Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gfoley4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Gfoley4[edit]

Final (71/10/4). Close as successful by WJBscribe at 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Gfoley4 (talk · contribs) – Gfoley4 has been active on Wikipedia since March of last year. Gfoley4 has a extensive experience in a variety of areas. I first encountered Gfoley4 at Articles for Creation, ARC/R and at the Wikipedia IRC help channel. Gfoley4 frequently helps new editors and answers {{helpme}} requests politely and patiently. Gfoley4 also works heavily on train related articles. He has created 20 articles, 6 disambiguation pages, and has 1 DYK. However, Gfoley4's main line of work is vandal fighting and new page patrol. He performs this task effectively and politely. Of his past 123 CSDs, 122 of them were deleted. Gfoley4 would make a good administrator. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 will primarily be working at administrative noticeboards such as AIV and RFPP. I have had experience with both noticeboards, with 218 edits combined. I also shall be working at Templates for discussion and Redirects for discussion where I have made numerous non-admin closures. I feel that more administrators are needed in these places, especially with the last two normally backlogged. Another area that I would work at is WP:PERM, giving permissions to trusted users
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Alpha mentioned, my main area of contributions is devoted to anti-vandalism. Other areas that I think are my best contributions include responding to help requests on the #wikipedia-en-help connect IRC channel, and closing RfD and TfD discussions. I have also created 20 articles (and counting ) and I've enjoyed every one of them. Out of those, my favorite article is Limon Railroad Depot, which is my only DYK.

I am also involved in the account creation team, creating accounts for users that, for one reason or another, can not. I have created over 100 accounts in that area.

Another thing that I enjoy doing is reviewing AFC submissions and giving pointers on how the editor can improve it.

Lastly, I have tagged many pages for speedy deletion, with a good percentage of them being deleted.

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: In my time as a Wikipedia editor, I haven't really been in any major conflicts. Of course, as a vandal fighter, editors contact you about asking why their edit was removed. In these situations, I tell the other user why I undid/reverted the edit in question, normally citing the relevant policy. I remain calm and patient, as well as not biting the newbies.

Additional questions from User:DGG:

4 Q I notice you have listed a large number of articles for speedy deletion, almost all of which were , in my opinion, perfectly good nominations, and were accordingly promptly deleted. Once you are an admin, and have the power to delete article directly, when do you intend to delete such articles directly, and when place a tag and let some other admin decide?
A: I would normally delete on the spot without tagging if I saw an article that met the criteria for speedy deletion. I would be cautious in deleting A1 & A3 tagged articles in the first few minutes since not all editors place all their content in the first edit. Obviously, if the criteria is not met, I would simply remove the and explain why. Now, if an article on a living person has a claim of importance, but does not have any references, I would place a BLPPROD on it.
5 Q In dealing with an obviously unsuitable article created by a beginning editor, in which cases do you think that notification via the templates is sufficient, and in which cases do you think that a more personal message instead of (or in addition to) a template is more suitable.? DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: The CSD warning templates are designed well. They include information such as why the article has been tagged and what you can do to object to the deletion ({{hang on}}) But, sometimes a personal message is better. If the article creator obviously has good faith, I may simply write a note explaining my actions. While templates are nice, they give away the human aspect of wikipedia, and focus on the machine/bot part.
Additional question from TCO
6. What is the article you have conributed most content to before 2011?
A: It would probably be South Station (MBTA subway station), which was really my first article. I wasn't done with it my the time 2011 rolled around though. Revision as of December 2010.
Additional question from ClubOranje
7. Following on from Q4, Not all of your CSD tags resulted in deletion. Do you stand by these ([1], [2], [3] and [4]) tags as the article stood when you tagged them? . If "Yes", would you delete them immediately as an admin or tag them as before. If "No", what would you do differently, and why?
A: The first one: That one was my mistake; it was the start of the new year and obviously didn't have much content. I would not have tagged for speedy deletion and simply let the article grow, maybe placing it on my watchlist. Second one: Same thing, mistake on my part. I didn't do my "homework" on that to see that the signer has an article (Xander (singer)) or that it was highly rated in Denmark. Third one: Hmmm... Looking back, I do not think my {{db-nocontext}} tag was correct. Although the character doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, there was enough content to identify the subject of the article (as defined in WP:CSD#A1. A redirect is appropriate. Last one: This one I should have left alone. The tag was placed pretty soon the article was created. The now has content, references, and the chart.
Additional question from T. Canens
8. Can you respond to Laser brain (talk · contribs)'s oppose comment concerning Limon Railroad Depot?
A: Sure. I have replaced the two dead links to PDFs with a link to the Colorado Historical Society's website (showing the same information). I am not sure how I "closely paraphrased" the information I got from the PDFs. The only information I got was that it is one of three still standing Rock Island Line stations and it was donated to the Limon Historical Society in 1990. I would appreciate if you (Laser brain) looked over the reference again and tell me what they think is paraphrased.
Additional questions from User:Snottywong
9. Would you ever block a user without first warning them? If yes, describe a few example situations when this would be acceptable. If no, explain why.
A: Most times, users should be warned before they are ever blocked. If I was patrolling AIV, I would not block with no or even one warning. There are some exceptions to this: I would block 4chan raiders or obvious sockpuppet-vandals without warning(s).
10. Would you ever unilaterally semi-protect or fully-protect a page (i.e. without there first being a request made at WP:RFPP)? If yes, describe a few example situations when this would be acceptable. If no, explain why.
A: Again, this can be both ways. Normally, I would stay along the lines of protection has to first be requested at WP:RFPP. There are exceptions to this too: Active inbound attacks would be the most common one. Additionally, unprotected images on the Main page would not need a request.
Additional questions from User:DGG
11 This is a follow up from Q4 , above. For G11 (promotional), how would you decide when an article is "exclusively promotional"? Do you think there are many promotional articles that are not at least slightly informative, to at least say what the stuff is? Do you think it depends on intent, and how do you decide on intent--do you think it impossible that someone can write-- for the sole purpose of promoting something--a highly informative and encyclopedic article about it? And how would you decide that it would need and would need to be " fundamentally rewritten" rather than just edited? Do you think you yourself can individually make accurate decisions on this. Are G11's perhaps an exception to your deciding all by yourself? DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Seeing if an article is "exclusively promotional" requires reading the article at least 2-3 times. I have reviewed many AfC submissions that have promotional parts and I think that this is a must. On your second question, I think that it's about half and half. I'd say that about half of promotional articles are purely advertising and the other half are semi-informative with some promotional bits stuck in. If the article is one of the articles that have nothing besides promotion of the product, I would think it would need to be "fundamentally re-written". If the article has parts of non-promotional material, I would say that it just needs to be edited. In all, I guess you could say that I would, like A7's, defer on close G11's.
An additional question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
12 Why does my cursor change shape when I hover over your signature?
A: The cursor changes because of a bit of HTML. I believe the code <span style="cursor:crosshair"> changes the userpage link and the code <span style="cursor:help"> changes the link to my talk page. These codes can be easily removed if you feel that it is a distraction.
While there are bigger things to worry about, do you not think it's ever so slightly annoying or at least unnecessary? I'm not going to tell you that you have to remove it because you could easily add it back after the RfA, but I do think it's unnecessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, as you can see, I have removed it from my signature. Cheers, —GƒoleyFour— 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • My PROD log can be found here and a CSD log can be found here. Please Note Not all of my CSD/PROD tagging was picked up by the script. (After the upgrade to 1.17) —GƒoleyFour— 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit stats posted to talk.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE This page was last edited by xxx and not Gfoley4! Content may be inaccurate; please check the last change for vandalism. I haven't made up my mind on this candidate yet, but asking passing editors to check his/her userpage for vandalism just because the last edit was not by that user seems to be (a) rather immature, (b) expressing undue ownership on userpages and (c) showing some degree of bad faith by presuming that others' edits are not constructive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support. I have known this user for a while now via IRC and AfC, and he would definitely be a great administrator. No conflicts that I can see, and he seems to know all of the major policies. Also, great content contributions. Logan Talk Contributions 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - As nominator. Alpha Quadrant talk 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support He is a very competent user and would be a good administrator in my eyes. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seen you around and not encountered anything that makes me think you wouldn't be a good admin. BigDom talk 23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No-Brainer. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I reviewed Gfoley4's contribs (less Igloo edits :), and found that they all tend to be well done. I also think his AFC work is pretty well done. Opposition will need to dig up a serious issue to get me to oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I see no issue in this! - Rich(MTCD)Talk Page 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, see nothing wrong with candidate. Although I can't say for sure the anti-DYK brigade will be too happy that your favourite article contribution is a DYK, it doesn't really concern me given your wide range of work including with AFC which nullifies any content contribution issues for me. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, known him for a bit, cool with others and I think he would be a good admin.--iGeMiNix 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fully meets my standards. Inka888 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not sure why not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - Have known GFoley4 for a while now. Very calm and cool when the editing gets hot. Definitely a great editor to have here. Will be a GREAT addition to the admin corps! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - without a doubt. Orphan Wiki 02:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Helpful user in en-help, and has offered me advice many times in the past. Best of luck to you in your RfA. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 04:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Great candidate. Looking forward to seeing you mop up the administrative backlogs. ;) œ™ 05:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Tiderolls 06:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Strikerforce (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - looks like a good candidate indeed. The longer I work on Wikipedia, the more I value those willing to stay civil and help those new to the project or with questions. This person with extra buttons will most likely be a significant plus, and regardless of the outcome has my thanks and best wishes. Jusdafax 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seen this user around a fair bit, they always seem competent, nothing concerning me in their contribs and more or less meets my criteria. Pol430 talk to me 11:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Not a difficult decision - well experienced editor with plenty of understanding and a collegial attitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No reason not to. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I've interacted with Gfoley4 a bit in #wikipedia-en-help. This user is always very helpful and patient with new users, and knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Looks good to me. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Absolutely! Best of luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support That was easy! Baseball Watcher 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Unless I was to be a hypocrite. Seriously, I've directly collaborated with Gfoley4 in ACC, en-help, and AfC. His positive contributions coupled with a positive attitude leave no concern related to trust. My76Strat 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Great candidate, looking forward to seeing you as a sysop. Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. great guy. Everything checks out. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Been seen around, time to give out another mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mega support He is a great editor and would make an even better admin! Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per the one rejected CSD tag. ;-) Swarm X 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you put that in the wrong section... ;-) —GƒoleyFour— 03:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shh. Don't tell him that. :) The one CSD tag was declined by Ironholds. Alpha Quadrant talk
    If that's not ironic nothing is! Swarm X 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Strong vandal fighting credentials and an exceptional newcomer helper — combine that with trustworthiness and adequate content creation tips the scales in favor. The only weakness I see is that the candidate has been highly active only since August.--Hokeman (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I have no reason not to anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Fully qualified candidate, I see no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Based on some recent work in the last couple of hours that left me impressed, and on more research, I see no reason to remain in the 'neutral' section. I also like his civility and ability to deal with difficult 'customers'. Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I didn't know that my little concoction has became popular...oh well, support. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I've seen the candidate doing 'crat-like work closing RfAs and updating the monthly tallies, and had wondered why he wasn't an admin. After reviewing some of his article creations and recent contributions, I can't find any cause for concern. Looks like a solid candidate to me. 28bytes (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. (edit conflict) Suppport: About time. I've worked with Gfoley4 numberous times in #wikipedia-en-help. He's proven to be a knowledgeable, experienced, willing editor. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Can't see any problems with this candidate, very good temperment in the discussions I've looked at. WormTT 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Wow some amazing edits! Novice7 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)su[reply]
  42. Support – Definitely; no issues here. —mc10 (t/c) 15:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No issues seen that would make me not trust the candidate with the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. No concerns, mop well deserved I say. Well qualified candidate, has some good experience and is active anyway. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Suport - I have worked with Gfoley4 at ACC. No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I have worked with Gfoley4 at AfC and think he would make an excellent admin. Zachlipton (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Gfoley4 is one of the most patient, kind and good-humoured people I know and the time that he's been active he's gained a lot of knowledge and experience. Past interactions with him on IRC have been splendid, I and I'm sure no one else has ever witnessed a bout of undue comments from him. He possesses the qualities of a good admin, is well-deserving of the tools and trustworthy. The concerns raised are insubstantial, are we all not here to learn from experience and from each other? He's made a few mistakes, so have I and I'm sure we all have but what matters is that we acknowledge, fix and move on from those mistakes. Wikipedia is all about learning and contributing to that wealth of knowledge amassed and again is that not why we are here? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:34pm • 10:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I do think Gfoley4 has the qualities needed. One of the necessary qualities in an admin is reasonableness and willingness to revisit their own actions if asked, and I'm seeing this here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No valid reason to oppose. Surely this user can be trusted with the mop. Ronk01 talk 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I trust this user from previous interactions (I'm having a memory/searching fail - I'm sure I've already commented here, but I can't find it? Apologies if I have already.) [stwalkerster|talk] 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Stephen 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Sure. All my interactions with Gfoley4 have been positive. The extra help at TFD is most appreciated. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Looks good to me. Enfcer (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Certainly deserves the tools. WayneSlam 21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support No valid reason to oppose, very helpful user who could expand his field of work usefully with administrator tools. --123Hedgehog456 21:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Net positive, and friendly in interactions; demonstrated cluefulness in our ACC interactions (willingness to listen, admit mistakes, and learn from them). Please do take careful note of the oppose views, and be extra-super-careful, GFoley.  Chzz  ►  23:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Not perfect but still a net positive. I do agree with DGG below and I suggest that you either work NPP like any non-admin providing the initial CSD tag or work at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion where you can be the second opinion and delete what needs to go. Pichpich (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. A university needs janitors as well as professors. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. After following this for a few days, I'm landing here. Pichpich a few !votes above gives reasons that effectively summarise where I stand. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: There are some legitimate concerns raised below, but on balance the candidate is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support:No reason why not--Sokac121 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I'm actually a bit ambivalent, but am coming down as a weak support. New page patrolling combined with welcoming new users is a good combination, but I'd like to see more of a track record of dealing with disputes. What I see instead is someone who has steered clear of disputes so far. Based on looking through your user talk archives, I see enough civility and constructiveness that I am willing to support. I'm taking it on good faith that when serious disputes come your way, and after becoming an administrator they will, you will continue to be low-drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Well this is due to be closed in a couple of hours and the result isn't really in doubt, but, just in case, I thought I'd say that I think you'd be a net positive as an admin. We need more admins and I think you're clueful enough not to make a mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I've come across Gfoley4 in New Pages (or New Accounts as I come to it...), and in railway articles. Never had a problem. I agree with HJ Mitchell. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. The Giants win the pennant! I think Gfoley4 has taken well the instruction about haste. Sometimes you don't win but still gain experience. Having reviewed the issues raised i consider Gfoley4 to be a gross positive. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seems suited for the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Not at all impressed by the candidate's content work and attention to detail. I reviewed one of the candidate's "best" contributions, which is Limon Railroad Depot. It appeared at DYK with a hook that is cited to refs with broken links (7 and 8). When I finally found the PDF for ref 8 by searching the parent web site, I found that Gfoley4 mis-cited the title and closely paraphrased information from the PDF. I'm sorry, but I would not entrust admin tools to this candidate. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded at Q8. —GƒoleyFour— 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question, the source reads "In 1990, the Mid-States Port Authority donated the building to the Limon Heritage Society" and your text reads "After that, the building was donated to the Limon Heritage Society by previous owner Mid-States Port Authority." That's known as close paraphrasing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just that sentence (and no other problems) then while it needs to be fixed, I wouldn't personally make too much of it as an issue for the candidate. A more comprehensive explanation in another venue should fix it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll consider your point, but I view RFA as a chance for a candidate to put their best foot forward, just like a job interview. In this case, it was an article with broken links, reference issues, and close paraphrasing. If a candidate brought that in their portfolio to a job interview, would you hire them? --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Were the references broken when the article was on the main page? Or did they rot over time? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No the references were not "dead" when the article was on the main page. That was only about a week ago so the Colorado Historical Society must have changed their links between now and then. —GƒoleyFour— 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Insufficient content creation. See Q6. I do appreciate the candidate's forthrightness, though. TCO (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone is an artist. Gfoley happens to be exceedingly good at what he does, which is work with new users and content creators at AfC, among other things. By working at AfC, and in other forums where people ask for help, he's contributed to the contribution of more content than many admins have. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, lack of content creation has never hindered me as an admin. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Deleting single-handed is too prone to error for routine use. Nobody is perfect; everyone has an error rate. For Speedy tagging , the error rate of a single individual probably is about 5%; if two people judge in succession,the number or errors a day goes down from 50 a day, which is unacceptably high, to 2, which is a low a rate as any operation like ours can realistically hope for. we can not afford to be turning away 50 new editors a day--we already have a problem attracting and keeping people, and a rate like that will destroy our ability to get new contributors who, although they might not be all that good when they come, learn. I've certainly deleted singlehanded when something comes up that make me really exasperated, or is simply an example of deliberate nonsense, but I try not to do so in most situations. When I start getting tempted to go quickly by myself, I've learned to take it as a signal that I'm getting tired or bored, and to stop. I will certainly not accept any admin candidate as understanding the situation here who intends to do it routinely. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am rather concerned that you are opposing based on a perception of policy that is clearly incorrect. CSD rules state that an admin is entitled to delete qualifying articles at first sight. There is no requirement, despite what you might like to think, that an admin merely tag an article and leave it to another to review. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Stifle--being entitled doesn't mean being obligated. I think I'm with DGG on this one, at least to a great extent. It is certainly tempting to delete some of the stuff that goes by, but it's better, IMO, to play it safe. I've been wrong before in tagging, and those mistakes have swayed me: I think it is a good characteristic of an admin not to delete at first sight as a matter of course, that it be the exception. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not policy, and admin candidates should not be penalized for failing to comply with what some people think policy should be. It's also disappointing that DGG set a trap question. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose. The answer to question 4 worries me a lot. Gfoley4 does not understand the potential harm in deletion before allowing editors to properly develop articles. I am unconvinced that he attempts to look for sources before tagging potential CSD candidates. It is harmful to Wikipedia for him to have the tools. (Also, little content contribution.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry, per tagging issues raised in Q7. Three of these were bad tags made in too much of a hurry. CSD tagging is not a race - by all means burn the nasties quickly, but take a moment to reflect for newborn articles doing no harm; No.1 (2 mins) clearly had context with opening line and infobox, and obvious precedent with previous year articles. No.2 (6 mins) Clearly referenced notability claim of being a chart-topper (despite NOT actually having an artist article yet! Xander (singer) is Dutch, this Xander is Danish). did you pick up on the fact the article author removed your speedy tag? No.3 (1 min) possibly CSD#R2 implausible redirect as misnomer (who would type that exactly?), but good that you recognise A1 was inappropriate in hindsight. However, I question whether you even followed the redirect to assert it's validity. No.4 (4 mins) was very poor. Your answer talks about it now having "content, references, and the chart". When tagged it already had content, references (albeit not showing due to cite error) and the album chart. A better option than tagging would have been to fix the {{Reflist}} issue. The 100edit user who created the article would still have been trying to find out white the cite error meant while you were tagging it. I can forgive a few errors, even relatively recent ones as long as they are rare. The best I can do for the project is raise this here and hope that you (and other potential candidates) take this on board and improve new article review because of it. It may save a few new editors from becoming disillusioned before they get started. Best of luck.--ClubOranjeT 09:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The article I saw when I tagged it was this revision before the redirect, which happened in an edit conflict. Maybe a better target for the redirect would be List_of_Victorious_characters#Tori_Vega though. —GƒoleyFour— 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made up my mind on the candidate yet, but I have to say; shit happens sometimes. We all have our moments sometimes. And to say NPP isn't a race shows that you most likely don't do it very much. Of course we don't want it to be a race, but you have to keep up with it, which requires a certain amount of speed. It's far from ideal, but it's the situation NPP is in because of how few people are doing it. Again, I haven't made up my mind on this candidate yet, but opposing over one accident (per the explanation above me) and a couple of bad tags seems a bit tough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking that whilst at NPP one should try to keep up with the flow of new articles is possibly the easiest trap that one could fall into there. The key thing is to do the ones you do correctly, of course everyone will occasionally make mistakes, but excess haste at CSD is very damaging and easily leads to excessive mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, accuracy is obviously more important, but the fact that BLPPROD exists is sort of an indicator that speed counts for something. Ideally, we'd all have the time to go and find a decent reference for every new BLP; however, that's simply not feasible. We have BLPPROD precisely because we don't have enough people handling NPP to take a half-hour finding references for BLPs; if we were trying to do that, Special:NewPages would be flooded and unreferenced BLPs would sneak through. Maintenance tags in general are here partially for this as well; in an ideal world, I'd be able to wikify, reference, and clean up every new article I found. However, that's just not possible if we want to keep the Siegenthaler incident from happening again, because we do have to get eyes on as many new pages as possible. I should have said that in the first place; I did not mean to say that we should view NPP as a race, but that there's a difference between happening to make a mistake while going fast and outright haste. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose reluctantly. I generally don't have a problem with admins carrying out "solo" speedy deletion but it should only be in the most obvious and harmful cases - it should not be the default approach. Even then, it requires very good judgement and very high accuracy, and I don't think you have demonstrated that in your speedy tagging. For what it's worth, I would be supporting instead of opposing if you had said you would normally tag articles for deletion by a second admin. Thparkth (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I'm comfortable neither with the stated intent to unilaterally speedy articles nor with the recent CSD tagging diffs in Q7. Gfoley4 states with regards to 2011 in archaeology, "[I]t was the start of the new year and obviously didn't have much content." 1) Not sure how those two clauses are related 2) Gfoley4's CSD tag was A1 (no context), not A3 (no content). The erroneous tags in Q7 would not concern me had they been ages ago, but having occurred in December and January, they indicate an outstanding lack of judgment and a trigger-happy mentality that greatly concern me. The little content creation also leads me to oppose. Goodvac (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose even though you do plenty of good work here. From what I've seen with admins who get into trouble—in minor ways, in major ways—a common characteristic is not being appropriately cautious. The hasty taggings that have been identified, and your stated intent to have a general routine practice of deleting articles unilaterally without having another set of eyes look at the page: to me, these are some red flags. And DGG provides a good rationale as to why unilateral CSD deletions are generally not a good idea. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose: lack of attention to detail, seems immature, not clueful enough. Clearly not ready. Mono (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I share Paul Erik's concerns . I'm sorry, but I cannot support you this time around. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, problematic on 4 and 7 above.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I seem to be the first user to go neutral on this Rfa, but you've done so much to the project in a short space of time which is the reason I was going to support. I had a close look at your rollback contributions, and I found this a little bit iffy. I can see where you were going with that one, as there is no explanation on the removal of content, but that rollback had restored content which is unreferenced. This is only one small mistake I've found, so it's not bad enough for me to oppose. But anyway, good luck with the tools, and be a little more careful when reviewing content removal, because some of them may be copyvios or defamation. Minimac (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only one mistake! We all make them! And even then, it's not an obvious case of it should definately / definately not be reverted, and you've even admitted that yourself. Bit harsh, don't you think? Orphan Wiki 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it would certainly be harsh if I voted against this RFA, but not if it is neutral though. I do like to change my vote to support but only if Gfoley understands the only concern that I've spotted. Minimac (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit this was a mistake. Sometimes I go through Recent Changes with the "Section blanking" filter set. Looking back, the content was unsourced and therefore didn't meet one of our core policies, WP:V. I have undid undone my change. —GƒoleyFour— 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Undone  狐 FOX  22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. —GƒoleyFour— 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The consistency of your CSD tagging looks very good, as does the variety of areas you have gotten involved in, and the variety of people who have already supported. I won't oppose in light of those things. What's keeping me here at the moment is that I've struggled to find examples of you getting heavily involved in content-related discussion (peer reviews, AfDs or the like). I'm uncomfortable supporting admins who are likely work in AfD (as your NAC closure record suggests) who haven't shown that they understand the difference between a vote and a discussion, which in turn can only really be shown by participating in discussions. —WFC— 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have some reservations. The format of the userpage and the editing style of the user cause slight concerns for maturity (at least for me, they remind me of a past myself). Still, I'm leaning towards support, pending more answers and my own time to look through contributions. ceranthor 19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally respect your reservations. I will concur that I have considered this exact concern. As much as I imagine that Gfoley is perhaps a young contributor, based on your sensibly mature reservation, I am willing to wager the younger version of you was probably a pretty good person. Having worked directly with him does give me a deeper insight, Gfoley4 is a sponge for knowledge and without arrogance, yields to, and learns from his more experienced peers. The recipe is so perfectly scrumptious that we don't need for the cake to be baked to know it is going to be good. My76Strat 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel inclined to clarify a potential misunderstanding. When I first appended my support for Gfoley4, I hadn't even read the neutral comments. When I said "hypocrite", I was being completely jest and want to preempt any assumption that there might be a connection to this comment. Thanks My76Strat 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate may wish to check that his custom user page is rendering correctly in most commonly used browsers on major computer platforms. Kudpung (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to support due some very recent work I've seen an hour or so ago. From some recent discussions on your talk page, I'm not sure that you are sufficiently confident on the technical side of some of the basic admin tools (the admin-only extensions of some of the operations you are already doing). Perhaps welcoming new users and thanking them for their contribs when they haven't made any yet [5] does not do much to encourage new users. A closer look at WP:NPP, which is an area of concern (not about you in particular), might be a good idea, especially as you are keen to offer advice to new users. Do note however, that when I !vote 'neutral' it really is neutral, and is not to be considered a 'weak oppose'. Kudpung (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, that account was created through ACC. All accounts created through ACC automatically get welcomed by a bot, if you have that setting enabled. —GƒoleyFour— 02:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice observation - I live and learn. In that case, perhaps the bot operator can look into it.Kudpung (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes in fact it is an issue we at ACC should resolve by creating a more appropriate welcome. I turned my automatic welcoming off simply because I didn't like the idea of thanking them for contributions they hadn't made. My76Strat 05:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to re-word templates or create your own, then any ACC tool admin can add them to the list which the bot uses, based on the user's preferences on the ACC tool. Sometimes the problems arise from when someone makes a change to a template which is used by the bot without realising, and makes it either sound silly or break entirely (such as here [6]), though this discussion is probably best left for another venue. The point I'm trying to make is a) it can be improved, yes, but b) it's not necessarially (Ok, how do you spell that? I've confused the spell checker.) the user's fault. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Necessarily. —GƒoleyFour— 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Buy me off? (moved to support) I really do want to support this candidate, but I have to put my vote down here for the moment. Your answer to Q4 disturbs me. While there are plenty of cases where unilaterally deleting articles is acceptable, (IMO everything except for A7s) there are cases where I'd think a second pair of eyes are warranted (borderline cases of A7), and in those cases unilateral deletions would be worrisome. Of course since this is my only concern it's rather easy to buy me off, I just want to know that if you're not 110% sure, you'll tag it or PROD it rather than outright delete it. You bat over 99%, but still, it's a matter of principal, and I'd expect it of any admin regardless of their skill in vetting. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent a lot of time thinking on that question (Q4). It was one of my thoughts that I would defer to another admin on an "iffy" A7. Even though I still stand by my answer, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the editor who created the article and not speedy delete a borderline A7. I might add a tag, notify the author and defer to another admin. If I feel the need, I would PROD of AFD the article accordingly. —GƒoleyFour— 04:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd like more content creation and more experience. Mono (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gfoley4&oldid=1145817198"