Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guettarda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Guettarda

final (41/2/0) ending 15:50 20 June 2005 (UTC) Very good user. He made many articles on biology and Trinidad and Tobago. He made about 4370 edits since September 2004. He is very flexible and clearly understands principles of Wikipedia. I believe, that he will be a good admin -- Darwinek 15:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I accept the nomination. Guettarda 16:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. How could I nominate and not support. -- Darwinek 15:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. I've had othing but good experiences; should make a level-headed and sensible admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. William M. Connolley 16:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  4. Anyone Dr. C. supports must have his good points ;-) and anyway he seems to know how to use the tools. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Definitely support. Vsmith 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strongly support, SqueakBox 18:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support-JCarriker 19:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  8. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Yesindeedy - Grutness...wha? 02:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Nothing but good edits. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. He's good at dealing with those (e.g. myself on at least one occasion) who aren't as well-informed as he is. -- Hoary 03:21, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  12. Support. A very good user, and a very strong candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. A very good editor, and interacts well with other users. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Seems like a solid contributor, but uses edit summaries roughly half the time and should consider using them more. Radiant_>|< 08:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) Addressed my concern, so support. Radiant_>|< 12:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  15. El_C 12:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support - He's a well-informed and valuable contributor. JoJan 13:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support- a dedicated Wikipedian. Flcelloguy 15:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. --Kbdank71 16:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. consistently levelheaded and balanced editing, and even the guts to leave a message on my talkpage just in case i might want to vote against. far from it:). Ungtss 17:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support I like that Guettarda takes responsibility for his statements and actions. FeloniousMonk 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Still waters run deep. siafu 00:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support, his positive qualities are far more expressive than his negative ones. --Sn0wflake 00:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good contribs. --Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. support Dunc|☺ 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Impressed by his ability to argue passionately without abuse. This shows an ability to confront issues appropriately and I admire that. --Theo (Talk) 11:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Exactly what we need. — Chameleon 13:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 15:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Strongly support. —Seselwa 03:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Cool. JuntungWu 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support - as a new user to Wikipedia, I have found Guettarda's input very informative and well presented and in a respectful manner. Guettarda already appears to be an experienced Wikipedia scholar and I think that this online consortium can only benefit from his clear headed perspective. --rkstaylor 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Edit history indicates he will use admin powers responsibly. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Arguing passionately for one's position is not inconsistent with responsible stewardship. The ability to accept disagreement is a fine quality in an administrator. Kelly Martin 21:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Jonathunder 22:59, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  36. Support. Seems to know what's what. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. I very much support the idea of nomination for Guettarda to "adminship" status. CaribDigita 18:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Seems like a good editor. ~~~~ 19:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support - MPF 11:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. support - How'd I miss signing this one? - UtherSRG 14:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Valuable contributor who gets along well with others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Regretfully. I felt he was not willing to even consider compromise on CE/AD, and given the heatedness of the issue, he should have done. Grace Note 06:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    While I respect your position, I feel that I cannot, in good faith, compromise on something that I feel violates the NPOV policy. At the same time, I have not made any changes to articles against community consensus. Guettarda 12:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Because Boothy443 has opposed every adminship request on this page without reason, I have left him a polite comment/suggestion on his user talk page that he either provide reasons for his opposition or withdraw his votes. Flcelloguy Cello today? Give me a note! d.c. al fine? Desk 21:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • While I disagree with some of his views (CE/AD debate), I certainly feel that Guettarda is capable of presenting his side of a discussion on talk pages without causing ill feeling or getting anywhere towards edit warring on the articles themselves. I think this will go to prove a capacity to retain a view while not being biased when making a decision – something I value highly in an admin. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I must admit that my primary interest in sysop tools is access to the rollback button to revert vandalism. I don't do RC patrol, but with 1270 1310 1348 pages on my watchlist I deal with it fairly often. I also expect to contribute to cleanup on the various ".fD" pages and RM. I regularly read the WP:AN/3RR page and notice that there are slow times when things remain unresolved (or unlooked at) for several hours - I could see myself contributing there as well, and with vandals (though I have no intentions of going on a blocking spree if elected; I prefer to talk to vandals and troublesome newbies/anons).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am pretty happy with Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago) (which I just put up as an FAC), Eric Williams (I personally dislike him strongly, but have managed to write NPOV - which is a humbling experience), my contributions to Race (mostly limited to the Talk page), and List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago. Perhaps also the volume of work - I have created a critical mass of Trinidad and Tobago-related 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. I have been in conflicts - though they have mostly been restricted to the Talk pages. I have no intention of edit warring. My major conflict/stress related to the BC/AD NPOV issue (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate). Mostly I deal with stress by finding something else to work on (in Wikipedia or the real world) for a while, ignoring the issue when it comes up on my watchlist, until I no longer feel so annoyed. In the beginning I didn't deal with it well, but most of these early run-ins were either resolved or just blew over (I nominated the first person I clashed with, User:Sesel for adminship.