Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Zinnober9 (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 19 September 2024 (Fixed Lint errors on this page (obsolete tags, misnested/stripped tags)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

The-G-Unit-Boss

[edit]

Final (54/2/3); Originally scheduled to end 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The-G-Unit-Boss (talk · contribs) - The-G-Unit-Boss edits in an area that doesn't get a lot of credit on Wikipedia, hip-hop related articles. In an area that has extreme problems with lack of sourcing, POV, and vandalism, he does an amazing job, an often thankless job, of cleaning up. His recent editor review was stellar. Hell, I almost don't need to write a nom statement, I can let the comments speak for themselves: See, e.g.,

"Well, I think you are a really great contributor. Keep on going this way, G-Unit-Boss, if I'm permitted to say so. -The Bold Guy- 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Doin a great job!--Brewcrewer 23:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Hey there. I think you're doing a great job - certainly the hip-hop articles need people who are willing to take part in the often thankless task of cleanup, sourcing and POV issues. You seem to be good at this, so no worries. Your image uploads seem fine and indicate a good understanding of NFCC - just make sure you always include the article the image needs to be included in......You're also polite and even-handed during discussions. Keep up the good work! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Well, let me start by saying that you do a really good job with actual content additions, there's a lot of people here that have never added anything to articles, but you certainly don't fall under that catagory. I like the fact that when you revert vandalism, you always warn the user. I checked a couple of your contribs to WP:AIV and they look fine and resulted in blocks.....you do a great job :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"

I see in this user a pleasant, open-minded, easy to work with editor, who does not get rattled, and doesn't lose his temper. This user is ready for adminship, and has a clear need for the tools. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - I accept. Thank you. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: If my nomination is successful my areas of work will include:
However as I become more experienced I will venture off to help with other, more tedious admin tasks. I will however, continue to write and improve articles.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased with my work to Hip hop related articles which I believe consist of some of the poorer articles on Wikipedia. I helped found the G-Unit Records WikiProject to which I contribute many of my edits. I have created many templates, mainly for musical artists.
I am also pleased with how I have helped to decrease the number of articles which fail WP:N, in particular mixtapes which I take to WP:AFD where I have been very much successful.
I have recently begun working to bring articles up to WP:GA standard for example, "Maneater" and Straight Outta Compton which are both currently Good Article nominees.
I am also a keen fighter of vandalism and do often venture off into other areas of 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: I have been in a few conflicts with users. One of my first conflicts was with a user about the structure of a page. We both disagreed with each other and eventually I went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for an external opinion. We both, through conversation, resolved the issue and now work along side each other. I have also debated with another user about the formatting of certain parts of pages and what I saw as them trying to own an article. It escalated intoheated discussions but was settled by both of us. We also now edit together. (I have purposely not named the users).
I believe that if I get into a conflict with an editor in the future, I will settle it the same way as I have in the past.

Question by --After Midnight 0001 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Can you explain why you feel that the 5 images, per your edits here have no rationale.
A: Sorry, that was my mistake. I wasn't meant to write "Missing Fair-Use Rationale" but "Incomplete Fair-Use Rationale". I have corrected my mistake. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you still feel that the images should be deleted? What do you feel is incomplete about the rationale. --After Midnight 0001 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you look at the images page it states at the top of the FU rationale table that the article name is needed. If I knew anything about the topic I would happily add/complete the rationale but as I do not and nobody seems to be adding it, I feel that they should be deleted. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you want to stand by this? Please go back and look at the image pages. --After Midnight 0001 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the top of the Non-free media rationale template on this page it currently says "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME". This is why it was nominated for deletion. However upon closer inspection I have noticed that the article that the Fair-use rationale is meant for is mentioned elsewhere. If I can, I will fix the image page using the information provided. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the images and have added the missing information. For the images that I have tried to complete I have retracted my deletion "vote". --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dreamy § —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is your name promotional?
A: No. I am just a fan of the rap group G-Unit. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? This is assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.
A: Well, assuming that we were disscussing something that was purely factual, I would cite as many reliable sources as possible to back up my view. However if we were disscussing something opinion based such as what content should be included in an article, I would try to convey my point (which I genuinely believe to be correct) but failing that, I would agree with the consensus reached. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Tasco 0

7. Why did you removed your personal attack to myself in User talk:Dead Wrong the same day you was nominated for adminiship? You made that comment in October, 19 of this year. Diff--Tasc0 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I removed the comment (October 26, 2007) a day before I replied to my nomination (October 27, 2007). I removed it because I felt that it was unfair towards you. I am very sorry for that comment and hope that you can have good faith in my removal of it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you was nominated on the 26, but you agreed on the 27.--Tasc0 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: My initial reaction would be to contact the adminitrator who blocked the user and let them know how I feel about the block. I would try to establish a consensus as to leave the user blocked or unblock them. However, if it was an obvious unfair/incorrect block I would go ahead and unblock the user. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. As nom. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support If you didn't babysit the hip-hop articles, my experience here would be much more difficult. My hat is off to you for your endless patience and hard work. east.718 at 14:49, 10/27/2007
  3. Support Nice amount of experience, good work on Hip-Hop articles. Tiddly-Tom 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil (talk • contribs)
  5. I've seen this working on the hip-hop articles: a great article-writer/improver, and in question 1, he plans to continue that work, as well as clear backlogs, which is excellent. Acalamari 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PxMa 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No reason not too! PatPolitics rule! 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now indef blocked for sockpuppet issues... does this vote "count"? --W.marsh 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I've had some great interactions with this user and I can honestly say that he would make an absolutely wonderful admin. When I went through the G-Unit article cleaning out "gangster slang", my communications with him through the process showed that he is a dedicated and hardworking individual keen on supporting the Wikipedia Project as a whole. I whole heartedly support this candidate with fiery enthusiasm! ScarianTalk 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Definitely. I've seen this guy around a lot on the rap articles, which as everyone knows are constant targets of vandalism. It's tough work cleaning up that junk, and we definitely could use more help. GlassCobra 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - It would be nice to see it happening :D --Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support great editor, deserves it--Yankees10 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Great Editor, he always keeps the hip hop articles in good shape and he has helped me out since I joined, so in my opinion he is seems like a good editor who has proved he can be an admin. - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. support Dedicated editor, would not abuse the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - He's calm and cool. He does a great job with keeping the hip hop articles in shape. I don't see how he'll abuse the tools. The Chronic 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Per nom, and I also liked the usage of quotations from other users in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  16. Support A very good user who is calm and cool. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yep. I've seen you around, and, from what I've seen, you appear to be calm, rational, and civil. SQLQuery me! 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Boss is BOLD. Daniil Maslyuk 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, has a solid understanding. Phgao 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Jmlk17 08:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, also would not abuse the tools. Tristan Uchiha 08:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 'Strong support for anyone who can work in that area of the encyclopedia without violating BLP, NFCC, NPOV, and other bits of alphabet soup... I might have preferred a month or so more of solid work in admin areas, but what the hell. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Per nom.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support we do need more admins working on these sorts of articles. No serious objections presented below... although I don't like flashy sigs personally, that's not really a good reason to oppose adminship. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I have no problem with the UN or sig, despite (IMO) ridiculous objection below. I can see this nominee does good work in his area of expertise and generally seems clued up enough on policy to be worthy of the mop & bucket. Also, he is humble enough to admit areas for expansion of experience and I haven't seen anything which would make me think he'd abuse the position. We all make mistakes from time to time. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Certainly - I recently review you for your editor review and you looked to be doing an excellent job. You're a level headed guy and always keep your cool. More than anything though, you're extremely friendly and your a good guy to have around here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jbeach sup 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, per my questions, and above. Dreamy § 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per all of the above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Some of my reasons come from above comments. Also, seems to have good knowledge of the necessities. tosh²(talk) 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per the many reasons above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support though I hate the whole "gangsta" thing --Pumpmeup 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that comment a bit harmful.--Tasc0 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You find it harmful that some no-name sweaty guy in a computer chair on the other side of the world disapproves of someone else's username choice? --Pumpmeup 23:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because you're being uncivil.--Tasc0 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong SupportBalloonman 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support Doing excellent work in an area I often have difficulty finding good sources. Courteous, cooperative, seems very capable. Pigman 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, great article writer. RaNdOm26 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. A fine editor, should be good as an admin. LАМВDОІD T C 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - plenty of edits in a very short time, consistent use of edit summaries, and civil at AfD. We could use another admin at AfD who is familiar with hop-hop music, which is often subject to WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations and votes. Bearian 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Obviously a valuable contributor who is to be trusted. VanTucky Talk 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Smart, level-headed, and knows his way around Wikipedia. A no-brainer. --Brewcrewer 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support cool name, looks like a GOOD editor. Stupid2 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support If you plan to work on AfDs and speedies, it'd be good to see more experience there. Also, I've looked at the last 500 contribs and I recommend using the preview button more frequently. It'll increase the overall quality of the edits. I often see very minor things take up a lot of edits. Spellcast 07:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support It's all good! - eo 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I don't recall interacting with him personally, but I've noticed his contributions in the past, and been favorably impressed by them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I approve this. Prisonbreak12345 —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Consider tuning down the sig a little bit (bit hypocritical given my past sigs)... but apart from that, everything's fine. Seem to have good knowledge of policy; will make a fine admin. --DarkFalls talk 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Does a lot of work on GA pages, and is very friendly and amenable. --andreasegde 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I see no reasons why not to support:) Good luck!--SJP 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support As per Track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support See nothing that makes me think will not make a good admin. Davewild 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Switching to Support. Adminship is no big deal, and this is not a problem user. K. Scott Bailey 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I am relieved I was not too late to give my support for an editor who is more than deserving of the mop. LessHeard vanU 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Does good work in an underapreciated area of Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose for now, per IFD contribution and current answer to Q4. --After Midnight 0001 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Continued inattention to detail could cause inappropriate image deletions. --After Midnight 0001 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're going ever closer to a system where anyone who hasn't passed the California and Federal Bar after completing a JD/PHD in Copyright Law/Philosophy of Copyleft Licensing is failing adminship. He made a minor mistake, it was brought to his attention, he politely and calmly fixed it. If anything, this is evidence he'd be a good sysop. --JayHenry 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This was a very simple deletion question regarding speedy deletion criteria of images, which took 3 attempts to get correct. As an admin, The-G-Unit-Boss would have very likely deleted these images on the word of the nominator. This candidate is clearly not ready for adminship. Rather, they should gain more experience with policy and try again in the future. --After Midnight 0001 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am permitted to do so I would just like to comment. If I was the closing admin I would be sure to check the image page before going ahead with the deletion incase somebody made a mistake as I did with my wording of my "vote". --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are you saying that you are the type of user who just comes along to XFDs and says "per nom" without checking the facts? --After Midnight 0001 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am saying that if I was the admin closing the disscussion I would be sure to check the fact incase somebody did make a mistake like I did in the case that you noted above. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so why didn't you check in this case, without me pushing you so hard to re-examine your initial contribution? --After Midnight 0001 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a mistake and rushed my decision. The point I am trying to make though is that actually deleting the image is a bigger decision and so I would not rush my decision. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Inappropriate signature and username, only been here 4 months. I believe a few more months experience may be needed.--Professional Deletionist 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Stricken out as user has been indefinitely blocked. Neil ☎ 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why does username or signature matter? Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now editing under a different name (User:Snakese), so the oppose is valid. Neil ☎ 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm - your username isn't great either to be honest... WjBscribe 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain exactly what part of his username and signature violate policy? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this user may be concerned that the name violates criteria #4 of the inappropriate username policy. Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it. I personally believe that the username is okay as it isn't trying to promote anybody or a group. It just happens that the name contains the name of a popular rap group. --Hdt83 Chat 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And "Usernames that imply the user is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia", signature is inappropriate because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Signatures#Length, Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates and Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin_Usernames.--Professional Deletionist 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which are prohibited. Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, nothing in his username implies he is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia. I'd like to know where you're getting that from. Nothing in his user name transcludes templates, and nothing in his user name uses a non-latin character set. Have you even looked at his user name? Not to mention yours blatantly violates the "imply the user is an adminstrator or official figure on Wikipedia" guideline. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Boss", everything else you need to know I added to your talk page.--Professional Deletionist 11:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The term boss has relationship to any Wikipedia position. You're grasping at straws here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does his name make him less of a contributer? The Chronic 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If my username is an issue with anybody I will be more than willing to change it to something more suitable. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the big deal about having the word "boss" in his username.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please note this objector is currently blocked indef for breach of WP:UN. Oh, the irony! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:01, 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  20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A good question, and one that is now answered. Neil ☎ 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still continuing to oppose, the user is also moving comments around their rfa and replying to other users comments in a hostile manor.--Snakese 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The users stablished himself in June of 2007. Like the user above said: a few more months of experience may be needed.--Tasc0 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4 months is within the passing range for RFA's. The user's experience can be shown through his edits. I'd ask you to reconsider. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, but could support at a later date. Simply not enough experience, IMO. K. Scott Bailey 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same request as above. We have a great need for more admins at the moment, with the recent allowing of anonymous page creation. We need more admins to help counteract the inevitable vandalism that flows from that. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a big request for admins, make me one, yay! Regarding your request of reconsidering the opinion, I think just a couple of months would be good, Swatjester--Tasc0 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]

#Neutral per above.K. Scott Bailey 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral I would support, if there the user has more experience outside elements related to the G-Unit probably needs more experience for WP:RFPP and more vandalism fighting.--JForget 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: per User:Kscottbailey.--Tasc0 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but appears to believe that there are administrative tasks which are more tedious than deletion backlogs, on which point he is sadly mistaken – Gurch 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because he's not an administrator yet.--Tasc0 06:52, 2 November 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/The-G-Unit-Boss&oldid=1246549873"