Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scott Gall 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Scott Gall[edit]

final (0/20/0) ending 00:00 4 March 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. RickK 06:48, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC). Only been here since December 3. Question VfD votes. (and I'm not refering to the positions he takes, but his take on the article in question) RickK 06:48, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too inexperienced with only ~360 edits, leading to e.g. him adding the self-nomination in the wrong nomination-by-others section. Also, on a personal note, the You have new messages. line on his user page looks exactly like the regular new-message note, and this somehow annoys the heck out of me, despite the later disclaimer on his user page. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Far too soon. No reasoning given for self-nom either. User:Anárion/sig 07:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. edit: I still feel that you lack the experience and maturity to be an admin, but thank you for modifying your user page. Rhobite 18:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. No. Judging from his user page: very insensitive, and sees admins primarily as enforcers instead of janitors. Lots of harsh promises. This user obviously is far too inexperienced and doesn't know yet how this community works. Lupo 07:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sorry Scott, but I can't support you. I think you can make useful contributions to Wikipedia, but you don't have the empathy with others to make a good admin.-gadfium 08:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. No way. CryptoDerk 09:33, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sorry, man. I'm not sure you're ready for it. And what if you're involved in an edit war, relating to homosexuality? Could we honestly expect you to truly take both sides, as you pledge to on your user page? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. I agree with the points made by others. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  10. An... interesting... new user. Doesn't seem to push his POV in the main article space (ironic I'm saying this considering my stance on Nazis...), but haven't checked that carefully. However, based on his user page I'm going to have to oppose. I think he might have some issues with his biases, seems to have an enforcement mentality to adminship, seems a bit new, I think our Islamic wikipedians might question his imparitiality. That and he's never had an conflict in editing: sorry, but an admin has gotta do their time in the controversial articles to let us see how well he works with some fairly hard to deal with contributors. If he's not had a conflict and we can't see how he conducts himself then I'm not sure I want to take a risk on making him an admin. Oppose. Maybe come back later (like in 6 months). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. The "gays are wrong" thing is just a little too over the top for me...I'm not thoroughly convinced that you can edit with impartiality, like Rhymeless has noted. Mike H 11:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for the same reasons as Rhobite. Very poor humour at best. Rama 12:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. The already-demonstrated questionable taste, maturity, and (especially) attitude towards adminship all make me think he's not ready yet. Perhaps later. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. — Matt Crypto 18:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  15. Edit count is too low, in my view. JuntungWu 10:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose because of both his attitude to adminship and his dubious politics, let alone his low edit-count. Rje 16:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Strongly Oppose. I will not support anyone who mentions the status of their foreskin in the introductory paragraph of their user page. This does not demonstrate maturity or good judgment. Carrp | Talk 19:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. Neutralitytalk 21:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. As he is only 16 years old, I think he might be a bit young, and his User page does nothing to reassure me that he is more mature than his years. On the contrary... --BM 21:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  20. Does not meet my new admin criterion, jguk 14:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. This is a special case. Given his medial condition, this person might have difficulities in performing the duties, especially in handling conflicts, if given the adminship. This is probably true no matter how many edits he has.
    370 edits is certainy not enough, IMO.
    Come back later, and if someone nominates him (and someone is willing to mentor him), I am willing to offer my support. SYSS Mouse 03:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Edited by posterSYSS Mouse 03:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    His medical condition? Are you referring to Asperger's? Correct me if I'm wrong, but most people with Asperger's function, for the most part, like anyone else. Mike H 04:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    If anything, Scott's Asperger's might mean he'd be an excellent admin because he'd likely be good at seeing the core issue of any given situation. He just needs a bit more experience in handling other editors, and that's probably an age factor as much as anything else. SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    Asperger's, to my knowledge, changes little in a person's function. In fact, the most important symptom is often a nonverbal learning disability (they can talk circles around a college English professor, but have more difficulty putting together jigsaw puzzles). It may also make it more difficult for them to interact socially, but the effects are, as noted above small. People with Asperger's are different, yes, but not so different that people who interact with that person will notise it much. [[User:Ingoolemo|User:Ingoolemo/Sig]] 02:18, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  2. I was about to vote in opposition, but the more I read his user page the more I liked the kid. I think he has the potential to be a great admin, but granting the flag just now might, frankly, be dangerous. A.D.H. (t&m) 19:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Scott points out on his user page that he has Asperger's Syndrome. He isn't being intentionally insensitive with some of his remarks; he's simply being straightforward and factual, in his view. Scott is probably a great NPOV editor. SlimVirgin 21:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • From your user page: For the three months before I created my account, I made some anonymous edits. I still make anonymous edits when I have the time. Can you give us a link to your IP address? --Lst27 (talk) 12:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm on a dynamic IP address, which means that if you disconnect and reconnect, usually after you've been blocked, you will get a new IP address. Scott Gall 02:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would deal with vandalism and edit wars, and page protection and deletion whenever needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. It's a difficult question. I would have to say all of them, I shouldn't be favoring one contribution over another - it constitutes bias.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. There was this series of anonymous IPs a couple of weeks ago. They posted religious nonsense on Wikipedia under the name Robin Donald. I reported him to the vandalism in progress and one administrator says he took up the chase and blocked the joker. I will not have to get admin attention anymore if my request is approved - there's this phrase in Maori: 'kia kaha,' meaning 'be strong' - if I'm after a vandal, I will keep an eye on that specific vandal and if he gets too far, I'll just block him.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Scott_Gall_2&oldid=1186890278"