Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1


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

Gator1
Final (33/18/2) ended 14:34 December 20, 2005 (UTC)

– Gator1 has been with us for over three months and has over 2000 edits. He has 285 deleted edits and has almost 400 contributions to the project pages. He actively participates in RC Patrol and article editing, and is an intelligent and courteous editor. An active participant in all aspects of Wikipedia, I have complete confidence that he will use his admin tools wisely.--MONGO 14:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am honored by the nomination and humbly accept.Gator (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support without reservation and as nominator--MONGO 14:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support without a reservation, because I don't need a reservation, my table is waiting. BD2412  T 14:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. My only reservation was this puzzling "easy support" vote in an RfA for a user with less than 70 edits. No reason to oppose Gator1, though, and I think he'll make a good admin. Carbonite | Talk 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. A regular at WP:AIV, which is where I think I first encountered Gator1.  He was light on the edit summaries when he was new, but use since perhaps early November has been great. :) --Syrthiss 15:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - with two cats on his user page, he must be a worthy admin. Guettarda 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good vandal fighter, I think he'd be a valuable addition to the sysop ranks. Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Normally I would wait until 5 months of experience, but I think that this user could do good as an admin. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Mihai -talk 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I remember Gator1 from when he first came here, then sometimes a bit too eager to kill off newbies or vandals (it's often a fine line). But in my opinion he's grown to a good and very dedicated wikipedian who has learned his ways around here and now would be a fine admin. And I belive wikipedia would be a better place if he becomes one. Shanes 20:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. --Neigel von Teighen 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Gator is a regular at WP:AIV and is a dedicated vandal fighter. He is helpful to newbies and courteous all around. He has brought a number of issues to my attention that required admin intervention; his handling of those events leads me to believe he can be trusted to handle problematic situations with his own administrative tools. android  79  22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) --Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. KHM03 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support this is a good, well intentioned user and also, I trust BD2412's judgement.--Alhutch 06:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Gator is thoughtful, earnest and a truly decent Wikipedian.  He's got a solid head on his shoulders to boot.  Certainly not perfect, but I've never met a WP who is.  We should be so lucky as to have him as an admin.  (I do recall that he, like I, was "announced" by BD777 to have permission to "police" his page, but I don't recall that he ever gave BD an advance okay for that (I myself didn't), nor that he did much, if any, actual policing.  If he did ever delete vandalism, attacks, or snide remarks from BD's page, he was not only entitled but obliged to do that.  So I'm not sure how or why that should be held against him.  In l'affaire BD, I also recall that Gator thought for himself, did what he thought was right, and maintained behavior far surpassing some of BD's loudest and most obnoxious accusers.)  Gator is qualified to learn the ropes of the admin's duties, and to carry out those duties.  I predict he will be better than average at the job, that he will learn from others with humility, and that he will continue to think for himself and not be driven to conform.   paul klenk &#91;&#91;User talk:Paul Klenk&#124;&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 06:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Good contributor. I have looked at the concerns regarding his defense of BigDaddy, but it is perhaps more a sign that he assumes good faith further than others. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support- Ban e  s  11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - I have had only positive interactions with Gator. A great addition. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support: Forgive and forget. Does good work. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I see no reason not to support at this time. Good editor. --rogerd 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support per Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. I think that it is wonderful that he is able to see the good in everyone, and we could use more people like this.  Not at all trigger happy and seems to be a genuine contributor who will help others. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Izehar (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) I'm going to be bold and support. A little conflict is healthy, and Gator1 seems to be a decent fellow.  --King of All the Franks 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per paul klenk and Zordrac. I just had an interesting history lesson, and I came away from it impressed with Gator's gutsy opposition to what he saw as a witchhunt in progress.  There are some really ugly dynamics that develop way too easily at web communities like this (I remember some nasty incidents at h2g2, back when I lived there...), and I like having admins around with a sensitivity to that.  The impulses that he was acting on there, tempered by the time since that he's spent learning more about Wikipedia and being a good vandal fighter, convince me that he'll make a fine administrator. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Orange and Blue Support for a fellow UF alum...GO GATOR(s)!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Dealt with an anxious contributor nicely, and I admire his willingness to defend someone against what he saw as an unfair situation. Rmt2m 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Rmt2m
 * 29) Support. Responsible, already does a lot to improve Wikipedia, would do far more as an admin. --Daniel11 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support per nomination. — M o e   ε  18:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. I've read all the oppose votes and most of the materials that they linked to,  Although it is obvious that Gator1 stepped into something he clearly regrets, I do not see it as an indication that he will misuse the tools.  Hand him the toolkit and wish him good luck. -- DS1953 20:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support per nomination. Jbamb 01:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support I trust both the candidate and nominator. -- Svest 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Oppose
 * 1) Reluctant Oppose per the concerns of Katefan below. I too got a bad vibe from Gator when he was a new user.  I understand that he's probably reformed, but my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct prevents me from supporting now.  Happy to support in two months, even, as long as record stays fair. Xoloz 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words on my talk page, that was nice of you. Like I said, no hard feelings.  I understand where you're coming from.Gator (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I looked through this user's VfD/AfD comments and they all seem to be "Delete, per nom". A little more variety would be helpful...  Grue   20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am almost always the nominator, so I didn't feel it was necessary to explain myself again (was I wrong?). But I have done that sometimes with the few articles I didn't nominate, so I'll work on those.  Thanks!Gator (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose, I seem to remember him being too involved in the BigDaddy777 controversy. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose:Gator1 fits the time cap of 3mos, however, I would like to see more edits, say, 3000, before I would consider promoting to a full janitor post.--Jay (Reply) 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Too confrontational 1-2 months back, will support in 3-4 months time.--File Éireann 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Needs to have a few more months yet. Right now, memories of his efforts to support BD777 are with me. Give it a few more months. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Sorry, nothing against you personally; I believe you that you got caught up in the BD777 affair and that you had no ill intentions, but I'd advise you to wait a few months before applying again, in case this fails. I'll gladly support then–your edits are good, and your record is only marred by this one single issue in my opinion–but it's too soon now, sorry. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, as per above and below. Come back in 3 months. Proto t c 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, due to the BD777 issue. As I recall, he became a little too combative in that dispute--I think that he is a little too excitable. I would be very apprehensive about his becoming an admin. Dick Clark 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Katefan, and users subsequent behavior at the censorship project. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose as per Katefan, and my personal experience with this user, who defended BigDaddy777 in very unproductive ways, even while the user was blatantly violating policy and creating bad will. Gator1's welcome to continue to edit, but I have major concerns about him becoming an admin, based on what I've seen of his impartiality and approach to conflict resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: (strongly) come back in 6 months with an examplary record and i'll say yes. here's a few examples off his talk of why i think it's too soon. lengthier explanation of present opposition given on Gator's talk page. Derex 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those reasons are precisely why he'd make a great admin. Calm under fire. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zodrac, I think you'll find significant disagreement of your characterization of his edits. --kizzle 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * zodrac, i think you misinterpret. look more closely at the diffs: authors & edit summaries. there's more, but i don't want to dig up more old stuff than necessary to make the point. gator was definitely not calm under fire during that period. he might be now, i don't know; it hasn't yet been long enough to judge. Derex 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose During the BigDaddy777 debacle Gator1 made numerous personal attacks. and supported BigDaddy's personal attacks on others. . In fact during the BigDaddy777 incident Gator1 specifically instructed BigDaddy to ignore the RFC about him, and repeatedly stated that there was nothing wrong with BigDaddy's behavior. . BigDaddy777 has since been not only permanently banned, but has multiple restrictions on top of that.  -- Mr. Tibbs 06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ten days since your last edit and you come straight here to vote. Interesting. Your first link above only shows one comment by Gator and it certainly is not a personal attack. You did better on your second link. Troll much?--MONGO 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks by Gator1: "You're a troll. I reached out to you to try and start over and all you want to do is incite me. You're nothing but a troll. Don't come back until you actually want to work together" (directed at Kizzle) . "And Derex...man, you've got issues and have way too much pent up frustraton. See JDavid's page. I am willing to be cordial with you, if you just knock it off. Stop cming here with that attitude of yours. It's that kind of garbage that make it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for me to take any of your advice, no matter what it is. It's not the substance of oyur advice, it's the source. I just don't trust your intentions when it come to me." (directed at Derex) . And MONGO I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the personal attacks against me too. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No personal attack, but an honest question. How come ten days no edits and you, out of nowhere, pop in on this? In fact, you've made 7 edits total since 11/20/05, and 3 of those are on this Rfa. I won't contest who threw the first snowball, but I can show plenty of evidence that hostile comments weren't just from Gator. That situation was ugly all around and that is why I stayed out of it. I personally thought that BigDaddy character was an absolute menace to Wikipedia.--MONGO 08:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tibbs can of course speak for himself, but I see nothing surprising about this. Lots of times when I'm too busy to edit substantively for weeks, I'll still just pop by and peek at my watchlist.  I even came out of a 6 month hiatus once just for a single vote in support of an RFA (Khaosworks). Derex 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose with a strong inclination to vote Support next time around. --kizzle 18:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Shows an appropriate attitude in responses to the questions below, but since Gator1 has only been around for a relatively short time, past problems are not sufficiently distant. --Michael Snow 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, but am optimistic about supporting Gator1 next time around. Given his recent good contributions I didn't want to vote oppose until I'd had a chance to look through the Laura Schlessinger page he referenced.  There are a few comments there, but nothing that would rise to the level of the significant conflict resolution I was hoping to see.  Because I have yet to see how Gator1 would handle himself in another partisan conflict, I must officially vote oppose.  I was reluctant to bring up specific diffs from the past because he seems to be doing a fine job these days, but I fear that others voting yes have not adequately assessed the past situation.  Gator1 may have been defending someone as a knee-jerk reaction to feeling he was "ganged up on," but the manner in which he did it was not all right for any editor much less an administrator.  I would be reluctant to support someone for admin with this short amount of time on Wikipedia regardless of who they were; combined with this past incident it makes it impossible for me to support.  I look forward to Gator1's next nomination, before which time I hope to see him in action in another dispute, and moreover I hope there are no hard feelings here. (Addendum to my comments at "Neutral" below) · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Needs more experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose — Needs a lot, lot, lot more experience. 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I am not sure I'm ready to support Gator1 as an administrator.  My initial thought when I saw that he had been nominated was to vote oppose; the only reason I haven't is because he seems to have done some good things lately and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt for those recent edits.  However I remain concerned enough about his past activities on Wikipedia, around late September/early October (alluded to below under conflicts), that I can't in good conscience -- for now -- vote yes.  Gator1 publicly helped to egg on an extraordinarily disruptive user (User:BigDaddy777), now banned. In doing so, Gator1 made very combative and unbecoming statements in support of this user.  It hasn't been that long since this happened, and while I see that he's made some valuable contributions, I'd like to see more evidence that he can handle himself and others in a conflict without behaving as before. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) changed vote (see above)
 * Gator and I discussed this issue in email and he told me that he was a newer editor at that time and from that perspective he saw one editor(BigDaddy777) versus numerous other editors and decided to "defend" the one editor. My surmise of the issue was that Gator feels he got too caught up in it, but withdrew after realizing that he had offended several valuable editors in the process. I think Gator was disappointed that his apologies were not more warmly received but as he stated below, he has moved on and it was a good learning experience for him. I definitiely got the impression from Gator that he still feels lousy about the entire incident.--MONGO 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my impressions were that he was rather involved in the entire affair up until the point at which Redwolf banned the user in question, even going so far as to "police" BigDaddy777's userpage while he was banned. So I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that he withdrew at any point (unless you mean he stopped when the guy got banned).  However, I must say that I greatly appreciated his response to me, and I don't want to drag him through the mud again, particularly since he left such a gracious response on my talk page.  I only wanted to raise the concern. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I only would like to say that this user might have defended BigDaddy777 as an AMA advocate (he is actually a member of AMA). I don't know what happened in that case, but it would be very unfair to oppose a user because he did his work... unless the way he followed was strictly against the AMA guidelines, of course. Opinions? --Neigel von Teighen 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * TO be fair, I was not acting as an AMA advocate, although I did offer (he never responded to my offer) to do so in that capacity. I just want to be completely honest here.Gator (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it was mainly because he was relatively new. I have a rogue former contributor who founded the Decency project and then went after Tony Sidaway, who I consider a friend, but still found myself oftentimes defending his trolling actions and reverting vandalism to his userpage, which I did just recently. It seems once you get into a pattern and watchlist someone, it's hard to break that pattern.--MONGO 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, I can accept for a moment that Gator was trying to help a user he thought was ganged up upon, but this does not excuse him from his behavior, such as , especially when defending a person who routinely attacks his co-editors.  In this same conflict, Paul Klenk advocated BD's side, but did it in a respectful manner without mocking both his co-editors and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.  You can defend someone you believe is in the minority without also engaging in personal attacks.  Yes, I see the apology down below, but trust like that, especially after the BD RfC and RfAr, has to be earned and not simply given in response to an apology.  I personally do not hold any ill will towards Gator anymore, but this is a vote for adminship, which I believe is entirely premature, especially in light of his participation in such events. So as a message to you, Gator, take these people's oppose votes and reflect upon them so that you eventually become a better editor and hopefully, one day, an admin. On a side note, I recall no such attempt by Gator to extend an olive branch to me. --kizzle 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at your first link, I have a couple of questions: was it Gator who first posted an abbreviated line that said "Seriously, what the fuck?" or was it someone else? Is such behavior considered civil on Wikipedia?  I would contend that a lot of Gator's early behavior was in response to such incivility.  He was not completely justified, but there were three very understandable causes: 1) Gator did not understand the rules, including standards for behavior, 2) people were clearly uncivil to him (again, is it right to go to a user who doesn't understand the rules and say "Seriously, what the fuck?" or should one instead go to that user and explain the rules to him), and 3) clearly people were not modelling civil behavior to him and he responded in kind (responded better, even, if you count the fact that he did not use the profanity), probably assuming that combative and hostile attitudes were the norm of the day for Wikipedia since that was all he saw for the first several weeks.  Now throw in the fact that all of this is ancient history.  Gator has managed to rise above the level of incivility that was thrown at him for his first month on Wikipedia and instead do real work.  I'm not saying he should be promoted to admin, but I am saying that since he has retracted and repudiated a lot of his original behavior, and since other people were engaging in the same things he is being condemned for, that we should at least assume good faith and Gator should be considered to have the slate wiped clean.  I don't think it's right to keep bringing up something a user did a long time ago when that user is clearly admitting that he no longer thinks that was appropriate. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would agree with you that old wounds shouldn't be brought up, but this is a vote for adminship, not something to be taken lightly, and Gator's behavior from 2 months ago is relevant to this adminship request. He will have ample time to convince his detractors that the one incident was a fluke upon the next request, and I have no doubt in my mind Gator will eventually be a fine admin. I would respond to your characterization of the incident, but at this point, its been talked to death, especially about someone who has so graciously and with a tremendous amount of dignity accepted such criticism. --kizzle 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Gator and the folks he's argued with in the past have all been very gracious, I think.  I just wanted to point out the fact that a lot of Gator's early incivility was prompted by incivility toward him, and take the opportunity to mention again that he doesn't stand by that earlier behavior.  Though I don't take the position myself, I understand many certainly wouldn't feel comfortable voting for him at this point.  I just wanted to raise the question of whether or not Gator has been held to a higher standard than some who came before him.
 * "A long time ago" is relative, of course. To some people, three months here and no serious problems makes an admin.  Others, like me, prefer to see a long stretch of activity.  And how much time it takes to erase former mistakes is going to vary from person to person just the way adminship criteria vary (wildly) from person to person.  I just hope Gator's continued graciousness and efforts around here help to speed the time when the past is erased and everyone has faith in him. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * King of All the Franks 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I'm not sure yet. Maybe I'll change my vote after going through a few hundred contributions. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC) vote changed per 13:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Almost Support. I would support, but I really like to see people be around here for awhile longer, first. IMO, the BigDaddy issue is long, long past. Gator has been doing good work here. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I like the work Gator1 has done around AfD, but it's a little too early for my tastes. Will happily support in a few months. howcheng   [ t • c • w •  e  ] 16:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * After a lengthy survey of Gator's editing history, I saw a total of about 25 edits that range from sarcastic to rude or just firm. That's 25 out of more than 2,000...a ratio of 1:100 almost...I wish I could be so pleasant!--MONGO 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Many people in support have spoken up in admiration of Gator standing up for what he saw as an unfair ganging up on BD. Of course, no one likes to see someone treated unfairly.  However, the relevant question is not whether Gator's motives were good, but whether his judgement was good.  If you read the arbitration case, you'll see that his judgement, advice, and attitude towards the complaining editors were all extremely poor.  There's more to being an admin than having good intentions, or standing up for the "underdog". Further, some have pointed out that there was some tit for tat with Gator &mdash; true &mdash; but the mark of a good admin is that they can't be baited. Derex 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 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 am big on fighting vandals and have posted on the vandalism in progress page so many times that I've lost count. I strongly believe that vandals are the biggest threat to Wikipedia.  They seek to destroy other people's very hard work and stand in the way of Wikipedia being seen as a reputable and reliable source.  If elected I will be constantly watching (at least nine straight hours per day 5 days a week) for vandalism on highly vandalised articles (United States and feces for example), will add many more just to keep any eye out, will keep a close eye on the vandalism in progress page and will respond swiftly.  I am familiar with the policies regarding vandalism and blocking and believe in the warning system we have, but do not believe that a vandal is entitled to multiple test4s before a block.  Related to vandalism, I am also very active and will be even more active in AFD and speedy deletes.  Vandalism is a problem here too,  but Wikipedia's space is limited and is constantly being abused, so I will be making frequent patrols to speedy delete pages and make fair and informed decision regarding whether to delete or keep a page after voting has been completed through the normal AFD process.  I've had time to learn about this process and its assocaited policies so I am eager to get started on chores there.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, I've been involved in the Laura Schlessinger page. I am proud of that page, because, despite how controversial the woman is, there has been a large amount of consensus and healthy debate there and there has been very little edit warring (almost none) for a long time.  In fact, I rarely see changes on the page at all.  I give a lot of credit to the other users who are watching that page and I think it's an example of how things should be done everywhere.  Also, I am proud of the Maine Coon Cat page.  People can get pretty fired up about their cats and everyone, including me, wants to put pictures of their cats on the page (I think it got up to 5 pics at one time lol). I was able to come up with a compromise and create a Maine coon cat gallery where everyone could post their pictures and nominate them to be on the page if they felt it was better than the three that are there now.  Mostly people just wanted to show off and see others cats, so it has worked out well and I'm proud of that.


 * 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. Yes and I've come to learn not to take this so personally and go to war so easily. There was a big blow up when I was still wet behind the ears involving an RFC.  I came to a user's defense as I felt he was being ganged up on.  I don't regret that decision as I felt he hurt himself more than anything else.  I had some shouting matches and told him not to respond to the RFC (I soon learned the the error in that advice and quickly, via e-mail, told him to respond.  He was intent on not responding well before I came along and refused my advice until it went to arbitration, but I regret that and quickly learned that lesson.  I took some heat for that, fairly, but felt obligated not to tell everyone what I told him as I felt it was confidential at the time) I regret losing my temper with a few individuals that got under my skin.  I have since put it behind me and have extended an olive branch to all of them, but, unforuntately, only one took me up on it.  That's OK, I've put the entire episode behind me, learned how to keep a safe ojective distance from issues and not to take things so personally. I think it made me a better person and Wikipedian, I hold no grudges and truely hope none are held against me.  If they are, I apologize.

Questions from others:
 * 4. People seem very concerned with the fact that you once advised a user not to respond to an RFC against him. If you observed a user being ganged up on and clearly getting the wrong treatment, and an RFC was filed against him, would you encourage him not to respond? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me answer that and more. If I came across the BD situation again, I would still step in. He needed help and, as an attorney, I feel bad for people who can't defend themselves appropriately. I would have not advised him to not respond (and I did actually quickly reverse myself in private when I learned a bit more about the RFC process but he didn't listen), no way, that was wrong and I freely admit that. I made a stupid newbie mistake and I regret it. I also, like I do with my clients, would encouage him/her to respect the process no matter how much disdaint hey may feel. It's important to resepct the proces and the system or else you will (and he did) get run over by it. I wish I could do that all over again, I really do. If knew then what I know now....


 * 5. Under what (other) circumstances, if any, would you encourage a user not to respond to an RFC or other proceeding against him? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if they accepted me or another person to advocate for them. Just like in a real case, I would advise them not to say anything, I would inform everyone that I am involved and ask for some time to prepare and consult before issuing a final response. Other than that, no. Even the most frivilous RFCs deserve a response, even if its just "this is frivilous and I will not direclty address the comments" I've seen people (I think it was Snowspinner) do something like that once and it was appropriate. Other than those 1.5 situations ) I would never do that again and made a stupid mistake that one time.


 * 6. What changes, if any, do you think need to be made to Wikipedia's core principles and/or to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to assure that Wikipedia meets its goal of being a useful, correct, and unbiased encyclopedia? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's loaded, but I'll give it a shot. Wikipedia is a great place but it's greatest strength and weakness is that it allows ANYBODY to edit. That can (and does) create a surprisngly accurate but also highly vandalised site (which is one the main reasons I would like to be an admin, is to really help around here and fight the vandals who are really huring us..in fact it was the fact that we didn't have enough people and admins policing the new pages that lead to the libelous article being posted). It's that weakness that has lead to the class action suit and will lead to many more if changes aren't made. Jimbo's on the right track with only allowing registered users to create pages starting in January, but more, obviously, needs to be done or else vandals will just register (it's easy!) and continue their work. I think that we need to only allow registered users to edit and blocking needs to changed so that an IP is also blocked when a registered user is blocked (I don't know how to do that, I'll leave that up to better people than I) so that they just don't change their username and ty again. I don't think we need to (yet) require all of us to disclose our identity, but we may need to consider that more personal info being required to register (it being held privately of course, maybe even credit card numbers for verificatons purposes). It's a difficult and I'm sure my opinions sound rather ignorant compared ot much smarter more experienced people, but those are my immediate thoughts on the matter.

Another reform is the RFC process. It is REALLY confusing (and I practice in banklruptcy court so I know confusing lol) for newbies and can give people the wrong impression (like me). A clearer more prominent RFC policy and rules would help to reduce the animosity that comes up int hese things on a daily basis. I made mistakes in the BD RFC and take full responsibility for them. I've been able to put them behind me and, let go of grudges adn do my best to be a good openminded and active editor, but I feel that if the RFC was a little easier to udnerstand, some of the things that occurred (like my poor advice adn calling the process a joke for example) would not have occurred and things would have gone smoother.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the matter a little further and thank you to everyone who has opposed, it's opened my eyes to those I've hurt and angered and I've learned even more. Thank you.


 * 7. What is your view on Semi-protection? --kizzle 03:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting and fairly innovative idea. I don't have a strong opinion about it just yet, but I would be in favor of seeing it applied for a trial period (say 3-6 months) and then reevaluated to determine its effectiveness as well as any side effects (both predicted adn unpredicted). Vandalism is a hige problem here, so the more tools admins have to fight it, generally speaking, the better (in my opinion). I say let's try it and see how well it works.


 * 8. Labels like 'vandal' and 'vandalism' can be vigorously fought and contested by authors who think they're 'doing the right thing' as they block out existing (and sometimes contentious) content. As in an example like the BD777 case, in which numerous editors accused BD777 of vandalism (and other vios) and you defended his actions because you thought he was being 'ganged up on', how do you determine a vandal from, say, a passionate deletionist? What behaviors do you think identify a real vandal (whose contributions should be removed) from a well-intentioned, if uncooperative, editor? What criteria will you use to determine the difference moving forward? And last, what role do alleged personal attacks by the editor play in your determination? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just my comment...why the continued grilling in the form of more questions? I've never seen a request for adminship have so many questions attached to it.--MONGO 18:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I asked Gator more questions to give him the chance to state more explicitly his opinion about events from long ago and to try to give him a chance to shine. It looks like there's plenty of opposition right now, but even plenty of those who presently oppose Gator for admin have said they thought he might be great for the job a few months down the road.  I just wanted to give Gator every chance to exonerate himself and to demonstrate to any detractors that he doesn't stand by every controversial action he might have taken in the past.  Gator has been here for a relatively short time, and every piece of information he gives us is helpful to people considering him for admin, now or down the road. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a valid question that speaks both to the most visible offenses alleged on the part of this candidate (backing BD), and the candidate's most visible recent successes (anti-vandalism). Please don't seek to stifle the process by calling me a troll as you did Mr. Tibbs, or otherwise denigrating the question. It's rather rude. You nominated Gator1, now let him be assessed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're over the top with that Ryan, as is your question and I think this is beyond necessary as it is a loaded question and in all liklihood, won't sway anyone's vote either way, no matter how "correct" his response may be to you...it is what I would expect from this. I did not call Mr. Tibbs a troll, but his/her edits as of late would indicate that there is possbile reason to suspect so put your politics in your hip pocket please.--MONGO 19:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I'm not over the top. I asked a question, removed from politics. Attacking me is inappropriate, and I ask the focus to return to this admin candidate's opinion of how this candidate would distinguish a vandal from an uncooperative editor, and how he'd proceed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And likewise, I have, as nominator, a right to challenge what I see as spurious questioning and a right to challenge what I may see as incorrect labelling and or questionable votes from those that seem to have shape shifter abilities. I do not challenge the quality or pertinance of your question or those preceeding it, just the purpose for more questions here than on any other Rfa I have seen.--MONGO 19:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the support MONGO, but what happened with BD deserves a little further explanation and Ryan is right to be concerned about me, so, out of respect for her and everyone else, I will answer the question: Difference between a real vandal and and a passionate deletionist or uninentioned or uncooperative editor.
 * Vandals: bad faith and intend to destroy or cause trouble
 * Passionate deletionist or uninentioned or uncooperative editor: Good faith but either ignorant of the rules or just angry, but don't want to destroy or cause trouble
 * How I tell the difference: I assume good faith and when there is ANY doubt or argument that can be made that the edits are not in bad faith, then I won't label someone a vandal.

Personal attacks as a criterion for judging someone to be a vandal:
 * Two different things, but use same criteria as above: when in doubt, don't say someone is making personal attacks or "attacking" you.  That's thrown around to intimidate and bully people FAR too much and it's lost all meaning.
 * Personal attacker: bad faith and intend to denegrate someone
 * Rude or obnoxious person: good faith, but needs to be taught how to tone it down, but is not necessarilly the same as a persoanl attacker.
 * How I tell the difference: I assume good faith and when there is ANY doubt or argument that can be made that the edits are not personal attacks, then I won't throw the word "attack" or "personal attack" around.

I hope this answers your questions, I had a hard time sorting through it which is why it took me so long to respond, but you did deserve an answer. I hope this and my other answers help convince you (Ryan) and everyone else that I deserve to be an admin. I hereby ask that you reconsider your votes. Thank you.Gator (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.