Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gtstricky


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

Gtstricky
Final (37/24/6); Ended Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:45:36 (UTC)

- I’m proud to nominate User:Gtstricky for adminship. Gtstricky has been active for a year, amassing over 7,100 edits and establishing himself as both an impressive vandal-fighter and guide for new users. He has made over 120 reports to Administrator intervention against vandalism, and has nearly 1,000 deleted edits which come from both proposed deletion nominations, speedy deletion nominations, and articles for deletion nominations. He obviously has a lot of experience in the deletion and anti-vandalism areas which Gtstricky has expressed interest in going in to.

He is not your senseless vandal-fighter, but also an editor concerned with helping new users. Gtstricky has responded to posts on the help desk over 100 times, volunteered nearly 40 times at the  New contributors' help page, and is a regular participant in articles for creation. Before you jump on him for not doing much article work, I’d like to bring attention to the last item of the above list. Gtstricky is a regular contributor to the articles for creation log. By getting involved in this tough and controversial area, Gtstricky has further demonstrated his willingness to help new users, and his understanding of the plight of article builders. This will allow him to relate to the content creators he will be supporting as an administrator.

I would also like the community to know that Gtstricky participated in admin coaching which is available here. I thank you for considering Gtstricky for adminship! Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom as his assistant admin coach. My views pretty much mirror what Malinaccier has written above, but I will point out that I’ve seen Gtstricky’s knowledge of policy steadily improve over the past few months to the point where he is ready for the extra tools. His work in vandal fighting and deletion show his dedication to the project and his work helping new users shows his dedication to the community. I’m confident that he will use the mop wisely. Thank you for your consideration. — Travis talk 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With humility and gratitude, I accept your nomination. Gtstricky Talk or C 03:28, 15 October 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:
 * I think my natural response would be to stay in familiar territory. WP:AFD, Prods, Speedies, vandal fighting, and helping newer editors (although tools are rarely needed there). Closing AFDs would allow me to be productive while I continue to sharpen my knowledge. Obviously by becoming an admin it does not create in me an enlighten knowledge of all things WP. I would only approach closure in discussions that I feel qualified and would allow the more experienced admins continue to handle the tricky decisions. My hope would be I would grow into an admin that would have the knowledge to take those on as well.
 * WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP would be the next areas that would get my attention. These areas seem to be worked and tend not to get backlogged but I am sure I could be an asset there also.
 * Then I would start branching into areas that are backlogged. WP:RM seems to usually need attention as well as WP:CP. These areas tend to be more time demanding so I think it is harder to make a visual dent in the workload but every closed case helps.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Helping new users, vandal fighting, and helping at WP:AFC. If I can be honest, I am not the best content editor but I feel that I am able to contribute to the project by helping new editors (that have talents that I might not posses) to navigate the complexities of WP. Here is an user that came to WP and put up an article about herself on her talk page. I helped her move the page to a temp space and tried to work with her on the COI issues as well as the notability concerns. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful in getting the article to a version that would stand, but I think she appreciated the effort and had a much better understanding of WP when we were done.


 * 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 not had any huge conflicts. I have had some vandals that were not happy about warnings and a few AFDs that did not make people happy but those are expected. The hardest people to appease are those with COI issues. They are so connected to the subject they take any criticism personally. I have learned to take the time to try to explain WP to these editors and to try to help them in the process.  I find that walking away from a conflict and getting a fresh perspective is always helpful. I am willing to admit if I am wrong, always try to remain civil, and I always look for consensus. My humble opinion matters but the masses make the decisions.


 * Optional question from Protonk (talk)
 * 4 (Please feel free to ignore this if you wish) What drew you to work at WP:AFC? What does your general "day" look like working there (in other words, where do you fall in the line of things, do you write the articles, vet them, etc.)?  What do you feel you can learn from your work there and apply to the mop and bucket?
 * A To be honest I can not really remember how I got there the first time. Most of my time there is spent reviewing submissions. Lately I have been working on the project itself, helping with templates and the format of the process. The project has had many changes in the recent months. We are still working out the kinks. I find that WP:AFC is a place that I can contribute to in a way that utilizes my strengths and improves my weaker skills (article building).


 * Additional question from Stifle:
 * 5. When can a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
 * A. Almost never as it is assumed that a fair use image can almost always be obtained. Exceptions can be made when free images are likely to not be found or obtained (Osama bin Laden).


 * Additional question from  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers :
 * 6. I found Jeff Greenstein which you created from AFC, can you supply us some more examples of articles where you have made a big input, I'm not looking for FA standard, just enough to show you can add to this encyclopaedia as well as protect it.
 * A. As others have pointed out I do not have a strong article building history. I counted around 14 articles created at WP:AFC (the old way, the new method is harder to track). I could try to fluff up my response and embellish a few contributions to try to make them seem greater then they really are but I am not a good politician. I hope you see that my contributions help the project and that I can be trusted. Thanks for your questions.


 * Additional question from  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers :
 * 7. Looking at this diff of yours from over four months ago, could you tell us under what circumstances you think articles should be changed from one variant of English to another, and are there any other things about it that you would do differently now?
 * A. In most situations it probably should not be changed. If an article subject is linked to a specific English speaking country than that version typically is used. The article you linked was being worked by the spot light team. The spelling was discussed in the IRC chatroom for the team and it was decided to change it to keep consistent with the other uses in the article. However, I still see both spellings were used.


 * Additional question from  Tiptoety talk:
 * 8. You have shown a interest in working at request for page protection, as such I was hoping that you could provide a example in which you would fully protect a page, and for how long. Also, when do you feel that blocking is a better option than protection?
 * A. Edit wars is the main (there are others) reason for a full block. If one editor is engaged in edit waring on multiple articles blocking might be better then protection as it would still allow for the articles to be edited. Now with that said, I think the Sarah Palin article is a good example to give you some insight into my thought process. Once her nomination was announced the article became a quick magnet for vandals and POV pushers and it was quickly semi protected. What became interested is after a few days the media reports on every aspect of her life started flowing and editors started added and deleting content left and right. A few edit wars started but more importantly consensus started being ignored. The page was fully protected and a protection battle started. I am not going to dissect everything that transpired but to answer your question I would have fully protected the page for probably 1 day (or less) to get the active contributors talking on the talk page and to decrease the edit wars.


 * Additional questions from Blooded Edge awards
 * 9. As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
 * A. No I would not use a cool down block. If they are truly angry then a cool down would not work. It just makes it worse. Chances are if they are mad it is a communication and education issue that can be addressed by helping the user understand wiki policy. However... if it is just a vandal trying to push buttons then the normal warning system coupled with Revert, block, ignore works fine.


 * 10. This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account. Please note that isn't some carefuly orchestrated plot to get at your account.
 * A. I understand where you are coming from and yes my password is secure. I work in an environment that has strict password requirements so I am use to using long random num/letter/character combos.

General comments

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


 * Links for Gtstricky:

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

Support

 * 1) Support as co-nominator and part-time admin coach. — Travis talk  03:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per answer to Q3.  I like what I see.   Keegan talk 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cautious Support Okay, weak in the main space I grant. But a pretty thorough review of your last 1,500 edits was interesting. CSD seems accurate and vandal fighting / reporting looks all okay. Fairly solid work at request for articles. Could be a bit more communicative at times I think, with some slightly short responses, but nothing to suggest an uncivil or less than helpful attitude. Possibly a bit deletionist, but I think you'll hold that in check with the actual delete button. I was particularly impressed with your nomination statement at Articles for deletion/Peggy Sue and The Pirates - that seems very much the attitude. A word of advice if this request passes - If in doubt - don't. Overall a net positive I think. Pedro :  Chat  07:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.-- intraining   Jack In  08:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Abso-fricking-lutely.   Garden . 08:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Noting the opposes, not everyone can write articles. Anyway, it's not like he never edits mainspace. Sure, he's not as active as some, but he's there plenty enough. His other good qualities push me to support. -- how do you turn this on  10:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I have every confidence that he will use the tools well. Mayalld (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Pedro said everything I would have. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Balloonman's oppose is compelling, but isn't enough to sway me. It isn't so much (for me, at least) that you need to show that you have produced work XYZ for Wikipedia.  Rather that helping to make work XYZ will give you a better look at how this place operates and how and where content intersects with conduct.  If this RfA doesn't pass, I hope that you would take some time to find an article on a subject you love and bring it up to GA (don't worry almost every subject our there has one or two articles that can be improved considerably).  See the conflicts you run in to, the discussions you have and so on.  I think it will be easier to come back after an experience like that.  So why am I in the support column?  Work at AFC, to me, looks pretty good.  It shows that you deal with new and IP editors on a regular basis and you do so willingly.  That you work there and do anti-vandal work shows that you can separate the impression you get from RCP (all new editors look like vandals) from the reality (most aren't).  That is harder to do than it seems.  The answers to questions are also good--straightforward and helpful. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - A net positive if I ever did see one. &mdash; neuro(talk) 16:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Mainly per Pedro, Protonk and the questions.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - honest answers to questions represent someone who can be entrusted with the tools. Caulde  17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Always good to have another dedicated vandal hunter. -FlyingToaster (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support; not everyone can write articles (I myself am one of these people). Net positive. RockManQ  (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per RockManQ and Protonk - not everyone is good at article building, and what I've seen is a trustworthy user, so why not? :-D  Stwalkerster [  talk  ]  22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Net positive Dloh  cierekim  01:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I would trust the user with the tools. Article building has nothing to do with trustworthiness in my opinion; the candidate seems to "get it" about what's being built here. Townlake (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per my RfA criteria  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Weak Support per Protonk. &mdash; Ed  17   for President    Vote for Ed  13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Can't really do otherwise, given my own circumstances. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per WP:WTHN and question 3. miquonranger03 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) The opposes haven't got me convinced. At least, not in a negative way. &mdash; Ceran  Sing!  01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - The response to Q3 is most persuasive. The opposers, on the other hand, are not. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support I always held article building as a reason for barnstars, not adminship. Adminship is no big deal and here WP:WTHN applies. Candidate seems to want to contribute in a positive way and has shown to do so. Answer to Q6 shows that he does not want to create articles just to net in support-!votes but rather wants to do what he knows best. So let him do it.  So Why  11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Lets give more tools to this trustworthy vandal fighter. jni (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support cautiously, but I strongly disagree that article writing is not a big deal. Adminship is not always simple "block", "delete", "protect"; there are other aspects. Admins will often be asked to help with disputes and other situations, because of their experience. Those disputes will almost always involve articles. Article writing helps with policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, in a way that vandal fighting cannot, which is why it is extremely important. That said, the mainspace count is still high, so I will support cautiously. PeterSymonds (talk)  13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - I always see this guy at the help desk, asset to the wiki. Sunderland06  (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Weak support, my opinions are a mix between Protonk's and Balloonman's, moving from N to S on good faith. Wizardman  23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support as candidate has never been blocked and seems neutral, unbiased from discussions we both participated in. --A Nobody 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Between Protonk and Balloonman, I think the various stances have been well stated (at least for anything that would concern me on this RfA). Plus, I feel like the axiom of "Why the hell not, its no big deal." is lost a bit too often in cases like this one. JasonDUIUC (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Seems good enough to be trusted with the tools. There's a difference between writing an encyclopedia and maintaining an encyclopedia, and if this user wants to maintain, let him do so.  Ollie   Fury   Contribs  00:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) --cremepuff222 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. I see no indications that this user cannot be trusted with the tools.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Weak Support I see where some are coming with in the lack of article writing, but I will still cautiously support, as giving him the tools will likely not hurt the wiki. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support I don't really see how article contributions have anything to do with this; I realise that this is a personal issue for most, but admin tools are purely for admin activities, which this user has observed a lot (according to the 100+ AIV reports, etc). I just don't see the logic in this; you wouldn't deny a brain surgeon a job because he didn't know how to clean toilets. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Going with the image of the admin as janitor, I'd say your example is the wrong way around ;-)  So Why  07:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins are the janitors of more complex matters. Not to imply that articles are toilets and all editors are plebs, nor are admins godlike figures who have a final say. To hell with it, nobody read into that example too much, just understand what I'm saying. :P SoWhy, I'll deal with you later... *cracks knuckles* Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  08:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'd be a better analogy with a journalist and a mechanic? Sure, they could both do one another's jobs with some training, but you can't say that one job is easier -- some people are just better suited to one or the other... in this case, Gtstricky is more of a mechanic; he fixes up the car so that the journalist can actually GET to wherever the story is at... Just an idea :-D JasonDUIUC (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that analogy. :-) *now runs from MoP for destroying his illusion of being godlike :P*  So Why  09:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the journalist and mechanic one works, 'cept it sucks because I didn't think of it. :P Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: After reading all the opposes ( I hardly read most of the support votes in an RFA :) ) and analysing your contribs ... although I agree with some of the comments of Balloonman and Wisdom,  at this point, only one question comes to my mind .  Can I trust you with the extra buttons ?   Yes ! Dont worry, deletionists will be always compensated with inclusionists and that is why WP still exists !. Regardless of the success or failure of this RFA , I strongly request you to help in article building further. As Giggy rightly said, WP is an encyclopedia. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support: I have see this editor's contributions at the help desk very often, and I know from them that he knows his way around Wikipedia very well. The opposes are quite strong, but I'll also assume good faith and support him for this reason, though weakly. C h a m a l  talk 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I saw this nom pop up almost as soon as it was transcluded and have been reviewing Gt ever since. I started with his user coaching page, where I felt like he was getting info on what he needed to do to pass an RfA, not on how to be a better Wikipedian/Admin.  GT is a deletionist with virtually no experience in article building.  While I am willing to support deletionist (see Protonk's RfA) I want them to have some meaningful background building the project.  The article that Gtstricky has the most edits (14) to is BoatUS which has multiple issues.  He only has one other article with more than 10 edits CNN-YouTube presidential debates where this appears to be the most meaningful edit (on either page) where he isn't simply adding a source/wikilink.  He has very little experience in any of the talk areas---despite having over 2200 edits on user Talk Pages, there is only one (besides his own) where he has made more than 10 edits.  And no wikipedia talk, where policy/procedures are discussed with more than 10.  He only has 3 articles where he has edited the talk page more than 3 times.   These are clear signs of somebody who over relies upon tools---which looking at his contribs further highlights.  I see Twinkle, Huggle, AWB, and Friendly all over the place... I just don't see enough Gtstricky.  I do commend him for his working on the Help Desk and encourage him to continue to do so, but I simply cannot support somebody who has absolutely no meaningful experience building the project.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Article creating/expanding isn't always a deal breaker for me in an RfA, however, from what I can see in the user's contributions, and given what Balloonman has already said, I see a complete dearth of article work. Yes, I realize the candidate has taken an interest over at articles for creation, but seriously this does not inspire confidence in me at all.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Giggy (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Nothing personal, but I don't want more admins who work with deletion and don't write articles. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I too like to see admins with more article building experience, at least insomuch as they really understand what goes into each and every article. Agree with Balloonman's reasons. --Banime (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Balloonman, Wisdom89, Giggy, Aqwis, and Banime. AdjustShift (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose it's really a combination of smaller [than expected] contribution to content and short overall presence here. Either of these factor would not be decisive, but together they make me wonder: can a brilliant vandal fighter with this record be just as good in judgements on POV or RS or some thousand-year-old ethnic conflict? Maybe it's already there, but I don't see it, hence distrust. NVO (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Per everyone above, my feelings on this issue are already well known. — Realist  2  18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Balloonman says it well. Charles Edward 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Per Wisdom and Ballonman. Also, Charles Edward, coluld you provide a reason for your oppose. Chances are the closing crat will throw out your !vote if you don't. America69 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - No encyclopedist, or at least no evidence of such a creature. --  Iterator12n  <font color="Blue"> Talk 19:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Balloonman put it as I would. No article building whatsoever.  DiverseMentality  (Boo!)  21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Per Balloonman. Also, [This] I was just asking a question about a troll, i wasnt really asking for personal details or some crap. I just wanted to know like did wiki actually crash that day, because i was on, and tehre was a lot of AVRIL LAVGINE ROCKS MY SOCKS everywhere. So yeah. Didnt want any personal info. Correct me if I did the wrong thing instead. Thanks. II MusLiM HyBRiD II  21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - Per Q8. While I think the basis of the answer is correct, I disagree with the fact that you would block instead of protecting if there was only one editor who was edit warring on other articles. While full protection is needed in some cases it is never needed when blocking is a better alternative, and that can include blocking more than one user. Edit wars can be resolved in other ways than simply protection, and often protection does more harm to the project than good. Block the disruptive users, and let the others continue to contribute.  Tiptoety  talk 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose for numerous reasons. Any user who has an extreme viewpoint either way (deletionism/inclusionism) cannot be trusted with the "delete" button in my mind. The answer to Q8 is also concerning. Why not block a couple of users, instead of blocking everyone from editing the article, which is effectively what full protection is. Erik the Red  2    03:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak Oppose Per Balloonman-- LAA Fan sign review 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose, in the absence of both content creation and discussion on Talk pages.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak oppose Sorry, I really need some decent experience in article work and talk page discussion before I support. I'm not asking for 100 FA's and GA's, but some evidence that you know what goes into this project is essential. Kind regards, —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't his extensive work at WP:AFC show his appreciation for content building? Malinaccier (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it does, I'm afraid. I'd much rather see a candidate with some hands-on experience. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, no. See his contributions there:  Here is a stub which he essentially copied from the work of an anonymous IP  Here is another example of a great first edit, that was really provided by an anonymous IP.  I was pretty impressed with this edit until I realized it was all done by an anonymous IP who made still more edits to the article first. Here is another impressive article, but again it is really the work of an anonymous IP.  In each of these cases, Gtstricky has made no more than nominal changes to the work of anonymous IP's who apparently are going to AFC because they don't realize they can create the page themselves.  I didn't notice a single case wherein GTSTRICKY revisited the article to ensure further improve it after "creating" the article.  As for people who wonder why it is important to have article creation experience?  It isn't because I expect or demand Admins to write articles, but rather because that is the primary function of wikipedia... EVERYTHING else we do is secondary.  If you aren't familiar with the core of the project, then you are missing a key piece.  But not only that, if you don't understand what it means to take pride in your work, then it is hard to have empathy for others.  GTSTRICKY uses bots for most of his edits and communication with editors, thus it is hard to see if he has the requisite empathy or understanding of what it means to invest in the project.  He doesn't have the background showing that he has been on the receiving end of somebody tagging HIS work or deleting HIS work.  Being a vandal fighting admin is about more than just blocking, deleting, and reverting... it is about understanding others and working with them.  Article building is also a way to show an understanding of wikipolicy, I have to question the judgment of anybody who would create this. It was a one sentence stub that was deleted as a clear violation WP:CRYSTAL.  Article building is a way to show that you can empathize with that---and understand our primary purpose.  Talk page edits show that you can empathize and communicate with others.  I want to see some investment in BUILDING the project.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gtstricky has made no more than nominal changes to the work of anonymous IP's who apparently are going to AFC because they don't realize they can create the page themselves"... IPs can't create pages. AFC is so articles can be written on that page, and copied straight to the new article. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what he meant was if the IPs were going to place so much work into these articles, they could just as easily create an account and see it through instead of going over to AFC.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, creating an account really doesn't take much effort. I'd be more impressed with contributing to AFC if he was taking a core idea and expanding it or taking a stub and improving it.  Cutting and pasting just doesn't impress me.  In fact, it is essentially a variant of "new page patrol." Rather than tagging pages for deletion, it allows accounts to "preview" the pages and determine which are worth keeping and which aren't.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per the concerns raised by Balloonman and others previously.  --Strikerforce (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Giggy. NSR 77  T C  02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Balloonman and Tiptoety. All this user needs is some more experience in content, then I'd vote support.  Grsz  X  03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose per lack of article work. Granted, not everyone can write articles to FA standard but it really isn't that difficult to get a few DYKs or make more than 14 edits to one article. ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctantly agreeing with Balloonman, sorry. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Balloonman. I need to see some content-building contributions; not a lot, but more than this.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Oppose per Balloonman, but neutral for technical reasons (don't ask, it still hurts). <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 06:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per Balloonman, and some sketchy article work; can you spare some of your time working on an FA or GA soon? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per Balloonman (who knew that Balloonman was such a neutralizing factor?). Understanding the plight of article builders is not the same as being an article builder. Had the candidate been more active in creating content, support would have been easy. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I don't expect admins to be all article builders, but candidates should have some understanding of what it feels like to have their work speedily deleted... or how it feels to make a good faith effort to have somebody tag the article with half a dozen tags.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the lack of articles, but it does look like the admin coaching was a "how to pass RfA" meet rather then "how do i become a good admin". Neutral for now. Wizardman  12:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Wizardman. When coaching, I try to stay away from coaching for RfA, but I agree that I did stray in this section. Other than this, I do not see where else I have taught for RfA rather than for adminship itself.  In fact, I believe that I have concentrated much more upon adminship itself throughout our coaching(1, 2, and 3).  I do not mean to badger your comment, but I feel that Gtstricky is not at fault for my suggestions in the section I pointed out, but that it was poor judgement on my part. I believe that this section does not make a difference on whether Gtstricky is ready for adminship, and that he should not receive opposes and neutrals based on my statistically-minded coaching in that section.  Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, makes sense. I'll withdraw the neutral since i've looked at him further. Wizardman  23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I won't shut the door, but I do think more refinement of your editing style is needed before you would be best suited for adminship.  MBisanz  talk 06:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I don't want to !vote negative solely based on the fact that the nominee is not as active as some in article writing, but I can't support: there needs to be a bit more emphasis on writing, if not something extreme like "1000 edits more to articles then I'll support"; answer to the page protection question. Also, too many users want to be admins just so they can work on CSD deletions rather than just being able to tag new pages and wait for deletion. I respect the fact that GT wants to work in that area, but it seems to me that that is not an area in which we need as many admins as nominees seem to think. -- tennis man  19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral More work in article space is needed. After a few months of work, I'd be happy to support. A  ni  Mate  04:11, 21 October 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.