Wikipedia:Administrator review/Ged UK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

So, it's been nearly 18 months since my RfA, and it's about time I got this set up. So, how am I doing? I know the bulk of my admin work has been at RfPP and CSD, but I keep an eye on AIV as well, though that usually gets cleaned up faster than I can check through details. I try to stay away from drama, though inevitably one gets swept up in it sometimes, in my case usually through fully protecting a page during an edit war. Ged UK 11:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to see administrators participate here, so I want to start by saying thank you for doing so. I see you mainly when you protect pages on my watchlist, and there has never been a red flag for me there. As you say, you seem to steer clear of drama, and, from what I can see, your work is consistently helpful and without problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is this? [1]. Protected for 6 months due to excessive vandalism. Where is the excessive vandalism? Is that "consistently helpful and without problems"? Do you have a problem with IP users editing Wikipedia? 82.152.216.15 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ged - interested to know what the reasoning was behind this semi-protection. There does not seem to be much evidence of excessive vandalism" in the page history? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with that one - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 7#List of protected TV articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, thanks for clarifying. I see that this question mushroomed into something involving ANI and debates about IP users... just off this page. — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very grateful for the help you've given me with those TV articles that I'm watching and trying to protect from subtle long-term vandalism and edit-warring - and I do feel guilty for some of the grief it has been causing you occasionally. Also, you are very friendly and understanding towards new editors, even those who criticize you for your actions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent lock of the page "Little Green Footballs" has been entirely unhelpful. The person "Stickee" who has rolled the page way back after the onslaught of the little green sockpuppets has claimed justification from the essay "WP:BRD", but this essay states quite clearly, "BRD will generally fail if:...The page is protected." After your lock, the sockpuppets have all run away because they successfully got it locked how they wanted it.

The page is NOT locked. You can edit it, you're a confirmed account. Ged UK 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND he's rolled it back to your version. What exactly is the problem. Semi-protection gives the article stability if it's IP and unregistered accounts that are causing the disruption. Ged UK 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going to leave a note on your talk, but I saw this, so I'll leave it here instead :) Just wanted to say that I saw your work at RfPP for about a week and was impressed, particularly with Australian Football League and the lame edit war that was going on there. I wasn't so much impressed with the full protection (which may or may not have been necessary, I'm not sure), but I was impressed with your continued discussion on both your talk and the article's talk and your willingness for another admin to have a look at the protection, despite the criticism that you were copping. Jenks24 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of a fairly new member of WP:RCP I can say that I truly appreciate the fact that when you decline a CSD, you always leave a note on the person's talk page who nominated it, telling them why it was declined. It really helps the newbs learn the ropes and you are one of the only admins I know that goes through the trouble of doing that. So thank you! Bped1985 (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! That's kind of you to say. Most of the work is done by a script that puts the message on the talkpage, but I do more often than not explain why I've declined a CSD, particularly A7. Getting the difference between the CSD and general notability requirements is a critical part of doing new-page patrolling. GedUK 07:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with Bped1985. Early on in my NPP career, I definitely got a little... overenthusiastic a couple of times, and your explanations (in my case it was A9) helped me a lot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only interaction with you (as far as I can recall), was when you declined blocking a new account that I reported to ANI that was evading a block, because it "wasn't clear enough" to you. Another admin blocked right away after that. You also failed to notice the ANI notification I left the account and left another one right under it. The whole process made you look somewhat incompetent and I wouldn't trust you to deal with these kind of reports in the future. Anyway, I hardly ever see you at ANI, so I guess you stick to your strengths, which is a good thing. A bit of a pity though, because admins during the day hours of our time zone are hard to come by and it can take a while to get help.--Atlan (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the situation, tbh, but I'm sorry if I didn't resolve the situation to your satisfaction, but glad that someone else could. Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely on RfPP you've done a good job :). Good for being transparent and doing this. I think it would help if more admins did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely?! Heh, thanks :) Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to commend GedUK for a kindly and discreet remedy of my inadvertent possible copyright breach in the Lelia Doolan article. So many admins snarl or lecture or threaten loudly -a smaller worthier bunch go around encouraging people and fixing things; the latter help editors stay on and stay active. I am delighted to say GedUK is one of the latter--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's kind :) Ged UK 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine. How long are you gonna keep this page running?:P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to close it, but then you added to it, so I'd best leave it for a bit longer! Ged UK 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many A7 deletions that are outside scrutiny of non-admins. E.g. at [2] NuclearEnergy (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the nature of the software, that's beyond my control. Any deletion I make can be reversed, by me or another admin. If you go back through my talk page archives, plenty of people have asked for a review or clarification, and I always give it. I decline plenty of A7s as well. Not quite sure what your point is, could you clarify? Ged UK 07:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You generally did well in giving me suggestions at my talk page, as well as responding to some of my requests for page protection a long while ago (for the latter, one of the other persons that also does a similar thing is User:Fastily). I noticed within this review, you sometimes forgot to use proper punctuation marks, such as at the time of your response of another person's comment about your unhelpful edit in Little Green Footballs (e.g. a period was used instead of a question mark when asking). Other than that, you are doing well in general. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ged UK 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't interacted much and only recently (that my ~~old age dementia~~ memory tells me), but I will say that it was a pleasure communicating with you. No drama and real AGF. The way it should be.--Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Danny Baker, according to Wikipedia was born on the 22 June 1957 - it would have been highly irregular for some one born on that date to have left school in England before the end of the tern in which they became 15 (i.e. July 1972 in Mr. Baker's case). If he left school just before his fifteenth birthday, mid June let's say , he was truanting unless he had some official sanction - whether that was possible or not I do not know. It would certainly have been unusual for anyone in 1972 to have left school before the age of 15 unless their birthday was betwixt mid July and the end of August - even this group, however, would technically be deemed to have finished their education at the age of 15. Mr Baker seems to be claiming he had only three years of secondary which is almost certainly misleading. It is more likely he had nigh on four as did most people born in 1957.

Ned

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.