Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GDonato

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


GDonato

Final (46/1/0); Ended 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GDonato (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I am able to nominate GDonato for adminship. I first encountered GD at WP:RFCN where he gave thoughtful comments to usernames, he certainly wasn't in the "I don't like it" crowd. He was actually a really good help in the transfer of username violations from AIV to UAA, many of his ideas have helped the board run much more smoothly than the previous method - he is also a great help removing non violations from the board, the admin tools would allow him to block clear username violations. GD is an excellent vandal fighter and has amassed over 200 AIV contributions, his reports are always accurate and result in a block - when I see he has posted on the board, I can be confident that the user in question has been given sufficient warnings, he would be a great help at clearing the AIV backlogs. Likewise, GDonato's reports to WP:RFPP are always accurate and occur when a page needs protection - I can see he understands the protection policy so would be a great help on the page. Finally, GDonato is a really nice guy, he's got a good sense of humour which I think all admins should have - it allows better interaction with other members of the project. I ask that you help me give GDonato the tools as I am certain he will make a fine administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. GDonato (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to thank Ryan for his nomination and thank everyone who has commented for their participation. GDonato (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As Ryan has alluded to above- I intend to participate in AIV since I have reported there many, many times in the past and feel that I can perform well there. Also, WP:UAA will be on my watchlist. I also look forward to clearing out any speedy deletion backlog and proposed deletions for over 5 days as I have nominated many pages for speedy deletion and prod and they are certainly mostly deleted. I would close reports at WP:RFPP and WP:RFCN as necessary and generally check the admin backlog category.
Q For speedies, when will you be continuing to place tags for another administrator to delete, and when will just delete them yourself, in a single step?DGG 17:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think I could have a go at obvious speedies right away, but perhaps leave any that are ambiguous at first. I feel that tagging for another administrator to delete would be a bit of a waste of time - I'm looking for approval that I am sufficiently capable to handle these myself now.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: When I first joined Wikipedia, I started off by wikifying and making other general improvements to articles in Category:Articles needing wikification, I feel that this is good work which helped a number of different articles, possibly saving some from deletion. I then started recent changes patrol which is something that I have continued to do and intend to keep this up with in the future - I think that this is good work as it ensures that Wikipedia remains a professional-looking project. I have helped the Biography WikiProject with assessment; assessing a great number of articles which I something I have received several awards for. Finally, I believe that my work in ensuring a smooth transition from WP:RFCN\WP:AIV to WP:UAA has also been a great benefit for the project. In terms of article writing, this has been limited mostly to articles about places near to where I live; I hope to continue to do this- possible by adding images which some are missing.
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 try to avoid disputes or conflicts as far as possible, especially if it involoves edit warring over content as I feel this is very detrimental to the projects. Unfortunately, there have been cases of conflict. Most often this is a dispute with a vandal over a revert or something similar. More notable cases include User:Davesmith33 about how he felt that I was treating him unfairly. This escalated somewhat but I feel that I kept calm as much as I could, although I was stressed because I was still learning some of the ropes, if you like.
Recently, there has been some disagreement as to whether the wiki should link to IRC channels related to Wikipedia, I feel that I have coped well by presenting arguments in a thoughtful manner and ensuring the situation does not escalate. This is how I would like to think I could deal with conflicts in the future.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Of course there have been essays and guidelines on WP:IAR. I believe that the main times to ignore a rule are WP:COMMON and WP:SNOW, I do not necessarily agree with any other aplication and I do not think it should be done every time it falls under common sense or the snowball clause.
I also think that when ignoring a rule, you shouldn't say: "per WP:IAR". It is better not to metion it and hope that others understand your motives. WP:IAR is a dangerous sport and so should not be over-used as the rules are there to ensure we don't lose track of where we're going.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/GDonato before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as nominator - I trust this guy. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Support - I know this user for a very long time and I trust this user to use the tools wisely and with great respect..--Cometstyles 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Few realise how much I hate Postlethwaite for stealing all my prospective admin candidates. Having made that clear, I support. Riana (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't really see that much mainspace work (article writing and such) from this user, but my only reason for looking at a user's mainspace work is to judge how they can handle themselves in content disputes, mediation, and such. I think other aspects of GDonato's work such as his participation at WP:RFCN shows his professional manner of discussion. GDonato's done great work in other aspects of Wikipedia, and I think he could surely use the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I'm surprised he's not an admin already (I know...). He certainly knows policy to perfection. Shalom Hello 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support 1) The upmost in civility as evidenced by the last 1500 edits (I did not bother to go further.) 2) Contributions across the project as evidenced by the count tool. 3) Genuine need for a couple of buttons to help out - again as evidenced by contributions and vandal warnings 4) Ryan isn't that likely to make a mistake on a nomination as evidenced by nothing but my lowly opinion :) Pedro |  Chat  21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support from what I've seen, a great user. And being on IRC is great too :) If anyone needs to speak privately quickly, it's easily done. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I have always noticed GDonato's active participation in discussions, and I really think the tools will only make him a more helpful and constructive Wikipedian. —Anas talk? 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, good user, no problems. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support I've seen this user around a lot recently. Great user with a great nominator. Acalamari 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support without question. A good editor, a good knowledge of wiki policy.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support I love that you want to help clean out backlog stuff, as I find them difficult myself sometimes, and would love the help. I like your edits, your experience, and your overall enthusiasm for the project as a whole. Plus, you have Ryan's full support, and I trust his choice. Best of luck!!! Jmlk17 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Lucky number thirteen! A good editor and has demonstrated this in only six months' worth of contributions. (aeropagitica) 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - GDonato is trustworthy and is ready for the mop. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —AldeBaer (c) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. You seem geared toward helping places of interest; things like AIV, the like. I trust you with the mop. J-stan 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Too often has an admin been too impersonal. GDonato is nice, and I feel we need more of such admins. Besides, you can't really argue with over 4000 edits, and over 2500 unique pages. Keep it up! Rahk E✘[[ my disscussions | Who Is ]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Great editor who I know will be an asset to us as an admin. Will (aka Wimt) 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I am confident that he would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Terence 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Indeed. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support- per Pedro. Eddie 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Seems like a reliable person. He plans to be active in WP:UAA and WP:AIV and we need more admins devoted to cleaning those 2 places out. Good luck!--†Sir James Paul† 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Great editor. Will make a great administrator. --Carioca 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Nice distrubution of edits, and even though his a fairly new editor, he shows great attitude towards serving the community. Hirohisat Freedom of Speech 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - no problems at all here. Bumped into you just about everywhere. Good judgement and hard worker on WP:RFCN. Yup - all good - Alison ☺ 12:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, good luck! The Rambling Man 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Give him the buttons :) (That must be one weird mop, made out of buttons) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support per contributions and the many, many, many times I've seen/worked with this user, especially with the username noticeboards. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Good answers, exceptional contribs. ck lostsword•T•C 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - all the best. Khukri 06:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Peacent 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Like the contributions, very focused on maintenance tasks--and because he plans on working on the CAT:CSD backlog. Darkspots 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support. Very friendly person. :) —DerHexer (Talk) 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Good answers & good work in WP generally.DGG 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support more admins needed. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. AW 10:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per contibutions, support from community, answers to questions. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, with a few words to agree in large part with Friday, infra. My thinking about IRC is not, I think, dissimilar from that of Friday, and were I convinced that GD intended to advance, the apparent views of the community to the contrary notwithstanding, a conception of IRC as an appropriate venue at which to undertake broad discussions and make specific decisions relative to on-wiki adminstrative activities, I would probably !vote neutral or oppose; the IRC issue doesn't, though, seem really to be one of any great significance here, and I don't see the candidate as likely to act against consensus or inconsistent with established practice or policy. Neither do I think it entirely unreasonable to oppose a candidate in view of his expressions of policy preferences (even if he makes such expressions entirely decorously and commits himself to comporting his editing, etc., with policy), as I imagine there to be some views the very advancing of which is prima facie evidence of one's non-fitness for adminship (I don't know that I would view any expressions thusly, but I don't think it inappropriate for others to view certain purportedly extreme expressions in that fashion; we have seen opposes on certain RfAs on the grounds that a candidate generally disfavored BLP, even as it was unquestioned that he/she would apply BLP consistent with the spirit putatively situated thereunder, and although I think those opposes to have been altogether wrong-headed, I don't think them to have been wholly unreasonable). The instant candidate appears, though, to be possessed of a civil demeanor, a deliberative temperament, and a sound sense of judgment, demonstrated not least by his expressed narrow construction of IAR, for which construction a consensus of the community exists and the application of which construction demonstrates an appreciation of the proper role of consensus in a collaborative project such as ours, such that I think one might conclude with a good degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support- Per Nom&Above, Good editor IMO, Likely to make good admin. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Mr Postlethwaite's nomination and endorsement of the candidate. Sarah 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good candidate! Politics rule 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No concerns, well prepared and an unusually high participation in WP:AIV and WP:UAA, areas where this user will certainly make good use of the tools.--Húsönd 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. See no serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Seems too eager to move Wikipedia functionality to IRC. We need less of that, not more. Friday (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday, I know you know very well that's nothing to do with being an admin. This is probably due to the reference desk... Friday and a few other editors did not like the idea of a supplementary IRC channel for the desk, but GDonato did (among with others). This is simply a personal dispute. Majorly (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an admin requires good judgment. I believe GDonato has demonstrated a lack of good judgment. Friday (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a belief that goes against the ideas of others indicates a lack of judgment? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In most cases, no. There's plenty of room for disagreement. However GDonato did a lot of handwaving arguments to defend a really bad idea. So, yes, this leads me to question his judgment. I didn't expect people to like it, but that's my opinion. Friday (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is bad in your opinion. Do you think he handled the dispute badly or not? Majorly (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and it's hardly even a dispute. But, if I were concerned about his dispute resolution skills, I'd have said so. Friday (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically you're opposing because he disagrees with you? Majorly (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and please stop putting ridiculous words in my mouth. I have explained myself. You disagree; I get it. I see little value in having lots of threaded discussion here. Friday (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the section header is labelled "Discussion", so we can discuss all we like :) I'll evaluate what you've said: "Seems too eager to move Wikipedia functionality to IRC. We need less of that, not more." Your opinion. It has nothing to do with being an admin does it? And nothing would be moved, just a simple supplement you dislike the idea of. "Being an admin requires good judgment. I believe GDonato has demonstrated a lack of good judgment." How so? Because he disagreed with you? He's allowed to have an opinion. The "judgement" was fine. "However GDonato did a lot of handwaving arguments to defend a really bad idea." Again, what bad idea? It's not a bad idea just because you say it is. I can't really see where you've explained yourself particularly from your comments. From what I have gathered is: you dislike the idea of a reference desk channel; you think liking it shows bad judgement; but you still haven't explained why thinking it is a good idea, is bad judgement, which is the main reason for your oppose. Majorly (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how wishing to link a channel to the reference desk header because "without the users the channel is useless" can be seen as poor judgement, since it argues for the benefit of the channels, not of the project. Furthermore, I can see how eagerness "to move Wikipedia functionality to IRC" can be seen as relevant to adminship, given the lenghty time and nerve-sinks we've seen resulting from activities at and references to #wikipedia-en-admins. This is has nothing to do with how I see GDonato's suitability for adminship, I will abstain from !voting on that. I simply don't find Friday's rationale hard to follow, regardless of whether I am in agreement or not. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Friday explained himself on my talk page. I'd agree the first point isn't the best way to phrase something, but the channel was never intended as a replacement. Please understand that. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GDonato&oldid=1151011160"