Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaius Cornelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Gaius Cornelius

Final (38/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 11:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius (talk · contribs) - Gaius Cornelius is a experienced editor, who has made over 45,000 around 75,000 edits. He is a very active WikiGnome, fixing errors in articles using AutoWikiBrowser and making substantial additions to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. Gaius is an excellent article writer, and has taken British anti-invasion preparations of World War II to feature article status. He has shown from his high number of contributions to AfD discussions that he is an effective and polite communicator, and has a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Gaius Cornelius would make a great administrator. Epbr123 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gladly accept. Gaius Cornelius 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: From the perspective of shear volume of edits, most of my work is minor tidying up using WP:AWB. I apply my experience as a programmer to search a downloaded wikipedia dump using complex regular expressions to find mistakes that most people would not have the skills or inclination to track down. I particularly believe that I have been editing wikipedia since about August 2005. I don't think it should count for much, but I would be curious to know just how many edits I have actually made; I'm guessing that it is not far short of 100,000.
Articles I have edited remain on my watch-list which I regularly patrol for vandalism. My watch-list has a constant turnover, but I am watching 2,000 to 3,000 articles at any one time. I find myself doing a few reverts every day. There are also a handful of editors whose contributions I quietly keep an eye on - on the basis of prior silliness. I have found it interesting to note that while most "silly editors" simply give up, some have gone on to be responsible contributors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I like writing articles and contributing pictures mostly to commons. There is a list of my contributions where I have been the principle contributor on my user page, but I often go off to do a bit of research to contribute to other articles.
I am most pleased to have brought one article to featured article status.
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: Where I am only dealing with minor edit issues, the most usual source of conflict is editors who don't think that the WP:MOS should apply to them. I tend to walk away from such arguments. For articles to which I make more substantial contributions, points can be discussed sensibly and there are very few problems. The article Fishing is a source of frustration as it seems to be a spam link magnet, the garden must be periodically weeded.
Optional Question from SJP
4. Will you please give a summary of the blocking policy? Thanks for your time. Good luck!--SJP 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I can hardly do better than to refer the questioner to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. However, in attempting a brief summary, I would say that editors are only blocked when it is essential to do so.
Question from K. Scott Bailey
5. In what circumstances might you consider levying a block against an established editor, without first leaving a warning on their talk page? K. Scott Bailey 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Virtually none. Any editor, and especially an established editor, deserves a warning. I suppose that there might be exceptions such as a bot that has gone bananas and needs to be promptly stopped.
Optional question from Malinaccier (talk · contribs)
6. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks!
A: Hard to quantify really. I guess I currently spend up to an hour a day on vandalism hunts, so I guess that it will stay at around that level.
Optional Question from Keepscases Keepscases (talk · contribs)
7. Please write a haiku about your Wikipedia experiences.
A: My first ever haiku:
Snowfall
A gnome turns a leaf
Light breaks through
8. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A: The unblocking policy says it all and is perfectly sensible. ...and yes, I do intend to adhere to it.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gaius Cornelius before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Beat-the-nom Support - I don't want to fall victim to editcountitis, but just from that the candidate looks good. Everything is in order here. --tennisman 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. Epbr123 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Great contributions since 2005. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Rudget zŋ 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Candidate has under 75,000 edits. I'm not sure they have enough experience to be an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - valuable contributor who responds to criticism with civility and an open mind -FrankTobia 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Not enough edits, only has 45K. I look for over 100K I am shocked you are not already an admin. I am sure you will not abuse the tools:) Good luck!--SJP 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Sumoeagle179 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per FayssalF. NHRHS2010 talk 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Goodness, yes! Jmlk17 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support a committed Wikipedian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, especially per FrankTobia's support. I admire that in a Wikipedian. Obviously dedicated. -- Jack 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I offered to nominate back in August as it seemed to me then that this was a careful and solid editor. I feel embarrassed that time has passed and I didn't get around to doing it. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Unambiguously per EVula User should spend more time doing something. Can't imagine what. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. support trust with tools. Pete.Hurd 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support although a haiku is 5/7/5, I appreciate the effort. Keepscases 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - Definately!! —Reedy Boy 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Should have been an admin already. Cla68 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support--MONGO 11:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support per excellent haiku (much better than I could have written). :-) WaltonOne 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support to the best WikiGnome around.--Aldux 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support A trustworthy and experienced editor to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Tentative Support, per good answer to Q#5, but lingering concern about inexperience dealing with "hot" situations. K. Scott Bailey 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Also surprised GC's not an admin already. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support — Save_Us_229 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Thanks for answering my question! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Good answers to questions (excellent Haiku).
  28. Support - Gilliam 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Nice haiku. Axl 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Definitely. the wub "?!" 22:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - This was a tough one. I was happy with your edit summary. I was also happy with your answers. I went through your current oppose's and neutrals. They all seemed fine except one. The oppose was correct, your wikipedia namespace edit count is fairly low. I am thinking that you would be a great admin, I just advice in starting to participate in some things in this namespace after you become admin. YOu need to try to become familiar with it very quickly (unless you already are) --businessman332211 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Weak Support - one hell of a lot of experience, and I can't stand that Kate's Tool ending at 45,000 edits. However, a lack of Wikipedia-space contribs is my only concern, although from what you've stated in your answers, that's not to crucial to the admin-activities you want to take part in. Lradrama 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support A great editor ,see no concerns. -- Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Slade (TheJoker) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support `'Míkka>t 00:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support trust this editor with the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm really sorry to do this -- I know you've been at Wikipedia a long time -- but, out of all those edits, you have very little experience in Wikipedia-space, an area in which much administrative work occurs. I do think a certain minimal level of work there is necessary for an admin-candidate to be able to handle the mop competently. I'm also not impressed with your answers to the later optional questions, particularly question #8, where your answer strikes me as (unintentionally, I'm sure) flippant. When asked questions of policy, admins often must answer thoroughly, and I don't have confidence in this candidate's ability, based on those answers. Xoloz 13:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

K. Scott Bailey 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC) --switch to support

Why the neutral !vote? Is there an area in which you feel the candidate could improve? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to leave many comments, save those in my edit summary. Basically, once he finishes the q/a, I will make a final decision, per my edit summary message. Sorry for the confusion. K. Scott Bailey 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, didn't see the edit summary. Nevermind then. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am choosing to stay neutral at this time, per very little evidence of dealing with the kind of "sticky" situations admins have to deal with every day (Q#3). I, of course, reserve the right to switch my vote based upon the answer given to Q#5. K. Scott Bailey 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)switch to support
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.