Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gnangarra

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] Gnangarra

Final (64/0/3) Ended Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:23:31 (UTC)

Gnangarra (talk · contribs) –

Co-nomination by Hesperian

Gnangarra has been with us since September 2005 and has around 5000 contributions to his name. He edits article content, uploads great photos, helps out with vandal patrol, joins in discussions, and is involved in a number of WikiProjects and sister projects. He understands the importance of fundamental stuff like copyright, libel, and verifiability. Most importantly, he conducts himself well in disputes, remaining calm and civil, and knowing when to stand his ground and when to walk away. I'm sure he'll make a fine administrator. Hesperian 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Moondyne

I've seen Gnangarra's edits dealing with many diverse subjects over a long time and have always been impressed with his writing and discussion skills. He has made endless contributions here and at the Commons (where he has about another 2500 edits). He can take a photo like this. In September, I observed him dealing with a conflict at AC/DC where he knew his facts and stood his ground intelligently and assertively. I've watched him and assisted him in dealing with several vandals/newbies who don't or won't follow the wikiway. He has made significant contributions to at least two featured articles and seems to understand our policies well. I trust him completely and know he'll make a first rate admin. — Moondyne 06:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SatuSuro

His capacity to cope with potentially difficult situations has shown considerable resourcefulness and capacity to be able to turn what from an observors point of view seem intractable - into a mediated and resolved situation. His ability to cope with subjects and issues from a wide range of contexts is inspiring. In the understanding of different editors and their different needs and problems, he is remarkably adept. If Wikipedia had more potential administrators with his qualities – I would be very sure it would be a much better place to work in. SatuSuro 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Cyberjunkie

Gnangarra’s contributions to Wikipedia are of great depth: his efforts in articles are diverse and considerable, with particularly fine edits to topics of Australian significance; his participation in project space is thoughtful and proactive; his presence on talk pages is calm and focused. He has demonstrated understanding of not only our policies and guidelines, but the spirit of Wikipedia itself. It is clear to me that making Gnangarra an administrator will enable him to better do the work he is already involved in. I have full confidence in his experience and trust that he will make an excellent administrator. cj 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • Acceptance of nomination. Gnangarra 08:06, 19 November 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 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 already have WP:AIV and WP:RFP on my watch list, and I have some 20 odd IP vandals there as well; I'll definitely be around those pages. Recently I came across an IP vandal working through this AOL IP address; I realised that a block of the IP wouldn't be effective so I requested a semiprotection of the article. WP:AFD receives frequent irregular visits when I'm just grazing through pages. Most recently I helped a new editor to edit his first article Helmi Technologies according to Wikipedia policies. This editor has gone on to make contributions to Eclipse Foundation and other associated articles.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: When I first crossed the path of Wikipedia I was looking for information about Kangaroo paws, or from what I've learnt through Wikipedia it's more correctly Anigozanthos manglesii. When I read what was there it was about a hybrid, including a photo of the hybrid. Since I knew more than what was there, I added what I knew, and uploaded the photograph that I wanted the information for. That photograph is here. I updated the original with a better photo almost 12 months later, yet I still know I can improve on this; unlike the article text, this will have to wait until September 2007.
The first featured article I contributed to was Banksia brownii; that was rather pleasing. So too is Banksia integrifolia. Yet I also take pleasure and pride in the help I have given to others so they can get an article to FA, like this recent nomination. Then there was the couple hours I spent chasing down help for User:Beneaththelandslide after an IP block also blocked him; basics of the story are here. Lectonar was great in helping; I'll try to be as helpful with my mop as he was.
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: What conflicts!, OK I've made 5000+ edits, I haven't perfected walking on water deeper than a puddle, and I can't cook so it doesn't matter what I could do with a couple of fish and a loaf or two of bread, nobody is going to be hungry enough to eat it anyway. When it comes to digging my heals in or circling the wagons I don't mind the occasional exchange of ideas. When it comes down to it every debate is unique, we all should be civil and accept the POV of others in good faith. That most arguments are avoidable if only we remembered to include that citation, or fill in the edit summary.
AC/DC is one where there was a group of editors who thought that because the band members are UK citizens the origin of the band should be UK. With this one I dug in and held my POV continually suggesting that the editors refer to a dictionary as the meanings of origin and nationality, and provide a verifiable reference for their position. During this I also noted in the discussion that I had reverted the same content twice and that a further revert would mean that WP:3RR could be applied to myself and to other editors involved in the process. Ultimately they were unable to provide anything that supported their claim and the matter just fizzled out.
When I first nominated Banksia brownii to WP:GA, the reviewer failed the article due to the use of technical terms; this cause a heated debate between two long standing editors over the criteria of GA. I reminded both to be civil to each other. Once this dispute was cooled I then entered into a discussion about the specific criteria, to clarify the situation and prevent others falling into the same hole. During this some editors chose to appraise the article, to which I responded that the discussion is about the criteria, not the specific article, though referring to it as an example was acceptable.
4. Optional question from James086: Do you think the title of administrator would help you in discussions or content disputes? ie. do you think your view would hold more weight if you were an admin?
A Short answer No, I thought that an admin is more comparible to a Janitor they just need to know which end of the mop goes on the floor, who takes any notice of the Janitor. Gnangarra


Question from geni (talk · contribs):

5. How well do you think you understand US and international copyright law?
A To give an answer that would be sufficiently comprehensive as allow anyone to consider my depth of knowledge would require a wide range of specific examples, if you would supply some specific examples I'll provide an interpretation based on the policies of Wikipedia and Commons if thats where the image is stored. Additionaly I dont have any legal qualifications as such when I interprate any law I err on the side of caution.
As a general rule Wikipedia policy is based on interpretations of US copyright law but err on the side of caution. Where laws of other countries can be applied that are stricter than that of US law than those should be applied the classic example are photographs of the Eiffel Tower and its light show in that French law applies. The reverse can also be applied though generally not, the most notable use of the reverse is with Public Domain(PD) images in that if the image is of a building in Iraq and its 1st published there, then 5 years after its published the image becomes PD. Other countries base PD on the life of the Author plus x number of years for example in the US works created after 1st January 1978 are copyrighted life of the Author/creator plus 70 years.
Additionally at en.Wikipedia we recognise the section under US copryright laws the allows for limited use of copyright material known as fair use. WP:FAIR sets out the policy which again is stricter than the actual law. With this Wikipedia requires that for each use of the image a rationale must be provided that explains reasons for the use, and must comply with all of these 10 conditions.
Beside the general interpretation of policies Wikipedia has specific tags that present the copyright status of the media these include {{GFDL}}, {{PD}}, {{fair use}}, {{cc-by-2.5}} and many others. This is where most of the problems occur as the uploader selects a tag that doesnt reflect the actual license that applies to the image. Other issues arise where the image is source from a web page that doesnt have the license information or its dobtful that the license they indicate is correct, in these case the image needs to be delete. Derivative works where someone uses a portion of a copyrighted image or logo then uploads its as PD are another problem.
While Wikipedia can be considered responsible for publishing a copyrighted work, ultimately the uploader is legally responsible for ensuring they have the right to upload and use any media.

Question from Newyorkbrad

6. To address the concern expressed below about your edit summary usage, will you set your Preferences to automatically prompt for a summary when you inadvertently forget to post one? Newyorkbrad 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A I altered my preferences as soon as I saw the comment, and yes I have already intentionally tested it to ensure that it works as described.
General comments
  • See Gnangarra's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Would be nice if you use edit summaries more often. 75% is good of course, but that means that you leave unsummarized something like a quarter of your major edits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Could the nominators please provide diffs for evidence of the actions stated above? (aeropagitica) 09:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as co-nominator. Hesperian 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support as co-nominator. He'll make a first rate admin. — Moondyne 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. (adding to the nominators' comments) I particularly admired how he handed a recent troll who had taken over all conversation on a talk page, by simply presenting well-researched facts that countered their claims and undermined POV "evidence". More recently in another article he has been handling some kids who really want to do the right thing by educating them in the ways of the Wiki without being at all harsh. In addition he's contributed heaps of really good photos, particularly to the Perth articles, including a couple of featured ones, and I feel he is an excellent standard bearer for the "Wiki" brand. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    sorry to contradict but none of my images have been featured Gnangarra
  4. Strong support as co-nominator SatuSuro 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support -- a valuable, sensible editor who I trust will use administrator tools wisely. - Longhair\talk 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Isn't he an admin already? Titoxd(?!?) 08:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Well, all the admins Cyberjunkie has nommed so far have been excellent, so I see no reason why you shouldn't be, either :) Support, does a good jobb. riana_dzasta 08:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, thankyou very much! :-) Hesperian 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Riana. Scott Davis Talk
    Just being honest. :) riana_dzasta 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - this user looks responsible and sensible. Roll out the big red button =) ♠PMC♠ 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support You can set your preferences to force edit summaries before saving, so that is no big deal. More participation in XfD discussions would be good as well. (aeropagitica) 09:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per my co-nomination above.--cj | talk 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Have watched Gnagarra for a while and he is more than competent. michael talk 11:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Come across him many times, and is very helpful, level headed, and trustworthy. All one needs to be an admin in my book. --liquidGhoul 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Umm..ditto. A diplomat and a good one, and good with editing. Cas Liber 12:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support John254 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support looks alright to me.-- danntm T C 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support with confidence that Gnangarra will use the tools well. —Cuiviénen 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support positive, confident editor. Rama's arrow 18:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Active in many branches of WP: space, so lack of AfD participation is not a reason to withhold the mop. ~ trialsanderrors 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Glad to support a fellow WikiProject Perth member! -- Renesis (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Very active editor; deserves the tools. Hello32020 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Michael 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - per Moondyne's nom --T-rex 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Gnangarra is a fantastic editor and I have no hesitation in trusting him with the mop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - good user, qualified for the tools. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support - a very skillful Australian editor that I 've seen around, most notably with the flora articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. 'Support: Plenty of edits and experience. I don't see any reason to not support this user.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support a good Australian candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per answers to the questions. I think he would make a good admin. James086 Talk | Contribs 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support—Reasonable edits on Perth, Western Australia, Kings Park, Western Australia, Banksia integrifolia, All Saints Church, Henley Brook, Mount Henry Peninsula (Western Australia), Swan River, Western Australia, RuneScape, Banksia brownii, Fremantle prison riot, Australian Ringneck, List of schools in Perth, Western Australia, Avondale Agricultural Research Station, Kangaroo, Banksia menziesii, & Western Australia. Will do the job. Ausi, Ausi, Ausi… Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - longterm and obviously dedicated editor. Gnangarra's contributions have made the encyclopedia a better place, and I see nothing to suggest he would abuse the tools. -Kubigula (ave) 05:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. DarthVader 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support per answers to questions. ViridaeTalk 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support – I thought he is already an admin. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Will make a great admin. NauticaShades 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Despite the questions raised by Radiant, I believe you will make a competent admin. yandman 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Great candidate, convincing answers, valuable edits. ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Despite limited XfD experience, he has demonstrated the ability to do so well, and that is the important thing. A great editor all around, good a dealing with disputes which is also very important. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  42. support he sounds nice and has good souloutions to problems Cocoaguy 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  43. Kiwi Support per Williamborg and having 1 FA. That's enough for me. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. 1ne 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - Great recommendations and track record! Kukini 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support per noms. VegaDark 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support great editor. JPD (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - Seems like this editor would be an asset as an administrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support semper fi — Moe 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support A good role model for Australian users. Jam01 06:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  51. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support a level-headed and prolific contributor. Scott Davis Talk 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  53. El_C 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. I have found Gnangarra to be a thoughtful and invaluable editor. I am confident that the user will be an exemplary admin. --Roisterer 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. A user who always seems to do the right thing, and he constantly pops up in my watchlist with good changes. That and he's a West Aussie. Hossen27 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Valued and trusted Wikipedian. I expect great things from this user. Nishkid64 02:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Seems the perfect candidate.--Aldux 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Per norm. Sharkface217 03:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Axl 14:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Humble per Support #3. Yankee Rajput 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Per nom,MustTC 19:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support-You're lucky I don't fear co-noms!  Jorcogα  00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  64. Last minute support --Húsönd 03:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Gnangarra appears to lack substantial participation in our various processes; many of his Wikispace edits are simply to Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Quiz. I see hardly any evidence of the "frequent irregular visits to AFD" mentioned, nor of several other of the glowing but vague praise given by the nominators. Of course, I'm not saying that there isn't any, but it appears to be rather exaggerated to me. (Radiant) 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    AFD's I've commented on in November Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmi Technologies,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Zhang,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Dubbo,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadership Intelligence. Gnangarra 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's pretty much my point. Four AFDs in a month is hardly a substantial participation in process. Since admins are supposed to adjudicate process, I generally expect a reasonable degree of familiarity from a candidate. (Radiant) 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I was looking through Gnangarra's history and this user seems to be fairly level-headed and I didn't run across any objectionable edits. However, Radiant raises a valid concern. I went looking for XFD participation prior to November and didn't really come across any. I'd support the request if the user were to be more active in that process. --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. A random sampling of your diffs was generally favorable, but one deeply disturbed me. Starting small... it would be nice if you consistently used edit summaries. I was mildly disturbed by this edit. I would have opposed the rename per this opinion, but it is difficult to understand how the merge proposal qualifies User:Dreddlox as a "vandal". Early sophistication is a poor argument for sock puppetry given that Dreddlox was likely a (Java) programmer directed to instructions from several potential locations. I was deeply disturbed when you abandoned the appropriate channels for your suspicions in favor of declaring hasty accusations on the Talk:Java discussion page. This action associated the entire merge request (and by extension, anyone who voted for it) with either insincerity or stupidity. This bite-the-newbie behavior limits discussions, taints votes, generates resentment, and serves to degenerate sincere discussions into name calling; perhaps this is common behavior in the realm of politics, but disturbing behavior for someone seeking the mop. I understand that dealing with the same merge proposal more than once was tiring, but administrators should demonstrate an ability to deal with recurring (and even stupid) problems with more tact. Resorting to personal attacks is not the answer to such a fundamental problem (as your own advice would suggest). Apply some creativity to the problem or prepare to see history repeat itself. May I suggest something like this notice. --DixiePixie 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't actually accuse him of being a vandal. I just used the {{vandal}} template as instructed on the page, and even qualified its use by saying "this user hasn't engaged in direct vandalism". But you're right that early sophistication was a poor argument for sock puppetry, in the absence of other evidence. I would handle this kind of situation differently if it was to occur again.
    • I don't see a significant ethical difference between accusations of direct vandalism, indirect vandalism, troll behavior, etc. I only see that the accusation was hasty and poorly investigated at the time it was announced at the merge discussion. However, my random inspections of your diffs revealed only this one incident. I am pleased that you demonstrate here a potential to recognize mistakes and hopefully learn from them. This flexibility is enough to make me withdraw my opposition unless other objectionable diffs surface. --DixiePixie 10:37, 21 November 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.