Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ged UK

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

Ged UK

Nomination

Final (86/6/2); Closed by Rlevse at 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ged UK (talk · contribs) – This is my first nomination of someone for adminship, and I hope the community agrees this is a good choice. Ged UK has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia with over 11,000 edits, and has been active since 19 November 2007. He meets the basics with a civil and friendly attitude, has e-mail enabled, and has good edit summary usage.

He likes to use automated tools when editing, which is very apparent when viewing his contributions, and has put these to good use for reverting inappropriate edits and vandalism. However, he also works in other areas, with a diversity that makes him a good candidate for adminship. For example recently he helped get James Cagney to GA status, and continues to contribute to related articles as well. He has made significant contributions to WP:AFD discussions, by giving a reason for his suggestions and citing policy and guidelines as appropriate. Furthermore, he is willing to return to nominations to continue to discuss issues, rather than making "hit and run" comments. He also does some good work at CAT:CSD, and generally tags pages to the appropriate criterion so existing admins can deal with them.

Ged UK is able to help resolve disputes calmly and without unnecessary drama. For example with Dirk Kuyt there was recently a dispute on Talk:Dirk Kuyt about the person's name, Ged UK entered the dispute by calmly giving his position and rationale for his thoughts. He then reminded editors about WP:3RR and continued to contribute to the discussion. In particular he avoided doing what some editors do in content disputes which is to call those that disagree with them vandals, which is a very destructive habit, and something administrators should avoid having as it is usually not the case.

Overall, I am convinced that Ged UK would make a good administrator and could help the project with the tools in multiple areas. I hope the community will agree that this is a good opportunity for us to have another great admin, particularly at a time when there is concern that we do not have enough of them being active. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

Okay, this is only my second nomination, so bear with me. ;-)

I first interacted with Ged UK in October about an AIV report I had to decline because the user stopped after the final warning. A mistake he made because misreading timestamps, for which he apologized and unlike many users, he was nice and friendly when realizing his mistake. That was when I first knew that Ged will make a fine admin one day, because as we all know you really need patience for the mop.

Despite being a Wikignome, Ged can write articles quite well, just see his answer to question #2. He is an active article contributor to football (not the American kind, the good one ) articles and also actively participates in discussions. For example: When a dispute broke out at Dirk Kuyt how to spell the surename, he stayed calm and tried to discuss it which resulted in a consensus how to handle the issue.

As some of you know by now, I am one of those admins who pay close attention to CSD related matters and as Ged wants to work in that area, one might expect me to comment on that. I have to say, his CSD work is very good, the last mistaken tag I could find was back in January. I have every confidence that Ged will not make such mistakes anymore (it was a A7 for a fictional character for those who want to know). But apart from that, his tagging is pretty smooth and without any major problems. His XFD contributions are not simple "per noms" but eloquent !votes like in this case (and unlike many, he did not treat the possibility of improvement as someone else's problem but did it himself).

In short, Ged is a helpful and clueful editor who helps others and does not shrink from doing all those little tasks that are needed to keep the encyclopedia in its shape. I have no doubt that Ged will make a good addition to the admin "team". Regards SoWhy 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nominations, and would like to take this opportunity to thank both Camaron and SoWhy for their confidence in me. --GedUK  14:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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: As something of a WikiGnome, I would intend to work mainly on CSDs, XfDs (particularly AfD), RPP, AIV, 3RR/edit-wars and UAA. I watch AN and ANI too, so would be able to offer assistance there as necessary. I'm a regular on IRC as well, so would also be able to offer assistance to editors there.

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

A: Recently getting James Cagney to GA has been the most satisfying single article I've worked on. It was a C class when I started it, and i have every intention of getting it to FA eventually, though i know that that will require a lot of work and help from other editors. I also helped with copy editing on Last of the Summer Wine which is now a featured article, and have made large contributions to the Ben 10 series of articles, as well as Roger Federer and Valentino Rossi.

Article building aside, I also do new page patrolling, particularly the older end of it. This has led to the idea of finding someone to develop a bot function to mark as patrolled new pages that have CSD tags on. This came out of personal frustration at checking pages on the new page patrol that were un-patrolled, but tagged for CSD, demonstrating an editor had actually reviewed it. I am particularly pleased with the development of the consensus on what should and shouldn't be counted as reliable tag to demonstrate that an article has been patrolled.

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: (partly cut and pasted from my editor review) There have been two that spring to mind. One is on Ryan Babel around a dispute on the best source to use for the player's height, and one is a very recent one on Dirk Kuyt and how to spell his surname. In both situations I tried (and succeeded) in gaining a consensus, mainly by notifying project of the discussion and asking for comment (eg WP:FOOTY). I always tried to avoid leading where i thought the debate should go, though clearly making my view clear. Neither situation really caused me stress though; I'm more than capable of stepping away from the keyboard and taking time out. Dialogue is almost always the best way to resolve difficult situations, and should this RfA be successful that will certainly be my first course of action as often as possible. In fact, even if this RfA isn't successful, it will continue to be my first course of action wherever possible.

Optional question from roux  

4. I'm going to be asking this of all RFA candidates now. I personally feel that openness to recall is essential in admin; what the community giveth the community must also be able to taketh away. In my opinion, MBisanz has the most robust, streamlined, and intelligent criteria I have seen, and we have seen it work precisely as intended. What do you think of recall in general, MBisanz' version in particular, and should your RFA pass will you hold yourself to the same standard as MBisanz?

A: I'm certainly in favour of the concept of administrator accountability. MBisanz's recall did generally work in the example provided, though the piling on of 'supports' was perhaps rather unneccesary and may well have driven off a potentially good contributor from WP. I am quite prepared, if this RfA passes, to commit myself to developing a recall process of my own within the first month or so.

Optional question from DiverseMentality

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

A: A block is a technical restriction of editing privileges across the whole project, a ban is more of a social restriction across all or part of the project; I define them more a social restriction because where related to a specific part of the project or type of article, they are only enforceable by the editors themselves agreeing to it. If this agreement breaks down, then a block can be used to enforce a ban where necessary, though only across the whole project. --GedUK  17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

6 At what time would you delete an article, despite a {{hangon}} tag?

A: Blatant, and widespread, copyright violations that if removed would leave nothing left, attack pages (on anybody), libellous or BLP violations, or where a hangon tag has been placed for a period of time, but no attempt is made to justify keeping the article, which is the point of the tag. --GedUK  17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

7 Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if Editor3 deletes the material?

A: Technically, none of the editors have breached 3RR, which sets the limit at 3, not 2. Both 1 and 2 should be informed, either by template or better by a personal message, that they are at the limit, and crtically both should be encouraged to reach an agreement on the article talk page. I would also inform Editor 3 that the discussion is taking place. I would also consider protecting the article, as it seems possible than an edit war is about to break out. However, protecting an article should be a last resort, the essence of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit, and that can't be done if an article is locked. --GedUK  17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from ThemFromSpace

8 Can you give us your idea of what constitutes original research? This comment is apropos of this recent edit in which, if I'm reading you correctly, you implied that if a statement in an article is true (albeit unsourced) then it is not original research.

A Original research is putting your own ideas into Wikipedia, or drawing conclusions from other poeple's work or research. Now, as I recall, there was a source in that article (or I found one via Google) that talked about the Two hundred fifty-sixth note, which to me implies that someone else has discussed it, and the author of the article is reproducing it (unless the author and the source author are the same, but i don't remember any evidence that that was the case in this instance), therefore not original research. --GedUK  19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from George the Dragon

9 Would you support the permanent semi-protection of all BLPs? If so, why, if not, why?

A Short answer, no. Apart from being against the basic ethos of anybody being able to edit, non-registered users make plenty of very constructive edits to BLP articles. Yes, IP users vandalise, but then so do registered users, and if someone is determined enough to vandalise, they'll just make an account and then vandalise. --GedUK  20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Carlossuarez46

• 10a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

  A: No more than an hour, most likely nearer 30 minutes. It does not take long to create a stub that sets out key information and asserts notability. --GedUK  18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• 10b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template; if so, what say you?

  A: No, same answer. Again, it takes hardly any time to create a decent enough stub to get the article going. --GedUK  18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• 10c. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

  A: Yes, they are different beasts. An admin's role at an XfD is to weigh up the value of the arguments presented in relation to the range of WP policy; it certainly isn't a question of majority rule. Consensus on content is different, and not something an admin would generally get involved in in an administrator capacity. Consensus on content partly about majority rule, to put it crudely, but it's also as much about finding a third way between two views. That's something all editors can help with, not just admins. --GedUK  18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from JustGettingItRight (talk):

• 11. This is a "case study" question. I am a newly registered editor and I attempt to refute the theory of Evolution by editing the Evolution article. My sources come from Answers in Genesis, which I believe to be rock-solid sources on par with your secular "peer-reviewed" journals, which I personally view to have a closed shop bias. Immediately after I make my first edit, my edit is reverted in a very impersonal way. Not knowing the 3RR rule, I edit again in an attempt to insert what is factual information showing scientific dispute against evolution (this is what I believe anyways). After my fourth revert, I get a message from one editor on my talk page to quit disrupting Wikipedia by adding pseudoscientific information and I'm in violation of 3RR. I now perceive Wikipedia to be a bullying cabal of meanies and you gdt some sense of my frustration in my responses to complaints. You receive a complaint about my behavior, specifically I'm disrupting the Evolution page and I violated 3RR. How would you handle this situation? JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  A: Firstly, I'd welcome you to Wikipedia, and, depending on the tone of the other messages you'd recieved, probably apologise for any offense you may have felt. Then I would explain the 3RR rule, with links, explain that i wasn't going to block you on this occaision because I would be Assuming Good Faith, and also point you at the Evolution FAQ which explains the consensus position. I would explain the importance of article talk pages to the project as a means of consensus building, and point out WP:RS, which is a critical policy in this case (it usaully is). I'd also point out that I wouldn't take a view on the content, that's what editor consensus is all about. I would encourage you to engage in debate with your fellow editors about your preferred content. I would point out that if you continued to revert, i would be forced to block you for a short period. I would also be minded to remind the other editors involved of the 3RR and edit-waring, and about the need to be civil and to assume good faith, both of which in this case seem to have been forgotten. (Good question btw, a case study is a good idea for RfAs I think.) --GedUK  10:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Lankiveil

• 12. This is another case study question. You are contacted via email by a recently indef blocked user with whom you are not familiar and have had no prior dealings with. This user has advocated hard on a number of talk pages for the inclusion of pro-pædophilia viewpoints on a number of articles. These arguments have been soundly rejected by a consensus or near-consensus of editors on all of these talk pages. However, despite this, they have not gone ahead and made edits in the mainspace that they do not have a consensus for, they have been generally polite and well behaved, and there is no indication that they have broken any guidelines or acted in bad faith. They have been blocked indef with the summary "Pædophile, not wanted here", and had their talk page locked. The user is asking for an unblock, citing that they have not broken any rules, but the admin is adamant that they should not be unblocked as allowing such editors free rain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute. My questions are: a) Was the admin justified in blocking the account, and why/why not, and b) What would you do in this situation?

  A: On the weight of the evidence provided, and not having the blocking admin available to talk to to find out if there is any other background i should know about, in my opinion, no, i think it's a bad block procedurally; the user doesn't appear to have broken any guidelines or policy. I would bring the unblock request to the blocking admin's attention and ask them to make a decision. If they still refuse, I would not unblock in contradiction to their opinion, but I would take the issue to WP:AN to ask for the wider admin and general community's view on the issue. The block appears to have been done for noble intentions, but also appears to be in contravention of the 'anyone can edit' philosophy; thus I feel that the wider community's view should be canvassed. Another great case study! --GedUK  12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Seems fine. Ceranthor 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Even though SoWhy said that soccer is the real football, I still feel that Ged UK has what it takes to be a quality admin.--Giants27 ^T/C 15:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. You look like a good user. Mostly anti vandalism work though, I would like some article building too ;-). Youdon't have to have recognised content, just do a bit of expanding here and there ;-).--Patton^t/c 15:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Yes, very sound-minded. -- Mentifisto 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator, obviously meets my criteria. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, and yes "soccer" is the real football. Not your Rugby-for-Nancies game :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   That was completely uncalled for. :-)--Giants27 ^T/C 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   See support number 2 :P. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   Response: El fútbol americano es muy fantastico, el fútbol es muy horrible.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - Looks fine to me. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
8. (ec) Support Great editor. LittleMountain5 ^review! 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support as nominator. SoWhy 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, looks like I made WP:10. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Broad experience in admin tasks, solid reviews in his editor review, and I've seen his clueful contributions all over the place, including at RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Even though I don't know him that well through Wikipedia, I know that he's a jolly good fellow via IRC. In addition, his contributions speak for himself :P Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
13. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Our paths have crossed a few times on Wikipedia and I admire his contributions. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - Ged's demonstrated clear-headedness and clueful-headedness (cluededness?) on every occasion our paths have crossed. I trust his judgment & know he'll make one helluva admin. FlyingToaster 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I see no reason not to. You look like a fine editor. Timmeh! 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, doesn't seem to be any reason not to. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - see no obvious concerns, I like the answer to my question--though I'd rather see you develop a similarly robust process now, so it's in place for when (presumably) the bit is applied to your account. //roux   21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Looks like a good editor. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Looks good. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I see nothing of concern, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Has the clearheadedness, the good judgment and the patience needed in an admin imo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - No problems here. Xclamation point 04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - Good all-around editor. He'll do fine with being admin. Versus22 _talk 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
27. SupportExcellent contribs and a good attitude all around. Good luck mate! Nja²⁴⁷ 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support - I only met this editor for the first time a few months ago, but after having looked through his last few month's contributions, I am happy to support due to his good attitude, judgment, and contributions. Seeing no issues whatsoever. — neuro^(talk) 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - would seem to be a good addition to the ranks. -- Banjeboi 14:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - Of course! Always happy to support someone with a cool head and broad experience. cf38^talk 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - Sure. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. I am very satisfied with the answers to the questions. DiverseMentality 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support-- Good contributor and civil when interacting with others. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. Appears to be a good editor (and polite, too!), and provided well-reasoned answers to all the questions asked. I see nothing which would indicate this editor wouldn't be a good admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support You aren't one already? Ray^Talk 20:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support From nomination over questions to my own review of edits it looks fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Looks good LetsdrinkTea 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
39. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong support Wizardman 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I think he will be a fine admin. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've seen Ged's work in a number of areas and I'm impressed. His mediation and contribution to the Dirk Kuyt/Kuijt discussion stand out in my memory. I think he'll make a good administrator. Camw (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Thought he already was one - Fastily (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support -- excellent user who will benefit from the tools, as will the WP Com.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Support per above. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Can find no fault. Good luck! Fredrik • Wilhelm ^U|_T|^C 04:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support seems fine to me. In recent RFA trend, it's hard to see that candidates eager to work in XfD are content builders and civil editors--Caspian blue 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. His consensus-building efforts in the Dirk Kuyt affair deserve a lot a credit, especially in the face of some nasty name-calling and vandalism of his userpage. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Your answer to my question was a little lackluster, but we both respect the same spirit of the OR policy. Everything else that you've done more than makes up for it. ThemFromSpace 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your support :) I didn't intend it to be lacklustre (if it's possible to intend that), merely to simply explain my view on what can become a very complicated area. I agree we certainly share the same view of the spirit of OR. --GedUK  15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

50. Support – en.wikipedia needs more WikiGnomes as sysops, as they tend to pay greater attention to detail for the smallest things, whether it be fixing templates, placement, etc. Also per solid, sensible contribs at AFD. Whether the focus is on CSD or closing AFD discussions, user would be nothing short of an asset in either. MuZemike 15:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support No concerns. America69 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Does a good job. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - I had a good oppose the other day and I was edit conflicted. My internet died and I don't remember what the oppose was.... so... whatever. I'm feeling generous today. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Absolutely, in favour of a whole bunch of controversial topics. That was a joke.  GARDEN  21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. No spam, please. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support — Thought I !voted already (yes, I'm now using "!vote", whatever). No problems here, user is experienced. It's mop and bucket time! Master&Expert (Talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. The candidate seems OK; I have found no reason to oppose. Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Weak support. I raised some concerns in the candidate's Editor review; however, I liked the reaction at User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_10#My_editor_review. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Seen GedUK around; looks good from that and above.  Frank  |  talk  12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support looks good on paper and I trust Sowhy. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
61. Support as a strong candidate who will be a net positive to the mop brigade. - Dravecky (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - miranda 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Support --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support The community would benefit from this users "enmoppage". Fribbler (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support With 11,000 edits, and the majority of them good contribs, couldn't possibly oppose. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - This support is based wholly on your music listening habits from your last.fm profile. I saw a load of Johnny Cash, Pinky Floyd, Dresden Dolls, and David Bowie. So they're all pluses. I also saw you "loved" Nirvana Smells Like Teen Spirit... may I ask if you were trying to buy my vote? I don't appreciate bribes, Ged. But fine! By the way, listen to more Nirvana; not just their most notable song. Others include Come As You Are, Serve the Servants, You Know You're Right, and In Bloom etc. etc. On the down side I see that you support Liverpool. Are you trying to change my mind whilst I'm writing my support? You're tearing me in half, Ged! *Sighs* I guess I'm going to have to judge your candidacy based on your contributions... But who the hell does that anymore?! I like your WikiGnome work. Whilst I may not remember, I've probably dealt with your 3RR reports at some point and found them great (I assume)! Also, SoWhy nominated you and he's from Munich and I've probably met him at some point (You were that drunk guy on the U-Bahn on the way home from Oktoberfest that said to me: "England ist schizer!" right?)... Anyway, point is you'll probably make a great bureaucrat... or ArbCom clerk... or whatever this page is for. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry to disappoint you but I do not drink beer and I don't like the Oktoberfest (I'm weird^^). So, as much as I love insulting random strangers in the subway, I'm afraid that was not me. (to those who think I'm serious: I'just joking - you know me, I'm all nice and sweet and caring and stuff) SoWhy 10:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

    As you probably noticed, I tend to listen to albums in their entirety, and happened to listen to Nevermind just the other day. After the great hard drive failure of 2007, i've only just got it re-ripped. I make no apologies for Never Walking Alone ;) --GedUK  11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

68. support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
69. Support I am impressed by his contributions and interactions with other users, and am not at all swayed by the opposing arguments. If he wants to be open to recall that is his problem; it does not have any bearing on his effectiveness or trustworthiness. I don't see a problem with claiming a controversial position on your user page as long as it doesn't keep you from editing neutrally. This one was clearly in jest, anyway. Ged UK understands what Wikipedia is about and will make a fine admin. Wronkiew (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. I have come across the user in passing a few times and would be comfortable with him as an admin. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - fully meets all my standards: in particular - great answers to all the questions, lots of useful edits, great Userboxen, and has rollback. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
72. Support. While not a lot of article building, the candidate is attentive to anti vandalism. Seems trustworthy. Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Seems satisfactory. Good luck! GlassCobra 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Would make a great sysop and is very useful towards wikipedia. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
75. Support - an excellent contributor with experience in a number of key areas. Will be fine with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Don't know him that well, but record looks ok. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
77. Support, per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to varied areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
78. Support In my interactions with Ged UK, I noticed him to be very civil and very patient with newbies, which is an important quality in administrators (since it basically determines whether the newbies will see us as a nice community or an exclusive cabal). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Seems trusted to me. hmwithτ 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Prodego ^talk 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Has been around since Nov 2007 and used rollback well.As per track see no concerns and feel giving the user tools will only contribute to the project.Through I disagree with some of the userboxes I support your right to your views.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
82. Friendly enough chap, sensible responses, had positive interactions and see nothing amiss in a random sampling of contribs. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - I have seen some of this editor's football related contributions and see no reasons for concern. As for some of the opposes below, I don't like userboxes at all, but editors should be judged on their edits not the way they choose to decorate their userpage. King of the North East 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
84. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. Good contributions and good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
86. Strong support iMatthew // talk // 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall promises are made ad captandum vulgus and are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record. Skinwalker (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   While your personal criteria for RfA are just that, please note that Ged's answer was framed on championing administrator accountability, not recall itself. I also note in general that any candidate who says either yes or no to question 4 will seemingly gain at least an oppose as a result, making this a question of policy rather than of a candidate's fitness for a role. I'd say this needs wider discussion, but it's had it in the past, so maybe I'm just hand wringing at this point. FlyingToaster 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   As FT points out, I am utterly of the belief that any adminstrator has to be accountable to the wider community. Recall is not perfect, and is open to abuse, by both the adminstrator and other editors. I believe the MBianz's process attempts to tackle this well, as does Camaron's and others that I have seen. It's enforceable only by the honesty of the admin whose process it is, but one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is the honesty of the majority of its users, and I would hope that my commitment to the recall process demonstrates my belief in my (should this RfA pass) accountability to the wider WP community. --GedUK  20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Removed userboxes just for this RfA. "This user loves abortion"? I don't care which side of the abortion debate you're on, that's simply not funny. Keepscases (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Can't argue with anyone's sense of humour, but for what it's worth I went back and looked at the box in question. Seems more meant as an ironic nod to stereotypes about liberals than meant for shock value. Full phrase is "This user loves Drugs, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Immigration." FlyingToaster 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work." Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Q9 GTD 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate more on this? What in his answer did you find objectionable and, more importantly, what did you find that would be detrimental to his capacity to serve as an administrator? GlassCobra 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Certainly. I worry the editor in question believes allowing everyone to edit is more important than trying to limit real-world harm to real people. As an admin, this editor would be able to protect pages and unprotect them GTD 10:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect, Wikipedia's motto is still "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," last I checked. You're opposing this editor because he is upholding the ethos that this website was founded in, rather than cleaving to your particular individual opinion? GlassCobra 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   First and foremost, it is meant to be an encyclopedia. If that can be balanced with "anyone can edit" then so be it, but that's currently not the case GTD 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   No, first and foremost it's meant to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That is and always has been what distinguished us from other, paper encyclopedias. Jimbo has always said that concept is a core principle that will not be violated, so it's interesting to see you opposing because this candidate is dedicated to upholding it. GlassCobra 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Why is that a bad thing? Also, even if it were, administrators retire at a pretty consistent rate, so eventually you'll have not enough admins. Is there anything about Ged particularly that you find objectionable?--Aervanath (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   "Too many administrators" is a fairly poor reason to oppose. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose per both recent userbox whitewashing and the sheer number of political userboxes, which speak of a user who is too eager to stake out positions on controversial subjects to be viewed as an admin with the proper level of detachment. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm confused: Isn't it rather a good thing to see an admin's views up front rather than not knowing what views an user has? I find it hard to believe that users/admins who do not have such userboxes do not have views on controversial subjects, so I think transparency can't be a bad thing, can it? SoWhy 10:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed with SoWhy. It's just about impossible to not take part in any of the recent controversies, such as abortion, gay rights, etc. In fact, I'm sure even you have your stance on the topics... :) Cheers. I'^mperator 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   You're entitled to not like my oppose, but I stand by it: admins with many overt political userboxes are as bad as cop cars with political bumper stickers. Do you really want "justice" administered by someone who doesn't understand the benefits of keeping their own opinions to themselves? I do not. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I think being open to recall compromises an admins ability to do their job. I think that admins are plenty accountable without recall. As such I choose not to support where I would have otherwise. Chillum 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   Could you explain how, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   How it compromises an admins ability to do their job, or how admins are plenty accountable without recall(you can only pick one ;-) ). Chillum 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   The former, since I'd disagree with the latter :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   It allows action to be taken against an admin based on popular opinion as opposed to presenting evidence demonstrating a violation of expected behavior. The former is a lynch mob, that latter is a trial. This prevents the administrator from taking unpopular actions to enforce the greater consensus of policy. People often don't like having the rules the community has formed being enforced towards them. If you do your job well then you end up being resented by many people who keep you on their watch list. I have yet to see a recall that has been anything other than a tremendous waste of time.

   Imagine if we all got together and held a vote on if somebody should be blocked? It would end up being more like a reality TV show where people are voted off the island for being disagreeable. We don't block people for being unpopular, instead we base it off adherence to expected community norms(policy and such). We should give the same quality of attention to who we take the admin bit from. Chillum 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Island (Connecticut), Ged UK said he thought all places were inherently notable, even though the subject of the article was an insignificant spit of land for which no sources could be found online or off (and I looked) that offered detailed information. It will be a permanent stub of a few lines, turning Wikipedia into a kind of third-rate gazeteer. I responded at length to Ged UK's comment, citing three separate parts of policy and guidelines, but received no reply. Participating in AfDs without looking at policy, ignoring objections to your comments and contributing to the retention of an article for which there is absolutely no justification in either policy, the facts or common sense -- is disappointing, but not enough to vote against a candidate. If Ged UK typically does this, other editors should have similar accounts and that might be worth considering. If not, maybe I'll vote for the candidate myself. In any event, Ged UK's activity at the AfD was disappointing and I hope won't be repeated. -- Noroton (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

   It is indeed widely-accepted that all verifiable locations are inherent notable. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What a great opportunity for vandals and a maintenance burden on everyone else, as that article already has been. But I won't argue about it here. -- Noroton (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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.