Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman 2

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.

GiantSnowman[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (102/0/1); ended 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to be able to nominate one of our most prolific, diligent and sincere editors, GiantSnowman. I came across GiantSnowman almost 12 months ago when his request for adminship was put forward to the community for approval. The request was not accepted then by the community, and I was one of those who had opposed the RfA initially before changing my opinion. A year since then, I have seen GiantSnowman not only address the issues that arose at the previous RfA but also ensure that his contributions have continued at a pace more prolific than ever before. GiantSnowman has been with us since February 2006, has placed in close to 70,000 edits; and 28,000 of those edits have come since the past RfA in varied areas of our project, providing evidence of his passion to contribute relentlessly to our project’s advancement. This editor has created over 3,000 articles, and continues to unflinchingly add to the knowledge base that we wish to present to the world. If the community accepts this candidacy, this able and extremely helpful editor would be a potent benefit for our project’s administration, especially in the areas related to BLPs. I hope that the community too views GiantSnowman as being capable for being entrusted with the tools and accepts this request for administration. Thank you. Wifione Message 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Co-nomination

At the previous RfA, I supported Giant Snowman on the basis of an excellent record and a good understanding of basic policies. But I recognized that there was some basis for views expressed that some of his answers there were not as fully developed as they ought to be, and took insufficient regard for all of the possibilities. I supported him because I thought he would learn; I think he has now clearly shown that he has indeed learned, and I anticipate that the results of this RfA will prove that this is recognized. I'm glad he persisted and I look forward to him as a colleague. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • Many thanks to both editors for their kind words & faith in me. I think I have become a better and more-knowledgeable editor since last year's failed RFA, and have taken on board many of the concerns raised there. I hope the rest of the community feels the same. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: My main area of work on Wikipedia is creating BLPs - over 3,000 and counting - and so I would like to initially work with BLPPRODs, as I spent quite a bit of time (working alongside other editors) getting rid of masses of articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Full list, either by finding reliable sources and verifying notability, or by tagging them for deletion. I would also like to work with AfDs as that is where most of my past experience has been. I have previously contributed to WP:ANI and (briefly and recently) WP:BLPN, and I would like to expand upon this on both noticeboards. Given time and experience I would hope to spread my skills as far as possible. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of every contribution I make - that's why I do it - but my best contributions are in creation - primarily articles, but also categories, templates, disambiguation pages etc. It has been great to see articles I have started help encourage others to contribute to Wikipedia - "build it and they will come" is somewhat of a philosophy of mine. Using this as a base, I also have enjoyed helping as many new editors as possible with their queries - I remember what it was like to be a new editor on here six years ago - and gentle encouragement and a friendly hello works wonders. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: Never an out-and-out conflict, but yes I have had polite disagreements with other editors, as I'm sure we all have. If I've ever felt stressed or frustrated (very rare) then I have taken a break to calm down; otherwise I deal with it by remaining calm, showing respect, listening and talking to them. I always use talk pages, and should I need to, go to a WikiProject or noticeboard for wider community input. GiantSnowman 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
4. What is your opinion of WP:NLT and how would you enforce it, as an admin?
A: The first step is to find out whether there is actually a legal threat. Mistakes in communication do occur sometimes and administrators should double check the existence of a legal threat. If a legal threat was actually made, the user should be blocked in order to prevent the possibility of further disruption. I would encourage the blocked user to use their talk page to discuss the matter, to civilly detail their concerns and issues, so that we can quickly and calmly sort out the situation - and take action in genuine cases. I'll involve other administrators through the ANI apart from educating the editor about methods to get facts corrected in future situations. I would also advise the editor on how to resolve any standing dispute through the dispute resolution process if the issue was about the same. GiantSnowman 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
5. Can an established User( example blocked for 7 days) remove a block notice from his talk page while he is blocked (before the block ends ) Please note not all admins place block notices on all users they block but is registered in the block log. Some say block notices should not be removed while blocked but in many cases I find blocked users do not get block notices.Can you state the policy here regarding removal of block notice  ?
A: As per this project content guideline, "a number of important matters may not be removed by the user [...] including relevant information about a currently active block or ban." So no, a blocked user may not remove a current block notice. GiantSnowman 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bluerasberry
6. In your last RfA a lot of people asked you about notability criteria. Forget what happened before, but please now describe the circumstances under which an article which does not meet WP:V but which has a subject meeting WP:N should remain a part of Wikipedia. That is, can you explain what should happen if everyone agrees that an article's subject meets notability criteria but the article does not meet verifiability criteria?
A: An article cannot meet WP:N if it does not meet WP:V; notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If a claim to notability cannot be verified, then it is not notable and does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Should I encounter such an article (i.e. meeting notability criteria but not verifiability criteria) I would tag it as such using {{notability}}, and follow the procedure set out at WP:FAILN. GiantSnowman 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from StephenBuxton
7. I appreciate that CSD isn't in your interest as much as BLP and AFD, but I think this exercise should help highlight your knowledge. Could you please have a go at these CSD exercises, and provide a link to your answers?
A: My answers are as follows:
  • 'A tory liar': R3 is meant for redirects with implausible typos and misnomers, but I don't believe that people would type 'A tory liar' to get to Jeffrey Archer. This seems like a BLP attack and should be deleted immediately under G10. The editor's past contributions should also be double checked as blocking admin appears to have missed this redirect while blocking the editor.
  • 'Deben High School': A7 does not apply to schools. I'll remove the CSD tag, check for reliable sources on the subject, and try to improve the article with any material that is verifiable, apart from relevantly categorising and templating the same. If no reliable sources are available (and I'm assuming here that you've given this example not basing it on Deben High School, which already exists), then I would take it to AfD. I would welcome the user, guide then about our editing policies, and check their other contributions.
  • 'Malcom Hardee': It's a biography; I'll check the claims mentioned. Ig said claims are verifiable, then the attack CSD template is incorrect and should be removed. I'll build the bio with the material that is verifiable, ensuring that exceptional claims are supported by exceptional sources. If it is unverifiable, then the page should be deleted as an attack page. Malcom Hardee which already exists throws weight behind my initial argument. Of course, welcome the creating user, check other edits of the user, and guide him relevantly.
  • 'New article' with just hello written: G3 is incorrect. I'll delete it under G2, as a test page, and also welcome/guide/check contribs.
  • 'Wizzy Wig the Clown': Importance is indicated - appearances on TV and radio - but that does not mean that they are notable. I would try and see if the claims are verifiable, and if notability cannot be be verified, or they appear to fail WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. then I would take it to AFD. As well, the creating editor's name could be a conflict of interest under WP:UPOL. I'll suitably guide the user on the username as well as the conflict of interest that could be there. I'll get a peer review of other admins more experienced in handling CoI editing situations at COIN and perhaps also check in at UAA.
  • 'Athur the great': A7 seems appropriate for deletion, as their is no indication of significance. I would also also welcome/guide/check contribs.
  • 'Sudar Barash': A7 is inappropriate, as a credible claim of significance has been made in the BLP. I would reove the template, search for reliable sources to verify the claims, build the BLP, and leave a note at BLPN too. If no verifiable sources for claims of notability are found, I would explore the alternative options, including deletion. The user name is a company name, with possible links to the subject given the engineering link, and so I would get editors experienced at handling such issues at UAA/COIN, as well as welcome/guide/check contribs.

GiantSnowman 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Epeefleche
8. Over 90 percent of a certain editor's AfD nominations result in closes of "Keep". Other editors have discussed this with him, but he continues to nominate articles for deletion, based on what he says are his good faith understanding and beliefs. What would you do, if anything, to address the issue?
A: I will first check whether or not they are truly bad faith nominations, or whether they are nominations simply based on a misinterpretation of our policies or guidelines. If the former, and something does appear to be amiss, then I would also try and encourage the editor in question to discuss the matter. Should they ignore me, or continue to make bad-faith nominations, if I find that no progress is being made, then I'll follow the procedural policy laid down at WP:DISPUTE, which seems to me to be an excellent way to engage the responsible editor constructively, yet moving towards a resolution. GiantSnowman 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from My76Strat
9 Please tell me why you edited this comment by Voceditenore to appear it was posted by you? [1]
A: It was an edit conflict which I rectified here. GiantSnowman 16:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Skinwalker
10. Have you discussed this RfA off-wiki before submitting it? If so, can you briefly summarize each discussion?
A: Yes, I discussed the RFA before submitting it. Or rather, my nominator had discussed the RFA with me before nominating me. The first discussion was an off-shoot to an offer to nominate me by Wifione last year - a pleasant surprise, I must say. I had turned down Wifione initially, to allow me to deal with the stresses & time-consumption of the Christmas holidays. After the holiday period was over, I wrote to Wifione on his talk page, stating that I was willing to be nominated; Wifione later contacted me by e-mail to inform me that DGG could be co-nomming me in the RFA. It was a privilege and I responded thanking Wifione. I've still not been able to thank DGG appropriately - other than briefly on his talk page - as I've had zero off-wiki communication with him. Wifione then again contacted me saying that the nom statement was ready and had been posted on my RFA page and that DGG would be adding the co-nom in some time and that I should be ready with the answers to the mandatory questions. Wifione also gave me advice on the fact that there is no guarantee that any RFA should succeed and that even though Wifione expected me to be seen positively by the community, I should always be open and prepared for the RFA failing. Wifione finally informed me through e-mail that the RFA page was ready and that I should transclude it whenever I felt comfortable; I waited a few days, until I knew I would have a week or so of freedom, which I told him about. GiantSnowman 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. This is an intentionally open-ended question. For the sake of expediency, let's stipulate that the situations listed at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy should be handled privately, since there is broad consensus that these cases should not be discussed on-wiki. Excepting these specific situations, what are your thoughts regarding transparency on Wikipedia?
A: Wikipedia is a community, based on collaboration, where respect, trust, and honesty drive the urges and commitment of a number of very talented and enthusiastic volunteers. Those are principles I hold dear in real life, and on Wikipedia as well. But for these principles to be effective, transparency is a critical and crucial component. The Wikipedia project, where voluntary editors from various communities interact in one melting pot, is strengthened by this focus too, with the logging of each and every editing action allowing increasing levels of responsibility given to editors, to be combined with similarly matched levels of accountability; transparency is also the main, core value of the Wikimedia Foundation. Yet, there is a balance that one has to draw. Despite the strong focus on maintaining transparency, I do understand and appreciate that within such a vast project, there would be justifiable pockets of action that merit the exercising of non-transparency. Some of these areas are obvious and you have alluded to such areas in your question - some to admin actions where they might be deleting copyright infringements or attack pages or attack edits or outing information etc.; some to the Arbcom deliberations; and some more to office actions and similar issues. My view is that in most of these areas, the exercising of non-transparency goes a long way to ensure that the project is protected and our editing pillars do not get compromised. This judicious mix of transparency with non-transparency is what I feel makes our focus credible and effective. GiantSnowman 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Tom Morris
12. In your previous RfA, you said you are "supremely confident in [your] abilities as an admin". Do you believe modesty is a beneficial quality in a Wikipedia administrator?
A: To be honest, it's pretty embarrasing to read such a boastful, even cocky, statement that I made a year ago, and it's not something I wish to be remembered for. With respect to the question, I feel that yes, administrators should aim to be models of civility and modesty, and should ensure that their actions and statements do not convey anything to the contrary. GiantSnowman 09:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:B
13. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR based on a report at AN3. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: For me, 'involved' means exactly what our policy says - areas where I "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes where I have been a party to or have strong feelings about." I'm sorry for quoting directly from the policy, but I believe that the policy contains a very crucial perspective which some editors might miss. It is not just about whether you believe you are (or are not) involved - it is more about how the community perceives your level of involvement; that is how I understand being involved. I hope this answers the first part of your query. In the scenario you have given, should another user that I blocked at 3RR bring out a past involvement that I had accidentally forgotten, I'll immediately request the assistance of other administrators at ANI, giving them a complete description of the sequence of events, unblock the blocked editor and hand over the issue to the other administrators. Going to ANI, I believe, would also reduce the chance of further edit-warring disruption by said blocked editor, as more admin eyes would naturally now be on the article in contention where 3RR would have taken place. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: As you've not given the specifics of either the BLP in question, or how it reached AFD, I'll keep my answer somewhat general. In cases where one is evaluating deletion discussions for a BLP where the subject has requested deletion, WP:BIODEL would be an extremely relevant policy to follow. In other words, if the subject is a relatively unknown person (whom our BLP policy would address as a non-public figure), and if the deletion discussions have no rough consensus, then the discussion may be closed as delete. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Suppose you are evaluating a discussion at FFD where one "side", consisting of five regular editors, asserts that an image violates criteria #1 and #8, while the other "side", consisting of 15 regular editors, opines that the image should be kept, but does not offer a convincing argument for how the image is essential to the reader's understanding of the topic? --B (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am admittedly quite poor with images - hence why it's an area that I don't currently involve myself in; nor would I intend to deal with it in the future as an administrator. Apologies for not answering the question, but the truth is that I'm not the best person to do so. Perhaps in the future, when I've understood the image space properly, and have mastered the application of our image related policies, I'll be more comfortable in handling issues in this area...unfortunately, not now; my apologies again. GiantSnowman 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good answer. "I don't know" is a better answer than bloviation. Being an admin does not bless us with omniscience and recognizing that is definitely a good thing. Thank you for your answers. --B (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from User:Achowat
16. In regards to question 8, you gave us your course of action if the editor was editing in bad faith. What actions would you take if it was found that that same editor had been acting based on hir understanding of the Policies and Guidelines? --Achowat (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: If the application of polices is correct, and it is only a matter of chance that the majority of the editor's nominations are getting kept, I don't believe one should do anything. If the application/understanding of policies is incorrect, I'm sure a good faith editor would immediately respond productively to feedback on the involved issues - which is what I would provide to the editor, along with suggestions on possible corrective measures the editor could take. If the editor doesn't respond to the feedback and continues their nominations, then the procedure I've listed in my answer to question 8 could be the route to follow. GiantSnowman 13:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Surturz
17. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?
A: Yes, my view on this matter has not changed since last year. The wider Wikipedia community has the right to decide who should become an administrator, and they also have the right to decide who should not. Consequently, I will be open to a recall should it be deemed necessary. GiantSnowman 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wifione Message 15:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom one of the best editors with wide knowledge of processes i have come across. Is great at dispute resolution and will be a great admin.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Looks like a good editor, and will be a great asset to the project. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; the various times I've encountered GiantSnowman, they seem to have been competent and undramatic; I think they'd put the tools to good use. I looked at a random sample of past edits and didn't see anything worrying. bobrayner (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per this, user who was a senior (6 years joined together with more than 69,000 contributions). -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per last time, works in an area that needs more administrators (football) Secret account 19:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Sure. ThemFromSpace 19:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good clueful editor. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the admin tools.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This has got to be the first time I vote for a socialist... :/ Kidding aside, nothing to worry about : clean block log, loads of experience, demonstrated competence, good answer to questions, a strong focus on article work, etc. Support - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems competent enough.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 513,186,880) 21:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great editor. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I supported last time and I still do, basically for the reasons CharlieEchoTango gives above. It's also good to see that most of the valid reasons given by the oppose !voters at the last RfA seem to have been addressed. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Vote yes for a giant snowman holding a mop. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Frosty will make a great admin.--EchetusXe 10:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks fine to me. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as per answers to questions, which show a decent amount of WP:CLUE that was unfortunately missing first time round. Stephen! Coming... 12:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Why not? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I still have nagging concerns about the idea of GiantSnowman closing AfDs, but can attest to the efforts he has made to address issues from the previous RfA, particularly in communicating his reasoning. Combining that with my belief that GS is wise enough not to close a contentious football notability AfD, I'm confident that the benefit to him holding the tools outweighs any risk. —WFC— 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - supported last time, happy to support again. Robofish (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – Looks fine for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Thumpety thump thump. MJ94 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Unconvincing reasons for requesting adminship, but good contributions and good answers to other questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I supported this user last time and since then, my confidence in him has not decreased.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Solid candidate. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Stephen 23:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support See no concerns.Good track and has been here since Feb 2006.Has improved and overcame the concerns raised in previous RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. The thoughtful answers to the questions and the work I've seen GiantSnowman do since his last RfA persuade me that he'll put the tools to good use. 28bytes (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak support mainly on the recommendation of the co-nominator who I respect. However, for someone wanting to do BLPPRODs I would like to see a higher standard of an article citation then one basic external link, such as this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - great contributions, know his way around with the answers provided. He'll be a net plus with the admin workload. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 01:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support; great content editor, very level-headed, and frankly it's hard to disagree with DGG. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - great contributor and very level-headed. ~FeedintmParley 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - supported last time, even more convinced this time. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - this editor has a great chance in becoming an administrator. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 08:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - more than meets my expectations. jni (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - user is truly enlightened, knowing who should own the means of production. Also, the opposers are unconvincing. →Στc. 09:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Should have passed last time. Has only improved since. We need more admins active in the intensely BLP-heavy realm of WP:FOOTY and GiantSnowman more than fits the bill. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Pretty happy with this nomination - mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support.--Ankit Maity Talk | contribs 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support--Totally. Thoroughly deseres to pass.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Per last time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I'm just gonna recycle my comment last time around: Dude has been around since 2006 and racked 40,000 edits. If he wants a bigger tool box, why the hell not? Hypothetical questions generating hypothetical answers which result in hysterical objections to same as a pretext to block membership in the "cool kids club" strikes me as pretty ridiculous. The edit count is much higher now, with a big majority of edits in article space, indicating this is a content creator. I do have misgivings about "ruining" content creators by moving them to mundane or drama-filled quality control tasks; on the other hand a little diversity in the administrative corps would be a boon. Clean block log, no indications of assholery, should have been given the tool box a year ago. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Deserves, after 45 supports there is no oppose! --Extra 999 (Contact me) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I opposed last time, over the relationship between GNG and the SNGs. I'm supporting now, because it is very clear to me from the candidate's thoughtful and articulate answers here, and more importantly from the time taken since the previous RfA, with a solid record of being an asset to Wikipedia, that I can confidently trust them to handle notability issues with a good understanding of the norms, and with a dependable commitment to serving the community. My very best wishes for a happy administratorship! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good candidate. The acknowledgment about "cocky" above shows a big change from previous RfA's quick to pounce attitude. I also appreciate the side-stepping of the image issue. Even last time out, GS had reasonable support. Glrx (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - I don't see anything too concerning. Looks fine to me. -- Luke (Talk) 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Me neither. Rcsprinter (speak) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - y! --B (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Per the Noms and my support in the first RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - per our interactions vis a vis - keep an open mind and you'll do well...Modernist (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I don't want to be banned from Wikipedia or RfA because an RfA Deformer cites statistics that I have opposed candidates. It was a pity that nobody from RfA Deform warned Malleus of his peril in not supporting landslides.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a peril also in WP:POINT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish,
    Noting the undesirable consequences of WTT's citation of RfA statistics is the best we can do, since nobody could advise him not to cite such statistics at the "Civility Enforcement" ArbCom case. You should read the guideline WP:POINT, and consider reading about negation and counter example.
    Indeed. You've more chance of getting blocked in the long run for keeping this up, than for a well-reasoned oppose against the wind. —WFC— 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @WFC,
    You may share Tryptofish's misunderstanding of WP:POINT. Or do you have additional misunderstandings? What policy am I violating?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So as not to further disrupt the RfA, I'll continue this on Kiefer's talk page. —WFC— 17:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "further to disrupt this RfA" is ridiculous, particularly for an administrator, at a 90-0-0 !vote. Disruptive editing is a blocking offense. Those with fragile egg-shell personalities raise your hands!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove the irrelevant subjects on this RfA page. ●Mehran Debate● 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Appears to have learned a lot since their first Rfa. Quite impressive numbers as an article creator. Seeing not one objection as of this post, I'm happy to add a 'pile on' support. My best wishes on your adminship, GS! Jusdafax 01:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The candidate has taken the past year to shore-up and solidify credentials since the previous RfA, and to address the concerns of the opposers and neutrals. (I voted neutral last time)--Hokeman (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - I see a multitude of positive contributions and no particular reason to oppose. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong support. Thought he was an admin already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - I read his above answers, in addition to his creative edits, absolutely he'll be an industrious admin. ●Mehran Debate● 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Great editor and should make an excellent admin. Number 57 11:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Absolutely -- Tinu Cherian - 11:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support yes, please ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Can't find any reason to suspect he/she will be anything other than a credit to the project. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support looks like a perfect admin candidate. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 15:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, why not? mabdul 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support very clueful and extremely reasonable candidate. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - high-quality article work, copious number of edits. Registered as a user for 5 years, and has plenty of barnstars. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support It is disappointing that we lost a few months of this candidate being an admin because of (some) people opposing based on their own beliefs on the highly contentious topic of GNGs vs SNGs (as opposed to settled policy, which doesn't exist). I supported then and support now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's disappointing that an admin would reinforce the validity of those opposes by reminding everyone of the latitude admins have once they acquire the gavel. —WFC— 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Clear improvement since last year, will be an asset to AfD. —SW— gossip 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support No concerns at all. My76Strat (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support No concerns. Krashlandon (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support A good example of an editor who has developed over the years, has taken an unsuccessful RFA to heart, and has improved even more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Upstanding citizen of the wiki community who I believe can be well trusted with the mop.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Strong understanding of processes and policies with enough creativity and nuance to use them effectively. Achowat (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Great editor, substantial knowledge of policies, always willing to help other users & good at defusing situations. Definitely Support. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I wasn't going to bother participating in an RfA where my vote would be redundant, but what the heck I'll do it anyway. GiantSnowman is a fantastic editor, but the last RfA showed some gaps in knowledge an admin should have (which is why it was unsuccessful) but I see much improvement now, and feel confident supporting. -- Atama頭 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I think GiantSnowman is ready now. -- Marek.69 talk 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Seems like a good candidate. Barret (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support – I supported last time, and in reviewing some recent contributions I'm not seeing anything to suggest the potential for problematic behaviour with the tools. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support You should have passed last time IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Very qualified candidate.(olive (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  87. Support. --Surturz (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support I see no reasons to oppose this candidate given the answers they've given. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I read through your previous RfA's reasons for opposition and when I checked your current behavior I could only see serious changes in editing philosophy which you made for the better. Thanks for working so hard on this project. I do have a criticism. Could you please consider putting more content on your userpage so that a new user who found you would understand more about who you are and what you can do for them? You obviously treat posters on your talkpage very well, but I have a lot of concern for new users who come into contact with an admin, go to their userpages, then are unsure about what to do next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Qualified candidate. Courcelles 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support No concerns that I have found. J36miles (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Piling on with zero thought whatsoever. Swarm X 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd be surprised at the vast amount of intellect required to append your previous post. Don't short change yourself, my wiki friend. My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Good candidate. Good answers. I can see no concerns. Q15 answer demonstrates good judgement. Begoon talk 02:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Very qualified candidate. -Fumitol|talk|cont 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Especially per the answer to questions #1 and 15. - SudoGhost 03:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Qualified candidate. ShoesssS Talk 14:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Per interactions.--v/r - TP 19:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I opposed the previous RfA for what seemed good reasons at the time. I am now happy to support. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support- Has addressed concerns since previous RfA; fully qualifed. Dru of Id (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - Fully qualified in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Quarl (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - I do not see any problems with this candidate. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]


Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm concerned with the editor's aggressive votes and nominations for deletion of football players in some apparently well-referenced articles (Godfrey Poku, vote). I don't have enough time to carefully check, and the editor has substantial community support so far in this RfA, so I won't vote oppose. But I can't support. Also, this RfD seems to be mostly about quantity. I think that there are plenty of valuable en.wiki editors who aren't solely here for an edit count, not to say GiantSnowman 2 is, but I would have liked a nomination with more emphasis on quality rather than a shout out of numbers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (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/GiantSnowman_2&oldid=1146517939"