Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2

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

Gordonrox24

Final (14/28/16); Closed by Rlevse at 00:38, 08 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs) – Hello everybody! Once again I am here at RFA offering my service in the role of administrator here on the English Wikipedia. Since my last RFA in May I have learned a great deal about the policies and coming and goings of Wikipedia. I have done article work in the areas of video gaming via the Roblox article, and a lot of work in the area of Canadian Motorsports through the Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame article. In addition to this I have continued to counter vandalism and have started to patrol new pages in earnest. I also shared some time with the Simple English Wikipedia creating and editing numerous articles there. In the half year that I have been an editor here I believe I have earned the trust of the community, and I feel that entrusting me with the bit would be a net gain for the encyclopedia. I thank you for any questions you may have. If you wish for me to explain anything in more detail feel free to ask!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:57, 1 August 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 I spend a fair bit of time fighting vandalism, If given the bit I would be spending some time at WP:AIV as well as continuing to patrol new changes and new pages. I would also like to continue to work with Speedy Deletion candidates and in AFD discussions as I currently spend some time there.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A: My main contributions to Wikipedia lie in Vandal fighting and the area of Canadian Motor sports. I have become very reliant on tools like WP:ROLLBACK and WP:TWINKLE in reverting vandalism, and I am currently working on getting better coverage for all Canadian drivers who have been inducted into the Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame. I also spend a large amount of time patrolling recent Changes and New pages.

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: My only real conflict was in April when I first started editing daily at WP. I put a WP:PROD tag on the Joseph Armand Bombardier article because it had no references and was poorly written. I think this was actually my first edit in the article space. This obviously made many editors mad and I was sure set straight. Complete ignorance of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, and very sheltered experience at the time is what led to that happening. 100% my fault. Other then that I haven't had that many problems with any other editors. Most are pleasant to work with and very understanding. For disputes yet to come all you can do is be fair, be nice, show some clue and work it out together.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

4. Please explain your understanding of fair use on Wikipedia

A:Hey, thanks for the early question. I have only limited experience with the media being used on Wikipedia and don't plan an spending much time working with images and other files at any time in the future, but I will try my best to explain how Fair use works here on enwp. Per the United States copyright law and the Fair use doctrine we are allowed to use a limited amount of copyrighted works without consent from the copyright holder, but only if we are using the media in the areas that are allowed. These areas being scholarship or for the reviewing of the copyright material. Here at WP we have come up with 10 very strict guidelines that are followed in using the Non-Free content described in the Fair Use Doctrine. So in using this content we are very limited to these ten rules. Each image must appear in at least one article, it may not be on a DAB page, it must help the reader further understand the topic being discussed, it must have been previously published somewhere off wiki, and the content may also only be used in a place where it is impossible to find a picture or other media file that is free content. We also need to ensure that the media follows Wikipedias other guidelines for that type of media (eg WP:Image use policy) and that we use the lowest resolution that would still convey the message trying to be sent. I think that is all, but as I said I have very limited experience in this area and do not plan on taking any administrative actions in this area.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. In your area of counter-vandalism: imagine someone posts a shocking picture on many talk pages, they keep using different IP addresses. How can this be counteracted?

A: Once again, thanks for the question. Obviously these images would have to be removed from the pages and reports would eventually be filled at WP:AIV. After seeing the same behavior from IP that look similar I would assume the administrator dealing with this would ask a WP:CHECKUSER to investigate through WP:SPI. If the IPs are found to be the same either through the discussion at WP:SPI or through a checkuser investigation a rangeblock may be issued to stop the persons operating the range of IP's that are posting these images. A rangeblock should really not be used unless it is a dire situation as it may affect more then the intended persons, but the checkuser report should help eliminate blocking more editors then we have to. It would probably just be easier to block each offending IP for a short period of time and it would probably discourage the person enough to make them stop their disruption.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2

6. Can you explain what you were thinking when you made this deletion request? Thank you.

A: Hey. I saw a corporate history section in a piece that had open links and was poorly written. I thought it sounded promotional which was an obvious mistake. I believe that was tagged on the same date as I entered my last RFA which closed due to my lack of experience. This shows that at that time the community made the correct decision in asking me to become more involved and gain more experience. I doubt you will find a tag placed that foolishly since then.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Kingpin¹³ (talk)

7a. Please explain all of the actions you would take (as an administrator), and why, in these scenarios. Firstly, a user (User:Vandal) is reported to AIV by a fairly new user (User:New). Vandal created a page about their band, which met CSD A7, New tagged the page for deletion under A7, and warned Vandal with {{nn-warn}}, and it was deleted. Vandal recreates, New tags and warns with {{nn-warn}}, page is deleted again. Vandal then leaves an attack on New's talk page (something typical about parent's basements, and "stop deleting my pages"). The next day New logs in, removes the attack, and immediately reports to AIV.

A: Hey. Depending on the attack I may or may not be a bit lenient here but looking at your example I would probably block for 12 hours. If the editor hadn't left the attack, and assuming that the new editor is very new and doesn't know about WP:WHYNOT I would probably leave the "vandal" a self written warning directing him to WP:WHYNOT and asking him not to edit in areas where he has a Conflict of Interest. After I have given him a little heads up, if he continues to create this inappropriate article, then I would have to give a block. I don't like to have blocks given to IPs if they create one or two inappropriate articles as long as the article has a decent subject (Like a band) as they usually don't know all the policies of WP. I would only reserve a block for an IP that after multiple warnings still continues to be disruptive.

7b. While on CAT:CSD patrol, you come across a page with this content: "haha, i is relly kol. i mk teh bst vids on utube!". It has been marked for deletion under CSD G1 by a relatively new editor. And the creator has been warned with {{Db-nonsense-notice}}.

A: I would defiantly delete that, but not under WP:G1. I would delete under either WP:G2 or WP:G3. I would then go to the creators talk page and given him my explanation as to why that page was deleted, informing him not to create pages like that again. Then I would go to the tagging user's talk page and inform him I have deleted the article. I would also request that he take a look at WP:CSD to get to know the criteria a little better.

8. What's your view on admins notifying users when the admin deletes a page, that the user had previously marked for speedy deletion under a different CSD than the one the admin deletes under? P.S. Hope all the questions make sense, and best of luck with the RfA :).

A: Hey, I actually said I was going to do this in my above answer. I think it is a good idea. The admins actions should be open to see, nothing to hide. The user should know it was deleted, and should also be informed as to why the tag he added was not the tag the article was deleted under. Knowledge is power, and informing user what they have done wrong is the only way the user is going to learn.

Additional optional questions from John Vandenberg

9. In answer to Q2 you say that patrolling is how you spend a lot of your time.
On your userpage you have a comical tag "An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page...". (also used by User:harej and others)
In as much detail as you can, please provide a few examples of where you have patrolled a new page, or a recent change, and actively assisted the contributor rather than simply tagging the page.

A: One of the articles that I helped out on is Charles Tersolo. To find more I would have to dig through my patrol log. I use that tag as it is the terrible truth about the actions of many editors, including myself when patrolling. We all find it much easier to add a tag then to actually fix the article ourselves. When I am patrolling New pages it is either to just hit "Mark as Patrolled" on articles that are already good, or to add a CSD tag or to open up an AFD discussion. I try to avoid adding tags, and will often leave an article un-patrolled if it is not up to standards. I am not a very good author, so I stick to what I enjoy. Deletions and discussions instead of article writing.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, it is necessary to do some quick fact checking before slapping on a CSD tag or marking as patrolled. I'd like to see a few more examples like your improvements to Charles Tersolo, if you can find the time.
I notice that you didn't welcome 2929ed (talk · contribs). Do you think welcoming new users helps? Have you welcomed a new user while patrolling new pages? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is no doubting that. Looking at my AFDs and CSD tags it looks as if a great number of them are deleted. I will try to get some more examples up. I have not welcomed new users while new page patrolling, but I have on numerous occasions welcomed new users while recent change patrolling. See User talk:Mokbi128, User talk:AldisBrowne, and User talk:Galacticos.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24
• Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2

• Links for Gordonrox24: Gordonrox24 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Gordonrox24 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gordonrox24 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support You seem to be knowning what you're doing. With the edit counters being down, I trust that you have been doing what is asked. You've also been fairly active, which is helpful for this. Good luck with the RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Not a lot of content building and a little heavy on the automated edits for my taste, but you seem to be more active in vandal-fighting, and your CSD work seems very good. Jafeluv (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Yes I do admit I rely quite a bit on my automated processes.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Support 4,000 edits is usually a bit low for me, but you seem to be perfectly clueful with plenty of work in vandal fighting and deletion, so I have no problem supporting.--Res2216firestar 02:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support, can certainly handle being opposed well and seems like a good candidate right now. --candle•wicke 04:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Is ready for the mop now. Royalbroil 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Support I am not one to advocate editcountitis, but the decisions that he has made thusfar have been great. Huggle may be automated, but it is truly helpful in preventing vandalism. He has improved articles  Marlith (Talk)  05:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, I see nothing to indicate this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
8. Support. I am not convinced by the opposers. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support based on Keepscases's oppose. You defended another editor. Although you are a little short on experience, this shows me you aren't afraid to tackle people. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Support based on Keepscases's oppose. (Refer to support above) Aditya (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I believe this editor can be trusted with the tools and as such his promotion will be a positive thing. Crafty (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Support your continued good contributions to Wikipedia. I think you will make a fine admin, even more so with a bit more seasoning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support He has done good work and can be trusted with the extra tools, and because I strongly believe that defending a fellow Wikipedian's right to freedom of conscience, and freedom from religious persecution, is at the heart of building a more civil, democratic and inclusive Wikipedia. Whether an admin or not, he has my respect, and my thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Such wonderful white knights; it's a shame you are unable to grasp what this was really about. I think I'll make a userbox with a picture of Jesus setting a rabbi on fire, with the words "ENJOY ETERNITY IN HELL, NONBELIEVER SCUM!", then cry "persecution!!" if anyone happens to have a problem with this. Keepscases (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Those userboxs, although I am not a huge fan of them convey the belief of Atheists. They think religion is a distraction from everyday life and that it is all myth. These userboxs only sate that. I am Christian, and I nor anybody I know who believes in Jesus has had any urge or desire to slay a Rabbi because of religion. That is just a very inappropriate comment.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

    Know any Christians who think all nonbelievers go to Hell? I thought so. That's my point. Atheists (and, for that matter, anyone) may believe whatever they wish, but if they choose to present their beliefs in an antagonistic and offensive manner, like my hypothetical userbox did, they have not my respect nor my vote. Keepscases (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

14. Support, I feel that I can honestly trust Gordonrox with the tools: I strongly believe they will not abuse the tools, Gordonrox always seems kind to users (e.g. Thesavagenorwegian), and shows civility on their talk page, even when other users are correcting his mistakes (e.g. altered speedy, and on this page :D). I also believe they will use the tools to help clean-up the 'pedia (they seem pretty savvy with CSD, and I recall having seen articles tagged by them. And most of their reports to AIV seem sensible, although I think Gordonrox should bear in mind that AIV is for users who are vandalising persistently at the time they are reported), and help other users to help clean-up the 'pedia :D (something their civility, and interaction with other users shows they are capable of). I'm also encouraged by the fact that Gordonrox has both autoreviewer and rollbacker rights, has never been blocked, and takes part in many discussions (e.g. RfA and AfD)
    All that said, there are some faults, nothing major enough to lead me to oppose, but that I feel Gordonrox should aim to do the following; Cut down on automated editing; there's nothing at all wrong with it, I just believe that if you do, you will find yourself becoming much more involved in community processes (I'm finding this for myself anyhow). Become more involved in AIV if you plan to work there; watch what happens to your reports (e.g. how long user's are blocked for, when they aren't blocked, and what actions (if any) are taken instead of blocking). Sort out your archives; the last two (archive 4 and 3) are named "archive 3" and "archive3". Get more experience; something which is going to happen no matter what =D.
    Overall, I think Gordonrox is ready for the tools. Unfortunately, it looks like the community is going the other way. But bear in mind that most of the opposes are concerns over lack of experience, and the so called "drama" at tedder's RfA. Both of these will fade with time, and so if you come to RfA again (should this one fail) it will likely be a much more pleasant experience. To sum up Gordonrox; a helpful user, with some minor flaws (just like all of us), who I think would greatly help the 'pedia with the tools. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not enough experience; didn't look further. Your 200^th edit goes back to April 2 – only 4 months ago. Maybe in a few more months, but I had some memories of your actions in a few places, and would have to look closer at your contributions at a future RfA. NW (Talk) 02:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair, the candidate has become a lot more active since April^[1] and already has over 4,000 edits. (You're of course entitled to your own standards, I'm just saying in case you missed something.) Jafeluv (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   I think he means that I do not have enough experience as I have amassed those 4000 edits in a relatively short period of time (4 months). I value his comment.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose. I agree with Nuclear Warfare that you don't quite have enough experience yet. 4,000 edits with a significant chunk consisting of automated edits gives me the feeling that you may be inexperienced with the inner workings of the project. Also, I am mildly uneasy with your question answers namely Q5 and 6. However, you do good work and combined with a few months more experience, you will have my full support. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. First, I think Gordonrox would be a good candidate in the future. However, attention to detail is important in administrators; when looking through his contributions from yesterday, I had to fix several errors in one of his new stubs. I can forgive missing the final n in "known" and not fixing the caps in the links, but Jacques Couture was not inducted into the Hall of Fame in 200, and the piping method for "North America's" indicates a lack of experience with Wikipedia markup. The article wasn't marked as a BLP, and incoming links intending the person with this name written about at the French Wikipedia were not fixed. I am not opposing on the basis of this example alone, but it's symptomatic of a lack of experience that will be overcome in time. If anyone objects to the scope of the objection, I'll post another example when I have more time later today. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Strongest Possible Oppose Repeatedly accused me of "racism" because I took issue with an intentionally offensive userbox (which, I might note, had nothing to do with race). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tedder Keepscases (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Come on, can you find a reason to oppose user than userboxes? There are other things we look for, you know... Shappy ^talk 20:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   I have supported and opposed RfA's based on many issues that had nothing to do with userboxes. That said, I believe a candidate's choice of userboxes often speaks volumes, and absolutely falls into the category of "contributions". Keepscases (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   "Racist" it is not, but opposing a potential admin simply because he or she displays a userbox stating membership in an atheist wikigroup is the height of intolerance and small-mindedness. There was nothing "intentionally" offensive about the userbox at all; however, I find your efforts to discredit self-identifying atheist Wikipedians not only offensive, but dangerous. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

   What I find most dangerous is your lack of reading comprehension. WikiProject Atheism chooses to display hateful userboxes on its page, and I do not believe any user connected with a hateful group should serve as an administrator. You are being very disingenuous to suggest I have anything against "self-identifying atheist Wikipedians" in general. Keepscases (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose An admin will encounter many situations that will require a broad base of experience and knowledge. This user has not sufficently demonstrated that s/he has that. A vandal fighter alone will have to deal with some nasty and unruly users; how do we know that the canidate can handle them in the correct way? --Ipatrol (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Compelled to oppose - I don't think you have attained the maturity required to be a sysop. I know you from seWP as well and there too, you've failed to satisfy my criteria. Please return after some time. Pmlineditor 10:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
7. I believe you need a little more time and experience on Wikipedia before you can become an administrator. Keep up the good work, though! iMatthew ^talk at 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Sorry. Not enough manual experience. Huggling/etc is useful and good, but you simply do not have enough experience to understand nuances of policy and guidelines as they are applied on the ground. → ROUX ₪ 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
9. A little short of experience, I think. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose, concerns about temperament and candidate could use a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
11. I'm opposing because you didn't follow the advice you got in your first RFA to get "a few" or "three" months more experience before your next RFA; it's been two months and a week. Three months is a fairly standard minimum at RFA. My position is that the community is being generous with their time and advice; it isn't generally held against candidates that they showed up early at their first RFA, and voters seem to be more than willing to devote time to giving good advice, which makes the whole thing work. I think we owe the voters the right to decide how often they're willing to provide this service. Also, although I support WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, there's a risk in letting the time-between-RFAs slide below 3 months, unless there's something special going on; a risk that it becomes a competition with some to see how fast they can nail their RFA, and a risk that different treatment for different candidates will be or be perceived as special treatment. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Keepscases diffs. Racism? Indenting his vote? Weird, weird stuff, and very recent. Tan | 39 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah I ment to give a little speech on that. It was an RFA and Keepspaces posted an oppose because the editor in question was a part of the Wikiproject:Atheism. The dictionary describes racism as :a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. Keepscase was judging the candidate based on his support of a group of people and because of a userbox that the group had created. The candidate was not using this box anywhere on his userspace and I along with many other editors who commented on that talk page felt this comment was not a direct reflection of the editors ability to be an admin and that this judgment was discriminatory to the people involved and who believe in atheism.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Atheism is not an inherent difference between various human races. Being discriminatory towards atheists is not racism. I do not agree with Keepscases's opinion on the matter, but your handling of it was (IMO) completely inappropriate. Tan | 39 18:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Then I am sorry, because I was sure that you religion or what you believe in is part of your culture. Giving a user an oppose because of a userbox made by atheists supporting their beliefs I feel is being discriminatory to the atheists.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Culture and race are two completely different things. And it was discriminatory to atheists. However, we don't indent opposition simply because we don't believe what they do. You are/were being just as discriminatory by arguing that his oppose shouldn't count. All in all, I don't really care if you carry incorrect perceptions about the definition of racism or if you want to argue away that opposition per atheism should be indented. I just think it means you aren't ready to be an admin right now. Tan | 39 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    I understand where you are coming from, but at that moment in time I felt that Keepsaces comments were completely inappropriate and irrelevant to determining whether the editor in question could perform administrative effectively. I thank you for being patient and replying to all my comments. Your opinion is valued as it will help me become an ever increasingly better editor. Thanks--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    But he was absolutely right: it shouldn't have counted, any more than an oppose to a potential admin simply because he or she displayed a userbox for a Jewish, Muslim, LGBT, or other such group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Did you even look into the situation before feeling the need to comment here? Keepscases did not oppose because the user was atheist. Tan | 39 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you'd bothered to look, you'd have found my name in the RFA vote. He opposed on the basis of a perfectly acceptable userbox stating merely that the nom was a member of an atheist Wikigroup, nothing more. Which this individual then equated with hate-speech. It was and is a baseless, ludicrous argument. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    Shawn, I challenge you to find a Jewish, Muslim, LGBT, or other such group's userbox that is intentionally disrespectful to anyone else. If you can't, maybe you'll finally understand what this is all about. Love, Keepscases (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

    I absolutely agree with Keepscases here, the Atheist wikiproject page and respective userboxes and barnstar are absolutely the most disrespectful things on Wikipedia.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose - Per Tan and Keepcases - from what I am reading, it calls into question this user's judgment. A blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes racism is just plain worrying in and of itself. I also get the sense that this user is seeking adminship for status. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose You have potential. But more experience would have caused you to quickly realize that arguing with Keepcases is akin to trying to convince the crazy guy on the train that he wasn't abducted by aliens. Some things simply aren't worth the key strokes; like trying to fight an editor who's vote is very likely ignored by the crats on a regular basis. I think that a competent editor with the potential to have the mop is easy to identify. You strike me as someone in that category. I do tend to believe that in order to effectively wield the mop, you need to have been around long enough to discern patterns of behavior so that you can mitigate the frequency with which you get duped by the crazies. Wikipedia is enormous, but we admins are really only needed to deal with a very small percentage of the project. That small percentage, however, is a magnet for drama groupies, vain glories, and imbeciles. From time to time, members of one of these groups gets elected to the admin corps and causes all kinds of problems. If you hang around for another year, that will provide a pretty quality data set on your behavior patterns and competence, and if it is positive, you'll have my support. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    haha. Thanks for your comment. They are greatly appreciated.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Gosh, Hiberniantears, and here I'd been so certain I'd have your support for my upcoming RfA. Keepscases (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

15. He's making progress, but not yet. Oppose Wizardman 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Not yet. I'm not seeing evidence of essential admin qualities, and because admins have tenure and are hard to remove, I have to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Try more participation in dispute resolution, AfD, or other discussion-related areas.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
17. My general experiences with Gordonrox24 have suggested someone with decent knowledge of Wikipedia and the best of intentions, but who is rather hasty and quick to jump to conclusions without adequate thought or evidence. Enthusiasm is good in an admin, but it needs to be tempered with more consideration and thought - I suspect he’ll make a good admin at some point, but right now I think he could benefit from some additional experience and maturity. ~ mazca ^talk 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Was going to come with a "Neutral: not yet" but that whole userbox argument pushed me into this column. Woolly thinking and sloppy arguments are two very bad properties for an admin to have. That being said, I'm not closing the door here; a future RfA from this candidate might gain my support. -- Deville (Talk) 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose: inadequate experience and hasty demeanor.. South Bay (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
20. based on the little bit of reading of diffs presented I can say that I will probably never support and always give a strong oppose. I try and imagine how I'd react if candidate ever needed to communicate with me. It's not a fun imagining. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    I fail to see how small mistakes while typing quickly affect my communication skills. If you made contact with the candidates and asked a few questions you wouldn't need to go through all the hard work of imagining.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Your answers to some questions are, frankly, incomprehensible. Your edit history shows you making many edits to correct mistakes that you've made. It's great you notice and fix, but I'm worried about the few that slip past. I've seen a couple of uses of rollback that were incorrect and that should have been reverted in some other way. See the answer to question four where you say the images should be used in "at least one article". Drama arises from poor communication. Admins should help people communicate. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose per Mazca's rationale. Plastikspork (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Ugly drama exacerbated at Tedder's RfA, in addition to poor arguments. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per some of the above concerns. I am always concerned with those that race to adminship and/or a second RFA when being told they should wait awhile before going again. -Djsasso (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Should be fine in 6 months but lack of article work is concerning. Other issues raised are also of concern. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose My opposition is related to your lack of edits; you only have 4k of which quite a few are automated(though Huggle does require that you be there for the edit). You will nonetheless make an excellent candidate in the future (a few months from now)...for now keep up the great work(and rack up some more edit points=P).Smallman12q (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Per Keepscases' diffs.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose – sorry, but the temperament issues, as well as the lack of understanding of the CSD policy and criteria take it for me. Work more on looking through Special:NewPages to get a working knowledge on speedy deletions as well as read the policy to help that knowledge along. Work on colloboration more with other editors to help build good relations with others. Hope this helps, MuZemike 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    Could you please provide a link to where Gordonrox has misunderstood CSD please? I find the majority of their CSD work to be good, although all user's who work with CSD tend to make the occasional mistake - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    This is pretty bad, though as he says he may have improved since then. --NE2 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose. I am sorry, but I can't support a candidate who got blocked during his own RfA. I am sure there was no malicious intent, and I will not hold it against you in a future RfA, but it's nevertheless an error in judgment that indicates that you are not quite ready. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No I can fully understand that. My IP got blocked dragging my account in with it. I don't expect this to pass anymore and I think that just sealed the deal.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Merovingian (T, C) 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Hmm. Agree with most of the opposes with not quite enough article building/experience for me. However, I dont think this is enough to oppose as they are a very good user and seems to have learnt from his mistakes. Bit more experience needed. AtheWeatherman 10:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral This has nothing to do with editcountis, but I just haven't seen enough discussion and involvement in admin-related areas from Gordonrox24 to demonstrate that he knows how everything works or has clue. I could be swayed if provided with convincing evidence that he does, however. hmwithτ 14:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral This one hard. I think he could be good, but maybe more experience good before him admin. — JoJo • Talk • —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
5. Some of the opposes are a bit unconvincing, but I do have a series of concerns that prevent me from supporting. –Juliancolton | #^Talk 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   can you please elaborate on you concerns? I hold you in high esteem as a great editor and admin, and any advice or comments you have would help me become an even better editor.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral Sorry! I can't bring myself to support at this time due to compelling arguments from all sides- Support, Neutral, and Oppose. Gordonrox24 is definitely a good, faithful editor, but really think he should gain some more experience first. Airplaneman ^talk 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

7. While I think 6 months is enough time to gain the experience needed of an administrator, if a majority of the time is spent huggling and using automated tools you will not get the full range of experience. I encourage you to try again for adminship later--maybe try getting more experience in different areas. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral, sorry, but I feel you need more experience with manual edits before I can support. Keep up the excellent work though, and good luck in this and any future RfAs! --Taelus (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral Good user, but more experience needed. Shappy ^talk 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral I'm sorry, but I can't support. America69 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral, but Moral Support Sorry, but I don't think your ready for the sysop tools yet, but I think you could make a good admin in the future with more experience. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Undecided at this point. I expected you to come up with some more imaginative options on what to do with the shock picture vandalism such as MediaWiki:Bad image list and edit filters. Also your experience with uploads is pretty minimal, though I found one image upload on commons! Though on the other hand I have been happy enough to delete your speedy delete taggings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    I am glad you find the work I create for you enjoyable =)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Moral Support - Get a little more experience, and I'm sure you'll do great next time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Undecided You know many rules, but I remember you added Blockland for deletion just because you play Roblox. Jeremjay24 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    I do not think that was my motive at all. That was listed to AFD before the addition of many sources including the link to the Globe and Mail. As other editors also found it worthy of deletion I fail to see that as a fair statement. Thanks for the comment though.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

15. I have seen a lot of good work from you, but I don't think that you handled the userbox discussion well. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Haha I now have a support, oppose, and neutral all because of the same incident. Thanks for the comment.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

16. I've seen a few questionable patrolling actions, but my main concern is lack of article development work. Your NASCAR articles are mostly stubs or even sub-stubs. I'm awaiting answers to the questions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:04, 5 August 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.