perspective of what WP is and why it works, making good contributions that show he has that perspective, and dealing with difficult situations that admins encounter all the time but that he hasn't encountered yet in his month on WP. That's the kind of experience that matters. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ
  22. Oppose: Lack of experience and consistency of edits. Has only become active recently. As stated above, don't necessarily need the administrator tools to fight vandals.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral no doubt a good faith editor and good intentions, but not enough experience for me. I'm not talking about edit count but only one month and a couple of days of editing just doesn't cut it. The Rambling Man 07:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. NeutralAs I said on WP:RFA/William Pietriyou too are doing great but I personally prefer you get a little more experience in mainspace area and extra activity with atleast 1000 in Wikipedia namespace. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    And a shrubbery! I opposed, but I disagree the reasons you give for not supporting -- your editcountitis is a bit severe. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oh my... I had 1000 Wikipedia-space edits when I became an admin, but I think I can count the other successful candidates with that many on my hands. Grandmasterka 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral- as per Kelly Martin>wow..--Cometstyles 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral In every run-in I've had with this user xe's been polite & intelligent even when we disagree. I'm sure this will be a WP:SNOW oppose, as they effectively have only a month of edits and less mainspace edits in their entire history than I have yesterday alone, so I can't quite bring myself to support, but I don't see any particular reason to oppose other than edit count — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I commend you for having the guts to do this, but I'm afraid you aren't ready just yet, but in 2 or 3 month I'm sure you'd be nominated if you continue to edit at this rate. Evilclown93
  5. Neutral I'd have supported on wikiprojects alone, but opposed on lack of experience (you'd be surprised how much you learn in a few months). Will definitely support next time if no further mishaps. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, lacks of experience and edits. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there should be some article writing experience and involving yourself more in the Wikipedia namespace is good. Wait for a while (6 months) and I think I will be ready to support you. Terence 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral - lack of experience. Real96 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral - No doubt a good-faithed editor, and an asset to Wikipedia, but lack of experience, and less than 700 edits raises a red flag. Also, with regards to Q1, most vandalism-fighting can be done without admin powers, and we already have enough admins in regards to vandalism-fighting. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:44, 5 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.