Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gatoclass


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

Gatoclass
Final (15/5/0) ended 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

- I've been a registered editor on Wiki for about 20 months. Before that, I occasionally made edits as an anon IP. Since registering, I have accumulated just shy of 6,000 edits (almost enough to score an "Experienced and Established Editor" award - woohoo!). In spite of being around for that length of time, it's only about three months ago that I discovered the joy of authoring my own articles (see my first full article here). That opened up a new world of creativity for me and I've since authored almost 70 articles (see my user page).

On the question of temperament: as a middle aged male, I tend not to have the same testosterone charged reactions that seem to afflict some of the (presumably) younger editors. I mean, I see a fair bit of immaturity here. Experience has taught me that problems are often complex and that there is usually at least some validity to the other side of the debate. In Wiki terms, this means I can often see the other guy's POV, recognize that he holds it in good faith, and be willing take account of his concerns.

I believe that Wiki need not be a battleground between opposing points of view. If as Wikipedians we recognized that editing is not about promoting our own preferred POV, but rather of creating content that adequately and responsibly canvasses every POV, I think there would be a lot less of the futile warring that goes on between opposing parties.

To sum up then, I like to think I'm reasonably objective in my judgements, which is to say I think I would use the tools responsibly. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kurt Weber
Just one further point, regarding Kurt Weber's accusations of "power hunger". This is not actually a self-nom. I originally prepared this nomination some days ago in a moment of frustration over the chronic lateness of DYK. Having got over this initial frustration in the next day or two, I then had to decide whether or not to delete the nomination or go ahead with it. I thought it might help to clarify my thoughts if I rewrote it, and I did so.

At that stage it might just as well have sat there for another six months, and quite likely I would never have submitted it all. In fact as I recall my last edit was to blank the page.

However, the situation was taken out of my hands when User:Sceptre took it upon himself to submit the nomination without first seeking my permission. I then had to decide whether or not to withdraw. Since the ball was already rolling, I decided I might as well let events take their course.

So I'd just like to emphasize that far from being keen to get my hands on the tools as Kurt suggests, I am in fact quite apprehensive about taking on the extra responsibility and if this nomination fails I will probably be more relieved than disappointed. Having said that, it would seem a tad precious to withdraw now. I do think I will employ the tools to the benefit of the project, and if I find for some reason that adminship doesn't suit me, there is nothing to stop me relinquishing the tools at a later date. Basically, I think there's probably no harm in giving it a shot. Hope that helps to clarify things a little. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing candidacy
I have decided to withdraw my candidacy. I'm sorry, but ever since this nomination was made - indeed well before - I have been feeling deeply conflicted about it. It wasn't actually me who made the nomination, it was another user who took a very tentative, private proposal of mine and posted it here while I was still mulling the whole idea over. I was then put in the difficult position of either accepting or rejecting it, I should have rejected it right away but was momentarily tempted to allow it to proceed to see what would happen. But on reflection, I can see that was not the right thing to do.

Now that this RfA has focussed my attention more sharply, I realize that I don't really feel ready for the mop. I would like at least another six months at current contribution levels before I even consider it. In any case, the mop is hardly essential to being an effective Wikipedian. There are a thousand things to do here that do not require it, and I have more than enough to do right now without taking on additional responsibilites.

So my apologies to all those who have taken the trouble to comment on this abortive nomination, and my thanks to all those who supported it. But I think I'd like to get back to content creation now, this business has been a serious distraction for me over the last couple of days. Gatoclass (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: My initial reason for preparing this RfA was solely in order to be able to update the "Did You Know" section on the front page of Wikipedia, because having recently taken an interest in this project, I found it was chronically late.


 * With a little more experience of the mechanics of DYK, I'm not quite so concerned about this apparent problem as I was, but having gone to the trouble of preparing the RfA, I've decided I might as well go ahead with it anyway. DYK could still use an extra admin to help out and I believe I can be of more use to the project with the extra tools. For example, I can also see myself doing some work on WP:CSD, WP:CFD, and maybe some WP:AFD and WP:3RR to boot. I have little interest in using the tools to discipline other editors, although obviously I can't rule out the possibility of doing so on occasion.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I like to think my best contributions are ahead of me! However, one edit I'm particularly proud of is the intervention I made at the Joseph Stalin page in the "Number of victims" section. This section had been an ideological battleground for a long time, with rightwing and leftwing editors holding widely divergent views on which fatality estimates should be quoted, or receive the most emphasis.


 * After consultation with some of the other editors there, I volunteered to try and effect a rewrite that would encompass all the widely differing estimates without putting undue emphasis on one or the other. I did so to the satisfaction of all concerned and the section has been stable, with remarkably little change, for the best part of sixteen months - which is verging on a Wiki-miracle given its prior history! (Although there has been a partial violation of the consensus version by a new editor very recently that I've yet to challenge).


 * I like to think though, that that edit demonstrates my ability to work productively with other editors of all shades of opinion to achieve consensus, and also my personal commitment to and belief in consensus as the best method of resolving good faith disputes.


 * A second article I'm reasonably pleased with is one I authored myself, Western Pipe and Steel Company. Although you wouldn't know it to read it, it took me several weeks of research and a long struggle with textual and content issues to beat it into a readable shape, and while I don't kid myself it's a masterpiece, it's nice to reflect that it is probably the most comprehensive piece on this incredibly obscure topic available online :)


 * I also do quite a bit of housekeeping: tweaking, copyediting, grammar and typo fixes, etc. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: You bet! When you've worked on as many contentious articles as I have, you are inevitably going to get a little stressed now and then.


 * By far my most unpleasant encounter on Wiki though, has been my differences of opinion with User:Philip Baird Shearer over content at the List of wars and disasters by death toll page. Philip started taking an interest in this page after I had spent literally hundreds of hours of work on it, including months of consultation with other editors over content issues. Philip's first few edits were to make massive deletions to content I had painstakingly researched, on the basis that the references weren't up to scratch (this, BTW, in spite of the fact that, as I later discovered, he has used the very same references on other pages in support of his edits!). He went on making wholesale changes without first trying to establish any consensus, and was only finally dissuaded when some other editors sided with me. However, the page was already gutted, and the whole experience left me fuming.


 * At no stage however, did I descend into incivility. The situation improved for me after I accepted that perhaps I had been overly defensive in my own demeanor, and that I was consequently probably overreacting. In the end however, I felt I had to walk away from the page I had spent so much time on, because it just wasn't worth the headaches.


 * I still believe Philip's interventions were tactless, but I accept they were probably made in good faith. As I strive not to hold grudges, I have since worked productively with him on other pages. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions by Malinaccier (talk) .

4. When you say you could see yourself participating in WP:3RR, did you actually mean you would participate at WP:AN3?
 * A. Yes.

5. You state that you may on occasion use your tools to discipline another user. Are you aware that Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users? Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Yes, I'm aware of that. I also believe there is a distinction between the concepts of "discipline" and of "punishment". Punishment implies revenge. My use of the word "discipline" was simply intended to mean encouraging good habits. And I think it's clear that WP:BLOCK endorses such, I quote:


 * "...appropriate use of a block can help achieve this in four important ways:


 * ...3. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.
 * 4. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." (emphasis in the original).


 * So I think this is largely a question of semantics. I don't equate "discipline" with "punishment", but it seems some people interpret the word differently.

6. Optional question from Auroranorth - Do you think that reenabling anon-IP page creation is a good idea? Why? Auroranorth (!) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I don't think it's a good idea. In general I think Wiki yardsticks regarding such matters are too lax. I certainly don't believe we should go as far as Citizendium and require all editors to use their real names, but IMO it wouldn't do the project any harm to tighten up some of the criteria for participation in various aspects of the project. For example, I argued along with JzG on Village pump recently that there should be tighter rules imposed for editing policy pages. It seems absurd to me that policy pages can be edited at any time by anyone, the recent instability of the WP:RS page being an example. In general I think users should have to reach a consensus on the talk page before making changes to policy or guideline pages, that would at least reduce some of the instability.

General comments

 * See Gatoclass's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Gatoclass:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gatoclass before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Hopefully folks will keep tabs on this RfA to find out how GatoClass responds to the opposers based on his 'discipline' comment. Hate to see a good editor and fine admin candidate go down because of a single misused word in response to 1 question, despite a strong contribution history. Avruch Talk 04:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's clear this up: To discipline thus means to instruct a person or animal to follow a particular code of conduct, or to adhere to a certain "order," or to adopt a particular pattern of behaviour. -JodyBtalk 12:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Seems like a good user, good article writer, but can't comment on his metaspace non-DYK contributions due to Tool1 being down. Nevertheless, support Will (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: I agree. Definitely seems like a good user who would use the tools effectively. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk   /  contribs ) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely. I've encountered this editor in various places, and I've always been impressed. Avruch Talk 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Seems like a sensible, level-headed editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Gatoclass is a prolific 'pedia builder, a thoroughly competent, kind, intelligent, reasonable editor, etc.  The opposes are somewhat unhelpful Orwellian semantics, as many admins obviously do use the tools as discipline, and Gatoclass has expressed an explicit desire not to do that.  I strongly urge the opposes to reconsider. --JayHenry (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support per JayHenry's analysis both of the candidate and of the justification of the opposes below.  Daniel  08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Should make an effective admin. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I don't understand the big deal over discipline. Punishment is only a part of discipline - not the whole. Truth is, we need more self-discipline. I think this editor has proved his ability to handle the tools and should be given the opportunity -JodyBtalk 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support based on his extensive contributions as listed here and on his userpage. I think the opposers misunderstood his intent: he said he was not interested in using blocks to discipline users.  As a practical matter, I don't think he'll block anybody who's not supposed to get blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support; I think what he meant in A1 was he wouldn't discipline other editors, and only would in the form of a block. Blocks are preventative, but they are basically punishment, whatever anyone says.  Red rocket  boy  15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I find this user's answers to be satisfactory. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I am reassured after reading the clarified answer to Q1 and have no doubts at all. It is clearly the user's intention to not use the block button, but he does acknowledge that he would be in possession of the tool. That's good enough for me. -MBK004 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support Not a lot of recent deletion related work, but otherwise a good candidate. Mr.  Z- man  18:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) change to support. Clarification answer 5 to uncertainty answer 1. (dlohcierekim at work using alternate account). Cheers, :) MikeReichold 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think that anyone who nominates themself is just a power hungry editor who won't use the tools correctly? ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk   /  contribs ) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He does. I've provisionally removed the # next to your comment - if you meant it to be an oppose !vote, my apologies! For reference, check out the archives on Kmwebers talk page. He's been voting that way for ages, and he has his reasons. Also, your sig is really, really long. Avruch Talk 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Kurt's statement. I believe it's rather inappropriate. Did you self-nominate yourself for adminship? Auroranorth (!) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't, no... Kurt did, but it was ages ago. Anyway, check your indents. Avruch Talk 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we strike his vote? Dustihowe (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Pedro : Chat  21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. User says they may use their tools to discipline other users, when in reality, blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.  I did ask the user to clarify however, and am prepared to change my opinion if it is properly explained.  Malinaccier (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Malinaccier Although I disagree strongly with Kurt, I am concerned with the "discipline" response. Nom is requesting only for DYK, but I'm afraid that nom needs to be clearer that blocks are for protecting the project, not punishing offenders. Not having a good handle on the progrssive warning side would be one thing; this is another.(dlohcierekim at work using alternate account). Cheers, :) MikeReichold 03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * change to support. (dlohcierekim at work using alternate account). Cheers, :) MikeReichold 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as per Malinaccier. I would change my opinion if the answer was clarified, but I wouldn't support anybody without a clear understanding of WP:BLOCK. <font face="lucida calligraphy">Auroranorth (!) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm sorry, but I've worked with you on a number of issues at WP:SHIPS, and I feel that you don't compromise or seek consensus well.  The impression I get from you is "I hold my views for these logical reasons, and therefore there is no other reasonable view."  I also share Malinaccier's misgivings about your answers. TomTheHand (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny Tom, because I had an odd feeling that you weren't happy with some of my comments, just by your silence. If you don't mind me saying so, it seems to me you are confusing a clearly expressed opinion with "inability to compromise or seek consensus." I don't believe you could show me a single instance where I have taken a disagreement over something to active resistance. I've simply expressed an opinion and left it at that. Basically, I've been happy to agree to disagree. But I guess it hasn't come across that way. Part of the hazards of a text-only communication medium I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose after being neutral, but offering to change if answer to Q1 is explained, I switched to oppose when nothing changed on Q1. Jack <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">?! 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Q1 didn't change because Q5 addressed the same issue. <font color="#008080">Avruch Talk 18:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm staying on oppose because I believe it could be easy to review what Malinaccier posted in his question and say you know about it. I'm almost certain you didn't, but I would rather you posted it in the original question. I don't like the idea of an admin being reminded of the blocking policy. Jack <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">?! 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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.
 * 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.