Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GIen

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

[edit] GIen

Final (90/5/0) Ended 5:56, 2006-08-23 (UTC)

Note to bureaucrat: Due to concerns raised below I've requested a username change to Glen_S Thank you, - GIen 09:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen (talk • contribs) – An exemplary user and a vandalproof moderator with around 7000 edits. Certainly meets my criteria, and to be honest I'm surprised he wasn't already an admin! All of my experiences with this user have been good - I have found him to be helpful and responsive at all times, and would certainly, judging by his vandal-fighting disposition, make good use of the tools. Martinp23 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I've been meaning to nominate GIen, formerly known as User:Stollery, for months now, and it appears Martinp23 has beaten me to it! Nonetheless, GIen has allowed me the honor of co-nominating him, for which I'm most greatful. I first came across GIen several months ago, I belive it was in April, when he approached me about wanting to help out in any way he could with the VandalProof project. Now this was back when I was first getting my feet wet with Wikipedia, and I was naively confident that I could completely handle all of the stress, conflicts, and work that comes along with releasing such an application all by myself. GIen, on the other hand, had already learned the ropes, and though I at first believed that his help would not be all that needed, it soon became quite painfully clear how essential he was both to the VandalProof project and to my work as an editor and administrator.

I've always been quite impressed by GIen's handling of every situation. He consistently acts with remarkable professionality, never allowing any personal problems or quarrels with other editors to get the best of him, and he continually possesses and demonstrates what I view to be the most important quality in an administrator--civility. Furthermore, he has an inconceivable amount of patience, patience I wish I had, and he is also one of the more mature and sensical individuals I've encountered on Wikipedia. When you take his professionality, civility, patience, maturity, and sense and add to it the diligence in all of the work he does, it seems obvious that Wikipedia stands to reep great benefit from handing him the (I apologize in advance for the cliché) mop and bucket. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow, thank you so much. With enormous thanks I accept - Glen 05:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Well first off the bat I think the most important task I could undertake would be the task of taking time to learn to utilize the tools so that they were applied correctly and according to applicable policy. I'm a quick learner, but there's no replacement for experience, good things take time after all! That being said, I feel I am a pretty well rounded Wikipedian and envisage I would happily contribute in any area requiring my services, however I do feel at this stage I would be most prolific in the following areas:

• WP:AIV I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia dealing with vandalism (I was one of the first ever VandalProof users and am also a VP moderator), and given that I live in New Zealand I am online during Wikipedia's periods of least activity (the period when most of the continental US is asleep; UTC 7:00 - 13:00, is early evening here for example). The unfortunate thing is during this period the number of vandals vs. number of wiki users on vandalism patrol is at its highest, and as such individual occurrences of vandalism seem much more frequent. The major problem during this time however, is that proportionally the number of administrators on hand to assist via the blocking of troublesome users is also much lower. I've made well over 100 posts to the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard^[1] and at that time of night it can take an hour or more for a report to be cleared. An unbelievable about of damage can be done by a persistent vandal in an hour when given free reign, trust me! Obviously the ability to deal with these vandals, and stay on top of AIV would be of enormous benefit both for myself and no doubt for other nocturnal Wikipedians :)
• C:CSD When I first started tagging speedys I recall feeling somewhat surprised when my {{db|advertisement}} tag was (rightly) removed by an admin - after all advertisement is not speedy deletion criteria! Since then I have learnt the criteria and and as such would envisage assisting in ensuring this category is well serviced. I also believe its very important that those authors of said articles are not only notified but taught why this occurred, as I can imagine having your work almost immediately deleted could be very discouraging, and may even turn off otherwise valuable potential contributors
• WP:AfD Deletion again is something I will ease into as it is imperative that correct procedure and policy are followed, however I regularly contribute to AfD discussions and see many daily that obviously have clear consensus and could be closed. Again, as per above I believe the author(s) should be notified and shown why this occurred so they are not discouraged.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My user page has a (very out of date) list of subjects I either wrote exclusively or have put a lot of effort into so without copying like 20 article names here that may be a good place to start. However, answering the question regarding an actual specific article alone is somewhat harder. Recently I began WikiProject Bodybuilding which already a dozen or so users have signed up for, and one of my reasons for doing so was the massive amount articles missing when it came to notable bodybuilding subjects, specifically bodybuilders. Although no longer one myself I've been in the industry one way or another for the last decade so I am very familiar with the subject matter. Consequently I have either started or been the most significant contributor to a whole heap of related articles, from memory; Dan Duchaine, A. Scott Connelly, Bill Phillips (author), Mike Mentzer, Mike Katz, Experimental and Applied Sciences, Met-Rx and Craig Titus come to me off the top of my head, but there are dozens more. Of all the above I guess I am most proud of Dan Duchaine as I wrote the entire article myself, and as he died several years ago reseach on the net was slim (so a lot of paper references were used). Personally, I think at this stage its more important for a potential user to find something on a specific subject, than nothing, and as a result probably spend my time when writing articles working on creating reasonable pages that were otherwise completely missing from the encyclopedia.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A: In Real Life I'm 31 and head up two companies with in the realm of 15-20 staff employed for me, and have done so for the last ten years without a single staff member resigning or being fired under bad terms. As such I'm fairly qualified in dealing with people, especially in a position of responsibility and in matters of a serious or sensitive nature. As an employer you also learn civility, as you cannot just blow your top when things aren't going your way (well you could, but you'd have no staff!) I guess this RL experience has served me well when in Wikiworld, as I can honestly say that in 8 or 9 months I've not had a situation cause me any undue stress. I did have an "interesting" experience back in April which was probably the closest I've come to wikistress, with User:Nikitchenko, one of the many sock puppets of indefinitely banned user User:AI. He caused a lot of disruption because myself and other users would not let him insert blatant POV, nor remove anything he perceived as negative in any of the Scientology related articles. When I filed a report to WP:AN/3RR regarding a 3RR violation and he was subsequently blocked he took offence and began (for want of a better word) wikistalking me; filing complaints to Esperanza, the Concordia noticeboard (when it was in operation) and a Mediation Cabal case against myself and a few other editors (which was subsequently tossed out). He was finally blocked when his sockpuppetry was discovered. Probably worth noting is that I do steer away from Scientology related articles now as a result, (in fact the only exception is the boatload of vandalism I have reverted from them) as contributors feel very deeply about the subject, and I do not want to be consider biased. As such in recent months everything has been plain sailing!

4. How would you deal with an editor in good standing editing articles in which you have a vested interest, such as Experimental and Applied Sciences or ScienTOMogy, contrary to your own point of view? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 07:11Z

A: Nice question. I'd imagine every editor of Wikipedia has a point of view on a lot of the subjects he or she is editing. Whether it's a serious issue for most such as religion, war(s) in the Middle East, or politics, to lighter subjects like your favorite Idol contestant, we'd probably have something to say. And, certainly in the initial period upon discovering Wikipedia (which actually was after finding an article on one of my websites (ScienTOMogy) in google) I'd read some facet of an article that I ideally wouldn't like there and be tempted to change it. Luckily, I was sensible to hold off and learn due process, (my edits to ScienTOMogy for example have been minor formatting changes) and I guess that's why I've not been given a single warning in my time here. I quickly learned that Wikipedia is absolutely NOT about POV. In fact Wikipedia isn't even about the truth, its about documenting a balanced and fair illustration of the facts. Nowadays, when editing an article I am looking to build a balanced, NPOV and verifiable version. In fact, it's almost as though after you have been editing here for awhile you enter a mode where you see completely past the subject-matter itself, concentrating only on building the perfect article. As such I'd absolutely welcome any editors to any subject, vested interest or not. I know that at the end of the day if their version isn't fair, that Wikipedia will naturally find an equilibrium to a version that is. I hope that answers your question sufficiently. :) - Glen 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See GIen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

• Edit count for GIen (talk • contribs • logs) as of 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC):

Total edits 7018
Main:         2518
Talk:          281
User:          753
User talk: 2713
Wikipedia:  516
Wikipedia talk:   31
Image:           74
Image talk:    1
Mediawiki:    0
Mediawiki talk:    0
Template:   77
Template talk:    9
Help:            0
Help talk:    0
Category:   42
Category talk:    3
Portal:            0
Portal talk:    0

First edit: 17:28, 8 December 2005

Support

1. Proud to be the first to add my support vote.-gadfium 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. Excellent VandalProof moderator, excellent user, all-around excellence. Vandals beware, you're in for a scare. Will make an (excellent) admin. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - seems to be a good guy abakharev 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Very good VandalProof Moderator, also has been more then willing in helping me to develop some of my tools. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support. Efficient, polite, friendly, helpful, experienced user that I for a long time thought was already an admin. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
6. ... these type of happy, supportive and useful people are what wikipedia needs more of. Crazynas ^t 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I've seen nothing but good contributions from this user. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - ditto Kimchi.sg. Daniel.Bryant 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Glen has come along very nicely as an editor. He is knowledgeable about the policies and guidelines. He is cogent and I think he'd be a wonderful addition to the list of admins. Vivaldi (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. DarthVader 07:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Merovingian - Talk 07:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support Seriously, he would do very well to have access to the extra buttons, as would Wikipedia. I've been wanting to see some more Pacific candidates and the fact that Gien is a Kiwi is great, as he'll be active when much of Ireland, the UK, and the Americas are not. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Moriori 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
14. STRONG OPPOSE ... err ... I mean support as co-nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Terrific candidate Strong candidate despite some rough edges shown in older edits as discussed in the oppose section (revision: 10:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)). Based on his userpage there's something specific that I'd like him to look into, but I'll wait til the RFA closes before asking ;-). Phr (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - I've never come across him before, but seems like an excellent and sensible user. It is always reassuring to find such people. Keep up the great work! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong support as co-nom Martinp23 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Duh. Jorcoga^ETC. 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, per Jorcoga. :D RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Samir धर्म 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support no brainer (and it's a good thing, because mine is in the shop) - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 10:49Z
24. Support He will be a great admin in dealing with vandalism with all the tools at his disposalDoctor Bruno 11:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. All of my previous interactions with this user indicate that he'll make an excellent addition to the team. Level-headed and productive, and no doubt even more productive with a few extra buttons. Luna Santin 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Supported for being well-versed and having the experience of being told when wrong and correcting himself. Being able to adapt is an important quality. --Zsinj^Talk 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:36, 16 August 2006}
29. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oui! G.He 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per nom. --Gray Porpoise 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Solid-looking editor, should be handy with the tools. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support --Jay(Reply) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support per Jorcoga :P --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - per nom --T-rex 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, despite confusing username. Should be good addition to anti-vandalism force. Charge!--Andeh 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support incredible work on anti-vandalism, excellent answers to questions. Stubbleboy 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support great editor. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Definate commitment to WP, would make good use of the mop, esp when all of us are asleep. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Per this edit to my talk page. J/K, but really I've been impressed with this user since returning to WP, I assumed he was an admin already. Nice nom(s) and answers to questions+good contributions=easy support. KOS | talk 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Excellent candidate -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, certainly. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support -- Szvest 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
47. Long overdue RfA -- Steel 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support, deserves the mop and bucket :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
49. About-damn-time support. --james^(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support meets my very high standards. 'Nuff said, this support has it's reason -- Tawker 00:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
51. support well rounded. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support good ratio of WP edits to main edits. --Musaabdulrashid 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Viridae^Talk 12:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support! I'm very impressed. TomTheHand 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Cleared for Adminship Excellent work around the 'pedia. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 13:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
56. Very Strong Support Long overdue for an RfA, and he has been very helpful (almost like a mentor) to new VandalProof users (like me). Has cleaned up lots of vandalism around here, too. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
57. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Ass-kicking avoidance-engendered support per, to name two, Hoopydink and Omnicron; consistent with my my guidelines; and inasmuch as, even as I dabble in weight training and sometimes play judo, Glen could surely beat me down in seconds... Joe 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: The following support votes were added after evidence was presented in the Oppose section. --HResearcher 09:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

59. Support - took a while to respond to a note on his userpage regarding my use of VandalProof (more than 24 hours), but was helpful regarding the issue. Anyways, very good user overall. -Zapptastic (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Yes. :) —Khoikhoi 03:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. I have strong reservations about the user's use of deceptive characters in his name, but I will look past that. Would ask the nom to consider a name change, as users may try to look you up as Glen when you're an admin. Themindset 05:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Support _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
63. support Pretty unconvincing opposes. No evidence candidate would make a bad admin. --W.marsh 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per nom. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Great candidate. I see no problems here. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
66. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
67. Support make that four beautiful users in a row at the top of the RfA page. Very glad to see such brilliant talent being granted the tools for enhanced output on this site. Retail associates prove themselves, they get more responsibilities. So do Wikipedians. It's a system that's worked since the dawn of time. — Deckiller 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
68. Support Glen has been a responsible wikipedia editor and has demonstrated the qualities necessary for an administrator.--Fahrenheit451 02:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
69. Support I am honestly surprised he was not already an administrator, but I found in my interactions with him concerning Vandalproof, he was responsive and helpful, and I have little doubt he would make a talented admin.-- danntm ^T _C 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
70. Support per above. Michael 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
71. Joiiiiiiiiin usssssssss, GIen. Joiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin usssssssss. DS 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
72. {{#ifexist:RfACliché|Support|{{subst:RfACliché}}}} digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
73. Support ^{(on wheels!!)} ^^ what they said. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, of course. Sango123 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Duh. --Steve-o 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
76. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Betacommand 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. GI JOE en! And knowing is half the battle.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
79. Support per digital_me. Misza13 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. I just found out about ScienTOMogy. —freak(talk) 18:52, Aug. 20, 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. There are a couple of diffs of slightly intemperate language listed under ";Oppose" that concern me a little, but I don't see any evidence of real incivility. I hope as an admin his phrasing will err on the cautious side, and he comments below that "five months on I would absolutely phrase my thoughts in an appropriate manner." I believe him. Plus he clearly can use the tools and will be a real asset. Mike Christie (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
82. Support per nom & co-nom. We definitely are in need of admins watching the boards "after hours"; perhaps with GIen as an admin, I won't see the CSD backlog hit 150 much (or at all?). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
83. Support per nom and co-nom. --Bigtop 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
84. Strong Support User is proficient at what he does and should adequately handle admin duties as well. --Palffy 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
85. Support. We need more help at CSD, but no help in deletions, but also in declining requests that aren't speedible. I think Glen can do the job. Yanksox 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
86. Support and now for my non sequitor... 50 million elvis fans cant be wrong... ALKIVAR™ 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
87. Support per AmiDaniel's nomination 'speech' --Ageo020 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
88. Support will benefit by having the tools. --Alf ^melmac 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
89. Under the wire support Teke 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
90. Cabal support VandalProof told me to :P Computerjoe's talk 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   The closing b'crat should take into account the fact that the above user's last 10 votes, all in the last week, have been oppose, quoting the same message. Daniel.Bryant 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   The user does have criteria listed out here and should not be discounted for having standards. --Zsinj^Talk 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   I feel the need to add my two cents in very small font. Bad Masssiveego! Bad! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Okay—I read your criteria, Masssiveego. Which one(s) aren't met by GIen?Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

   Apparently, it's inexperience. Yanksox 23:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose Theres a of antivandalism work and that's great. But I'm concerned about how he handles himself in dispute with comments like: "I mean who really gives a flying f#@k?"[2]. --HResearcher 01:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't recall this at all, would I be able to grab a diff from you please? Thanks - GIen 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for providing the link. Let me say straight off the bat that I was wrong to use such a tone. The comment was made regarding the Tilman Hausherr article five months ago, over the simple comment "in his spare time" in the article. The subject of the article (Tilman) is a Wikipedia user, and had stated that the user removing the comment was doing so simply to make a point because of a separate personal issue between the two of them. My comment was in agreement with him that it was unimportant and why was it even an issue. However, again I make no excuses and although nobody's perfect, five months on I would absolutely phrase my thoughts in an appropriate manner. - GIen 12:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   The closing b'crat should also take into account that User:HResearcher has voted Oppose in 5 out of the last 6 requests for adminship. Granted, HResearcher may have exceptionally high standards, but his reason stated in a few of the RfA's are nothing other than Oppose, per XXX (where XXX is a previous opposing Wikipedian) or Oppose, per above. In another RfA, his reasons given are almost the same as the reasons listed above, as in Oppose most edits seem to be reverts and anti-vandalism related. I'd like to see how XXX treats others in dispute, especially when he is involved in the dispute. [3] Lastly, even after the failed RfA for User:Crystallina had been officiallyclosed, User:HResearcher stated: Oppose per the above, even if the nominated has withdrawn. [4] –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 17:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   What has all that got to do with this RFA? Look at how many support votes don't even say anything. By default, I oppose. I look over the other people's comments and then do my own research into the nominated's history starting from the earliest edits. I try to find evidence of how the user treats others when it comes to dispute. If there's any uncivility, then I just immediately oppose. When I find the user is courteous to others, on top of the type and amount of edits, then I may support. --HResearcher 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   The closing b'crat should not that Kungming2's vote for support is based solely on the antivandalism efforts of GIen.[5] Now when I point out one incivility diff (there are more) Kungming2 thinks it is more important to discredit (fair game) me, instead of considering what I have presented and what the others are presenting below. --HResearcher 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose After carefully examining nom's edit history I'm going to oppose per the nom's recent divisive, uncivil, and overly emotional comments. Additionally GIen's answer to standard Question 3. is misleading because he specifically addresses issues related to editing Scientology articles but neglects to mention a serious conflict that he was in this past week related to the topic. [6]

   1. Glen did not embrace assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's key policies, when he made this derogatory remark about myself and other users that asked an administrator to stand for recall. Additionally this remark shows that the nom has an us versus them attitude that is harmful to the community. [7]

   2. GIen does not adhere to biographies of living persons policy. Added controversial category to Jeremy Glick article without well sourced obvious relevant article content. See [8] and Talk:Jeremy Glick (author)#Conspiracy theorist? Added heat instead of light to the conflict over Barbara Schwarz article. Comments to other editors and subject of article did not show a good understanding of biographies of living persons policy. GIen's over the top edit summary and comments on AN/I "Fred what you've done (deleting all record of prior edits leaving a two line stub; plus the talk page is also deleted and 7 pages of archives) is outrageous)" and the comments on the article talk page do not give me confidence that nom can handle stressful situations well that admins often encounter. Remarks shows the nom may have problems with ownership of articles. [9]

   3. Lackluster performance related to use of test/warning templates especially as it relates to newbie mistakes. Reverts non-vandalism content using edit summary comment intended for newbie vandalism. [10] then using test message intended for newbie vandalism instead of one that explains actual reason for removing the content. [11]. Reverts and uses vandalism edit sumary and template to warn user editing from IP address for what appears to be an legitimate edit. [12] Numerous edit wars with vandals on Ronnie Coleman article over non-offensive vandalism instead of waiting for protection. [13]

   GIen's good work with VandalProof project does not offset the problems noted above. FloNight ^talk 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi FloNight, appreciate your concerns, and I will quickly address them if I may:

   1. I see how you have interpreted my comment, but please know it was not in reference to the users but rather an extension of concerns I had expressed regarding the recall category itself, both here and on IRC; namely that for it to work at all I felt membership should really be all or nothing; or the category members are comparitively vulnerable. In hindsight I probably should have rephased it better so it was clear I was referring to my earlier comments about the category itself, and users. I apologise that it appeared that way, and would not have the gaul to make such an implication.

   Copy your comment here. "Mate; Truly gob smacked at recent actions (reactions) of some others, truly gutted at resulting outcome of your sysop status, impressed with your handling of the entire situation, in a total headspin when seeing how some interpret our assume good faith principle, and not surprised one - fricken - iota when comparing those who've volunteered themselves for the recall cat with those demanding your recall. Says it all. Keep your head high, Kia Kaha - Glen 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)" GIen, your not helping yourself with me by spinning the facts. Your comment makes it clear that you were speaking about me and the other users that asked the admin to stand for recall. FloNight ^talk 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   It's amazing so many people will support someone like this just based on antivandalism efforts. And note some of the support statements above are totally contradictory to the evidence now being shown (i.e. User:Phr.) --HResearcher 05:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   2. This addition was back in March, made in good faith after Glick expressed his belief that bin Lauden/his operatives were trained by the Bush administration^[14] - O'Reilly labelled him as a conspiracist hence the additon. It was made 5 months ago (March) and obviously a lot of policy has been learnt in that time. With regards to my comments about the deletion/protection of the Barbara Schwarz article, this was done without any notification, and its protection is something I do feel is out of process. The after deletion of the article (and all the talk pages), it was fully protected (sysop only) with reason for protection listed as "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (and whilst this gives rationale for the deletion it does not explain nor make any reference to article protection).

   GIen, I am concerned by your comments on the deleted talk page of the Barbara Schwarz article. They did not seem to use the proper tone when addressing the subject of an article. If you want me to pull the specfic comments from the deleted talk page, I will. FloNight ^talk 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   3. My only comment here is that I, like many many others have reverted literally several thousand incidents of vandalism, and issued several thousand warnings, and the occassional error does happen. That doesnt make it right however, and wherever possible I do try my best to apologise. Thanks for taking the time to read - GIen 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   GIen, I think that reverting vandalism is really important and thank you for doing it. Only becasue editors like yourself do it, Jimbo can brag in interviews about how quickly blatant vandalism is removed. That said, I strongly suggest that you slow down a little and spend more time interacting with editors instead of leaving test/warning templates. For example, you could have left a comment explaining about reliable sources for this user. [15] Or even better, you could look for a source and add it to the article. I did not spend much time looking for errors, these I noted found very quickly.

   GIen, the part that concerns me the most is the way that you seem to spin the truth. Your answers to the standard questions, particularly #3 were misleading. Since the incident happened recently, you could not have possibly forgotten about your disagreement with Fred or you back and forth comments with the subject of the article. Yet your answers give a differeent impression all together. That is troubling because we need for admins to be honest and insightful. I'm sorry but I do not think that I can trust you with the extra tools that will give you more power over editors without the tools. Take care. FloNight ^talk 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   FWIW, I think two reasonable people may construe BLP differently, and Glen's conduct, especially on AN/I w/r/to Fred's excisions, gives me much confidence that he properly understands BLP and, as an admin, will act in a fashion consistent with the BLP that I and others embrace. Joe 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Joe, GIen's comments were over the top. Admins need to lower the tension during discussion not raise it with excessive hyperbole. The issue of blanking the article to a stub is going to come up more often. I answer OTRS emails and know that BLP are a huge problem that needs to be addressed better than we are doing it now. Not saying that stubbing and protection is always the solution but it is something we need to consider more often than we do now. Discussions about it need to be calm and respectful because the subject of the article is reading everything we write. FloNight ^talk 04:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   With all due respect FloNight please understand I am not trying to mislead anybody. I am well aware that this process involves investigating my edits and to do so would be pointless. I did not mention this as I don't feel Fred and I had a disagreement. My only other comment is in response to your comment about my attempts to spin the truth. I'd ask you to please assume good faith in this regard. My comment to Crzrussian was regarding an opinion I made known on IRC and also on the Admins open to recall category talk page (here) where I said I felt having only some admins open to recall and some not could make the system unfair. My comment was in reference to Crzrussian's situation as an example. Again I can see how I was unclear in my attempt at brevity for which I apologise. Hope this helps in someway - GIen 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment After looking at these diffs I'm not bothered by Glen's remark about CrzyRussian's desysopping or his reaction to Fred's abruptly deleting the Barbara Schwarz article. Glen's explanation of the CrzyRussian comment satisfies me. Re the Schwarz deletion, the BLP policy says to remove unsourced negative statements from articles, i.e. by editing, not to delete the articles and the talk pages, so I also felt somewhat alarmed at the out-of-process deletion even though I had earlier indicated agreement that deletion should be on the table as a way to deal with that article's problems [16]. Will we someday delete George W. Bush because someone inserted "IS GAY!!!!" into it?. I also would not refer to the deletion merely as "stubbing and protection", which would leave the history in place. I don't see any evasiveness about question #3 since I don't see that incident as an edit dispute. Maybe the question should be broadened to ask whether the candidate has had any differences of opinion at all with other Wikipedians, but that's not currently what it asks. I'm satisfied by Glen's response about the errors with VP reversions, given that the error rate shown is 0.15% based on conservatively interpreting "several thousand" as 2000 reversions. We can't demand zero errors in a process like that, and 0.15% doesn't sound too bad. If Glen's error rate is much higher, that's an issue; but even that is maybe best fixed by technical improvements to VP. I've probably done the same thing with navpops many times, and wish that navpops had a feature for entering a user-generated edit summary. And I don't mind that Glen used VP to revert persistent linkspam vandalism instead of wasting time on manual reversions, or letting the spam stay in the article building up the spammer's Google rank. I do not see that type of vandalism as harmless.

   That leaves the Jeremy Glick thing, which I do see as a significant error, since it's well documented (I'd say not even controversial) that the US armed and trained resistance fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation in the 1980's and that Bin Laden (then a mujahideen commander) got his start that way. Glick's referring to those events in connection with 9/11 seems like political opinion that might be disputable, but doesn't rise to conspiracy theory. Glen seems to have incorrectly read "the US armed Bin Laden" (i.e. back in the 1980's, when Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets, and which is true) as saying that the current Bush admin armed Bin Laden (which is farfetched). Again though, errors like this haven't been demonstrated as a regular occurrence in Glen's editing, and I trust Glen can be more careful about that kind of thing in the future, so I won't stop supporting his RFA because of it. The only way to never make editing mistakes is to never edit. Phr (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   Notes Phr's support statement above "Terrific candidate" despite evidence being presented here indicating an abusive side of GIen. --HResearcher 05:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. GIen's editing work shows he is really helpful to Wikipedia for his reverts of vandalism and small edits. He overlooks and has handled lots of bad edits and vandalism. I would really hope he would continue. In addition, he has made real contribution in some creative areas. His style is quick and decisive and, within his area of expertise, correctly done. But he uses the same style in certain "button" areas, like the Scientology series articles, in his comments on discussion pages. He isn't always right in areas outside Body building and vandalism reverts, but his curt, certain style doesn't allow that he might be making a mistake. At his present level within Wikipedia he does a fine job, possibly better than anyone else. But as an admin, I strongly oppose because an admin's job includes keeping editor's tempers cool and resolving disputes. Terryeo 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

   I guess as you're a Scientologist Terryeo I kinda expected this, which is perfectly fine of course. I just wanted to make note for you, and/or anyone that would prefer clarification in this regard; wearing an administrator hat obviously comes with new, additional responsibilities. And one of those responsibilities is to ensure balance, resolve disputes, and wherever possible not be a party to those disputes. Accordingly, any and all action I take would disregard any personal opinion on the subject matter. And this includes all matters related to Scientology. You have my word on that.- GIen 00:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's right GIen, I'm a Scientologist and you're the editor of the anti-Scientology, Scie-mology or similar spelling? Which illustrates my communication. You do a good job, as I have spelled out above, and your editing is creative and contribuatory in in Body Building. From time to time you make comments on the Scientology series pages. Yet you run a website dedicated to criticsm of Scientology. Certainly you must see that if you involve yourself here AND there, a potential conflict of interest arises. In addition, tempers are likely to flare because of your style in this "button" area. Terryeo 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Now you're stereotyping Scientologists? That might explain your cheering on User:Orsini at the Barbara Schwarz article. What ever happened to NPOV? Orsini seems only interested in discrediting Barbara Schwarz even though she presents legal documentation to support many of her claims about people she "exposes". --HResearcher 07:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo for some history about Terryeo's approach to Scientology-related articles. Phr (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment reply. The issue at hand is GIen's work. Terryeo 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   This is interesting and led me to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo#Stollery. Take a look at GIen's outside comment. Now there's some more evidence of how GIen views others he is in disagreement with. How am I supposed to believe he can change his attitude in 6 months. Most people go through their whole life never changing. I just can't tell because recently most of his edits have been reverting vandalism and other routine "clerk" type of actions. --HResearcher 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm, I looked at Glen's comment in that RFAR RFC and I'm not bothered by it except that he misspelled "persistent" as "persistant". However, I could have done without this. I'm aware that UNK is a now-blocked sockpuppet of an annoying user whose main account has also been blocked repeatedly, and that edit is 5 months old, but Glen needs to stay careful about this kind of thing. Phr (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   In a few "button" areas, GIen's style comes accross as curt and dismissive. He's a good cop and does a lot of work with anon edits who insert vandalism. Examining his track record, he corrects some spelling, reverts outright vandalism and does a good job. But when it comes to keeping wikipedia working by getting editors to work together, no, he doesn't do a good job. Terryeo 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   You didn't look very closely at what I was referring to which is the RFC, not the RFAR. Please take another look, GIen makes highly uncivil remarks. Since when does a "terrific editor"[17] make uncivil comments. --HResearcher 07:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   You're right, it's an RFC, not an RFAR. I had clicked on your link but didn't notice it went to the RFC and not the RFAR, since I'd had both of them on my screen recently. I made a correction. Thanks. Phr (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Terryeo has it wrong about what an admin's job is: "keeping editor's tempers cool and resolving disputes". He seems to think that admins are wikipedia nannies. Disputes are resolved through mediation and arbitration, which does not necessarily involve admins. Controlling ones temper can only be done by the editor him or herself. Terryeo really opposes Glen because Terryeo doesn't like Glen's editing on Scientology articles. --Fahrenheit451 02:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

   Well, this isn't the place to discuss what I think about an admin's job. I really oppose GIen's nomination for the reasons I have stated, but as always Fahrenheit451, thank you for your personal attention :) Terryeo 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Misuse of the promotional photo tag, shows the user does not grasp copyright issues on WP. See Image:Metrx.jpg, Image:Phosphagen.jpg ect.--Peta 04:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi there, yes, again this was about four months ago and I certainly have learnt 10x more than I knew then. I should have more accurately labelled these as {{Promotional}} rather than {{promophoto}} and more specifically explained in their status in full and their Fair use rationale on the description page. It is worth noting however (and I guess this is why I was a little too relaxed out these particular examples) that until recently I was the Managing Director for EAS (and prior to that a Manager for Met-Rx) so had full knowledge of the images copyright ownership and our ability to use legally.) Apologies, this certainly will not happen again. Thanks again - GIen 04:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   They probably shouldn't have been uploaded at all since we are trying to biuld a free content encyclopedia and these images don't meet any of the FUC. I also not you've done nothing to remedy the problem.--Peta

   Peta, the only reason I have not done anything is because I thought best to wait until after the RfA so others could see what it was you wre referring to. I will remedy this afternoon immediately after if this is okay. Thanks - GIen 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Username is a bit confusing. I just realized it's "GIen", not "Glen" when I was unable to locate his userpage, yet he clearly signs as "Glen". —freak(talk) 12:27, Aug. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Understand, I originally tried to get Glen however it was registered years ago, though the user had made no edits. I thought of usurping but reconsidered as didn't want to cause any trouble. I originally placed a redirect on the page then reconsidered and asked Jude to delete for me. Based on your comment I have changed my sig to GIen and I apologize for the confusion. Thanks again :) - GIen 21:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a reason to doubt adminship? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it elsewhere. ~ c. tales ^{//dirty little secrets//} 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any deliberate misleading is going on, but yeah, people can get confused by this, and another name change is probably a wise idea. Phr (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.