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

Final (65/1/0); Ended Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:10:25 (UTC)

Chris G (talk · contribs) - I find Chris G to be a pleasant, civil, and sociable user. He's an WP:CHU clerk and a WP:CHU/U clerk, and does good work there. He fights vandalism, has accounts on meta and commons, runs a bot successfully, and is familiar around the RFA process. Chris G works well with others. He's even received two barnstars in the past week. That's two more barnstars than I've ever received. I find him to be a mature, well-spoken user. He has a clear need for the tools, given his RC and anti-vandalism work, and I trust that he will use them appropriately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank You for the nom SWATjester and I accecpt. Now for thoses of you who don't know me that well here is my wiki CV:

• I run 3 bots Chris G Bot, Chris G Bot 2 and Chris G Bot 3
• I do RC work as can be seen in my contribs and I've done NP work as can be seen in my deleted contribs
• I also try to do article work but I don't get the time to do it any more(most days I'm on 1/2 an hour to an hour) if you look at the beggining of my contibs you can see my article work
• I'm a Clerk at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U (and just so you know the admin bit will help me there becouse I can check deleted contirbs)
• I used to comment a bit on the computer reference desk, but I sort of stopped for no reason
• I'm also a member of the WP:BAG(under the new "add your self if you want to" system)

and if I do become an admin I will add my self to Admins open to recall.

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: As an admin I will work at WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:SSP and clearing the WP:CSD backlogs I would also use the

tools to help out at WP:CHU/U and basicly for the good of Wikipedia.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contribs would have to be my bots(Chris G Bot 3 inparticlar) and my antivandal work, but personly I like my work on Fedora (Linux distribution) just becouse I like how the Article looks at the moment and would realy like to get it to GA and then FA(a while to go!) and yeh.

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: With my antivandal work I've had a few conflicts but I can't realy say that an editor has caused me stress and in real life (yes I do have one, I even have a job(and it's not in a fast food joint!) :) I found that a nice cool drink or some icecream and a nap can do wonders to releve a stressed mind. I the future if any Wikipdians do cause me stress I trust my self to take a short break to clear my mind and return once I'm thinking straight so I don't do anything stupid.

4. What's changed since I nommed you? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:Well, I've done some more work on Fedora (Linux distribution) I now run Chris G Bot 3, I got Chris G Bot 2 to run, I've been doing a bit more NP work, I also had my birthday, and the community opinion of how many main space edits an admin should have appears to have dropped, no seriously I thought it was going to be pile on oppose; in fact if it wasn't for Pedro I wouldn't even be here or maby just the new bot out ways small mainspace.

5. I think compliance with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA is important. I think it is important for everyone, particularly for administrators, who I would like to see setting an example for other contributors. I think it is a mistake when those of us who are trying to get others to comply with policies and conventions don't fully comply with all our policies and conventions ourselves. Unfortunately, in my experience, the current ranks of administrators seems to include some individuals who act as being trusted with administrator authority has freed them from an obligation to be civil. If we trust you with administrator authority can we count on you committing yourself to do your best to fully comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Even when you consider yourself off-duty? Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short Yes, but I can't realy see case were an admin would consider him/her self offduty unless your talking about irc or Wikipedia related email. --Chris  G  08:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. We are all fallible. It can be hard to consider the possibility we made mistakes, or to openly acknowledge we made a mistake, when we think doing so is going to expose ourselves to criticism or ridicule. We extend a lot of trust in our administrators, and I think we should get candidates for administratorship to go on record that they will make an effort to remember that they too are failible and consider the possibility they might have made a mistake, when other contributors have questions about their decisions. And I would like candidates for administratorship to go on record that they will be willing to risk criticism if they acknowledge they realized they had made a mistake. Personally I admire people who can admit error. So, are you capable of admitting error? Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am capable of adminiting error, and I know I have made a few mistakes and if i do make mistakes in the future I'm confident that I will admit them when I relise I have made a mistake.

7. About ten percent of our current administrators are members of a category indicating that they are willing to have their performance reviewed. I am not quite sure what that says about the other 90%. If you were to be trusted with administrator authority will you be volunteering to put yourself in that category? Cheers! Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which category you are talking about but from your discription I think I will add myself to it if I become an admin if you could tell what cat you're talking about I could give you a definate answer.

Category:Administrators open to recall, I think. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the cat then yes I most definitely would add myself to it if I do become an admin. --Chris  G  08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Anonymous Dissident

8 What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and can also be used to enforce bans, bans however is the revoking of an editors privilege to edit part or all of Wikipedia, a user who is blocked is not necessarily banned and vice versa. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8.1 How is consensus integral to Wikipedia, and how is it determined? What is the difference, or relationship, between voting and discussion aimed at finding consensus?

A: Consensus is integral to Wikipedia because we are a community project and all the big decisions are made based on what the community thinks, there is a relationship between votes and discussions but I find that the best decisions are made when you vote but have a bit of a dissusion as well sort of like WP:RFC this allows Users who are unfamiliar with what is going on to get a better understanding and also allows for consensus to be seen more clearly. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8.2. As is attested to on your page, you are thirteen, and therefore a minor. When do you think it is appropriate to treat young Wikipedians "differently" from "other" users? What is your view on ageism in Wikipedia? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think that in most cases Wikipedians should be given equal status reardless of ages but when young Wikipedians and indeed any Wikipdians start acting childish in important votes and discussions(like the chap who opposing self noms) their opinions should be giving less weight when gathering consensus. There may be some cases when acting to a younger user differently is appropriate but I'm against simply say no to younger user just because of their age. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46 9. At the risk of being claimed as ageist, there are a few things I'd like to hear your comments on:

9.1 although wikipedia is not censored, do you think that you - as a minor - should steer clear of certain areas/topics within wikipedia?

A: No, I feel minors shoun't have to steer clear of any topics and areas. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.2 are there any admin activities that you think should not be left to minors; if so, which? if not, why not?

A This should be more age spicific, I don't realy think there are many editor younger than about 9,10 ish but if there are younger Wikipedians doing things like blocking and other actions that could cause personal attacks I don't think a five year old would realy be able to take that and controll them selves once you get to about 8,9,10 you gain more self controll and can understand the bigger picture a bit better. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.3 what is your opinion on whether minors can consent to the GFDL, or other contractual regimes imposed by wikipedia in adding content and uploading images? Carlossuarez46 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I think this is very much like the last question where a five year old my not be able to understand exzactly what they are agreeing to, I think that if for the younger minors perhaps having their parents read through the agreement is a good idea just so they can understand what they are agreeing to. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Chris G's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Chris G: Chris G (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

1. Nom Supporting as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong SupportHe ran three bots, and I trust him when providing the user status. -Goodshoped 05:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support -- Has close to 1,000 mainspace edits (good enough for me) and runs 3 bots, this would seem to indicate trust by the community; no blocks; and seems to be an all-around good guy. Like his responses to the questions, probably would make a good administrator. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support (ec) Lack of encyclopedia building isn't indicative of possible poor admin work. Nothing else looks wrong to me. east.718 at 10:20, 10/27/2007
6. Support - Doubt would abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support, bearing in mind that my RFA passed despite my unusually-weighted contrib history. Admins don't need to be good encyclopedists. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support experienced, contributions in several areas, AIV reports generally blocked. I was a little concerned about this, but his tagging has improved since. And as Neil says we need every admin we can get now. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Has worked extensively at both CHU and other processes, and by my standards passes outstandingly. Rudget _{Contributions} 12:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Per my previous interaction and confirmation on the candidates talk page that I would offer my support. Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I oppose "Pat's" oppose [Edit: Pat changed to support] Mainspace edits should not be indicative of how useful, trustworthy and able a future "mopper-upper" could be. I support Chris G because of his dedicated clerk work. Scarian^Talk 12:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Neil. You don't need article editing experience to nuke obvious crap. Won't abuse the tools, has already proven trust. Programming expertise is a hell of a lot more dangerous to the project than three additional buttons. MER-C 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I have decided to change to support after reviewing the work he has done on wikipedia. GOOD LUCK! Pat^{Politics rule!} 13:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I have personally interacted with Ghris G and have found him to be nothing but pleasant, helpful and with the project's best interests at heart. Good luck --Pumpmeup 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Very trustworthy and amiable user. Would make a great admin. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support A very great user. The added tools given to him would only improve this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Running those bots is dedication. Giving the user admin tools would help him continue to improve wikipedia. LordHarris 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. I agree entirely with Neil. Acalamari 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Helpful user - I've seen Chris doing a lot of good work around the Wiki. WjBscribe 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Seems like a pretty experienced user. Ilyushka88 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. See no reason why not. Similar edits to myself, except alot more anti-vandal work. All the best! — jacĸrм (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong support, impressed. ~ Sebi 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --Jay(Talk) 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Hardworking and trustworthy. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I am surprised that he is not already one. Three bots also helps quite a lot with maintenance. Marlith ^T/C 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support John254 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support A Vandal fighter and see the determination to contribute to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - Per nom, and he deserves it for all the clerking work he's done. He's also even open to recall. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Support - Would only do better work with the admin tools. Good luck. — jacĸrм (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) double vote - indented by east.718 at 03:08, 10/28/2007[reply]

30. support Experienced and hard-working. Operates several bots. Can be trusted with the tools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Has progressed well. Recurring dreams 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. From what I've seen, you're smart and civil... I can't see any reason to oppose. S_QL^{Query me!} 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Excellent candidate. --Bduke 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Yeah, ok. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Clearly this user has learnt from previous RfAs. Phgao 06:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Substantial and consistent levels of civility, owner of some useful bots, a general sense that Chris will make a good sysop. I also like the perk that the +sysop will assist his already-helpful contributions at WP:CHU(/U). Anthøny 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support I've seen you around, and fully support. Jmlk17 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Clearly you've learned from your previous RfAs. Outstanding editor. Tristan Uchiha 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39.  Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Very solid candidate. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Seems like a good choice. • Lawrence Cohen 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. I cannot oppose a great user, you've gained a valuable amount of experience here, and Chris G Bot 3 is just one example of your excellence on Wikipedia :) Qst 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 talk 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Pretty straightforward for me, fully trust the user's judgement. Good luck. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Good nom, SWAT. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Good user, plenty of experience and no good reason not to. Will (aka Wimt) 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I now feel confident that this user will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - Good editor. Lara❤Love 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support No reasons to oppose. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Looks good. θnce θn this island ^Speak 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support It is hard not to be sympathetic to an admin candidate who has gone to the trouble of setting up some useful bots and getting them approved. His experience as a clerk is also useful, and it helps make up for the fact that he has only 814 mainspace edits, and a majority of those are vandal reverts. His background doesn't seem to qualify him for dispute resolution. I think that I and the editors who voted above are taking the gamble that an apparently helpful and civil editor won't misuse the tools even though he has limited experience at this time. EdJohnston 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Although my opinion doesnt carry much weight, i'd like to support this, based on his age. Diversity etc.. and a young brain is good for the wiki. Kennedygr 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Your opinion carries exactly the same amount of weight as every good faith editor/admin/'crat who volunteers their time here! Pedro :  Chat  11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

53. Support Level-headed editor, lots of great work. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. In light of your answer I have no hesitation to endorsing your candidacy. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support little light on mainspace edits but 3 Bots approved shows that he can be trusted. I have no concerns about this user having the tools. Gnangarra 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Appears responsible and no reason to suspect abuse of the tools. More mainspace edits would be nice, but not essential. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support My acid test applied: Do I feel as if I can trust this user as an admin? Yes. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support everything is in order here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Nice bot work. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Excellent answers, good choice.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, great candidate. The oppose down there is ludicrous. --Coredesat 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Level-headed, friendly and helpful editor, has appropriate experience and has been a great help to Wikipedia with the bots. Would do a fantastic job with the mop in my estimation. Orderinchaos 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Why not? Good luck:)--SJP 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Whenever I see chris, I'm impressed with this thoughtful commenting, and I believe he'll be fine with a few extra buttons. Got to say, I hate the sig, what were you thinking man!? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Seems like a good editor, but it's the lack of mainspace contributions that is concerning me. I want to think about this one closley. Pat^{Politics rule!} 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Insufficient level of non-automated contributions indicates a lack of relevant experience with the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Blah, that's petty. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lack of experience at WP:RPP and deletion department.--Professional Deletionist 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) User indef-blocked ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair (not to defend PD's argument) the user name :Professional Deletionist was indef-blocked on the 28th [1] but the user -> Snakese in not blocked, I mention this because the name change wasn't done for identity reasons but because of a WP:U violation▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like his 49 australian AFD noticeboard edits and 25 australian deletion sorting edits? Riiiight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot aquire any experience by simply updating a noticeboard with current Austrialian AFDs and participating in only a few Austrialian AFDs. I only found one edit in Articles for Deletion.--Professional Deletionist 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the account created 5 days ago. How did you find your way here so quickly hmm? (09:09, 23 October 2007 Professional Deletionist (Talk | contribs | block) New user account) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned you are forgetting the purpose of an rfa, please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA as a reminder. My account creation date does not validate or invalidate my concerns.--Professional Deletionist 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does. Bureaucrats are free to give more weight to the perspectives of established legitimate users than they are possible sockpuppets or SPAs. See "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets."⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns would be not be less valid than if I created my account 5 years ago or 5 seconds ago. However, my vote may be but not my concerns.--Professional Deletionist 12:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must have then missed the point where we do not vote in RFA. We discuss. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you need to.--Professional Deletionist 12:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I have expressed no interest in WP:AFD rather I would like to do CSD work which I do have experience in. --Chris  G  11:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see over 100 CSDs in deleted contribs. Which is more than I had when I became an admin. Orderinchaos 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that experience in AFDs gives users experience in other areas of deletion including CSD. I cannot see how many articles you have edited for speedy deletion as they get deleted, so I don't know if you are clueless in that area or well-experienced. But thank you for your response.--Professional Deletionist 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that having an account for longer than 5 days is important when considering criticism offered. As I am not voting on this RfA, I don't have a "dog in the fight", but your criticisms are largely unfounded, and generally without merit--especially given the suspicious nature of account creation followed by commenting on RfAs within days. K. Scott Bailey 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the user is indef-blocked (which they are) then why are we allowing their comment to remain un-indented? Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the account is username-blocked? Daniel 04:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they are an obvious sockpuppet of someone also should be considered. Majorly (talk) 11:57, 29 October 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.