Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwynand

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

Gwynand

Final (51/20/8); Scheduled to end 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) RFA Closed - candidate withdrew. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand (talk · contribs) - When I first came across Gwynand a few months back, I was so thoroughly impressed with his logic-based approach to Wikipedia, that I offered to nominate him for adminship. He had 850 edits at the time. Since that time, I've only been more and more impressed by his "gradual" approach to editing. He is extremely careful in what he posts on-wiki. He is extraordinarily communicative, well-reasoned, always thinking and asking before acting. He approaches every situation with a cool and level demeanor, and an open mind. In short, Gwynand is an ideal administrator, and has been one for a long time. He merely needs the extra buttons to go along with the title. You've likely seen him frequent my talkpage to get advice or to use me as a "sounding board"; his edit count there is abnormally high in that regard, as evidence that he is a collaborator looking to learn how this place works "on the job". He is a frequenter of ANI and AN, RFA and elsewhere. Based on the soundness and fairness of his posts, several other editors often assumed that he was already an admin (and has been offered nominations numerous times only to turn it down to gain more experience). I firmly believe Gwynand would have set a precedent and passed an RFA with 850 edits, they were that solid, but he is wiser than I and turned me down. He has only improved since then, and I am privileged to have the chance to nominate him. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that this user will be one of our best administrators for Wikipedia, and for the long term. Keeper ǀ 76 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my request. The opposition is currently sufficient enough for me personally to see no consensus in giving me the tools. Thanks to my nom and everyone that voted, and apologies as I've always thought candidates shouldn't come to RfAs unless they were fairly sure they would pass. I'm a little confused/embarassed, but egos heal quickly, and I have a nice 12 year old bourbon to speed things along. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Primarily, I plan to make a natural transition to adminship if I am granted the tools. Meaning, I’m not going to immediately go anywhere new and start using them, but rather use them where I feel comfortable and confident that such actions are clear and will help the community. The obvious benefits of this are the ability to protect pages when such action is necessary, and also just generally assisting other editors who might have an issue where administrative action is required. If I need to block, I will, but considering how I usually work here on Wikipedia, it will come after a good amount of discussion with others and making sure it is what’s best all around. I plan to ask first, block later. I won’t be over at AIV or WP:UAA anytime soon, but will slowly gravitate there as I become more comfortable taking administrative actions in those areas.

I feel quite comfortable specifically at AFD (as opposed to XfDs in general), it is something I peruse quite often and weigh in on occasion. I believe I am able and willing to read deeply into tougher discussions to determine consensus. Furthermore, I’ll always be willing and open to discuss my view of the consensus and never plan to assume I must’ve been right, but rather explain my thoughts/decisions whenever questioned.

Finally, I think the ability to respond with admin actions to issues at AN and ANI will be of use to me and the community. There have been issues in the past where these things would’ve helped me help others: The ability to view deleted contribs, the ability to protect a page amidst an edit war, the ability to block a problematic editor who is making a clear problem which requires preventative action. The fact is, I plan and assume to continue to participate at both these noticeboards in mostly the same capacity I did without the tools: to try to be neutral and helpful whenever possible, trying to solve problems through discussion. If I occasionally need to use the tools when needed to help out, I will, but use of such tools I plan to be secondary to discussion.

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

A: Since this area seems usually reserved for discussion of mainspace contribs, I’ll stick mostly there, although I’m probably generally most proud of dealing with dispute resolution at places like WP:ANI and helping solve issues at WT:RFA.

I think I’ve been quite helpful at American Idol Season 7 and some of its derivatives, like David Archuleta and Jason Castro. Articles such as these require intense scrutiny of sources added to ensure there is no incorrect “interpretations” going on, also for BLP issues. There is such a wealth of info on the internet regarding such new and high traffic topics that community discussion and heavy review of what is being added to the articles is necessary, I believe I have helped in both these areas.

Somehow I got caught up over at 1995 Japanese Grand Prix, a current GA (hopefully soon to be FA), where I believe I best helped out improving style and readability to readers of Wikipedia. Although many edited before me to help build that article up, I believe my edits both to the article itself and the talk helped deal with small but important issues that were keeping the article from be considered really great, eventually featured. I was generally pleased with the civil and solid collaborations there between editors to do what we could to improve the article.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I’m not sure how people here rate different levels of conflict, so I’ll try not to quantify it in that way. I had a disagreement at David Archuleta over a minor issue in the lead, but at the same time felt it was somewhat of a BLP issue and needed to be addressed. I sought out neutral third party commentary on the issue, where soon after the problem was resolved. I can say that I never take conflicts personally (or haven’t yet to date) and would like to say that I enjoy attempting to solve the problem itself and not beat any one editor into the ground for the sake of winning. I am often involved in conflicts because of my participation on the noticeboards, but it is as an uninvolved third party who is simply trying to help resolve an issue. If I become an admin, I realize that it might be more likely to be on one side of a dispute. If I do find myself in those situations, I intend to be thoughtful and make the reasoning behind any of my actions totally transparent to anyone who asks. Most importantly, If I’m proven to be wrong, or if there is consensus against any actions I took, I plan to be the first to overturn them, and always be conscious of not causing any disruption myself.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: Something I’ve always considered about blocks, is that the concept of WP:OWN should be applied to such actions. In the scenario you’ve provided, I see an editor that has continued vandalizing despite multiple warnings and consequently the hypothetical Gwynand-admin decides to block him. Looks like a sound choice. The vandal then makes a somewhat silly comment in response to the block, but quickly reverts. Finally, just a few minutes later, he makes a reasonable and civil request to become unblocked. In this magnified scenario I am discussing, I am unconvinced with the unblock request. While the minor “attack” he just made on me didn’t bother me, I should be considerate of future attacks he might make on others just a few minutes later if he is unblocked. So Gwynand’s first act as admin? Default to another admin/admins, letting them know that I question such immediate reform from someone who had been vandalizing and making attacks, although I would be comfortable with a quick second chance if another admin felt the request was OK. Just because I blocked, doesn’t mean I OWN the decision on an unblock. The block wasn’t made for personal reasons and considering the questionable nature of the unblock request, a few admins taking a look at it would provide the best outcome.

Optional questions from User:Filll

5. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. Such a wide open question there, but certainly a valid community issue. I don't believe it can properly be discussed/answered within the scope of an RfA, but I'll give a quick thought. People should seek to be less offended with other user's opinions. There seems to be too much desire to find ways to discredit others as opposed to simply openly talking about things. I'll leave it at that within the scope of the RfA. The PPP seems fine, but not as a solution to anything.

6. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.If you don’t mind, I’ll start with answering just one for now.

2. No original research!:

In many ways, the “ultimate” Wikipedia problem is when different reliable sources say different things. For the most part, this doesn’t require any specific admin interaction, but I’ll offer my views. First thing, let’s make sure all the sources are reliable, also check for things like dates when the facts were claimed. Percentages of black chihuahuas may change over time, so before arguing continues let’s see if the problem can be simplified.

In regards to SYNTH and OR, it should be considered as to whether altering of how the data is presented, even minor, should be scrutinized for any “spin”. Personally, I am in favor of staying totally true to the reliable source over the best presentation, I.E., state the 3 studies percentages, and quote the 4th as “x out of y” just like it is given. Of course, this could change depending on all the info given if this were actually happening.

When you say that the admin “reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked”, well, that would most certainly be eligible for an ANI thread, although I’d have to say that rarely is such a statement so cut-and-dry bad faith. In general, an editor acting like that, regardless of being an admin or not, needs to be reminded of some of wikipedia’s core policies.

Optional question from Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work}

7. What is your opinion on users who have formerly been blocked for things other than 3RR? Are they to be valued as equally as other editors?

A: In general, on an edit-by-edit basis, I think we should do as little sizeing up of other editors as possible. Take a look at the edit they made to the article, or to your talk page, or XFD or wherever. Look at how they are contributing and what they are doing in regards to the situation at hand. Varying interaction based on how much we "value" other editors can be problematic. Without additional info, I'd say I wouldn't treat a previously blocked editor any differently than anyone else. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 8. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 8a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Basically when these two things both are true: when at the time of block, allowing them to continue to edit will allow a measurable level of disruption (be it vandalism or something else) to continue. The second is when the block will not cause more disruption then trying to solve the problem through other means. This means, don't block before the user is properly warned... it will upset the community and doesn't help. Don't block if the user has stopped the pattern of disruption for the time being, blocks are not meant to be punitive. There are various other reasons, but blocking should be a last resort. If it is fairly clear that the community will benefit from the blocking and it is within the bounds of WP:BLOCK, then the editor should be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

• 8b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: This is similar to my response for blocking, but on a different level. Meaning, protect when 1)protecting the page stops immediate and clear disruption and 2). protecting won't disrupt good faith editors, including IPs. Protecting should almost never occur before prior means of dispute resolution have taken place, either on the article talk page or user talk pages. Of course, there are instances of rampant IP vandalism where a quicker page protection will help the community most, but the admin should always be sure of the benefit they are giving before protecting an article for any reason.

• 8c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: When it clearly falls into any of the categories in WP:CSD. The basis of CSD is to not waste the community's time when a deletion is obvious. What people seem to forget is that once a deletion becomes less than obvious for good-faith contributors, CSD should just about always be bypassed for a regulard XfD discussion. If an admin is not 100% sure on a CSD, there are several steps that can be taken to see what to be done (discussion, XfD, etc), but an admin should never speedy delete an article unless they are totally comfortable it fits into a CSD category, and also that they would quite easily be able to explain this if questioned.

• 8d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: If on the surface an action would appear to be a net benefit to the community, but it appears to break a policy, the editor should seriously consider the basis of that policy and why their potential action supersedes that. Furthermore, the editor should be wary of what disruption the rule breaking might cause. Will this outweight benefits? Will the short term disruption be worth the long term benefit of ignoring the policy? To sum up: we should always do what's best for the project regardless of what is written, but at the same time we need to take full consideration of why rules exist (BLP comes to mind) before breaking it.

• 9. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: This is hard to answer in such a place, but I'll do my best to summarize. One determines consensus by reading all views, by considering all views, attempting to understand the basis of all sides, and finally, judging what "side" makes the best case based on reasoning and strength of argument. Strength can be measured by number of editors holding such an opinion among other things, and is hard to summarize here.

• 10. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First thing would to be encourage a centralized discussion of the facts of the dispute, preferably on the article's talk page so others can contribute. While I won't necessarily get heavily involved with the actual content dispute, I will do the best of my ability to limit any edit warring before appropriate discussion takes place. I will not automatically warn for 3RR, but only as a last resort. The last thing I'd want to do is add a mild blocking threat to two users I'm trying to keep calm in the first case. In extreme cases, either or both could be blocked for edit warring, but I'd like to think this would be a last resort, only after a total refusal to engage in other dispute resolution.

• 11. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I believe there is a strong movement towards adminship being a strong separation between the community in general. I'm concerned quite often not with the abuse of tools, but rather the manner in which they are wielded, often with total disregard to how it appears to everyone else. I've felt I can help with admin duties without contributing to that issue. I came to Wikipedia because it was interesting, I stayed because it was engaging, and like so many others, I've for some odd reasons felt a strong desire to help out here. I'm not 100% sure having the admin tools will enable me to help more, but I feel that they have the potential to do so. I'm very conscious of acting superior to anyone, the thought actually sickens me, and consequently I hope that when use of tools are needed, I will "wield" them with the utmost regard to respecting the community and with total understanding of the fact that the roughly 10 million people who don't have the tools are the ones that need to be considered most, and treated just as well as anyone. Ultimately, as best as I can tell, I think gaining the tools will let me help in the best way I know how, and I'm confident that I won't cause disruption with them.

General comments

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

• Links for Gwynand: Gwynand (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Incredibly clueful editor, one whose work I've looked at for a while and been solidly impressed at. No hesitation in supporting. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Of course. Amazing patience, impeccable policy knowledge, is incredibly more suited to being an admin than I am, and you folks voted me in. Definitely time to show our trust. Tan ǀ 39 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Synergy 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support An intelligent, reasonable editor who I expect will do the right thing. (three ecs? gee!) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - I was waiting for this. Strong and solid. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong Support - (after four edits conflicts!) I have only known this user for a couple of months, but he has helped me a lot on Wikipedia, giving me good advise, and helping me work on article stuff. I am confident Gwynand will not abuse the tools, so this is a strong support from me. =) D.M.N. (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. This is one of the few RfAs I've had watchlisted, and was happy to see if finally accepted. Gwynand has a strong understanding of policy and an even-handed temperament that is required to be an admin. He is a solid editor, and I have no doubts he'll make a great admin. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Support. No red flags, seems to have a clear plan for activities with the tools.--Finalnight (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Strongest possible support. At around 600 edits, this user came across the same way as an administrator - a calm, civil, yet straight to the point and concise at the same time. This was at 600 edits. You just know a user is going to do great things if they come across this way that early. Now, after (even) more maturing time, he has once again exceeded all expectations and done the most amazing feat in the space of time between then and now - got better. I am honoured to support this candidate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong support — I was ready to support before the answer to my question, but then he knocked it out of the park. –xeno (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Support From what I've seen, this is a solid candidate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Gwynand would be a great admin. He's calm, civil, insightful, respectful, and all those other great qualities you look for in a sysop. His participation in AN/I is impressive. His contributions to AfD are meaningful, and I have a firm belief he'll be a wonderful interpretor and closer of debates. Vickser (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Insert not an administrator quip here. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support, every time I have seen this user's signature tacked somewhere, it's surely a sign of clueful behavior. Shereth 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Gwynand (talk · contribs) is a good, collaborative editor. His article space edits are matched by a proportionate amount of discussion on the article's talk page, and the significant number of user talk-space edits is indicative of further collaboration. However, this is not all: this user's contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, particularly in some admin-related areas, are prolific. The overall edit count may seem low for a user who has been editing since January 2007, but looking at the contributions themselves beyond the raw count, this seems to be because the edits are lengthy, well thought through, and make good reference to policy. This editor is acting like an administrator in the way that he interacts with users, offering advice, and providing guidance. I therefore see ample evidence of sufficient experience in policy areas, positive interactions with other users, and consequently no reason that Gwynand should not be given the tools. In summary: large net benefit. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong Support -- I too have been waiting for this one. Very hard working ánd polite editor. Best of luck! --Cameron* 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Extremely Strong Support Per Cameron. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support As per the previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, with a few reservations, as the problems East outlines below are not without significance. However, this user does satisfy my criteria for supporting RfAs, and I don't feel that the concerns are significant enough to not support. S. Dean Jameson 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. A sensible editor I've got no doubt will make a sensible administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support I have had nothing than good interactions with this user. America69 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
23. lulz i beats teh nomz support Nothing but positive encounters with Gwynand. I think he'll make a good admin.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support; although I do agree with many of the very rational things said by those both opposing and voting neutral (and hope that Gwynand will keep them in mind), I do not think that they will make him a poor administrator, and I think that the incredible amount of consideration he puts into his actions here will make him a calm, respectful administrator, which is very desirable. -- Natalya 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Sure, I think you would do just fine. SQL^{Query me!} 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support First off, I must admit I was a bit biased when I decided to support you. I saw you were nominated by Keeper76 and while I do not want to suck up to him, I must admit that I usually think that he does have a good sense of choosing candidates. But I am usually skeptic nonetheless and thus I of course did not want to post "Support as per Keeper76 nom". But his contributions look good, he makes good use of edit summaries, he seems to know how to act logically and not impulsive and the answer to xeno's question was, to be frank, pretty good. I think he will make a great admin. So#Why 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support for conscientous work on articles such as Japanese Grand Prix, which somehow landed on my watchlist. WHile we're not talking about re-writing the encyclopedia from A to Z, Gwynand shows dedication to articles he's involved with and works to improve them. While I recognise some of the reasons brought forth by the opposers and those !voting neutral, I overall think he'll be a net positive to the project. TravellingCari 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support See no convincing reason to doubt will do well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
29. I think you'd make a good admin, hope I'm right. John Reaves 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Weak Support A bit of apprehension, but not enough to !vote neutral or oppose. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - insightful, level-headed, dedicated user. Will use the tools well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Support per the universal constants. RMHED (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I've been waiting for this one. Gwyn'll make a good administrator for sure. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Although I agree with most of the opposes below, I think Gwynand has learned from that. As for article writing, I see not much activity in that area, but I think he can become a great admin. He is sought out by others for his help and he acts in a manner consistent with our top admins. I have every confidence that he can handle the tools, even with the low edit count in mainspace. -- RyRy (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support No problems here. Seems trustworthy enough. SashaNein (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Support - I can trust this user. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Weak Support, I don't see any evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Has been a bit bitey in the past, but given the contrition below in Naerii's neutral vote, I'm willing to believe this was more a lapse of judgement than a major attitude problem. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
38. Support Per User:Pedro/RFA Standards particularly point number 4, and User:Pedro/Net Positive. Pedro :  Chat  09:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Weak support - Wow! I've seen this user around such a lot, and I have to admit, it was to the extent I thought he was already an admin. Imagine my shock then at finding such a low edit count / length of participation. But looking into these edits, there appears to be a large amount of knowledge and experience gained, from extensive work on the noticeboards and over here at RfA. That must indicate some sound policy knowledge. There is some article work, and relevant discussions on how to move articles forward. I find myself willing to offer my support, but the admin's reading list would need a thorough read through before commencing with admin duties. Practice extensively at the admin school aswell. Lradrama 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - After reading everything the opposes have to offer, I cant shake the fact that I believed you were an admin anyway. And a pretty decent one too. So, in spite of all of your "cons", you have one giant huge "pro".  :) Good luck. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Gwynand often provides a reasoned voice of opinion which always seems set to a compromise between two different ones. His mainspace and wikispace edits could do with a rise, however. Overall a good candidate, but user talk editing will have to talk a break for now. Rudget (logs) 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Sure thing. I'd expect more mainspace contributions, but it is no major concern. What you've been doing, you've done it well. Very wise to visit RfA regularly to get a handle on things. I have no problem with this, either. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong Support I don't see any significant problems. I'm sure he'll be a great admin.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. Weak mainspace contributions are not, to me, a deal-breaker. Apparently the candidate is rather interested in the process side of Wikipedia and hence spends a lot of time there - and that's where most of the admin jobs are. A sensible and thoughtful candidate that would make good use of the tools, I see no problem. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Heh, I just realized I never put "nom support" in here. Oops. I support. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yea, don't pull a Balloonman. I want to be the only candidate to ever pass without nom support =). –xeno (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    No, he just wanted to ensure that everybody knew how strong his candidate was by having 44 "beat the nom" supports ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Or it's also quite possible that I was merely simply distracted by my own incessant talkpage and simply forgot. Is that what "pull a Balloonman" means? I don't get the joke...Keeper ǀ 76 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I never supported Xeno in his RfA... thus, he is possibly the only Admin never to get his nom's !vote!!!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, there it is. For some reason, I thought it had to do with the Rfa Which Is Not To Be Named, and couldn't figure out why everyone was using smiley faces :-) I feel much better...Keeper ǀ 76 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Xeno was up for his RfA while the RfA Which Is Not To be Named was active.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

46. Support Per WBOSITG. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Trite "I-thought-he-was-one" support —Animum (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
48. [insert RFA cliche here] --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Support, see no reason at all not to. Wizardman 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support, should be fine. Neıl ☄ 10:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Weak Support: (switched from Neutral!) I still do have my reservations regarding your lack of considerable mainspace activity. But then WTHN ?. I waited to see if somebody has any other serious issues with your contributions or behaviour ..All I require is a trust that the user will not use the tools for misdeeds.With hoping that you will have more activity in the article development also in future, I changed my opinion to weak support. And Do continue to participate in RFAs in future too even after passing this :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am hard pressed to find any substantial article contributions; lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign. The more troubling thing I found was that Gwynand does not seem to be interested in editing, but rather the trappings of editing, mainly in socializing and commenting on the inequities of others on friends' talkpages. Indeed, user talk edits account for a vast majority of the candidate's contributions. Examining this lack of interest in articles and excessive commenting on others together with Q1 ("I think the ability to respond with admin actions to issues at AN and ANI will be of use to me and the community"), I am left with the impression that this is just another candidate who is attracted by the notion of telling others what to do, "running" the site and chatting away. This is a dangerous game and has a negative impact on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first rather than a place to mingle and banter about the drama of the day. east.718 at 19:07, July 16, 2008

   Weak oppose per Naerii's neutral vote. You seem good at AfD, i've seen you there before; however, I really do see being a kind natured, slow-to-anger person as a big factor in my vote. The thread that Naerii posted worries me in that sense. Good luck, i'm sure this will pass anyway since you have a lot of support behind your belt, a lot of people like you. Oh you know what, I just read your reply to Naerii. To be honest, that sounds like a sincere regret. I'll indent my vote and support. — CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per east718. User's level of admin-related experience isn't great either. Epbr123 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose with regret. I've reviewed your contributions and you're on the right track, but I have concerns. One thing that I did notice is your huge participation at RfA - I've got to say, your standards are high. The problem is, I don't think your high standards transfer into your editing. A few of your opposes I've seen are based on admin experience - I certainly believe this is important, and I see no adminship experience other than AfD participation in your contributions. I have no idea when you'd speedy delete button, or use the block button correctly. Yup, you said you aren't going to work at AIV, but the tools come in a package, and to support, I'd like to see some contributions in that area to know exactly when you would block a user. I just think you might need to get out of the RfA arena and become more well rounded. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Overall article work is lacking, and the same can be said with admin related work, so that makes me question your reasons for being here, and as such I must echo the concerns of east and Ryan. Tiptoety ^talk 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature), i.e. did not see the potential for what became a good article and did not revisit the delete comment in the AfD after improvements were made, which resulted in the keep closure. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Clearly a poor effort on my part to return to the AfD, where a few days after I voted the changes I deemed necessary in my oppose were made. I believe I've made better efforts in the past six months, but there is a current issue with editors not treating XfDs as active discussions, and I certainly don't want to add to that problem in the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Good reply; so I'm switching to "weak oppose" and added you to my list of nice Wikipedians. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   This may seem out of place, but usually a "good reply" leads you to neutral. You have found one AfD not to your liking, from over 6 months ago. I personally am not carrying any weight to your oppose, and I actually respect your opinion unlike others. Keeping in mind that Cloverfield is among Gwynand's top contributions for mainspace editing (proving, to me anyway, that he finds the topic to be of importance), this seems a bit of an arbitrary, knee-jerk, and self-important oppose. Keeper ǀ 76 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   I am definitely considering it, but for once I thought I would just focus on one example rather than having a pile on of examples. Now, I did go back and re-look over the subsequent participation in AfDs as we've only participated in a couple of the same ones. These do indeed seem somewhat balanced, i.e. there are reasoned keeps, which is making me lean toward a neutral. Unfortunately, though, with some of the deletes there were only a couple who actually commented in the discussions and as I can't see deleted contribs, I have a hard time judging those (that's why I generally focus on discussions I participated in, because I'm likely to have some memory on the quality of the article under discussion even if it was deleted). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   All my deleted contribs are on my talk page, I had them posted there a few days ago. Only 20, mostly old. If you have any questions on the basis of any of them, let me know. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   I mean the articles that were deleted that you argued to delete; those I would be interested in seeing if they were indeed unsalvageable. There really does need to be a way for those of us who participate regularly in RfAs to be able to see deleted edits. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well there is a way - a whole category of admins willing to show you deleted content (as long as it's not copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected WP:BLP violation): Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. –xeno (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was just about to say that, per my talkpage message to you a few weeks ago, I will happily userfy most pages for you to look at (within xeno's restrictions). Fritzpoll (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Sorry, I think you have good intentions and this is nothing personal but I agree with East and Ryan and I'm just not comfortable with the overall spread of experience or the ratio of edits in the mainspace to everything else. Sarah 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per East. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose — Absolutely not. Gwynand's choice of username is, unfortunately, particularly apt. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   "I do." Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page.

9. Oppose: While I'm not hard on users with lower edit counts to the mainspace (even I wasn't a top article builder), after reviewing some of your comments on other users RfAs, I don't particularly feel comfortable with what I've seen. As said above by a couple of people, you've got some fairly high standards for admin candidates. While that is no problem, you should definitely hold yourself to those standards, and even exceed them if possible, which is something that I don't believe that you've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   can't support at this time. The candidate has only been around for a limited time period and has little over 2500 edits. Almost 10% of his edits are on his nom's page---which seems awefully high especially when you consider that represents over 1/4th of his user talk edits. But I'm also concerned where his wikispace edits are focused. Almost all of his edits in the wikispace are in the arena of RfA's---which does strike me as preparing to pass an RfA which would explain why his answers seem "too good." I'd much rather see somebody with more diverse edits and contributions to other adminly areas before going for an RfA. But this seems entirely too early.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)withdraw oppose, going neutral---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Balloonman, it's very unlike me to question opposes, although it does happen from time to time. I just have a question regarding that last comment you inserted. Are you insinuating that the candidate has hung around RfA in order to garner the know-how to pass? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   In short yes. (And I know that some will think that is hypocritical because I am a strong supporter of admin coaching, but the difference is that I don't see the goal of admin coaching is to game the system, but rather to help educate candidates on the whole of wikipedia.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but what does that say about the myriad of RfA regulars that we have? We're abound with them. Myself, you, and others included. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Moving to talk page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hi BMan. Wanted to respond to you, and in some ways, my response applies to some of the other opposes/neutrals. My active involvement in the RfA process more or less came about because I think I am able/willing to spend the time thoroughly vetting candidates and consequently helping the community in whole. It was never meant as a exercise in learning how to pass my own RfA, but it is hard to deny that all my observances of RfAs wouldn't in some way help me deal with my own. I can say that my answers to questions were never written before tonight, I genuinely thought about answers and how I would deal with each situation. I ran now, as opposed to a few months from now, because I was specifically concerned with not gaming the system. I'm very conscious of the "typical" ratios/numbers that will pass an RfA, so I guess I'd say my best defense against assumptions of preparing or desire to pass under any cost was the fact that I came here with a tad under 2,500 edits and no FAs. I found/find myself relatively close to helping get an article through the FA process and surely realize that would have "helped" me here, but it would have likely been disingenuous thing to do to "make sure" I got that through before running. I ran now because I felt I was ready, and because my current editing patterns are likely who I really am, not a candidate 2 months from now who could've made sure to get the right ratios in. I'm guilty of occasional socializing on Keeper's talk, but tons of my edits there are directly related to asking people to oversee my conduct, make sure a difficult situation was dealt with properly. I never thought that would become a backlash simply because of my number of edits there, but I can assure people I am trying to help the project. My mainspace contribs are what they are, but I never felt them to be as useless as they are coming off. I don't edit war... sometimes my problems with how a page is written result in 5 user talk messages discussing it with the conflictor, and a sole mainspace edit reflecting our agreement. I love reading through sources to check if they jive... I once suggested jokingly that I start creating null edits to reflect each source I checked for being good, but that's ridiculous. Finally, I am aware that since there have been previous comments that my answers are "too good" and that I've possibly prepared for RfAs, that this comment here might be more of the same gaming. I hope it doesn't come off that, way, I'm just trying to clarify a few things. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 09:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate your response, and should this RfA fail I suspect that I would be able to support in a few months. Keeper does tend to find quality candidate, they just tend to be a little green. Some of the supports above have the number one criteria for passing an adminship---the belief that the person was already an admin. IMO, that is the big intangible for RfA criteria, does the person act like an admin already.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

10. I think Gwynand just needs more experience with Wikipedia in a number of ways. I'm not basing that solely on the number of edits or the time frame involved, but also on his answers to questions and the type of work I've seen him do. I think, in time, Gwynand could be a fine administrator. Nothing in his history is disqualifying or evidence of unsuitability, in itself - he just needs more history. Editor -> experienced editor -> administrator -> experienced administrator. Avruch ^T 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
11. At this point in time, I have enough reservations that I feel I should oppose. I'm sure you'll make a good administrator in the future, but not right now. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per East and Ryan. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Not Now Get more involved with the meat of the wiki, and come back in a few months or so. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose - encourage the editor to become a more experienced editor in articlespace before trying hand at the tools. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I don't normally challenge opposes, but this must be said: what the heck do the two most recent opposes even mean? "Get more involved in the meat of the wiki"? "[B]ecome a better editor before trying hand at the tools"?!? Huh? S. Dean Jameson 23:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I believe they are saying they'd prefer more mainspace contributions from me, a notion brought up in prior opposes, certainly not frivolous opposition. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Struck, then. I heartily disagree with them, and feel that "become a better editor" is very condescending and unhelpful, but per you, I'll not challenge any further opposes. S. Dean Jameson 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose Wants to be an admin but doesn't want to contribute to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an Internet hangout. Repeat after me: encyclopedia.Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    That's not as civil as it could be...--Serviam (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose Gwynand has less than 1000 mainspace edits. I think he should focus on creating and expanding articles. He seems to be a good person and it is unlikely that he will abuse the tools. If he makes more mainspace edits, I will support his next RfA. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per user Shot Info--LAAFan 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Per Iridescent in neutral, only I feel a bit more strongly about it. Knows how to talk the talk at RFA after spending time here and rubbing shoulders with the right people, but I'm not sure you know how to walk the walk when it comes to the actual reason we're here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think admins with only peripheral interest in the encyclopedia aspect of the project, even when they are smart and well-intentioned, are a net-negative. --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Simply not experienced enough. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 05:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak oppose per JayHenry, but willing to change to neutral or support if candidate can refute that position to my satisfaction. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I feel a bit weird doing this, as a few months ago I actively encouraged you to run. So I'm sorry that I can't support, but - lately I've noticed various comments from you towards other people, especially in the area of rfa, that I think can be rude and/or condescending and/or bitey. For example a few days ago I saw this thread, which IMO comes across as pretty condescending and pretty harsh, when there is no need to be. I also find myself agreeing with some of east's comments above - it's pretty astonishing that you have the same amount of edits to user talk as you do to the mainspace. I'm not going to oppose as you do make interesting, helpful comments. I just don't really feel like you're ready or have a particularly good feel of what (I think) an admin is meant to be. Naerii 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm also concerned that you're going to get a pile-on of support due to your levels of activity in and around RfA that does not actually reflect the quality of your contributions. The fact that there are people up there supporting you who are well known for finding any little trivial thing to oppose for is, I think, evidence of this, as any other user coming here with this ratio of user talk to mainspace edits would be shot down in a hurry. Naerii 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   My interactions with BigVinu could have been better, and I honestly was upset with myself for making improper assumptions. Later when I commented on his RfA, I saw his edit count, and realized all along that I had mistaken him for another long-time editor. The nature of comments were based on that mistake, and in hindsight I wasn't particularly helpful there.

   I have the same concerns about supports and just hope that everyone is actually looking at me as an editor. Thanks Naerii. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs

   Thanks for clarifying, I guess we all make mistakes :) That was just something that really stuck in my mind at the time, especially as it seemed a little out of character. I am going to remain in this section for the time being, however - I hope you understand. Naerii 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

2. This leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, but I've run across Gwynand so often that it would look odd were I not to comment somewhere here. I agree with pretty much every word Keeper says in the nomination, and don't distrust Gwynand at all, so I'm certainly not going to oppose. However, I have to say that I agree with Ryan & East here; I do genuinely believe that Wikipedia is all about the articles and that the socialising, the userpages and the dramaz are just the lace on the knickers. (I can trot out the "being given power over those that do" speech again, but I know you've heard it before). In light of all that, it would be hypocritical (and unfair to all those I've opposed recently on similar grounds) to support an editor with less than 30% of their contributions in mainspace and more user talk than mainspace edits, just because I happen to be a bit more familiar with the name. – iridescent 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I have always thought of you as a nice editor so I will not be opposing, I don't think you would deliberately abuse the tools for a second. However, since your name is so familiar I was surprised to see such a low main space count. — Realist² (Speak) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Well, I'm rather impressed with your answers to my questions. Your answers are almost "too good", if that makes sense. (Previous note to self, any time something is too good to be true, it probably is.) Perhaps that makes me paranoid regarding this, I dunno. But the others' concerns about your selected edit history "may" also be a concern. And even you suggest that you may not need the tools at this time. So I'm not certain as to the "need" behind the request. Based on all of the above, therefore, I think I'm going to stay at neutral, at least for now. - jc37 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. Impressive answers and good admin candidate for the future. And that is the reason I dont want to oppose you...To be very frank, I had thought that you are already an admin ;). Your involvment with ANI and RFA are appreciable But clear lack of considerable mainspace edits is a concern. You dont neccassarily need to be a great article writer but you still can help in your own small ways. Fixing categories, typos, adding appropriate infoboxes, cleanups etc to begin with. You may even think of working for WikiProjects of your interests ... Best wishes...You are still doing work in Wikipedia.. Keep doing ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Switching to Weak Support -- Tinu Cherian - 11:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral, per East718. I too am bothered by a high proportion of edits to user talk pages and the fact that they actually outnumber edits to WP mainspace. Also, the period of active editing on WP is a little too short. The account was open in Jan 2007 but the first 250 edits run through Jan 2008, which gives about 6.5 months of active editing, which is a bit too short IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral Good answers to questions, good involvement at ANI, and good edits, but only 750 out of 2500 are mainspace. More user talk than mainspace edits concerns me. I think I'd support at a later RfA if you have more mainspace edits and less of a focus on socializing, and of course keep up the good edits. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral, lean oppose IMHO you do not have enough experience to be an admin and need more time before becoming an admin, but others already see you as an admin and that speaks volumes in my book. I also really appreciated this comment. So, while I can't support, I'll give you a neutral...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - I've run into Gwynand in the past and whilst we didn't agree, he certainly acted like an admin (and I thought he was). This would be a good reason to support, but sadly I agree with a lot of other comments about lack of edits and active time, so whilst I can't oppose, I can't quite bring myself to support either. ChaoticReality 10:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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