Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gflores

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Gflores

[edit]

Final (91/0/0) ending 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gflores (talk · contribs) – Gflores is the most dedicated Wikipedian I have ever met and I think would make a great admin. I have never seen another user tackle tedious and thankless jobs with such ferocity, and he has the barnstars and edits to prove it. I met him through his work at the notable album list, where he created an astounding amount of infoboxes (yes he did all those and more), and I'm glad to see that he has shared his expertise elsewhere. Let's make it a little easier for him to do work like fixing links to disambiguation pages, cleaning up pages, welcoming users, reverting vandalism and warning vandals. Give him the tools to make those jobs easier before he finds out about David Gerard's law. Now before you think that Gflores is a copyeditor at worst or a technical writer at best, you should also know that he guided Antarctica to feature status in a matter of weeks and has other excellent contributions. He is a level headed guy - (1 and 2) I have implicit trust in his judgement. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Updated 14:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept. Gflores Talk 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Super-duper nominator support. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I have had the pleasure of fighting spam with this very level headed editor. Monkeyman(talk) 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Support. Computerjoe 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support--A Y Arktos 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support yes --Jaranda wat's sup 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Not enough image talk contribs....just kidding!!! Looking at edit history, this user should be a shoe in for admin!!! Mike (T C) 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great editor with whom I've had at least side-interaction with quite a bit. Surprised he's not already an admin. Staxringold 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Suppport, He's a keeper -- Samir ∙ T C 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support, one of the best. Deckiller 23:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, absolutely. Great editor who deserves the mop--Looper5920 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Of course! Sango123 (e) 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Tone 23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Great job! Keep it up! Prodego talk 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Without a doubt. --Mmeinhart 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Edits look good, amazing amount of image uploads, FA etc. I'm only wondering about the wish to work on WP:AFD closings, with only 10 votes (5 of them in 7 March) on AFD articles... feydey 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, looks great. Kusma (討論) 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, looks good to me. Make that one mop to go. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Robert 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great editor, future great admin. Deizio 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support looks ok to me --rogerd 04:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Excellent contributor, of course! —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:25Z
  25. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Perfection in a crystal glass --Patman2648 chitty chitty bang bang 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – A great editor ×Meegs 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support GizzaChat © 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Terence Ong 07:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support--Jusjih 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support sounds good, good luck. Gryffindor 10:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support excellent combination of talents.--MONGO 12:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. --Ahonc (Talk) 13:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks great. --BWD (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. KHM03 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Tireless. Ewlyahoocom 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Patman2648. Can't believe this guy isn't an admin! - Wezzo 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support, was going to nominate him, but someone got there first! Will be a fantastic admin. -- Natalya 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Ok. - Darwinek 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Definite. —Cuiviénen, 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per above. Tankred 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, meets all of my RFA criteria. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good contributor. — TKD::Talk 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support He would make a great admin. I heard he was a great vandal fighter. Whopper 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Khoikhoi 04:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Amazingly hard-working, truly dedicated Wikipedian. Walkerma 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Any reason not to support? --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: --Bhadani 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:47, 11 March 2006
  53. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Moe ε 18:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support deeptrivia (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support. Maurreen 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. User:Go for it!/Vote Support With a nom like that, who could refuse? I'm impressed. Give him another 3 jobs. --24.18.171.99 19:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per above. VegaDark 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Great job. pschemp | talk 01:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. --Alan Au 03:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per nomination. --Elkman - (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Oh yeah! Raven4x4x 08:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support! I'm convinced by the nomination. He's done great work for us already, and I like how he gives attention to WP:1.0 on his user page. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - RexNL 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support despite a troubling lack of image discussion. Just kidding. Great candidate. ProhibitOnions 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. This one is a no-brainer. Cynical 11:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support this very fine editor. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support -per nomination Abögarp 19:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Very qualified. (On another note, 74 is my lucky number!) JaredW! 20:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. (I've always felt extreme indifference to the number 75.) Flowerparty■ 23:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - my second bandwagon vote in a row from the look of my contribs, but have noticed this editor many times for their quality edits. - dharmabum 08:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Yep, me too! Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support no brainer.Gator (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Dedicated editor. --Fang Aili 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Macropode 03:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - without a doubt --Mmeinhart 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support From his work on the Wikipedia 1.0 project, I know he's dedicated and hardworking, definitely the kind of person you'd trust with the mop and bucket.--Shanel 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Jonathunder 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support another good editor up for adminship. --Alf melmac 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support and good luck. Hiding talk 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, as it appears he is in what appears to be a wave of excellent users applying for adminship. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support-- Appears to be a good prospect ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. With the waves of opposition in this RfA, I fear my vote might seem of little consequence. Harro5 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Ugur Basak 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Good candidate, solid contributor. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Don't mean to pile on here... – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. For sysop specific tasks, I'll mainly focus on WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, but I'll periodically help out moving pages and closing WP:AFD. This may change once I become more experienced as an administrator.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've been involved in many aspects of WP, so it's difficult to specify just one special article. I think my biggest contribution was bring Antarctica from practically a stub to FA status. Other contributions I'm proud of are expanding core topics such as Toy, museum, and Andes mountains for WP:1.0. To combat systematic bias, I improved Mexico-related articles by adding content to Cantinflas, and Literature and Cinema of Mexico. More "fun" tasks involve greeting new users, helping out at #wikipedia-bootcamp, fixing typos and cleaning dab pages.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. As a user who tries to conform to the Manual of Style and other guidelines, I've had a few minor conflicts dealing with dab pages and wikilinking, but getting a second opinion has usually resolved the situations. Other than than that, there hasn't any edit wars. I bring all conflicts to the talk page to avoid any escalation of hostility and I think my assuming good faith also helps, too.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    I would bring it up in WP:ANI to get some input from other admins and then use WP:CHECK to confirm the editor is using a sockpuppet. Then I would add the {{sockpuppetProven}} tag to the editor's userpage.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    I would immediately speak to said admin. Depending on the vote count and article, I'll get some feedback from those who voted and contact other admins not involved the the speedy deletion.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    Well, if he vandalizes my userpage, I consider that a serious offense, especially considering the fact he's been blocked before and is acting hostile. I would consider a temporary block. I'd assess if the articles do, in fact, deserve to be speedily deleted. If so, then the user is in the wrong. However, if the anon has a good reason to keep, I'll give him another warning for his vandalism and comments and try to sort out our differences.
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    First, I would try to convince them that RFC may help the conflict. Depending on specifics, I think I would respect the admin's decision to block, as I think they need to cool down a bit. I would follow the case and present any relevant evidence to ArbCom. If need be, I'd request assistance from other admins.


The above 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/Gflores&oldid=1089066026"