Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gb

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] Gb

Final (50/4/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gb (talk · contribs) - I've been giving much thought to nominating Gb (formerly Gilesbennett) to receive adminship for some time now, and this has been somewhat underlined by the seemingly daily interactions I have with Gb in administrative areas. His consistent and sustained positive approach to areas where contention issues may be high, especially in usernames for administrator attention for example, is highly encouraging and he deals in a correct manner with enquiries regarding issues about those he may have highlighted at UAA or for instance, helped those he may have welcomed to Wikipedia when they registered their account. Furthermore, Giles works extremely hard at the help desk and he has over 139 reports to the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. That is especially impressive in consideration of his 3000+ deleted edits (mainly in CSD), which means he has compiled over 8100 edits, for those who may have issues with edit counts and the like. I know some people here will have problems with the relatively low mainspace edit count, but I am sure that speaking for myself and on behalf of Giles, that this issue could easily be quashed by the amazing dedication he puts into communicating with others (see user talk section + this display of attempting to work with the editors here) and the reflection of outstanding dedication in those places that don't come up on the interiot tool, like articles for deletion (where he taught something new to another editor) and the suspected sockpuppets submission board where he gave a characteristic second opinion in the interests of the report and the closing administrator, is simply amazing. He is my tenth candidate to be nominated, and I am comfortable in the knowledge that this RFA should pass with flying colours. Rudget. 14:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to Rudget for the kind nomination, I humbly accept. GBT/C 16:59, 15 February 2008 (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: I think, certainly in the early days, it would make good sense to stick to the areas that I know, and not try to walk before I can crawl. I would plan on spending a term at admin school, and look to be mentored by an experienced admin who felt up to the challenge! When I felt confident in my abilities to fully wield the mop without splashing water everywhere I'd start with what is arguably my strongest suit by heading over to WP:CSD. I think I have a sound enough knowledge of the policies to also make valuable contributions at WP:UAA and WP:AIV from the off, and it would make a nice change to be removing from the lists there, rather than just adding to them all the time. Although I haven't had occasion to report that many pages to WP:RFPP, I'm well grounded in the policies behind its operation, so would feel confident at dealing with (at least) straightforward requests.
After that, I'd branch out, and would hope to be able to spend some time dealing with the various administrative backlogs (temporary userpages, protected edit requests, and the like). It may well be that with adminship, as with editorship, I find new and different strengths, so beyond the above, who can say?


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Erm, well, a fair chunk of them have been deleted - for the right reasons, of course. Although I knew that I had tagged a fair number of pages, I didn't realise it was up around the 3,000 mark, but would hope that even though they don't serve to grow the encyclopaedia, my efforts in keeping it clean of junk and spam could constitute my "best" contributions. As with everyone, those pages that I've tagged with a speedy haven't always been agreed by the reviewing admins, but I would hope to be able to count those which have been declined on the fingers of two (alright, possibly three) hands, at most, and of those the vast majority (if memory serves) were subsequently successfully prod'ed or AfD'd - I would hope that's a pretty confidence-inspiring hit-rate. That's not to say that I haven't made a couple of mistakes along the way - we all do - but I know I've learnt from them (such as the emphasis that some admins will place on the word "patent" in the phrase "patent nonsense", and the lack of emphasis others will place on it), and hope I've managed to pass a bit of that on to other users as I've gone along.
As Rudget mentions in his very kind nomination, my mainspace edits are low by some editors' standards, and I'm sure that may raise an eyebrow or two from some viewers of this RfA. I think my contributions, however, in particular the suite of articles relating to Ezio and the wikification of Mark Ulriksen, show that I know what I'm doing when it comes to creating articles as well as deleting them.
My vandalfighting contributions have got a fair few vandals off the streets, and in amongst that I do monitor the help desk, as well as the {{helpme}} page, although response times to both of those areas seem to be getting quicker and quicker, so more and more frequently I find myself getting beaten to it by other helpers.
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: Other editors have caused me minor stresses from time to time, yes, but I think that's pretty much inevitable. As luck would have it, be it good luck or bad luck, the only couple of occasions where that stress has risen even slightly above simmering point have happened in the last couple weeks, so anyone who looks back through my contributions will doubtless see the two users I'm thinking of (I'm not sure if it would be good form to name the users concerned when answering this question).
The first looked like an innocent bystander finding themselves on the receiving end of an unfounded sockpuppetry accusation. I tried to keep everything civil, and to douse the flames of the conflict between the two editors concerned as much as possible, and whilst an uneasy calm has descended, I have found myself questioning the motivations of the bystander concerned to a great degree.
The second was another sockpuppetry case, but where the evidence was so overwhelming that it wasn't so much a case of trying to prove it, but trying to make it as likely as possible that when the editor concerned comes off their block they'll put it behind them and continue to contribute to the project in a constructive manner. At times the manner, and sheer quantity, of conversation would have tried the patience of a saint, but I think that with the help of another editor we've got to a point where they should come back off their block with a new leaf turned over. Time will tell, of course.
Anyone who cares to look back to through my contributions in those situations (if it turns out to be the done thing then I'll provide diffs to the conversations concerned) will see how I've dealt with it in the past. I try always to stay calm, polite, assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and trust that sense will out at the end of the day, and I think I've always been successful in doing so. It's worked for me so far, so I see no reason to change that approach in the future.

Questions from GlassCobra

4. Your user talk edits are over three times as high as your mainspace edits. Do you mind elaborating a little on why this is?
A. Do you want the quick answer...or the one which uses algebra? Most of my mainspace edits are deleted, but as they're generally pages that I've flagged for speedy deletion, I pretty much expect that. I will always, unless there are exceedingly compelling reasons not to, give the creating editor the standard warning about their page being flagged for speedy deletion, the net result (assuming the speedy isn't declined) being a "0" in terms of mainspace contributions, but a "+1" in terms of user talk contributions. Add my 3,000 or so deleted mainspaces contributions back in to your calculation, and the balance is readjusted back such that my mainspace edits equate to 120% of my talk page contributions...or, at least, I think they do, as maths was never my strong point.
That's not to say that I don't engage with other users, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that leaving a warning for the creator of an inappropriate page is the end of the story - a relatively recent example is here. Having picked up on the editor's arguments in favour of keeping the page on its talk page after the article itself had been deleted, what developed was an interesting discussion. Even though I hadn't flagged the article in the first place the discussion developed from (admittedly) a slightly grumpy beginning into what I think is quite a useful demonstration of my approach to these things.
5. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?
A. My intention is to add myself to the category, yes, but at this stage I haven't formed a precise view as to what criteria I'd set, although I think the criteria specified by the default process may well be as good as any - something like this is always going to be a primarily subjective issue, so reducing it to objective criteria will always be difficult.
I realise that this is one of hotter potatoes in RfAs, and to be honest if I'd cocked things up either to such a large extent, or on such a frequent basis, that even half the users in good standing required by the default process were petitioning for my recall then if I thought they were even remotely justified in doing so I would have already voluntarily handed in the mop.
I take Dlohcierekim's comment below on board entirely, but given that each of "yes", "no", and "no answer" will have their supporters and detractors, it's a bit like being stuck between a rock, a hard place, and another, well, equally hard place. You have my straightforward answer, though - if people wish to oppose on principal then they're of course entitled to do so. I think that at the end of the day recall seems to operate much like an insurance policy for the benefit of the community - rather than having to take things to a much more serious level before relieving an admin of the tools, it allows for a quicker process to sort things out. The flip side of that coin is that the admin potentially leaves themselves open to an abusive recall at the hands of the unjustified few. On the basis that good will out, it's a risk I'm prepared to take.

Questions from John254

6. What are the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy as they relate to the circumstances under which an article should be speedily deleted, what edits may not be treated as vandalism, and the manner in which page protection of articles should be employed?
A.Attack pages, or pages primarily created to disparage their subject, should be deleted under G10 if there is no neutral version to revert back to. Biographies of living persons which don't assert the notability of the individual concerned should be deleted under A7. Short articles providing little or no content should be deleted under A3, and those providing little or no context under A1.
When dealing with biographies of living persons more care should be taken in deciding what is or is not vandalism - repeated blanking of information by an IP which might, in another article, be prima facie evidence of vandalism could, when dealing with a biography of a living person, simply be a good faith attempt by or on behalf of the person concerned to remove personal, private or other material. I don't necessarily think that those edits may not be treated as vandalism, just that a great deal more good faith should be assumed before determining that they are treated as such. Incidentally, this is a situation I have come across personally relatively recently - the relevant discussion can be seen here.
Page protection should be employed carefully, and only after the removal of any malicious or biased material (whether or not that material specifically led to the protection request) to ensure that when protected the article is in a sourced, neutral and on-topic state.
7. Under what circumstances would the speedy deletion of an article be consistent with the principles articulated in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case, but authorized neither by the text of the biographies of living persons policy itself nor the criteria for speedy deletion?
A.If the page was not created primarily to disparage its subject, correctly asserted the notability of that subject, and the contents of the page were reliably sourced from quality third party sources, the usual speedy deletion criteria would not apply, and key provisions of the biography of living persons policy would appear to have been satisfied. The Badlydrawnjeff case makes it clear, however, that even where the page would not be speediable under G10 or A7, where it is questionable how appropriate the material is, and that material could do harm to the individual concerned, it should be speedily deleted in the first instance. Those who would wish its inclusion would be free to make their case for its inclusion, but it would remain absent from the encyclopaedia whilst that process was going on - a reverse of the usual order of things.

Question from Stifle

8. Under what circumstances can a non-free photograph of a living person be used in Wikipedia? Stifle (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A. Very very few to none. Any bog-standard non-free photograph of a living individual used simply to illustrate an article on that person would fall at the first hurdle, as a free equivalent would either be available, or could be created, that would serve the same purpose. If, instead of illustrating the individual, the photograph is illustrating the individual at a particular stage in their career with a particular visual appearance on which their notability was based, and thus no free image would be capable of being created which would serve the same encyclopaediac purpose, then potentially the use could be justified under the relevant criteria.

[edit] General comments

  • Links for Gb: Gb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
  • Comment As I suspected they might, the two opposes and one neutral at the time of writing have all raised my lack of mainspace edits as their primary concerns, and that's more than fair. To an extent I tried to address, and potentially pre-empt, those concerns in the second paragraph of my answer to question 2 above, but I'm happy to expand a little as long as people don't mind if I come at the subject slightly sideways...
I'm a lawyer, and I specialise in quite a narrow area of law. Come to me with a company that you want to buy or sell, and I'm your man (and please don't slap a {{db-spam}} tag on this page when you read that). Come to me looking for a divorce, to buy a house, or to sack one of your employees, and although I'll know the basics (and in most cases a fair bit more), there'll be many more experienced people within my firm who deal with divorces, house purchases or sacking employees day-in and day-out, who are much better equipped to help you, and who would protect your interests much better than I could. That doesn't mean that they're better or worse at being a lawyer than I am, nor that I couldn't become a divorce, conveyancing or employment lawyer with the requisite work, just that their skills lie, at that moment, in different areas to my own.
To a large degree, I feel it's the same with adminship. If I'm granted the mop, I'm not going to suddenly run off on day one to start trying to enforce the finer points of ArbCom decisions, left, right and center, nor am I going to be imposing a range-block on 11.x.x.x. In short, I'm not going to grab the mop, wield it threateningly and run around shouting "Get out my way, I'm an admin". I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know, and one of the things I know is that there are numerous admins who are much more able than I would be to deal with that sort of thing. I'd stick to the areas that I knew well, and felt confident in, and leave the areas that other admins know to them until such time as I'd built up enough knowledge, and experience, to be able to deal with them myself.
To cut a long story short (too late, I know), I don't think my lack of mainspace contributions should automatically count against me. Whether one is dealing with an editing conflict or a conflict of any other kind, I think it boils down to the same fundamental principles. Know the relevant policy, be able to communicate the relevant policy, and know when and how to implement the relevant policy. And above all, know when you don't know any of those three things. GBT/C 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Well said. To evoke the name of Tyrenius, I heartily agree. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly knowing policy is important, but policy isn't why we're here after all. We're to write an encyclopedia. That's a cliche I know but it's true, if you don't write content (add/clean/whatever) as a regular editor you don't get the nuance and the frustrations of the thousands of editors that work silently away actually creating Wikipedia. We're creating a class of admins that can quote policy but never create content. They become rigid enforcers of the letter of the law rather than the spirit, showing no flexibility or understanding of how editors actually work or feel. Some of the most poisonous debates at AN/I come from admins enforcing policy with an inflexible attitude. And of course, admins that only work in policy areas only end up creating more policy...Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but you'd never know it by looking at it, and it's ballooned to an amazing degree in the last 2 years or so. Admins create policy, many never having spent time working on the encyclopedia, and never really considering how the increasing amount of rules affect mainstream editors. Not only that they are on the constant lookout to create more policy, or to complicate existing policy...look at at a recent example WP:RFR...there's was a sharp little fight to keep that simple (and it's not even that simple).
Bottom line is that future admins in many cases fight vandals (or do a couple thousand semi-automated edits of some sort) for a couple months and start an RFA. They may be book smart about policy but they have very little experience interacting with regular editors, and very little experience with how the "rubber meets the road".
Don't get me wrong, vandal fighting is important....but it's easy. You notice there are few RFA's coming from editors that spent their last 3 months working on Category:Articles lacking sources or Unreviewed articles for creation request pages...those are not so easy. If you time here starts with mostly vandal fighting it encourages a "us vs them" and strike fast attitude, which is poisonous for an admin to have. Username and CSD are important to, but the same arguments apply.
When all you do is apply policy you become a cop...there are good cops and there are bad cops no doubt but we don't want to create or encourage a class of cops. We need to encourage editors to work in areas that are harder, more nuanced before RFAs. I'd support an admin that only added refs to unreferenced articles (or some other cleanup task) for 3 months long before I'd support an editor who was busy fighting vandalism (or whatever other enforcement task) for the same amount of time. RxS (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And that really summarises the important point very well. There are far too many administrators who have too little experience of the rubber meeting the road. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Per nomination statement. Rudget. 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Looks like a great Newpage patroller, and an even better CAT:CSD admin. Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Stong Support (The first two sentences from A1 above say it all, so good that they are worth reading again: " I think, certainly in the early days, it would make good sense to stick to the areas that I know, and not try to walk before I can crawl. I would plan on spending a term at admin school, and look to be mentored by an experienced admin...".) That's as far as I read before I decided I would support. Absolutely Great Answer. (I did of course continue reading your superb answers, which are of the same great quality as your prolific contributions to this project, which I briefly checked). I foresee a stong showing of support for you here! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Screw that, reinstating. I reread answer 2 and it is simply too good to refuse support. Changing to abstention for now. Only ~1000 mainspace edits minus many vandalism reverts means article work is really low. User:Dorftrottel 19:41, February 15, 2008 Yes, very good answers and nomination statement. Looks good. User:Dorftrottel 19:01, February 15, 2008
  5. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Sure thing. :) Very nice answers, and glowing nomination. GlassCobra 19:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - All looks good, per nom. Tiptoety talk 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I see no issues. SpencerT♦C 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom, per Dorftrottel and the other supporters. User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA Can't say I care much for scatological metaphors, but you you handled that conflict well. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    And now, a word about "Recallitis". I've seen RfA's opposed because the nominee is open to recall. I have seen nominees opposed because they were not open to recall. I've have seen them opposed because the nominee was open to recall, but the opposer did not like the terms they set forth. With all due respect to Glasscobra and others, I do not see one's position on this as being useful in evaluating their readiness for the tools. Cheers, and happy editing! Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    The issue is rather the reverse. Is the admin likely to relinquish the tools honourably if (s)he is demonstrated to be incompetent? Too many are not, hence the focus on recall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    WP:RFC/WP:RFAR. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    Quite. "A Request for Arbitration is the last step ..." Sadly, too many cling on until that bitter end. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support I think you'll make a good administrator. Polly (Parrot) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Sure. Gary King (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per Rudget. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - He will do a great job clearing out all the junk in CAT:CSD and other such tasks. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Edit-conflicted Support per the answers and expanded comment above. Gb is clearly an intelligent, thoughtful editor and I have no problem trusting him with the tools. --jonny-mt 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - sure.   jj137 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. NHRHS2010 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support, I do not see any evidence that you'd be incivil or misuse the admin tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
  19. Support - Gb meets my criteria and therefore has my support, good luck. --ChetblongT C 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. Worthy. Axl (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support User shows great civility with a good track which shows no concerns and great vandal fighter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support I do not believe that I have come across this editor, but his edits clearly reflect a serious dedication to admin-related aspects of the project, and a good level of competence therein. I have no problem with edit-count. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support John254 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support The main space ratio is low for my normal standards. I would prefer more work on editing articles, but I do not see an issue with his av work and seems capable of handling the mop. Alexf42 17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support A great editor, dedicated, trustworthy and with diverse namespace experience; Wikipedia can only benefit from this editor. κaτaʟavenoTC 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Looks like a good editor, and would make a great admin. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. No reason to oppose, although you could strive for more mainspace edits. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - His help with trying to cool down the Calton/MegaMom conflict is greatly appreciated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - I love the answers that were given to the questions, and think this user would make a fine admin. Ale_Jrbtalk 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - Having abstained from !voting on RfA's for a while and only observing and commenting here and there I've decided to get back into the flow of things... Having requested to look through this users' contribs I have decided that they're a well suited candidate for the tools. Solid reports to AIV, I see a couple of WP:UAA reports in there, and messages on the help desk! Always a good sign (e.g. [2]) to see someone helping out there. All in all, I think this user will make a solid admin... (When you get the tools can you help out occasionally at WP:UAA? It gets mighty backlogged!) ScarianCall me Pat 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - Timeshift (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Seems a sensible and reasoned person, meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Per OIC. Twenty Years 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support First class editor, with a sound grasp of policy. It concerns me that so much is made of mainspace edit count. Whilst it is certainly true that an admin with no mainspace editing experience would be a bad idea, I really do do think that too much is made of it, and some people set the bar far too high. Once a candidate has shown that they have some experience over a reasonable time period, requiring more is really rather pointless. Mayalld (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Looks good. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - CSD work alone makes them worthy, but having a nom by my own nom takes the cake. -MBK004 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Why thank you. :) Rudget. 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    I really think that you ought to evaluate the candidate on his or her own merits, independently of your regard for the nominator(s). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support - Sensible and Thoughtful Candidate; No Problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support: My only hiccup was minor, and has been addressed. I see no red flags from this candidate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support - Looks great, even if he is a lawyer. (Oh wait, so am I....) :-) Meets all my standards. Has proof of vandal-fighting and the scars that go with it. No major concerns. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support: Fine. --Bhadani (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Bahh, Wikipedia:Editcountitis. Trust is the most important issue, and Gb has mine. нмŵוτнτ 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support - Looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - No real concerns. Looks like a good editor. Best of Luck! Canyouhearmenow 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  44. Of course. Acalamari 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support Like your responses to the questions. Midorihana~iidesune? 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support This user can be trusted with the tools. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 12:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support as a good candidate with what appears to be a thorough understanding of policy, per questions and contributions. No reservations whatsoever (and I'm shamed that I didn't see this RfA sooner). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support. The opposition expressed below would be reasonable if there were any evidence that you were irrational, or lacked any kind of thoughtful approach to your work on Wikipedia. To that end, your body of work, and in particular you comments in this RfA convinces me that you are entirely thoughtful and reasonable. I see nothing to dissuade me from trusting you with the mop. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Excellent answers - well thought out and well written. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support - Excellent Candidate; will make a good Administrator. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote, see 37. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  50. Weak support. Experience isn't great but most question answers are decent. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. I am one of those concerned about a lack of mainspace editing experience, whether that's currently a fashionable view or not. Conflicts in "adminspace" tend to be relatively black or white when compared to dealing with conflicts over content. It is my belief that every administrator needs to have experience of dealing with the kinds of conflicts that those who are trying to build an encyclopedia have to deal with every day, and I have seen no evidence of that in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I can see little work in mainspace outside of deletion tagging and vandal fighting. Don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude but there's no way of replacing the experience you get by interacting with other editors while producing encyclopedia content. That, and not vandal fighting should be required before an RFA...my opinion. RxS (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    I reflected upon this issue beforehand, and I gave it much thought (as described in the nomination statement) - but does not the AFD work Gb has done - where a mindset that is appropriate to the discussion and the article (I am depicting Gb here) show that he is more than capable of dealing with problematic users or mainspace problems? Rudget. 13:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I've since posted a comment in the General Comments section above dealing with your concerns in more detail. Whether or not that leads you to reconsider your vote, thank you for your participation in any event. GBT/C 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Long winded and only partially literate response above...RxS (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Please clarify - are you calling GB's general comment or your own long-winded and only partially literate? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    My own of course...RxS (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Ok. (and BTW, I didn't find your comment (or GB's) to be either longwinded or "partially literate", for what it's worth :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'd also like to see more work in mainspace. RxS is right on about the fact that this is what brings about interaction with other editors and really tells a lot about how potential admins would handle different situations. --Veritas (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose More editing work needed, in my opinion, in mainspace. Having more experience avoids a too-narrowly focussed set of experiences of wikipedia. DDStretch  (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - Remaining neutral for now - I am truly troubled by the lack of mainspace edits, as well as general talk. Obviously candidate is not warning vandals, but merely reporting, which is good I suppose, but I don't get the feeling there's a whole lot of patrolling or talking going on. Seems like a casual editor and thus fails my criteria for well balanced edits. However, we have some time, and I may be leaning towards support depending on what I hear from the user. I'll try and come up with some question when I have some time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I've since posted a comment in the General Comments section above dealing with your concerns in more detail. Whether or not that leads you to reconsider your vote, thank you for your participation in any event. GBT/C 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    With all due respect, the candidate [Gb] is clearly interacting with users on their talk pages. Look at the usertalk count on here if you wish. Diffs have also been provided in the nomination statement. Rudget. 13:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    A usertalk count by itself means nothing. The candidate could simply be issuing warnings about edit tests and potential vandalism. I'm referring to discussion, not robotic comments. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Undeniably a large part of my user talk contributions are standard warning / other templates. That's not to say that I have no experience of on-going involvement with other users - I've had a quick trawl back through my contributions, and would cite this, this, this, this, this this and this and this as examples of that interaction, and the way in which I go about it. GBT/C 14:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Great candidate, but I disapprove of the strong-arm tactics the community has used to force this "admins open for recall" notion. We already have that process (ArbCom), paranoid hysteria about "OMG rouge admin abuse" and grumblings about "X users, Y months, Z edits" are unnecessary. Bureaucrats, please count this as a support vote if it comes down to it. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (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.