Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giftiger wunsch


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

Giftiger wunsch
'''Final (7/8/1); ended 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. - 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure, no, my honour to present to you Giftiger wunsch. Gifitiger registered his account back in March 2008 and has been heavily involved in Wikipedia for about 10 months, racking up over 12,500 edits. While the tenure may not seem impressive to some, there can be no doubting Gifitiger's knowledge of policy and procedure. He makes clueful and helpful comments at AN and ANI, assists newbies at the help desk & WP:EAR and demonstrates and excellent knowledge of policy at WP:UAA and its talk page. In addition, he has also contributed to a wide array of policy discussions in the WT namespace and displayed excellent technical knowledge with fiddly stuff that goes right over my head.

I think Giftiger would be a "safe pair of hands" with the mop. Indeed, he is effectively already an administrator, in that his recommendations – be they comments on reports at UAA/RfPP/AIV, CSD tags etc – are almost always implemented by admins. This is particularly true at UAA, where he is one of the few non-admins to make a meaningful contribution to the processes both before the ill-fated but very-well-intentioned "clerkship" programme and months after it was, unfortunately, deemed a failure. I have also seen him decline or contest many reports and tags and take a more conservative interpretation to policy than some admins (including myself), so I believe there is no risk of him being trigger happy with the tools. He is a committed, experienced and knowledgeable editor and I hope you agree with me that he will make a fine adminstrator. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nomination and thank HJ Mitchell for the statement on my behalf.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I essentially intend to keep up the same work as I've been doing thus far, and the tools would be useful in many of the areas I currently work in; I do a lot of report handling at WP:UAA where the ability to block blatant username violations would be useful, and have been frequently contributing to discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI for a while now. I have also been new page patrolling either heavily or more occasionally for almost my entire period of activity on wikipedia, and inevitably that includes being involved in a lot of speedy deletions; I'm very familiar with the requirements for each criterion for speedy deletion, with the exception of file criteria, which I haven't dabbled in. I am often involved in reverting vandalism, either by actively finding it through the recent changes log or by spotting it on my watchlist, and I suspect that if I'm granted the tools, WP:AIV will be another noticeboard I'll be keeping an eye on. I dabble in a few other relevant areas such as WP:RFPP and occasionally WP:AN3, and will likely continue to do so in an administrative capacity if granted the tools. Since I like to get involved in many different areas I may have missed something, but I think that summarises my main interests in administrative areas.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: This is a tough call for me, and I think I'm going to have to give a general answer that my best contributions have been in helping other wikipedians resolve issues and/or become familiar with our policies and guidelines; this is something I try to do in all of my main areas of editing, from discussing problematic edits and articles with new users while newpage or recent change patrolling, to helping to resolve issues brought to WP:ANI or WP:AN and questions brought to WP:HD, WP:EAR, or WP:NCHP/Q, to taking part in and encouraging others to take part in content discussions I typically encounter from my watchlist or from noticeboards. A recent example of this which I am happy with is my involvement in the discussion on Talk:Pamela Geller. In terms of content work, I am proud of instances where I have managed to convert articles with a variety of problems into good-quality articles, especially where these problems have involved severe neutrality and/or sourcing issues and I've managed to effectively boil them down to neutral, sourced stubs or short articles (such as Lobat Vala). Though I have only created a couple of articles from scratch, I feel that I have managed to create good-quality starting articles on these subjects (including Neon Sarcastic, which I completely rewrote at the request of the original creator who had a conflict of interest, and Salubrinal, which I wrote of my own accord).


 * 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 have been in some heated debates in my time editing, and on occasion have been the subject of comments which have caused me some offence or stress. I usually deal with stress in interactions with other users by attempting to discuss the problem with them first, and trying to stay cool, and then avoiding further interaction with the user if the problem persists regardless. I am the first to admit that when I have been aggravated by a situation or user I have occasionally been a little short in my comments, and this is usually when I attempt to back off from the situation to avoid perpetuating the problem. A couple of times I have filed WP:ANI or WP:WQA reports when I have felt that a user has been particularly problematic, but most disagreements I have had with other users have ultimately been resolved after we've both had chance to take a break and leave it for a while, with no effect on future collaboration. Most recently, I filed an SPI report after suspecting block evasion by a user during a help desk query, and was informed that I may have misunderstood the user's statement that they had been blocked. I attempted to explain my reasoning in the SPI and tried to ignore accusations of a personal vendetta from the user after the SPI, but ultimately decided to take the issue to ANI to be resolved. Since it's now been revealed which incident the user was referring to in their thread on the helpdesk, I have been attempting to discuss the user's edits to that article with the user and with others involved, and to work on improving the article.


 * Additional optional question from Mkativerata
 * 4. You have engaged in discussions on the talk page of Mass killings under Communist regimes. That article is, for those who are not aware, a notorious editorial battleground. Would you consider yourself an involved administrator in respect of that article, or any other articles or topic areas?
 * A: I would refrain from acting as an admin in any situation where I was significantly involved, and that certainly includes anything to do with the article Mass killings under Communist regimes or the discussion of that topic, since I have contributed extensively to the discussion on this topic. I suspect you're not asking me to list other cases where I am involved, since there are certainly countless articles where I would consider myself involved enough to make acting as an admin on the matter inappropriate. Ultimately I would avoid using the tools anywhere that I have made substantial edits or have expressed an opinion in a discussion. So using an example I mentioned above, I would consider myself involved in Pamela Geller, but not Billy D'Allyn (musician) as a random example, where my edits have been mostly uncontroversial cleanup.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Giftiger wunsch:
 * Edit summary usage for Giftiger wunsch can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on the talk page.  7  00:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Beat the nom to voting Support I don't see any problems at all, he/she seems to have work in many areas, and would not likely misuse the tools. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  — Soap  —  23:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Will write more comprehensively on Giftiger later. For now, great support.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) As nom. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I've seen the user around, and then I was pretty confident his/her abilities. I took a quick look through his/her contribs, and I was thoroughly impressed - he/she is involved in many different areas, some of which are mainly administrative areas. I fully support Giftiger as a candidate for adminship. d  m  z  23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I think he/she would be a good administrator with the tools.  WAYNE  SLAM 00:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support This person was one of the first to help me when I started on Wikipedia last summer. I appreciated the friendly support I received and I am happy to offer my friendly support to this cause. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I am concerned about the candidate's temperament. A review of his contributions have left me with the view that he can be brusque to a fault and given to a sarcastic tone when dealing with others. There are numerous examples of him demanding that editors with whom he has disagreed stay away from his talkpage, yet he dismisses such demands when they are made of him.  . I believe this  speaks to questions of judgement and this  redaction of another user's comment was excessive. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of these diffs are taken quite severely out of context: the first was towards the end of a long discussion in which the user in question's basic response (along with a couple of other users) after being unblocked was that the block was entirely unjust, after admitting it was justified in order to be blocked in the first place. The second, I stand by as I explained below. I'm not sure what's being illustrated in the third. The fourth was a valid warning which I chose to template since I encountered unpleasantness from the user when I used a handwritten 3RR note on a previous occasion, as I explained on my talk page (the discussion is still there), and the fifth was a comment by a banned user which made a quite clear threat, if not of harm, then certainly of some form of "punishment" which didn't involve wikipedia policy.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall I think selectively choosing the most negative diffs available and taking them out of context is a rather poor way of judging my character, but I will let the community decide if they feel that these are truly representative.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that I have deliberately chosen diffs with a view to representing your participation here in the worst possible light. I have not. Rather I spent some time reviewing your contributions and I found these very recent examples which, I sincerely believe, indicate that you're not suited to a position of authority at this time. Lovetinkle (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) With all respect to the nom, I regretfully oppose. Giftiger appears very weak on content, though I'm not much of stickler for content from Rfa's. What really bugs me is that Giftiger's most edited page--by far-- is ANI. Anyone with such a disproportionate edit history, unless they are very wise and peace loving, is usually a drama-magnet and thus a "net negative" to this project. In my few interactions with Giftiger, I have concluded that it is unfortunately the latter.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Giftiger, if you hadn't responded to LessHeard vanU like you did here, I'd be in the support column. LHvU was not calling you a troll; he was merely concerned that your actions could be interpreted as trolling by others. The fact that you applied WP:DENY to him and called him a hypocrite only makes it worse; that is not how you're supposed to respond to polite and reasonable (if blunt) requests, let alone to people who are trying to look out for you. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 00:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt that my response was perfectly reasonably given the way the user chose to address me. I found it extremely insulting. You're certainly entitled to disagree, but it seemed very much to me, and still does, that the user was calling me a troll and deliberately attempting to provoke me. I collapsed the section and asked them to stay off my talk page, quite appropriately, I feel.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Ouch. Those diffs are very recent. I normally despise editors who comb through editors' entire histories and pick up age-old, long-forgotten mistakes from the past to "excuse" their opposition, but some of the diffs only happened the other week. Now is not really the best time to be requesting extra responsibility. AD 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) (Weak) oppose - edit stats show user has only recently became active - May 2010. Not enough experience in my book.  That, when combined with what appears to be a rush to become an admin through heavy involvement in UAA and ANI, along with the diffs provided by Lovetinkle (especially the tone in the GiancomoReturned diff) leave me here.   7  00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose Logging in on this account, normally in AN/I with usually unhelpful or plainly obvious comments, little article writing to counter the balance of AN/I edits. I have some difs but I want to see how this RFA follows before firming my oppose. Secret account 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Easy Oppose Sorry, but this is one of the easiest opposes that I've encountered. Hell in all honesty, I've been keeping an eye on this page for his RfA which I strongly suspected was forthcoming.  This user strikes me as being too firm with the civility patrol.  A few months ago, he he issued me an NPA warning because in my response to a person making pointy AFD's, I wrote, "It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs."  According to him, that is a personal attack.  It should be noted that Giftiger himself started questioning the motives of the person making the nominations, it just took him a little longer to realize that they were in fact being made to be pointy.  (In 4+ years of editing, I think this is the first time that a non-involved editor has ever issued me an NPA warning... and to the best of my knowledge, only the second one that I ever received the first coming from somebody I called a wiki-lawyer.)  He later warned Giacomo about violating 3RR... Giftiger apparently already had a history with Giacomo, so rather than leave a personalized note, he "chose to expend as little of my energy as possible this time" by issuing a template warning.  Needless to say, if it wasn't for LessHeardvanU collapsing and closing the discussion, he would have wasted more time making comments like "Sigh... as much as I'd love to be baited with your silly comments, Giacomo, some of us actually have something constructive to do."  If you've had a negative encounter with a person, perhaps you shouldn't get involved?  Perhaps you should simply report it and let somebody else handle it?  Sorry, but I fully suspect that if we dug around his history for any length of time, that we'd discover somebody way too prone to use the block buttons and a strong arm.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. this was completely uncalled for. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Not sure yet, but so much time spent on ANI is automatically a negative. I'll look further though. NW ( Talk ) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was one of the first things I noticed about him, too, back in the spring and summer. But I think all of his comments have been helpful, and in some cases, things that others might not have noticed.  —  Soap  —  23:33, 12 January 2011 (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.