Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GabeMc

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

GabeMc

Final (11/53/7). Unsuccessful. Closed early by WJBscribe @ 21:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

GabeMc (talk · contribs) – I believe I am worthy of adminship because I am fair and honest with a good eye for detail. I enjoy compromise and teamwork, and I encourage editors whenever I can. I am dedicated to improving the project, while following the five pillars. I would like to challenge myself and increase my ability to contribute by earning adminship. — GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would be particularly helpful at ANI, and I would also like to combat vandalism and copyright infringement. I would start slow, and do more as I learn the tools, responsibilites, and protocols.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My work at The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Roger Waters and The Beatles, because I improved those article's accuracy, verifiability, and neutrality, while fighting vandalism and copyright infringement and compromising to gain consensus when disputes arose.

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: Of course I have, several times. When I first came to Wiki 2.5 years ago I didn't deal with it as well as I do now, or as well as I will next year. As long as I strive to maintain my civility, my neutrality, and my objectivity, I tend to succeed, and conflicts are minimized, or compromises are reached.

Additional question from Tomtomn00

4. You seem not to have a CSD log, would you participate in CSD or would you hold off?

A: I erroneously thought that was a duty of admins, so I havn't participated yet. Someone miss informed me when I first started here, and I have been under the assumption that many of the duties which I am being opposed for not doing, were in fact not my place. I have learned something already. Also, I think my talents are better used improving articles, versus arguing for hours about deletion. Would I participate? Sure, but I'm not gonna spend a week or more discussing an unsourced, poorly written, copyvio, that should just be deleted without wasting so much time. So yes and no, I am not interested in banging my head against a wall, but I would have good judgement about what should be deleted versus improved. — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dpmuk

5. Please briefly explain your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, why they are important and how we deal with potential problems. I'm not looking for a really detailed response but rather something that convinces me you have enough of a clue in these areas to identify problems and know where to go to sort them - the sort of thing I'd expect from any admin rather than the more detailed knowledge I'd expect from someone working in this area. This is also the reason for a very generic question, as if I gave a specific question it would be too easy just to look up the answer to that question, so, with that in mind, feel free to answer this in any way you wish.

A: Not sure what you want here, do you mean to ask if I know what plagarism is, or if I understand public domain, free/fair-use? I brought two articles through FA, so I think I understand basic copyright policies, though I am sure my knowledge could be expanded. Quotes need to attributed, paraphrased text needs citations, images need a credible free-use/public domain license, or a fair-use rationale. Did I answer your question? — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Jasper Deng

6. Please describe how you would handle the following situations, and the specific rationales you would give if your actions were challenged, including lengths of any blocks or protections:

a. You are arguing on an article talk page with a new editor, and you are discussing reliability of sources. The new editor constantly supports his argument with sources from academic websites.

A: Why do I have an issue with a acedemic websites? We can cite to them.

b. A user's first edit is to make a page with this: "John Doe is a 10th-grader living in Example, Lorem in Ipsum. He is known to be the founder of Startup ABC (assume an article exists about Startup ABC and Startup ABC is notable).(a source from the official Facebook website of that startup)" If you decide to delete, please explain how you would respond to the user's inquiry about why.

A: I'm not sure I would delete, if there were no point of contention, and the company is notable. I'd explain that he needs to find a WP:RS, as pages on social networking sites ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Doesn't he have 10 days to find one reliable source?

c. You spot vandalism (warning: this is a trick question!) from an anonymous user, and this is the first offense.

A: Depends on the nature and severity of the vandalism, for something minor, I would warn the user and revert the damage. For something severe, perhaps an immediate block until other admins could weigh-in.

d. You are brought to ANI by a user you are involved in a content dispute with along with several other new users, after you threaten to block him for WP:CIR. His title is "GabeMc calling me, Doe, and John 'incompetant'" and his comment is "On Talk:Lorem ipsum, this administrator has threatened to block us, calling us "incompetant" (citing a diff), and saying that we cannot discuss the article, even though Wikipedia:Consensus says so. I request that he be removed from his admin position."

A: Another trick question, I would never threaten to block anyone for WP:CIR, I would go through the proper channels at ANI, report the user, and let the communtiy consensus decide. Besides, if the situation was that broken down, it wouldn't be me causing it I can assure you.

e. You come across a ban discussion at ANI with ~20/30 in opposition/support. The discussion is 30,000 bytes long and has been going on for a week.

A: 20/30 is not consensus to ban, I would advise the discussion to rap up and hope the user doesn't come right back. If it was 10/30, I might advise toward a temp ban depending on the severity of the issues.

f. You find a four-way edit war on an article, with editors A and B reverting C and D in the pattern (A and B make initial edits) (C reverts B with "no consensus" as edit summary, D reverts A with "no source") (A reverts C with "THIS IS RIGHT! I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT IT!!" in the edit summary, B reverts D with "Per (insert reliable source here)") (and so on). All editors are at 3RR and the last revert occured a few minutes ago.

A: I would simply protect the page, and commence a talk page discussion which would hopefully lead to a compromise that accurately describes the verifiable facts, and which we can gain consensus on.

Additional question from Jasper Deng

7. Quantitatively describe "ad nauseum".

A: I can't, its impossible. Except maybe, "hey, we've had this exact same discussion 25 times, and every time we have agreed on the same thing, so I'm not sure we need to do this again, but hey, have at it, consensus can change, and it does sometimes believe it or not."

Additional question from Yasht101

8. When to block a user and for how much time? If you get a unblock request, under which circumstances will you unblock them?

A: When, after they ignored my numerous friendly prompts and formal warning. Time depends on severity and frequency, generally 24 hours, 48 or 72 for repeat offenders. I wouldn't unblock, ever really. I wouldn't undermine another admin except in an extreme case, and I would not even attempt this unless I had several years under my belt.

Additional question from Carrite

9. Have you ever used or do you you still currently use another account name to edit Wikipedia? If so, would you please list it or them.

A: No, this is the only account name I have ever had.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Runningonbrains

10. The impression I get from your edits at Calabe's RFA is that you are not beyond badgering another editor who has made a mistake. It should be apparent from my Support vote below that I have a high opinion of your actions in content-related debates, but I believe you have shown different colors in this case. Do you think your comments and (IMO) pointed questions at that RFA were inappropriate? If not, please provide a brief justification.

A: This is all new to me, so yes, I made several key errors in judgement. I will take this as a valuable learning opportunity, and go forward with more knowledge. I personally don't think my questions for Calabe were any more badgering then the other 19 questions people asked him, or the comments I received. As far as politics being taboo, per Jasper, why then did he not tell Calabe that? I sense a double standard which I find disappointing, but not surprising. Wiki can be very clicky, and if you're not a "brown noser", as I am not, it can be difficult. I learned much about badgering, a term I hadn't even heard here at Wiki before, so I am already a better user than I was when this process began IMO. I appreciate all the feedback, and I will try to apply as much as I can over the next 6-12 months. So thanks for taking the time to teach me. If you think my comments were inappropriate, please explain where exactly I crossed the line.

Additional question from IRWolfie-

11. In this comment [1] you appear to think that the article in question was not AfD material (and hence notable) and based your reasoning on the neutrality of the existing article rather than on the existence of reliable sources. Can you clarify when you think articles should be deleted?

A: Well, its difficult to defend my position now that the article has been deleted, but on the surface I disagree with your assertion, "had no potential of being reliably sourced ever". One google search reveals dozens of RSs that could have been used to improve the sourcing of the article. To answer your question, its my understanding that articles (non-CSD) are deleted after consensus has been reached at the discussion for deletion, which is this case was two votes for, and one against, which is, IMO, not consensus to delete. — GabeMc (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Also, it appears the original rationale for deletion was that that the article was pseudoscience, which it may well be, but wiki has articles about the Roswell UFO incident, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot, which uses a frame from the Patterson film as its main image, despite the fact that Gimlin admitted thay hoaxed the event/film. — GabeMc (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for GabeMc: GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for GabeMc can be found here.

---

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

• Comment ~ Based on my previous knowledge, and a brush-up at Wikipedia:Canvassing, I still do not see anything inappropriate about notifiying editors of this discussion. For future knowledge, can someone please explain what was wrong about what I did? — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  When you select certain users to notify, the reasonable appearance is your selecting certain users that you've had positive interactions with. Users that may be predisposed to support. This has the potential to skew the support/oppose percentages by bulking up the supports higher than it would be in the natural course of events. It falls under the subheading "Votestacking". That may not have been your intention, but that's why canvased nominations have received significant opposition as far back as I've followed them.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your explaination, I assure you I wasn't notifiying only people that would vote support, I intened to go down the list of editors who have recently responded to canvassing, since I have at other times canvassed 100 people to get 10 comments. If you look at my record you will see that I notify editors that have already made it clear they disagree with me, knowing full-well they will not support, until a consensus has been reached (Steelbeard1, Hot Stop). When I began the canvass, I thought that as long as its wording was neutral, it would be fine, then I realized that an AfD might follow different protocol than straw polls, so I stopped, after a grand total of six notifications. — GabeMc (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See here, here and here when I canvassed users known to oppose my suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment ~ I apologize for the "minor editor/ip" remark, it came off as tyrannical I am sure, a poor choice of words perhaps. But I also seriously doubt that the editors who opposed based on that comment have not experienced some random ip that drains hours and hours away from your editing time being difficult and sometimes trolling, thus hurting the project. I only meant it as in many ips or newer editors I have encountered will not listen to anyone but an admin, just my experience. As far as admins using their power to dominate content, if I hadn't myself experienced this, I would tend to agree, but as it is, it happens, regularly, I have been threatened with rollback despite the fact that I have never vandalised anything, and clearly on Wiki, admins do indeed sometimes dominate content when "newer editors" disagree, I've dealt with this issue personally. — GabeMc (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC) All I really meant was I don't see the point of beating my head against a wall for every difficult user when I know that if it comes down to it, and it almost always does, I would just have to run for help from an admin anyway. You see few editors will defer to anyone but an admin, so to spend time fighting the good fight when someone else will untimately have to decide, seems pointless to me, but perhaps I am missing something. — GabeMc (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, continue to badger the opposers, that'll win you fans. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought this was an open debate. Am I supposed to not address the opposers per a wiki policy? I've never heard that before. Am I only supposed to comment here, and not in the vote sections? Is that what you are saying? — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, it is a discussion about a candidate. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 02:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the link you gave me says: "Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion", ans, as you said "this is a discussion about a candidate", however, being a discussion does not make it mutually exclusive to a debate, according to the link you provided me. I asked for the wiki policy on "badgering", afterall, if I can't find it, and you can't find it, then how can you blame me for not knowing it? Its an honest question. — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By all means, if you believe that countering every point in this discussion is going to further your goals of becoming an admin, then that is what you should do. To answer your question about badgering, I did write the essay Don't bludgeon the process a few years back. It isn't a policy, so feel free to ignore it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment ~ Havn't you ever come across an editor who, for a lack of a better phrase just does not get it? And they have like 15 content edits to their credit, yet you have to spend hours and hours arguing for what is clearly verifiable in the highest quality sources, yet they somehow "know" the truth? That's really all I meant, "minor editors" was a bad choice of words. The truth is, some people improve the project, but some hinder it, by tying up experienced editors in edit wars and content disputes ad nauseum, whilst totally diregarding the reliable sources. You people need to wake up, because this is a contributing factor in experienced editor loss, trust me, I have been close myself at times, hence this self-nom. I'll bet few content editors make it past 10,000 edits, am I right? Editing is down huh, well I've seen several veteran editors retire or semi-retire, or become virtually dormant in the 2.5 years. More and more we are dealing with people who do not source, who introduce errors, who stall improvements, who vandalise etcetera. So don't tell me that in 8,500 edits over 2.5 years I havn't dealt with vandals enough. Empower trusted content editors with the ability to say, "look you need to stop debating this until you earn consensus, period", and you will improve editor retention. — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Adminship does not "empower" editors. Any experienced editor can say that, not just admins. Fundamentally, we are trying to help gain new users, and not so much retain old ones. I also fail to see how "slapping" new users for things like this would retain old editors, especially since retirements purely from content disputes are extremely rare. With that said, no matter what policy says, the community's impression of you is the #1-most important factor when running for adminship, and you don't help that by badgering.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you please then, guide me to the Wiki policy so that I can understand what not to do? — GabeMc (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo said "Adminship is no big deal", so we sorta lean toward did. WP:ADMIN documents the intentions of admins (read the WP:INVOLVED section in particular). But not everything is policy here; I also expected that you know that long before doing an RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, nothing on "badgering" opposes, why is it so hard to find if its an accepted wrong? I did find: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." And I know its not all policy, but the policy I quoted above supports my case for adminship completely. — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no it doesn't. How will we know that you aren't going to block someone just for presenting a legitimate view on a content dispute you're involved in? And, there's no policy saying what bureaucrats can accept/reject, and much is based on social norms - one of which is "no badgering". People supported you because you would listen to others, but I feel that you aren't living up to that by saying "if it's not policy I don't have to follow it".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know I won't become a tryrant? You dont. Its called good faith. But really, be honest Jasper, you voted before you even looked at my user page or contributions, otherwise you would never have used this rationale, "In general, I support admins if they have both or either extensive content work and vandal-fighting experience, and I feel that you have neither." Obviously I have extensive content work, so I think you voted arbitrarily IMO. I'm not saying I only follow policy, that's silly. I was merely making a good point that if there isn't even an article on it then who gets to define it? My opposition? And you are worried about tyranny? I just really never heard that before, and you should look at Calabe's RfD and please explain how what he is doing is any different, and he he isn't badgering, it would be educational. I understand all five pillars, especially the fifth. I really didn't know I was badgering anyone, Hot Stop is the first person who told me that, in 2.5 years I had never even heard that phrase here before Hot Stop said it above, its like I now have the cutties or something, lol. — GabeMc (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's harder said than done when under stress; I checked your edit count and created articles before making my !vote.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I just think its a contradiction that you oppose me for my lack of vandal work yet you support Calabe with the comment: "I'm OK for sure, but if this request is granted I'd advise the candidate to stick to routine maintenance, and let threads about experienced editors' conduct at ANI alone for other admins. I do not see how content work is relevant to a candidate's qualification for this job if he/she stays out of such situations. Why does this not apply to me? Also, you are dead wrong about WP:INVOLVED IMO, you really should go back and re-read it, and you'll see it describes an editor exactly like me. — GabeMc (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about it more. Regardless of whether you think I understand it or not, I feel that you need to show that you can work under stress, which doesn't appear if you say "you really should" or "are you dead wrong".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, those are poor choices for words. I get your point, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. — GabeMc (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While several users have suggested closing this RfA, I would prefer to finish it out, since I need to wait six months for another, I would like to learn as much as possible about the process and expectations now, so I am better prepared should I choose to return here in the future. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Stats on talk page.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

RfA is a strange place sometimes. Help get two articles to Featured Article status, and get told to come back when you've got a DYK. Fail to remove the <!-- --> around the RfA time stamp and get opposed for it by someone who fails to remove the <!-- Please do not submit comments before the RfA starts. Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded. --> as they oppose. Sometimes I really wonder about this place... 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought so. — GabeMc (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excirial below puts it better than I could. You don't deserve the trivial opposes, but I do think some work has to be done to address the concerns of the legitimate opposes. 28bytes (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Support Good content work, mature attitude, level headed. Would be a net positive as an admin, given areas candidate intends to work in. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Support because i feel like it, since that is apparently as good a reason as any these days. Editors have put in their share of work and have been around 2+ years deserve better then having an RFA shot down with a 10 second, 4 word comment over a minor mistake creating an RFA. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I believe that editors who do good work or try to do so should be treated with a measure of decency, rather then having to deal with nonconstructive comments and nitpicking reasoning which doesn't do justice to their efforts and time spend at improving Wikipedia, thus leading me to support in order to counteract the more senseless opposes. However, the "minor editors" statement in the lower section would go straight against my believe of decent treatment, so i cannot offer my support in good faith. The admin tools do not give the editors opinion any more validity and stature, and they are specifically not to be used in situations were one is involved in. GabeMc, i really don´t think you are a bad editor and i see you´re doing great content creation work, but right now i cannot see you handle the admin tools with sufficient care. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Support - can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Support Petrb (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - As others have said, there's no grossly inappropriate behaviour on Gabe's part that would lead me to an oppose. I've been working with Gabe off and on for a little over a year, and he's always shown restraint and respect for consensus and guidelines during heated debates. I'm confident he can handle it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   In addition, I don't see how the so-called "canvassing" should be an issue. If we can ask people to nominate us for admin-ship, what's wrong with leaving a neutral message alerting them to something in which they might genuinely have an interest? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Moral Support as it appears this RFA is headed south. A general problem with saying "This candidate has no experience in Administrator-related matters" is that it's hard to participate in Administrator-related matters when you don't have the same tools as an Administrator! Lord knows if people had brought this up strongly at my own RFA I would have been SOL, because I really didn't have any experience except for some vandal-fighting. I made a pretty weak argument that being able to delete pages was useful, so I guess that appeased enough voters, but I was mainly a content contributor: I really didn't have any pressing need for the tools. Yet now I find myself regularly clearing backlogs, weighing in at WP:ANI, and responding to WP:AIV reports. I really didn't have any interest in these things before I was able to participate there, and I had no way of knowing if I would even want to participate in those activities, until I actually tried them out. In my humble opinion, this user has absolutely no history of bad interactions with other users, bad faith contributions, or any activities that are detrimental to Wikipedia. He responds well to criticsm (in my opinion, the most important quality for a candidate can have), and has shown exemplary consensus-building skills. TLDR: The only thing that should count against potential admins are untrustworthiness, uncooperativeness or incompetence, and I see no evidence of any of these in this candidate. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

   Re "it's hard to participate in Administrator-related matters when you don't have the same tools as an Administrator!". Obviously people aren't expecting the candidate to have used tools they don't possess - we're really not that stupid ;-) What people mean is that they aren't seeing the candidate making reports to AIV, RFPP, taking part in AfD discussions, etc, none of which needs any special tools. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I obviously give my fellow editors enough credit to realize that they knew this...I really, REALLY hope none of my fellow editors are that thick :D. I was trying to point out that participating in AfD, AIV, etc just isn't the same without the tools. I really didn't participate in most of these places until I got them, so I don't really see "Hasn't been active in admin-related areas" as a good reason to oppose per sé. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

6. Support (strongly, if that makes a difference) Although the term in the original application may be preferred by many as consensus as opposed to compromise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Moving to weak support since the candidate has explained the tyrannical comment to my satisfaction, the outburst against rschen seems to be a mild, isolated blow-up, and he has generally displayed a commendable attitude. Obviously, this support is pointless since the candidate needs 100 more to even get into the realm of possibly passing, but some support is needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Support experienced candidate with good content work and a clean block log. I also didn't see anything troubling in the deleted contributions. I completely disagree with the no need for the tools opposes as the tools are useful for any editor. I have no great concern supporting someone who hasn't got involved in vandalfighting or deletion tagging provided they show clue in the areas where they do work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
10. While this has no chance of passing and Gabe's attitude wasn't the best in the RFA, I always liked what I see from him and thought of him as a potential RFA candidate. Sucks it went this way, but with the proper mentoring, I think he would make an excellent admin in 6-12 months. This is a not now moral support, but don't let your spirits down in this RFA, remember it's called hell week for a reason. Secret ^account 21:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
11. Support—he's scrappy and wants to clean house. →StaniStani  19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. RfA wasn't transcluded properly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   What if it happened due to a mistake? Yasht101 03:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I was called away from my computer, its fine now isn't it? — GabeMc (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but transcluding with the error intact plus putting it on the bottom (there's a note that says new rfas go on top) raises a red flag for me. I'll look over edits and may reconsider. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I must point out that I absolutely failed to get the template to work properly in my RfA. In fact, between Looie and myself, I b0rked it so badly that I got 40 extra minutes (woo) because in the end Looie had to give up and reset the timer. If you needed to be good at markup to be an admin, I'd be right out the door. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

   Switching to weak oppose mainly per Wasted Time R. It's not required to keep archives, but I tend to get an uneasy feeling about users that just blank without archiving. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

2. To help at ANI, I don't think that admin rights are needed. I see that your work has mainly focused to user talk pages and articles lately. You have got a good amount article space edits which is a great thing. Not many are good at it. But the problem is that I don't see you fighting vandalism or doing any work in which admins can specifically contribute in your last 1000 edits. Not doing work in places where admin tools can be useful (CSDs, AfDs, anti-vandal, etc.,) is my concern. Sorry, but have to oppose. If you show improvement by working in those areas mentioned, then I'd love to support in your next RfA. Sorry for now. Yasht101 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3. In general, I support admins if they have both or either extensive content work and vandal-fighting experience, and I feel that you have neither. Trust me, ANI is a place you don't want to work in. It causes huge amounts of stress. I'd say for you to do at least a DYK or two and perhaps a few more articles (especially full biographies instead of discographies or other "list-like" articles), and for you to work in places like CSD and recent changes patrolling.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   To clarify, the primary articles I have worked on are not lists or discographies — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   He has two featured articles, and you ask for a DYK? →Στc. 07:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Name them. He obviously didn't create them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I already linked to them above. Or you could click the little gold stars on his userpage. 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   OK, I saw them. Those are quite good achievements that may be useful in assessing who's right and wrong in a content dispute. That said, though, it'll be nice for the user to keep this up. But knowing CSD and AIV (at least what they are) is important. 6 months isn't that long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

4. You haven't made a single edit to AIV, UAA, SPI, etc. I don't really see where the admin tools can be useful for you, and as Jasper said, ANI is a place you should probably stay away from if you can. Maybe try to work on some of the less drama-y areas where admins do, like AIV/UAA, reverting vandalism, CSD, NPP, etc. and come back in 6 months or so. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 03:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I have dispute resolution skills that could benefit the project, yet it sounds like you and Jasper are saying, "stay away from ANI, its trouble". Well, then don't we need help there? I don't see the point of wasting time and effort at ANI if I am not an admin, or am I missing something here? — GabeMc (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   ANI is not a place where you got to take admin actions everytime. Discussions, voting, etc is an important thing that editors do there. Many talks by editors are helpful, very helpful which are not admin. Yasht101 05:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose per your actions regarding The Beatles, specifically striking another's comments twice [2] [3] shows poor form, as does unstriking someone else's that they struck. Hot Stop 06:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you, that's exactly my point Hot Stop. Those were redundant votes that an admin could strike for clarity, and the comment I took the strikes off was so that readers could see that the idea for a solution came from Pesky, and there was no need to strike her perfectly relevant comment in order to change her vote. Just like your improper formatting above, I could have corrected it if I was an admin. — GabeMc (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   FWIW, I didn't mind Gabe striking my listing of support in one of the straw polls, once it had become redundant and had the potential to interfere with anyone quickly scanning through the talk page to gauge support vs. opposition. I don't know how against-policy it is, and haven't done the reading on that yet, but that's my two-cents. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   FWIW WP:TPO specifies that striking "should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Hot Stop 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose, because of the canvassing issue. Malleus Fatuorum 07:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Which? Yasht101 07:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   He has a tendency to leave messages 'randomly' asking people to join discussions. Hot Stop 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Please show me were it says unbiased notifications are inapporpriate. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

7. Opposefor lack of need and a concern re. why the tools are being requested. You need familiarity with the areas in which the tools are used before asking for the tools - you seem to have none (no AIV, CSD, etc.) The tools are there to, amongst others, protect pages, block vandals and delete pages. Your comments imply that rather than wanting to do these things you are seeking the "status" of an administrator so that you can do things that are you think are reserved to people called administrators (e.g., your comment on not seeing the point of working at ANI if you aren't an administrator). Being an administrator does not confer status in this way. QU ^TalkQu 08:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Moved to Strong Oppose for "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus" and "and have some actual authority over a new ip that tells me to keep the unsourced graph he wrote" which says you want the admin tools so you can exercise control over content to keep it the way you want it. This is not what the tools are for. QU ^TalkQu 13:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Regretful oppose Candidate's content work is sound; 8000+ edits, and 70% of those to article-space is a good start. I just don't think the candidate's familiarity in the core admin areas is sufficient. Also, the responses to the canvasing issue in the neutral section highlight a lack of familiarity with processes and WP:PAG. Pol430 talk to me 09:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose, with regret. Clearly a good contributor, and I'm seeing good interactive skills and an aptitude for helping resolve discussions. But I don't really see enough experience in the specific areas in which the admin tools are used. For someone to be given access to tools for blocking, deleting, protecting, I'd really need to see some involvement in reporting issues to AIV, UAA, RFPP, SPI, taking part in AfD discussions, etc. In Q1, the candidate says "I would start slow, and do more as I learn the tools, responsibilites, and protocols", and such caution is admirable. But with the handing over of the tools being pretty much irreversible, I'd really need to see evidence that a lot of learning of responsibilities and protocols had already been done. If I were to see some contributions to the admin areas I mentioned, then I could well support a new run a few months down the line. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   (Sorry, but I've had to strike part of my comment due to the combative attitude I'm seeing in this very RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC))

10. I'm not so much opposing as trying to move this on toward what is probably the inevitable resolution. You say below, "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus, or MoS". To my ear, the "minor editor" bit implies a certain disdain for people who sometimes don't want to abide by consensus or edit per MoS ... which is everyone. It could be you're just stressed because you're getting some resistance during an RFA ... anyone would be ... but maybe the most important duty of admins is to learn how not to say anything that might make things worse when they're stressed. "I never really saw the point of doing those things before, as I thought those duties were for admins" almost sounds like you want to skip the whole learning phase and move right on to the banhammer phase. You're a good editor who's put a lot of time and love into the project, and I'll be happy to look at a future RFA with fresh eyes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    Dank, all I meant was, sometimes a user will come along who just does not get it, and can't seem to understand the basic need for sourcing, or discussion, or even know what consensus or copyvio are. Sometimes these "newer" or less experienced editors have cost me several hours at a time when I should have been improving articles. My point was that these editors can be disruptive and can drain valuable resources from the project. Ultimately, these issues require an admin, and several more hours of "head-banging", that's all I meant. (A big cause of editor loss IMO) I didn't mean to express disdain for people "who sometimes don't want to abide by consensus or edit per MoS", I only meant I am getting burnt out fighting them for hour after hour only to require an admin to sort it out. My words were poorly chosen, minor implies lesser, when I really meant "green", but now they are being misread. What happened to Good-Faith, I received an oppose because I expressed concern about another user's intentions, so should you now also have a demerit, for doubting my good-faith with no diffs to support your concern? — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose Canvasing. More than the actual effect of the canvasing is a lack of understanding of how such canvasing would be viewed. If you're going to have the tools you need to be in tune with the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose - you've kept your nose clean, and it looks like you're doing good work, but there seems to be a real lack of Admin Area experience. Aside from this RFA, and content-related areas (like FAC) I see a number that is effectively 0 for edits in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces in the last two years. I don't feel that we should only give the tools to those who "need" them, but the WP and WT namespaces are places where the conversation generally revolve around policy, and that makes it easier for us to know how you'd act as an admin. Achowat (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose — canvassing, badgering of opposes, and recent remarks about how he will (mis)use the tools. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Now a strong oppose, canvassing and likely misuse of tools aside, the constant badgering of other opposers leaves a really sour taste. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
14. I must also Oppose due to the remark regarding IPs and other concerns above. Sorry. Calabe1992 14:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose The canvassing issue isn't great, and hints at a lack of understanding of what the community would deem appropriate behaviour. More than that though, the remark about "minor editors" just does not sit that comfortably with me. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Regretful oppose - nothing on his user page, no admin-style work yet. Try again in six months' time. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Little activity in admin-related areas. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    I have to strongly oppose this RFA because Gabe wants the tools to boss other editors around. I would have supported otherwise, but that is entirely too much. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    Now weakly supporting. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

18. Per QuiteUnusual and after seeing this where the user said they do not consider editors discussing an article to have good faith. Good faith is the idea that someone wants to improve the encyclopedia. If the candidate thinks those two editors are intending to hurt the encyclopedia on purpose then the topic should be brought up at a relevant noticeboard. Disagreement is not the same as intending to hurt the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per comments on "minor editors," IPs, and other issues expressed by others above. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose, blanking the talk page and not providing any adequate possibility to check what you have written is a no go, moreover having made ~30% of all edits at one article ([4]), not opting monthly stats in; no CSD log, no edits in the file/file talk space and only one upload at enwp (but wanting to work with/against copyvios), the only WP/WT edit I saw (back to 2010) were at PR and FA related pages. So why do you need that rights? mabdul 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose - per Mabdul and the fact the user does not have edits spread across different namespaces (user has 7/8). Thanks, Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, I have edited over 300+ different pages. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    He's talking about different namespaces, not pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

22. Strong Oppose To make someone into an admin when they have virtually no experience of admin-related work would be absurd. However, what is worse is the fact that, from comments on this page, it seems that GabeMc cannot see why that is a problem. Add to that comments which suggest that GabeMc wishes to use adminship for dubious purposes E.g. "have some actual authority over a new ip" and "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor". Adminship is not a tool to give you "authority" over other editors who do things you dislike, nor to avoid having to discuss things with people you disagree with, and nobody who thinks they are should be let loose on the admin tools. Also "a new ip" and "minor editor" suggest a contemptuous attitude towards some classes of editors, and a belief taht some editors deserve less respect than others. And all this in this RfA page, suggesting that the editor has no idea that these things are contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    Note: Since I wrote that, the candidate has posted yet more messages to this page which suggest failure to understand what is and isn't policy, and what is and isn't the role of an administrator. The answers to the various parts of question 6, for example, show numerous misunderstandings. I am also not happy with someone who says he/she would never unblock anyone. The notion that once someone has been indefinitely blocked they are never given another chance under any circumstances is frightening. My opposition is now even more firm. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    The question didn't ask about indef bans, it asked about blocks, I assumed a typical block of 24-72 hours, which are different in that they expire, versus indef bans. I don't see the need to undermine anohter admin over a couple days block. And as I said, after a couple years as admin I may consider that, but for the first couple of years I would not undo anyhting another more experienced admin had done, not without discussion with others. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    In answer to "If you get a unblock request, under which circumstances will you unblock them?" you wrote "I wouldn't unblock, ever really. I wouldn't undermine another admin except in an extreme case..." (1) Unblocking is not necessarily "undermining" another administrator. There are lots of other possibilities, such as the circumstances having changed since the block, the user having addressed the reason for the block, the user having accepted mentoring, the editing that led to the block having been found to have an innocent explanation, and so on and so on. I do think that any admin candidate should be sufficiently aware of such issues to avoid giving an answer which shows such fundamental misunderstanding. (2) An administrator who always sticks by another administrator no matter what is a bad administrator. Administrators do not form a sort of cabal who all stick together and support one another even when mistakes have been made. (3) I didn't say anything about bans, either. Do you know what the difference is between a block and a ban? Your comment suggests that you think any indefinite block is a ban. An admin should know basic things like that. I could go on, but that should be enough to show that your response gives even more evidence that you don't understand what being an administrator entails. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

23. Strong Oppose Keepscases (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    No rationale? Bmusician 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    At this point it hardly seems necessary. Keepscases (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

24. I don't care about the lack of DYKs or the transclusion error, but I'm concerned by a combination of a few other factors. As noted above, you're almost entirely without contributions to WP: space pages, except content-related pages (e.g. FA/GA/peer review); while that's good, it would help if you'd participated more in trying to get pages deleted and/or trying to save them from being deleted, as well as working to help or to stop other users in community pages, whether AFD or RD or VP or AIV. That by itself isn't a sufficient reason to oppose, but it is when combined with other issues. Almost all of your deleted edits are to another user's sandbox, which shows that you've either done almost nothing with speedy deletion or that your work with speedy deletion hasn't been correct. Moreover, what I guess your opinion of adminship to be ("earning adminship" and authority over IPs) is problematic, and I'm also troubled by the many disputes that appear at your more recent talk archive. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Hot Stop.PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose I see no need for the tools. As far as I can see, you have little experience in admin zones such as anti-vandal work etc. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose While blanking one's own talk page is allowed, I've always found it to be a bad indicator among those who do it repeatedly. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    An arbitrary opinion not valid as an oppose rationale as Wiki policy allows for blanking. — GabeMc (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    In my opinion, the impression it gives to other editors is one of "sweeping it under the rug" instead of dealing with it. Archiving is greatly preferred.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    An opinion, not reinforced by Wiki policy. Anyone who reads the diffs will see what was "dealt" with and what wasn't. If this is a good enough reason to oppose then editors should be advised agaisnt doing it for that reason before it become a factor after its too late to correct. BTW, an admin was the one who told me that blanking was perfectly okay, when I questioned his blanking of his own talk page. So how was I to know? Anyway, like I said, it really shouldn't be used against me when WP:BLANKING says, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Therefore, your opinion is not a valid rationale for oppose, IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    Gabe, people can oppose you for whatever criteria they want. Repeatedly claiming that their opinion is invalid is unlikely to get you nearer to a successful RFA, and it borders on badgering. In fact, (take this with my advice for your next RFA below), unless an opposition asks you a direct question, its best just to not respond at all. When you respond, all you do is cause people to wish to oppose you stronger. Its a lose-lose. Let it go. --Jayron32 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    Agree with Jayron. There is no requirement that opposes are based in policy or even logic. As to "how was I to know?", well, an admin is supposed to know, and they find out when they are preparing to become an admin, if you didn't already know. Being confrontational about it isn't helping your case, and makes me wonder how you would react in a real heated dispute with all those tools in your hands. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 02:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

28. Oppose The editor's content contributions are good, and I have no other substantive objections to what they have done so far at Wikipedia, but it is what they haven't done that raises some concerns. There is a lack of experience in working in any of the areas that administrators work in. As noted above, ANI is a suckhole that is less than worthless, and if that is where you think you are needed, then you aren't needed. Get some experience in nominating articles for speedy deletion, in warning vandals and reporting them at AIV and UAA, and especially in dispute resolution processes. Learning how to assess conflict situations and diffuse tensions is a good skill for admins. Take all this as advice, and if you get some serious experience in doing administrator-like tasks before you get the tools, you'll be ready to use the tools in a few months. Just not ready yet. --Jayron32 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I am extremely sorry to oppose, but I have no other options available. This user's constant badgering of the opposers is extremely worrying– also the remark about "minor editors" and "new ip's", and the canvassing, are unacceptable. You also don't seem to feature much experience in admin-related areas: you've only !voted on one AFD debate, and the lack of reports to AIV/UAA/SPI is not decent at all. Again, I'm sorry to oppose. Perhaps after you've gained more experience in admin-related areas and have addressed all of the concerns by the opposers, you would be ready. Bmusician 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Bmusician sums it up nicely. Authoring skills are not the same as admin skills, and the candidate's handling of the pressures during this RfA make it clear they aren't ready to dive into messy situations that admins and even non-admins have to deal with daily. They lack the restraint and basic communication skills that we would expect of any admin, and a lack of clue when it comes to policy and guidelines in general. Maybe someday, but not today. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose - A good content contributor, certainly. However, the combative attitude taken to this RfA, the comments about "minor editors" and the lack of experience in any admin related areas worry me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
32. Oppose - The comments by the candidate on this very page are more then enough to prove that serious concerns of judgement and temperament are on going issues of a very serious nature. This diff is particularly concerning, including the edit summary. [5] If this argumentative, overly defensive and consistent badgering of those opposed; regardless of the weight of their arguments; is likely indicative of future actions if approved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    I honestly thought this was a debate, where I should defend my case, as every other Wiki discussion I have ever been involved in during the past 2.5 years was. No one ever told me about badgering, what can I say. I get badgered too, I just try to respond as clearly as I can, or I don't respond. As soon as it was explained to me properly, I stopped. This is my first time here, so I'm comfortable with making a few mistakes, its to be expected. I could never have learned many of these valuable lessons without this experience, so thanks for helping me learn! — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    Once I quit viewing all talk on Wikipedia as debates, and instead treated them as discussions, I became more effective an persuading others to my point of view (thanks to observing DGG and others). By starting a comment with a point you both agree on, then offering an opinion on the points to which you disagree, others are more receptive to your ideas as it is clear you are listening to their concerns. You have excellent writing skills, certainly better than mine and more than adequate to be a sysop, but I would suggest observing disputes without participating and learning from those who appear to be more effective at persuading, as a way to improve in this area. The archives at RFC and ANI are excellent sources for this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

33. Oppose - Clearly unsuited per candidate statements. Strongly suggest we not prolong this pile-on and close asap via WP:SNOW, thanks. Jusdafax 19:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    If the candidate wishes the RfA to continue, I think it should--many evaluators are trying to be helpful and constructive. Keepscases (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, yes I would prefer to continue, since if I need to wait 6 months for another RfA, I may as well learn as much about the process, and expectations as I can now. Also, I agree, most opposes are offering helpful constructive criticism. — GabeMc (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    May i mention that i find this a very commendable stance, especially when looking at the RFA as a whole? Many an editor decided to close their RFA after the first few opposes, and more then one flew into a rage or even outright to quit Wikipedia after failing one. The intention to ride it out in order to gain more feedback is definitely a very praiseworthy thought. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

    Agreed. Keepscases (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    Just a thought. Could we have the admin place a 'probation' tag in his/her user space stating that they will walk on eggs for a while if we do agree to accept? I feel WP could use as many admin as it can find, they are probably very taxed as it is. I know I would probably fail.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    They're certainly very taxing, not so sure about taxed. Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    My grammar. I assumed when one has taxing tasks; then that person is taxed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    Your grammar is actually right - your just witnessing some of Malleus's humor related to admins. Malleus is joking that admins are simply very taxing for an editor to deal with, while he is not sure if admins themselves are overloaded with work. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't feel that anything useful can be accomplished further in this Rfa. The candidate's statements are an indicator of inability to grasp the fundamentals required for adminship at this era of Wikipedia-en. In my view, his Rfa is spiraling into a sinkhole that demeans the candidate and actually is doing long-term damage to his future prospects. I again ask for a closure via WP:SNOW, which is a clear-cut guideline: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. Jusdafax 20:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose I'm not seeing any particular reason for Gabe to need the mop. I'm sure he means well, but outside of his work on Malcom X, and articles related to the Beatles and Pink Floyd, there isn't much of anything. Not too much work with antivandalism either. He wants to help at ANI, but hasn't touched it since July 2010. I'd suggest taking some time to familiarized in more areas of Wikipedia before saying you want to work in them. Ishdarian 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose I'm just not seeing enough experience, or knowledge, of admin, or indeed any non-content related, tasks. There is no one thing that raises enough of a red flag to oppose but across all the questions the lack of references to policies, the various noticeboards and similar makes me wonder if they have enough knowledge of these areas. I am also somewhat concerned by their oppose to Calabe1992 RfA. Not because I think it's in retaliation or anything but rather because of the comments like "But he has done a total of only 34 edits to this page, 34!" which seems to show that they do not have enough experience of how different editors work - 34 edits to an article for some contributors would be a lot and could represent a lot of good content work if they used preview a lot and only saved at the end of a major edit. Dpmuk (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose I'm not happy with the responses to !votes and other comments here. There are times when being down-to-earth (shall we say) is needed. I've been downright rude on occasions, and ended up with successful ends to disputes. In one's RfA, no, that's not the place or time. (On the other hand, I get put off by candidates who seem to crawl...) The candidate has done some quite good work for the encyclopaedia, and I hope that goes on. I applaud the courage shown in sticking it out here, and hope that the advice given isn't rejected per the old saying about free advice, namely that it's only worth what you paid for it. The admin here should bear in mind the other saying - 'speak softly but carry a big stick'. A mop is a big stick, despite the soggy bit at one end. Speaking softly most often saves the need to use the big stick. I've moved from neutral reluctantly, and have left my advice down there. Take it or leave it. I would hope to support the next time. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
37. Without evaluating the candidates contributions in depth, the way they have conducted themselves at this RFA concerns me. I worry how the candidate will respond to good faith questions brought up by other editors if the candidate deletes an article, closes a discussion or blocks a user. I'd recommend the candidate withdraw the RFA, work on the concerns brought up by those in opposition, and try again in six months to a year. Steven Zhang ^Talk 22:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
38. Oppose; deliberately disrupting another RfA, especially when this one was in progress, was a bad idea; specifically, asking deliberately well-poisoning questions to bludgeon people with your opinion about policy doesn't indicate you're ready for adminship. You're going to have to deal with people who disagree on policy matters, and you need a better tactic than repeatedly presenting your personal opinion as fact and refusing to work with any disagreement. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
39. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    No reason? Yasht101 02:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

40. Oppose - I think this user has good intentions and will likely make a good admin some day, but I don't see enough experience and familiarity with the nuts and bolts of this project. My advice is to continue gaining experience with article building and admin-related areas and try back in 6-12 months. Best regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Seems a bit of a bully, to be honest. Arguing with Calabe1992 at Calabe1992's RfA is one thing, getting a final kick in after Calabe1992 withdrew is quite another. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, I didn't know he had withdrawn when I saved my question, which wasn't a "final kick" it was actually an honest question. All I wanted was a decent explaination that he wasn't politically biased, and that this would not be a factor in his adminship. — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    Fair enough on the withdrawal, I can see how you could have not seen it when you posted. But really, that post (I count at least five questions in it) was waaaay past beating-the-dead-horse category. 28bytes (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

    Gabe, politics is taboo, especially on a website where everyone must adhere to a NPOV.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

42. Oppose. No compelling reasons for according this user the tools; no convincing arguments that they would be used wisely; insufficient demonstration of required interpersonal skills; general lack of experience in admin related areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
43. Oppose - partly because he fails my criteria, and partly because he requested adminship without first making an attempt to learn what adminship is. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
44. Oppose I don't want to pile on, but the answers to the questions posted to test the nominator's knowledge of common admin tasks leave a lot to be desired. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
45. Strong Oppose Candidate has only 6% of his edits to the Wikipedia: namespace. Atleast he should have had a bit more. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
46. Oppose per 28bytes. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
47. Oppose for not taking advice from several users to withdraw the nomination. Poor judgement which is likely to impact negatively on a future RfA if held too soon. Candidate probably has a deal of work to do now to gain the community's respect. But it's all part of the learning experience, and hopefully he'll bounce back. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
48. Oppose - Primarily per 28bytes. The candidate's conduct at that RfA would probably be enough for me to oppose outright. Their responses at that RfA and at this RfA come across (to me and to others here) as intimidating, combative, blunt and with a lack of good faith. As well as this, answers to the additional questions (and some rebuttals) demonstrate a lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia works including Q4 and Q8 - the response to Q5 does not answer the question fully. Knowledge of Wikipedia's processes and etiquette is gained through experience, and in order to know all the things that people expect you to know, more experience is required. Mato (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
49. Sorry, have to add myself here as well. You have good intentions and all, but your conduct as of late really makes me cringe, plus there are valid concerns over lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Sorry. – Connormah (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
50. User seems to be misunderstanding the role and purpose of the sysop flag greatly. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
51. Very very strong oppose per Yasht101. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 02:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
52. Oppose. I'm not convinced that this user needs admin tools, and if he does he doesn't have the necessary experience for them.--Slon02 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
53. Oppose candidate does not have the necessary experience for admin tools. Almost all their Wikipedia-space edits are to content related pages such as FAC/GAR or relate to content disputes they were involved in. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this participation - I haven't checked - only that it has nothing to do with adminship. If a candidate intends to use their admin tools to block vandals then I would expect a good record of reports to WP:AIV to indicate they can be trusted with the block button, this one has no reports at all. If a candidate wants to do copyright work then I would expect evidence of participation at WP:SCV, WP:CP, WP:CCI etc or evidence that they have a good record of tagging copyright violations for speedy deletion. This candidate has no such participation and hasn't tagged any copyright violations for deletion (or any pages at all, for that matter), and the answer to Q5 isn't encouraging. Obviously RfA candidates can't be experienced in every area of admin work, but they should certainly be experienced in some area of admin work. In addition I share the concerns of others above that the responses on this page indicate the candidate does not have the necessary judgement for adminship. Hut 8.5 14:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, as I don't feel qualified to decide. I have been invited to a few votes and discussions (mainly over The Beatles) which seem to have been resolved sensibly, but that's about it. And my time commitments are currently such that I can't spend ages researching. --Matt Westwood 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2. I generally would like to see admin candidates have some experience in the areas they profess an interest in working, and I don't see that here. While I have no basis for thinking the candidate is anything but a good faith contributor, and thus wont oppose, I just don't see much of any experience in quasi-administrative areas. Also, whats with the notifications on user talk pages regarding this RFA? Monty₈₄₅ 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I sent six of those, then thought better, because I figured someone might take issue, but what's the matter with neutral requests from editors familiar with you to comment anyway? — GabeMc (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   See here. It is considered by some to be canvasing of known favourable votes. QU ^TalkQu 08:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   See here, here and here when I canvassed users known to oppose my suggestion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral I'd suggest getting into the 'admin' areas mentioned, plus get experience in CSD and AfD. In the admin areas, you can contribute, and !vote in discussions; it's just the actual action at the end that's admin only (in most cases). Get into a wider range of articles than I've seen so far. You seen to concentrate on one thing for some time - spread out instead if you want the mop. I'm not decrying your editing. I just can't see how getting the admin tools would help you at the moment. I might have missed things in the middle area of your contribs - if you have been involved with AfD or CSD etc, let us know. Peridon (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Moving to oppose

   Strong content candidate hampered by other issues. Try again after you get more experience working in the more admin-ny areas. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see any particular issues here that would cause me to oppose, but as previously stated, you have little or no experience in administrative areas such as AIV, UAA, SPI, and similar. So I don't see that the tools would truly assist you much either. With that in mind, neutral for now. Calabe1992 04:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I never really saw the point of doing those things before, as I thought those duties were for admins. I think someone told me that, IDK. But I don't see the point of going toe to toe with someone over something that will eventually require an admin anyway, so I just don't bother. If I were an admin, I could edit more effectively, and have some actual authority over a new ip that tells me to keep the unsourced graph he wrote. — GabeMc (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   A Medical student has to do internship before becoming certified doctor. If he doesn't do it, he won't get experience and would become a very bad doctor and may result in death of patients or would increase the pain of patients from which they are already suffering. So, no one will support a person who has not done internship to become a doc.

   I hope that you can understand my point. Yasht101 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, I understand you, but do you understand that I have over 8,500 edits to my credit and I brought one article to FA with virtually no help, another with some great help, but I was still the primary writer/editor of the article? I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus, or MoS. — GabeMc (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   I saw your talk page. Bringing an article to FA status doesn't mean at all that you'll be an better admin. It is necessary to have content creation, but if a person is not experienced in any admin related work then, they can't be trusted with the power. Yasht101 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Contributions pattern indicates that this is a content creator or a copy editor, not a vandal fighter. I'm not sure why the administrative toolbox would be useful — be proud of what you do at WP and do it well and leave the janitorial tasks to the janitors. Why would you venture to put yourself through this dysfunctional process in the first place? You have one oppose vote (worth 3 favorable ballots) because you transcluded a page improperly. I've been here since the end of 2008 and I don't even know what that means, but obviously THAT'S a terminal offense. Another vote against you (=3 positive votes) because you tend your talk page the rational way, by blanking it periodically (all the information is preserved in the edit history and the "archives" can be easily spotted with the large negative numbers for size change). So you've waded into the shit pit for no good reason, other than to illustrate to other content creators why they should NEVER venture into these fetid waters. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

   Transcluding this page is a sort of initiation test. I had a worry over it too but got there. Don't ask me to explain it. Peridon (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

4. I'm going to be neutral. I like the editing pattern, it's quite good, answers to questions are satisfactory, but I don't like the Getting admin tools to control content part. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Though I do not oppose this candidacy, and have absolutely no reason to think that this person would be a bad admin, I do not feel comfortable with an outright support at this time. If the editor works even more in some areas he'd be interested in doing administrative tasks in, I would support a later candidacy. dci | TALK 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral Per discussions above.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral ~ No reason for this user to abuse administrator tools - however would they even use them? that question poses somewhat of a concern to me at this stage. Other than that, a wonderful user, and if current RfA does not have a desired outcome, I suggest Gabe run at the end of the year - by then they should have all their ducks lined up in a row -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.