Wikipedia:Administrator review/GB fan

I have been an admin for 9 months now and want to see what people think of what I have been doing. GB fan 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking over other comments here, it's not surprising that "GB fan" has been combative about changes I've made to an obscure article of which I am the sole author. If anyone in any position of power on this website ever considers giving this person authority, I'd hope they'd seriously consider everything written here. GB_fan's actions are, apparently, often not in the interest of the community and are more about some sort of internet power trip. Polyatail (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would like to ask about the deletion of the "Dan Patlak" article. Dan is a Cook County politician and represents more people than US Representatives.  I see even state reps and senators have pages.  Joseph Berrios had the same position and had a Wikipedia article.  Did I need to add more information before publishing it?  I was in the process of gathering external references.  Thanks!  Bithmus Feb, 4 2013.
 * Hey GB fan, I was wondering why you deleted the MondoClub entry I posted. It wasnt much different from blogtv's wiki entry and I use stickam and blogtv but wanted to share info on this new platform that is out. Let me know what I should have done differently and thanks in advance. Happy new year as well.
 * I know we've crossed paths, but I can't remember any specific instances at the moment. It must not have been a terrible experience.  I know that you recently deleted a page I created in error and tagged for CSD.  Your response was quick, and it ended up a painless learning experience for me.  I appreciate that.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my first wikipedia editing experience, I edited a page for a local educational organization. Two days later you deleted every one of my edits in one fell swoop. This is unnecessarily inflammatory and not constructive. There is certainly a more constructive way of being an "administrator".
 * is the edit mentioned above. GB fan 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as though the material you added was promotional and largely unsourced as well as containing copyright violations, GB fan was perfectly justified in removing it. He even went to your talk page and explained what you did wrong. I don't see any problem in his conduct. CtP  (t • c) 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems strange that you have deleted the World Series of Fightings Wiki page. A major organisation which is due to be televised on NBC and to millions of MMA fans worldwide certainly deserves a wiki page. I was going to add some new roster additions to the page only to find it is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.187.23 (talk • contribs) 20 September 2012‎
 * Below is the entire contents of the article I deleted:
 * As I see your work, you seems to be faster to delete others works than to create your own. I created a page for a candaian country musician. Same day you deleted my edits because of you think that a musician is no relevant. There is no necesaary to make millons to be relevant neither in music as in many other arts. As other people said here, there is certainly a more constructive way of being an "administrator".

The World Series of Fighting (WSOF) is mixed martial arts promotion company in the United States.

GB Fan has kept adding false information regarding involvement with Activision in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Alvey The citations he keeps referring to mention nothing about any sort of involvement with Activision of the individual, yet GB Fan keeps replacing the uncited (cited with citations that have nothing to do with what was mentioned in the article) information.

Continuation

 * As you can see the information you talk about is not in the article. There is nothing there to say the organization is notable.  If you think it can be expanded I am willing to put it in a user sandbox to be worked on.  GB fan 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * GB fan, Your User Page has been on my Watchlist for a very long time because you provide good advice for new (and not so new) Editors. I especially like your tips.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you made a great revert of 514082482 on Caylee's Law back on 22 September. It was fast (30 minutes) and fair (explained reason for revert). Thanks! --beefyt (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a request at Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed, and you denied me on the basis that my article wasn't yet finished. I was unable to find this rule anywhere. Could you please point me in the right direction? I need to be able to upload images, and would rather not be forced to wait 4 days to do so. I cannot see why it is necessary to complete the entire text of the article before I am allowed to upload images. --C Coligniero (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are not any rules anywhere that describe under what circumstances an admin adds the confirmed right. WP:CONFIRM gives the guidance on granting the right.  It is a judgement call made by the reviewing admin.  The admin decides whether to ignore the 4 day - 10 edit rule put in place by the community.  I do not see any reason in this case to ignore that rule.  If you feel that you need to upload the image before you become autoconfirmed here, you can log into the Commons and upload the image there and use it here.  GB fan 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very confusing. You told me that I had to work on the article before I could upload images. Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe it's because I'm new to wikipedia, but it seemed that you were clearly giving this as the reason for denial. As a result, I've been tearing my hair out trying to find a way to complete the text portion of the article so that I may be allowed to upload images without waiting four days. Now, from what you just said, that's not the case? I am brand new and you are an admin, the very last thing I want to do is get on somebody's bad side, but I don't understand all of the rules here, please help me to understand them, I am new and this is extremely confusing. Somebody help me. --C Coligniero (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my judgement you need to work on the article and not worry about the images. So in my judgement there is no reason to ignore the rules for becoming autoconfirmed in this case.  There is still the option of uploading the images to the Commons.  GB fan 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I acidently reverted you and you politely asked me why instead of throwing a temper tantrum and sagging me to ANI. Are you sure you are an admin? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please block this user:GB fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryat (talk • contribs) 6 November 2012‎
 * For anyone who is interested this has to do with my AFD nomination at Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune. GB fan 05:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove my edits. Gregoryat (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I have ever removed any of your edits any where. If I did it was by mistake. GB fan 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving it to the bottom removes the context, though. It is not clear who "this user" is that Gregoryat meant. Feel free to block Beeblebrox if that is who they meant - that way you and B can find out if you are really an admin. (Just kidding, I do not recommend blocking anyone without reason, although my recollection is that blocked admins can just unblock themselves). Apteva (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think from the context of Gregoryat's edits it is very clear who he was advocating blocking. The comment was originally posted as a level 1 bullet under beefyt's level 1 bullet.  So if we are to assume Gregoryat meant this as a level 2 under that bullet then why since the 2 of them have not interacted.  Now if you look at the interaction between Gregoryat and me you can see that he has a real problem with my AFD nomination of his autobiography.  If you look at my talk page you can see where he even advocates for my deletion because of the gross negligence in my comments.  So the context makes it clear he was talking about blocking me.  As far as an administrator unblocking themselves, it is possible, though anyone doing it probably wouldn't be an admin very long.  GB fan 16:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was sort of a serious question. A Bureaucrat would not be able to effectively block an admin, because they could just unblock themself, but could yank their adminship. Unblocking yourself to evade a block that was imposed for cause is as mentioned, a real quick way to lose the tools. Apteva (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bluntly deleting a AFD template is NOT how it works. You have to contest it like everybody else until a consensus is reached.  You cannot decide this alone like if you were God of Wikipedia.  The AFD for "Descent 4" is very well justified as this article has nothing but speculations and rumors regarding a project that died in September 2008.  -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not nominate the article at AFD you nominated it for speedy deletion. A single admin does have ability to decline a speedy deletion all by themselves.  GB fan 01:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I apologize. I became angry when my request was bluntly removed by some "higher power" that I believed didn't follow the rules.  To me, "AFD" and "Speedy deletion" was the same thing, but I'll do my homework because I do believe the article should no longer exists. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not followed your efforts very closely, but I have never seen anything of concern. And given the nature of the cases on this page where people seem to have had issues, only bolsters my opinion that you are doing a good job. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I never knew you existed before you cleaned up my minor db-author mess this morning. But, in the spirit of eBay: A+++++++++ GREAT ADMIN! WOULD SCREW UP AND REQUEST DELETION AGAIN. :D Neo Poz (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that I've support your RFA, I think you're doing okay. As long as you're patient you'll be just fine.  –BuickCenturyDriver 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many thousand people have played or do play pro football (grown men paid to run up and down the park kicking a ball). I don't think that gives them any more notability than say a pro plumber.  Will Wikipedia find room for all of them?  I still think Noah Cantor should go, and many more.  John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 12:56, wikitime=  04:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He is deleting information in korean language, even though he does not speak korean. He should be deprived of all administrative privileges. MarkusGuni (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether I speak korean is of no consequence in this situation. I am removing information that you are adding to an article without any sources.  If you have a concern you should discuss it on the article'd talk page as was explained to you on your talk page.  GB fan 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are generally a good admin and I usually see good things from you. However, the incident surrounding this gave me cause for concern. There was a dispute going on between two users at Gwiyomi regarding the translation of some Korean material and the sources used for that translation and you seemed to support the user who was trying to remove the dubiously sourced material. That in itself is fine; however, when I came to review the report, I noticed that your actions seemed to exacerbate the edit war, rather than calm it down. While you never broke 3RR, it should have been obvious that continuing to edit the article was unhelpful (even when you tried adding cn tags instead of removing the material). The other editor was obviously not going to budge and, although attempts at discussion had been made, they could have gone further. The situation really needed you to cease editing the page and either engage the user in discussion or, failing that, report him as a disruptive user. In the end, your continuing to edit the page helped the edit war continue. I don't think you were terribly out of line here; however, an administrator should have the insight to to stop editing a page when it is obviously ineffective and pursue alternative methods to resolve the problem. In the end, while you were not really guilty of edit warring, you could have done more to mitigate the edit war that took place. I am sure this is a one-off incident; I've not taken time to review the rest of your contributions thoroughly but, as I saw that you were admin review, I thought I'd mention it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I should have tried other steps. It probably had to do with the editor saying I was vandalising the article and when trying to talk to them their only answer is to delete information off their talk page and continue the allegations.  Once again thanks.  GB fan 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)