GB fan (talk·contribs) – I came here two years ago and volunteered to help out the project as an admin and was told I was not ready. The major concern at the time was that in presenting myself I had included edits made under an old account that I was not willing to disclose. The concern was that I was presenting them as part of my qualifications to become an admin. This was not my intent but in retrospect I can see how my actions could have been interpreted that way. The account was retired because the it was tied to my name and my employer at the time had some concerns about security. In compliance with cleanstart, I contacted the arbitration committee and requested that the account be linked to this account in their records in strict confidence. If anyone is concerned about the account they can contact the arbitration committee and request a review. A review will show that the last edit made by the account was prior to the first edit on this account, that I was never sanctioned, blocked or banned. It will also show that at no time was I ever referred to any of the administrator noticeboards or the arbitration committee for any problems.
For other things I do, I try to help out wherever I can. I have helped out in the past in requested moves where I closed move discussions where I could either close as no consensus to move or I could perform the move myself. I have participated in AFD, again closing where I can and commenting on those that interested me. Lately I have been helping out at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. I have also helped out reviewing new pages in the past and well as recent changes reverting vandalism. I am a person who gets bored with repetition so I am always trying new things and getting involved in other areas.
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: As I said in my nomination statement I am not someone to continue to do the same thing all the time. So I would spread out and do a variety of things. The areas I am most comfortable with is CSD and Requested moves. I would also go through and close non-contentious AFDs. Page protection and blocking would be something that would come later after I watch those areas to see the general practice.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: What I think is some of my best work though is working on articles that I have found at AFD and keeping them in the encyclopedia. One article that I worked on and IMO saved from being deleted is Alice Powell. I came across it at AFD and it looked like this. After doing some research, I knew nothing about her when I started, I ended up with a referenced article that established her notability. The other are that I think I have contributed a lot to is helping others. I answer questions and help out users at the Help Desk, the New contributors' help page and the Editor assistance page.
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 have been in many editing disputes over the course of my involvement here. I am a fairly laid back guy and things don't cause me stress so I can't point to any disputes that stressed me out. Earlier in my career I mostly reverted and explained in edit summaries why I was reverting. Now I am using the talk pages more. I still use edit summaries but I try to start conversations on talk page when my reversions are reverted if I think it might help. If I were to get stressed about a dispute, I would disengage and ask for help from other editors through one of the dispute resolution avenues. I have used these in the past, not that I was stressed, but because without it we weren't getting anywhere.
4. In your own words, explain CSD G1. Give an example of what a page deserving a G1 nomination could look like
A: G1 is one of the easiest Criteria to determine if an article fits. If the original editor writes words it is not patent nonsense. If it is just a collection of random letters symbols and numbers it is deleteable under G1.
5. In your own words, explain the difference between CSD A1 and A3.
A. In A1 there is some prose in the article but there isn't enough there to know what the article is about. As an example, an article with the title, Roosevelt High School. The prose includes, "Roosevelt High School is at the corner of Main and Elm Streets." We can tell the article is about a Roosevelt High School, but not which Roosevelt High School. There isn't enough to tell which Roosevelt High School the article is written about. A3, there isn't any prose or the prose just restates the title. Anothe example, An article with the title. Roosevelt High School (Johnsonville). The prose includes, "Roosevelt High School is a high school in Johnsonville." The article also contains an external link to a Roosevelt High School. This would qualify under A3 because the article only contains a restatement of the title of the article and an external link.
6. A user creates an article about a computer game you have never heard of, and another user tags it as A7. What do you do?
A: Well unless the computer game is a web based game, A7 does not apply. A7 has a very specific set of items that it applies to and these include Web content and real people, animals and organizations (except schools). It does not apply to products such as computer software. The fact that I have never heard of the game doesn't make any difference there are many things that I have not heard of that are notable. If the game is a web based game then I would read the article to see if it makes any claim of importance in the article at all. If it did I would decline the request. If the game is not a web based game I would decline based on the technical interpretation of A7. In any case I would look to see if I could find any reliable sources that discuss the game and if I found some I would add them to the article to establish notability. If I didn't find any reliable sources and it is a web based game without any claim to importance in the article I would delete the article. If it wasn't a web based game, with no sources, I would either add a Prod or take it to AFD.
7. Will you agree to a term limit, reconfirmation or recall? If not, why not?
A: I agree to anything that the community decides. If the community decides that admins should have term limits I will agree to that. If the community decides that admins should be reconfirmed I will agree to that. If the community decides to recall me I will agree that I shouldn't be an admin any longer and go back to normal editing if they allow that. This is a community driven process and we as a community decide the rules. If a change is enacted by the community I will have two options, one is to accept that change and continue on. If that change is something I can not accept then my other option is to leave the community.
Supplementary How would you (and we) know that the community had recalled you?
At this point the only community driven process to recall an administrator is to raise the issue to the arbitration committee. If I were to come up with my own standards or process they wouldn't mean anything because I could change them when I wanted to. IMO all of the proposed recall procedures I have seen are flawed in that they don't take into account that as admins do they job they are going to make enemies. I believe that the current process or a similar one where uninvolved people decide if concerns raised are sufficient to remove admin rights is the best way to go for admin recall.
8. Having read over your previous unsuccessful RfA, it is clear that the prevailing attitude among the opposes was a lack of trust in a candidate who possesses, as User:Slimvirgin put it, a "lack of transparency" in regards to your former account. What would you say you have learned from that experience? If you had it to do all over again, would you have approached that RfA differently?
A: I made a mistake in how I presented myself. I learned a lot about how the community thinks about RFAs. I came into that RFA with the assumption that people would look at what I had done on this account and see that it is helpful to the encyclopedia and they would judge me on that information. I learned that there is a significant portion of the community that wants more proof. Thinking back the only things I would have done different would have been to not include the time and edits from my old account and to ask for a functionary to review the account prior to starting the RFA. I tried to be a transparent as I could without revealing information that would compromise the old account and that is why I originally gave the information about the account. Oh and I wouldn't have let Pastor Theo review the other account.
9. Suppose you come across a request to move a page supported by the article naming guidelines and policies. However, there is a clear consensus at the move discussion to go against the relevant policies mentioned by the proposer of the move discussion. How would you close such a discussion?
A: If I believe the consensus is against policy, I would not close it. I would act as an editor and give my opinion on the move request. I would try to clarify why I feel the move should happen as requested and why the arguments against it are contrary to the relevant policies.
10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A: I will answer the RfDs and CfDs part first, I don't think I have ever participated in a discussion at either of these two areas, so I can't comment on these. My initial thoughts are that things are not as stringent as AfD because we aren't actually deleting encyclopedic content. For AfDs, the absolute minimum I think need to participate is probably 3. I can see a couple of scenarios where I might close an AfD with 3 opinions. If all three opinions were deletes with strong policy reasons I could see me closing the discussion as delete. The other possibility I see for a 3 opinion close is almost the opposite, a nominator with a delete opinion and two keep opinions based on policy, which I could foresee a no-consensus or a keep close. As arguments get weaker more opinions would be needed, especially to delete the article.
11. Hi, thank you for offering to assist the project in this way. One year nine months on, do you still consider the categorization of Roman Polanski in the cat Category:Statutory rapist as a WP:BLP violation? Bearing in mind that it says in the lead , "In 1977, after a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl and pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful sex with a minor" - One of your comments at the time was, "and I will state it again, consensus can not over ride WP:BLP and I will continue to revert." ..as an administrator what position would you take if a similar situation arose? There was at the time a hotly discussed consensus that it was the most correct position and the best option considering the well supported alternatives of French rapist and Polish rapist, people convicted of child sex, pedophile et al. If you do what cat would you now replace it with, if any at all? Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A. I was wrong then and I handled that discussion badly. I learned a lot about discussing things from that situation. I do not consider it a BLP violation any longer, and acknowledged at the time that I was wrong. I believe the current setup with Category:French sex offenders, Category:Polish sex offenders and Category:Statutory rapists is the correct categorization for the article. That was a time when it probably would be appropriate to do a short term full protection to get people talking, there was a lot of reverting and not much talking.
I appreciate your comments. I remembered our discussion and our little revert spat, but was a little hazy, I agree with your position . It was almost two years ago and as to be expected you appear to have grown more experienced as an editor. If you are promoted, remember to take your time, and watch out for using the tools were you may be considered involved as the community seems quite concerned of that issue at present. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to confirm one point here, I would not use the tools if I were involved as I was in that conversation. I was answering the question as if I came across the situation as an outsider and I thought that was what you were asking. I can see how my response could have been taken that I would use the tools in a situation where I was involved.
12. Suppose an admin goes around creating redirects like OBAMA!, BHOII, Baby Bush, etc. What would you do? Would you tag these for SD in accordance to CSD R3, or would you approach the creator and tell them to stop?
A: I could see someone typing those to get to the articles. That would make them plausible misnomers IMO, so I would not tag them as CSD R3. I wouldn't approach the creator and tell them to stop either. If I thought they were being disruptive I would initiate a conversation and try to understand why they were creating the redirects. My approach to this situation would not change if it was an admin or someone else creating the same redirects.
Support Although I would have supported this user in his previous RfA, I understand why many did not. However, looking over his edit history, his VERY significant contributions, and the changes in his attitude between this RfA and the previous one, I see a clear sign of growth and maturity in respect to the project. What I see now is a dedicated editor and a VERY talented vandal whacker who will also make a dedicated at talented admin. Trusilver12:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the answer to the supplementary recall process, although I can see from where this candidate is coming. But that's not enough reason to oppose, and I have seen this candidate do good work around various areas of the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Frankly your first RfA was just heart-breaking to me. It seemed to have been torpedoed by events out of your control. I had no concerns with supporting you then and I have even less of a concern now, as you have even more experience under your belt. -- Atama頭18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seen him around, very impressed with knowledge of policy (so much so that I assumed he was already an admin). Unopposed RfAs such as this one really say a lot about the qualification of candidates. Eagles24/7(C)18:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intelligent answers to the questions, seems transparent enough about the old account, and all in all I see no reason why not. I also like that the candidate states they will observe and learn the ropes in admin areas they are unfamiliar with and not dive in head first, which to me shows a strong desire to get things right the first time. Ks0stm(T•C•G)20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. Surturz is trying to promote AoR/etc in a manner reminiscent of jury nullification. Fine. Tim disagrees with this effort and, in a similar manner, tries to stop it. What is the problem, other than the incessant heckling? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported last time, and am more than happy to do so again. Very longterm committed editor who could use the tools and I see no reason not to trust with them. Deleted contributions look fine to me, and an excellent answer to Question 7. ϢereSpielChequers21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lukewarm support Long-time veteran with almost 40,000 edits, trusted (ipblock exempt, rollbacker, reviewer) by the community, solid answers to questions; however, what prevents me from a "whole-hearted support" is the caginess and secrecy associated with the last RfA, and only 5 new page creations.--Hokeman (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. I regret the opposer's refusal to take my advice that all he is doing with his !votes, particularly if others were to emulate him with regard to their own pet issues, is damaging to the quality of the RfA process and potentially the willingness of qualified candidates to go through it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Although I didn't participate, I remember seeing his RfA from back in 2009 as well as the controversy that surrounded it. I was disappointed that it failed due to circumstances beyond his control (the person who verified his prior identity turned out to be... well, not somebody whose endorsement you'd want on the record). In any case, I think GB Fan's fully qualified for the role, and I can't see any reason to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answer to Q4 is technically wrong, in that a random collection of unconnected words also qualifies as nonsense. But that is, I would concede, nit-picking. Will be a good admin. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good opening statement, clear and concise and clears up any discrepancies. Overall good answers to questions. Should make a great admin! Mato (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My selective review of contributions fails to reveal anything stupid. The example used as the answer to question 2 is good, both in terms of improvements to an article and applying sensible arguments in an AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember the previous RfA very well and everything that happened there, but I can't believe it's been about two years since then already! This was my rationale from the first candidacy. With regards to now, GB fan often appears in my watchlist, and I thought he was already an admin (I was not aware A new name 2008 had been renamed); he has plenty of experience from what I have observed, and I have no problems whatsoever in supporting him again. Acalamari09:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (moved from neutral). The links given in the neutral section and the sensible answers to the questions make me think that GB fab will be fine closing RMs. If I could give any advice, it would be not to jump in to closing the really tough ones too quickly (maybe leave Talk:China to someone else :) Also, in regards to Q9, your answer was good, but there are times when the consensus is actually to ignore the guideline/policy (Talk:The Pentagon springs to mind). Anyway, this RfA looks to be a shoo-in, so good luck with your new tools. Jenks24 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I spot checked various edits by this user over the years; what I saw was consistently good editing, good responses on the talk pages, and good edit summaries. This seems to be the norm for the 40000 edits from this user since late 2008. Blue Rasberry (talk)17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen this editor around and have no concerns. The fact that he is not an article creator should not be a bar to gaining the mop. We all contribute in our own way. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm entirely satisfied that the candidate is someone with the requisite thoughtfulness, honesty, and willingness to learn. Also, per My76Strat. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Sorry!) Candidate will not undertake a term limit, reconfirmation or recall. Also seems to have problems saying "No" :) No other concerns. --Surturz (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. On the one hand, GB fan looks like a sensible fellow and the answers to the questions so far are good (though I think Erik's question will be interesting). Anyway, looking through the candidate's last 500 edits to the article talk namespace (goes back 8 June), I didn't see any requested moves that the GB had commented on or closed. While this would not be an issue at most RfAs, GB has stated that RM is one of the processes he is most familiar with and that RM closures are going to be one of his two primary roles as an admin. It's a bit like a candidate saying they want to close AfDs, but none of their last 500 edits to Wikipedia space have been to an AfD – makes it very hard to evaluate whether they will do a good job or not. We do need more closers at RM (it's constantly in the admin backlog), but poor closures can generate more issues than they resolve. Perhaps the answer to Erik's question will make me jump one way or the other, but at the moment I just don't know how GB would go closing RMs. Jenks24 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it had been so long since I had closed a move discussion. I guess the last time I got actively involved in the area was at the end of 2010. Here are some move discussions that I have closed. [1] Hope it helps. GBfan18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, guys. I've looked through them and will be switching to support. If someone could indent my neutral, that would be swell. Because I'm the only neutral I can't seem to indent it properly. Jenks24 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Support - Opposer is unconvincing. →Σ talkcontribs 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
