Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/George The Dragon


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

George The Dragon
Final (11/16/5); Withdrawn by candidate at 15:59 UTC, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

- I would like to present myself as a candidate for "the mop" following 30 months as a registered user on the project. I appreciate that some parts of the community frown upon self-nominations, and I have myself in the past, but as someone who is not in the habit of asking others for favours, I thought it prudent to nominate myself. In my time at Wikipedia, I have seen the project grow - and grow to the extent that it has now become an invaluable resource to so many people around the world. To that extent, I think it is essential that what we present as a community has as neutral a point of view as possible so that anybody reading can get information that they can use and will be truly useful. I appreciate that I probably am not a user that many of you will know, as I have gone about my "Wikipedia life" in a way that has suited me best - ie getting my head down and quietly contributing wherever I feel I can help. Thank you for your time George The Dragon (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, self-nom (quakes in fear for self-nomming!) George The Dragon (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully withdraw this RFA per my comment here. Thanks for all who took part. However, I should stress I still believe all editors should be legally accountable. If the law changes to allow six-year-olds to be held accountable for edits, I'll back six-year-old admins and users all the way! Regards George The Dragon (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (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: I would like to take part in WP:XFD and WP:UAA to begin with, as they are arguably the two areas I have been most active in and I feel it would be unfair to jump into areas, as an admin, that I am unfamiliar with as a user. I think one of the greatest things about Wikipedia is the XFD system - we can all give our views, one way or the other, in order to find consensus rather than just making an ad-hoc decision. I feel I have the ability to look at an XFD, consider what has been said and then decide whether consensus has been achieved.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: For somebody who loves the entire ethos of the project in the way I do, I feel somewhat guilty I have no really worthy new articles to my name. Gong farmer is one, and while it is an interesting read, it isn't the sort of article that will ever make FA! I am proud to have helped, in my own small way, Whitstable reach FA standard, although I appreciate I was merely standing on the shoulders of a giant (as an English physicist almost said!). One area I feel has been useful is the revertion of edits in violation of WP:BLP - an area I feel we really, as a community, need to look at even closer. As we rank near the top, if not the top, for many Google searches on names, I feel we have a responsibility to ensure what we write is accurate and sourced.


 * 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: I'm not one for conflict. I feel Wikipedia has a great system in place to discuss and bring together arguments before making any "controversial" changes to articles, namely article talk. As a global project, we will always have members with differences of opinion - but that is our strength and we must always share our views and arguments in a places where searchable articles aren't turned into a battleground, in my opinion.

Optional questions from Winger84
 * 4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
 * A: It's a good question, but I do not believe "trust" should be called into account as much as temperament. We are a global project, full of people with different views and prejudices about every subject there is. I can understand how some users, convinced they are right about an emotive subject (to them, if not everyone else), could break 3RR. The user may have added a wealth of information to a particular subject and, just because they have had a momentary lapse, it would damage the project more to keep their expertise away than to let them continue adding their knowledge with their ability. A ban, of course, is arguably a different matter as that would mean some form of consensus has been reached that they are causing a net damage to the project. However, for a ban to be overturned would mean consensus has been reached the other way. In both scenarios, the community makes the decision and that is what is great about what we have.


 * 5. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to the list of administrators open to recall?
 * A: Certainly. While I am well aware I could have the mop taken away with immediate effect if circumstances warrant it, I feel it is not good enough to be accountable - one has to be seen to be accountable.

Question from GlassCobra:
 * 6. According to this edit, you feel that all admins should contribute under their real name. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to change your username to your real name?
 * A. Yes, that is a very fair request and one I will agree to without hesitation.

Optional question from Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours
 * 7. How would you handle a rather established user vandalizing (sockpuppeting, attacking a user, etc.) once or twice? Would you let him/her have any rights from there on out?
 * A:The question is somewhat broad, so my broad answer would be that it should not matter whether a user is established or not if they are causing a net damage to the project. Though I must stress I have an issue with the question in that vandalising, sockpuppeting and personal attacks are three different issues, although they can intertwine at times.
 * Extending the Q: Let's say not the project, but a user's page (I think you get who I'm pointing to)... can you answer the question in that scenario? Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring the the incident mentioned on my talk page which, I must add, I have quite rightly left there for all to see as I believe in accountability, then I should explain it was a case of WP:BEANS - which occurred because this editor with beans up his nose hit the preview button rather than the save page button, as explain to the editor who left the message at the time
 * I don't think we're talking about the same person. It was in the Winter, or Spring, and you or Maxim told me to contradict. Remember? Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about an editor who logged-off to vandalise a page, logged back on and then denied (at first) doing it, before then admitting it, then I think I know what you mean. From memory, the editor was inexperienced but seemed intent on adminship. My suggestion, after being caught red-handed, would probably have been that if they really did want adminship they should retire their current account and start afresh after learning their lesson as such a misdemeanour would be hard to overlook in the future. It may not have been the best of advice (if I indeed did give it) but I think it was only fair for a young, inexperienced editor to have the chance of making something of the positives they had got from the project rather than be tarnished forever.

Optional question from  xeno cidic
 * 8. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
 * A: One thing that jumps out it's worth remembering the physical person making all of the edits may not be the same throughout. Dynamic IPs, common in the UK, can change without the user even realising. However, putting that to one side, the vandalism is crass and brings nothing to the project at all - and it is clear vandalism that cannot be argued to be useful. The IP has been blocked once, unblocked then vandalised again between being blocked. Occam's razor would suggest the same would happen after an unblock. However, given reformed vandals have brought a lot to the project in the past, and given one of the greatest points of Wikipedia is that nothing bad can be permanently done by users, I would consider ensuring account-creation was still available to the blocked IP and encourage them, if they were serious, to create an account to edit from - and perhaps ask the IP to declare their account so their behavior could be monitored during their early Wiki career.

Optional question from oren0
 * 9. Wisdom89 links four UAA incidents that you filed . Do you believe that any user with "hack", "butt" or "puke" in their name should be forced to change it?  Would you have blocked these four users if you were an administrator at the time you filed those reports?  How do you judge whether a username is appropriate?  Does excluding certain words from usernames (especially words like "butt" that one might see on Nickelodeon) conflict with WP:CENSOR?
 * A: I do not believe WP:CENSOR would apply to usernames, though it is a part of the WP:NOT policy I feel important. If we were to start removing content users found objectionable, we may as well shut down as everything could offend someone. As for the usernames. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this RFA, in the oppose section, I do feel it important we keep things as serious as possible here if we want to be taken seriously. We are funded by sponsors and do sponsors really want to see people contributing with usernames including "butt" and "puke" - it's lowbrow humour and, unless I'm mistaken, references to bodily functions were once against username policy. The "babybutt" refers to the backside of a baby, I'm sure the name "pre-teen breasts" would be blocked on sight. As for the "hack" names I reported, I do tend to agree now that rushing to the conclusion the names suggested an intent to damage the project was obscene, as hack now has a much broader term than it once did. However, in my defence, I personally feel reporting to WP:UAA is a less bitey thing for a user to do than specifically question the user on their page, as the admins who are far more familiar with username policy can make the decision and, if they decide the name is fine the user in question will never know they were nearly bitten.

General comments

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


 * Links for George The Dragon:

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

Discussion

 * Just wanted to add it's 2:55am local time, so apologies if I don't respond to any questions or comments immediately. Wouldn't life be great without sleep?!? George The Dragon (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Trustworthy and has common sense.  naerii  00:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Took a look at your contribs and edit count. Your edits cross all areas of the Wiki and I'm glad to see your edit summary usage has improved to 100%. I would trust this user with adminy stuff - CL — 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I was inclining towards oppose in light of Wisdom's diffs, as UAA has such a high bite-potential, but they're all well in the past. I'm swayed into support by George's intelligent commentary in virtually every debate I've seen him in, whether or not I agree with him (and anyone who throws themself into the Great Age Debate immediately prior to RFA deserves a bonus point in the Wikipedia MMORPG for sheer balls-of-steel). – iride scent 00:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support. I've thought about this one long and hard, and I'm going to keep thinking about it longer and harder, as well. But here's what I've got so far. Indeed, there have been a few questionable reports to UAA, but he has a lot of reports there and a vast majority are fine. However, I do have to question his experience a bit. Indeed he has been around for eleven months longer than I have, but he has only 2300 edits. Now don't get me wrong, that's quite a bit and it is above the 2000 threshold that I normally like to see, so I tried to delve deeper into his experience. I found that his edit count might actually not be a very good indicator of what his actual experience is. His edit count is kind of bloated, with sometimes a whole lot of quick, consecutive edits to one place, such as nine consecutive edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision‎ on February 29th, or four edits to Requests for comment/Cabals in a two minute span, or eight consecutive edits to Requests for adminship/RyanLupin 2‎ on June 28th. But, on the other hand, based on the content of his contributions, he appears to be quite experienced and knowledgeable (at least from what I've seen so far). I'll keep taking a look at this candidate and will come back to this later, but for now, weak support it is. Also, only having 68 edits total in the last three months is kind of worrying. Useight (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Though I disagree with this user occasionally (as with his logic at Philosopher's RfA), I admire his ability to stick to his principles. Seems to do decent work around here, no real problems with him having some extra buttons. Glass  Cobra  01:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support - Of course!  Qb  | your 2 cents  02:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Default support aka "neutral," but ever since I heard some comedian (regretfully, I forget which one) ponder people calling in to answer a poll with a passionate "I don't know!!!" I've figured it's nice to get off the fence. WP:WTHN? Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Iridescent and Useight. - Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) zomg common sense. —Giggy 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Irony.  Dloh  cierekim  15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support - Whilst I do have a serious problem with people refering to themselves in the third person, he seems skilled and ready to be accountable for his actions. MattWT (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support I should like to have seen a higher level of activity over recent months but I am swayed by the quality of the edits that there are. George seems to have a good grasp of how things work around here and on balance I cannot see any reason not to think that s/he can be trusted with the tools.  nancy talk 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Agreeing with both supports and opposes that he has very few edits in the last months, nancy correctly points out that quality != quantity. From what I have seen otherwise, he does good work and the reasoning should be that adding an admin that does few edits (but good ones) is overall more positive for the project than not adding him/her. We have only approx. 1500 admins for more than 2 million articles anyway, so any help, if qualified, should be welcome. Of course, some opposes are a bit concerning, which is why I can only support "weak"ly.  So # Why  review me! 10:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (switch to oppose)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Wants to work at UAA, but submits dodgey reports, , , No more bitey UAA admins. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, article work is fairly weak with lots of minor touch ups and reversions. I have nothing against wikignomish activity, but I am an fearing a lack of experience here, regardless of tenure. Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I found the candidate's answers to my questions acceptable, a deeper review of their time on Wikipedia brings up an issue with their total edit count, as well as the edit count to the mainspace.  I would prefer someone with more verifiable experience.  --Winger84 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The edit count triggers all kinds of alarm bells in my head; while a low edit count is not on its own a reason (for me) to oppose, I'm not willing to support an admin candidate who's contributed 100-odd edits in the last 4 months; as things stand I can only judge your competence as an editor on outdated reports and material. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 01:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose What concerns me is the amount of total edits, and the lack of mainspace edits.--<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">LAA <font color="#ff0000" face="Times New Roman">Fan 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per rationale for deletion and comments made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Song, as well as diffs provided by Wisdom. <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy, sans-serif; color:DarkBlue">Mastrchf (t/c) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I see little evidence of interest in the actual encyclopedia aspects of our project -- not just the small number of edits, but that they are mostly one click reverts.  Absent some article work, I'd want to see evidence of exceptionally good judgment.  Instead, I see some evidence above of questionable judgment.  I find your comment at the WP:Song MFD to be a bit ironic, really.  Like you said, Wikipedia is kept going by donors.  People are donating money to the creation of an encyclopedia.  Yet if you feel that way, why do you spend so little time creating an encyclopedia?  I've agreed with many comments I've seen you make around ArbCom, but that's not enough to tip the scales for me. --JayHenry (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per Jay.  <font color="#007BA7">miranda  02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I wanted to support, but these guys all make good points and I can't ignore these issues. You've got the right stuff. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Oppose - Normally I wouldn't oppose but per LAA, I have to. -- eric (mailbox)  06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Easy Oppose While a large number of edits is not an indicator of experience or knowledge, a lack of edits can be. 2300 edits is way below my minimum expectation for a potential admin... but not only that, but I expect to see 6 months of active editing prior to granting the bit.  I define active editing as 100-150 edits per month--which I believe is extremely doable by somebody with any degree of commitment to the project.  By that definition, George has not been active on Wikipedia in 4 months.  Why would we grant the tools to somebody who isn't active?  Also, if we are willing to overlook many transgressions after 4-6 months,  I see no reason not to overlook past positives.  While he may have done good things in the past, they are in the past, not current and thus not relevant.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - 1) I've seen quite a lot of inactivity looking through George's contributions, the last 500 edits lasting a few months back, around the middle of February to be exact. Like Balloonman said, an average of about 100-150 quality edits would be enough for me to refer to you as an 'active" editor. 2) Not enough total edits with only about 2400 edits to say your experienced in editing articles and such, and would certainly like to see more article writing. As of total edits, I would like to see at least 3000-4000 quality edits . May I point to WP:DYK? Looks like a good start for you if you were planning to do some article creating/expanding. 3) There are a few other concerns I have, but since most of which have been brought up above, there's no use in repeating what has already been said. Thanks, <font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 08:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong oppose per above concerns I've found that consensus and interpretation of policy can be changeable enough that one must be more active than this to keep up. Especially with XFD's. What was once common practice can become, in so far as consensus is concerned, the height of folly. As a matter of fact, I had a several month period in which my activity dropped to a similar level, and I called it a wikibreak. So, I would urge ramping up the activity level by about 30X. I'm hard pressed to find any article building. Article building knowledge does carry over in wielding the mop. I see few edits beyond RFA's and AN/I over the last couple of months, so I would suggest a gaining much more experience at CSD, XFD, and Username's. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  13:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed the part about admins editing with their real names. That is opposed to the notion that we edit here anonymously and that our privacy is paramount. I started out using my real name but changed  because of the concerns to be found at Admins willing to make difficult blocks. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per lack of mainspace edits and the UAA diffs brought up by Wisdom. While I agree that article building is not the most important factor when becoming an admin, most admin-related activities are related, both directly and indirectly, to article work. A user with little-to-no mainspace activity will find it more difficult to assess deletions, protections, and when users complain about subtle POV-pushing or possible BLP violations, I see no evidence that the user will know how to deal with this effectively. When the user has more article development, perhaps at DYK/GA, I'd be happy to support, but until then, I am uncomfortable. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk)  13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - Ageist and discriminative here, not happy with his work at UAA, and his edit count does not satisfy me. Forgive my anger, but I really dislike ageists. <font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;"> Asenine   15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely no way. His comments in the age discussion, and his frequent opposes on RFAs are ridiculous and help to poison the atmosphere. As well as hypocritical, he's constantly negative. We need fewer negative admins (and editors) not more.  Majorly  talk  15:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, moved from Support. I had recalled seeing this user somewhere prominently before, but couldn't remember where. Thanks to Majorly for helping to jog my memory. I find myself a little swayed by those mentioning the lack of recent activity. Also, while I'm glad that the candidate is sticking to his guns as per his answer to my question, the response from Dloh shows that it may not necessarily be a good idea, and certainly should not be required of all admins. Glass  Cobra  15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in future I should rephrase such comments as "Not legally accountable"! Anyway, since this RFA will not pass, I respectfully withdraw in order to prevent further wasting of time as opposed to project building.
 * 1) Oppose (switched from weak support) As per the diffs shown above. I do not want to judge by the views people hold or not, so I do not care that George thinks all admins should disclose their personal data or that people under age should not edit. But the way he articulates the last bit leads me to believe that he will not only think so but actively act in a manner that discriminates against users under 18 years in age and that is not a particularly good skill in an admin. Also, the diff provided by Asenine shows that he does not understand what criteria exist for deletions and what is not a criteria.  So # Why  review me! 16:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral; George the Dragon seems to be a reasonable editor have have a calm temperment, both important traits for an administrator. However, I think just some more experience around the encyclopedia in general will make him an overall stronger, more confident candidate for administrator. -- Nataly a  02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now while I wait to see if any new major concerns are raised; if not, I'll likely support. The small volume of editing (in total and recently) does worry me here, though this user also seems to know what they're doing.  This could potentially be a difficult decision.  CCG (T-C) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Okay, I've come back to my original vote because - while the edit count worries me - I can not find any major issues otherwise that would lead me to oppose this candidate.  As such, while I strongly advise the candidate to seek more experience and perhaps broaden his scope on the project, I am not disagreeable to the thought of him having the extra buttons.  Best of luck!  --Winger84 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I don't think that there's anything wrong with George's edit count numbers because I prefer quality-over-quantity; however, I do think that experience is what counts.  There are times that I have chosen not to edit an article because I prefer to see how someone with more experience would do so in order to help myself formulate a correct decision matrix.  If George could provide evidence of experience irrespective of edit count and time, I will be impressed.  I do think that a calming temperament is required for administration and, from what I've seen, that is evident.  I may fully support Mr. The Dragon's petition after seeing the answers to some of the newly posed questions, especially Xenocidic's.  I do wish him luck, however.  — Archon Magnus (Talk 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral &mdash; failed to read self-nom instructions thoroughly. Also, pending answer to Q8. – xeno  ( talk ) 04:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which instructions? —Giggy 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The instruction for self-nommed candidates to delete the acceptance line. SunDragon34 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mention it now because you removed it from the instructions, :D. So yes, it was technically not in the instructions when this RfA began. Sneaky. ;)  Enigma  message 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's been out for a few weeks - it's a silly and meaningless clause. Sneaky, eh ;-) —Giggy 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, very clever. No, it's not meaningless and silly - accepting a nomination from oneself is what's silly. – xeno  ( talk ) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been out for eight days, to be more precise. It's nit-picky, but I agree with Xenocidic. Saying "I accept the nomination" when you nominated yourself is very silly.  Enigma  message 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While it may be silly, it is no more silly than opposing somebody for missing a single sentence that doesn't in the grand scheme of things matter one iota.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In Xeno's defense, he didn't oppose and he has never opposed for that.  Enigma  message 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would never oppose for this alone. Rationale for going neutral based on this here: User:Xenocidic/RFA. – xeno  ( talk ) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Xeno, I just want to understand a little deeper - does this mean you would default neutral if a candidate transcluded their RfA improperly (i.e malformed), then fixed it, or had somebody else correct it for them? <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.