Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No Guru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] No Guru

Final (66/0/0) ended 04:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No Guru (talk • contribs) – No Guru is around WP:AIV often, and has been a registered user here for over 2 years (only heavy activity in the last 4-5 months). He's active in fighting vandalism, articles for deletion, and working several articles up towards "Good" status (or better). Well-versed on the policy end as well - don't let the relatively small Project-space count fool you. Check out interactions on user talk pages, article talk pages, and his own page, and you will find ample evidence of policy knowledge. To me the copyright stuff stands out especially. Deletion, vandal-fighting, and copyrights are three areas we can never have too many admins watching, and I'm confident No Guru will not abuse the powers. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: -- Thank you. I Accept. No Guru 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per the above statement. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support seen this person around, very good user.--Alhutch 05:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, won't abuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 06:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Keep up the good work! DarthVader 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Have seen his edits around. A good user. --Andy123(talk) 10:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Article on Pepper Martin clinched it. Now go get Gashouse Gang up to featured status! Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Good editor with a lot of experience. Not likely to abuse admin powers --TBC??? ??? ??? 11:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Good user. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --Rob from NY 12:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Alrighty!. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Terence Ong 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Moe ε 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support.  Grue  18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Good contributor, seems generally knowledgable. -Colin Kimbrell 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. — FireFox • T [18:52, 11 April 2006]
  17. Support. --Tone 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Excellent Wikipedian. Keep it up. (^'-')^ Covington 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. For my money, a strong vandal fighter merits being an admin. Vandalism spoils great articles for the short time it is on them and someone happens to access them. Vandalism undermines article credibility. Please keep on fighting it. Tyrenius 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good to see strong experience in writing articles to complement the greate anti-vandal campaign.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, looks good. Vulcanstar6 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, great editor --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - great editor, super fast responses to "the list" of questions, well deserving of my support -- Tawker 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, looks good from here.--Adam (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. support good candidate --rogerd 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support as per above. SorryGuy 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per nominator. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, will do fine. Proto||type 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support--Jusjih 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. NoGuru is a thoughtful editor who'll do well. RGTraynor 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support John Reid 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Weak Support Could be a tad less harsh. Masssiveego 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support good user --Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Strong Support Very well balanced, experienced editor. _-M o P-_ 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support per nom. OSU80 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support—Quarl (talk) 2006-04-13 07:26Z
  44. Support, but get to work on those page moves. [1] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Definitely should be an admin. J.J.Sagnella 10:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support - Yep. Nothing more needs to be said. - Richardcavell 11:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Giving him the mop and pail will allow an effective vandal-reverter to be a vandal-reverter. Bucketsofg 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. As per all of the above Anger22 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Rama's Arrow 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support "better late than never" support from Gwernol 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support meets the majority of my criteria. Good user. — Deckiller 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Thunderbrand 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Conditional support—he uses the "minor edit" tag too often when the edit isn't minor. IMHO, warning about an image's liscense isn't anything minor.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Fits like a key to a lock! TruthCrusader 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per nom. Tangotango 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support MatriX 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support - Sango123 (e) 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Baseball fan, doesn't go overboard. Good distribution of edits, definitely has experience. No reason to oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 [06:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  59. Support. At first, I was surprised to see that only 7 out of more than 1,100 user talk page edits were to his own talk page. But after cross checking, I found his responses to comments on his talk page on the commenter's talk page. The responses seemed always polite and reflected a good ability at conflict resolution, so thus my support. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Bumped into him a few times before in recent changes, seems trustworthy. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Vsmith 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
  62. Support Don't know your work that well, but from what I've seen, you're good to go. Thistheman 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support per nom, good record of contributions, and well-reasoned answers to questions below. --Elkman - (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support per my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support - RexNL 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, excellent contributions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support a great editor, excellent admin potential gidonb 02:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  68. Suppport. See no cause for concern here. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  • Neutral Although this could change pending on answers to the questions below. I've decided to change my vote to support.OSU80 16:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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: I expect that I would be busy with dealing with and blocking (as required) vandals that are posted at WP:AIV but I have a particular interest in copyright issues. I would plan spending time clearing out articles (and images) that are clearly in violation of copyright. I would also be interested in dealing with articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion and would be willing to help out in that area as well. I would expect to expand my activites eventually but these 3 areas would be my immediate focus.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I consider myself to be somewhat of a WikiGnnome so I have spent a fair bit of time with fixing bad links, stub sorting and the above mentioned RC patroling. In terms of adding content I spend most of my editing time on baseball related articles (especially pages of retired players). Upon registering at Wikipedia I was a bit surprised to see that two of my favourite ballplayers, Rico Petrocelli and Pepper Martin did not have articles so I was happy to start them. I enjoy researching baseball teams from the 19th century and as a result have started articles like the Cincinnati Porkers one (while it is stubby in appearance I hope to continue to add content to it over time). I am also glad that I was able to locate some public domain images of hockey and baseball players that I could add to articles.
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: While I would say I used to get frustrated by heavy POV pushers I have learned over my time here how to back away from editing when required. Editing in baseball related articles and my WikiGnome activities don't lend themselves to much conflict. Hostility from vandals doesn't bother me very much. Most of the stress I have felt at Wikipedia has been self-inflicted.

Questions from Tawker stolen from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use.

Comment. I will work through these questions starting tomorrow except for #5 which I would like to address straight-away. No Guru 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Update. I have now answered questions 1 through six and expect to answer the rest later today or tomorrow. No Guru 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Update. All questions are answered now - let me know if you need me to clarify anything. No Guru 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A - Assuming that the Sockpuppet accusation has been verified I would warn the user to cease the abusive behaviour. I would want to check out WP:SOCK to ensure I was clear on policy. I would also ask for advice from another admin if I was unclear on how to proceed.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    A - I would most likely leave a message on the other admin's talk page to sort out the issue as this scenario seems more like a miscommunication than anything else.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    A - I would warn the user fully using templates all the way to test4. I recognize that this could look like a conflict of interest so I would ask another admin to investigate wether or not a block was required.
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A - If I felt I had information that the other admin needed to know about or was asked to contribute to the process I would do that. Otherwise I would feel obligated to let the WP:RFAR process progress as normal.
  5. How would you respond to users who argue that your work has been almost exclusively in vandal fighting(even the article which you are most proud of you only have 14 edits, most of which are adding pictures) and that this lack of constructive (rather than anti-destructive) edits gives them reservations about making you an admin?
    A I am proud of the vandal fighting I have done but I think it would be incorrect to say that my edits have been almost exclusively in vandal fighting. I edit articles, I disambig links, I welcome new users, I fix bad links, I sort stubs, I contribute on RFA's and Articles for deletion and I flag suspected copyright violations (articles and images), I patrol Newpages, etc... Also, the articles I mentioned above are ones that I have created and added content too over time -- I haven't added images to them so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A - I am in support of this proposal. I would like to see editors with a proven track record (say 1000 edits and 3 months of activity) be given rollback privileges if they wanted it.
  7. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A - Well, according to the Blocking policy there are some circumstances where an indefinite block is appropriate (Personal attacks which could place users in danger, posting personal details about other editors Usernames which are invented to impersonate others - like someone did to me. I am a cautious person by nature and don't like making mistakes so I would always refer back to policy before doing something serious such as blocking a user indefinitely.
  8. Suppose you are closing and AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is you answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
    A - I think the safe thing to do here would be to wait longer for further consensus to build. If no further opinions were forthcoming I think it would be appropriate to re-list it (as I have seen done) to seek further consensus.
  9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A - Personally I would not feel comforatable closing AfD that had very vew contributions (say less than 4). Better to wait for or seek further consensus to be safe.
  10. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A - I have faced a lot of challenges in my personal life that I have had to overcome which has (I believe) given me the benefit of perspective. I don't forsee facing any circumstances as an admin that would cause me to act erratically or to feel overwhelmed.
  11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A - In my opinon the amount of vandalism that goes undetected and the number of copyright violations that exist bring into question the credibilty of Wikipedia. I would like Wikipedia to be a credible and useful research tool. I believe that as an admin I can play a (very small but useful) part in helping that to happen.
  12. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A - I see the admin role as a technical one.


Questions from Masssiveego 05:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Can I get an answer within 24 hours?

1. To your comment of.. Please stop adding barnstars to my page. No Guru 20:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with recieving barnstars that you like to tell us about?

A - The user in question User:EdRooney was involved in vandalism. I didn't want to accept a barnstar from him as I don't think it was in good faith. See his edit contributions, talk page and the edit history for Geno Petralli for more information on this.

2. To your talk page of ..

"Leave Geno alone. No one that has written on this page has bothered you. Have you nothing better to do than attack people's work? - Keith Creel"

"What's twaddle? Did you do a wiki story on "twaddle"? It's all legit and from the references mentioned below. If you don't know about Geno Petralli and/or think his life is a joke, then leave it alone! Seriously, an 8 year old kid with cancer is no joke. - Jim Sundberg"

Please don't detroy the Geno Petralli page

An 8 year old boy with cancer posted those photos and wrote most of the enteries. have you no sense of shame?

I told you he doesn't give a damn about you or your sicko kid, B&^&*! Get lost and stop sending me messages! If you don't like start your own wiki-world! EdRooney 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain the above?

A- I'm just going to have to refer you to the talk page for the Geno Petralli article mentioned in reply to your previous question.

3. The 3RR

Please stop. You're getting redy to violate the 3RR policy on User talk:68.74.185.144. Please notify an admin before continuing to revert. SWD316 talk to me 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get an explaination please?

A- This is a discussion I hade with another editor about the 3RR policy:

This was posted on my talk page - Please stop. You're getting redy to violate the 3RR policy on User talk:68.74.185.144. Please notify an admin before continuing to revert. I replied thusly [2]

His reply was

Yeah, but looking at your contributions, it didn't look too good when it says, revert vandalism 7-8 times in a row. Oh well. Cheers!

And I replied again. [3]

He replied with this -

A fine motto indeed! But remember when doing that to an article, it might be content dispute, then it might turn into a motto you might regret. lol.

And I replied again. [4]

And he replied one more time with the final comment of the discussion.

True, true. I thought I would just throw that out there. Let's not get into a arguement over vandals, it's just silly. Talk to you later!

I was happy with the way the discussion went. See my talk archive and his as a reference.


4. For the talk page post Spare me

...your pithy comments. You need a lesson in manners. The article contained incorrect information, so I've removed it. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill.-DSJ2 04:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this user irate with you?

A - This is a comment I received from a new user after I reverted his edit (which was a deletion of source content}and left a standard warning on his talk page {test1}. You would probably have to ask him why he was so irate with me.

I engage in a lot of vandal fighting and I receive my fair share of criticisms and complaints from people who are annoyed with me. I don't know what else to say about it. I hope this answers your questions adequetly.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_No_Guru_083f.html"