Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Night Gyr

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

[edit] Night Gyr

Final (56/4/5); Ended Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:31:48 UTC

Night Gyr (talk • contribs) -- I've been editing Wikipedia on and off since late 2004. My first logged-in edit was taking a stub tag off an article that had grown long enough to warrant it, and that's set something of a pattern for what I've done ever since. I tend to make small edits here and there, rewriting the occasional flawed article, adding sources, tagging things that need fixing, or grabbing a few articles out of a backlog to clean up or delete. My main goal here is to refine wikipedia and increase the overall quality level. Along the way, I've nominated a number of articles for deletion, some of which were rather controversial, but I believe that we should have broad inclusion here, as long as it meets basic encyclopedic standards (the big three of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). I've tried to follow those closely with the articles that I've created, and instill them in other editors. Looking back, I've apparently uploaded a couple of featured pictures, created or contributed to some articles that made it to "did you know?", and gotten involved in policy debates that I hope to push wikipedia in a better direction. The above is not a complete record of what I've done here, but even I don't remember everything I've done here. I'm asking for the buttons today mainly because every once in a while I come to pages that need moving, or protection or unprotection or just deletion, and I'd rather keep those backlogs clearer instead of filling them up. I want to keep this place clean and sharp as a source for knowledge. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: N/A, self-nom

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I've done everything from images and copyright violations to newpage patrol and AFDs in the past, so I expect to keep on wandering in the future, although it'll be more comforting to me to know that I can help clean out CSDs and xFDs.

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

A: Every time I get a DYK, it gives me a little special feeling on the inside. We're here to take every piece of knowledge* and put it in one place for everyone to find. To find interesting facts--Patience Dabany was the First Lady of Gabon and a successful recording artist, Scott Helvenston was on Man vs. Beast before he was killed in Iraq, the intriguing stories of Wesley Autrey or Gerald Washington--that would otherwise just slip away, and then to cross-reference them with the sort of detail that's possible here, is a great thing. USS Firebolt (PC-10) is exactly the sort of dense ball of facts that I love to create and think we need more of.

*I define knowledge strictly--information that we can verify to be true, that isn't just a directory entry or in-universe tidbit.

Actually, I just remembered that I left off my favorite editing experience of all time (yeah yeah). On Timber, the layout was getting screwed up by the numerous pictures and tables, and NaOH (talk • contribs) had just made a bunch of changes. I modified the layout and copyedited his work, and explained the layout issues on his talk page. We had a pretty rapid conversation back and forth on talk pages, working out the issues of a complex layout that had to look right on multiple displays, and ended up with a page that was satisfactory to both of us. When the other person not only sees it your way, but likes the result just as much as you do, that's building consensus.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've encountered Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) a few times, and ran into trouble when he didn't seem to understand the basic policies on what articles should and should not be, especially over the inclusion of what was essentially a how-to guide in Oxy-fuel welding and cutting. I tried to bring in other voices with an RfM (seeing that RfC required two separate users, and not realizing that was only for user-based disputes), but that sort of fizzled out and I decided that there were a million other articles to work on, so I didn't need to fret over that one.

Optional questions from RiseRobotRise

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

IAR means that the letter of the rules isn't as important as the spirit of the encyclopedia. It says to ignore all rules in order to make wikipedia better, and to determine whether something makes the encyclopedia better, you can't ignore what wikipedia is supposed to be. The fundamentals, that wikipedia is a *free* *encyclopedia*, with a neutral point of view and verifiable information, are the things that we're reaching for when making this place better. Guidelines are meant to steer us in this direction, but sometimes they get silly (the secondary provisions of our notability guidelines are regularly mocked in the media). IAR means that none of the rules are as important as the encyclopedia, not that you can do anything you want, but that you can do things that make it better without worrying about signing off in triplicate.

Snowball is there to streamline bureaucracy in the same way. It needs to be applied narrowly, though, because it's not about the closer's opinion, it's a matter of consensus. If there's legitimate dispute, the process should run so that all parties can at least feel they've had their fair shot, even if they disagree with the outcome. The GNAA article's history has shown the problems with misapplied speedy closes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk • contribs)

5. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?

A: We're (ideally) a neutral and objective encyclopedia available as free content and created through good faith and consensus. The first two define what we include and how we write it. We're not all things to all people; we're not an authority or exhaustive data dump; we're just an encyclopedia that doesn't need to limit itself. The third is distribution--we want others to be able to use what we write and spread the knowledge. The last two are more about how we make the sausage. Assume good faith, aim for the first three, write some guidelines if they help, and hope for the best.

6. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?

A: A revert is a symptom of a disagreement. Sometimes it's legitimate, like when a user makes a mistaken or clueless edit or an admin takes a mistaken action. For it to turn into a war, at least one party has to give up the basic principles of good faith and consensus-building discussion that wikipedia is founded on. Reverts of admin actions should be accompanied by an explanation, and if the explanation is unsatisfactory, resolution will only come through discussion, not a wheel war. Admins shouldn't be afraid to reverse things they percieve as flawed (an unjustified block for example), but if they can't convince other parties to see things their way, it's better to recognize that consensus just happens to disagree with you on this point.

7. Who has the authority to ban users?

A: We don't do punitive blocks here, we stop people from editing to prevent them from doing damage. If a person represents an obvious threat of disruption in a widespread manner that isn't likely to abate, then it's logical to ban them from editing entirely. The arbcom and jimbo have the authority to level these kinds of judgements, but I'd consider community bans, like speedy deletion for articles, a more limited sort of consensus decision that a person is an obviously and unambiguously harmful presence on the encyclopedia. If a community banned person shows up with a sock puppet but only makes constructive edits, then the ban is the kind of rule we should ignore. If they're mixed in their contributions, writing constructively but causing other problems, more nuanced remedies are necessary.

Optional question (or questions) from �� Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

8. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

A: Most of the articles I've edited have been fairly free of linkspam, so I'll have to admit that it hasn't seemed to be much of a problem to me so far. I've removed plenty of commercial and irrelevant links, but it's never seemed to be an overwhelming flood. Our basic standards are to link to pages that offer worthwhile, relevant resources. The three you listed are relevant in some cases, such as when a band or company or individual has its own page, like Blendtec or Ok Go or Prokofy Neva. It's not a problem for standards when you're doing essentially the same as linking to the company's own website. The problems arise when links are to resources that are of inferior quality or irrelevant, but these standards apply regardless of the commercial nature of the target site. If it's unreliable and hard to get information out of, it doesn't matter if that's because it has ads or because it's just crap. I've seen some overzealous link removal related to Encyclopedia of Earth come up on the village pump lately, so I'd hope that people will consider every link on its own merits, rather than tarring useful ones as spam. I think our standard should be the marginal value of each link to the reader, its benefit vs. the clutter and the time taken to follow and read it.

Optional Question(s) from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

8.Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A. I've never supplied or asked for any contributer's age on wikipedia. I've seen middle aged men act as immature as 13-year-olds, and at least 10% of our featured pictures came from one user who had yet to turn 18. Sure, there's a correlation between age and maturity; I see it in myself looking back, but we judge editors on their maturity. I've personally known someone who porting linux to the ipaq in middle school, and another who's in college at 15 and has been an administrator on wikipedia for months if not years now. On the other hand, these are exceptional folks and there are a lot of impetuous teenagers I wouldn't trust with the power to block hastily and set off a media frenzy.

Optional question by Betacommand

9 As an Admin, It is often your job to review blocks placed by other admins. I am interested in knowing how you would resolve this unblock request.

Betacommand (Talk | contribs) blocked "Triplemoonsexotic (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name. {{usernameblock}})

• The user emails you with the following

From: Triplemoonsexotic (**** AT triplemoonsexotic DOT com)

I would like to know why I was banned as soon as I setup an account...

"Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Betacommand for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Please read our our username policy and choose another name

Your IP address is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx."

Please explain why I placed the block and how you would deal with the unblock request.

My response would be, roughly: "You are not banned from editing on Wikipedia, in fact, your contributions are welcome. However, the username policy at wikipedia prohibits the use of a username that promotes a company or organization. Your choice of username seems to be promoting your business, and so that account was blocked. You're welcome to register a different name, as long as it is not promotional or otherwise in violation of the username policy, which can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USERNAME" This block is legitimate, although I wouldn't have jumped on it myself, since it's not like he used 'buy lizards from us!' or something so blatant. Let him rereg another, but if someone blocks his new account for sockpuppetry (as I have heard tales of), then we have a serious problem. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

they respond:

No kidding...I own that domain, as well as triplemoonsdesign.com, leopardgeckoregistry.com, doverjazz.com, keystoneexoticssupply.com...

Owning a domain name should not get me banned without cause. I did not violate any rules. It should not have been assumed that I was a spammer. It was rude and uncalled for.

FYI, I use triplemoonsexotic for pretty much every login I have. People know me by my business name.

Please remove the ban.

How do you respond?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Betacommand (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Like I said before, I wouldn't have blocked him in the first place (the name isn't obviously an advertisement unless you google it and find the business), so it gets a little awkward to be speaking from the position of already having issued a block. Checking with the original blocking admin would let me know if there was some history, such as a known past spammer, but without other reason, I'd probably let him off the block with a warning to refrain from advertising his business. The ban on such usernames is meant to stop spammers, and if he's going to be a good-faith contributor, google confirms his story by turning up a number of postings on forums that have the same name and aren't just shills for his site. It's not the same as advertising ("Drink Coca-Cola!"), and more like User:USSTRATCOM PAO, who's been a productive contributor to articles related to his organization. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the preceding has become such a contentious issue, I'd like to quote from a piece of WP:USERNAME that reflects my own view: "Admins should not block usernames that may have been chosen in good faith. We do not want to scare off good contributors." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Night Gyr's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. I've seen you, I've seen your work, your answers are satisfactory, and I would trust you with the tools. --tjstrf talk 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes!!!!!! JorcogaYell! 06:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Weird, I swear I've seen you up for RFA before. Clich� moment. – Chacor 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, good user. Kusma (討論) 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak support - can be trusted with admin tools, edits are great, but I would like to make a few comments. Your 'serious' activity started quite recently, but this should be OK as it appears you have the experience. I'd like to see a bit more on posting warnings on talk pages for vandals (I didn't see too many on the user contributions page, if you did do so, then sorry). I also didn't see anything to WP:AIV. But overall, I can trust this candidate, which is mainly what this is all about. Insanephantom(please comment on my Editor Review!) 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   If you read the candidate's answer to q1, or his nomination, you'll find that there isn't a single mention of wanting the tools to fight vandalism. That's fair, not everyone is a vandal fighter, you can't really ask someone who isn't a vandal fighter to use WP:AIV, can you? – Chacor 11:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

   Okay. To be fair, I canceled that comment. Insanephantom(please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Support - a trusted user --BigDT 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Edits are good, answers are good, no problems with this one. --Wizardman 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Have seen this user before and have a good impression — Lost^(talk) 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, I think he will use the tools responsibly.--Isotope23 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - We've interacted, and I have only positive recollections of that. Definitely seems like the kind of guy who would be more productive with an admin mop. John Broughton | Talk 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. A level-headed user whom I trust not to abuse the tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragesoss (talk • contribs).
14. Support I don't see any problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Great answers to the questions, seems qualified. Complete trust with the tools.Ganfon 16:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - impressive candidate. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support - looks good, and experience with images --T-rex 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong support - okay, this user should be an admin (and I thought he already was!). Yuser31415 18:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Answers indicate Night Gyr has a similar approach to adminship as I do, which obviously I approve of. Roving from task to task over time is a good way to avoid burnout and actually enjoy admin work, and a clear understanding of IAR is very good. Seems reasonable in my observations of him around Wikipedia, should make a good admin. --W.marsh 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support solid, balanced contributions, good answers. What's not to like? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support.--H�s�nd 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Good answers to questions. I think I've seen you up for RFA before too... Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support no reason not to. ← ANAS ^Talk? 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support -good candidate and great answers to questions
26. Support Joe I 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Nothing seems wrong. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Good answers, good user, good candidate. =) Nishkid64 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support well rounded candidate with a good history of contributions. Answers indicate a good understanding of Wikipedia policy.�~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Very good answers; I think I'll take notes... ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Answers indicate a well rounded genuine candidate who understands fully the areas of adminship he wishes to take on. Depth and experience have been shown with pertinent links to relevant examples, and I fully support this nomination despite having yet to encounter this user in the course of my own editingCaissa's DeathAngel 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Answered the questions well. I think Andrew Levine (talk • contribs) over-reacted. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Excellent answers, also per James^. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Insert standard thought you were....... cliché here Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Weak support Have seen you around and mostly been impressed, but I was shocked by your answer to Q1. IMHO it's one of the weakest answers I've seen. Swayed to support by remembering that "adminship is no big deal" and ultimately, I trust you with the tools, even if you've not really convinced me you need them. --Dweller 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    I'm curious about what you're looking for here. I'd like to help clear some backlogs (CSD gets big when I'm on); I don't have any five year plans for wikiediting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    Well this is unusual, explaining a support !vote to the candidate, but if you review your answer to Q1, the first half implies no need for the tools and the second half a kind of lackadaisical "oh and if I come across a problem I might help out" kind of attitude, that I (and, it seems others) think thoroughly misrepresents your genuine passion for and ability to improve this project. To be harsh, we don't hand out the mop to "comfort" you. IMHO Q1 is far and away the most important question on a RfA and my support !vote was only because I respect what you've done here. It's ironic, because it's not too hard to come up with a decent Q1 answer. In short, I think your answer was unworthy of your calibre. Happy to discuss further on my talk page - I don't want to clutter up what will be a very successful RfA. --Dweller 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

36. Weak support per Dweller. --tennisman sign here!
37. Weak support per Dweller. I would be leaning (or !voting even) neutral, were it not for the "I thought was admin alreadyitis" infecting me right now... Suggest candidate revises answer to Q1. Martinp23 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support answers demonstrate knowledge of policy and levelheadedness. -- Renesis (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support: Looks pretty clear to me. Oppose reasons below are biased (self-admittedly so), unpersuasive, and speak more to a lack of WP:PROD familiarity than civility problems. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support by the above + consistently brings thoughtful reasonable rationales on AfD showing good understanding of policy (random recent example). Pascal.Tesson 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Nothing causes me any concern about this nominee. Agent 86 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
42. I see no big problems with this user. >Radiant< 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Support, good user, and particularly for dealing with a worthless and deliberately leading question with no right answer other than the one the questioner wanted to see (which is the wrong answer) with good grace and good sense. Proto::► 10:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. I withdraw my previous oppose as I am persuaded by the candidate's explanation on delldot's TalkPage. Per Proto, I now support for his valiant effort to deal with a question intended from the outset to catch him out. Simply having one's domain name as a user name is not the same thing as having a Username that promote a company or website, especially where the company is not well know. In any event the policy says using company names as usernames is discouraged not prohibited. Without evidence of the sig being used in a spamming manner, I think Night Gyr is correct to assume good faith on the user's part. I am convinced he will make a good admin. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Gyr knows what he is doing, excellent user. Arjun 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. While Gyr is lacking in knowledge in some areas (Who can ban, for instance), Gyr shows a willingness to learn ad accept criticism. I think he'll do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support: No major problems with this user. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Strong support. I've seen this user in several places and am impressed with his work. Opposition is quite weak. — CharlotteWebb 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - I gotta admit, I think the diplomatic answer to betacommand's loaded question is excellent and I'm a bit mystified by the currently stated opposition.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support--Rudjek 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support, prodding Space warfare in fiction was not the greatest call, but no real concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. the wub "?!" 23:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Kafziel ^Talk 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support — I have seen Night Gyr around often, particularly over in WP:FPC. I think everything that needs to be said about Night already has, so I'll just leave my full support and be on my way. ♠ SG →Talk 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, seems level headed and with trustworthy judgment. Dragomiloff 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, Based on this: "We're here to take every piece of knowledge and put it in one place for everyone to find." Even with the caveats that unverifiable information, "directory entries," and "in-universe tidbits" do not count as knowledge, this is a dangerous attitude that will ultimately harm the project if allowed to proliferate. Simply accumulating facts, without exercising discretion regarding what is pertinent to an article and isn't, is not the way to build an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Wait, what? Where does he say that he does not intend for facts to go in relevant articles? If you're opposing based on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, he points out multiple instances where he has nominated articles that did not consistent of what he considered useful knowledge for deletion. --tjstrf talk 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not everything belongs in every article; each article has a pertinent level of detail. Of course discriminate in order to focus on the more important parts. We use subarticles and summary style to dive into greater depth. For example, we have hundreds, if not thousands of pages covering every aspect of World War II, from the bullets used and the battles fought to the german postwar resistance that became a historical footnote until it was referenced again in political debates half a century later. We don't put all this information in every article, and distillation to a summary is important, but I'm talking about the scope of the project, not the scope of any one article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   "but I'm talking about the scope of the project, not the scope of any one article." But this is the whole point; is there a limit to the level of detail that the project as a whole should plumb? For example, relating again to World War II, should we incude biographical information on every single man who fought in the war, for whom reliable sources can be found? If you agree that this would be foolish, and that there are limits to how detailed the project should be even when dealing with verifiable facts, simply amend the initial statement that I quoted, and I will support. Andrew Levine 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Of course, we're not going to index the life stories of every person who fought in WWII. The problem is not the scale, though, it's that the reader wouldn't learn anything from it. "ok, so this guy was born, fought, and died." The kind of articles that make no claim to notability and deserve to be a7'd. I'd say the limit is where we stop being educational and start getting trivial. The point of a tertiary source is to summarize knowledge, not to duplicate its sources. But if the individual has a genuine, detailed story, documented in secondary sources, we ought to include it. We've got thousands of articles on ships because we have great resources to tell us their stories. If we had a DANFS for people, we could stand to have a lot more articles on them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   With all due respect to Andrew Levine, I feel like opposing on this basis is like campaigning for de-sysoping Jimbo for his "sum of all human knowledge" quote. Pascal.Tesson 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose First off, I must admit that I am a tad bit biased with this vote. Night Gyr nearly scuttled an article (found here) that I dumped several hours into (yes, I am familiar with WP:OWN... but as a human, I am far from perfect). Night Gyr did not respond to my message (found here) asking about what I should do about the prod. My oppose here is not with the nominating of the article but rather with the fact that he failed to respond to my message to him asking for advice. How can Night Gyr be trusted with Administrative tools if he won't even answer simple questions posed to him by Wikipedians who are lost and confused and looking up to the Administrators for guidance? Night Gyr, I am sorry. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Wait, I don't see you asking for any advice. All I see is you asking him to either remove the prod or take it to WP:AFD. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 23:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   I still consider myself new to Wikipedia. As such, I asked Night Gyr to take it off instead of me taking it off (which, I should note, I later did). My Oppose still stands. Night Gyr seems just a bit too quick with tagging articles for deletion than instead doing research or improving the articles. I will not accuse him of just going down the list of pages of articles with the original research tag and then prodding them because they are OR, but I will admit that the thought did cross my mind. I should note that Night Gyr did respond to my question. However, if I left the tag up on the page, it could have been deleted by now and Night Gyr's response, although there, would be far too late. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I've seen this user mass tag articles ("in-universe") (without even reading them - less then a minute between each) - I could not trust this user until I know they do not have a lack of judgement. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose for lack of response to messages on TalkPages in examples provided by Sharkface and delldot. It seems simply rude not to respond to messages from members of the Community and isn't the sort of attitude I am comfortable with in a candidate for adminship. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to support. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   The articles could very well be one or two-lines stubs he's tagging, which will obiouvsly take less than a minute unless you can prove to me otherwise.--Wizardman 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Very Strong Oppose I must oppose because of the answer to the response to the second part of my question #9 shows that Night Gyr is not familiar with Wikipedia policy per WP:USERNAME and WP:SPAM having your company as your username is spam that is the sneakiest kind of spam. having a user spread the name of their company every time they sign a comment is not good. Spam is becoming a very real problem on wikipedia both in blatant and subversive methods. Having a user not understand wikipedia policy and not thinking spam is a issue here as long as the user doesn't say "buy our product" is unacceptable. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   This is a very unfair reason to oppose. Night Gyr's answer exhibited a grasp of Wikipedia's assume good faith guideline that the questioner seems to lack entirely. Betacommand's leading question assumes a very poor and arbitrary block would have taken place in the first place - something I have confidence that Night Gyr would not do. I hope that the closing bureaucrat takes this into account. Proto::► 11:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   you say this is unfair to oppose because of this response? I asked Night Gyr to handle a request for unblock that a user sent to them via E-mail regarding a block placed by another admin, the question of whether the user's block was placed in good faith here (I say that with caution as at other times it would assume good faith.) as per Night Gyr's answer to part one of the question However, the username policy at wikipedia prohibits the use of a username that promotes a company or organization. states that the username block was valid yet when the user complains about policy Night Gyr decides to unblock which is clearly against both WP:SPAM and WP:USERNAME. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Concur with Proto. Let's take a look at what the official policy says. "Usernames that promote a company or website: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked." Note the subtle use of "may be blocked" instead of "will be blocked" or "are not allowed" (used in most other examples) which indicates that while these names are discouraged, there is some room for tolerating the name when there is no evidence of spamming. Night Gyr's answer to your question strikes me as particularly reasonable. I doubt that a spammer for Triplemoonsexotic would find any deep interest in putting his signature in talk pages unrelated to his business. Note also that the block would never have been imposed in the first place unless there was indication that the account is used for spamming because there would be no indication whatsoever that the account is in any way related to the domain name. Note for instance that www.proto.com is a registered domain. www.betacommand.com isn't but who knows, it could very well be at some point and no one in their right mind would then ask you to change your username. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Generally speaking, a reasonable compromise would be unblocking the account, and asking them to change their username per the process at Changing Usernames. If they had not made any edits, they could just sign up a less contentious names. Remember - diplomacy tends to be compromise, not choosing sides. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   BC, in your scenario, it was you who placed the block. If I received that same email with that same message complaining about being blocked for that same reason (or same abject lack of), I would immediately unblock the account and profusely apologise for the kneejerk reactions and appalling grasp of good faith and policy exhibited by some of our admins. Proto::► 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   then you would fail to realize what WP:SPAM means and I blocked that user before they could start spamming. you should always contact the blocking admin in these situations Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Please tell me you are joking Betacommand - you should be demonstrating good faith but clearly utterly failed to here by making the non-good faith assumption that this user will spam. By all means monitor closely, and pull the trigger early if required, but the username is not immediately recognisable as a company, would need to be Googled to find that out, and is therefore permissable under Wiki guidelines. And that question was horrendously leading and inappropriate for a genuine survey of the user's capacity to Admin - especially given the decision was questionable to say the least and it was your own - you could at least have used someone else's example if nothing else Addyboy 19:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per Sharkface, but leaning towards support. Sharkface's comments made me think Gyr might be too busy, although I might be wrong. Just H 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral due to concerns brought up by sharkface. I looked at your talk page, Night Gyr, and found evidence of other times that it doesn't look like you answered people's questions. Extraordinary Machine asked you to respond to a question, and I found no evidence that you had either on Talk:Pretty Baby or on User talk:Extraordinary Machine. Gungho asked you another question at User talk:Night Gyr#== Boresight ==, and again I saw no response on your talk page or theirs. To be fair, you do sometimes answer people's questions, e.g. here and here, and here, and it looks like you've been answering more lately. But I feel like it should be more consistent. Even if you think the person's a common vandal or the answer to the question is obvious, it's important to gently answer their question by pointing them to the relevant policies; that way they won't continue making the same mistakes. You could also head off the questions by providing an explanation any time you remove someone's content or tag it as needing work, to avoid hurt feelings and continued confusion. Plus it helps avoid biting new users (or whomever). I also suggest leaving warning templates when you remove spam or vandalism (you didn't here or here). I also thought that this edit summary was a little less than friendly. I'm not opposing because I looked at a large number of your edits and the ones I didn't bring up here were fine. If I'm wrong about any of this, I definitely want to know; please correct me here or on my talk page. delldot | talk 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

   Night Gyr has pointed out on my talk page (as I asked him to above) that the edits where he didn't respond to questions were 8 months old and that the spamming and vandalism he didn't leave tags for were also old at the time he found them. I'm not changing my !vote, however, since I was leaning toward oppose due to the lack of discussion with new users when he reverted their content and edits I though were less than friendly. delldot | talk 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose per Sharkface and Betacommand Neutral per the positive change to his response to Beta's question, but no support yet as Sharkface's comment is still a concern.

   While it is commendable that a user wishes to assume good faith, usurping a block, or going about CSD or AFD without prior discussion shows a very fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and it's current problems. Spam is becoming an increasing problem on Wikipedia, and these kind of subversive spamming methods cannot be considered acceptable. (Aside hijink: I remember in #wikipedia-spam-t Jimbo saying something along the lines of "Isn't that something we should indef people over?") Spamming is something that is being dealt with on the highest levels on Wikipedia - and we need to present a united front rather than a divided one. Spam is a real problem - if it were not, people like Jimbo would not be getting involved. As well, your lack of discussion in reverting content edits suggest a propensity for edit warring that make me hesitant to give you the keys. As to Beta's question in particular - it's not the response per se, not the finer points I would have appreciated - just but one thing, one answer - "I would have asked Betacommand why he blocked the user". Making assumptions helps no one, and hinders many. Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus. To act unilaterally without consensus gathering even being a consideration is something I do not want in anyone trusted with the keys on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Peter, did you even read question 9 and the response, or just Betacommand's illogical and dodgy reason to oppose? At no point did it say the fictional complaining user had actually spammed, just that he owned a domain name, and the Wikipedia user name was the same as this domain name. From where on earth did you get the assumption that this user was a spammer? Night Gyr even says that if the user did use the account for spam then his reaction would have been different. Wikipedia is built on common sense and assuming good faith. Night Gyr's answer exhibited both of those things. Proto::► 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think it is ironic Peter that you criticise Night Gyr for apparently not demonstrating a willingness to act according to consensus when it would appear that Betablocker has done precisely that with a ridiculous block against a user who had done nothing wrong. Addyboy 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Betablocker? I'm sorry, but calling names is a personal attack, but more importantly it's incivil and immature. I really wished more people would ask themselves if they were helping wikipedia by pressing the save button. I would avoid much of this childish nastiness. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

   Please no need to throw insults around I happen to know some information about this BEFORE i placed the block. I was wondering how a user would respond to the question in no way was it inappropriate as A. Night Gyr admits that the user has violated WP:USERNAME even though Night Gyr would not have personally made the block Night Gyr stated and I quote This block is legitimate and I agreed with that. I then pressed further to see how Night Gyr would handle a difficult user, thus the complaint. Night Gyr's response to that is my big issue as Night Gyr stated that they would unblock the user even though a legitimate block was in place. that is where I have an issue. Also Night Gyr should have gone to the blocking admin (me) to see if there where any issues (Night Gyr did not) that is where I have my problem. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   He also said that the block, while allowable, was not essential and that it was perfectly legitimate according to WP:UserName to allow it to remain. Addyboy 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Addyboy 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (resigned as contribution was in wrong place)

   This is getting ridiculous. Night Gyr said in his response "Checking with the original blocking admin would let me know if there was some history, such as a known past spammer". Isn't that precisely consulting with the blocking admin to figure how this all came about? I mean you put Night Gyr in front of an improbable situation. The original block would have been placed by an admin who, by following some kind of supernatural hunch, would have guessed correctly that the username Triplemoonsexotic is in fact an attempt by the owner of Triplemoonsexotic.com to spam Wikipedia, although that user's activity looks entirely spam-free. Also, if the blocking admin did have some evidence regarding an attempt at spamming, that would be visible in his blocking rationale and Night Gyr would have no problem figuring this out. Pascal.Tesson 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   He revised his response in response to the opposition. A good thing too - the point of the question - or of any question, is to highlight something we the Wikipedia public feel is an important issue, and guage whether we feel their response is adequate. I commend Night Gyr for realising a misstep, conferring with Betacommand as to why he said what he did, and improving his own responses. That is exactly the type of behaviour I was looking for in the answer, and looking to promote. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral Good contributor, but the answers to the questions (especially regarding what wikipedia is and what knowledge is) weren't discerning or substantive enough for me to vote for support. Bwithh 10:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Netural per Bwithh. Carpet9 04:41, 16 January 2007 (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.