Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GHe


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

GHe
Final (62/23/7) Ended 21:55, 2006-08-08 (UTC)

– In the few months I have known GHe, I've always thought him to be one of the most helpful, civil, and dedicated users around. In the four months he's been here, he has amassed well over 5000 edits (as compared to my six months and 4000 edits), showing an immense dedication to the project. He is one of Wikipedia's premier vandal fighters, beating me and other users to the punch about as much as the Tawkerbots do. For those users who like "material contributions," GHe has done lots of work on Lists of U.S. state insignia and other geography-related articles. This man is long overdue for the mop. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. G . H  e  23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Beat the nom support! H ig hway Return to Oz...  23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Thought he already was one. 1ne 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I would like to see more major contributions to articles, but I don't see how that would impede good judgement when it comes to using the admin tools. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, of course.  Sango  123  00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I thought he was already an administrator.  Kalani  [talk] 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Michael 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as nominator. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Have seen user around Wikipedia. Adminship is way overdue. Also meets my standards. -- Tu s  pm  (C 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I see him frequently on IRC while we're RC patrolling. My interactions with him have been pleasant, and he seems to be stable and capable of staying cool during rough cases of vandalism.  Based on reports he made to AIV, he demonstrates knowledge of vandalism and blocking policies, and is very unlikely to abuse the admin tools.  Here's your mop, start polishing!  --Chris (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support although I'm in agreement with Biswanger's advice. Rama's arrow  01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support! Thought you already were one!  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme 
 * Not to sound antagonistic, but has anyone found any evidence that this user is well-versed in policy? AdamBiswanger1 02:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Although I understand AdamBiswanger1's view, I find that GHe already has qualifications for adminship, in my opinion.  A bit low on WP space edits, but he hasn't shown that he isn't well versed in policy. Picaroon9288|ta co 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Low on WP space edits? How many do you usually like to see?   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's the problem. It's not so much the number, but the quality, as I noted in my oppose vote.  Many of them are tally adjustments or...well I already wrote it in my vote. AdamBiswanger1 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mispoke (er, typed). AB1 shows my view on wp edits, but I still support GHe for good edits elsewhere. Picaroon9288|ta co 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - no problems are seen here, Admin status is not a big deal, and I see very little possibility of abuse of the tools -- Tawker 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inasmuch as I am not particularly concerned about the candidate's non-conversance with policy. The relevant questions for me, are whether the candidate is possessed of a deliberative and cordial personality, such that he/she, as an admin, will interact well with others, will be able to interpret community discussions in order to appreciate where a consensus lies, and will not capriciously abuse the tools; and whether, in areas of which he/she is ignorant, he/she will recognize that ignorance and not act, in order that he/she should not misuse the tools (even avolitionally).  If he/she is qualified only to partake of a small portion of the admin tasks but can be trusted to know that which he does not know and to leave action on such areas to other admins, there is, for me, absolutely no problem; any competent help in the completion of admin tasks, even those that are limited in scope and frequency of occurrence, is to be welcomed. Joe 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian - Talk 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support seems good. I seem him occasionaly while on RC patrol. Viridae Talk 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. We must remember that not all members are good at everything, and using a member's strengths to everyone's advantage isn't a bad way of doing things. As a vandal figher, the mop will be useful, and I do not see any reason why he should not become an admin, he certainly does not seem like a user who will abuse the mop. --Draicone (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, thanks for helping me out heaps at #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-bootcamp. :)--Deon555|talk| e 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Will use the tools well. Th ε Halo Θ 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I've seen this user many times on RCP (and sometimes been a little angry when he beats me to a revert!!! :) ). This is exactly the kind of user who needs the mop. Seivad 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. You're not an admin? That's news to me. alpha Chimp  laudare 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support — FireFox  ( talk ) 12:28, 01 August '06
 * I want to be annoying and slow down the support train for a minute. Can anyone address my points, the neutral voters' points, or the fact that the user has not answered any of the additional questions? AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, and good work on IRC!-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Stubbleboy 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Thought he was one. --CharlotteWebb 19:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support for vandal-fighting. Four months is long enough to show he's trustworthy, and his responses to fuddlemark's questions are reasonable and show an acceptable level of understanding of deletion policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support By and large a good user, although I am still concerned over a general lack of policy knowledge and failure to take iniative. However, overall, I'm convinced that GHe will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support looks good! &mdash; Khoikhoi  23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support FellowWikip e dian 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support; I trust him to use the mop and shotgun well. Some editors prefer to write articles, some prefer to fight vandals:  GHe is one of the second category, and as such he, and we, would benefit from his being granted adminship.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Though it would be nice to see more mainspace contributions, we need a cleanup crew, too. I've run across GHe several times doing that, and doing it effectively and in a policy-compliant and polite manner.  Georgewilliamherbert 06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) JA! -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Just got a gut feeling this one is a good one! TruthCrusader 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) TAK! Misza 13 T C 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Shane (talk/contrib) 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Cleared -- Pilotguy (roger that) 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) SUPPORT duh...... Crazynast 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) SUPPORT Despite lack of breadth. Meets my standards. :) Dlohcierekim 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, and best of luck. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 21)  digital_m e (Talk•Contribs)  19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC) &mdash; can't believe I missed this one!
 * 22) Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Definite Support. Will not abuse tools. That's simply all that matters. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Meets all of my criteria. While some have expressed concern that he might not meet the policy knowledge part of it, his answers to fuddlemark's questions as well as my own experiences have convinced me that he does. EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I'm not really seeing as much XfD experience as I want from admins who want to close them, but the answers to fuddlemark's questions pushed me into the support column. Also meets the rest of my criteria. BryanG(talk) 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. I'm confident GHe is on the right track, and he doesn't hide the fact that his speciality consists in vandal-fighting. His thoughtfulness and self-criticism regarding chores and areas in which he intends to become more familiar complement an overall highly positive analysis of his potential qualities as an admin, and therefore, he's cleared for the mop from me :) Good luck, G!  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support: --Bhadani 17:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Good vandal fighter, plenty of edits (meets my 2k minimum), very civil. Give this man a mop. :)-- Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support shows he will be a good admin Betacommand 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. I believe that he's unlikely to misuse admin tools. Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support per above. Semperf 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support The last thing I'll ever do on wikipedia was worth it. :) ILovePlankton 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) support just in time [wossi]
 * 34) Not-An-Admin!? support Sad to see you go, ILP... But I agree, even if it's not the last thing I have to do, though it might as well be. Fredil Yupigo 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Yank  sox  04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support: editor seems perfectly willing and capable of making good use of the Admin tools. Stephen B Streater 08:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support; while the criticisms are valid, I trust the user's judgement and civility. T e  k e  17:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) In under the wire Support. I've been mulling this one over (for too long), and I believe this editor could use the tools and will not abuse them. Agent 86 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose What Wikipedia namespace edits the candidate has are either tally adjustments for RfA (and plenty of them), or "_____ per nom"-type statements. The candidate's mainspace edits are almost entirely reverts, which is certainly something to be desired of an admin, but I'd like to see more effort on article-related matters. That, combined with the fact that he has only been here for 4 months is quite troublesome, and I am not convinced of a knowledge of policy. Given an increased effort in WP namespace and a few more months, I'd be glad to support. AdamBiswanger1 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Unfortunate oppose - clearly a good vandal-fighter, but that is not all there is to being an admin on Wikipedia. Lack of major edits and the answers to the questions below suggest a timidity and unfamiliarity with process. If this doesn't succeed, please come back later. 4 months and 5000 mostly procedural edits is too little for me, sorry. -- nae'blis 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I prefer a broader range of experience and more substantive article edits.  I am particularly concerned about the candidate's answer to JoshuaZ's first question below; those diffs are definitely not shining examples of either thoughtful commentary or rank-breaking votes. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Andypandy (neutral) and Adam Biswanger. Roy A.A. 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Adam Biswanger. In response to JoshuaZ's question below, GHe listed a few RfA contributions — not all of which were particularly inspired — and failed to address his lack of expience in other wiki-namespace processes, including AfD. Nevertheless, he's a good vandal fighter, and I look forward to supporting in the future when he has more project and article-writing experience. ×Meegs 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose sad to oppose as per lack of breadth of experience. The Rfa looks set to succeed however, so pleased to wish you good luck. --Dweller 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose an excellent vandal fighter, but I see very little in article writing other than Don Mills Collegiate Institute. I would support in several months with more article writing. Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, contributions listed in answers and intro generally do not show heavy involvement from GHe. In other words, 0FA. --  Миборовский  01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per a lack of experience.--cj | talk 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 07:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose for mostly the same reasons as User:Adambiswanger1 states. I really wanted to support, but can't convince myself that it would be a good idea, considering the edits he has in the Wikipedia and main article namespaces. It's not always about quantity. - Bobet 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Andeh. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose 4 months' experience and almost exclusively in vandal-fighting do not a well-rounded admin make. Please take a couple of months and expand your contributions and involve yourself in the other areas of wikipedia.  Even if vandal-fighting is your forte, it's encouraging to see admins with experience in multiple areas, not to mention who have edited more than one or two articles.  --Vengeful Cynic 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. I want to see broader experience. -- SCZenz 18:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Too soon. I agree that far broader experience is needed. --JJay 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per Adambiswanger1. Kimchi.sg 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) oppose per Adambiswanger1. Pete.Hurd 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak oppose per Adambiswanger1. I wasn't particularly impressed with answers to questions. If GHe is going to handle CAT:CSD, more substantive participation in AfD should come first.--Chaser T 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per AdamBinswanger1. Although GHe has some project-space edits to his credit, his response to concerns regarding the quality of those edits is not reassuring.  Editor appear to lack experience at this time. Xoloz 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Experience at this time is not suffiecient for me to support this candidate's nom., in particular I feel Wikipedia project space edits should show more breadth. --Wisd e n17 23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per Xolox. Thumbelina 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose per Jaranda and Themindset --T-rex 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose per Jaranda. Bubba ditto 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months. Themindset 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral user states in A1 that they want to help out at CSD and AfD, though I agree with the user that this area is always in need of attention from admins. I could only find 24 edits to AfDs, suggesting the users experience there isn't that great.-- Andeh 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral: I place my trust in this user, but his chance has come too soon. He should be ready again come November or early December. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: I was waivering between Neutral and Support, which is why I chose to ask the question below (JT1). I was looking for some evidence that you see the conflict of interest.  I would have expected that you would post on WP:ANI or WP:AIV for borderline vandalism that was attacking you.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Tough choice, my interactions with this user are rather low; seems to be a great vandal fighter, but I too would like to see some more contributions to articles. K O  S |  talk  11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral per Slgrandson.  Th e   Gerg  23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral, leaning towards support; both sides make valid points...-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I greatly anticipate in helping with countering and dealing with vandalism by monitoring the IRC vandalism channels, WP:AIV, and the recent changes, as well as looking out for inappropriate new user accounts. Wikipedia is constantly experiencing vandalism, and sometimes there just isn't enough admins around to take care of the situation.
 * Aside from that, I would also help out with CAT:CSD, WP:AfD, and any other tasks that need to be done. I find that CAT:CSD often has a huge backlog, and speedy deletions aren’t so speedy at times. (I’ve experienced quite long delays after tagging some of my subpages for speedy.)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions towards vandal fighting on Wikipedia. Vandalism is definitely an issue on Wikipedia, and I’m happy to be of help on this matter. Besides that, I’ve also made contributions towards Inheritance trilogy articles (I’m a member of The Inheritance Trilogy Wiki), Don Mills Collegiate Institute, and some geographical articles and lists, such as Lists of U.S. state insignia.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: As a vandal fighter, I sometimes run into difficulties with vandals. After giving warnings, I sometimes find my user page and user talk page vandalized. But regardless of what happens, I always keep calm, ignore the insults/attacks (though it’s quite hard to ignore in some more severe cases), and resolve the situation in a civilized manner. Other than that, I generally don’t experience much conflict. I am friendly, helpful, and polite, and I respect other people’s opinions and viewpoints in discussions. I plan to continue in this manner for any conflicts that should arise in the future.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.


 * 1 How would you respond to concerns that almost all your Wikipedia space entries are as Adam observed tally corrections on RfAs or simple votes per someone else such as Articles_for_deletion/Hipty? Related to this, can you show us examples of votes or comments that you made in Wikipedia space that you think indicate thought and original input to the matter at hand? Do you have examples where you have voted or commented in a manner which is against the prevailing consensus at the time of your vote?


 * A: I do acknowledge that I’ve made simple edits like the examples above. However, the following are examples that either show meaningful input or a vote or comment that is against the prevailing consensus at the time:, , , , ,


 * 2 How would you respond to concern that you have few substantial article edits and that almost all your edits in article space are reversions of vandalism?


 * A: I do acknowledge that most of my edits in the article space are revisions of vandalism. However, I believe reverting vandalism is an important task on Wikipedia. As for article edits, I do believe that I've contributed a fair amount in Garrow, Eragon I, and Don Mills Collegiate Institute. Unfortunately, I must admit that I've made a mistake with List of U.S. states and their state flower, tree, and bird. (We all make mistakes, this was just an unfortunate one for me.) At the time of creation, I did take note to search for possible duplications, but seemed to find none. However, TheGrappler later pointed out to me that there were already lists under U.S. insignia that concerned the topics. After discovering my unfortunate error, I made the article into a disambig and archived the list for any future references. If it were not for that unfortunate mistake, List of U.S. states and their state flower, tree, and bird would’ve been my most pleased article contribution.

'''Optional questions from fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC). Sadly, there are a lot of them. I know, I'm a bastard. Feel free to answer all or some or none, per your own preference.'''


 * F0 You mention you'd like to be able to help with the constant CAT:CSD backlogs.  That's great!  Many hands make light work, etc.  We do see a lot of misunderstanding, however, particularly from "anti-vandal"-oriented Wikipedians (death to the CVU!), on what the CSD is and how admins ought to apply it.  Could you give an example of an "assertion of notability" (per A7)?  How does it differ, in your view, from the notability guidelines we see set out at WP:MUSIC and equivalent pages?  Does it differ?  Under what circumstances would you apply G4?


 * A: Examples of A7 would be an article on a non-notable student in a local school, or a small local music group formed that is not known to the general public. I believe that A7 differs from WP:MUSIC and equivalent pages in the way that A7 is for uncontested articles that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable. However, if notability is claimed or disputed, an AfD should take place.
 * I would apply G4 to an article with the same content that was previously deleted only per XfD and was not undeleted or does not fall under the user namespace.


 * F1 How would you react if someone undeleted an article you'd mistakenly speedied (you will make mistakes; we all do)?  Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to undelete an article mistakenly speedied by another administrator, if any, and how would you approach this task?


 * A: I would show appreciation towards the admin that corrected my mistake. I would consider it appropriate to undelete an article mistakenly speedied by another admin if the article does not match any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Before undeleting, I would first consult with the deleting admin on why he/she speedied the article. If it was a mistake, then either he/she or I would undelete the article. If it was in fact not a mistake, then I’d question that admin if the article is not speedable based on the critera.


 * F2 Is vanity a speedy deletion criterion?  Under what circumstances would you delete an article you believe to be vanity?


 * A: Blatant vanity, in my opinion, is a speedy deletion criterion. Articles that doesn’t fully meet CSD but is uncontroversial should go to PROD. If, however, the deletion is disputed or contested, the article should be taken to AfD for a full discussion.


 * F3 Imagine you came across an article about a borderline notable (i.e. not a public figure, per se, but not speediable), living person.  The article contains extensive, unsourced details of a scandal this individual was allegedly involved in as a teenager.  How would you react?  Do you feel it would be appropriate to speedy this article?  If so, why?  If not, why not?


 * A: It depends on the situation. Like in the previous question, if the article is an obvious prank, then it could be speedied or prod’ if speedy requirements are not met. If there are doubts, the article should then be investigated. I’d search the article on Google. If very little hits show up, the article is probably invalid or not notable enough. However, if there are disputes or contests regarding the article’s deletion, an AfD would be more suitable.


 * F4 You also mention closing AfDs.  What is your general philosophy towards AfD?  How important, in your view, is the role of evidence and expert testimony in an AfD discussion?  If an article is nominated for deletion: "nn d, anon deprodded without explanation", and nineteen other users chime in with similar views: "nn d", "merge then speedy", and so on ... then an Expert enters the fray and provides evidence that the article's subject is listed in the Guinness Book of Records for climbing Mount Everest naked whilst composing a dissertation on cosmic string theory and how it relates to sheep-shearing in New Zealand, what would you consider an appropriate close for that AfD?


 * A: I believe that evidence and expert testimony is important in AfDs. Sometimes, users can’t really tell the difference between sense and nonsense in articles they don’t fully understand or articles with lesser-known topics. An article may seem like nonsense to a group of individuals who are clueless regarding the topic, but an expert can then come along and prove them wrong. If that is the case, the expert’s proof should then be analyzed to verify validity. Most of the time, voters change their votes after persuasive evidence is given, so the final result may very well be a keep. Even if the final tally still has more deletes than keeps, a good arguement still outweights the clueless ones, and keep should be the result.


 * F5 I notice you have that Wiki-DEFCON template thing on your userpage.  Why is that?


 * A: I have the Wiki-DEFCON template on my user page since it’s helpful for me to know the current level of vandalism whenever I go to my user page.

Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:
 * L1. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A: I am aware of administrators saying that they're willing to be recalled. I think that the idea is okay. Through my past interactions with admins, I found them generally to be kind and helpful. But should an admin become uncivil or go amiss, appropriate actions should take place.
 * I am also aware of "Rouge admins". Honestly, I think that the category is more of a joke than a serious issue. I really don't mind if I'm added to the category or not should I become an admin. If others think I'm rouge, that's fine, let them add me. If not, that's fine too. As of now, I'm uncertain if I consider myself rouge. But we'll just have to wait and see.

Optional question from JamesTeterenko:
 * JT1. How would you react if your user page was vandalized? Under what circumstances would you block the offender?  Is there anything else that you would do in this situation?
 * A: If my userpage is vandalized, I would deal with it pretty much the same way as I deal with vandalism on other pages or articles. Depending on the vandal, the page(s) vandalized, the warning(s) given, and the severity of the vandalism, I would take the appropriate action. Most of the time, vandals vandalize user pages after the user has given them a warning regarding their vandalism. If the average IP vandal has vandalized an article and received a test2(a)(-n), for example, I would probably follow up with a test3(a)(-n) (tpv for more targeted attacks). If he/she is on test3(a)(-n), a test4(a)(-n) would most likely follow. If he/she has vandalized (an) article(s) and received a bv(-n), I would probably still give a last warning, depending on the severity of the vandalism. If he/she is already on the last warning, a 24h block would be appropriate. (Of course, all of the warnings have to be recent. If they're from a long time ago, they wouldn't really count.) For repeated vandalism (I.e. Re-vandalizing after the block has expired), I’d probably first give the vandal a reminder warning. If he/she continues to vandalize, a longer block would be then given. For AOL or other shared IP ISP, shorter block times (I.e. 15 min.) will have to do. For obvious vandal accounts (I.e. Inappropriate username or all the edits have been vandalism), an immediate indef-vandal block would be performed.


 * Comments

Last 5000 edits. Voice -of- All  08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Viewing contribution data for user GHe (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 102 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, April, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 46.41 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 322 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 22 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.32% (16) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 10.86% (543) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 63.65% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 9 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2161 | Average edits per page: 2.31 | Edits on top: 15.02% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 44.84% (2242 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 26.04% (1302 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 28.44% (1422 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.08% (4 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 31.46% (1573) | Article talk: 3.26% (163) User: 8.9% (445) | User talk: 37.18% (1859) Wikipedia: 13.14% (657) | Wikipedia talk: 0.68% (34) Image: 0.66% (33) Template: 4.1% (205) Category: 0.12% (6) Portal: 0.06% (3) Help: 0.02% (1) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.42% (21) Username GHe Total edits 5795 Distinct pages edited 2255 Average edits/page 2.570 First edit 16:47, March 23, 2006 (main) 1736 Talk 168 User 785 User talk 2097 Image 31 Image talk 2 MediaWiki talk 5 Template 226 Template talk 14 Help 1 Category 6 Category talk 1 Wikipedia 681 Wikipedia talk 38 Portal 3 Portal talk 1 --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See GHe's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * See GHe's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 00:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (Source*) using Interiot's tool*:


 * 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.