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

GeneralizationsAreBad[edit]

Final (64/33/7); ended 17:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Jonas Vinther[edit]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk · contribs) – With great enthusiasm, I hereby nominate GeneralizationsAreBad for administrative privileges. He made his first edit to Wikipedia on 11 February 2015. Since then just about a year has passed. In that time, he has been significantly involved in the GA-promotion of four articles and made thousands of appreciated edits. During our collaboration on Operation Barbarossa, he demonstrated his expert knowledge on the subject and willingness to work with other users. During the extensive GA-review of the Battle of Kursk, he was the first man on the scene when there was a problem with a source or a confusing sentence. Full of ideas and suggestions for improvement. The same efficiency and kindness came to light during the improvements of Ideology of the SS and No Gun Ri Massacre. All of the mentioned articles are currently of GA-status. Besides promoting major articles, he also plays a daily role in fighting vandalism, personal attacks, incivility, and copyvios on Wikipedia. His edits have not gone by unnoticed: he has been awarded a total of seventeen Barnstars and two Million Awards, all of which is displayed at his userpage. Instead of taking offense at personal attacks, he has collected the "best" insults and made a hilarious subsection on his userpage to spread some laughs. One editor even regretted that "people aren't creative enough" when insulting him and called it "the funniest thing on Wikipedia". This shows his level of maturity and self-irony. He already has pending changes reviewer and rollback rights. In short, he has lots of experience in basic admin-related areas and there has never been any red flags concerning his contributions. Peace! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 09:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Diannaa[edit]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, I present for your consideration admin candidate GeneralizationsAreBad. He and I share a common interest in improving our World War II articles, and he was a member of the team that brought Battle of Kursk to GA status. I can tell you from my experiences on the article that this is no small accomplishment! The talk page archives are full of battles. He was also among those who brought Operation Barbarossa to GA status. This page gets over a million views a year, and Kursk about half a million. There's other GAs as well. In addition to this important content work, GAB has been involved in new page patrol, vandalism control, and welcoming new users via Twinkle. He's also done extensive work at SPI, with work on over 30 reported cases. His polite and thoughtful approach to editing shows he has the right temperament for adminship. I think GAB would be a good addition to the admin corps. — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I accept the nomination. I have always been an avid and curious reader, and I am a lifetime learner who seeks to delve into a broad spectrum of intellectual interests, from neuroscience to diplomacy. I edited as an IP for a year, starting in 2014, before I elected to start an account and delve in further. During that time as an IP, I had a keen interest in Wikipedia policy and procedure; out of pure interest, I examined disputes such as the Blablaaa dispute, the Arbcom Gamergate controversy, debate on the Battle of Berlin page, and a number of others. Through this, I gained knowledge of the basic rules of the site. Furthermore, as I understood the high traffic of Wikipedia around the globe, I became deeply committed to ensuring the worldwide availability of credible, well-vetted information. When I registered, I began editing in the subject areas I knew and loved, especially military history. Since then, Wikipedia's database access privileges have further helped me to research and write content on a vast variety of matters. By countering vandalism and those who seek to use Wikipedia as a billboard or soapbox, I hope to do my bit to maintain Wikipedia's high level of quality. Finally, I will change my signature if requested. I would like to thank Jonas Vinther and Diannaa for their very kind and generous nomination, and I would also like to thank the many devoted Wikipedians who make this site work. As a side note, I do have an alternate account, GeneralizationsAreGood, but this is solely for preventing impersonation; it has never been used, and it never will be. GABHello! 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you, GABHello! 17:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 aim to do my part in helping to reduce bureaucratic backlog on Wikipedia, specifically handling AIV reports, protecting pages upon request at RFPP, and reviewing username reports at UAA. Due to my involvement on SPI cases, I would also seek to review cases there, which goes along well with my recent request to become a trainee SPI clerk. Working at ANEW is another distinct and interesting possibility that I am considering. Since I am somewhat averse to drama, I aim to steer clear of venues such as ANI and AE, which are important but I feel can be real time-sinks. Due to my experience in RC patrolling, administrative tools would enable me to handle vandals much faster than currently, as I may find myself reverting vandalism continually and waiting for admin intervention. Since I have dealt with a number of abusive socks, the rev'del tool would certainly prove very handy for this task.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have made a point of testing the waters in a number of different areas on Wikipedia, such as article-space, patrolling, and reporting (AIV, SPI, RFPP), in order to find my best aptitudes. As mentioned above, I have assisted in improving/nominating a number of articles for GA status, including No Gun Ri Massacre, Battle of Kursk, Operation Barbarossa, and Ideology of the SS. The Kursk and Barbarossa articles, in particular, got between a half-million and a million yearly views each. This took some substantial copy-editing and research, both of which I have a real passion for. (I also helped to get Kursk to DYK.) Through dedicated patrolling, I have reverted malicious activity and gotten many vandalism-only accounts blocked; a full AIV/UAA log is here, while my CSD work has helped to cull out much spam and hoax articles. Furthermore, my SPI involvement has helped curb the disruption of sockpuppeteers. A couple of cases in particular are the Catsmeow8989 and Leugen9001 cases, both of which I opened; these prevented POV-pushers (on Tea Party movement and Censorship in China) from gaming the system and slanting content in their favor. I have also dealt with long-term abusers such as Soft skin, Europefan, and Link Smurf, and admin tools would further assist my efforts against these (and other) LTAs.
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: The major conflict I have been involved in is the No Gun Ri Massacre case. This was a dispute between Cjhanley and WeldNeck that went on for years on end, and even led to an Arbitration request that ended with WeldNeck being blocked as a TDC sock. Having read through the talk page archives to gain a deeper understanding of the dispute, I sought to reach a sustainable compromise that would satisfy all involved and meet the rigor of Wikipedia policies. I also did substantial research on No Gun Ri, aggregating hundreds of pages of documents and reading through much secondary literature. Immersing myself in the background of the historical event helped ground my perspective and avoid making hasty, knee-jerk judgments about how the article ought to be. Along with Timothyjosephwood, Irondome, Wikimedes, and others, I helped to mediate edit proposals from both parties and work towards improving the article. This did make some notable progress and calmed the situation down from the previous disputes at ANI, COIN, and the like. When I am engaged in a dispute, I typically try my best to be polite, and I am always happy to drop the stick and move on to a more productive venue. Before I hit "Save page" with my latest comment, I take a deep breath, re-read it a couple of times, and ensure that it is as measured and constructive as possible. I understand that even if I believe myself to be right, it does no good to antagonize others. I am also willing and able to acknowledge mistakes that I make; I am fully cognizant that I am an imperfect human being, but can still strive to improve my behavior, skills, and knowledge. I believe that my record (a clean block log, no sanctions) reflects the success of my non-confrontational approach to editing.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Chris troutman
4. About 42% of your edits are semi-automated, mostly counter-vandalism thanks to Twinkle. How would you answer charges that these edits are less legitimate contributions than your article improvement work? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: Very good question. For every editor who puts hours of research and work into writing valuable content, we will always need other editors devoted to protecting that content for future use. Sneaky vandalism is a real problem, and nipping it in the bud is a significant role that patrollers like me have responsibility for. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia when, for instance, an unsourced claim about Jeb Bush's alleged rock-climbing skills from an IP stays online for a whopping 3.5 years. In this case, semi-automated editing is a convenient and logical solution to handling a huge volume of edits from IPs and new editors. Second of all, I use semi-automated tools for many other functions, as well. For instance, RFPP, AIV, UAA, requesting speedy deletion, and SPI are all important tasks requiring timeliness that can be made more efficient through using them. And SPI requests, which I file via Twinkle, require serious thought and research into editors' histories to be truly successful and helpful. All in all, Wikipedia needs editors to create quality content and/or defend said content against destructive vandals, and I am pleased to say I have played a role in both areas through the help of semi-automated tools. GABHello! 02:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Winterysteppe
5. What is Eventualism to you? What will be your legacy to Wikipedia? Winterysteppe (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Brianhe
6. You say at the FAQ on your userpage that you are a regular at WP:SPI. Could you provide one or two examples of your best work there, and comment on how having admin rights could improve your contributions, if you think it would? Brianhe (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: Gladly. I mentioned two very significant cases (Leugen9001 and Catsmeow8989) above, but I have had other notable successes. In the VJ Rathod case, for instance, I managed to uncover two separate promotional-editing groups, with a total of 8 socks confirmed. They had been working on various articles that were up for AFD, removing the tags and attempting to delay deletion. Another good example of my sock-hunting is the Carmine dryer case, which involved disruptive POV editing on organized crime-related articles. It was opened by another editor. When the checkuser request initially stalled, I provided diffs, leading to Vanjagenije's endorsement and request. Afterwards, I continued examining the articles' histories for any suspicious accounts, and I was able to find several more. Having notified Bbb23, they were all confirmed.
With admin rights, I would be able to cut into the very large backlog that sometimes develops on SPI; this would involve independently reviewing cases and evidence, and patrolling CU-completed cases to block and tag suspected socks on request from checkusers and clerks. I could also help to keep the conversation civil and appropriate, which is a concern that sometimes develops in especially contentious cases. I believe this would be a substantial benefit to the SPI division as a whole, due to my interest and commitment in pursuing sockpuppets. Tools would be very helpful, indeed. GABHello! 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Gerda
7. Forgive me a general question: what do you think of ((user talk before you block))? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Oshwah
8. GAB, I like you a lot man. You're definitely an awesome person to bump into and exchange messages with. I've see you around Wikipedia every day I'm on; you're definitely active and your contributions are valuable. I was, however, quite surprised when I pulled your AFD statistics - you've only participated in three AFDs. I typically expect candidates to have a good AFD record, and at least be somewhat active there, and for many reasons. Do you mind addressing my concerns and talking about this a little bit? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from SSTflyer
9. You see these usernames at UAA. What would you do?
A: Here is how I would respond:
  • MelanieC: This is not a blatant violation of the username policy, and so I would take no action on it. I would, however, probably give a friendly note to the reporter, asking them to review the UAA procedures and policies to make sure they report the right people in the future.
  • Du Fu: This is also not a blatant violation, either. While I could imagine how it might be perceived this way, Du Fu was a great 8th century Chinese poet, and so there is a wholly plausible reason for selecting this username. I would take no action, and would consider dropping a line to the reporter on distinguishing abusive names from legitimate ones.
  • RoyalJordanian: This is one of those borderline cases where you need to investigate further to decide on a course of action. I would look at their contributions: are they claiming to be a member of the Jordanian royal family? Are they editing in the subject area with a definite POV? If so, I might inform them of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. If not, then I would take no action on this one.
  • Putin must die: Obviously a blatant violation; I would block the user and thank the reporter.
  • 619 737 131 179: This is a misleading username in that it resembles an IP address. I would request them to change their name; if they refused, then I would be forced to block.
  • JamesAtUKIP: This name would certainly suggest a conflict of interest. I would not block immediately, because according to WP:ISU, "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person." This falls under that category. Regardless, I would also look at their recent contributions; if they made edits in the subject area of British politics, then I would notify them of the guidelines for handling a possible conflict of interest.
  • Master of Sockpuppets: Another instance where you need to take a look at the background before deciding. If their behavior indicates an unusual interest in certain venues atypical of new users (first edit is to edit-war, post to ANI, etc.) then I would open a sockpuppet investigation with the most likely master, using the page histories to compare edits and find a suspect. If their behavior appeared disruptive, then I would block them either as a vandalism-only account or as a disruptive username ("clear intent to disturb Wikipedia"). If their username appeared to be a joke or an unfortunate coincidence, then I might advise them to choose a new name, lest they fall under undue suspicion from other users.
Thank you for your question! GABHello! 21:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ritchie333
10. An IP wanders on to Prisons in North Korea and removes a bunch of links from the "External links" section. An established editor with 50,000 edits quickly reverts. Neither edit has an edit summary. The IP takes the links out again, with the summary "irrelevant". The established editor reverts with a summary "Jesus H Christ, not another POV warrior on this, please go and attack another article". The IP re-reverts with a summary "rv pointless antagonism by braindead moron who has obviously drunk the kim il sung kool aid far too much". As an administrator, you stumble on the history - what do you do?
A: Neither editor's behavior has been optimal, to be sure. I would notify each editor to please cease the constant reverts or risk breaching 3RR; preventing a continuing edit-war (and more disruption on the page) is a main priority. Discussion on the talk page seems unlikely, but I would request that each initiate discussion there, nonetheless. To the 50k+ editor, I would remind him to assume good faith with IPs, who may not understand the necessity of edit summaries and the prohibition on edit-warring. They should know better than to provoke another editor, particularly when the edit in question was not necessarily vandalism. The "POV warrior" summary clearly angered the IP in the first place, leading to the IP's extreme language in reaction. Nonetheless, I would also warn the IP of Wikipedia policies for edit-warring, edit-summaries, and personal attacks; being provoked is hardly an excuse for that unacceptable retaliation. I would then watchlist and monitor the talk page to see if they decided to engage one another constructively, which they hopefully would. If a combatant resumed the poor behavior in question (insults, reverts), I would give them a final warning; if they persisted still, then I would have to block. I would have exhausted my options, and blocks should not be a first line of response, save for blatant trolls, vandals, and particularly sensitive areas covered by D/S. GABHello! 22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Wbm1058
11. Why are generalizations bad?
A: Thanks for asking! There is a real reason for why I chose my username. While I am not averse to the occasional generalization (they make description easier, after all), I believe that generalizations about people can easily anger them and needlessly polarize interactions. A statement along the lines of "all [x] are [y]" can be a real recipe for trouble; just substitute a group (religious, ethnic, national) for x, and a stereotype for y. Nuance and attention to detail are two values that I regard highly, and generalizations typically do not reflect them effectively. There will always be caveats and exceptions to facts and patterns, and misjudging or ignoring them in favor of convenient, sweeping statements can be a risky move. In short, that is why I chose the name that I did. GABHello! 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11 (b). Followup Q. – Is "The duck test" ( Looks like a duck to me) a bad generalization? It does seem to really be a generalization about people, and not about ducks. wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cordless Larry
12. In December 2014, requests for comment on user conduct were closed down, and editors directed to other dispute resolution processes instead. Do you think the current processes available for dealing with complaints about editors are sufficient and effective?
A:
Additional question from Hdjensofjfnen
13. My username is long and hard to pronounce. Do you have anything against this?
A: It's actually shorter than my own (yours is 13 characters long, while mine is 21) and I don't think there is any need to be able to pronounce a username so much as just spell it out. Of course, we can always just cut-and-paste, and so I don't see a serious problem there. GABHello! 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Amatulic
14. Here's a real situation. Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than a week. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe averaging one random incident per week. The most frequent anonymous IP edits, however, involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A:
15. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, etc.
a. Would you require escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
A:
b. Should you always block a user who has been accused of vandalism after receiving a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
A:

Discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nominator. — Diannaa (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - No problems here, seen them around, good work. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support You are ready. Tremmee (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) CU block. Mkdwtalk 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably taking my life into my hands here, but we've got to have some kind of standard about who can vote in RfAs. This account was created 5 days ago, and just filed for RfA themselves. Whether they're someone's sockpuppet, or simply a clueless newbie I don't know, but I am certain that they shouldn't be voting here. (This strikeout is without prejudice to GAB's nomination, which I have not yet evaluated.) BMK (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator noteThis !voter has been indef-blocked by a checkuser — xaosflux Talk 04:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I think he will be a good administrator, great work bro. --Britty192 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I've done quite a bit of looking through your contributions, especially your counter-vandalism and SPI work. Both seem to be good and useful, and there is every indication that you have enough experience in sysop areas to use the bit well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Go for it!!! You have my support. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - everything looks in order. Should be a benefit to the corps. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - support.--Obenritter (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Would be great with the tools. Low edit numbers are worth noting, but maybe its time RfA stopped hounding that so much, remember that adminship is no big deal, and realize that giving this user the mop would be a huge net positive. --allthefoxes (Talk) 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Unless someone can come up with another reason besides semi-automated edits to opposed I can find nothing wrong with this person. The people voting NOTNOW really need to take a step back. If NOTNOW encompasses someone with 16,000+ edits and over a year tenure, RfA is in much more serious trouble than I thought. This person is certainly a net positive and I feel they would be an asset to the admin corps. --Majora (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I've checked spot-checked some of GAB's speedy deletions from the last few days, and they all look good. I don't see any reasons to oppose, and one year's tenure should be more than adequate for RfA. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen him a lot on Wikipedia. He's done some great work, and I don't really see him abusing the mop. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I have worked with GAB on some Nazi Germany/World War II articles and he is a team player and easy to work with. He has a mind set to work with others to improve an article. I have also seen him in a mediator role where he has worked hard to bring parties together; lastly, he is hot on the trail of vandalism. I believe he will use the admin tools wisely. Kierzek (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Suppport. I don't vote at RfAs very often, but there haven't been that many RfAs where I've had so much direct personal interaction with the candidate. I see nothing but positives with GAB's contributions: (1) fighting vandalism, a good thing; (2) filing many constructive SPI reports, a good thing; (3) collaborating with other editors and helping them, a good thing; (3) helping improve articles to whatever the next status is, a good thing; (4) the amount of work done at Wikipedia in a relatively short period of time with no obvious problems; and (5) the time and thought that goes into each of these items, a very good thing. Fine accomplishments with the promise of learning quickly how to use the tools effectively and judiciously. Finally, GAB has the support of co-nominator Diannaa, a solid administrator who knows quality when she sees it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -FASTILY 05:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Babymissfortune 05:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - have seen GAB around recently, regularly and cluefully bringing vandals to AIV. I also have to say that I trust Diannaa's judgement, and if she's comfortable about giving GAB the mop, so am I. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as an editor who has always shown professionalism and competence in their actions. I think GAB would be a valuable addition to the team -- samtar talk or stalk 07:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose GAB is just a white male atheist pretending to be neutral! Just joking, support. An exceptional candidate, whose vandal fighting and civility mean I think he can be trusted with the admin tools. He comes across as an optimistic editor also. I have no qualms. Good luck! --Ches (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support a year is plenty. I was nominated after 9 months..good chance will be net positiveCas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as co-nominator. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 09:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I am one of those who are cautious in supporting for admin candidates who have few contributions on which to assess suitability, and/or have been on Wikipedia for a relatively short period (and I would count one year as being a short period); so I fully understand the rationale of those opposing on those grounds. However, I do support those whose contributions are particularly valuable, and who have shown through their contributions the attributes I look for in a candidate. Looking at just the Good Article contributions that GeneralizationsAreBad has listed on his user page, I can see someone who is able to add good content to the encyclopaedia, and who is able to work collaboratively with others. He is polite, supportive, and collegiate. He adds to the project. And he helps others to build the project, and to stay on task. I'm not seeing any red flags, but plenty of green ones. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Even Strong Support. The candidate is already performing many actions that are at the core of the admin job. For example, efficient action at No Gun Ri Massacre, damping the conflicts and enabling a cooperative context. Therefore has a good perception of what should be done. Arguments about too young, not now don't fly at all: there are people that never learn, there are people that learn quickly. Moreover, we are not recruiting for a position of "fossilized dinosaurus", but of "active administrator". We need him. Pldx1 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Absolutely no reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, although a bit weakly. I still think the experience is too thin but still sufficient to demonstrate familiarity with what we do here. My support is based primarily on my trust of a number of names in this section, and because I don't see any indication they would abuse the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I understand the opposes on the grounds of relatively short tenure and I think it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. But I don't see quantity of work as an end in itself as much as a factor that increases the likelihood that a candidate's understanding and quality of work are up to scratch. And in GAB's case, I've seen so much top quality work that I don't need the added security of massive amounts of it. I think Bbb23 sums it up best by pointing out the careful consideration and thought that goes into everything GAB does. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Pldx1 and Bbb23. Banedon (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - no reason not to. Bazj (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, has been here long enough (more experience than I had when I became an admin), does good work, no serious concerns given in the oppose section. —Kusma (t·c) 13:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Any interaction I have had with GAB has been positive, and I feel that they handle conflicts in a calm rational manner. Having GAB as admin would be a benefit to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I believe this user will serve fine, and am unconvinced by opposes relating to edit count, length of editing, etc. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A low edit count and that some edits are automated shouldn't matter as long as the edits are good ones. KSFTC 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I think people with low edit counts applying shows the interest and willingness to volunteer one's time that Wikipedia needs right now! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - there, that was easy. Harder: The editor's tenure is a bit shorter than ideal, but this is offset because within that time has shown more CLUE than I would expect. I wish there were more AfD participation, or AfC participation, but this is partially offset by the CSD work. I am not concerned that the candidate has not actively participated in all areas of Wikipedia, because he clearly states the areas in which he plans to participate, and I have confidence he is competent in these areas, but this is where relative lack of tenure is a concern, as we have less to judge by regarding quixotic impulses. Regarding a particular oppose point, it would be wonderful if we had candidates pop up who exactly filled our greatest needs, but we should not reject offered help just because we think other areas have a greater need. This is a volunteer project, and as such our volunteers should contribute where they feel most comfortable, and to deny that assistance would be short-sighted. Overall the candidate has earned my endorsement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I've ran into GAB several times over the past year, (mostly me doing things he's requested admin attention on), and I have never been concerned with his understanding of policy. At least 99% of the requests he's made, I've followed through with. So I'd say him having the tools would definitely be a net positive for the project. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Writing 4 GAs, presumably soon to be 6, is more 'quality' work than some editors have done in 20k non-automated edits. The problem with ratios is that they're relative to the editor's body of work, rather than simply setting bars that need to be surpassed. Someone could still have 60% automated edits but have 100k edits. Using ratios as a primary metric also de-emphasizes evaluation of the edits they have made. This editor surpasses my RFA standards. Mkdwtalk 16:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support—has a history of contributing to good content, so the lack of non-automated edits is not concerning to me, nor is AfD inexperience (they do not claim interest in participating there as an admin.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support- Based on your contributions and what other editors have to say about you, I support you becoming an administrator because I know that you will use it responsibly. CLCStudent (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support-Tend to see him on the anti-vandal front. Appears to be level headed & fair. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 17:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Whilst I did a 'double-take' at the short experience and narrow focus to this editor's history, the sound and sensible replies and endorsement by names I respect changed my mind. Details of policy and practice are learnable, judgement and good sense less so. Good luck. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support-- John Reaves 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I have looked into GAB's contributions, and I am satisfied that we have a dedicated Counter-Vandalist. I don't think that the high percent of automated edits vs. the low percent of manual edits are a problem. GAB has enough manual edits to demonstrate knowledge of WP's policies and guidelines, and the many automated edits show his dedication for counter-vandalism. Adminship is not a honour given to editors with vast contributions, it is tools given to those who are dedicated, and can be trusted to protect WP. I am certain that GAB is dedicated and can be trusted. WannaBeEditor (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I find Bbb23's and Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning particularly persuasive. I've been impressed by GAB for a while now, and even though they haven't been around for years and years, their work evinces experience and ability. /wiae /tlk 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I think that he is ready and will be a net positive specially since there are no red flags and many positive contributions. With his track and his stated commitment record, one year is enough to show that he will use the buttons with responsibility and for the benefit of the project.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Excellent Candidate CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Generalizations are in fact bad, especially those about new users not being prepared for adminship. Calidum ¤ 21:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I do not care how many automated edits a candidate has. I care about the judgment behind those edits - if the candidate uses automation to improve the project, or if he uses it as a crutch. In this case, it's definitely the former. In fact, I was thinking about asking him if he wanted a nomination from me. Give him the mop already. Katietalk 21:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Even tempered,wiki-savvy, also per Bbb23 Lectonar (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I agree with Katie — it doesn't matter how long a user has been on WP or how many edits he has made. A good personality, good faith, and a helpful attitude is all that counts. Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I would prefer my !vote not be discounted, so instead of just signing.... I agree with the nom / co-nom, and see no reason that the candidate cannot be trusted with the mop. Edit count isn't a measure of trustworthiness, and neither is time editing. SQLQuery me! 23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Although tenure and edit count are on the low side by current (not historical) standards, the candidate has a history of good content work and the right temperament for adminship; I also trust Diannaa's judgement. Miniapolis 23:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Very collaborative editor with a good attitude, likely net positive. GAB is unlikely to abuse the tools. After looking at this editor's XTools statistics, I am annoyed that some editors think they does not have enough experience. I am also annoyed that editors are complaining about the ratio of automated edits. sst✈ 01:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Not to put too fine a point on it, this "too soon" business is rank nonsense. He's got quite a few more edits than I do ;) Admins as a class are getting old and stodgy, and members of the newer wiki-generations are badly needed. People who are afraid of the admin corps gathering too much power ought to be enthusiastically supporting candidates like GAB to dilute the influence of the old guard. It's just a website; adminning isn't rocket surgery. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Good content, experienced editor, and I do not see any causal relationship between proportion of semi-automatic edits and bad use of admin tools. Esquivalience t 03:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support You're an unusual candidate, so I've had to give this some thought. I had some legitimate questions as to how much you contributed to some of the good article nominations, at first it looked like a lot of your edits were of a grammatical nature. What I've discovered is that your edits are small in the number of bytes but tend to have a high information value [1], [2]. That's fine with me, a lot of effort goes into that, and that's what content generation looks like since most of the important articles already exist in some form. This combined with your sock hunting shows you're intelligent and resourceful enough to handle admin tasks, including AfD once you've seen how it's done (I suggest you don't immediately rush into closing AfD discussions, but see no evidence of your intent to). My only concern is that one year without sanctions is a low bar, and I'd have liked to have seen you exposed to a more hostile environment by yourself to see how you take the pressure, but you may not necessarily have much exposure to high-drama situations. Geogene (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support: GAB is fairly "new" -- newer than me, and I'm far from being a wiki-elder. However, newness shouldn't be a reason to oppose an admin nomination, especially with all the work he's done, in the mainspace and behind the scenes. Great candidate. Eman235/talk 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per Opabinia regalis and Bbb23. I would have liked more content work, but their janitorial efforts and positive attitude count in their favour. Admins need to have done enough content work to know how it works and why it is the heart of Wikipedia. Nothing in their record suggests they don't understand this, or wouldn't do a fine job at it. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. When the usual opposers can't imagine anything more than "too soon", and when you've already been around here for a full year, I can't imagine that any real problems have shown up. How many of you "too soon" opposers have considered how long most of us current admins were around before we got admin rights? Lots of us were nominated less than a year after registering. GAB, you've contributed well here, without problems that I can see, and there's no reason to expect that you'll disrupt the project with your tools. Time for the closing bureaucrat to ignore votes that conflict with the WP:DEAL section of the adminship policy, because votes at variance with policy are supposed to be ignored. Pay attention to thought-through opposes such as that of SMcCandlish, but ignore most of the "too soon". Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per comments above. The opposes (e.g. "Has he volunteered for a year to answer questions at a help desk? No.") miss the point that at RFA you should be asking the question "Do the benefits of this editor being an admin outweigh the risks?" - not "Does this editor have experience in all the areas that I would like an ideal admin to have?" (that an editor has a different percentage of edits in namespaces to your own is not a good reason to oppose). Being an admin is not equivalent to being a manager (in real life) as in real life a manager is required to make decisions - whereas, if an admin sees a situation that they don't know how to handle they can leave it for another editor (with more experience in that area) to deal with. DexDor (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per Bbb23, OR, Kusma, DexDor, Pldx1's graph and others. In terms of bare numbers, anything above 5000 edits and 6 months of tenure is more than enough. GAB has an intention to build the encyclopedia in the right direction and has demonstrated this with their actual work here. GAB will get more opportunities to make these positive contributions if successful in this RfA. Admins are not meant to be perfectly competent in every single issue they could come across. Most good admins only contribute in areas where they are comfortable and confident in making the right decision (which over time grows even post-RfA) and GAB will be the same. Gizza (t)(c) 12:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Good contributions. Although the number of non-automated edits is modest, it would be bad to generalize that a certain number of edits is mandatory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I understand the initial surprise some opposers have mentioned at seeing one of this candidate's nominators is an editor often at the center of drama, but I actually see the fact that this candidate can get along with such editors as a plus. I see no evidence this candidate would abuse the tools. valereee (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Not quite yetNot now Of the 7k mainspace edits most of them are automated rollback (4k). Only 1k of your mainspace edits are non-automated. That's very low in my opinion. While automated edits are not per se less than non-automated edits, it is a useful metric to separate what are content contributions from those that are more gnome-ish work. Both are necessary and appreciated, but when an editor seeks adminship with only 1000 non-rollback, non-twinkle edits (which are probably CSD or deletion noms, cleanup templates, or similar), that gives me a good deal of pause. Not because those are any less in importance but because there is less quantity to go on. Same with AfD participation. GAB has participated in 3. While showing good reasoning in them, three is not enough for me to make an informed decision on whether they will make good decisions with the delete button. I'm not opposing because I think GAB is a poor editor, or won't one day make a good admin. My oppose is that I'm simply not sure there is enough information for me to make a confident, informed decision. GAB, you are a good editor, and I hope that with more time and experience I can support, but one year and 1k manual mainspace edits just isn't enough for me to go on. I've got six days to do more research, and I am more than willing to change my mind, but this is something that at first glance makes me very apprehensive to support adminship. Wugapodes (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: I want to respond to your statement about GAB's request to be a trainee clerk at SPI. The SPI team has taken on a full complement of clerk-trainees, so it wouldn't matter who requested to become a clerk, we aren't accepting any for the moment. As a Checkuser, I have seen many of the SPI cases filed by GAB. They are as good as they get. Their ability to spot socks, to present evidence, and to do everything in the most civil fashion is something I rarely see, and I handle a lot of SPI cases. If we didn't have a group of trainees at the moment, I would enthusiastically support GAB's becoming one. Hopefully, that addresses one of your hurdles. I haven't researched your other claim.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information. I have revised. Wugapodes (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not now Oppose. This editor has done fine work, but honestly I have cartons of milk that have been in the fridge longer than this person has been on-wiki. While definitely a dynamo, the large volume of automated edits enlarges the total. Please keep up the fine work and come back again. Coretheapple (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is that a bad thing? If the user's lack of experience is borne out in misunderstanding of policies or improper actions, then those should be very visible - either through their contributions or answers to questions. Is that the case? I don't see how any time period by itself could be grounds for saying that he could not use the sysop bit well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude – you know that "not now" is totally inappropriate to use in this case. You could quote WP:NOTQUITEYET or say "not yet, but eventually". But this is not a "not now" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, "dude," don't give me bureaucrat-speak. Not now is what I mean. Not quoting some essay. And hassling every oppose is cheesy, guys. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, and after reading SMcCandlish and especially zzz, I agree that "notnow" is inappropriate, and so is "notquiteyet." Changing to oppose. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The relegation of your NOTQUITEYET essay to userspace, and the fact that it wasn't even mentioned at NOTNOW, is probably why so few cite it. It's good work, and I encourage you to projectspace it. I added a hatnote and a see-also to it at NOTNOW.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I wasn't going to move it myself until someone suggested it (because moving it myself would be presumptuous IMO). But it's gotten enough "heat" in this RfA , and you've now suggested it, so I've moved it to Wikipedia space... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to state this soon after I saw IJBall's post above (I mean, a little after he posted): I understand what IJBall was going for, but I don't see much difference between WP:NOTNOW and WP:NOTQUITEYET when it comes to the "your experience is lacking" aspect. By that, I mean that I see the minor ways they are distinguished, but a person who has only been a Wikipedia editor for a year is still commonly viewed as a WP:Newbie. Even those with two years experience. When I look back at how I edited in 2008 (which was my second year as a Wikipedian), I cringe sometimes because of how inexperienced I was; I categorize that time in my Wikipedia editing as "newbie time." And then there are those who have been editing this site for several years and are essentially newbies because of their lack of understanding when it comes to the rules or lack of experience in talk page communication. From the day I first noticed GeneralizationsAreBad, he didn't seem like a newbie to me. He's explained above that he began editing as an IP. Whatever the case, given that GeneralizationsAreBad seems to understand a lot about how things work here, I'm not sure that I can oppose GeneralizationsAreBad on lack of experience. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, one of my first edits was to award a barnstar for mediation work in one of the disputes I had read up on before I registered -- the Battle of Berlin controversy. GABHello! 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "...but honestly I have cartons of milk that have been in the fridge longer than this person has been on-wiki." One, that's kind of an insult. Two, that's kind of gross — who keeps year-old cartons of milk? ):P Hdjensofjfnen (UTC) 23:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You had to ask, didn't you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you guys want to dwell on his lack of time on-wiki, and continue to harass opposers who raise that as a reason, go ahead. I think that it's dispositive. Everything else, all the other concerns, are collateral in my view. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Less than a year's editing (prolific edits started mid-April), limited mainspace non-automated edits, no article creation, limited participation in AfD and limited experience in other areas of deletion (eg a recent error in placing a BLP prod where the article had pre-existing sources [3]). I have examined the editor's last month of non-automated mainspace contributions and found virtually nothing except removing text and very minor copy edits. I don't feel the editor yet has the breadth of knowledge & experience I can support for adminship. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people may not come here to really write a lot of new things, or even much at all. I do agree, its good to have that experience in an RfA, but this editor is clearly experienced in CV and CSD. I see no reason why an admin who primarily wants to do UAA, AIV, and RFPP have such extraordinary experience if they have shown proficiency in what they actually intend to do. Would this user be great with the mop? Absolutely. I didn't really come here at first to write articles, or really even to contribute to articles much at all at first. I am a bit more interested in it now, but I still came to Wikipedia to most do CV work, work a bot would do, what a janitor would do. I simply don't see why a dedicated editor with great experience can't get the mop to do even greater things here. Sorry for ranting a bit here, I know I won't change your vote, but it's mental food to snack on. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. While that takes many forms, content contribution is a big one. When giving the mop to someone we're giving all the tools. Even if they express interest in doing work in one area, they have tools for all of them. In giving the mop, the community needs to know that, should the candidate venture into some area they didn't express interest in, they'll be competent. Wugapodes (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    People who mostly focus on CV are still here to build an encyclopedia. Its good to have that experience absolutely, so I understand the oppose. But this candidate would truly do wonders with the tools. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he will. When the time is right. Prhartcom (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too soon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The candidate has an extensive FAQ on his user page. Amongst other things, this says "I am not currently interested in the prospect of becoming an admin..." Andrew D. (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Surely you have more of a rationale than that? I forgot that I had an "admin hopeful" userbox somewhere on my page for over five years after changing my mind.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough is as good as a feast. There's plenty more on the candidate's user page which concerns me but there's several aspects to the FAQ section which seem enough to put me here. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough is not or should not be sufficient. But since !votes with insufficient rationale are discounted in the final analysis, there is no danger of Davidson's remark having any effect. 79.68.139.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate did edit his user page following my comment but it still says that he's not interested in being an admin. However, it does now say that he's only "somewhat snarky and obsessive". I have no particular opinion about that but the impression made does not inspire confidence. Andrew D. (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too soon, and activity too narrow and sparse. Only about 1400 non-automated edits, and under a year of serious activity = nowhere near enough experience. I churn out somewhere around 1000 edits per month, zero automated, but candidate has a grand total of 16K, and that's mostly from using tools that generate two edits at once (an rvv, and a vandalism notice to the user, as shown in the pie-graph of the user's edit record, with almost a 1:1 ratio between user talk and mainspace edits; anti-vandal autotools are the only thing that produce a ratio like that). UAA is basically trivia, and AIV and RC are "sexy" and already have enough hands. We need deeply experienced users as admins capable of handling thorny, challenging backlogs like WP:ANRFC, and the less obvious XfDs. Candidate's own desire to get into WP:RFPP and WP:ANEW would not go well at this experience level, given how much policy wisdom and community understanding are required to do those properly. This candidate has a total of only 14 edits to the Wikipedia_talk namespace. It is not plausible that this user has been involved in policies and guidelines long enough and deeply enough to be an effective administrator here. Less that 500 edits to mainspace talk, too, indicates a lack of involvement in content and its development (though the editor is does it right, and a lack of experience with the kinds of disputes and their resolution that an admin must often moderate. While I agree that one does not have to be totally focused on content creation (I'm not, and do a lot of RfCs, and P&G work), WP does not need any new members of a "professional admin class" serving as nothing but wiki-cops. We already have too many admins whose experience and understanding of this project are widely divorced from everyday editorial priorities and the whole WP:ENC mission. Try again at maybe the 2.5-year mark, after absorbing most of the nuances of our P&G, a track record of good comportment in editorial disputes over real content, and a more well-rounded approach to the project. Just drop vandalism patrolling entirely for a month, and you'll see that the encyclopedia doesn't need you devoting all of your time to that; plenty of others will pick up that slack. Not to sound like I'm all critic, the SPI work is good, and so is the desire to avoid the drama factories at ANI and AE. The candidate appears to be earnest, committed, and reasonable. Good BLP cleanup, too. I also agreed with most of the Q&A responses (with only a few quibbles, that others have identified, and also wondering why some have gone unanswered).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic comments about commenter, and responses thereto moved to talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose It's no surprise that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy, since a main contributor, User:Jonas Vinther, is a self-professed neo-Nazi. But I can't understand why the candidate cites it as his best work (see this section for an example of breathless schoolboy adulation that displays an almost complete lack of familiarity with the source materials and/or the English language as used in an encyclopedia), nor why he would use this person's nomination here. Also, general lack of experience. zzz (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The GA rated article did have some issues which have been resolved. The current version of the article is not as described above. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many issues to mention, even in the first paragraph linked. As far as familiarity with the source materials, take for example "A school leader complained in 1935... " Which school? What is a "school leader"? Etc. Followed by "The office published the SS-Leithefte on a monthly basis..." - no mention of the fact that this only began publication in 1943, 8 years after the last date mentioned - "...which were used in classes and featured descriptive depictions of ancestral studies, 'racially conscious choice of partners' and other ideological content." Descriptive depictions of racially conscious choice of partners? I could go on, but I don't think it is necessary. zzz (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    note: - @Signedzzz: - for the record, Jonas Vinther stated here that he is not a "neo-Nazi". You might want to reconsider your remark as it could be viewed as a personal attack. Also, your opinion of one user should not impact the RfA of another. FYI - theWOLFchild 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    see [4] and [5]. The (co-)nominator is a neo-Nazi, and the article should probably be nuked, unless you're offering to fix it. the article is now being fixed. zzz (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I have added very little text to the article. My edits have largely consisted of adding links, finding images and converting sources into Harv references. You might want to look at how the article looked before my initial improvement or first edit. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination statement itself, and the above comment, are probably a violation of his indefinite topic ban on Nazi Germany. zzz (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing can ruin my good mood today. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  8. Oppose. Less than a year's editing and lack of article creation. Icarus of old (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose While generalizations are bad, what I don't want is a new person to join the ranks of the typical administration team. What I do want is someone who has been here for years who has seen all the ins-and-outs of what goes on here on Wikipedia and what administrators do, abuse and also deal with on a daily basis. There are times when I have to bite my tongue so to speak for fear of saying the wrong thing for I know depending on which admin is reading that would result in a block, some admins are like that, others are decent human beings. So I want someone with seniority as an editor who has had exposure. And I'm not saying I need someone with exposure to all those stupid acronyms that others say you need and I don't care about content creation or other stuff, just be here and do stuff and interact. But one year is not enough. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Too soon. If there's going to be a standard and a whole process for confirming RfA candidates instead of the alternative of just giving everybody access to tools after they've made X number of confirmed edits, then I expect the candidates to have at least 2 or 3 years of experience and a much broader range of activities and type of edits than this person. This is like the person in the office who's only there a year and expects to be the manager right away...they still have some things to learn. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there are still things to learn. I have my ten year adminship anniversary coming up soon and I still learn new things all the time. Or learn about things that have changed. There are also still lots of areas I don't know enough about to use my admin tools there. Fortunately most things can be learned on the job, and perfection is not necessary to do the job (although some people expect it in this job interview). Also, admins are not managers... —Kusma (t·c) 19:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I need to justify my vote, but the point is not that we stop learning at a certain time, the point is that I feel this person is unlikely to have learned all the skills within a one-year time period needed for the job. You are entitled to disagree, but my vote stands. I would likely say the same about any other candidate who had only one year's experience on Wikipedia. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Kusma says above that most things can be learned "on the job". I disagree. And of course admins aren't "managers", they're enforcers, so they ought to have some understanding of what it is they're enforcing, which this candidate cannot have based on their contributions. Eric Corbett 19:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Too soon. This editor seems like he might be a good encyclopedist, and does a nice job of reverting vandalism and warning vandals, but has too little experience in content creation as well as too little demonstrated understanding of AFD, which is not surprising given the short time he has been participating in Wikipedia. Get in there and participate in AFD with sound policy-based arguments. Create some articles. Add references to existing articles. Then try again. Edison (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Too soon; too limited experience in content and article creation. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Far too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    How long is not "too soon"? SQLQuery me! 23:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose The candidate's self-identified best work is not convincing to me. Much better demonstrations of familiarity with content work and its best practices is needed to get my support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. too soon by far. --ℕ ℱ 23:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Too soon; working up articles to GA status says nothing about admin-qualities. The Banner talk 00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose There's no way I would agree to anyone being an administrator at this point in this otherwise-fine editor's wiki-career. I know that I'm not ready to be an administrator and I've been tinkering away for awhile. There's simply more out there that he has yet to experience. Has he volunteered for a year to answer questions at a help desk? No. Has he created at least four articles of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted? No. Has he done at least ten edits to RfA? No. Has he done at least 50 edits to AfD? No. Does he have 20% edits to Talk and Wikipedia space? No. Has he made at least 6,000 non-automated edits in the preceding 6 months? No. Prhartcom (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    6000 non-automated edits in 6 months equates to 50 edits in a day (assuming 20 editing days per month) - and that's in addition to (valuable) countervandalism work etc (which is most efficiently done using tools). Why do you think that editing rate is necessary to be an admin? DexDor (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am quoting Kudpung's criteria. But you know, I agree with you; that criteria is too strict. I haven't met that either. Prhartcom (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Excellent content work, particularly to MilHist, but significant issues have been raised in detail with poignant accuracy by SMcCandlish (though I would probably have presented them somewhat more softly) which I have double-checked. My respected colleagues in the support section may indeed have not recognised these issues. Many aspects of the work of admins can be learned on the job but the required sense of judgement for administering some of these tasks can not. One either has it already or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then one should not be seeking adminship. If one does, then sufficient evidence should be served up to demonstrate it and leave us in no doubt. I do not see enough work of this kind for me judge that this candidate is ready to be a sysop. More wok in those areas and I would almost certainly support another time round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Something about this nomination struck an odd note, and I finally realized what it was. In strict terms the candidate isn't responsible for the behavior and POV of the nominator. But given the difficulty of removing problematic admins this is a risk that isn't worth taking. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, with friends like this .... Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Sorry. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose; too soon. He's a great fellow anti-vandalism patroller, but I'm not convinced that admin status is appropriate just yet. In addition to the points mentioned by various people above, his talk page archive shows two occasions in the last month and a half that end with him apologising for over-reacting or retracting warnings - I'm glad he's willing to admit when he's wrong, but it's so recent that it makes me uncomfortable with the idea of giving him admin powers. There's nothing wrong with his overall record, I'd just like to see more experience before giving him the kind of tools that go with adminship. Marianna251TALK 04:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per SMcCandlish. On a related side note, until about half a year ago, I tried my best to avoid automated edits as well. However, I eventually determined that using Twinkle is rather valid in high use only in two major cases: anything to do with the "File:" namespace (tagging new uploads with proper tags would get cumbersome otherwise,) or when several redirects are found that need to be tagged for WP:RFD. Given the nominee's editing statics, I think it is safe to say that neither one of these areas has been participated in regularly. Also, the lack of the nominee answering some of the questions bothers me a bit. Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose I see only 3 !votes at WP:AFD and that coupled with the low edit count when automated edits are discounted leads me to the unhappy conclusion that this is premature. Another year with all round exposure to important admin areas and I'll be happy to support.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I don't normally comment on these but having read some recent RFA's I feel that he lacks experience. No evidence that he has had to defuse any edit wars or heated discussions, which I imagine would be part and parcel of an admin's role. Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose because of insufficient experience. Everything I can see about this editor looks great, and I trust Diannaa's judgement of character. Once the experience is there, I'd be most likely to support. But it's just too soon. --Stfg (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - while this editor appears to have made a great start here, it is just that; it's only a start. Less than a year of experience, only 1,000 edits and zero articles created is simply not enough to warrant adminship. Keep up the great work and come back in a couple years with at least 5 times as many non-auto edits and some articles to your name and earning admin status should be a given. I'd certainly support it then. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 12:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Regretful oppose (moved from neutral): I wanted to support, I nearly supported, but I held back because of the AfD concerns. Since then some additional shortcomings have come to light regarding this candidate's work in areas of administrative work. Prhartcom notes some of them above. I was also somewhat bothered by GAB's response to the UAA quiz question above, particularly the IP address username. While the response looks fairly well in line with what the policy is, the response doesn't address the (not uncommon) occurrence that it's a "former IP" user. I'm not saying the response was wrong, but it strikes me more as a recitation of what's on a policy page rather than what is seen in practice, and a grasp of both policy and practice is needed of an admin. I was also worried about another comment regarding early reports of users to AIV—something so mechanical that Huggle was doing it perfectly nearly a decade ago. An admin candidate who makes mistakes in areas with so little discretion makes me worried about his decisionmaking process when it comes to administrative areas with a greater level of discretion (RFPP, XfD, AN3). Taken with the near total absence of work at AfD, I can't possibly support at this time. To GAB: Come back in a few months of heavy work in these areas, and I'll happily support. Others, I think, might be assuaged if you had a FA under your belt. But the impression I'm getting from the opposes is that you have every chance of passing if only you had a little more experience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - Insufficient tenure. Less than a year of substantive participation. I appreciate the nominee is a valuable content person with what seems to be the proper demeanor for a "No Big Deal" granting of tools, but this process has left the "No Big Deal" days behind, for better or worse. There is no rush and you don't need validation here for your work. Keep it up. See you in a year for your 107-3 second RFA. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose for all of the reasons cited above. An Admin needs broader experience in terms of issues and people handled, but also in content. Wikipedia exists for the knowledge, ultimately, not moving up in the bureaucracy. Vicedomino (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose -- I am sorry to the candidate that I'm changing my vote from Support to Oppose, but the continued participation in this discussion by Jonas Vinters (who I had a run-in at the SS article) gives me the heebie-jeebies. See for example: I can almost smell the GA icon.... Jonas's comment: "I strongly oppose those mass deletions proposed by K.e.coffman. One cannot explain the performance of the Waffen-SS in Russia in merely two paragraphs" -- exalted language, plus the use of the ahistorical term "Russia" (Russland in period German literature), as opposed to the Soviet Union. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - You've done quite a bit of good work around here, and I'm impressed with your article improvement accomplishments. However, I don't think you have enough experience yet with the tools you already wield. AFD experience should be much greater, as AFD the one of the best places to develop a feel for the consensus of what editors want Wikipedia to be. An Administrator needs to have developed a natural feel for the consensus of the (positive) editors here in order to make the decisions required of the authority position. The other items that stick out to me and illustrates the lack of experience are some of your answers to Question 9: 'MelanieC' could in fact be a problem, as there is a well-known celebrity named Melanie C, and there is also the very active and extremely helpful Admin MelanieN (talk · contribs). Either way, impersonation could be an issue so at a minimum checking their edit history is warranted, and I certainly wouldn't be admonishing a user for reporting it. Also, '619 737 131 179' looks nothing like an IP address to me as no number of any segment of an IPv4 address is going to be larger than 255. Please keep up the good work, and try again at some point in the future. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Any time I see someone newish with 81% automatic edits to article space, I have to pause. I see 1400 non-automated edits to articles, but I have to dig through and look at the quality, which is more important than the quantity. I didn't see any articles created, which isn't a deal breaker, but they are nice to see. My first impression is that this is a bit premature, but will reserve judgement until I can dig deeper. I would like to take a close look at the GAs, for instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Moved to above.[reply]
  1. As I see the number of edits, Im a little hesitent to vouche for this user. Im not saying I oppose this user but it seems to me it is premature but that is the tip of the iceberg. I might have to look at each individual edit for more. As of now, I just hope the user comprehends the full responsibilities of having the mop in his hands and not let the power get to his head and not get a little overzealous, like me with Twinkle. Also, I have to admit, I am unnerved slightly that he rockets to an RFA real fast. But I hope for the best. anyways, im leaning to Support. Winterysteppe (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning support. The semi-automated edits issue doesn't bug me so much because there's a record of quality content creation to offset that. The AfD figures are holding me back though. I may switch depending on how the discussion addresses this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) (moved to oppose)[reply]
  2. Although I agree with a lot of the comments made in the support section, I also agree with the matters raised in SMcCandlish's oppose rationale as they are particularly relevant at the present time. I'd like to see how the candidate addresses at least a few matters raised in that rationale (to the extent possible). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral my apologies but I am unable to support as this user has too few non automated edits and has not been a user for over a year, however I feel this user is doing good work! -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral at the moment. While working at AIV, I do see GAB's contributions frequently. Occasionally, I find GAB a little quick to the trigger, sometimes reporting users at the same time as giving the final warning. It's not a major issue because the users frequently do continue vandalizing, but I do have pause for now and will monitor answers to questions and other discussions on here. only (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only: That actually seems pretty serious, unless it was when the editor was really-really new, especially given the anti-vandal focus of the editor and would-be admin. Any diffs in particular?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I think I found one from about a week ago; looking at the contribs they don't look like the blatant vandalism you expect from a true vandalism-only account. Same account got 31h after being re-reported later by another editor. Here's another early report from the same day (editor actually hasn't made any contribs since final warning), though said editor did ultimately receive a 12 hour block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral A quick look leaves me undecided, so I'm going to sit here while I do more digging. The candidate seems even tempered and polite, and has the demeanor I'd like to see in admins; but their experience is a definite concern, well expressed by SMcCandlish. I'm also slightly concerned by their history with a certain user (although this cuts both ways; perhaps an ability to cooperate with a problematic user is a good thing?) I'm leaning slightly towards oppose right now essentially because of the ~1k non-automated mainspace edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral ... GELongstreet (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral leaning oppose, alas. No sign of policy experience at AfD at all, and would be an utter mystery as an admin. Collect (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
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.
Category