Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garion96

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.


Garion96

Final (53/0/1); Ended 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96 (talk · contribs) - Garion96 has been around since August 2005, and I think he's ready for adminship. Actually, I thought that some months ago, and he declined at the time, but has decided he's now ready. I am familiar with Garion because we have worked on copyright issues together, actually I offered to nominate him after he came to me recently to perform some admin tasks related to replacing a copyright violation with new text. His work with copyright issues alone shows he has a need for admin tools. He seems to be a level-headed editor who does lots of thankless maintenance and cleanup work, which is always a good sign. He was a contributer to an ad hoc project that probably saved Wikipedia from some bad press. He has received at least 3 barnstars from administrators. Perusing his talk and user talk edits show nothing but polite cooperation with other editors, welcomes to new editors, and proper warnings where appropriate. I'm sure he will expand on his contributions below, but he seems to have done some valuable work over time in keeping various articles accurate and high-quality.

In short, here's a guy who has the qualities that are important in a janitor, and I'm glad he's finally ready to be nominated here. W.marsh 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and I'd like to thank W.marsh for his flattering nomination. Garion96 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I hope to help out wherever I can. I have quite some experience in copyright violations, in Wikipedia and in my daytime job, so I will definitely work a lot with those in Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The admin tools will help the work I already do in cleaning out the copyright violations in Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I also expect to help out in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (articles and images) which lately seems to have an eternal backlog and basically anywhere where there is need for an admin.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Article wise I am, of course, pleased of the featured list List of HIV-positive people which I and a lot of other editor’s cleaned up from an unsourced mess. Also of the work I did to Michael Palin and recently to Reservation (law) (I am still not finished with those).
Cleanup and maintenance wise, I am pleased of cleaning up or keeping empty User:Bluemoose/Uncategorised good articles (now defunct unfortunately due to Martin leaving the project), as mentioned before Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, keeping vandalism from the articles in my watchlist and beyond and recently cleaning up old vandalism from this list. (that list could definitely need some help btw for people here interested in helping out).
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: Luckily I don’t get stressed easily, but occasionally I have been in some conflicts. If it’s from vandals I just deal with it, the kind of vandals who even react strongly to the {{test}} message. In other cases I just keep discussing the issue till all can agree or I just leave the article alone if it’s obvious I am not helping. Unfortunately sometimes conflicts don’t resolve friendly, like the discussion which resulted in the “sort of proud” barnstar I have a link to on my user page and a conflict over a deletion of an article.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: I would point the editor to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and specifically Wikipedia:Autobiography. Advise them to be open about it, that it’s better to only work on small factual problems in the article (with verifiable sources) and discuss any other problems on the talk page of the article in question. I also would advise them to ask for my help if there are issues with the article and the discussion it on the talk page isn’t fruitful. That last especially if the discussion was about unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: The most obvious circumstance where it would be inappropriate is of course when I am or another editor is in an contest dispute on the article with an anon. Another circumstance is when it’s only one static IP vandalizing the article, in that case it’s much better to block the ip for a short time.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Check how the article is written, see if it’s possible to change it into a nice stub, are there reliable sources about the company other than the website. Does the company pass WP:CORP. Use the “what links here’ button. Depending on those questions it will depend on whether the article should be speedy deleted, prodded (or AFD if necessary) or kept.

Optional question from Húsönd

7. Under which circumstances would you block a user for vandalism?
A: If the vandalism is still continuing after the user has been adequately warned. If the vandalism has stopped, there is no need for blocking. Although in those cases I do usually make a bookmark of the user’s contributions page and check a day or so later to see if they indeed have stopped. Especially when it’s sneaky vandalism which is harder to spot.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom support - lots of good work on copyright issues, great vandal fighter, obvious need for the tools --BigDT 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat-the-nom-but-beaten-by-the-nom-beater-edit-conflicted support - there is no reason this user should not be an admin, he has edits, he has experience, he has time, and I like the answers. ST47Talk 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator (oh yeah I guess we still have to do this...) --W.marsh 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Definitely need copyright guys — Lost(talk) 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support -- excellent candidate. Giving Garion96 admin tools will benefit the project. Jkelly 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -- I don't really know the candidate, but no major red flags and we need more admins. Selket Talk 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support. For anyone who volunteers to handle copyright issues, and means it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bloody oath ViridaeTalk 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Axl 08:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Seems trustworthy. Drmaik 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Shrug - again, I'm seeing nothing broken. Looks like another good RFA candidate. Moreschi Deletion! 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Terence Ong 09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No issues I can see. Seems willing to cut down on the backlog which is a must.--Zleitzen 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support admins needed, give him the tools. - Anas Talk? 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, and out of curiosity - does the 96 indicate the year you were born? If so, blimey. Proto::► 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope sorry. :) It's the year I met my wife. Garion96 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per my struck comment below and candidate responce. Eluchil404 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Seems like a good editor. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Coemgenus 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Excellent candidate; excellent nominator. Xoloz 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, good understanding about the policies. Shyam (T/C) 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, especially as copyright specialist, but in general too Johnbod 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – Good work on maintenance tasks and copyright problems; communicates and works well with others. ×Meegs 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support- seems to be a good user ready to use admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Changed my mind. AfD isnot a strict requirement. -- Selmo (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Very strong nomination by W.marsh, and good answers to the questions. YechielMan 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom. Edit history is good, both in quantity and quality, appears to be generally civil to users. Argyriou (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support WjBscribe 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A great candidate for admin. I feel I can trust him with the tools and he has more than enough experience. Darthgriz98 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Edit count speaks for itself. No possible way to oppose. Ganfon 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support.--Húsönd 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support of course.--Wizardman 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Definitely. I've been noticing his excellent work with copyvios for some time now. --RobthTalk 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, per nom. And thanks for the warm welcome! CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - good candidate. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. PeaceNT 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support A very good vandal fighter. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs)
  45. Support. Everything looks great. --- RockMFR 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Strong in anti-vandal work and copyright issues are a particular concern of mine. Pigmantalk 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Rettetast
  48. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Supportgood chap --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Looks good to me. Nishkid64 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per our recent constructive interaction at reservation (law) and well-thought out answers to the questions. - BanyanTree 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No reason to think user would abuse the tools. IronDuke 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I remember you, you were the first person to help me here. You also welcomed me, back in August. Thanks. :-) · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Lack of XfD edits. It;s the only place where we can determine how the "delete" ability will be used (except for contested CSDs/prods). -- Selmo (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think happens to copyright violations? Do we keep them or do they get deleted? --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. You'll pass despite this, most likely, but I unfortunately don't see much policy discussion (which wouldn't be occuring on the deleted pages). Understand that this is only not an oppose because we do indeed need copyright guys, so I'm going to have lower standards for people who look like they will work on it. Apply caution in places you don't have experience; for instance, don't close XfDs until you've gotten some more participation. And typing this out, I realize I'm convinced you'll pass despite my objection. -Amark moo! 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Looks like a good candidate overall, but I really wanted to query the answer to question 5. Surely it's not appropriate for an admin to protect (including semi-protect) an article in which they are actively involved in a content dispute? Eluchil404 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. To clarify, it's definitely not appropriate to protect an article on which the protecting admin is actively engaging in a contest dispute. Garion96 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No upon rereading you were fine, I was just reading carelessly. Extra kudos though for responding to an essentially unreasonable criticism civily and constructively. "Vote" moved to support. Eluchil404 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of uploaded images by this user indicates that they do not seem to use and/or understand fair use rationales (as they are missing from the uploaded images). I'd like to see some improvement in this area, especially if the editor is going to work on clearing out image backlogs. --- RockMFR 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it's been a long time that I uploaded images to Wikipedia so I totally forgot about those. I much prefer finding images for Commons nowadays. I did provide them with a fair use rationale now. Garion96 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Garion96&oldid=1085413502"