Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giants27

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

Giants27

51/26/7; Originally cheduled to end 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC); withdrawn by candidate at 03:50, 6 December 2009

Nomination

Giants27 (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Giants27 for adminship. It is not hard to see what a phenomenal editor he is; he has created or contributed to 7 GAs and over 50 DYKs, with extensive referencing, clear prose, and good layout. Moreover, he has participated in countless AfDs with insightful comments, demonstrating a thorough grasp of policy. He has plenty of experience reverting vandalism as well. With thousands of user talk posts (for the most part, human messages rather than vandalism warnings), he also demonstrates an ability to communicate effectively, one of the most important skills for admins.

I am sure that as admin, Giants27 will use the tools effectively, updating DYK queues, closing AfDs, fighting vandalism, or whatever he chooses to work on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'd like to thank my nominator for his confidence in my potential abilities as an administrator. I accept,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I hereby withdraw since all constructive criticism is now the same and supporters are switching. I'll see y'all next year when hopefully enough time has passed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If given administrator rights, I'd work in WP:AFD, blocking vandals at WP:AIV, potentially some page protection once I feel comfortable enough to go there and helping setup/move WP:DYK sets to the queues.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud of my DYKs but in my opinion, two stick out in my mind. Joey Hamilton and Nathan Horton. The former was my first WP:GA that I originally took from here to its present state. The latter is my largest article, which looked like this when I started on it. The amount of references (86) and the size of it took extreme effort on my end (and others who've reviewed or copyedited it), which I hadn't yet done with an article on Wikipedia.
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: Back in February of this year, I encountered a new user who had vandalized an admin's userpage so I reverted him. He then came over to my talk page telling me about how the admin had wrongly deleted a page he had created, to which I responded by explaining it had been speedy deleted but I escalated the situation here. Which the user was reasonably upset and posted warnings, insults etc. to my talk page. Also in September, I had this discussion on my talk page which due to incivility on both sides, led to this CfD where again incivility seemed to dominate the discussion. In both of these cases, I clearly stepped over the line of what is considered civil and I have definetely learned from both instances and the need to keep a cooler head when a discussion or circumstance becomes heated.
Considering I've received a few opposes for a diff. from September I'd like to comment that, thanks to that comment I learned without warning or this RfA to leave the computer until I cool off or to not respond at all. The reason for this being that I don't want my reputation to be defined by an inappropiate and out of line comment like it unfortunately has.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Triplestop
4. How would you close these deletion discussions, in the state linked to? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination)
A: The first one I would close as a merge because while the delete votes are convincing and policy based, the need to delete completely isn't there in my opinion. A small, referenced section after the people who "crashed the party" seems appropiate. The second one, I close as delete because WP:BLP is in my opinion, one of the most important policies here and any page that violates it with potentially sketchy refs needs to be deleted. The final one I'd close as keep. Taking out the SPA accounts, there appears to be two legitimate claims to keep with no delete !votes so the decision (while cluddered by SPAs) is clear.
What else did you learn from the September clanger?
5. From A3 and the absence of any other such mistakes, as evidenced by the oppose votes so far, it is obvious that you learned how not to reply. But I'd like to look at how it began: One editor was displeased with your undoing of their edits (see archive). Do you feel the only thing you could have done better was to suppress the explosion at the end, or do you see a way how you could have defused the conflict sooner? — Sebastian 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. No I don't feel that way because simply put, I should've discussed with the user why I removed the category they populated and allow for the discussion to not start off in a fashion of "why'd you remove the category without telling me?!" Starting the discussion instead of avoiding certaintly could've helped avoid civility on both sides.
If I may, what really set me off was just your edit summary: "where is the request for this category to be populated? if anything all of these African American players of ... should be deleted, might as well have European, Japanese, French American players of ... categories" when you blanked my popcat. You were asking where this was coming from when my username was right there, one diff earlier in the edit summary. And I would have really appreciated you making the effort to engage me, It was your failure to proactively communicate with me that set me off. But for me to reply so with such a hostile tone was totally wrong, and the bigger offence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take full blame for it since I too had a major part in starting the hostility, my edit summary there was completely out of line (not only because I told other users in the CfD that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and my comment there violated that) and I am regretful for it along with my utter failure to communicate with you as to my reasoning for the removal of the popcat.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Coffee
6. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. I'd close it as delete because if notability is questionable and !voters are undecided, the best decision is to delete to avoid any potential BLP disaster.
I now realize that a discussion relevant to this has taken place, and taking that into consideration I would close it as no consensus default to keep.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I almost only work with BLPs so the current BLP policy is something I operate on daily. All BLPs need to be sourced with reliable sources (or at bare minimum have a list of external links that verify the info), contain no unsourced libel material, neutral and any vandalism that violates WP:BLP with libel info needs to be oversighted on sight to avoid a BLP nightmare. So, after saying that I agree with and like the current BLP policy.
Additional question from Davewild

(borrowing heavily from question by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in another RFA)

8. In question 6, you indicated that in closing AFD discussions on BLPs "where there is no easily determined consensus," your practice would be to delete. This is, of course, a controversial matter but discussion (such as recently here) has not accepted this proposal. Did you really intend to say that you intended to use administrative authority in a way that contradicts the applicable policy? When (more generally) do you believe administrators should use their authority to act contrary to policies?
A. I actually didn't know about that discussion even though I feel as though I should've seen it. But to answer you're question, no I didn't intend to say I'd overrule policy, I simply intended to give my opinion of a BLP with sketchy refs which I felt should default to delete, but now that I see policy rejects that I have to reconsider my stance there. For your second question, I do not believe an administrator should use their authority to act in a way that differs from policy since policy is only enacted by consensus. If they have a problem with a current policy they can bring it up at the proper place instead of ignoring rules.


General comments

RfAs for this user:
  • Links for Giants27: Giants27 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for Giants27 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Giants27 before commenting.

Discussion

  • Did I miss the memo where admins were replaced with infallible bots...? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's requiring infallible bots to not support an RfA where the candidate has called another user an asshole. IMO, AN/I already displays the tendency of administrators to think they get a free shot to call an editor or another admin a name. When and where do we stop? Now, before another administrator gains access to tools and powers that make him a more visible offensive member of the community. That's my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you genuinely believe Giants27 has the potential to be an offensive editor? Are you basing this off the one diff, or something else? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, pretty much on that diff. I'm comfortable with it; it's recent enough (3 months) to be recent as far as record for adminship goes. It's severe enough to be of concern as far as adminship goes (biggest asshole around). And it's detrimental enough to wikipedia to cause me to oppose. Add some distance in time with a continued good editing history, and because he seems genuinely apologetic about, and because he has established a relationship with the editor he addressed in such a base manner, and it will no longer bother me; but, I don't mind if candidates for adminship have to think twice about accepting a nomination based on something they did a couple of months ago. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. You had a prior RfA under a different user name and you didn't disclose it? I can only find the user name "Iamawesome800" on one place, just added on this RfA. Am I missing something? Isn't that a basic notification with an RfA, a prior RfA, other user account names? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had his account renamed; although relevant diffs on the page history of his userpage have been deleted. Diff, reason. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really hold it against him that he forgot to put in his old RfA. It's not detailed in the instructions for either self-noms or co-noms and is easy to overlook. Moreover I think the formatting of the box can be kind of intimidating. I've seen other RfA's go live with the wrong info in that box and not have anyone call it a problem. It's also not mandatory to disclose alternate accounts or previous usernames at an RfA. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be a requirement, but it also would be the polite thing to do. I'm all for full disclosure. However, I do realize instructions can be overwhelming and not user-friendly on wikipedia templates, so that's a real possibility, simply forgot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, completely forgot to add in the previous RfA as IP assumed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way wikipedians give instructions, one has to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Has matured significantly over recent months, and is a quality contributor well worthy of the mop. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirmed; the sole major concern raised by the opposition thus far is worrisome, but given that that diff is a one-off incident, and Giants acknowledged his mistake, I'm comfortable AGFing. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I have full confidence in Giants27 that he will make a great admin. He has helped me become the editor I am now, and I don't think I would still be around here if it was not for him. He seems to be well-versed when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he helps out new users who need assistance, and he has never really had any issues with other users. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support @Kate (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Net positive, absolutely. Although learning how to control swearing is a must, but I am going on a limb here because it is apparent to me that this user will most likely be a good admin. A8UDI 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Excellent editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support per nom, DYK work, GA's, overall civility (we need that), great editor over all. Overall, Giants27 as an admin would be a huge benefit to the project. His work to the DYK section can be improved as well (editing the actuall template). Good luck!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Giants27 is an absolutely phenomenal contributor; I am beside myself that he wasn't an admin already. Smithers (Talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support BejinhanTalk 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support no concerns.  IShadowed  ✰  04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Obvious concern; however Giants is a very good content editor. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It's a tough one. That diff was hardly appropriate, but I understand that everyone is human and that we are bound to lash out at some point. Yes, we all enjoy candidates who have no record of arguments with other users but in reality most of us aren't pure in that sense. This candidate has experience all around with content writing, vandalism, and communication. Surely all this, over countless months, is worth more than a single diff from two months ago? Come on people. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support Regarding the infamous diff: I've seen worse. Losing your cool happens. I really hate it when an admin (or a candidate for that matter) does it, which is why this is a weak/tentative support. If more examples of those types of outbursts come forward, then I'd likely go neutral or oppose, as the last thing Wikipedia needs is another touchy admin who doesn't understand how to be tactful when under pressure.Overall that one cock up isn't the end of the world to me and overall I reckon you'd do a lovely job. Good luck. Nja247 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Cyclonenim, and users quality edits both to content and well balanced contributions to AfDs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Support A net positive. Weak support rather than neutral I've seen no evidence of similar behavior anywhere else, and because it wasn't in an area where an angry admin could have caused problems. That diff may prove costly in this RfA, but assuming it was a one-off this candidate will make a great admin in future. WFCforLife (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support Support per Julian and Cyclonenim. The diff is worrisome, no doubt about it. If that is the only time something like that happened, it is no evidence that the candidate has a pattern of rude behavior which would be a bad trait in an admin. Instead, it seems like an isolated incident which the candidate has learned from and compared to the great work this candidate has done, I think granting them the mop will be a net positive, even counting in that diff. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to weak support per answer to Q6. There was a very lengthy discussion on WT:DEL about that and there has been no consensus to support "no consensus" AFDs on BLPs to be handled this way nor to change policy in such a way to support this. I am very concerned that the candidate's answer sounds as if they want to close AFDs against current policy, i.e. delete without a consensus to do so. Regards SoWhy 11:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as per SoWhy. I've been hovering between support and neutral-for-now, and have decided that, worrying as that diff is, hopefully it's a one-off, and the candidates response in the question, namely to step away from the keyboard when necessary, does show a lesson learnt. None of us are perfect. GedUK  13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think Giants wont repeat what happened in September and will take the time to cool down before responding, also I think that 1 bad edit two months ago out of 27,000 edits at this time is not enough for me to oppose what could be a great addition to the admins Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support This is a no-brainer. Hes a great editor, hes never been blocked, always handles disagreements perfectly. One problem should not hurt his chances.--Yankees10 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support This user is a great contributer to the encylopedia, and is willing to help out users who need it. he is a great editor, and really disorves adminship. regards--Orangesodakid 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I was planning on nominating him, but King of Hearts beat me. I understand the concerns of that edit, but it was one minor mishap out of 27,000 edits! The other party wasn't innocent as well (i saw the CFD debate), and he apologized for the action soon afterwards. We need to learn how to assume good faith and not punish an editor for one simple mistake. All my contacts with him as been positive, and he deals with a subject that is so underrated in this project. Trust me many of the sports contributors aren't easy to deal with, and with that one exception, he been civil to them. He clearly has a need for the tools, and I wish the opposers will reconsider. Thanks Secret account 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a diff for the apology? — Sebastian 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - If that diff (and he shortly afterwards apologized!) is the biggest thing stopping some people, then that's sad in my view. Agree with Secret that some opposers should reconsider. Good contributor, participates, and would be good to hand a mop. Jusdafax 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support This whole scenario feels rather familiar to me. I trust the candidate to resist taking the bait in the future, one incident does not a pattern make. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support – Yeah, that diff does sort of raise a yellow flag, (I should know about that.) but if getting the admin tools instills more of a willing to not fly off the handle, I don't know if I can oppose based on that. I just hope I'm right. MuZemike 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support: Re contribution level and activity, but diff does raise a yellow flag. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to neutral, below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. There seems to be only one serious objection; at least all oppose votes so far mention nothing but the September clanger. In the 2 months and 25 days since, the editor has done several thousand edits[1], including hundreds in talk pages. If nobody could find any sign that the candidate lapsed again, then we have to conclude that the candidate has done a great job learning from his mistake. I also doubt the objectivity of oppose votes that focus only on the elapsed time, especially when 2 months and 25 days are downplayed to "2 months". I feel an urge to vote support just to counterbalance that, but I'll wait for answer to my Q5. — Sebastian 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from neutral to support per A5. Also because I'm assuming the apology did take place soon after, although I would still like to see a diff for that. — Sebastian 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, am mildly curious where this "soon after" apology is... I checked contribs, the talk page, and this discussion, and I couldn't find anything. Tan | 39 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I received a very friendly message here which I thought was classy on his part. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and there's this very civil exchange after, too: [2]]. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27. My opinion has not degraded since then. In fact, my suggestion about improving the userpage actually seems to have eventually been folowed. Fantastic! Moreover, as seen at User:Giants27, this editor is experienced with over 20,000 edits, rollback rights, 54 DYKs, 7 Good articles, a veritable cornucopia of barnstars, wikilove, and thanks at User:Giants27/Awards, and no blocks on his log. The last RfA I commented in had a top five reasons for supporting. This time, I found six (Who will challenge me to find seven?). Therefore, the candidate meets User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. With that said, please do avoid using "asshole" in future discussions per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Believe me, I have encountered plenty whom I have been tempted to tell off, but why give them that satisfication? Do not allow Wikipedia to get you that flustered. Good luck! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Per Shawn of Montreal - if he is not offended, why should I be? Warrah (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. One diff out of 27,000 is 0.0037%. So maybe he's not infallible, but how many admin candidates are? Taking the whole picture into account, he's good enough for me. Useight (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Net positive. There's no pattern of abuse. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per Pascal. That's the bottom line, I guess. Tan | 39 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Looking at this diff where Giants27 answered question 3, he mentioned the diff and discussion cited below, and before the opposes were even made. It should be noted that had Giants27 not been honest and disclosed it, either (1) he might have passed with the diff being buried, or (2) someone else would have found his comment and his RfA would be going down heavily for "not disclosing the comment" or for "trying to hide the comment" in addition to the reasons he is being opposed for now. Granted, his comment shouldn't have been made and was very inappropriate, but I disagree with the implication that Giants27 is somehow a really uncivil editor for a one-off comment that he knows was wrong. He has a good record otherwise and has a good amount of experience, and as long as he doesn't repeat the mistake (don't prove the supporters wrong!), he'll be fine. Acalamari 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per this. Seriously, though, if Shawn's here saying he believes 27 behaved straight down the middle, the problematic dispute is non-existent. The content work is outstanding, and the opposers don't have a real quantity of evidence that 27 wouldn't use the tools well. Sluggo | Talk 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support See him around plenty, trust his judgment. So he made one rude comment a few months back - so what? He was honest enough to be the first one to bring it up, and the target of the insult not only forgave him but is supporting this RfA. Just another example of people at RfA finding any small, irrelevant thing to oppose over. What happened to NBD? faithless (speak) 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support - great answers. I see nothing wrong with losing your temper sometimes, it happens. Calling someone an asshole, might not be the best way to use that temper though; I'd say to be ridiculously civil is always the best and most humorous way to go. ;) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - Moved to oppose. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- Soap Talk/Contributions 05:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Feelings and views can change dramatically after a few months ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support to address concerns of those in the below section we do have mecahnisms to review misuse of tools. I had hoped folks had noticed the arb committee's stance on that this year. Contribs show dedication. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Seriously? - we aren't perfect. One diff where Giants snapped at a user shouldn't sink his RfA; it happens to the best of us at times. Might I add that the user in question, Shawn in Montreal, has supported? Great work in articlespace and DYK, among other places. My impression is that he will be a net positive with the mop. Giants, if this fails, keep your head up and have no regrets—you're a fine editor. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Per this regarding Q3's answer. Net positive. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Response to question 8 and revised answer to question 6 allays most of my concerns. This shows a willingness to respond to feedback. Other oppose reasons are not sufficient in my opinion to prevent me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support You're definitely not a useless fucking cunting bastard, therefore I gotta say why the fuck not. RMHED (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've taken the high road, then. Killiondude (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Just saw the candidate on an FAC. we need more admins who focus on content. He called someone an asshole once and it looks like he now knows never to do that again here. I think that makes him an even better choice. I'm also under the impression that even admins are continuously learning so missing one question up above isn't a huge problem.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support as nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support strong article space contributions. -- Samir 06:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Thought he was an admin already. Good contributions, has my trust, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 09:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Thought it over, and I believe that Giants27 would be a net positive as a sysop. NW (Talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support That diff is worrying, but I'll support on the off chance that you might default to delete anyway. =) Aditya Ex Machina 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I've had a few encounters with Giants over the last year and always found him civil, so I'm minded to treat the September diff as proof of presence of a belly button. Going through his recent deleted contributions I like the fact that he uses prod as well as, and possibly more often than speedies. ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems fine to me. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Ready for the mop. Royalbroil 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. If that one diff is all there is to worry about in all the work he's done, I'm fine moving it aside and not worrying about it. Wizardman 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per this. I see in Question 3 you said that you've learned from this, but I'm not confident that two months is enough time to make sure that you have the self control to not make comments like this again. One deals with a lot more stressful situations as an administrator, and I don't completely trust that you can handle it calmly after reading that. iMatthew talk at 00:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note regarding your reply in Question 3: I don't think any less of you as an editor. I still believe you are a great content editor, and a great person. However, I don't believe I can trust giving you the administrator tools at this time. iMatthew talk at 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment: I'm not opposing over that comment. The comment that Giants made leads me to believe that there is potential for it to be made again. I don't want that, we've all seen what happens when an administrator begins acting uncivil towards another editor. iMatthew talk at 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose September was not that long ago. We don't know yet whether or not this is going to be an eternal September. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. oppose That Sept. diff is a bit scary and recent. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments by Montreal show he can get past such situations. However answer to q6 is a worry. Glad to see issue addressed by q8, but still indicates a willingness to act on partial information. So remaining opposed. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Kurt gets one right. That diff is a derailer. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per iMatthew. Bad language and aggressive tones less than three months ago. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose not for the swearing, but rather the exchange in September suggests this editor is not ready. Try again in a few months. Possibly 12. Crafty (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - per this. It looked like a personal attack, and it was from September, not so long ago. December21st2012Freak (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the "biggest asshole here" that Giants is referring to so I suppose I ought to weigh in. I had some issues with how the candidate had removed a popcat tag and had begun to depopulate a category, using edit summary to vent but making no effort to raise this issue on the category or my talk page. I felt at the time that there was a bit of WP:OWN when to came to football articles. So I contacted him and went on to CfD to try to resolve the issue, which resulted in the category being kept, the depopulation stopping and general peace and prosperity in our time. But here's the thing: the manner in which I raised this at CfD was insulting. I was out of line. I arguably was the biggest asshole. We ended up resolving things quite amicably and I really hope this does not derail this RfA for a fine and committed editor. He's done outstanding work. I intend to !vote to support, if that's of any importance. And to be fair, every RfA candidate henceforth gets one free pass at calling me an asshole. Okay? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment means a lot to me. The fact that you've come around to the defense of Giants27 reinforces my opinion that there's a lot of potential, but I'm still not totally comfortable with supporting them. Like Kurt said, don't know if it'll happen again. I'd hate for the tools to be used by a person with that temperament. My oppose is certainly weaker now, though. -- Atama頭 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    頭さん, when can we ever be more certain than when someone has thousands of problem-free edits? We all can make mistakes, and most of our mistakes here on Wikipedia are reversible. — Sebastian 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go ahead and switch to Neutral for now, pending other discussion on this page. -- Atama頭 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per iMatthew . Given more time I might support, but now is not the time. ArcAngel (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The candidate's content work is laudable but I fear that much of the support for this candidacy is of the "reward for lots of FA/GA/DYK medals" nature rather than any reflection on his suitability to admin tasks. Candidate has demonstrated some temperament issues in the not so distant past that has me questioning that suitability. Shereth 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I was going to support as the contribution level and activity within the WP namespace seems to be there, but I can't in good faith support based on the posted diffs from talk pages. The candidate seems to show a overly aggressive nature that needs to be toned down slightly; it will take time for me to gain full confidence that this has been addressed. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Per IMatthew and per Kmweber(!?!). I have to agree that it is too recent. It's customary for people to want to give an editor more time than 3 months to evaluate whether or not they have changed, hence why an RfA opened 3 months after a previous failed one is unlikely to succeed. In this case, however, if this RfA fails based primarily on that September remark I wouldn't object to another RfA in, say, 3 more months' time because that would put a good 6 months past the offending remark. (I'm not trying to come up with some arbitrary timeline, this is advice to Giants27). I think given more time and maybe a bit more work in admin-related areas this person will be ready for the mop. -- Atama頭 17:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - Switching to neutral. -- Atama頭 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose Afd requires consensus, the sept. diff shows you're not big on consensus. enough admins already willling to call other editors assholes, so that's not going to get my support, either. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see the CfD, another user made a similar comment to your's. However, the comment was made prior to the CfD and I haven't removed the category from a page (in fact I believe I've added it to a few). So, can you expand as how I'm "not big on consensus"?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can explain how that diff shows you are "not big on consensus." I apologize for not elaborating, as it seemed obvious to me. Consensus requires weighing and considering carefully the input of editors with whom you might disagree. Once you've identified who seems like "the biggest asshole here" the probability that you will even listen to their opinion, much less consider it as valid input, is zero. Instead of identifying the biggest asshole in a given situation, an administrator should focus on their input, always. So should other editors. That's what no personal attacks is about, by the way: you focus on every editors' contributions to wikipedia as the entirety of what interests you and you will personally make wikipedia a better place for everyone. If you can't or don't, you will be a net detriment to wikipedia as an administrator, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose I don't care if this was resolved with peace. Last thing we need is yet another admin with an attitude problem, especially around XfD. Vodello (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats nice, you accuse a person of an attitude problem based on ONE thing.--Yankees10 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. It takes one red flag for me to oppose adminship, and no passive aggressive sniping will force me to change my opinion. You made no attempt to intimidate admin User:IMatthew or opposers #2-#8 and #10, all who cited the same problems. If you have a personal problem with me, take it away from this RFA page. This is not the place to discuss your issues with me. Thank you. Vodello (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Behavior indicates he's probably a kid. I don't really care whether he is a kid or merely acts like one - that distinction is not important. Friday (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you get that feeling? Is it the "asshole" comment or something else?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that in part, yes. Friday (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't like your opinions on WP:CENSORED, and the arguments you made at various DYK discussions when 'censorship' comes up. (Here). I can't support an editor with a view so contrasting to mine. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand opposing a prospective administrator because you disagree with this or that position related to how admins should act. But this seems completely unrelated and his arguments at DYK will have the same weight whether or not he's an admin. Surely you wouldn't call for the mass resignation of admins with contrasting views to yours. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeing about whether to put Cunt on the main page is not necessarily a minor difference of opinion. It could be a very fundamental difference of opinion. If I had not opposed already, I would have opposed in agreement with this oppose. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Six months ago, I certaintly felt that putting Cunt on the main page was not in violation of WP:CENSORED but while it may not be the vulgarity of the word and it's use on the main page would not make sense at all. So, my current opinion has certaintly changed and if a similar discussion at DYK would to start I'd definetely be in opposition of its appearance on the main page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, IP69.226.103.13 sums it up nicely, in his/her oppose and in the comment right above here. Answering questions in an RfA is one thing but acting according to policy is what matters more. --Pgallert (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per the above concerns and the answer to question 6 where Giants27 says he will not follow the deletion policy. There has been a big discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy of this issue and changing to default to delete for all BLPs was rejected. I cannot support someone becoming an admin when they state they will not follow policy. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing opposition based on the answer to question 8 and the revised answer to question 6. Davewild (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per answers to questions 6 & 7. If a BLP is reliably sourced per your answer to question 7, why would you go against policy and default to delete in AfD just because the notability is borderline? Since you "almost only work with BLPs" I think your answers to these questions are significant and I can't see a justification for you intending to ignore policy. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point; while it's not as logically clear cut as you describe it, I have seen too many deletions of notable BLPs to take this lightly, and I considered for a moment if this should affect my vote. However, it seems to me that the "almost only work with BLPs" refers to working with present day American sports persons, an area with which the candidate has enough knowledge to make good judgments, and where we already have a systemic bias. — Sebastian 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants27 may currently edit a specific subset of BLPs, but this doesn't remove the fact they have stated that they would act contrary to policy. Who's to say what AfD debates they may end up closing in the future? While an admin should be allowed some degree of freedom, this shouldn't extend to acting contrary to policy by default. You may think some of the BLPs they currently edit should be deleted because there are too many of them, but the way to tackle systemic bias on wikipedia is to produce new articles to broaden coverage, not to delete articles where there is no clear consensus on notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish you had kept this shorter. If you had only written the second sentence, it would have been a perfect reply to my post. The rest is largely a repetition of things you already wrote elsewhere on this page. How best to tackle systemic bias is something we can agree to disagree on for this RfA, but I would be happy to discuss this elsewhere. My remark was not meant to criticize your vote, but as an explanation why I did not change mine despite your good point. — Sebastian 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please .)[reply]
  17. Oppose I disagree with some of the positions on XfDs, and find a a willingness to "merge" when a "no consensus" close is obvious to be disturbing. "Merge" is generally considered to be a specific outcome just short of an outright Delete, but where there are strong arguments for Keep, it is not a normal nor desired choice. Collect (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I am concerned with the user's conflict resolution, specifically the recent 'asshole' event. Also, I don't think the user has a good grasp of WP:NOTCENSORED. I also agree with User:Collect about the XfDs.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Due to a couple things. I've noticed Giants27 to use harsh language (like the diff provided in one of the first few opposes here) which isn't the best quality in an admin. The other concern of mine is what \/ brought up, which is the outlook that Giants has on NOTCENSORED. Killiondude (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Questionable judgment concerning choice of language. OK perhaps for an editor, not ok for a representative of the community..Modernist (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Concerns about temperament and lack of restraint. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Lacks temperament and tact. Tiptoety talk 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I have concerns about this user's communication skills and maturity (beyond the diff that was presented). I also don't see much understanding of policy: he said "I almost only work with BLPs," yet reversed his answer for Q6 at the drop of a hat. —Emufarmers(T/C) 22:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose First of all, for someone who works primarily on BLPs to not know correctly what is the current policy for dealing with non-consensus BLP AFds is not good; for them not to even know there is conflict about the issue is worse, since the question comes up almost daily here. An admin should know both the actual policy, and the major challenges, in the specialty he wishes to work on. More important, not to disclose an RfA under another name is inexcusable. Having not realized or forgotten is a very sad excuse. It is not the sort of thing most people would rapidly forget . Not knowing to put it here seems to idnicate not having followed previous RfAs. Not realizing it would matter is of course even worse, as it shows no recognition of the need for the community to have confidence in their admins. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, admittedly I don't watchlist the deletion policy page and I doubt I watch the pages where the discussions occured. However since it was brought to my attention, I refactored my response in a correction to Q6 and in my answer to Q8. On the previous RfA, I didn't disclose it because I simply forgot to list it considering it occured over a year ago and I was more focused on answering the questions than listing my WP:NOTNOW closed RfA.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Giants, it clearly wasn't "over" a year ago. Just sayin'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct, I've stricken the word over but my point (obviously) remains.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - I don't like the fact that you changed your answer, just because "it's not currently in policy"; and the more I think about it your temper isn't all that great. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. The reading of consensus on two of those AfD discussions is flawed, and the candidate needs to think through their statements more as evidenced by their flip-flopping on whether no consensus BLP debates default to keep. Some signs of poor judgement in standing early for RfA and not disclosing it, in quoting an IP vandal prominently on their userpage, opinions at DYK, civility issues. Could be an admin in future if they learn from the opposing votes. Fences&Windows 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm really not sure with this candidate yet. ceranthor 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can't support for that diff. Can't oppose due to the all-round good audited content. Can neutral because I'm a lazy bastard. :)  GARDEN  10:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to oppose based on the one-off diff from iMatthew where the candidate lost composure (that would be rather hypocrital, wouldn't it?), but there are quite a few questionable things I find, such as this AfD comment, which isn't horrible but isn't exactly the type of response I look for in admin candidates. Giants27's impressive content work is noted. Tan | 39 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to support Tan | 39 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Are you referring to the edit summary? I don't see a problem with occasional use of the word "absurd" in an edit summary; many people write them without much premeditation, and it's better to write them quickly than not at all. — Sebastian 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your prerogative to not see a problem with this entire edit; I do. Tan | 39 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning your right to see a problem. My question was what problem you're seeing. — Sebastian 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I see nothing totally objectionable but the entire comment is a little aggressive. I don't have a problem saying that a person says something absurd, that's not it, for me it's the dismissive reaction to what seems to be a perfectly reasonable question from Skater. For what it's worth, it looks like the nomination was correct and I don't really think that what Giants27 is saying is inaccurate. -- Atama頭 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I now understand it. The ideal reply would have been to just answer the question as it was asked: By calmly pointing to a reliable source that supports the claim. — Sebastian 07:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of edit summary is completely human and not at all offensive. If we start getting picky about things like that, we'll only have admins that pre-calculate adminship. I'd prefer we let people show their actual proclivities and judge them on a more reasonable standard. Shadowjams (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note I was not referring to the edit summary. Thank you all for your concerns here. Tan | 39 14:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shadowjams's comment makes sense when you replace "edit summary" with "post". — Sebastian 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: For now until I see more on this AfD. I am concerned about conflict resolution abilities although I give props to the user for being forthcoming.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Changed to oppose.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I still have concerns about temperament, but those concerns aren't as strong as they were. My biggest worry is how recent some of the behavior is. If Giants27 didn't also have great contributions I'd definitely oppose. -- Atama頭 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the content work, don't really like this hook approval, which was reverted by an administrator. Will think a while on this one. NW (Talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a "hook approval"? — Sebastian 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hooks" are the tidbits in WP:DYK. Tan | 39 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply! I've never worked with WP:DYK, so please forgive my ignorance. So, the problem is not the deletion of someone's contribution, or the cryptic edit summary "to prep2", but the fact that the candidate approved this "hook" for DYK, correct? — Sebastian 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is correct. NW (Talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support. NW (Talk) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I want to support, because my impression of Giants27 is in general a very positive one, what with his extensive DYK, GA, and AfD experience. But his conduct here and at the subsequent CfD was entirely inappropriate. I'm glad he realizes that, and that he's learned from it, but that was less than three months ago. I trust Giants27 in general, but that behavior makes me unsure enough to withhold my support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I came here expecting to support, and I am still leaning toward supporting. I "know" Giants27 from DYK, where he is hard-working and sensible. It's the September incident at CfD makes me hesitate to !vote "support". On the one hand, Giants27 deserves credit for remembering and owning up to those incidents in which he behaved badly -- that's a sign of maturity and self-awareness, which are valuable attributes for an administrator to have. On the other hand, that lapse in judgment at CfD happened just 2-1/2 months ago... --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Like others, the September incident makes me pause. If it had happened 6, 9, 12 months ago, I would have been more inclined to support, but as it was only 3 months ago, I feel more time is needed to show that this is not an underlying problem. I hope to see the candidate re-apply in a few months time, where hopefully I can feel more comfortable in supporting them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Fences&Windows makes a compelling case that this may be a NOTNOW RfA (with the notable exception of my spat with the candidate in September, for which I take responsibility). But even that aside, there are, for me, enough reasons to withdraw support. I cannot bring myself to oppose, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2009 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Giants27