Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gimmetrow

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

Gimmetrow

edit

Closed as successful by Cecropia 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC) at (68/8/0); Scheduled to end 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) - Gimmetrow has been editing since May 2006. A invaluable resource for templates, Gimmetrow has been involved in the creation and refinements of many of the common article templates, with the article history template being a particularly fine example. Gimmetrow created and operates GimmeBot, which maintains the article history templates of Featured and Good Articles. He is also a GA reviewer and helps with the Heraldry portal. In all, a technically-expert, helpful and conscientious editor. Tim Vickers 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom: Since May 2006, Gimmetrow has contributed over 14,000 edits (6,000 mainspace) to about 6,000 pages. He has a featured article—Ecclesiastical heraldry—to his credit, but he has also been active in eliminating backlogs at Good articles and helping maintain that process. He has been an integral part in cleaning up talk pages and maintaining the featured and good article templates. He created the {{Articlehistory}} template to track article events such as AFDs, peer reviews, "Do You Know", good article and featured article events. He also operates GimmeBot, which updates talk page templates and archives articlehistory events. He's regularly involved in vandal fighting bio articles, for example at Jennifer Lopez. Whether on a technical, policy, copyright or editing question, or just straightening out a mess, I've found he's usually on the problem before I'm aware it's a problem. He brings a blend of technical and writing skills to his work, and is a civil and conscientious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thanks! Gimmetrow 02:41, 8 November 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: I expect my immediate use will be editing protected templates, and I will follow protected page requests and protected edit requests. I could see some AIV and CSD work down the road.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've worked on articles, templates, and scripts. The featured article was satisfying, but fixing up Ravi Shankar (poet) at AfD was also important. Among the templates, I think {{US Demographics}} reduced one big source of tricky vandalism over 50 articles; my contribution was the template code. I run a number of scripts which handle repetitive tasks for the FA and GA processes, freeing time for reviewers.
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: Of course I've had conflicts over the time I've been editing, but I only recall getting stressed over one. The other editor was blindly reverting any edits I made to the article. I tried communicating on the editor's talk page and the article page. At some point, I quit editing the article for a month. The article is now deleted. I'm involved in an ongoing conflict on the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline. This is a small part of a bigger dispute over the place of the Manual of Style in Wikipedia about which details should be prescribed, which recommended, and which left open, but recent discussion shows hope.
4. An 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?--MONGO 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: If I disagree with a block, unless it's obviously wrong (such as a clear typo), I would ask the other admin if there's something more to it, and to reconsider. If I wasn't satisfied with that, I would start a discussion on WP:AN/I. I'll adhere to policy should unblocking come up.
5 Optional question from SJP Do you admit that trying to add Islam to the list of cults was a wrong action? Also, if you believe it was a mistake, what have you learned from it? Thanks for your time:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 13:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A There are longstanding issues with how groups have been listed on that page. I'm quite sure I didn't try to *add* it to the "list of cults" page, because I was trying to get mainstream groups *removed*. The list at the time accepted any single reference using the word "sect", even if it meant just "denomination". This resulted in having Sunni and Christianity listed with Branch Davidians as if they were all "cults" in the same sense. I think that's misleading, but it came out of the criteria for the list as they were at the time. We discussed various changes; the editors eventually decided to include only religious groups formed since 1920, which fixed some of the problems but caused others. The lesson I learned is that the problems with this article don't seem solvable.
Optional 2 questions by Mr.Z-man - answer as if you were an admin. Mr.Z-man 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. An IP is reported to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning. Looking at the talk page, contributions, and block log, you see that the IP has not vandalized after the most recent final warning, but has been given many other final warnings and has just finished a 2 month block for vandalism. You also see that the IP has not made any edits in over 12 hours. What do you do and why?
A. Normally, if an IP has not vandalized after a recent final warning, and is not active in the last hour or so, it shouldn't be blocked: the vandal spree has ended and a different user may get the IP next. But if this is a seemingly fixed IP with a long history of vandalism, with similar vandalism immediately after a block expires, and without constructive edits, it merits another long-duration softblock as a persistent vandal. Some school IPs are incorrigible. I believe AIV reports comparable to this scenario have resulted in blocks. Still, blocking isn't really my interest right now; before I get involved I will read up on current practice and check with other admins on how these cases are handled.
7. A page is tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) and it is quite clearly overly promotional. However, the article is about a major company that is definitely notable and the article has been around for over a year. What do you do and why?
A. A notable company should have an article. I would remove the CSD notice and the blatant advertising, check history for a good version, and if necessary, reduce the article to a stub.

General comments

edit

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

Discussion

edit
Support
edit
  1. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as nominator Tim Vickers 02:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — basically per noms. Your work is excellent. Good luck! --Agüeybaná 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot is great, too, BTW ;-) --Agüeybaná 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Majoreditor 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support He's a good editor, always improving the quality of articles, and offering opinions on GA and FA candidates. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very much yes. Daniel 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He seems like a solid editor, with a strong record of contribs, who is able to keep a cool head during tense discussions. K. Scott Bailey 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Solid editor, extremely helpful with articles. Even the username means "trust me". Hell yes. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:26, 08 November 2007 (GMT)
  9. Support as someone familiar with the situation that Pmanderson is pointing to below I assure you that Gimmetrow is part of the solution and not part of the problem. --JayHenry 03:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Already thought you were an admin Support - Wonderful editor. Lara❤Love 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. + Sure thing. Tom's had a busy day. Keegantalk 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Whoa, GimmeBot? Gotta be among the most useful bots I've come across. :) Great user, happy to give my support. ~ Sebi 05:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, as co nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, per Tim Vickers and after reading the WP:Footnotes talk page. Looks like good admin material to me. R. Baley 06:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support—If anyone has been working in the background to make WP a better place, it's Gimmetrow. Major contributions, excellent editor. Footnotes: YES. Well done, Gimmetrow. Tony (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Very succinct answers to the questions. :P GlassCobra 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support and about time too. Major contributions to our project. Marskell 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Ja. Jmlk17 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, no concerns whatsoever. Neil ☎ 12:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Ceoil 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Great editor. The thing with putting Islam on the list of cults was bad, but it happened a long time ago. We all make mistakes. I have made a lot of mistakes on wikipedia, and have learned from them. That is what counts. If you make a mistake, and learn from them, then the mistake is not really a big deal. It is only a big deal when you do not learn a thing from them. Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support solid editor. Johnbod 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - some concerns, but will trust the user to use admin tools for template work at first, and only gradually expand into other areas. Carcharoth 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - regarding this edit, I believe that this user can make informed and just decisions appropriately. Rudget Contributions 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Yet another editor surprised that Gimmetrow is not an admin already. Concerning the opposes below, I also favour a manual of style that is less prescriptive on minor points, but I find this discussion irrelevant to the adminship question. Geometry guy 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Peter Andersen 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support this well-qualified editor for adminship. Great bot, too. Coemgenus 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support because "Gimme trow" means trust me, and well, I do. This editor has a HUGE number of edits to his count, from pop music to heraldry. One case of marginal edit-warring (not, as alleged, even close to a 3RR violation) does not warrant withholding "the mop."[1] Bearian 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I have observed Gimmetrow's contributions for a while, and can vouch for his ability to handle the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Gimmetrow is elequent in his discussion of controversial topics (see [1]).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak support The "edit warring" pointed out by Septentrionalis could have been better handled with discussion, but is not sufficiently troubling to me for an oppose. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. The infrastructure building outweighs my concerns with opposes below. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The oppose argument seems to me as an incorrect construction of what occurred. I do not see sufficient evidence to not trust this user. SorryGuy 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support great answers to my questions. If an IP has a history of vandalism and previous blocks, it is perfectly safe to assume that they will continue unless blocked. The answer to number 7 is exactly what I did in the same situation. Mr.Z-man 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom --DHeyward 05:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No issues. Phgao 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. per the opposes. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Remember, Adminship isn't that big of a deal. He/She is minimally qualified (in my book, anyway). --Sharkface217 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom. --Bloodzombie 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support--MONGO 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Editor does good work, and opposes aren't convincing enough for me. Pagrashtak 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. An excellent editor, trustworthy, and calming. Will make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. For once so many good RFAs out there in such a long time, long overdue This is a Secret account 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support - The reason for the "support" is because of his edit history. The reason for the strong support is because I was very happy with the answers he gave. --businessman332211 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support He is a solid editor and dedicated to the project.Balloonman 09:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I see no cause for concern from this candidate. A cool head definitely has value for an admin. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Wait a minute, I thought you're admin already! OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. All my interactions with Gimmetrow have been positive. I don't see cause for concern with the supposed revert warring; the edits/reverts were not very disruptive, and the discussion page was the main venue for the dispute.--ragesoss 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I thought Gimmetrow was already an admin?! It's about damn time! ;-) Dr. Cash 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I am not persuaded by the Oppose arguments, though they do bring up a somewhat bumpy series of exchanges. After looking at the diffs I don't think it was an abuse. All is well aside from one hiccup... --Ling.Nut 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I've seen nothing but positive contributions to the project. ♫ Cricket02 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - great stuff. This is a great user with high levels of ability. Lradrama 10:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Support - Evidence of edit-waring given below is slightly concerning, but in fairness it's not as bad as most edit-waing I've seen. Also, the answer to question one is a little weak. These aside, however, I feel that this user is a suitable candidate for adminship. TheIslander 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. The concerns brought below don't convince me that he would be a net asset to the project. Someone had to deal with that footnote silliness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean "wouldn't". — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah. That's what happens when I edit after waking up. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Anti-opposition support. Ridiculous. Every sensible user would revert an edit like this one, esp. by renowned (not to say infamous) warrior-editor User:Pmanderson. Even though Gimmetrow didn't, I can understand everyone who would lose their cool in dealing with that guy's habitually aggressive singlemindedness. Everything about Gimmetrow's contribs seems alright, therefore supporting to help cancel out the baseless opposes. — Dorftrottel⁠ 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Reasons left by opposers are unconvincing. Tim Q. Wells 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support All I have read and my limited interactions with Gimmetrow make me believe he will do a fine job as an admin Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support An outstanding candidate, will do a fine job. - Modernist 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support should be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support More admins needed. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Gimmetrow's (and Gimmebot's) work is invaluable. Opposes notwithstanding, I'm confident he won't abuse the tools. Call it trust :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support — Save_Us_229 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. —Scott5114↗ 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. A fine user. Acalamari 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Good editor=good admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. I hope Gimmetrow will take onboard the concerns of the opposers but, on balance, I think he will make a good adminstrator. WjBscribe 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose A cool head? Look at this display of revert warring, against several other editors, on WIkipedia:Footnotes. To add to the silliness of it all, he is revert-warring, first on the earth-shaking matter that foornotes must come after punctiation intead of letting each article decide the matter, and then on the even sillier claim that this poll shows a vast difference in numbers between the party that agrees with him and the party that would prefer to treat such matters like color/colour. Really, we have enough busybodies as admins; we don't need another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of COI, perhaps? And I looked at your "evidence" and I never once saw Gimmetrow lose his cool. The only even iffy thing was labeling one change as "bizaar", and that was simply accurate. And for the record, he was right, and you were wrong. Not that that matters, as he didn't lose his cool, but the fact remains. K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let others judge whether pushing 3RR for days is compatible with perfect coolth. It shows to me the deleterious habits fostered by GA, which are especially undesirable for adminship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The deeper I look into that "controversy", the worse you look. You claim that Gimmetrow was "pushing 3RR for days." This is demonstrably untrue, and should be withdrawn with an apology. He has come close once since 27 October. In fact, what you intended as a rationale to oppose this candidate (whom I have never interacted with before this RfA) actually strengthens my reasons for support. He remained VERY cool in the face of controversy, and did not in fact, do ANYTHING wrong. Thanks for bolstering the case of this fine candidate with your link. K. Scott Bailey 04:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PMA has a point here. Nobody involved in conflicts like the one at Footnotes come out looking good. Opposes based on this are understandable, but I rather object to PMA's characterization of this conflict as if it were me against the world. Gimmetrow 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. My main point was the same as yours. He is seriously mischaracterizing the nature of conflict, which I felt was unfair. If you have no problem with people basing their opposes on this, though, I will withdraw my responses. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two (roughly equal) sides; Gimmetrow upholds one of them. I don't see that I have said anything else. Right at the moment, and during the episode of <er>brisk editing here cited, Gimmetrow alone upheld the standard of his side, and did so by repeatedly reverting different attempts at compromise by different editors; it is not clear that he violated the letter of 3RR, but he did bend its spirit. I think, and have said, that his position on the issue also shows a weak understanding of policy - insofar as he says that a obsolete consensus must be retained (and therefore presented as consensus) until there is consensus against it; but the arguments there are at WT:FOOT#Straw men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If "there are two (roughly equal)" (though they were NOT "equal") sides, then the side arguing for change bears the burder of proof. You proved nothing but that you held a strong opinion on the issue. Sorry, but that's not enough to change policy. That is why I say that Gimmetrow comes out of that mess looking better than you. Stare decisis on policy apart from compelling evidence for change. K. Scott Bailey 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I have been ambivalent, but this "defense" is offensive. In fact, the one making a change has the burden of proof, and individual freedom is status quo. Someone wishing to impose a rule on our editors had better demonstrate strong consensus before trying to tell people that they are writing articles improperly. The disturbing thing about this "defense" is that it carries with it, over and over again, the tacit assumption that there is a being right that will somehow compensate for limiting the freedom (and anarchy) of our construction, that there is an ideal -- one not approved nor even clearly or cleanly delineated -- which is so desirable that trampling on contributors in its pursuit is permissible. That worries me in an administrator. A 3RR violation wouldn't bother me, but zealots are bothersome company to keep. Geogre 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PManderson believes that anybody who works on the GA process is by default unqualified to be an admin. He is biased and looks for reasons to oppose---often such that they are totally unfounded.Balloonman 09:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - only interaction with him was at List of cults, where he used some bizarre arguments to justify calling all Muslims, Sunni or Shi'a as cult members. Appreciate this was last year, but no mention of this dispute in his answer to Q3. Also, looking at the links provided regarding footnotes, there are similar problems - edit warring that pushes to 3RR and continuous discussion on talk pages without ever compromising. Addhoc 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Edit warring" is a VERY bad faith assumption about that exchange. And you're making the same assumption that the above user made, with the "pushes 3RR" claim. He only got CLOSE one time, and even then, he was in the right, and trying to solve the problems created by the above opposer's continual reverting of evidenced contribs. K. Scott Bailey 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're entitled to your opinion. And for that matter entitled to use CAPS and bold a lot if you think that helps. However, looking at the edit history I consider the view that he reverts too much, and should compromise more often, to be reasonable. Addhoc 13:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I used caps twice and bolded once. That hardly equates to "often" your assertion to that effect simply further illustrates what I was pointing out in my post. K. Scott Bailey 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - based on red flags noted above Keepscases 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Keepscases. Ceoil 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one who's requesting adminship. Keepscases 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's pointing out how quickly you vote between RfAs, which puts into question how much you look into the candidate before making your judgement. Lara❤Love 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the impression I got as well. K. Scott Bailey 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, though I disagree with Keepscases, there does seem to be at least an hour between RfA's. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but you're wrong. He took 1-3 minutes between votes in more than one case, including this one, which is very suspicious. K. Scott Bailey 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People can take as long as they like to decide. It only took me fifteen minutes. User:Veesicle 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And other people have the right to assume that when one takes between 1-3 minutes to state a categorical oppose, that the opposing editor might not have been very well-informed when placing that oppose. K. Scott Bailey 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, the archives of Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults worry me. I find the evidence above showing how he games 3RR worrying as well. User:Veesicle 16:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read trough Archives 6 and 7 of that page (GR cults) and didn't see anything other than someone trying to arrive at clear standards for a (contentious) list. Your take on it was different? R. Baley 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should look at the actual diff about 3RR. He only even came CLOSE, one time. That's hardly "gaming" it. K. Scott Bailey 23:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what gaming is. User:Veesicle 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, your whole "but he was right" defence just makes it worse; it doesn't matter who was in the right, if he was really supported by consensus someone else would have come along and reverted for him. I don't want admins who insist that consensus is on their side and edit war anyway. Just because someone doesn't technically break 3RR, does not mean they are not edit warring. User:Veesicle 13:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very weak oppose, leaning towards support (I feel like an idiot opposing this user) Reading the above comment made it easy to vote this one. NHRHS2010 talk 16:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi NHRHS, I hope I don't seem like I'm badgering! Are you sure you looked at these situations closely? Gimmetrow's actions are, in my opinion, being rather misrepresented by the comments above, so I encourage you to actually examine the two discussions (if you haven't already) and see if you really do agree. --JayHenry 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. A close reading of all the above reasoning for the opposes actually exonerates Gimmetrow. K. Scott Bailey 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - revert warring is unacceptable in an administrator, and I believe that the first oppose demonstrates the validity of the concern. Nihiltres(t.l) 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew this would happen. People see the words "revert warring" (used inappropriately by the first opposer), and they oppose per that faulty reasoning. It wasn't "revert warring", guys! Look at the diffs the very opposer who called it that posted. It was Gimmetrow standing up for established consensus in the face of a few editors trying to overturn it per nothing but their opinions. K. Scott Bailey 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure everybody has read the discussions on the Footnotes talkpage, that accompanied the attempt to change the policy, KSB, but people can see the same event in different lights, so the opposers are entirely entitled to their opinions - even though it is one I do not share. Tim Vickers 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it isn't clear, Kscottbailey, I am opposing, having read the history of that page, because of edit warring, not because the candidate was right or wrong to revert to some particular version. I completely understand that in some cases, one person in an edit war is right, and the other wrong. This does not, however, excuse the edit warring in and of itself. As an admin, one has the possibility of warring over admin actions or using them in edit wars (both of which are very, very bad), so users who edit war should not be given the mop. I also otherwise wish the candidate good luck :) Nihiltres(t.l) 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using admin buttoms when involved in a situation is a quite different issue, and a direct abuse of admin buttons. That's just not going to happen, any more than PMA used admin buttons to block or protect during PMA's own "brisk editing" at WP:FN. Likewise, while WP:WHEEL has some relation, I can only see one likely situation where I might want to reverse an admin action: a vandal block I disagreed with. I've seen IPs get immediate level4 warnings for changing text, although a quick search found a good source supporting the change. But should that situation arise, the blocking admin would be online and able to respond. Gimmetrow 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Nihiltres, and some not so wonderful impressions of the candidate. Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per evidence of recent and significant revert warring, merely one day before this RFA discussion began. John254 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
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.
  1. ^ This is another term for adminship. I had to add a footnote. :-)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gimmetrow&oldid=1149967786"