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


Gadget850[edit]

Final: (67/0/0); ended 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC) by Kingturtle

Gadget850 (talk · contribs) - Gadget850 has been an active Wikipedian since July 2005. He is one of the first Wikipedians I met and I have relied on him heavily ever since. Gadget850 is one of those users many have repeatedly tried to get to accept an RFA nom because you think "what, he's not an admin yet", and he finally agreed. He's most active as a writer of articles related to the ScoutingWikiProject and has been a key contributor to GA/FA articles for that project. He is also very knowledgeable on wiki policy and procedure, as well as things like templates. He is also a key crafter of that project's standards. He one of the "go to" users in the Scouting project as he can always be relied upon for sound reasoning and judgment. I personally have never known him to be rude, impolite nor to have lost his cool. He's a sea of tranquility on en.wiki. He has almost 17K edits and is also active in music and military topics. I have no doubt he'll be a superb admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850 (talk · contribs) - I'm actually going to make this a co-nomination, since I was planning on nominating at the same time. Gadget850 is worthy of adminship for all the reasons that Rlevse said, plus he's been great with fixing vandalism (note the multiple rvv's on my userpage), and he's been able to effectively deal with users that I've been near to losing my patience with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. I could repeat the old line of "with great power comes great reponsibility", but in my opinion, adminship is not about power, but more about trust. Admins are simply editors with a few more tools. I am quite familiar with all of the policies and the majority of the guidelines. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I'm still reviewing the administrators' reading list, but some areas where I could be useful:
  • Vandalism - I have become adept at the use of Twinkle in combating vandalism, but another tool in the box is always welcome.
  • Template maintenance
  • Image maintenance
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:
  • As a team effort, I think that William Hillcourt and Arthur Eldred are superior to any other biography of these persons.
  • As an individual, I have been the main editor on Pershing missile and Arthur Rudolph. Neither is ready for FA yet, but both have been greatly cleaned up and expanded. I think that I have not worked these articles as well as others simply because I have been the primary editor. I find that editing within a team with different viewpoints is a contributor to "brilliant prose".
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:
  • Upon reflection, I have found myself taking the part of mediator in a number of discussions. Several of the Boy Scouts of America and other Scouting articles have become something of a battleground at times with some editors trying to insert controversial topics outside the scope of an article and others trying to remove controversial material that is within the scope. I heartily support a neutral point of view in all articles. I am a volunteer in the BSA and cannot speak or write on an official basis, but I can use my knowledge and skills to help keep articles verifiable and focused.
  • There are always times where another editor simply will not come to a compromise; where you use reason, they dig in and become obstinate. With these types of persons, it is best to assess the immediacy of the issue. If it is not urgent, it may be best to drop it for a week or two and come back to it; these types tend to flit from one battle to the next and ignore past issues. If there is a need for immediate action, especially with living persons, then it is time to gather resources and do your best to resolve the issue. An understanding of argumentation theory and fallacy is essential to such discourse, as are the Wikipedia guidelines on dispute resolution.
  • If I find myself being stressed over issues, then it it time for a self-check. If I am bringing up the same reasoning and there is no acceptance, then it is time to see if I am becoming tendentious; if I am not having fun editing, then it is time to stop what I am doing.
  • A particular series of cases involves Scouting articles involving notability of local units and camps. This has been an issue for a long time and has essentially stalled. I have decided to not participate in those articles and have removed them from my watchlist. I will evaluate my position someday and may return to those articles.
  • To reiterate a point, a certain amount of conflict and opposing viewpoints helps to generate better articles.

Questions from ArcAngel

4 Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
Yes. If I am doing something that gets enough fellow editors worked up, then I need a cold, hard reality check. Or, a good hard slap with a halibut.
5 What is the difference between a ban and a block?
An editor who is banned may not edit all or certain articles or within certain projects. An editor who is blocked has all editing ability disabled.
6 What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
The behavioral policies have primacy; for admins this includes wheel warring. Without the proper behavior to achieve consensus within the editing community, Wikipedia will fail.
7 What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
Primarily as an application of common sense. We need to realize that Wikipedia is a hodgepodge of hacks— both the software and the guidelines. If multiple guidelines apply to certain material, there may be a tolerance creep with conflicting guidelines. When this occurs, it may be best to go with the spirit of the guidelines and ignore the specific wording. This should be done only in those exceptional cases, and the applicable guidelines may need to be updated while avoiding process creep.
8. - What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgement? Rudget. 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I have reflected a bit, but just cannot think of anything. I have certainly made mistakes, but have always tried to learn from them. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -

Questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!)

9. What's your opinion on the "snowball clause"? When would it apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
  • Snowball mainly applies to non-controversial and generally trivial issues where there should be no need to go through a process. One example would be article rename due to mis-spelling.
  • AfD and RfD rely on consensus achieved by discussion. If it is obvious that there is going to be no consensus in a discussion, then there is no need for a long dialog that degrades into acrimony and the discussion may be closed early.
10. When should "cool down" blocks be used? Can blocks be used against users in a content dispute?
A:
  • Blocks to cool down an editor are not appropriate,
  • Blocks may be applied for certain content issues, such as repeated copyright violations or violations of the BLP policies. If I am directly involved in the editing, it is more appropriate to contact a fellow admin to evaluate and apply the block. Other content issues should be resolved by discussion or arbitration.
11. A user creates an article describing a video game, but the text is directly lifted off of the game's main website. While the game is notable, the article is clearly a copyright violation. What would you do in a situation like this?
A:
  • If there is a revision without copyrighted material, then revert to it, start a discussion and notify the editor. If all the edit histories show only copyrighted material then this qualifies for speedy deletion G12— tag it as such and notify the editor. Either way, my personal knowledge and interest in video games is rather narrow, so I would leave a note at WikiProject Games and see if someone wants to redeem the article.

Question from Húsönd

12. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: Reasons for declining a block on a reported vandal include:
  • The vandalism is not current.
  • The user has not received sufficient warnings.
  • The reported problems are not vandalism as such, but other disruptions such as edit warring or civility.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Majorly

13. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A.
  • If by candidate, you are referring to me, then no.

14. Why do you think that?

A.
  • Questions for the candidate admin are not always about the answers; often the manner in which an answer is answered tells a lot about the psychology of the person being questioned.

15. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A.
  • No.
  • No— having an expertise in a certain subject does not mean an editor should recuse themselves from editing an article as long as they operate with consensus, make useful and properly referenced contributions and do not attempt to assert ownership.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gadget850 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support, as nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Civil and polite, going so far as to import a "friendly" javascript into his monobook [1], an expert in his field of scouting, and a person who recognizes the importance of argumentation theory and fallacy in keeping on-wiki discussions civil but practical--the latter something near and dear to my own wiki philosophy. What is not to like? This is a user who in my opinion can be trusted to exercise good judgment. Best of Luck! -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom (If there are more long term editors out there, perhaps they could come forth and submit their RfA's?) Dlohcierekim 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - sound contributions. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. After reviewing Gadget's contributions, and the material in the nominating editors' statements, I see no obvious problems, and thus am happy to support. Best of luck! AGK (contact) 17:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'll break my revision for this. Very good user with excellent and coherent understanding of practically everything. Rudget. 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Rudget, very good wikipedian, loads of edits, good edit summary usage! --Camaeron (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems open to learning. MBisanz talk 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Looks good to me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support - Leaned towards support before, but got stronger after candidate answered my questions.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - per noms and my own personal review of the candidate's actions, and my granting rollback in January. -MBK004 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support As per Rlevse above has been around since July 2005.Good track with over 7000 mainspace edits and over 16000 overall.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I don't see why not. The answers to questions look awesome, and with 100% edit summary usage, this editor will definitely make a great admin. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support – I always hate saying; “…per above” but in this case, it is a record I am envious of and cannot add to the praise! Great job and good luck.Shoessss |  Chat  20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Contribs look good, and very nice noms. :) GlassCobra 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per his vast experience and common sense answers and the noms didn't hurt either GtstrickyTalk or C 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Definitely has sufficient expirience Alexfusco5 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support evrik (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, good editor, seems very level-headed and fair. Dreadstar † 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've worked with this Wikipedian before in the Scouting wikiproject, I know he'll make a great admin. DarthGriz98 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Like User:Rlevse I have worked with Ed for a long time and I fully endorse everything in his nomination. --Bduke (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Totally. I see no issues. Very prolific and versatile. Would make great use of the tools and the mop. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Very experienced user who should have the tools —Travistalk 22:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. But it's WP:TROUT! --Kakofonous (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the trout evolved from the British dancing halibut! -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as there is some schlapping going on, I'm satisfied (not that this user will need it.) --Kakofonous (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All this talk and debate about trout and halibut? I didn't expect a kind of spanish inquisition... -- Avi (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! (Sorry. Couldn’t resist) —Travistalk 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Our chief weapon is blocking, blocking and page protection. Our two chief weapons are blocking and page protections and WP:ANI. Our THREE chief weapons are blocking, page protection, WP:ANI, and an almost fanatical devotion to policy and guideline. No, no, AMONGST OUR WEAPONRY, are such diverse elements as blocking, page protection, WP:ANI, an almost fanatical devotion to policy and guideline, and these really neat icons. Nevemind, I'll strike my vote and vote again. -- Avi (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support Gadget850 has all the attributes one ideally hopes to see in an admin. — sound judgment, an even disposition and unflappable, thorough technical knowledge, and in general very helpful. It is a pleasure to endorse his nom. JGHowes talk - 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support as co-nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a co-nominator doing way down here? Useight (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Co-nominator's a little forgetful sometimes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support A great all-rounder, and I have no qualms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Of course. SpencerT♦C 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Gadget850 has been one of the pillars of the Scouting WikiProject, steady, fairminded, and diligent, and would make a great admin. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Über Support Great candidate. Great responses. Keep up the good work. Undeath (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Has the backing of several major editors, has tons of experience, meets my criteria without a second glance. Useight (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, per nom. MrPrada (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, per satisfactory answers to questions. Seems level-headed and possessing a sense of humour. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, no problems. Neıl ☎ 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support - an absolutely brilliant candidate. This user should've been made an admin a while back. Lradrama 15:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No qualms here. нмŵוτнτ 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support. Experienced user that deserves the mop.--TBC!?! 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. The candidate is an experienced encyclopedia builder, understands policy and seems trustworthy. Majoreditor (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I don't see any problems in your edit history, only excellent contributions. I trust your nominator's judgment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Pants off Dance Off Support Yes, I would dance in my boxers for this Adminship. --Sharkface217 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support — Zerida☥ 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Looks like a stand-up user. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support- definitely a good candidate for the mop and bucket. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Yep, Tiptoety talk 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Jmlk17 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A model Wikipedian. — Edokter • Talk • 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SupportBalloonman (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Excellent candidate and great asset to Wikipedia. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Solid candidate, good experience and excellent attitude - will no doubt make an outstanding admin. siarach (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Don't see any concerns. --Irpen 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No concerns, fine work, good answers. Finally someone who's been reading the admins reading list. Húsönd 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Level headed and deserving. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Looks good. alphachimp 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - trustful. SexySeaShark 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support AOK Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. See no need for concern, answers seem reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, may as well. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. He's a good guy: worked with him well Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  63. Support though I disagree with the answer to question 13. Prodego talk 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I think he would make a great admin! Good luck with your RFA!--Mifter (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Nobody else is opposing so why should I?--Habashia (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support a sound editor who will make an equally sound admin Mayalld (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Of course. Acalamari 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]

<<comment struck and indented as user indef blocked>>I'm sure he's a great guy, but too many wp cooks in the collective kitchen as it is. We certainly don't need more admins, the admin politics of this place is tearing it from the inside out. ParnellCharlesStewart (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't need any more disruptive users either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed (the place getting torn). The way to curb the power of an abusive few is to dilute their power with more who won't abuse. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think the crats would ignore this oppose anyway, not that I see this RfA failing at all, just saying. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing because there's "too many cooks in the kitchen" is just plain WRONG, IMHO. In other words, it is NOT a valid reason to oppose. The 'Pedia can NEVER have "too many" admins, what with all the disruptive users around. ArcAngel (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your humble opinion is wrong. Believing that there are too many admins is as valid a reason as any to oppose. Being a banned user is, of course, valid reason to strike out the vote. Argyriou (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has been indefinitely blocked: AN discussion. -MBK004 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a sockpuppet of Markanthony, per CheckUser. And he doesn't like SchuminWeb, which is probably why he targeted this RFA. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category