Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy

Add links
Source: 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.

Giggy

talk page FINAL (77/25/3); Ended 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA, etc.. Wikipedia would undoubtedly benefit with Giggy as an admin, so I now ask my fellow Wikipedians to give him the support he certainly deserves for his hard work and dedication. Húsönd 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Co-nomination from Acalamari: It is my honor to be able to co-nominate Giggy in his second request for adminship. I supported back then, saying that he was a civil user with a decent knowledge of policy. That holds true now, and in the months since then, he is even more civil and experienced with policy. He is also versatile with editing, for he is both a vandal-fighter and article-builder. He created Wikipedia: WikiProject Powderfinger, and has worked on that WikiProject, and the articles within its scope. Giggy has also worked on a lot of articles about computer games as well. His edit count should be sufficient too, at a number of 5286 at last count, with 1067 being to the mainspace, 1152 to Wikipedia-space, roughly 2000 to the various talks, and a good amount of edits in the image and template spaces. I believe Giggy will make a fine administrator, and am pleased to do this co-nomination. Acalamari 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm humbled by the kind words of my nominators, and I accept.
P 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate’s optional statement - Well firstly, a huge thanks to Husond and Alcalmari for nominating me. I truly am honoured to have such nice things written about me by people who are completely sober and haven’t been bribed. It's amazing!

For those who don’t already know, this is my second RfA, despite the lack of a “2” in the URL (how mischievous). My first RfA can be found at

P 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would mainly focus on the areas I work in
P
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:The articles I’m most proud of are my three
WikiProject based
, where I’m able to take the articles produced by others, and improve them as much as I can. We all know that every article can be an FA, but I try to work by the concept that every article should be a GA, so most of my work is getting articles to that consistent level.
On another note, I’m also proud of the work done by
P
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: Yes, I've been in a few conflicts during my time here. Rather then get stressed out about them, I’ve tried to use each conflict as a learning experience, to help me improve my skills for the future. I’ve also done some
P

Optional Questions from Eddie:

4. Have you ever been accused of being a sockpuppet or puppeteer by a non-new user? If so, why?
A: No, I've never been accused of sockpuppetry.
P 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
5. How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?
A: I think the category is a wonderful idea, and I promise to add myself to it if this RfA is successful.
P 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Optional question from WjBscribe

6. Picking up on a question from your last RfA [1], what are you opinions on
WP:IAR
?
A: I saw this one coming :D Since the last RfA I've read BLP several times, and made sure I'm fully familiar with it. I would enforce it with the utmost (appropriate) severity, because as quoted by Jimbo, we are dealing with real people. IAR should never be used in relation to BLP.
P 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Optional question from
Articles for deletion process
.
7. Please read this AFD. As of that revision, there was an even split in numbers of those in favour of keeping the article and those in favour of deleting it. How, though, would you close the AFD, and why? (The AFD closed as a "delete") Will (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.: I would have deleted the article, with a similar rationale to that of Jaranda (who deleted it). Most of the arguments of keeping were ILIKEIT arguments, or "temporary notability" arguments; both of which carried little merit against delete arguments that went with policy (for the record, I argued for deletion per
P 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Optional question from DGG regarding criteria for deletion.
8. For this nomination for AfD do you still think you were correct to nominate it?
A.: No, I wasn't. I wasn't aware of
P 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Optional question from DGG regarding criteria for deletion.

9. You have the following motto on your userpage "Wikipedia: Factual, neutral, well-written articles on important real-world topics" But 2 of your 3 GAs have been articles on video games. Which represents your actual attitude?
A.:
A friend has just alerted me to the fact that this motto came from the daily motto template. Oops. DGG (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was today's motto. I actually really liked it too, I gave a barnstar to its creator if I recall correctly.
P 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Optional question from Lisatwo regarding suspected sockpuppets.
10. Under what circumstances is it correct to report
sock puppets? Could you comment on the TharkunColl case
?
A.: Sockpuppets should be reported when there is strong, objective evidence of Sockpuppetry. IE., not in the TharkunColl case. My (incorrect, I admit) rationales for that case can be found at bottom, under conclusions.
P 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

General comments
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Giggy before commenting.

Discussion

  • Wikipedia:Template the regulars -- reading this essay did not increase my confidence in the candidate's approach to resolving conflicts. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The essay has been deleted. "16:32, July 30, 2007
Miranda 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Giggy - i think it's good that the essay has gone, but I was wondering if (in requesting the essay to be deleted) you have changed your mind at all? Were editors right to be confused / irritated by the essay? - This isn't a big deal really, and I don't think anyone here doubts that your intentions are good - but what's neccessary (i think) for people to support you as an admin would be a period of reflection - your position at the mo. seems in danger of appearing to be akin to upsetting the chess board when you lose a bishop. - Purples 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to everyone who participated in here. I've decided that the best way forward is to withdraw the nom (although the current count is a 75%, I can't see it going up). I'll be writing up an analysis of this RfA similar to my previous one, to highlight how I can improve. Thank you to everyone who participated, and I invite everyone to give feedback on my analysis (which will be linked to from
    P 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support

  1. Beat-the-noms Support- Excellent user. Good work with
    WP:AFD. I wish, however, he would not use GHits so much in AfD discussions, but the rest of his edits are OK. I really like how carefully analyzed his last RfA and effectively addressed all the concerns raised at his last RfA. Good luck! --Boricuaeddie 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Edit conflicted "Beat both co-noms support" This guy should have been sysopped a long time ago... —
    » 02:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Support per noms... amg edit conflict!(twice) Dureo 02:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nom and oppose the above guys who were probably refreshing this page 50 times a minute. :-P Húsönd 02:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was more :-P --Boricuaeddie 02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Just 3 times per minute for me. :-) —
    » 02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's why you came second. Not good enough.
    P 02:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Seriously, guys. I think I had this page watchlisted before it was even created :-) --Boricuaeddie 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch it, Giggy. Don't make me change to oppose. :-P —
    » 21:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, I had this watchlisted too. Comes in handy when you see an RfA you've been looking forward to show up in your watchlist. :) Acalamari 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support I have supported him before and I support him now. Great editor with lots of edits and good work on several articles. Totally trustworthy (would never abuse of tools) civil, and very friendly. I have witnessed him build his way up in editing and I think he is totally ready now; Good luck, Giggy! ♠TomasBat 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've run across him a lot lately, in different contexts. Seems well rounded, hard working, and pleasant. - Crockspot 02:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Weak support, was gonna nom him myself in a couple weeks. Wizardman 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC) To retool my response, seeing that TTR essay does hurt my choice for you somewhat, it is worrying to think you have to problem with doing something that could make wars worse. Not enough from the opposes to change my mind yet though. Wizardman 11:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. [Edit conflict] strong support Participation in the Wikipedia namespace (XFD, RFA, etc.) is a huge plus. With good judgment as I've already seen, there is absolutely no way we can't trust this user with the tools. Good luck, (→O - RLY?) 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Seriously? You weren't already? I thought you were an admin, and a good one at that! J-stan Talk 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support It's gonna be a long week - try not to break the watchlist button. Haha! You're patience and positive attitude, as well as regard for policy sit well with me. the_undertow talk 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support as the co-nominator. One of these days, I will make sure I am the first person to support my own nominee/co-nominee. Last time I missed it because it started while I was having lunch, this time dinner was the reason I wasn't first! :) Acalamari 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to comments here whilst having lunch. You guys just aren't dedicated enough.
    P 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Strong support Giggy has done great things for wikipedia. We met through
    WP:GA which he is a reviewer on and he adopted me shortly after. He is a great editor and wikipedia would benefit hugely from having him as an admin. Good luck Alex! XAndreWx 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support. I see Giggy all over WP; he shows a great deal of experience and dedication in many areas of the project. K
    mpet 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support - a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the last RfA. Excellent & hard-working candidate. Knows the rules well and gets involved in many areas. Mop time! - Alison ☺ 03:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Giggy has the knowledge, the will, the energy and the touch to be an excellent admin. I'm very, very glad to see this RfA up and running. Best of luck, Giggy! :) Phaedriel - 03:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I can definitely trust Giggy as an admin. I have no concerns. Captain panda 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- good candidate. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support
    ta | co | em 05:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  18. [edit conflict] Strong support - I've worked with Giggy for some time in the GA project and was recently surprised to find that he wasn't a sysop. I think he'll be a great admin!
    ♥Love 05:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Weak Support pending response to Q7. (A well-worded answer will get the "weak" stricken) Good answer to Q7. Will (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support What a waste to have him not an admin. --Hirohisat Talk 05:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support It is time to give him the mop. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 06:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Support Per AFD interactions Corpx 06:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support You know why. Dfrg.msc 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You want your pants back? :P
    P 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Strong Support Although I ought to oppose you for maiciously bringing this to RFA when some of us are in bed. !. Anyway, against usual line of reasoning strong personal interaction and the nominators said it. Best of luck mate! Pedro |  Chat  07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Support. No reason not to - a great candidate I thought was an admin! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Very Strong Support - I was Neutral last time due to his lack of experience but since then he has grown mature considerably well and now I believe he can use the tools ..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support a good candidate, who has learnt and grown from his last RfA --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strongest Oppose.
    talk] 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Moved from the support section. Care to elaborate at all? --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reading Spebi's talk page, this may in fact be a joke oppose, but really a support (as where it was originally placed). I would appreciate a clarification on this matter. Daniel 10:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a support. It doesn't matter what is placed in bold text, it matters what subsection it is placed under – in future, Steve, please ask before you move, instead of move, then ask. I tend to do this to users who I strongly support, and hopefully the candidate sees the joke.
    talk] 10:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As always,
    sarcasm is really helpful. MastCell Talk 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not to beat a dead horse, but what leads you to believe that the section your place your comment in, rather than the content of the comment, is what "counts"? If anything I would hope the bureaucrats interpret things the other way around. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support -
    n 10:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. Great user, you should think yourself lucky that Kurt Weber cant oppose!
    Rlest 10:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Technically he can, just not with his usual reasoning. :-) WaltonOne 13:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to bury veiled personal attacks of another user in the heart of this RFA. --After Midnight 0001 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support has contributed a lot recently Harlowraman 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Great editor. Good contribs, good history, good experience. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support —Anas talk? 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - A true case of cliché #1 for me! Greeves (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. An excellent candidate. WaltonOne 13:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Gets my Vote.--
    Stronger Faster Better. 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  38. Support - I trust Giggy to not misuse the tools. Nihiltres(t.l) 14:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support - I just missed the nomination. I had been planning to co-nom along with Husond but I was out of town, but anyway. Giggy certainly has come along way since the last nom. He has been very active in article writing as well as vandal fighting. This is a user I really trust with the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I think Alex's got what it takes to be an excellent administrator. Peacent 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support This is an editor I run into all over project space, and every single encounter has been a positive one. Trusilver 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Suport By the power of my voodoo monkey skull ~ Infrangible 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Would make an excellent admin. Lemonflashtalk 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A really valuable editor in various GAN task forces. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Excellent, helpful and experienced user. i (said) (did) 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —AldeBaer 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. But of course!
    bounceback 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support It looks like this vote is meaningless, but you deserve it anyway. You are clearly intitled to Adminship.Deliciously Saucy 21:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support This may so8und incredibly cheesy, but Giggy has done incredible work with everything Wikipedia. He is also incredibly involved with
    talk 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  51. support I think he'll do OK. Though I would encourage a greater amount of work on real-world articles in article space. DGG (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. "sinful, yes, but I can't ALWAYS be online" I'm sorry Giggy, but you're now out of favor with God (Shakes head in disappointment).... No concerns about this editor. --Dark Falls talk 00:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm
    P 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  53. Support I trust Giggy with the mop. --Chris g 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I reviewed Giggy at Wikipedia:Editor review a while ago. Though I had some constructive criticism there, I was overall impressed by his maturity and dedication. Shalom Hello 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin, please ignore this invalid vote. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, don't you mean closing bureaucrat?
    13 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It's not an invalid vote, and the bureaucrat has no right to discount anything. Every Wikipedian in good standing has the right to make their own judgment on an RfA candidate and to vote accordingly. The bureaucrat's job is to carry out the will of the community. WaltonOne 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support great user.  Tcrow777  talk  04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support seems to be familiar with a variety of admin activities, talkative, and willing to improve with experience. Lisatwo 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--MONGO 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I have to switch my vote on the basis of new info.--MONGO 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Experienced editor with many contributions in different areas of Wikipedia. Will not abuse the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 08:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong support. I've seen Giggy giving good input in AFD discussions; seems to have an all-around experience on WP as well. Hard to oppose with recommendations from Husond and Acalamari.
    13 09:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Strong Support. Has made great strides since last nom. Recurring dreams 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support. If you don't want to vote this user support, you haven't been around when Giggy has. IRC, help desk and more. Definately deserves the tools. Good luck Giggy! —
    talkbots 11:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Support, good user, see him all over the place. No reason to suggest he'd abuse the tools. - Zeibura (Talk) 12:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I've seen Giggy around, and he seems to be a pretty civil guy. Mistakes in the past don't matter, because of course, he's learned from them.
    talk) 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  64. Support - the chatlogs incident is not enough to sway me. He would definitely use the tools and I think there's plenty of experience to suggest he's ready to use them properly. James086Talk | Email 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gigg-i-ly-Giggily-Goo!
    Miranda 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  65. Strong Support He is one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia!!! Politics rule 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Quagmire would be proud Cheers, JetLover (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Cheers,
    Lights 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support Will make an excellent admin. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support Uh, obviously. Every interaction is great, and all I have ever seen and been involved with Giggy has been wonderful. Jmlk17 22:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very weak support. Great user, just not particularly pleased about "Chatlog Majorly". · AndonicO Talk 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Moved to oppose. · AndonicO Talk 12:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support - good, thoughtful candidate. IPSOS (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. The candidate seems prepared for the task ahead and will do just fine. JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Good user, although his position on article writing and admins is a bit weird given that he does write. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I write for enjoyment, but I don't expect admins to have to do so...*shrug*
    P 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  73. Support - obviously slightly concerned about that there chat log dealie, but far too good a candidate to oppose for it. ck lostsword•T•C 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Very involved, thoughtful, and trustworthy. He seems to really have dedicated himself to addressing concerns from the last RfA, which is both refreshing and reassuring.   j    talk   05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - He may not have a huge amount of edits, but it's quality, not quantity that matters. His edits, for the most part, are quite good. --Editmaniac 08:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, edit counts don't matter. But votes by newly joined editors are disconcerting. Shyamal 10:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support A great helper, I thought you were an admin!
    talk|contribs|email 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  77. Support - a perfect example of "the longer someone is around, the less likely they are to get the bit." Strong oppose because he opposed someone else for not vandal fighting enough. Methinks this is a revenge oppose. Publication of private material? Well, user has admitted mistake, was before arbcom ruling, etc. TTR? Gosh, what a stupid essay. And yet, admins are human too. The Evil Spartan 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it "human" to post an essay which has no merit? —Kurykh 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, frankly, we set our admin standards too high. It's a stupid essay, but how in the world will this make Giggy a worse admin? I'm not seeing it. I'm a bit frustrated by the many users who go through this forum almost unopposed, because they haven't been here long enough to have people see any issues they have, but then when a user comes along who actually has experience (e.g., writing essays), we oppose him. If we held everyone to this sort of test, no one would become and admin. The Evil Spartan 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone will meet opposition in some way or another if they do have actual experience. When you voice your viewpoint, you are bound to get opposition from people who disagree with that viewpoint. It is standard. Let me explain why that essay is the crux people gagged on: The essay essentially advanced a viewpoint that sounds good in theory but backfires in practice. The promotion of such ideals will only result in a recipe for further conflict in Wikipedia. It is not prudent for an admin to advance such destructive viewpoints. Also, the expression of this opinion sheds like on other aspects of Giggy's philosophy, a cumulative effect that pushes people to oppose. Please also note that I have nothing against Giggy, and I would have voted support if not given these factors. —Kurykh 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, he has only been here editing for less than 4 months. Barely the minimum to even be considered as a candidate per many people's standards. I don't see how you can throw away anything that this user has done yet and say that it is too far in the past. --After Midnight 0001 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose: To balance out A.Z's frivolous support vote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright there you go, struck out. Wikipedia policies are still irrational to allow anyone to vote like AZ did. And I really didnt want to make a point but did want to cancel out AZ's vote. How do I cancel my vote here? Please cancel it for me. The numbering isnt going back to 1. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like this. You needed to remove the "#" bits from the replies to your comment, as well as your comment. Some people also indent ":" to make it clearer what is going on. Carcharoth 03:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems entirely inappropriate to cast a !vote to void another.
♥Love 06:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. As much as I don't care for A.Z's reasoning above,
I am equally unhappy with Matt57's. Trusilver 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And you are not balancing anything amtt - this has already got 60 support and no opposes other than yours - it is going to pass. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, every Wikipedian in good standing has a right to evaluate the candidate according to their own criteria, and make a decision on how to vote. A.Z has a right to vote, even if his rationale is regarded as "frivolous"; likewise, Matt57 has a right to vote to cancel out A.Z's vote, even if this is seen as "inappropriate" by some users. There is no policy or guideline that prevents the application of rationales which fall outside community norms. WaltonOne 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Matt's is a good example of a !vote that can be easily disregarded by the closing bureaucrat as a self-declared violation of
WP:POINT. Furthermore, it should be noted that an oppose !vote does not balance out a support !vote - a valid oppose will effectively neutralize three supports (since users are generally promoted with approval percentage of around 75%, not 50%). Please think about it Matt. You're not being fair, nor sound. Húsönd 12:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Opposechanged to strong oppose below. Giggy believes that adminship should only be granted to editors who engage primarily in vandal-fighting and cleanup, and should be withheld from those editors who primarily contribute encyclopedic content.[4] To my mind, this reveals his blissful ignorance of what being an administrator actually entails. It is not a great big fun game of vandal whack-a-mole. Blocking vandals and deleting garbage articles are the most trivial of all administrative responsibilities. No, it is much more than that. Administrators much be able to assess and respond to difficult situations such as complex content disputes where all parties are pushing a subtle POV, all parties have behaved badly towards each other, and everyone is upset at everyone else. In such situations, administrators are trusted by the community to find a way forward that helps build the community and the encyclopedia. I don't think Giggy even comprehends the role, let along possesses the maturity, diplomacy and skill to fulfill it.Hesperian 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hesperian, I endorse Giggy's positions in the diff you provided and I must say that opposing a user simply because you disagree on each one's beliefs on what it takes to become an admin instead of carefully analyzing a candidate's preparedness is rather inconsistent and shows more about the way you deal with POV disagreements than him. Regarding that particular disagreement, I agree with Giggy. Experience in the mainspace is definitely important, but that's not where you're going to attain the experience you need to use the tools properly. Disputes happen everywhere, not just in the mainspace. There is absolutely no evidence that it's a content dispute that's going to teach you how to deal with content disputes. I think that has more to do with each one's character and maturity. Blocking vandals and deleting garbage are so NOT trivial tasks. I wish they were. I can see in your logs that you haven't been blocking that many vandals or deleting that much garbage. But many other admins had to lose many hours doing it. Trivializing our work just doesn't sit well.--Húsönd 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Husond, you didn't read my oppose at all carefully enough. I can accommodate philosophical differences, and agree that mere differences in philosophy are not sufficient grounds to oppose. But in this case, Giggy's philosophy reveals a misunderstanding of the administrative role. It is entirely appropriate that I choose to oppose on those grounds. Furthermore, if you really think that "experience in the mainspace is definitely important", then you do not at all agree with Giggy, and I wonder why you're not opposing him yourself, since he had none. Hesperian 05:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I agree with Hesperian - In general I don't think a split with article builders on one side and admins with all the powers on the other side is conducive to good 'pedia building (which is the underlying purpose of the whole thing) as it increases the chance of blocs and factions (as if there isn't enough "us vs. them" mentality flying around) and edit wars. I've also seen many hours of editing wasted with over-zealous deletion too. I haven't interacted much with Giggy nor looked at the contribs and hence haven't voted as yet. I wouldn't worry much about Hesp's lack of vandal whacking and am concerned about the you/us message coming through this cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Husond, what on earth has Hesperians contributions got to do with his oppose vote? —Moondyne 14:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has a lot to do if Hesperian undervalues the importance of vandalfight and page deletion to the point of sounding as if those areas have little to do with adminship. I usually expect users to be deeply involved with something before criticizing it. Blocking vandals and deleting pages are among the most important and tiresome roles of an admin. Underrating them seems rather inadequate, especially by someone who's not in the ground carrying out those so-called "most trivial of all administrative responsibilities".--Húsönd 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I underrate neither the importance of vandalfighting and page deletion, nor the contributions of those who engage in it. I am familiar with these roles, and my appreciation of them is on the record, e.g. most recently here. I merely feel that the task itself is trivial - it requires very little perspicacity or maturity to recognise a junk page and hit the delete button. What makes new pages patrollers important is the sheer volume of crap they delete, not the wisdom or maturity they display in doing their job. Therefore I stand by my original statement, but wholeheartedly apologise if you felt I was belittling the contributions of others. Hesperian 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Hesperian, but I really don't see how my opposing an RfA you supported will have any impact on my ability to help the project as an administrator.
P 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well sorry Husond if some of us are doing things like writing articles - as far as being undervalued vandalfighting is a pretty common (well default) cited reason for becoming an admin so I think there are plenty of folk doing it. Reinforcing divisive us vs them mentalities on a systems level is not helpful, which is what the RfA comment (and this template written only a month ago) highlight. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber that was not what I said, and not even close to what I said. I did not and do not underrate the importance of writing articles, which is the very essence of this place. I simply strongly reject the notion that vandalfight and page deletion can be depreciated and regarded as unworthy tasks where little work is done and little experience is gained. I thought that my position was clear and wouldn't lead to misinterpretation but apparently I was wrong. And you are wrong to believe that there are enough vandalfighters. Try checking the last 500 changes to Wikipedia and you will notice that some of the vandalism that occured in the past few minutes has gone unnoticed. Experienced vandalfighters are needed, and few know how badly needed they are. I do though agree with you on the "divisive us vs them mentalities". I always seek for balance and that was exactly why I reacted against Hesperian's position who presented himself as all-for-mainspace-editing-only. Building the encyclopedia is what makes this place, but it cannot be kept without fighting the vandals and eliminating unsuitable content. All tasks are important and no tasks should be treated with contempt.--Húsönd 02:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
who presented himself as all-for-mainspace-editing-only. No I didn't. And I wouldn't. Because I'm not. Hesperian 06:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose — Lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia. Also, how's this a test?It would appear to be a legitimate edit to me. You've also demonstrated to me you do not understand
    Matthew 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This was indeed a mistake, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to oppose based on one incorrect reversion. Obviously, that's your opinion, not mine. As for a "Lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia" - I really don't see where you got that comment from. I've contributed significantly to 3 GAs (and countless
    P 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose per Hesperian. Giggy says: I believe that administrator tools should not be granted to editors who don't work in those areas, because they may be overwhelmed by the work when the receive them. Better for everyone to let them not have the tools, and continue building the 'pedia. is to me the most bizarre reason for an oppose I've seen yet and I have to question his judgement for that reason. Giggy strikes me as being a bit immature for the tools. —Moondyne 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't see how a "bizarre" RfA oppose will affect my ability to do admin work. Perhaps in an RfB, but an administrator has no more power then a regular user in RfAs, so my opinions and comments there really have no greater impact if I'm an admin.
    P 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It demonstrates poor judgement. Just like the posting of a private chat log below, your defense of the divisive essay into the project space, and this. —Moondyne 06:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdrew
    P 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I hadn't meant to imply that I was unaware you had withdrawn the nomination. I'm sorry if you thought that. —Moondyne 07:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Preliminary Oppose because of concerns over Giggy's essay
    Template the regulars before commenting on this request for adminship. Bishonen | talk 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
    I responded up there, but I'll do it again here, in order of questions.
    1) why is a criticism of Wikipedia essay "Don't template the regulars" offered as a separate essay at all - I wasn't aware that criticisng an essay inside the essay is the appropriate thing to do. It seems (to me) that doing so would cloud up the original essay, and draw away from its meaning, hence the new essay.
    2) why is it in Wikipedia space rather than the userspace - The original essay was in the project space, so I thought it would be appropriate to respond to it on level ground. You're welcome to
    request a userspace move
    if you see otherwise.
    3) are you aware of or concerned about the actual trolling and provocation arising from the way people most often do template the regulars - I'm not an ANI regular, so I wasn't aware, but I am now. Concerned? Yes, I'm not particularly happy that a simple template can turn into trolling or provocation, but that's partly what my essay is about; the blaim also rests with the regular who lets themself get provoked, and doesn't
    AGF
    . I should also point out that there is no reason to believe that TTR in any way increases the level of trolling (unless you can find some that cites it).
    Thanks for your time, and I hope this answers your questions.
    P 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, I'd hoped for answers that made me feel comfortable with withdrawing my Oppose. These don't, and your reply higher up above, under "Discussion", is brash and discourteous. Nowhere do you engage with my criticism of the essay for strawman arguments. Not of interest? A strawman is a rhetorical fallacy: an argument that your opponents don't, and wouldn't, actually make, but that you ascribe to them because it's so easy to refute. (I explained this in my reverted edit to your essay.) Instead, you reply to me by offering another strawman: the notion that I think it's because of your essay that people use templates to troll others — yeah, that's easy to refute, no doubt, and of course it's not what I think. As I said above, people generally put their best foot forward in their RFA. Are these cocksure replies and this tone your best, at this time? The most thoughtful? Most admin-like? Then I think you should wait a little. Incidentally, about not being "an ANI regular" — no, obviously not. I think it's a good idea to follow ANI at least a little, for some time before requesting adminship. It's a great way to gain vicarious admin experience, and might have made you more aware of the problems pointed out here by me, Christopher, and Purples. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    The Wikipedia space is a fucking joke and treated as such. Giggy's piece is certainly a lot better than pointless geek bullshit such as
    n 23:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Giggy's essay recommends that editors engage in a practice which in my experience is basically always unhelpful, so in that sense it is significantly worse than the others. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience it isn't unhelpful. I wouldn't encourage people to do things I disagreed with.
    P 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can you point to some of the situations you've observed where sending a regular user a template message was, in your view, more effective than a personal note would have been? I ask this simply because such a situation seems difficult to imagine. It's analogous to receiving a personal Christmas note from a friend and being angry that you didn't get their form holiday card instead. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose - i'm afraid i quite agree with Bishonen about the 'template the regulars' essay, and am surprised that you (Giggy) can't see how the essay comes across as misguided, and almost petulant. The tone of your responses above seems a little unhelpful also - i'd really like to see some thought going into to you considering whether or not you might be wrong? - about this issue, and others as yet undiscussed. I'm concerned you seem dogmatic at the mo..... - Purples 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Now changing my above !vote to a very strong oppose. I'm pretty sure I gave a reasonable and articulate reason for my oppose. Giggy's response above was "I really don't see how my opposing an RfA you supported will have any impact on my ability to help the project as an administrator". i.e. he responded to my good faith opposition by mischaracterising it as a bad faith attempt at petty revenge. That is the kind of rubbish that creates and escalates disputes. Previously I opposed on the absence of evidence that he understood the role and is equipped to undertake it. Now I'm strongly opposing on the grounds of clear evidence that he simply isn't up to the job. Hesperian 05:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks Hesperian is mad about Giggy's !vote, and this might be a revenge !vote of his own. The Evil Spartan 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. Hesperian 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, primarily because of
    tar and feather each other. That Giggy holds these views concerns me about how he would use his admin tools. In addition I have grave reservations about supporting someone who recently posted off-wiki discussions to his userspace (see Daniel's neutral comment below). The rule against it is not new and administrator candidates should be aware that doing so without the consent of the other party (and especially when the intention is to damage the reputation of the other party) is unacceptable. WjBscribe 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Oppose I came here to support, but given my habit of looking at the opposes for frivolity, it seems like they rather convinced me.
    Wikipedia:Template the regulars seems more like a futile attempt at egalitarianism without thinking of the consequences that result when you do "template" a regular. And, strangely, I have to agree with Hesperian. While wikiphilosophy is rather a weird reason to oppose (even for me, and I rarely oppose), I did find those comments condescending, and Wikipedia can do without condescending admins. We can do without more false dichotomies than we have. —Kurykh 07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Strong Oppose Per Moondyne and Hesperian. I too have seen the issues they note regarding this user and I agree with their assessment. This is not withstanding that the user seems to lack an appropriate level of maturity which we should be able to expect from an admin (this is in addition to the essay already discussed). Thewinchester (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that diff you provided was supposed to be humorous in response to this post of Jmlk17's to Giggy's talk page. Giggy was joking, as was Jmlk17. Giggy wouldn't say something like that on purpose. Please see this discussion on Jmlk17's talk page; it's supposed to be funny. Acalamari 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was a joke (see Alcalmari's diffs), and it was made when the tally here was 72/4/2. Yes, I counted my chickens before they hatched, but at that stage I thought they were almost out...
    P 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Strong oppose per publication of private material on-wiki. I was frankly amazed to see it; hardly something I'd want to see in any user, let alone a potential administrator. I shudder to think that one with such a blasé attitude with regards to private information may gain access to deleted revisions, personal information, and material deleted due to OTRS concerns/BLP enforcement. Giggy also spends an inordinate amount of time at
    WP:TTR convinces me that Giggy is not yet admin material. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    In all honesty, when you first saw, and when we first spoke about, the chatlog issue, you really didn't seem that shocked, and certainly didn't seem to oppose it. Then again, I'm not about to prove this statement with a chatlog. In regards to
    P 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose Not seeing what I would like to see with the
    WP:TTR issues.--MONGO 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Oppose. I apologize to Giggy, as I don't usually change my vote. However, I have to agree with Thewinchester: that comment was completely unecessary. And of course the chatlog... · AndonicO Talk 12:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response to it. Acalamari 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: Contentiousness and a desire to "get" people are entirely out of line with administrative status. It is a position of trust, and not merely trust from one's friends, but trust from even those who disagree. Based on the "template the regulars" and the reaction to it, I cannot extend trust at all. Geogre 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, it's not the essay, especially, which is merely misguided, but the reaction that I find devastating. The essay is against consensus, which is our one goal in user interactions, but, instead of conceding to consensus, he chooses to fight. That's rather bad news. Instead of realizing that those of us arguing the other side might have...I don't know...experience on our side and seen with our own eyes what happens, he puts his fists higher in the air. That's simply out of bounds. Further, the assumption that templating people has anything to do with vandal hunting is absurd. Furthermore again, the idea that a template makes a vandal is absurder still. Finally, the idea that regular users are vandals is a sure predictor of disaster and a short time before arbitration. Is RFA broken? Sure. I respect people who disagree with me and conduct themselves well. Most folks who have dealt with me know that I have strong feelings, but they also know that I'm not going to go POINT or block or do anything other than use the power of words. Geogre 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose "Template the regulars" has its heart in good egalitarian roots, but the page's details betray some ignorance of fundamental Wikipedian principles. "...it doesn’t matter how influential or popular someone is around here; they still receive the same punishments." (emphasis mine) Wikipedia does not "punish"; blocks are preventative, not punitive (if the author means something less than a block, well, warnings -- templated or not -- are intended to be friendly; calling them punishments is absurd.) There are many other bad ideas sprinkled throughout that essay. I cannot trust its author with the tools, at least until he learns to express himself better. Xoloz 14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose per being the author of
    WP:SSP cases, the experience of a user is a huge factor in whether or not they are a sock puppet of another account). As so many above have stated, the underlying motivation to use templates to "punish" others is a disqualifier for adminship, punishment is not what admins are here for. Oh, and the essay was written on the wrong kind of paper, and used the wrong kind of ink. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Oppose per
    WT:RFA, where I have found your contributions to frequently IMO be juvenile or ill informed. I hate to say that it seems like you are trying too hard, because I am sure that the rebuttals will follow of "g-d forbid we have admins who actually want to be admins", but something just doesn't feel right here. Overall, I just have too many concerns about your judgement and your intentions to support you having the tools. --After Midnight 0001 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. The
    essay, the responses to critcism of the essay (see above), the posting of a private conversation, and, worst of all, this disturbing and patronizing position, show me that Giggy has bad judgement and would likely misuse the admin tools. A few instances are understandable, because everybody makes mistakes, but those five things, all of them quite recent, convince that Giggy does not have the judgement necessary to not misuse the admin tools. My regrets, I had not intended to oppose. Picaroon (Talk) 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Oppose (switched from neutral) - Picaroon summed it up best for me. I feel that this is a little too soon after the last RfA, but it is mainly the judgement issues that concern me. Gaining more experience may help change that. Carcharoth 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose due to the "Majorly chat" incident.
    Miranda 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Oppose (changed from support), due to the maturity and judgment issues that others have highlighted, and especially the whole incident with Majorly; attempting to smear someone by posting a private conversation is unacceptable and even illegal in some jurisdictions, and not conduct befitting an administrator. K
    mpet 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note to 'crat: Krimpet also supported (see support #13), although this came later so I assume this is his/her final verdict.
    P 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I apologize, I forgot I had supported before. =/ K
    mpet 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. Oppose. User embodies (very nearly) everything wrong with Wikipedia at present. —freak(talk) 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose: The chat incident is unfortunate, though upon reviewing the logs, there's nothing really nasty in there, though it certainly wasn't flattering for Majorly. I'm more concerned by the fact the essay which is being used by many, many people above has been deleted and I strongly urge Giggy to consider asking to have the essay undeleted until the end of this RfA. It's grossly inappropriate to have an essay deleted when it is being used as a rationale to oppose your candidacy, the only real benefit of having the essay deleted is to bolster support for yourself, Giggy, which I strongly dislike and find deeply undesirable in a potential admin. Nick00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Judgement concerns, partly due to the issues already mentioned. Furthermore, though Giggy has been contributing to
    WP:AIV, maybe 50% of his most recent reports were rejected ([5],[6], [7],[8]). Though the sample size is small, it suggests to me that Giggy may not be ready for the block button. I also disapprove of how Giggy issued three separate (and escalating!) spam warnings to a user who had not edited at all since his prior warning ([9]), and then reported the user to AIV, still with no further edits from the user. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Support - at the end of the day I feel that WP will trundle along a wee bit better with you as an admin mainly as I've seem you active in the building bits 'round FAC etc. as well so am happy yer interested in article building as well - switched to Neutral Oppose on discovery of this
    Wikipedia:Template the regulars - this sort of stuff drains energy from the project big time....and now the above evidence this becoming a real net negative for the project Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Oppose - Alas, I must oppose due to this outstanding comment. It's kind of depressing, as I was prepared to give a strong support to this RFA. NSR77 TC 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to Giggy, I think that that was light hearted banter between friends rather than a personal attack, but agree that it was probably inappropriate language in a public forum as talk pages are. —Moondyne 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned above that it was a joke. Please see this post and this discussion. Thank you. Acalamari 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Hesperian, Bish and Riana and most of the people commenting in opposition.Sarah 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. I have serious concerns from reading the last RfA - in particular the comment that "IAR will apply heavily to BLP" [10]. Some time has passed but I want to see a pretty good answer to Q.6 before I would be comfortable supporting. WjBscribe 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) changed to oppose.[reply]
  1. (PS: neutral updated below after response 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)) Strong neutral per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly. Rather than ask a leading question in the questions section, I would like Giggy to make a general statement about this entire chat logs issue, and include what he feels important. Both what he includes and his opinion on such will determine where I cast my hat in this RfA. Per principles confirmed by the Arbitration Committee only this month and given how recent this incident was (late last month), I feel it is highly relevant and important to this RfA. Daniel 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the page can only be seen by administrators, could you please give me the basic details of what happened? Thanks. --Dark Falls talk 07:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, it's a private chat log published between Giggy and Majorly, who were in a dispute about a couple of RfA's. I think it would defeat the purpose of deleting it if I started explaining the details of the private discussion. I want to hear what Giggy has to say, so hopefully we'll all be more illuminated after that :) Daniel 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you answered my question precisely. I was trying to find out what type of content the log was, not the content. Thanks. --Dark Falls talk 07:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per principles confirmed by the Arbitration Committee" What principles confirmed by ArbCom? daveh4h 07:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2.1) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Chat logs fall into that. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, July 11, 2007. Daniel 08:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the deleted chat log was created a month before the ARBCOM handed down its ruling. I don't think Daniel is suggesting any violation - right? Just seeking an understanding of Giggy's thoughts. JodyB yak, yak, yak 15:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation, no, but from the fact that the decision was made shortly after suggests that common sense and good judgement would have resulted in actions different to Giggy's. Daniel→♦ 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry all, I had tennis, then I was tired and slept (sinful, yes, but I can't ALWAYS be online :P). So here I am now!
    The posting of a chatlog was a really.bad.idea on my behalf (yes, I make mistakes too). I wasn't aware of anything ArbCom related when I posted it up (I believe I posted it before the ARBCOM decision), but I was just a bit pissed off by what had happened in the RfA in question (for the benefit of DarkFalls, it was
    P 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I accept that it was an error in judgement and something you regret, which was good to hear. However, given how recent it was, and the nature of it, I'm going to remain neutral on this RfA. However, opposing for one such incident would be mean, so I won't do that :) Cheers, and good luck, Daniel 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to my question. Lisatwo 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral and leaning towards oppose, based not on the essay but the response to a question about the essay, on the article writing concerns, and an imbalance in namespace edits (more edits to Wikipedia namespace than article space). Could still be persuaded either way. Carcharoth 01:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC) changed to oppose.[reply]
  2. Neutral Insufficient content contribution, edits or article improvement to see stake. Shyamal 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? He has plenty of mainspace editing; from improving articles and even creating a WikiProject. Acalamari 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral-Aminz 09:22, 30 July 2007 (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/Giggy&oldid=1149978405"