Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gator1 2

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

Gator1[edit]

Final: (108/0/1) ended 02:36 March 17, 2006 (UTC)

Gator1 (talk · contribs) – Gator1 has been with us since August 2005 and has almost 4,000 edits, averaging over 20 edits a day [1]. It has been almost 3 months since his previous nomination did not reach concensus to promote. Gator1 is a member of the Association of Members' Advocates and has participated in a wide range namespaces. Gator1 maintains a high level of civility [2][3][4] in articles that can sometimes be battlegrounds, and encourages other editors that he and a plurality of editors have had disagreements with, to not be discouraged [5][6][7]. He does vandalism reverts and reports repeat offenders appropriately, [8] [9] [10]. I was impressed overall with Gators' ability to remain cool under fire when dealing with insults from other users, and with his overall commitment to the project and our efforts to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept.Gator (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator.--MONGO 01:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support like last time --Jaranda wat's sup 02:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I'm now thoroughly convinced editor is capable, calm, and kind. No reservations any longer. Xoloz 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Per nom. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support like last time --rogerd 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nom and Xoloz —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:23Z
  7. Support. I could have sworn that he was already an admin. I seriously thought that his previous RfA was successful. --TantalumTelluride 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Lots of edits, been around for a couple months, civil and very kind, should be a great administrator. Patrick Sunbury 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I saw some of his work at Talk:Jesus. Stayed cool in the face of some very frustrating circumstances. --Allen 05:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good user, good answers to questions, trustworthy nominator. everything appears to be in order.--Alhutch 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC
  11. Support Has improved heaps since previous RfA. GizzaChat © 06:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Nice work following through on the reccomendations of your last RfA. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Same as last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Terence Ong 07:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support--Jusjih 08:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Definitely ready now. Marskell 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, a reasonable editor, consensus-oriented. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support this solid and interesting editor. Staxringold 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. It is time. NoSeptember talk 11:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I think he's been around long enough now to convince me that he won't repeat his conduct of a few months back. Proto||type 12:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support:--Ahonc (Talk) 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Looks great. --BWD (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per all of the above. Well deserved--Looper5920 15:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. KHM03 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom. gidonb 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support AnnH ♫ 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Dlyons493 Talk 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per everyone else. - Wezzo 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support as the items I felt were good qualities in him last time around have been upheld or improved upon since then. --Syrthiss 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. It's time. —Nightstallion (?) 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above Prodego talk 21:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. He will be a great admin. Tankred 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per [11]. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Certainly ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support We've had our moments but he's always openminded and fair. He'll be a good admin - just don't neglect those pets! SophiaTalkTCF 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support <cliche> --Celestianpower háblame 09:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, anything I can do to aid the Gator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Enough said. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per above. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. --Bhadani 13:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Computerjoe 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. --Jay(Reply) 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:47, 11 March 2006
  51. Support Moe ε 18:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. User:Go for it!/Vote Support --Go for it! 19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per nom. deeptrivia (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nom. — joshbuddytalk 20:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support great nom. Good examples of civility and AMA activity is a bonus. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Undoubtedly will be a useful admin. Agree with above also - very good nomination information. |→ Spaully°τ 23:27, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
  58. Support – Go go gator! – ClockworkSoul 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Absolutely. Worked with this editor on a cat related article, and he will be a great admin. pschemp | talk 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Keep up the good work! --Alan Au 03:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per nomination. --Elkman - (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Huh? He's not one? bd2412 T 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, I think he's done a great job since the last RfA -- Samir (the scope) 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Another great candidate! Raven4x4x 08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. 'Support, a little more in the mainspace would be nice, otherwise no complaints. ProhibitOnions 20:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, another excellent candidate. RfA is currently blessed with several amazing candidates. Deckiller 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Supported him before and I Support him once again.R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support with proviso -- Good editor, good admin material but weak in English grammar. Please keep that in mind when wielding mop. John Reid 01:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support for 3 reasons A)Many contribs here and successful here like he is in life. B)Uses the name of the college football team, the Florida Gators. C)All these people cant be wrong!lol:)--Slipknot222 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support. A solid editor, with a good collection of crime-fighting experience. --M o P 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. utcursch | talk 03:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --Khoikhoi 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Ixfd64 08:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support JaredW! 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support.Contributions look good and he shows knowledge of Wikipedia policy which are good assets for an admin.--Dakota ~ ° 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Highly Support I've watched Gator1 contribute and help reach consensus in some very conflicted discussions. I believe he will be an outstanding admin.--CTSWyneken 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Weak support. He was involved in some sort of content dispute but I don't remember what. I hope he's got over it. Otherwise looks OK. JIP | Talk 10:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. this looks like a no doubter. Bucky Covington 12:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, user has been blocked on username grounds. NSLE (T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-15)
  81. Support. Experience, check. Quality edits, check. Community participation, check.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - seen his good work --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support and would've supported three months ago had I looked. Apologies. Hiding talk 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Great editor. --Fang Aili 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Has done some good work. --Funky Monkey 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Conscious 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support no probs --Alf melmac 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Geez, how'd I not notice this yet? android79 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support This guy has ice water in his veins. His ability to remain calm when others would go nuclear is awesome. TruthCrusader 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, seen him around, seems like a good guy. — Mar. 15, '06 [20:06] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  91. Support, edit summaries could be less chatty, but they are informative for the most part, and they are consistently present. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support; Great anti-vandal work; plays well with others. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support... There is nothing that would prevent me from this support. Good editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, no reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Mmounties (Talk) 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, I've looked up much of the user's work on countering vandalism and he does seem to remain civil in heated discussions. Further adding to this vote of support is also the fact that there as just to many users here voting support are amongst those I respect on Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Incomprehensibly Strong Support-- I've had nothing but good interactions with gator. Super strong support. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I'm willing to give Gator the benefit of the doubt, and let bygones be bygones. His work in the latter months has been most impressive, and I hope he retains his humility as he rightly assumes the responsibilities of admin. Congrats, Gator. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Bandwagon support — Kimchi.sg | Talk 08:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Wikipedia:Times_that_100_Wikipedians_actually_agreed_and_voted_to_support_something level Support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. I just wanted to be part of the history Jeffrey mentions above. That Gator1 is a flawless candidate doesn't hurt. Harro5 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Ugur Basak 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I'm a little late to the party, so you don't need my support, but you deserve it anyway. Excellent response to the last Rfa and conduct since. - Taxman Talk 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. I have had no problems with this editor. Joelito 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Guettarda 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, for sure. Gator is great. End of discussion. --His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support --Neigel von Teighen 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. More Bandwagon Support    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#Vehemently oppose. Ricardo Lagos 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vandal comment. Moe ε 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

#Neutral, leaning very closely towards Support He seems incredibly qualified, but 7 months isn't a lot for an administrator. JaredW! 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support
  1. I'd ordinarily vote oppose in this case. I'm pretty concerned that the user has spent roughly equal time on Wikipedia: and related namespace as in the main article space. Further, there are less than a thousand edits in total (out of four thousand) in main. I realize the need for users to participate in the Wikipedia machine, but this smacks of a career of it. Hooooowever, my interactions with this user have been very good. As such, I can't bring myself to vote oppose. I will not be voting support, however. ... aa:talk 06:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 78% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 111 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Gator1's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • A while ago, on WP:AN/I, if my memory does not fail me, Gator1 was advocating allowing Bonaparte, who is a well-known troll and sockpuppeteer, to return to Wikipedia as an editor (not that Bonaparte needed that, he's still trolling every now and then with new socks). I would just like to understand the reasons for Gator1 defending Bonaparte back then. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to advocate for him as a member of the AMA. He was, essentially, a client. That's it. Thanks for the question.Gator (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean WP:AMA, that is, Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. I did not know that trolls can hire lawers on Wikipedia. :) Good answer, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am big on fighting vandals and have posted on the vandalism in progress page so many times that I've lost count. I strongly believe that vandals are the biggest threat to Wikipedia. They seek to destroy other people's very hard work and stand in the way of Wikipedia being seen as a reputable and reliable source. If elected I will be constantly watching (at least nine straight hours per day 5 days a week) for vandalism on highly vandalised articles, will add many more to my watchlist just to keep any eye out and will keep a close eye on the vandalism in progress page and will respond swiftly. We are certainlybacked up in this regard adn with the amount of time I am on, I really think I can help. I am familiar with the policies regarding vandalism and blocking and believe in the warning system we have, but do not believe that a vandal is entitled to multiple test4s before a block. I am also very active and will be even more active in AFD and speedy deletes. Vandalism is a problem here too, but not as much now that anons cannot post so I will be making frequent patrols to speedy delete pages and make fair and informed decision regarding whether to delete or keep a page after voting has been completed through the normal AFD process. I am eager to start working hard for this project, so I hpe people will give me that chance this time.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well since my last RFA nom, I went to the John Lott page and worked hard there. It was contentious at first but I think some great progress was made the short time I hung out there. I feel I was able to start to make amends with Hipocrite and I believe that him and I have a real good workng relationmship now. I have a lot of respect for him now and am proud of how we've been able to put stuff behinmd us and work together really well. He's a new member to the AMA and I'm glad to have him. The Jesus page has been contentious, up until recently and ahs been a learning experience for me (we never stop learning here). However, many of us were able to work together well and build consensus and move forward. The page is much better than when I was first starting hanging out there and I was able, I think, to start to work well with great editors like SOPHIA. Things were a bit rough at first, but I think we were both able to see eachotehr for something different than at the beginning and I think she's great (can't wait to see pictures of her pets lol). I am still proud of the Laura Schlessinger page. She's very controversial and there have been some fights months ago but it is a very stable page and most people are happy with where it stands. I nominated it for FA and though it failed, Iw as able to get some really good feedback that I a plan on implementing.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.Yes and I've come to learn not to take this so personally and go to war so easily. Being civil here is not easy for someone like me and it took a couple months for me to figure it out. I got caught up in the BigDaddy thing in September, but I learned from it, changed and I think it was dealt with appropriatly at my last RFA and I feel like it's ancient history. I certainly would handle it MUCH differenlty adn I think I explained how in my last RFA I certainly ahve no ahrd feelings and am proud that I've been able to start to make amends with some of those people (my last RFA helped with that I think).

Additional NSLE questions, from Mailer Diablo:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. They're all optional, but I'd like to hear your responses to them before deciding my vote. Thanks! :) (Apologies to NSLE :P )

'4 You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

I wouldn't play favorites. I'd confirm it with a CheckUser request and would demand the same level of proof as with any other editor and then I would post it to Incidents page at AN and let the community deal with it fairly.

5 While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

I probably wouldn't let my personal opinions weight more heavily than the consensus. If the consensus felt it should be speedied, I'd respect that and would not seek to keep the page.

6 You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

I would use the test warnings appropriately and then post him on the vandalism in progress apge becuase I feel I would have a slight conflict. Only if it was so backed upt hat no admin was able to get to it before the user did more harm would I block. However, I would seek a second opinion on my blocka nd encourage any other admin to unblock if felt I acted wrongly under those circumstances.

7 An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

I would respect the other admin's decision if they felt strongly about it. I'd approach the other admn and see how they felt and if they felt strongly I probably wouldn't take it any further (pick your batles and all). If the Arbcomm rejects the case, I'd attempt to make contact again a and see if I couldn't mediate the dispute and try and smooth things over.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gator1_2&oldid=1111867859"