Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G.A.S

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

G.A.S

[edit]

Final: (58/2/0); Ended 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

G.A.S (talk · contribs) - Another slightly unusual nomination. This user is a longstanding, hardworking contributor, civil, respectful, knowledgable. He's never asked for the tools because he's never had a huge need for them, but we've argued the issue of "need for the tools" to death at WT:RFA. The fact is that this user is trustworthy, has a thorough command of deletion protocols and even if we only granted the tools to facilitate him to do his own occasional G6ing, that's a nett benefit. Incidentally, I think that this thread quite neatly encompasses a number of good admin qualities, displaying a desire to interact gently with someone causing problems, appropriate and flexible attitudes toward deletion and great civility.

So here's the question - would you trust G.A.S with the tools? Dweller (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Dweller, It is my honour to accept this nomination. Sincerely, G.A.S 17:08, 29 September 2008 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Although I do not plan on actively tackling administrative work, the administrative tools will greatly help with non-controversial maintenance. I am also aware of a frequent need – even now – for administrators at CAT:AB. While I do not plan clearing the backlog on a daily basis, a change of pace often helps to keep me motivated.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe the work at WP:ANIME (mostly article assessments and review and non-article cleanup) rate amongst my best work: I prefer to stay busy on work of a non-article nature, though I do edit articles from time to time.
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: I have been in "conflicts" in the past, but these are usually limited to a difference in opinion: I strongly believe in WP:BOLD and WP:1RR, so I would not really say that it is a conflict, per se. I prefer to have a discussion, and if we are at a deadlock, a third opinion.
Regarding stress: I prefer to remain calm during discussions, and thoroughly think about a proper response; often discarding a response if it would not resolve the issue at hand. Taking a break also helps to think things through.

Additional question from RockManQ

4 Do you agree with every wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why.
A Sorry for only seeing the question now: To be honest, I agree with the current policies, (at least last time I looked—they do seem to change from time to time;) ). They do seem well written, and even when they are not, it seems easy enough to get clarification from the relevant talk pages. I do believe though that WP:IAR should be interpreted with common sense, as some editors uses it as a blanket excuse to disregard standing policy (esp: WP:NFC).
Now if you are talking about guidelines as well; this was not always the case: I did not agree with the original rewrite of WP:FICT, as it was written very strict - resulting in a major "purge" of fiction related articles. The guideline has been changed since, to the point where I tolerated it (and after seeing some of the fiction related articles, strongly support the rewrite1 - Though the guideline does not have broad consensus at the moment.); and I do find it redundant to WP:NOTABILITY.
1 The new guideline has its advantages, note that our project has 34 featured lists, and many more in the making.
If I do not agree with a (proposed) policy/guideline, I usually take the matter up on the relevant talk page, as I believe it is everyone's duty to give their opinion, not just accept it silently.
Sometimes I do find that there are too many guidelines (often contradicting each other), but I believe that they were written with the best intentions in mind.
You didn't need to answer the question for guidelines, but it was much appricated. RockManQ (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Additional questions from VG

5. Can you describe an instance of original research you've dealt with (or at least witnessed) on an article you've edited?
A:I cannot recall a recent incidence at the moment, as Tokyo Mew Mew (which was quite subject to it) is quite stable at the moment. Collectonian is lightning fast in reverting such additions, so by the time I find it, it has already been reverted.
6. Can you list some instances where you've removed trivia from anime or manga articles?
A:Trivia currently discourages the mere removal of trivia.
7. Can you list some anime/manga character articles that you've nominated for deletion as non-notable?
A:Having read the comments below, you are abviously aware of my involvement regarding WP:FICT. It is my stance that articles should only be deleted as a last resort; as I prefer merging articles – especially non-notable ones – to a mother topic (Currently this is the method preferred by WP:FICT as well). I have initiated a few mergers (1, 2), though at the moment I am more busy calculating the extend of mergers needed (Backlog). I have also had a hand in getting over a no-hope situation regarding List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew and the individual character articles (Though I have to admit, Collectonian has done a lot of the actual work;) ). I also prefer using speedy delete or PRODS to AFD. (Though they are harder to prove, being deleted and all).
I was aware of the magnitude of your involvement in drafting guidelines based on your edit count on that page (as reported on this RfA talk page), but I did not read your ~100 edits to try and figure out the nuances of your position. So, my question was not rhetorical. Thanks for summarizing your position. VG ☎ 12:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Toddst1

8. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Wikipedia:SUICIDE is not policy).
A:A very interesting question—lucky I have not had to face that situation yet.
Without having read Wikipedia:SUICIDE, I have to mention that I am not a councilor or psychiatrist by profession, and acknowledge that I do not have the skills necessary to dissuade a person intent on committing suicide. The next step is obviously to get further advice on the matter. Having read through said essay, the steps provided seems to be the route to follow: Taking the case to the Administrators noticeboard is a good start; from there on I would more or less step into a background role–commenting on said board, but not directly to the user.
Note that the above actions would only be taken if there is no doubt whatsoever that said comment does not hold substance. (e.g. indicated by an emoticon, and by the context. Though that is still a sick joke.) G.A.S 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Jock Boy

9 What would you suggest to a user who had been editing for a long time, but due to some questionable contibs, didn't pass their RFA?
AQ What do you define as "questionable contributions"?
G.A.S 05:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
I think more time is wasted over sig discussions on RfAs than anything else. Also, how is his sig disruptive/annoying? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Nom. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Meets my criteria. MBisanz talk 17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Recommend not diving in the deep end if this RfA is successful; there's a lack of significant experience in a few areas. However, I get a good feeling that G.A.S. is mature and won't abuse admin privileges. Tan | 39 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Net positive user. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. A valuable WikiGnome. Sensible comments. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support for now. I'm logged in with my public account, so I don't have time to do my usual scrounging around, but from my cursory glance it appears the candidate will be a net positive. However, I will return with my regular account and a more solid assessment later. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to validate my previous comment above. I will indeed stick with Weak Support. Not quite as much experience as I'd like, but I think you'll be okay. For being an anime editor, I couldn't find any evidence of editing the best anime, but oh well. Useight (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I really don't see any problem with passing GAS right now. Keepscases (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – everything looks fine. Caulde 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not? iMatthew (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I'm convinced by the nomination. Maxim(talk) 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I see nothing controversial, and I'm quite partial to Wikignomes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Nothing that strikes me as concerning. I've never heard of G.A.S., however, so I'm going to watch this page closely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - great WikiGnome, especially in his work with WP:ANIME/CLEANUP. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - while I normally prefer a potential admin to have more experience in some areas and at least 10,000 edits (5,000 in the article space), in my interactions with G.A.S. through our joint work on Tokyo Mew Mew and as members of the Anime and Manga project, I have found him to have the right sort of personality and temperament to be an admin. He is very fair-minded, even tempered, patient, and has a strong sense of personal responsibility. I was actually surprised to see his edit count wasn't at the 10k mark yet, as I have often turned to him to be a voice of reason in some heated discussions or to help out where an impartial third opinion is needed. I feel certain that G.A.S. would not abuse the admin tools and would take his time to educate himself about an area before he began working in it and would make an excellent admin. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, up from Neutral Yes, I am in the right queue! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Keepscases, above. Stole my damn gas joke. Keeper ǀ 76 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Didie (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, although I recommend that you don't let it go to your head. I was first inclined to oppose per this, as the last thing we need is more elitist administrators, but upon further reflection, it's probably just naiveté rather than something more sinister. HiDrNick! 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, per response to ecoleetage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 29, 2008
  20. DAmn, you're good! Per excellency. —Sunday 20:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support excellent user as far as I can see! abf /talk to me/ 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support without any reservations. Everyme 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A good reason for wanting the tools, and sensible enough to learn about new areas before working in them. I think its better that the people who do the work behind the maintenance deletion carry them out as well, once they are known to be reliable, for they are more likely to understand the situation than some random admin checking CSD. DGG (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Very good editor. He always makes a good job.Tintor2 (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. No reason to oppose, should be a fine addition to the admin team. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Great editor. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Seems non-controversial. Bwrs (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per the opposing IP. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Realist2 at the neutral section, article work is not important for adminship. macy 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Everything looks ok. RockManQ (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. P.A.S.S. :) II MusLiM HyBRiD II 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No problems here. LittleMountain5 review! 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I see no reason not to. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The candidate has contributed to one GA and other contributions are also good. AdjustShift (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good editor, good contributions, and a good reason for the tools. --Banime (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. G.A.S has shown a high level of thoughtful judgment in my experience, so I trust he'll be similarly thoughtful as an admin. --erachima talk 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Trustworthy user, any use of the tools is a net positive, and we could use more help fighting copyvio. GlassCobra 10:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. You are way more inclusionist than I am, but that's not a reason for me to oppose you. I wish you good in luck clearing up the anime/manga articles, even though I'm skeptical that your approach will be able to keep up with influx of new stuff in that area. Anyway, for your approach to have a fair chance of succeeding, more admins active in that area are needed, hence my support. VG ☎ 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per HiDrNick. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Decent answer to a tough question that you probably will face at some point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, good outweighs the bad. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -An Experienced editor who deserves the mop - a net benefit for the project --Flewis(talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Seems to have a genuine need for the tools - in that Wikipedia has a genuine need for him to have the tools. --Smashvilletalk 21:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak Support--LAAFansign review 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support No reason demonstrated not to trust with the tools. rootology (C)(T) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I've seen quite a lot that leads me to believe G.A.S. will use the tools wisely. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support should be fine and can be trusted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Net positive. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 17:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - See my neutral comments. — Realist2 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support A good users who should benefit as an admin Ijanderson (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support – Will make a fine administrator. The opposes below don't concern me. -- RyRy (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. All interactions have been entirely positive and friendly. I have no doubt in my mind G.A.S will do an excellent job as an administrator. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support' Per my review of talkpage archives, contribs and Count - and the opinions of commentators I respect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Support A bit lower edit count (<10,000) than I normally like to see, but he seems very mature. I can't see any real problems with handing him the mop as of now. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Clueful, thorough, civil, diligent. Seems like a fine candidate for the mop. Ford MF (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. It's really a GAS. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Strong Deny This guy has really spent the time needed to be an admin, so I am not sure I trust him. It seems like he is doing all the "right things" just to be politically correct and when he gets the serious admin powers, he might use them for bad things. Anyway! We have too many admins as it is! It is causing too many problems.24.14.33.171 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered IP addresses aren't eligible to vote. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indented, please log in to !vote---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. My bad! Hopefully someone with a registered IP will take up the mantle! I'll be gone until after the High Holy Days. 24.14.33.171 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what anyone else says, this will always trump any other oppose as the most epic of all time. "He would make a great admin, it's just so suspicious!" Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See #3 here Enigma message 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the Man With The Really Long Name was at least more subtle about it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arguments are very similar, actually, and that one didn't even get indented. It basically comes down to "User looks too good/is too perfect and is doing the "right" things to get the tools and this isn't necessarily the way he'd act if he became an admin. Enigma message 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Oppose - I disagree with admins who believe there *must* be a "best way" to handle deletions or that deletion (or inclusion) is a "last resort". Some things do not belong. Merging everything ends up importing weak material to otherwise good articles that gets excised later anyway. Additionally the answer that the editor doesn't really plan to do admin related tasks leads me to question a real need for the tools. Finally? A touch weak on main space edits, especially with all the AWB edits being done. I think this is a fantastic editor and contributor and encourage them in this RfA as my single oppose is unlikely to lead to it's failing, but I can't endorse this request.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see your point about merging, I have never said that a 1:1 merge is preferred, this goes without saying, along with major cleanup. This also depends on the situation: Within the type of articles I am active, merging has historically provided really good results, i.e. List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters as opposed to the individual articles, which was often full of original research, excessive plot details, excessive fair use images, edit wars about trivial details, etc. While deletion is a good option for some articles, the situation is often complicated by the fact that such articles are transwiki'd, i.e. to Wikia. In this case we need to keep the edit history visible to comply with the GFDL; i.e. by redirecting the article to the nearest alternative (the mother article). Same goes about lists of episodes as opposed to individual articles for episodes.
    Regards, G.A.S 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to weak oppose per badgering. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. His answers, especially A1, do not meet my criteria.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral, for now The answer to Q1 seems strangely wishy-washy. The candidate is applying for adminship, but doesn't intend to be "actively tackling" the duties of an admin? The candidate doesn't plan on using the admin tools to clear the backlog, but perhaps for a "change of pace" he'll do a bit of cleaning up of the backlog? I may switch over to Support as the RfA progresses, but at the moment I don't get the impression that the candidate is enthusiastic, let alone serious, about adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should clarify a bit: Regarding the change of pace: When I take up a huge project (No. 1), I do not complete it all at once, as that gets too tedious—every so often I take up an alternative project, also of an non-article/administrative nature, and help to clear the backlog (At this time, No. 2, assessing unassessed articles within WP:ANIME's scope, and before that, tagging ~350 articles within WP:GUNDAM's scope). See it as a learning curve as well: Instead of jumping into the deep end, I prefer to get accustomed to this role one step at a time. As for serious: I am always serious about a role of responsibility. G.A.S 18:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Based on that response, I moved uptown to Support. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger article work needed for me to support, good luck. — Realist2 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I'm curious what level of article work you expect in a candidate. G.A.S. aided in pushing Tokyo Mew Mew to GA status (and nearly to FA), and certainly is well aware of the nature of article quality per his work in the assessment department and cleanup department of WP:ANIME. I know that candidates should have experience in editing articles due to how their tools affect the editing process, but not every editor needs a bucketload of articles of high quality to understand this. Just putting this out there. —sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he ever got it to FA I would support, and it's nice to see a collaborative effort too. While I don't ask for a bucket load of GA's, I would like to see more than one. — Realist2 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just noting that in many cases, especially with WikiGnomes such as G.A.S., the candidate may not have a whole lot of experience with DYK, GA, and FA, but have a clear grasp of article quality and what goes into editing due to gnoming activities. And FWIW, Tokyo Mew Mew is currently at FAC. —sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't encourage article writing solely to ensure candidates grasp article writing. It also gives you many other skills useful to dispute resolution; NPOV, BLP, Undue, Recentism, reliable sources and a foundation in communication, collaboration and consensus work. Fundamentally, if an administrator cannot understand these policies inside out they aren't gunno be much use in a dispute over article content. Article writing, if your in the thick of it, gives you these skills. Simply memorizing the policies isn't enough. We've already had one recent candidate who thought "consensus" was more important than fact. — Realist2 08:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I follow – and participate in – discussions at WT:ANIME and WT:MOS-ANIME closely, as we discuss these specific issues quite regularly at WikiProject level. Though I do not know of the candidate you speak of, you are right in saying that these items often require professional judgement, not just a count of votes—as often happens. The main question is often "what is best for Wikipedia"? (the main idea behind WP:IAR) Rouge action, esp against consensus, is often disruptive, and causes great upset amongst editors. In these cases I prefer further discussion, as it is often one editor (e.g. from the Project) vs. multiple editors writing an article about their favourite show. At WP:ANIME, these items are often referred to the project page for further discussion, and I believe that helps settle the issues.
Recent discussions which I can recall are regarding the proper/inproper use of Fair use images (1), Reliability of sources (2), the spelling(!) to use (3), article content (4), et al. G.A.S 09:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should mention that I provide detailed reviews on articles on request with the goal of improving them to GA level, amongst other Shojo Beat, Kiki's Delivery Service, Talk:List of D.Gray-man characters. I have taken up this task, as editors often find it hard to obtain input on articles within the WikiProject's scope, and due to my not liking actual editing a lot (Though I would like to get Gautrain up to GA status one day). G.A.S 09:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to look at these links right now, however I will do so over the next 2 days. If I haven't responded in 48 hours someone feel free to remind me on my talk page. — Realist2 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Persuasive links, move to support. — Realist2 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards oppose. (switched to support) Not much indication that any of his activity required him to grasp non-trivial policy issues despite the semi-automated high edit count. There are still some unanswered questions that may sway me, but the facts I've seen so far:
      • virtually no vandalism reverts or reports to AIV
      • no participation in AfD, or even adding PROD or CSD tags
      • "cleanup" means mostly adding thousands of tags with or without AWB
      • no indication what he plans to do with the admin tools
The only saving grace is his involvement in drafting guidelines for notability in fiction. But, I doubt he's ready for adminship; I encourage others to ask more questions, since the previous experience of G.A.S is hardly conclusive for this RfA. VG ☎ 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above — I had a bit of a long day yesterday, and could only answer them now. G.A.S 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vandalism reverts – AnmaFinotera usually beats me to them. I do not report to AIV regularly, as I have not performed vandal partrols in a while. The articles I watch are not subject to frequent vandalism though (Even {{Ph:Starting a new page}} has been quiet recently). Users also seem to stop vandalising pages when they get to {{uw-vandal4}}. Futhermore, only active vandalism should be reported to AIV. It usually happens that I am clearing up after a vandal had his spree; though this has not happened in a while.
No participation in AfD: While I do not necessarily comment, I am aware of Anime related deletions. I find it fruitless to comment if I agree with clear consensus. I would have speedied Dbxxx though, as it seems to be nonsense, and on closer inspection, possible copyvio (Though it has already been PROD'ed).
Regards, G.A.S 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "grasping non trivial policy issues" — the one policy I will and have taken actions for is regarding copyvio[1]. Note that I have not removed the content immediately, as I first tried to contact the appropriate webmaster to obtain permission. G.A.S 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/G.A.S&oldid=1257964477"