Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SGGH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] SGGH

Final (38/0/1); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:35:51 (UTC)

SGGH (talk · contribs) - For me it is a privilege to nominiate SGGH for adminship. SGGH has been with us since May 2006. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles such as the Russian-Circassian War and the Mozambican War of Independence which was promoted to FA status. SGGH has made numerous contributions to the Pedia and is very active in the following areas: newpage patroller, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol and member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. He is also an active member and participant of the Military History Wikiproject and leader of the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. The thing that most impresses me about SGGH is not so much his dedication and edit count but, the way he handles himself with others. He has gone out of his way to help and encourage others by adopting new users. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. An example of how he handles himself under preasure while interacting with others can be found in the FA nomination:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mozambican War of Independence. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. SGGH is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept SGGH 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will work where ever, once I have made sure I known the protocol to the letter I will work through as many backlogs as I can cover. I will be working particularly hard in the RC patrol and new page patrol areas, utilising the admin tools to deal with vandalism and nonsense changes and new pages far quicker as well as dealing with longer term vandals with warnings, as I do now, and blocks if necessary. I will work with page protection, I will work in mediation, and answering the call on the admin notice board as much as I can, and any other areas where I find things that can be done or where my help is requested. I plan in particular to utilise the admin tools to help facilitate smoother management of the Law Enforcement wikiproject, as I foresee a greater need for such managing as the project expands.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As Tony mentioned, I am very pleased with what the CSB Mozambican War of Independence has achieved, and I hope to bring the Russian-Circassian War to the same standard, the FA review particularly has taught me new things about article writing, and I am very pleased to have learned about the technical points of article construction. I am proud of my work on the History of Women in Combat, which was my first big project, and I am also proud of how the Law Enforcement project has expanded from having only one other active user by the time I joined, to 40+ users and over 1500 articles, it's really growing strong and I am particularly pleased with its success. I am pleased with some of my smaller contributions as well, slowly working through articles for MoH recipients is rewarding work for the Military History Wikiproject which I joined not long after registering.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had one edit conflict during my time here. Shortly after taking over the Law Enforcement wikiproject I was contacted to mediate by a user who was experiencing trouble with another user who was deleting maintenance tags and removing valid edits to an article. My resulting warnings about he above resulted in a rather unpleasant back and forth with the user in question, and while I was searching for the best way to solve things I was finding it difficult to please everyone, however after the conflict past (support from other users involved greatly appreciated there!) I found afterwards that I had taken a number of lessons away from it, and have now learned to enter such conflicts with a cooler, more neutral head. So all in all I am pleased with the lessons learned from (fortunately) my only conflict with another user.
4. You say in Q1 that you plan on working on RC patrol, yet I can find only a few edits and one report to WP:AIV. Do you have any experience in vandalism detection and reversion and how would you deal with vandals? Naconkantari 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A In answer to the first part, I do revert vandalism found in the recent changes log, as well as vandalism that I happen to come across while reading articles by the by, however at the current moment in time the majority of my vandalism patrolling is new page patrolling, however I am planning inreasing my RC patrolling, though unfortunatly very recently my brower is very slow loading the list pages, forcing me to new page patrol instead, however this is a temporary issue. In answer to the second question, there are different grades of vandalism to respond to, so please bare with my long winded answer! Blatant vandalism, like replacing all the 'the's with 'sex' I would deal with the various BV templates, with the level used depending on the levels of previously existing warnings already on the talk page that were given by other users, and for perhaps first time blatant vandals i would leave an informal note suggesting that they tone it down, or take a look at a non-encyclopedic site as wiki may not be for them. For less blatant vandalisms, I would tend to either 1) leave an informal polite message asking them to take care of what content they introduce, including a list of links to manual of style etc. (this I use for first edit newbies (along with a welcome tag), first time 3RR violations and vandalisms that are genuinly accidental or easily done) or 2) a series of Test1-4 tags, again the level of the tag depending on what previous tags are present, and of course the Test1Article tags for the same, except for inappropriate page creation rather than edits, which at the moment in time forms the larger majority of my anti-vandalism activities as I do more new page checks than RC, as mentioned above.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support, as nominator Tony the Marine 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - I like your answers--SUIT양복 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Good nom and good answers. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Active wikipedian, good responses/answers, good contributions. LordHarris 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support We need people like him. Antonio Martin 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Looks like an excellent contributor and admin candidate. —Krellis (Talk) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support I have had excellent interactions with SGGH and trust that he/she will be a good administrator.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. moved from neutral, Naconkantari 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Support - but you may count it as a full support vote. Seventy ... dot ... 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Struck - This vote was placed by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. The nomination and answers show sufficient experience. YechielMan 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Impressive range of contributions and answers and past history that suggests a reliable future admin. Orderinchaos78 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. the kind of admin we need Crested Penguin 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support - Good idea's will make a great admin, experience has been acquired by that conflict with Patchbook, so it wasn't all bad, still running the Law enforcement project excellently. Overall: Let him own wikipedia, lol Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Should do great work with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support another great candidate. Sure. - Anas Talk? 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Good answer and good contributions. Rje 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support: Will use admin tools wisely. --Meno25 14:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Great answers, good contribs, no reason not to. Ganfon 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support: Excellent candidate. Has shown the ability to solve conflict and get things moving in WP:LE.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jeff503 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  20. Support: Great candidate, I look forward to seeing him help WP:LE and WP:MILHIST. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Of course. Yuser31415 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Full confidence that SGGH will make a great admin. --Aude (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Looks good, no reason not to. James086Talk 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support An all around excellent candidate with oroper answers and proper admin quality.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Change to Support -Thanks so much for responding to my concerns as you have! Kukini hablame aqui 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support I may be just a newcomer, but I believe SGGH more than deserves Adminship, not just bescause SGGH adopted me, but because of the qualities that SGGH has perfect for sysops. All the answers, contributions, etc. definitely are a great (near/future) admin's skills.The WikiWhippet   (deeds)
  28. Terence 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong support A hard working contributor. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - looks like an excellent editor who should make a fine admin. Johntex\talk 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - I've worked with Tony and if he says SGGH is admin material, SGGH is admin material. -- Jreferee 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support as I can find no valid resons for opposing. I see no evidence this editor would abuse the bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I did a thorough editor review of this user not too long ago and was very pleased with what I saw. I found absolutely nothing that would prevent me from supporting. Afterwards, s/he was eager to follow up and improve based on my suggestions. Great candidate! delldot talk 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support-Seems fine. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Michael 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support a very good editor, I've particulary appreciated his work with Mozambican War of Independence.--Aldux 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - will make a good addition. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose unless the candidate sets an e-mail address. There are many cases where an e-mail can be useful to an admin. A common one occurs in the case of issuing a block. Since the blocked party will not be able to leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page, they may attempt to address the situation through e-mail. This is impossible if the admin has not set an e-mail. Johntex\talk 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have set an email, I'll try to email myself through it now to ensure it is still working. Tony the Marine emailed me not two days ago... SGGH 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
you're right, it's stopped working. I'll fix that now, but Tony can verify that I have had it set up for ages now... weird. Thanks for pointing it out to me! SGGH 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reactivated it now, but I'm 99% sure it has been activated for ages, how else would the Marine, or User:Patchbook, have gotten my email? Odd, but again thanks for point this out! SGGH 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have heard of this happening to another user before, I think there may be a bug that shows it's head sporadically. Thanks for (re)settting the e-mail. I am now switching to Support. Johntex\talk 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Until Q4 answered. Naconkantari 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I dug back a few months in your edits to the most recent interaction I could find with a vandal. Although there may be a few others, this is the one I found [1]. I am wondering about your experience with RC patrolling. I read above about your currently slower browser as a reason for your lack of current practice in RC patrolling. Might you direct us to a time when you did more RC patrolling? What I am hoping to see is evidence of understanding of the use of notices to vandals such as "test 1" or "#{{subst:uw-test1}}". On the other hand, I note you have done great work on several articles, such as the Mozambican War of Independence and the Russian-Circassian War. Thanks, Kukini hablame aqui 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure as to whether I am allowed to answer you down here, but I should explain. The majority of my current anti-vandal work is new page patrolling and speedy deleting due to vandal pages etc, and once pages are deleted they of course don't show up in my edit history anymore. If you click here (which is hopefully the correct link for my edit history on user talk pages) you will hopefully see my vandal warnings on user talk pages, there have been a significant amount from mid january to mid february. There are others scattered around there, but due to the weird browser problems and my recent preoccupation with those two article you mentioned above, the mid-Jan to mid-Feb are the most recent batch. Also, when speedy deleting vandal pages I don't always notify the user (something I should do more of I realise, and I will in future) which is why they don't always appear on my edit count. Hope that answers your question, and I hope it's okay to answer down here! SGGH 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Just to be publicly clear, the one thing I wish we all would watch for is how well nominated users have intervened with various forms of relatively hostile users (both IP users and those who have signed in). Like I have said, you demonstrate great patience and focus as an editor. This will certainly help. I have just known a number of admins who seem to have felt relatively abused by hostile users. Regardless, I wish you the best as you move forward. Kukini hablame aqui 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I've no good reason to oppose this nomination, but I note that this user doesn't have email activated on his account. I don't care about this for a user but it gives me a bad feeling for someone who should be able to handle the problematic areas of user interaction. AKAF 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to express my own opinion on this comment. You shouldn't have a bad feeling if a user doesn't activate his e-mail on his or her account. Problematic areas should be handled within the Pedia's talk pages thereby permitting other members of the community to participate actively. This should not be a reflextion on the nominees ability to handle situations. The e-mail activation is an option. However, there have been many cases, and to site one I'll use the case of User: Alabamaboy, where some anon's have made use of his activated e-mail to personally attack and threaten him. The community cannot participate in disputes carried out in an activated e-mail. This is my opinion. Tony the Marine 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As i have stated above, my user email was activated sometime ago after conversation with Gingko100, but it seems to have packed it on it's own. I have now reactivated it, and thank the users who have pointed it out. SGGH 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I certainly wasn't opposing on that basis, and I think that an administrator has the right not to have email activated, but I'd be wary of an administrator who hadn't yet discovered that it is possible to set an email address through wikipedia. Best wishes for your RFA. AKAF 08:26, 21 March 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.