Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guerillero

Guerillero

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/5/3); Scheduled to end 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Guerillero (talk · contribs) – Greetings. Over the past month or so I have run into several places where having the sysop tools would have been useful. I have decided that since I have more then 8,000 edits and have been here for over 2 years now I might as well try my hand at my first RfA. Like my userpage says, I am a jack of all trades master of none. I have not concentrated in one area heavily. I grow easily board in small areas of the project or I stumble upon a new area where I find my work would be needed. I do have a soft spot for the under loved file namespace. This often results in my edits changing focus every few months or so. As you are looking over my edits please also look at In actu (talk · contribs). That account is for when I am using Huggle, AWB, or when I am editing from a public computer as well as a few other things. These personal statement-esque things are not one of my strengths. If there is anything else you would like to know please ask. Guerillero | My Talk 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in CSD and UAA; however, I would imagine that the admin work that I do would change much like my editor work. I have no desire to work in high stress and drama places such as ANI and Arbitration Enforcement. Wikipedia is only a hobby.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Due to my dyslexia, my writing is not the best and it is difficult for me. Most of my article writing has been start to stub class articles. I have written one DYK from the ground up, Bent edge. As part of the WP:Editing Fridays program I helped expand Traditions along with a large group of people to get a DYK. I personally expanded Straight Edge to its current state. I hope to take it to GA but that is far off. Outside of that, I enjoy working in small chunks at whatever falls in my direction.

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 was part of the Featured Sounds process before it went inactive. I seem to stay on the sidelines of most drama sorts of things. The one huge problem I was involved with ended with an editor being topic banned from the FS process. (ANI threads) Outside of that, I do get involved in minor every day content and conduct disputes. They mostly end up on a talk page of sorts and we discuss it.

Additional question from Kangaroopower

4. What do you feel civility is and do you use it often?

A to part 1: Interesting question. I feel that our civility policy is an extreamly wordy extension of universal reciprocity: you should try to treat all editors in a way that that you would like to be treated. It is a means to ensure that when people disagree it does not turn into a flame war or name calling, an issue that plagues most internet communities. We do not need editors calling each other asshats or fuck ups. It just drives people off the project. As with life, there are lots of gray areas to civility. We need people to both be civil and to not go out of their way to be offended. Unless its stalking or a personal attack, there is a chance that the person didn't mean for you to be offended.

A to part 2:I try to be civil but does not always work. I try to not post the thing that pops into my head the first time I read a comment.

Additional question from Kangaroopower

5. You block a user for repetitive section blanking of articles and that user puts forth an unblock request saying that they can be "put on a leash" and blocked if vandalism occurs. You agree to these terms and unblock that user. You watch them for a few weeks and when it becomes evident that they have change their ways you forget about the user. Six months later you're in Huggle and see a string of section blanks from the user you unblocked. You check the user's contribs and see that vandalism only started a week or so ago. What do you do? --Kangaroopowah 08:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A:

Additional questions from Surturz

6. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?

A: I will. Admins hold their positions because the community trusts them. I like Lar's method. It has a fairly low threshold of only 6 editors to trigger a reconfirmation, RfC, or a resignation. I would rather work off of the trust of the community then an arbitrary trust.

7. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: People have approached me with advice and moral support after they saw that I put my name forward for this RfA. Running for adminship today was a 100% spur of the moment decision of mine and wasn't motivated by any private comments.

8. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?

A: Not to my knowledge. I have tried to just smile and nod when the conversation topic of the new RfAs comes up in irc.

Additional question from TerriersFan

9. Will you please list the articles that you have created and indicate which ones have reached GA, FA or been featured in DYK?

A:Articles I have created? (I used X!'s tool)

• Roll a D6 - (The AfD is at 100% keep right now)
• Adler & Sullivan
• 24th World Scout Jamboree
• The Encyclopedia of Punk
• My Forever (album)
• He Is We
• Manliftingbanner
• EP – Part II
• EP – Part I
• Everything Starts... EP
• Black Thorn (album)
• Bent edge DYK
• Mark E. Seremet
• Didier Lefèvre
• The Photographer (graphic novel)

Wow. I have forgotten about many of these. Some are better then others. I need to go back at look through them again and redo parts of them.

Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

10. Apologies if this is a little long-winded. Imagine you're reviewing CSD nominations. It's backlogged with a glut of music related stubs, all tagged {{db-band}}. None have references. Here are five of them (assume there are no factual inaccuracies):

Jim Soap and the Fishcats is a folktronica band from Inverness, Scotland. They are currently touring Japan following their critically acclaimed tour of Spain and Portugal. They plan to release their first album in January 2012.

Siluriform James is a Britpop band from London. The band is fronted by Lousie Wener from Sleeper and Bernard Butler from Suede. They are unsigned and gigging in London.

The Soapdishes are a garage band from New York. They are known for their anarchic live shows and have major label interest. Their self-recorded album The Cat and the Fish is available on iTunes.

Jim Fish is a former singer-songwriter from Devon. He released two studio albums on Interscope Records in the early 1990s and enjoyed limited success in Italy and Chile. He now works as a janitor in a school in Portsmouth.

Catfish Jim (1874 - 1918) was a blues guitarist from Edwards, Mississippi. Little is known of him and he is not known to have made any recordings. He is said to have played regularly with Henry Sloan and was a formative influence on Charlie Patton.

With reference to specific notability guidelines, how do you deal with them?

A: I will list this out

Keep

• Siluriform James - The claim that two members of the band are from notable bands is enough for notability. (WP:BAND 6) In addition, this is a claim of importance.
• Jim Fish - The claim that he released two albums on a major label is enough for notability. (WP:BAND 5) That satisfies a claim of importance to negate an A7.

Convert to Prod

• Jim Soap and the Fishcats - There is a claim of importance here. The multinational tours are close enough to BAND 4 for me, except for the fact that there are no sources. If there were sources, this article would be in the keep pile. The prod is to allow more time for sources to be added.

Speedy Delete

• The Soapdishes - The article does not make a creatable claim of importance.
• Catfish Jim - This is on the borderline. The lack of recordings does not show importance. Playing with and being an influence on someone does not seem to be a claim of importance.

Additional question from ItsZippy

11. A few editors - myself included - have expressed concerns about your conduct. Could you provide examples of your civility, where your conduct has enabled the healthy progression of a dispute and prevented an argument?

A: Here is an example from a fairly minor discussion earlier this month that came to mind fairly quickly. I try to avoid contentious areas as much as possible.

Additional question from Ebe123

12. What's your opinion on the dark side of Wikipedia, WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?

A: Its a part of the wiki I try to avoid. I find it a tad depressing. It is needed part of the project though. We have people who have nothing better to do but disrupt the project. I highly doubt I will ever work in that area. The stakes seem high and there seems to be an endless supply of sockpupets to look out for. I am extreamly grateful for the people who want to work there.

General comments

• Links for Guerillero: Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Guerillero can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Guerillero's stats are now available on the talk page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. I've bumped into Guerillero in various venues and, on reflection, think they would be a net positive; I think the mop would be in safe (and mostly undramatic) hands. I expect that some will oppose on the basis of content contributions, and I respect that, but my personal feeling is that "dealing with disputes and fractious editors" is pretty much orthogonal to "finessing large slabs of content" - both may be essential to the project, and the latter is far more visible to end-users, but some editors may be better at one than the other. Getting involved in ambassadorial work is a positive too; I think the positives outweigh the negatives. bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. A strong contributor who will use the tools well. bd2412 T 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, I doubt that he'll break anything. I don't see why him having an opinion about something is any reason why he would misuse the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Support -- Qualified editor. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - He does good work and is a helpful and generally friendly person. The two diffs below really don't scare me all that much. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
6. An outstandingly nice editor and every inch a man. Strong support. Have interacted at Featured Sounds and other venues. He is calm and pleasant and will deal well with people new to Wikipedia. Has empathy. I can easily imagine him thoughtfully explaining to a 40 year old man why his page on his company was deleted...and not making it a rote policy cite.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Appears to be knowledgeable and well-qualified. While Jim's dif below shows a less-than-ideal interaction, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Fair support I like the intentions and friendliness of the editor, and though I am concerned with the civility mishaps pointed below, I cannot in good faith oppose this RfA. I think you will do fine with the tools. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Support - I find the "civility" concerns more political than they are actual concerns. this editor has an opinion that's not obfuscated behind pedantic political correctness. I like that. If the comments in the oppose are the worst they can dig up, then I'm happy to support. If you want to fix RfA, looking past sound bite politicism like this is a good place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    For the record, I was impressed with the candidate's response to my oppose and was considering changing my !vote. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

11. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Support A great editor - definitely deserves a promotion for his contributions. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    It's not a promotion. I can assure you of that. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

13. Civility "concerns" are nitpicking at someone's bad day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support – Every editor has their ups and downs; some slight civility concerns should not prevent the candidate from gaining adminship. —mc10 (t/c) 19:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
15. Support Civility "concerns" are nitpicking asides on somebody's good day. Remaining every-other inch a gentleman,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Weak Support Decisions, decisions –η-θ 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
17. Support If the best the opposes can present is this then strong support. Honestly, even looking at at the context I can't for the life of me think how this is a "civility concern". These, frankly, look like reasons to just make an oppose for the sake of it, and not a full consideration of the candidate's overall participation. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
18. Support after much consideration. Incivility leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and thus I was rather reluctant to support. That said, I also feel opposing would be hypocritical. I've done far worse things in my time. I also think that one incident shouldn't define a user. On reflection, I think that the candidate will take on board all the comments at this RFA and take more care in his interactions with others in future. Best of luck. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support - Robjp21019 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
20. No concerns that he'll abuse the tools. The civility concerns don't resonate with me; candidate strikes me as succinct and well-meaning. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Yes. Honestly with my interactions with this candidate, I was surprised to see one dif of incivility as he strikes me as a very kind editor, but we all make mistakes and that one edit shouldn't be judged against the candidate. If this RFA fails just because of that, then it strongly believes my faith that radical reform is needed. Secret ^account 06:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Tentative oppose due to this comment -- I don't feel comfortable supporting people who belittle WQA participants. I could change my mind later, depending on what the Q&A looks like.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

   Regretful oppose. Concerns about civility... for example here Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   I will admit that that comment isn't one of my shining moments on wiki. A better option would have been to move past the entry on my watchlist because my comment didn't help the issue move towards any type of closure--Guerillero | My Talk 04:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   Good answer. Striking !vote for the moment... possibly moving to support. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose (move from neutral): I'm really sorry to oppose you here, especially because I know just how much it hurts to be opposed at RFA, but the two diffs that have been presented above concern me a great deal. In my opinion, administrators need to be calm and courteous in their discussions with other users, and stay cool in even difficult or contentious situations. Whether we like it or not, administrators to an extent represent the community, and I worry how you will react in a situation where an angry user approaches you becuase you deleted their article/blocked them in the past/closed an AFD a way they disagreed, etc. My mind isn't made up for certain. If you could demonstrate a situation where you have mitigated a dispute (through perhaps one of our dispute resolution processes) then I could change my mind, but for now I must place my chips here. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) moving to support

   So what did you check before supporting? Anything? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   I didn't support. I went neutral initially because what I saw in the first instance was good, but the incivility concerned me. Having read comments by others, it seems that the incivility is a more prominent issue than I originally assessed, hence my change of heart. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose: I don't like your overall attitude towards other editors, one of which wouldn't look very good as an admin. Evident on your talkpage. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Civility concerns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I'm not happy to be here, as I want and did expect to support Guerillero. However, I can't bring myself to opine any other way after reading Sarek's diff. I can not support, or even remain neutral, regarding a candidate who would pretty much issue a slap in the face to those who would do no more than seek dispute resolution in good faith. Swarm ^X 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Nice guy. But not enough substantive mainspace contribution. The expansion to straight edge was impressive, but all of the Q8 answers were short articles. In my opinion you need to demonstrate ability to add content as an editor to be able to judge content as an admin -- Samir 05:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral per Sarek. I came here fully expecting to support, but that comment leaves me solidly neutral. I can't default to support for someone with that attitude, and I'll have to do more digging, as well as see how the rest of the RfA plays out, before making a decision. Swarm ^X 23:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Move to support oppose.

I'll have to think about it for a while and do some digging to see if there's anything else like this, or if it was a one-off. Very few things would bring me not to support a candidate, but incivility is one of them. I'll see how things go. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Move to oppose.

I'll vote later. The two links in the first couple opposes don't concern me. Townlake (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Per Sarek. I'd like to see Guerillo response to those diffs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Seems like a good contributor, but I have concern about civility. Will wait for answer to question before further judgement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I would like to see answers to the answers by other editors before I cast my support or oppose vote. -- Luke (Talk) 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)