Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) |
Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) →Questions for the candidate: vigorous assessment |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:'''5.''' Please briefly explain your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, why they are important and how we deal with potential problems. I'm not looking for a really detailed response but rather something that convinces me you have enough of a clue in these areas to identify problems and know where to go to sort them - the sort of thing I'd expect from any admin rather than the more detailed knowledge I'd expect from someone working in this area. This is also the reason for a very generic question, as if I gave a specific question it would be too easy just to look up the answer to that question, so, with that in mind, feel free to answer this in any way you wish. |
:'''5.''' Please briefly explain your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, why they are important and how we deal with potential problems. I'm not looking for a really detailed response but rather something that convinces me you have enough of a clue in these areas to identify problems and know where to go to sort them - the sort of thing I'd expect from any admin rather than the more detailed knowledge I'd expect from someone working in this area. This is also the reason for a very generic question, as if I gave a specific question it would be too easy just to look up the answer to that question, so, with that in mind, feel free to answer this in any way you wish. |
||
::'''A:''' Not sure what you want here, do you mean to ask if I know what plagarism is, or if I understand public domain, free/fair-use? I brought two articles through FA, so I think I understand basic copyright policies, though I am sure my knowledge could be expanded. Quotes need to attributed, paraphrased text needs citations, images need a credible free-use/public domain license, or a fair-use rationale. Did I answer your question? [[User:GabeMc| — GabeMc]] ([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
::'''A:''' Not sure what you want here, do you mean to ask if I know what plagarism is, or if I understand public domain, free/fair-use? I brought two articles through FA, so I think I understand basic copyright policies, though I am sure my knowledge could be expanded. Quotes need to attributed, paraphrased text needs citations, images need a credible free-use/public domain license, or a fair-use rationale. Did I answer your question? [[User:GabeMc| — GabeMc]] ([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
;Additional question from [[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] |
|||
:'''6.''' Please describe how you would handle the following situations, and the specific rationales you would give if your actions were challenged, including lengths of any blocks or protections: |
|||
#You are arguing on an article talk page with a new editor, and you are discussing reliability of sources. The new editor constantly supports his argument with sources from academic websites. |
|||
#A user's first edit is to make a page with this: "John Doe is a 10th-grader living in Example, Lorem in Ipsum. He is known to be the founder of Startup ABC (assume an article exists about Startup ABC and Startup ABC is notable).(a source from the official Facebook website of that startup)" If you decide to delete, please explain how you would respond to the user's inquiry about why. |
|||
#You spot vandalism (warning: this is a trick question!) from an anonymous user, and this is the first offense. |
|||
#You are brought to ANI by a user you are involved in a content dispute with along with several other new users, after you threaten to block him for [[WP:CIR]]. His title is "GabeMc calling me, Doe, and John 'incompetant'" and his comment is "On Talk:Lorem ipsum, this administrator has threatened to block us, calling us "incompetant" (citing a diff), and saying that we cannot discuss the article, even though [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] says so. I request that he be removed from his admin position." |
|||
#You come across a ban discussion at ANI with ~20/30 in opposition/support. The discussion is 30,000 bytes long and has been going on for a week. |
|||
#You find a four-way edit war on an article, with editors A and B reverting C and D in the pattern (A and B make initial edits) (C reverts B with "no consensus" as edit summary, D reverts A with "no source") (A reverts C with "THIS IS RIGHT! I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT IT!!" in the edit summary, B reverts D with "Per (insert reliable source here)") (and so on). All editors are at 3RR and the last revert occured a few minutes ago. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
}} |
|||
;Additional question from [[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] |
|||
:'''7.''' Quantitatively describe "ad nauseum". |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
====General comments==== |
====General comments==== |
Revision as of 03:55, 28 April 2012
GabeMc
(talk page) (5/29/3); Scheduled to end 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
GabeMc (talk · contribs) – I believe I am worthy of adminship because I am fair and honest with a good eye for detail. I enjoy compromise and teamwork, and I encourage editors whenever I can. I am dedicated to improving the project, while following the five pillars. I would like to challenge myself and increase my ability to contribute by earning adminship. — GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I would be particularly helpful at ANI, and I would also like to combat vandalism and copyright infringement. I would start slow, and do more as I learn the tools, responsibilites, and protocols.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My work at The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Roger Waters and The Beatles, because I improved those article's accuracy, verifiability, and neutrality, while fighting vandalism and copyright infringement and compromising to gain consensus when disputes arose.
- 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: Of course I have, several times. When I first came to Wiki 2.5 years ago I didn't deal with it as well as I do now, or as well as I will next year. As long as I strive to maintain my civility, my neutrality, and my objectivity, I tend to succeed, and conflicts are minimized, or compromises are reached.
- Additional question from Tomtomn00
- 4. You seem not to have a CSD log, would you participate in CSD or would you hold off?
- A: I erroneously thought that was a duty of admins, so I havn't participated yet. Someone miss informed me when I first started here, and I have been under the assumption that many of the duties which I am being opposed for not doing, were in fact not my place. I have learned something already. Also, I think my talents are better used improving articles, versus arguing for hours about deletion. Would I participate? Sure, but I'm not gonna spend a week or more discussing an unsourced, poorly written, copyvio, that should just be deleted without wasting so much time. So yes and no, I am not interested in banging my head against a wall, but I would have good judgement about what should be deleted versus improved. — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Dpmuk
- 5. Please briefly explain your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, why they are important and how we deal with potential problems. I'm not looking for a really detailed response but rather something that convinces me you have enough of a clue in these areas to identify problems and know where to go to sort them - the sort of thing I'd expect from any admin rather than the more detailed knowledge I'd expect from someone working in this area. This is also the reason for a very generic question, as if I gave a specific question it would be too easy just to look up the answer to that question, so, with that in mind, feel free to answer this in any way you wish.
- A: Not sure what you want here, do you mean to ask if I know what plagarism is, or if I understand public domain, free/fair-use? I brought two articles through FA, so I think I understand basic copyright policies, though I am sure my knowledge could be expanded. Quotes need to attributed, paraphrased text needs citations, images need a credible free-use/public domain license, or a fair-use rationale. Did I answer your question? — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Jasper Deng
- 6. Please describe how you would handle the following situations, and the specific rationales you would give if your actions were challenged, including lengths of any blocks or protections:
- You are arguing on an article talk page with a new editor, and you are discussing reliability of sources. The new editor constantly supports his argument with sources from academic websites.
- A user's first edit is to make a page with this: "John Doe is a 10th-grader living in Example, Lorem in Ipsum. He is known to be the founder of Startup ABC (assume an article exists about Startup ABC and Startup ABC is notable).(a source from the official Facebook website of that startup)" If you decide to delete, please explain how you would respond to the user's inquiry about why.
- You spot vandalism (warning: this is a trick question!) from an anonymous user, and this is the first offense.
- You are brought to ANI by a user you are involved in a content dispute with along with several other new users, after you threaten to block him for WP:CIR. His title is "GabeMc calling me, Doe, and John 'incompetant'" and his comment is "On Talk:Lorem ipsum, this administrator has threatened to block us, calling us "incompetant" (citing a diff), and saying that we cannot discuss the article, even though Wikipedia:Consensus says so. I request that he be removed from his admin position."
- You come across a ban discussion at ANI with ~20/30 in opposition/support. The discussion is 30,000 bytes long and has been going on for a week.
- You find a four-way edit war on an article, with editors A and B reverting C and D in the pattern (A and B make initial edits) (C reverts B with "no consensus" as edit summary, D reverts A with "no source") (A reverts C with "THIS IS RIGHT! I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT IT!!" in the edit summary, B reverts D with "Per (insert reliable source here)") (and so on). All editors are at 3RR and the last revert occured a few minutes ago.
- A:
}}
- Additional question from Jasper Deng
- 7. Quantitatively describe "ad nauseum".
- A:
General comments
- Links for GabeMc: GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for GabeMc can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
- Comment ~ Based on my previous knowledge, and a brush-up at Wikipedia:Canvassing, I still do not see anything inappropriate about notifiying editors of this discussion. For future knowledge, can someone please explain what was wrong about what I did? — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- When you select certain users to notify, the reasonable appearance is your selecting certain users that you've had positive interactions with. Users that may be predisposed to support. This has the potential to skew the support/oppose percentages by bulking up the supports higher than it would be in the natural course of events. It falls under the subheading "Votestacking". That may not have been your intention, but that's why canvased nominations have received significant opposition as far back as I've followed them.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explaination, I assure you I wasn't notifiying only people that would vote support, I intened to go down the list of editors who have recently responded to canvassing, since I have at other times canvassed 100 people to get 10 comments. If you look at my record you will see that I notify editors that have already made it clear they disagree with me, knowing full-well they will not support, until a consensus has been reached (Steelbeard1, Hot Stop). When I began the canvass, I thought that as long as its wording was neutral, it would be fine, then I realized that an AfD might follow different protocol than straw polls, so I stopped, after a grand total of six notifications. — GabeMc (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- When you select certain users to notify, the reasonable appearance is your selecting certain users that you've had positive interactions with. Users that may be predisposed to support. This has the potential to skew the support/oppose percentages by bulking up the supports higher than it would be in the natural course of events. It falls under the subheading "Votestacking". That may not have been your intention, but that's why canvased nominations have received significant opposition as far back as I've followed them.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
See here, here and here when I canvassed users known to oppose my suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment ~ I apologize for the "minor editor/ip" remark, it came off as tyrannical I am sure, a poor choice of words perhaps. But I also seriously doubt that the editors who opposed based on that comment have not experienced some random ip that drains hours and hours away from your editing time being difficult and sometimes trolling, thus hurting the project. I only meant it as in many ips or newer editors I have encountered will not listen to anyone but an admin, just my experience. As far as admins using their power to dominate content, if I hadn't myself experienced this, I would tend to agree, but as it is, it happens, regularly, I have been threatened with rollback despite the fact that I have never vandalised anything, and clearly on Wiki, admins do indeed sometimes dominate content when "newer editors" disagree, I've dealt with this issue personally. — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC) All I really meant was I don't see the point of beating my head against a wall for every difficult user when I know that if it comes down to it, and it almost always does, I would just have to run for help from an admin anyway. You see few editors will defer to anyone but an admin, so to spend time fighting the good fight when someone else will untimately have to decide, seems pointless to me, but perhaps I am missing something. — GabeMc (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, continue to badger the opposers, that'll win you fans. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I thought this was an open debate. Am I supposed to not address the opposers per a wiki policy? I've never heard that before. Am I only supposed to comment here, and not in the vote sections? Is that what you are saying? — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a debate, it is a discussion about a candidate. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 02:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the link you gave me says: "Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion", ans, as you said "this is a discussion about a candidate", however, being a discussion does not make it mutually exclusive to a debate, according to the link you provided me. I asked for the wiki policy on "badgering", afterall, if I can't find it, and you can't find it, then how can you blame me for not knowing it? Its an honest question. — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a debate, it is a discussion about a candidate. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 02:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I thought this was an open debate. Am I supposed to not address the opposers per a wiki policy? I've never heard that before. Am I only supposed to comment here, and not in the vote sections? Is that what you are saying? — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment ~ Havn't you ever come across an editor who, for a lack of a better phrase just does not get it? And they have like 15 content edits to their credit, yet you have to spend hours and hours arguing for what is clearly verifiable in the highest quality sources, yet they somehow "know" the truth? That's really all I meant, "minor editors" was a bad choice of words. The truth is, some people improve the project, but some hinder it, by tying up experienced editors in edit wars and content disputes ad nauseum, whilst totally diregarding the reliable sources. You people need to wake up, because this is a contributing factor in experienced editor loss, trust me, I have been close myself at times, hence this self-nom. I'll bet few content editors make it past 10,000 edits, am I right? Editing is down huh, well I've seen several veteran editors retire or semi-retire, or become virtually dormant in the 2.5 years. More and more we are dealing with people who do not source, who introduce errors, who stall improvements, who vandalise etcetera. So don't tell me that in 8,500 edits over 2.5 years I havn't dealt with vandals enough. Empower trusted content editors with the ability to say, "look you need to stop debating this until you earn consensus, period", and you will improve editor retention. — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Adminship does not "empower" editors. Any experienced editor can say that, not just admins. Fundamentally, we are trying to help gain new users, and not so much retain old ones. I also fail to see how "slapping" new users for things like this would retain old editors, especially since retirements purely from content disputes are extremely rare. With that said, no matter what policy says, the community's impression of you is the #1-most important factor when running for adminship, and you don't help that by badgering.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please then, guide me to the Wiki policy so that I can understand what not to do? — GabeMc (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jimbo said "Adminship is no big deal", so we sorta lean toward did. WP:ADMIN documents the intentions of admins (read the WP:INVOLVED section in particular). But not everything is policy here; I also expected that you know that long before doing an RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, nothing on "badgering" opposes, why is it so hard to find if its an accepted wrong? I did find: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." And I know its not all policy, but the policy I quoted above supports my case for adminship completely. — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, no it doesn't. How will we know that you aren't going to block someone just for presenting a legitimate view on a content dispute you're involved in? And, there's no policy saying what bureaucrats can accept/reject, and much is based on social norms - one of which is "no badgering". People supported you because you would listen to others, but I feel that you aren't living up to that by saying "if it's not policy I don't have to follow it".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, nothing on "badgering" opposes, why is it so hard to find if its an accepted wrong? I did find: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." And I know its not all policy, but the policy I quoted above supports my case for adminship completely. — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jimbo said "Adminship is no big deal", so we sorta lean toward did. WP:ADMIN documents the intentions of admins (read the WP:INVOLVED section in particular). But not everything is policy here; I also expected that you know that long before doing an RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please then, guide me to the Wiki policy so that I can understand what not to do? — GabeMc (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
Support
- RfA is a strange place sometimes. Help get two articles to Featured Article status, and get told to come back when you've got a DYK. Fail to remove the <!-- --> around the RfA time stamp and get opposed for it by someone who fails to remove the <!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> as they oppose. Sometimes I really wonder about this place... 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I thought so. — GabeMc (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Excirial below puts it better than I could. You don't deserve the trivial opposes, but I do think some work has to be done to address the concerns of the legitimate opposes. 28bytes (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I thought so. — GabeMc (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good content work, mature attitude, level headed. Would be a net positive as an admin, given areas candidate intends to work in. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Supportbecause i feel like it, since that is apparently as good a reason as any these days. Editors have put in their share of work and have been around 2+ years deserve better then having an RFA shot down with a 10 second, 4 word comment over a minor mistake creating an RFA. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- I believe that editors who do good work or try to do so should be treated with a measure of decency, rather then having to deal with nonconstructive comments and nitpicking reasoning which doesn't do justice to their efforts and time spend at improving Wikipedia, thus leading me to support in order to counteract the more senseless opposes. However, the "minor editors" statement in the lower section would go straight against my believe of decent treatment, so i cannot offer my support in good faith. The admin tools do not give the editors opinion any more validity and stature, and they are specifically not to be used in situations were one is involved in. GabeMc, i really don´t think you are a bad editor and i see you´re doing great content creation work, but right now i cannot see you handle the admin tools with sufficient care. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support - can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support Petrb (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support - As others have said, there's no grossly inappropriate behaviour on Gabe's part that would lead me to an oppose. I've been working with Gabe off and on for a little over a year, and he's always shown restraint and respect for consensus and guidelines during heated debates. I'm confident he can handle it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- In addition, I don't see how the so-called "canvassing" should be an issue. If we can ask people to nominate us for admin-ship, what's wrong with leaving a neutral message alerting them to something in which they might genuinely have an interest? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Moral Support as it appears this RFA is headed south. A general problem with saying "This candidate has no experience in Administrator-related matters" is that it's hard to participate in Administrator-related matters when you don't have the same tools as an Administrator! Lord knows if people had brought this up strongly at my own RFA I would have been SOL, because I really didn't have any experience except for some vandal-fighting. I made a pretty weak argument that being able to delete pages was useful, so I guess that appeased enough voters, but I was mainly a content contributor: I really didn't have any pressing need for the tools. Yet now I find myself regularly clearing backlogs, weighing in at WP:ANI, and responding to WP:AIV reports. I really didn't have any interest in these things before I was able to participate there, and I had no way of knowing if I would even want to participate in those activities, until I actually tried them out. In my humble opinion, this user has absolutely no history of bad interactions with other users, bad faith contributions, or any activities that are detrimental to Wikipedia. He responds well to criticsm (in my opinion, the most important quality for a candidate can have), and has shown exemplary consensus-building skills. TLDR: The only thing that should count against potential admins are untrustworthiness, uncooperativeness or incompetence, and I see no evidence of any of these in this candidate. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- RfA wasn't transcluded properly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if it happened due to a mistake? Yasht101 03:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was called away from my computer, its fine now isn't it? — GabeMc (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but transcluding with the error intact plus putting it on the bottom (there's a note that says new rfas go on top) raises a red flag for me. I'll look over edits and may reconsider. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was called away from my computer, its fine now isn't it? — GabeMc (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if it happened due to a mistake? Yasht101 03:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- To help at ANI, I don't think that admin rights are needed. I see that your work has mainly focused to user talk pages and articles lately. You have got a good amount article space edits which is a great thing. Not many are good at it. But the problem is that I don't see you fighting vandalism or doing any work in which admins can specifically contribute in your last 1000 edits. Not doing work in places where admin tools can be useful (CSDs, AfDs, anti-vandal, etc.,) is my concern. Sorry, but have to oppose. If you show improvement by working in those areas mentioned, then I'd love to support in your next RfA. Sorry for now. Yasht101 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- In general, I support admins if they have both or either extensive content work and vandal-fighting experience, and I feel that you have neither. Trust me, ANI is a place you don't want to work in. It causes huge amounts of stress. I'd say for you to
do at least a DYK or two and perhaps a few more articles (especially full biographies instead of discographies or other "list-like" articles), and for you towork in places like CSD and recent changes patrolling.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- To clarify, the primary articles I have worked on are not lists or discographies — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- He has two featured articles, and you ask for a DYK? →Στc. 07:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Name them. He obviously didn't create them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I already linked to them above. Or you could click the little gold stars on his userpage. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I saw them. Those are quite good achievements that may be useful in assessing who's right and wrong in a content dispute. That said, though, it'll be nice for the user to keep this up. But knowing CSD and AIV (at least what they are) is important. 6 months isn't that long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I already linked to them above. Or you could click the little gold stars on his userpage. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Name them. He obviously didn't create them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You haven't made a single edit to AIV, UAA, SPI, etc. I don't really see where the admin tools can be useful for you, and as Jasper said, ANI is a place you should probably stay away from if you can. Maybe try to work on some of the less drama-y areas where admins do, like AIV/UAA, reverting vandalism, CSD, NPP, etc. and come back in 6 months or so. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 03:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I have dispute resolution skills that could benefit the project, yet it sounds like you and Jasper are saying, "stay away from ANI, its trouble". Well, then don't we need help there? I don't see the point of wasting time and effort at ANI if I am not an admin, or am I missing something here? — GabeMc (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per your actions regarding The Beatles, specifically striking another's comments twice [1] [2] shows poor form, as does unstriking someone else's that they struck. Hot Stop 06:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's exactly my point Hot Stop. Those were redundant votes that an admin could strike for clarity, and the comment I took the strikes off was so that readers could see that the idea for a solution came from Pesky, and there was no need to strike her perfectly relevant comment in order to change her vote. Just like your improper formatting above, I could have corrected it if I was an admin. — GabeMc (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, I didn't mind Gabe striking my listing of support in one of the straw polls, once it had become redundant and had the potential to interfere with anyone quickly scanning through the talk page to gauge support vs. opposition. I don't know how against-policy it is, and haven't done the reading on that yet, but that's my two-cents. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's exactly my point Hot Stop. Those were redundant votes that an admin could strike for clarity, and the comment I took the strikes off was so that readers could see that the idea for a solution came from Pesky, and there was no need to strike her perfectly relevant comment in order to change her vote. Just like your improper formatting above, I could have corrected it if I was an admin. — GabeMc (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, because of the canvassing issue. Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Opposefor lack of need and a concern re. why the tools are being requested. You need familiarity with the areas in which the tools are used before asking for the tools - you seem to have none (no AIV, CSD, etc.) The tools are there to, amongst others, protect pages, block vandals and delete pages. Your comments imply that rather than wanting to do these things you are seeking the "status" of an administrator so that you can do things that are you think are reserved to people called administrators (e.g., your comment on not seeing the point of working at ANI if you aren't an administrator). Being an administrator does not confer status in this way. QU TalkQu 08:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- Moved to Strong Oppose for "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus" and "and have some actual authority over a new ip that tells me to keep the unsourced graph he wrote" which says you want the admin tools so you can exercise control over content to keep it the way you want it. This is not what the tools are for. QU TalkQu 13:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose Candidate's content work is sound; 8000+ edits, and 70% of those to article-space is a good start. I just don't think the candidate's familiarity in the core admin areas is sufficient. Also, the responses to the canvasing issue in the neutral section highlight a lack of familiarity with processes and WP:PAG. Pol430 talk to me 09:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, with regret. Clearly a good contributor, and I'm seeing good interactive skills and an aptitude for helping resolve discussions. But I don't really see enough experience in the specific areas in which the admin tools are used. For someone to be given access to tools for blocking, deleting, protecting, I'd really need to see some involvement in reporting issues to AIV, UAA, RFPP, SPI, taking part in AfD discussions, etc. In Q1, the candidate says "I would start slow, and do more as I learn the tools, responsibilites, and protocols", and such caution is admirable. But with the handing over of the tools being pretty much irreversible, I'd really need to see evidence that a lot of learning of responsibilities and protocols had already been done. If I were to see some contributions to the admin areas I mentioned, then I could well support a new run a few months down the line. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not so much opposing as trying to move this on toward what is probably the inevitable resolution. You say below, "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus, or MoS". To my ear, the "minor editor" bit implies a certain disdain for people who sometimes don't want to abide by consensus or edit per MoS ... which is everyone. It could be you're just stressed because you're getting some resistance during an RFA ... anyone would be ... but maybe the most important duty of admins is to learn how not to say anything that might make things worse when they're stressed. "I never really saw the point of doing those things before, as I thought those duties were for admins" almost sounds like you want to skip the whole learning phase and move right on to the banhammer phase. You're a good editor who's put a lot of time and love into the project, and I'll be happy to look at a future RFA with fresh eyes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dank, all I meant was, sometimes a user will come along who just does not get it, and can't seem to understand the basic need for sourcing, or discussion, or even know what consensus or copyvio are. Sometimes these "newer" or less experienced editors have cost me several hours at a time when I should have been improving articles. My point was that these editors can be disruptive and can drain valuable resources from the project. Ultimately, these issues require an admin, and several more hours of "head-banging", that's all I meant. (A big cause of editor loss IMO) I didn't mean to express disdain for people "who sometimes don't want to abide by consensus or edit per MoS", I only meant I am getting burnt out fighting them for hour after hour only to require an admin to sort it out. My words were poorly chosen, minor implies lesser, when I really meant "green", but now they are being misread. What happened to Good-Faith, I received an oppose because I expressed concern about another user's intentions, so should you now also have a demerit, for doubting my good-faith with no diffs to support your concern? — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Canvasing. More than the actual effect of the canvasing is a lack of understanding of how such canvasing would be viewed. If you're going to have the tools you need to be in tune with the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - you've kept your nose clean, and it looks like you're doing good work, but there seems to be a real lack of Admin Area experience. Aside from this RFA, and content-related areas (like FAC) I see a number that is effectively 0 for edits in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces in the last two years. I don't feel that we should only give the tools to those who "need" them, but the WP and WT namespaces are places where the conversation generally revolve around policy, and that makes it easier for us to know how you'd act as an admin. Achowat (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose — canvassing, badgering of opposes, and recent remarks about how he will (mis)use the tools. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Now a strong oppose, canvassing and likely misuse of tools aside, the constant badgering of other opposers leaves a really sour taste. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)- I must also Oppose due to the remark regarding IPs and other concerns above. Sorry. Calabe1992 14:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The canvassing issue isn't great, and hints at a lack of understanding of what the community would deem appropriate behaviour. More than that though, the remark about "minor editors" just does not sit that comfortably with me. --sparkl!sm hey! 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose - nothing on his user page, no admin-style work yet. Try again in six months' time. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Little activity in admin-related areas. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have to strongly oppose this RFA because Gabe wants the tools to boss other editors around. I would have supported otherwise, but that is entirely too much. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per QuiteUnusual and after seeing this where the user said they do not consider editors discussing an article to have good faith. Good faith is the idea that someone wants to improve the encyclopedia. If the candidate thinks those two editors are intending to hurt the encyclopedia on purpose then the topic should be brought up at a relevant noticeboard. Disagreement is not the same as intending to hurt the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per comments on "minor editors," IPs, and other issues expressed by others above. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, blanking the talk page and not providing any adequate possibility to check what you have written is a no go, moreover having made ~30% of all edits at one article ([3]), not opting monthly stats in; no CSD log, no edits in the file/file talk space and only one upload at enwp (but wanting to work with/against copyvios), the only WP/WT edit I saw (back to 2010) were at PR and FA related pages. So why do you need that rights? mabdul 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - per Mabdul and the fact the user does not have edits spread across different namespaces (user has 7/8). Thanks, Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose To make someone into an admin when they have virtually no experience of admin-related work would be absurd. However, what is worse is the fact that, from comments on this page, it seems that GabeMc cannot see why that is a problem. Add to that comments which suggest that GabeMc wishes to use adminship for dubious purposes E.g. "have some actual authority over a new ip" and "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor". Adminship is not a tool to give you "authority" over other editors who do things you dislike, nor to avoid having to discuss things with people you disagree with, and nobody who thinks they are should be let loose on the admin tools. Also "a new ip" and "minor editor" suggest a contemptuous attitude towards some classes of editors, and a belief taht some editors deserve less respect than others. And all this in this RfA page, suggesting that the editor has no idea that these things are contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Keepscases (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care about the lack of DYKs or the transclusion error, but I'm concerned by a combination of a few other factors. As noted above, you're almost entirely without contributions to WP: space pages, except content-related pages (e.g. FA/GA/peer review); while that's good, it would help if you'd participated more in trying to get pages deleted and/or trying to save them from being deleted, as well as working to help or to stop other users in community pages, whether AFD or RD or VP or AIV. That by itself isn't a sufficient reason to oppose, but it is when combined with other issues. Almost all of your deleted edits are to another user's sandbox, which shows that you've either done almost nothing with speedy deletion or that your work with speedy deletion hasn't been correct. Moreover, what I guess your opinion of adminship to be ("earning adminship" and authority over IPs) is problematic, and I'm also troubled by the many disputes that appear at your more recent talk archive. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hot Stop.PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no need for the tools. As far as I can see, you have little experience in admin zones such as anti-vandal work etc. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose While blanking one's own talk page is allowed, I've always found it to be a bad indicator among those who do it repeatedly. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- An arbitrary opinion not valid as an oppose rationale as Wiki policy allows for blanking. — GabeMc (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the impression it gives to other editors is one of "sweeping it under the rug" instead of dealing with it. Archiving is greatly preferred.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- An opinion, not reinforced by Wiki policy. Anyone who reads the diffs will see what was "dealt" with and what wasn't. If this is a good enough reason to oppose then editors should be advised agaisnt doing it for that reason before it become a factor after its too late to correct. BTW, an admin was the one who told me that blanking was perfectly okay, when I questioned his blanking of his own talk page. So how was I to know? Anyway, like I said, it really shouldn't be used against me when WP:BLANKING says, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Therefore, your opinion is not a valid rationale for oppose, IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gabe, people can oppose you for whatever criteria they want. Repeatedly claiming that their opinion is invalid is unlikely to get you nearer to a successful RFA, and it borders on badgering. In fact, (take this with my advice for your next RFA below), unless an opposition asks you a direct question, its best just to not respond at all. When you respond, all you do is cause people to wish to oppose you stronger. Its a lose-lose. Let it go. --Jayron32 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Jayron. There is no requirement that opposes are based in policy or even logic. As to "how was I to know?", well, an admin is supposed to know, and they find out when they are preparing to become an admin, if you didn't already know. Being confrontational about it isn't helping your case, and makes me wonder how you would react in a real heated dispute with all those tools in your hands. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 02:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gabe, people can oppose you for whatever criteria they want. Repeatedly claiming that their opinion is invalid is unlikely to get you nearer to a successful RFA, and it borders on badgering. In fact, (take this with my advice for your next RFA below), unless an opposition asks you a direct question, its best just to not respond at all. When you respond, all you do is cause people to wish to oppose you stronger. Its a lose-lose. Let it go. --Jayron32 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- An opinion, not reinforced by Wiki policy. Anyone who reads the diffs will see what was "dealt" with and what wasn't. If this is a good enough reason to oppose then editors should be advised agaisnt doing it for that reason before it become a factor after its too late to correct. BTW, an admin was the one who told me that blanking was perfectly okay, when I questioned his blanking of his own talk page. So how was I to know? Anyway, like I said, it really shouldn't be used against me when WP:BLANKING says, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Therefore, your opinion is not a valid rationale for oppose, IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the impression it gives to other editors is one of "sweeping it under the rug" instead of dealing with it. Archiving is greatly preferred.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- An arbitrary opinion not valid as an oppose rationale as Wiki policy allows for blanking. — GabeMc (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The editor's content contributions are good, and I have no other substantive objections to what they have done so far at Wikipedia, but it is what they haven't done that raises some concerns. There is a lack of experience in working in any of the areas that administrators work in. As noted above, ANI is a suckhole that is less than worthless, and if that is where you think you are needed, then you aren't needed. Get some experience in nominating articles for speedy deletion, in warning vandals and reporting them at AIV and UAA, and especially in dispute resolution processes. Learning how to assess conflict situations and diffuse tensions is a good skill for admins. Take all this as advice, and if you get some serious experience in doing administrator-like tasks before you get the tools, you'll be ready to use the tools in a few months. Just not ready yet. --Jayron32 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral, as I don't feel qualified to decide. I have been invited to a few votes and discussions (mainly over The Beatles) which seem to have been resolved sensibly, but that's about it. And my time commitments are currently such that I can't spend ages researching. --Matt Westwood 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I generally would like to see admin candidates have some experience in the areas they profess an interest in working, and I don't see that here. While I have no basis for thinking the candidate is anything but a good faith contributor, and thus wont oppose, I just don't see much of any experience in quasi-administrative areas. Also, whats with the notifications on user talk pages regarding this RFA? Monty845 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral I'd suggest getting into the 'admin' areas mentioned, plus get experience in CSD and AfD. In the admin areas, you can contribute, and !vote in discussions; it's just the actual action at the end that's admin only (in most cases). Get into a wider range of articles than I've seen so far. You seen to concentrate on one thing for some time - spread out instead if you want the mop. I'm not decrying your editing. I just can't see how getting the admin tools would help you at the moment. I might have missed things in the middle area of your contribs - if you have been involved with AfD or CSD etc, let us know. Peridon (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong content candidate hampered by other issues. Try again after you get more experience working in the more admin-ny areas. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)I don't see any particular issues here that would cause me to oppose, but as previously stated, you have little or no experience in administrative areas such as AIV, UAA, SPI, and similar. So I don't see that the tools would truly assist you much either. With that in mind, neutral for now.Calabe1992 04:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)- I never really saw the point of doing those things before, as I thought those duties were for admins. I think someone told me that, IDK. But I don't see the point of going toe to toe with someone over something that will eventually require an admin anyway, so I just don't bother. If I were an admin, I could edit more effectively, and have some actual authority over a new ip that tells me to keep the unsourced graph he wrote. — GabeMc (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- A Medical student has to do internship before becoming certified doctor. If he doesn't do it, he won't get experience and would become a very bad doctor and may result in death of patients or would increase the pain of patients from which they are already suffering. So, no one will support a person who has not done internship to become a doc.
- I hope that you can understand my point. Yasht101 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand you, but do you understand that I have over 8,500 edits to my credit and I brought one article to FA with virtually no help, another with some great help, but I was still the primary writer/editor of the article? I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus, or MoS. — GabeMc (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)