Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scott Gall


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

Scott Gall
Vote here (2/20/0) ending 11:33 12 June 2005 (UTC) Closed early as result is already clear, 06:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I nominate him because he will be a good administrator. He will put his unswerving duty to Wikipedia first and keep to NPOV. I just think he'll be better than me (if I ever become admin) at this job. Nazism  isn't   cool  11:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I accept. It's best to take an opportunity while it's there. Scott Gall 11:40, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support NazismIsntCool didn't give the customary free first vote, so I'm placing it here for him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. You need a good administrator before you can have a good wiki - and you shouldn't just take any candidate. Barely There 11:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1)  Oppose Strong Oppose Very Strong Oppose. I'm really sorry, I hate starting off an RFA like this. Scott, I think you show potential, but I can't justify voting support when you've got virtually as many edits to your user page as you do to articles. Plus, you haven't made much use of the edit summary at all, which in my book (as well as others) is a big no-no. You obviously have been here for a while; it also appears you are the creator of Votes for deletion policy (which is good!). If this nomination fails, come back in a month after doing some more stuff, use that edit summary much more liberally and break 1000 edits. I will most likely vote support for you then. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *I am changing my vote to strong oppose. I just looked at his user page, and I think that this user has some real growing-up to do. Quoting from his user page: I'm Scott Gall. I am an uncircumcised 16-year-old male of Caucasian origin from Halfway Bush... I'm sorry, but I do not want to know what the status of your foreskin is. This is telling me that this user is not mature enough to handle adminship. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Changed to very strong oppose based on the fact that he is a vandal. I can't believe I overlooked all of this stuff. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Not only does he not meet my admin criterion, I think all the comments about vandalism, etc. do not make me believe Scott will exercise good judgment and maturity as an admin. Sorry Scott - keep up the good work, but I don't think you'd be a good admin, jguk 11:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) weak Oppose I can't put my finger on precisely why, but I just don't have a good feeling about Scott as an administrator. I was tempted to vote neutral, because I'm haven't had huge amounts of interation with him, but his edit count is on the low side and the comments from other users in this and the previous request don't encourage me. This isn't an al-time vote, so when you have more experience and a higher profile, I will gladly recondisder in any future request. Thryduulf 14:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *Changing my vote to strong Oppose following Jguk's comments below about him being a vandal on de. Thryduulf 20:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I can't put my finger on it either, but something just seems like he won't use good judgement. Howabout1 Talk to me!  15:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. From his user page: "If I ever get sysop status, I will chase down every vandal and make sure they pay dearly for their actions". In my view, blocking powers and such are simply to prevent vandalism to Wikipedia, not punish vandals. Vandals should be encouraged to reform their behavior, not be punished. Also, Scott, could you explain your admin crtieria? You've used them more than once, despite the objections (scroll down) of other editors. As you note, you don't meet your own criteria and I do not believe I could vote for someone who doesn't believe he would make a good administrator ("This means I oppose myself.") Don't get me wrong, Scott&mdash;I'm glad you're helping out Wikipedia, and you're doing a good job. I just don't think adminship is right for you; there are other ways in which you can better help out. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 15:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I can't support someone who doesn't meet his own admin criteria. Carbonite | Talk 17:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. This is where your admin criterion is really gonna bite you in the ass. Also, I really didn't want to know that you're uncircumcised. That's a bit too much TMI...shows a lack of maturity. Mike H 17:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose . Your admin criteria shows an extreme lack of good faith.  Bratsche talk random 17:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Strongest Possible Oppose in light of jguk's comments and a more in-depth look at his user page. Bratsche talk  random 22:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose due to the hate list. Everyking 17:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Besides the comments made by the other opposing votes, this user has yet to answer the question I asked here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. A cursory glance at his user page shows that his politics are as dubious as they were last time. I do not believe this user can act with impartiality or carry out policy (he seems to think that personal attacks are acceptable, for example). Rje 19:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. From user page, Scott Gall writes: "Point of view should be allowed in moderation in articles where some parts are unknown. Edit wars should also be justified in this case." Clearly does not understand the fundamental principle of Wikipedia. David [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|25px]] | Talk 19:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Very strong oppose. Vandalises other language Wikipedias. Hedley 20:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose --Jcornelius 21:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I wouldn't have minded a 'reformed vandal' so much, but the fact that you keep a list of your vandalism around is quite childish. Also, you don't fit your own standards for becoming an admin. --gcbirzantalk 21:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, the above comments are troubling. Flcelloguy 21:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, and now I hate you too. r3m0t talk 23:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Our friend here needs to gain some maturity and a firmer grip on reality before requesting adminship. Bumm13 23:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Was this even a serious nomination? Atari2600tim 23:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Userpage is confrontational and shows immaturity.  Ann Heneghan 23:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. this guy actually is proud of being of vandal..he keeps a "museum" of his stupid vandalism. Revolución 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Most of the opposing votes are quite unnecessary - what the hell is the point of voting 20 oppose votes, half of which are quite hostile to the nominee, when it's obvious the nomination will not pass? Scott Gall is not as deserving of an RFC as the nominator, for certain (who is either an obvious troll or has less of an idea how things work than Scott Gall - his signature's even broken), and he is probably less deserving of one than some of the people opposing. – ugen64 01:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * This page has been reverted by NazismIsntCool into a new admin request page by Scott. It previously showed an earlier (failed) attempt by Scott to become an admin. The previous attempt can be read here, jguk 12:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Um.. is there any reason why the first support vote was removed? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it must have gotten lost in a caching problem - it certainly wasn't appearing when I added my vote (which appears to have accidentally removed it). I have re-inserted the "support", jguk 12:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Knowledge Seeker brought up an interesting point. According to Scott's own admin criteria, he is not fit for adminship. I've already voted oppose, but I would like to bring this to the attention of everyone, especially including Scott. IMHO, you should either rethink and revise your critera so that you yourself conform to it, or withdraw your acceptance until you're 21. It doesn't look good if someone who has accepted an adminship nomination doesn't fit his own admin criteria. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * From: User:Scott Gall/Museum of vandalism: "I used to be a vandal here and I still occasionally do a bit on the German Wikipedia. I found out that if you repeatedly vandalize on de:, they block you for only 3 hours compared to the 24 that you're letting yourself in if you vandalize here." Do we really want a current vandal of the German WP as an admin here? jguk 20:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm going to be blunt... this RFA has virtually no chance of winning concencus. At the current tally of 2 support to 20 oppose, Scott needs 80 support votes in order to gain an 80% margin (and that's assuming no one else votes oppose within the next six days). In order to spare both people on RFA trouble and Scott the grief, I move to close this RFA. To Scott: Again, I will be blunt, and I will be objective. You need to grow up. First off, no one wants to know the status of your penis, your father's penis, or your brother's penises. That's not only childish, it's nausiating. Second, you've got to learn that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as your user page is overtly used as one. Third, you need to understand that about 99.5% of all Wikipedians hate vandals, even those on other language wiki's. Showing off your vandalisms in a "museum" is amazingly lacking in tact and in maturity. Fourth, I strongly suggest you learn how things work around here, or you may very well find yourself facing an RFC or, God forbid, an RFAr (not by me; don't take that as a threat but instead as a warning). Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've taken the initiative and closed the RfA - it serves no purpose keeping it there once the result is known. Also, I note I am not sure the "museum of vandalism" is of Scott's vandalism, although he does admit being a sometime vandal on English WP and a current vandal on German WP on the museum's mainpage. Note also that Scott suffers from Asperger's syndrome, which may explain some of the behaviour, jguk 06:04, 6 Jun 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I would deal with vandalism and edit wars, and page protection and deletion whenever needed.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. It's a difficult question. I would have to say all of them, I shouldn't be favoring one contribution over another - it constitutes bias.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. There was this series of anonymous IPs in February. They posted religious nonsense on Wikipedia under the name Robin Donald. I reported him to the vandalism in progress and one administrator says he took up the chase and blocked the joker. I will not have to get admin attention anymore if my request is approved - there's this phrase in Maori: 'kia kaha,' meaning 'be strong' - if I'm after a vandal, I will keep an eye on that specific vandal and if he gets too far, I'll just block him.