Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guerillero

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 2 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Guerillero

[edit]

Final (59/14/6); Closed as successful by MBisanz talk at 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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)[reply]
A: There are two possible replies to this question. The cowboy diplomacy route would be to look at unblocking him as giving him some rope. Since unblock conditions do not expire, he could be indef blocked for violating them. The user just took a very long time to get caught up in the rope. The safe route would be to start an ANI thread about this with difs of the original block, unblock, and ongoing vandalism. I have looked and looked and thought and thought but I could not decide which is the correct answer by policy. It all depends on how liberally you want to apply involvement. Since I was the one who did the first block and the unblock, I would not feel fully comfortable adding a third admin action to his block log. In addition, the six month gap is rather long. I would probability follow the ANI route because it would allow another admin to look over the situation and make a decision.
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)
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.
Additional question from DGG
13. (I do not think that there is no absolutely correct answer to these that everyone would agree with)
A. One of the articles you nominated for speedy was, just as you said, an obvious copyvio of the person's web page at the Ministry of shipping, Bangladesh. Examining the information there, were there any alternatives to deletion, and, if so, would you have used them? (there is no absolutely correct answer to these that everyone would agree with) DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B. Another had the complete contents: "A China-based international online retail company selling consumer products via the domain name LightInTheBox.com." Earlier considerably fuller versions had twice been deleted as G11, : The company's web page is [1].Had you been an admin, is there any additional action you would have taken?
C. Another, with the title What If (Coldplay). Had been deleted as G4, with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song). (the article was in fact identical, though of course you couldn't check it yourself). Looking at the AfD, do you see any possible alternatives to deletion, and if so, would you have used them? DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Interesting! I broke it down by letter.
  • A - If the article was a copy and paste copyright violation then it needed to be deleted. Copyvios can not stay on the servers in public view. There wasn't any action that could be taken that didn't involve deleting the article in its current state. Looking at the personal bio, it appears that an article could be written about the subject. There certainly wouldn't be any prejudice against starting a non-copyvio article about him.
  • B - If I was the patrolling admin, I would have done a quick google search to make sure that there wasn't a treasure trove of sources that were missed by the tagging user. The shortness of the article with a link to a company's website sometimes looks or starts out as an add but there is a reason to keep the article due to the subject's notability.'
Additional question from Epbr123
14. Do you regret the comment you made at the Run to Mommy RfD?

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Guerillero's stats are now available on the talk page. Logan Talk Contributions 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question 14 I don't think this is a valid question. Any kind of answer is damaging to the candidate. It's a loaded question. An answer of "Honestly, no" would further embolden those who support SarekOfVulcan's oppose (not that it's not valid) and an answer of "Actually, yeah" would appear to be gaming the RFA or playing politics for the sake of succeeding. I strongly suggest the candidate not answer it either way.--v/r - TP 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to add (if anyone has read this) that I'm not implying that it's not a good faith question. Only that the answer will reflect negatively either way.--v/r - TP 14:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  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)[reply]
  2. Support. A strong contributor who will use the tools well. bd2412 T 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Strong Support -- Qualified editor. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Support. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  11. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A great editor - definitely deserves a promotion for his contributions. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 11:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a promotion. I can assure you of that. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Civility "concerns" are nitpicking at someone's bad day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. Weak Support Decisions, decisions –η-θ 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  19. Support - Robjp21019 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  22. Support Clueful answers to CSD question. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I think he'll do ok - mop please! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: Civility shouldn't be a necessary. Well, the mop. Give it to him. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility isn't necessary for an administrator? I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying that what this user does well is outweighing the occasional incivility. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Looks like Guerillero would do good as a admin, I'm not concerned at all. -- Luke (Talk) 15:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Not concerned. Guerillero has done good work. ceranthor 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Only because I can find no reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. The first of Guerillero's crimes was to effectively call something s/he regards as useless... well, useless. If that should be held against candidates, I suggest we block these candidates, and desysop and block anyone who has ever expressed an opinion which did not tally exactly with the wording of applicable policies, guidelines and processes at the time. An analogous approach seems to work for North Korea.

    While I don't condone the tone of the comment on Fastily's page, the description of that user's behavior on that day was not innaccurate, and I note that nobody is suggesting that the admin guilty of biting on the same page be sanctioned, rightly so. Putting what can best be described as sledgehammer to crack a nut civility votes to one side, I think Guerillero is a good candidate. Non-article content contributions and FS work compensates for the lack of article work IMO. —WFC— 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  29. Support. Guerillero is an experienced user who know what he's doing; I'm not overly concerned with the civility issues highlighted by the opposers: the first diff just shows him expressing his personal opinion during a discussion, where people are encouraged to express personal opinions, and regarding the second one, well, we all have bad days... If that were a pattern, I'd be opposing, but I have not seen any indication of that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Can't see why not. Baseball Watcher 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: Guerillero has a great attitude and a developed understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Let's not let a minor incident at WQA deprive us of a great candidate.– Lionel (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Guerillero is obviously very smart and has a positive attitude. Specialist administrators are great, but that doesn't mean general administrators are bad. I think he'll do great with the added toolset. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Several concerns, but none of them are enough for me to say "no" here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The candidate is well equipped to accomplish what his request entails and nothing in the opposition below particularly strikes me. A one-off comment at a venue often marred by lack of good faith, and concern over his ability to write articles (seriously?) shouldn't be enough to disqualify Guerillero for the mop. Blurpeace 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I'm only just supporting this idea. You really need to buck up your ideas on the civility front, but other than that there is nothing of note to fault. — Joseph Fox 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I agree with Fox that the candidate needs to step up on the civility. However, I'm not convinced that the candidates civility is anything in excess of what we all feel from time to time and have expressed outself. A List of sysops who have never had civility issues would consist of maybe 2 editors. A List of editors who have never had civility issues would consist of editors with under 100 edits. I have seen Guerillero around and I thought they already were an admin. Sensible candidate w/ clue.--v/r - TP 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Candidate has many redeeming qualities. Not overly concerned with the offhand comment at RfD. We all say some bonehead things sometimes. Besides, it looks like Tarc made the comment first, and Guerillero, influenced, was just paraphrasing. -- Ϫ 14:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. It doesn't feel right opposing a great candidate for a bunch of minor, and most inconsequential, reasons. I truly believe that the candidate will use the tools well and will not abuse nor misuse them. Net positive.--Slon02 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per Salvio. 28bytes (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. support i was going to put neutral but im not because i think you deserve to be an admin but please be civil Puffin Let's talk! 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Oppose reasons seem rather trivial. The candidate's comment about WQA is a general opinion (which has some merit in itself, though the redirect was over the line) and not a personal attack, so I see no reason for concern about it. Chick Bowen 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support My numerous past interactions and encounters with him have been nothing but positive and as an FS Director he showed initiative and capability. I trust his judgment and ability and feel he will handle the responsibility of adminship without trouble. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:43pm • 06:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Based on personal interactions and observations of the candidate in several areas of the Admin fringe. Guerillero has demonstrated competence and clue making this an easy choice as they are an obvious net positive for the project. My76Strat (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support with caution. Remember that as an admin, you must try to set an example to the community, hold yourself to a higher standard etc. My views often clash with Guerillero, but when I looked through his contributions and I see a lot of positive contributions which demonstrate his knowledge. There is the odd civility issue and that's why I'm suggesting caution, and they are insufficient to take me to neutral, let alone oppose. WormTT · (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support The way you talked to the distressed editor on Fastily's talk wasnt the best, but supporting per TParis and as you generally seem a very useful editor going by a random sample of your contributions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Generally helpful and hard-working. The behavior at the talk page of Fastily doesn't concern me too much, but that obviously isn't your best. HurricaneFan25 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. TParis does a good job of explaining what I think, too. Despite "board" in the self-nomination statement, I see the candidate as someone I trust to do moppish tasks. I've looked carefully at the diffs that have been provided as evidence of civility problems, and I'm not bothered by them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. ResMar 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support- Competent user, like answers to questions. --Kangaroopowah 02:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support There are legitimate concerns about Guerillero's choice of words on occasion which I hope he'll take on board. A moment spent considering "might this offend someone and so inflame the situation rather than calm it down", would be useful. However, on the whole what I see is someone who is keen to help, and while judgement at times lacks experience and knowledge, Guerillero has shown a willingness to reflect and learn which bodes well for the future. I looked at Guerillero's talkpage archive for February and found the reflection on the "Removal of Google Book links" to be positive, the careful consideration in "Request to mentor a student" to be mature, and while this was inappropriate, when challenged, he helped improve the article, and acknowledged his mistake on Anneliese Michel. I didn't like his response to the Glitter Soundtrack edit - there was legitimate concern raised about his edit which he should have dealt with; and I admit that I did consider opposing on a "not now" basis, as I feel that Guerillero still has a bit to learn; however I was impressed by his willingness to reflect and learn, and feel that he will move forward and learn on the job. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Good answers to questions. Experience in relevant areas isn't vast, but it's good enough. As for concerns about your mouth, just keep on calling 'em as you see 'em. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I've been on the fence here over the civility lapses, but I've come down on the side of support after seeing how well Guerillero has handled this RfA and responded to feedback. Sure, there's more to learn, and I think a new RfA in, say, 6 months would fly through - but I've seen enough to think that's not necessary, and that the learning is going on as we speak. I think we have a good admin here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Per above.Greg Heffley 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Don't see many concerns to this well-established editor. 2 years, 8,000 edits and 3 user rights are solid enough. Minima© (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support has some faults but i think hes ok. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support- Cursory review didn't find any other diffs comparable to Sarek's; qualified. People who have stopped learning concern me more. Dru of Id (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Guerillero's answers to the questions reveal him to be reasonably competent, and the issues raised by those opposing this RfA are minor from my perspective. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Technical and moral support I know; this wordy support seems to have been used just for attracting attention. But perhaps that's why I've used it (apart from the fact that I hope this support would 'technically' ensure that Tom's RfA doesn't fall into the grey area). Irrespective, so that the closing crat considers this candidacy in the right perspective, I'll give my views on a few of the oppose !votes and comments. I'm actually in consonance with oppose comments like those left by Sarek and Jim (and those who've referred to them or mirrored their view to give their views; that is, Swarm, Itszippy, Skater, Tofut, Epbr,John Malleus, Alessandro, Snotty...); a prospective admin needs to have his civil sense pristine and crystal clear, and the diffs do provide quite some evidence to the contrary. I add to it Tom's view that "our civility policy is an extremely wordy extension of universal reciprocity: you should try to treat all editors in a way that that you would like to be treated." Viewed literally, this interpretation should be unacceptable to a prospective admin. I've seen some atypical 'tough nut' editors using this very concept of universal reciprocity to challenge other editors, commenting that as they themselves are perfectly alright receiving personal attacks from other editors, they find it alright to give it off to others in the same coin. I'd rather expect an editor to treat all others in a way "others would like to be treated" rather than in a way the editor himself should like to be treated. That's where our civility policy marches ahead. I do hope Tom understands these quite important requirements from an administrator. Or perhaps he already does and I've read too much into his reply. At the same time, Tom's acceptance of his mistake in his reply to Jim does give quite some credence to Tom's intent to improve, despite Malleus' valid 'best-behavior during RfA' point. I hope Tom stands up when this RfA closes and gives a strong closing statement to the community that he'll ensure that as an admin, he'll attempt to be a model editor on the civility front. It'll go a long way in assuaging the worry that even some of us supporters might entertain. It'll also ensure that Tom has a benchmark statement that he'll personally feel motivated to stand up to. Of course, I leave it to him to decide on that. Before I end this tardily elongated and backhanded support, I have to mention that some of the opposes are not quite acceptable in my view. Samir's view of Tom's inexperience in content is mislaid - in as much as while on one hand Tom does have considerable content experience, on the other, heavy duty content experience is also not required of admins. Intoronto's "some concerns are raised" is quite open ended and indefinite. NWA Rep's oppose seems utterly illogical ("self nom implying power hunger"). So in all, this is my technical support for Tom. Wifione Message 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  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)[reply]
    Regretful oppose. Concerns about civility... for example here Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good answer. Striking !vote for the moment... possibly moving to support. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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[reply]
    So what did you check before supporting? Anything? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Oppose. Civility concerns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
    In the candidate's defense, a large number of the WQA cases I've seen are not good faith requests for dispute resolution, they take the form of 'this user was mean to me, so I want him blocked'. Maybe I'm not getting a representative sample (no one talks about the ones that run smoothly, I suppose), but keep in mind that a not-insignificant number of people were in favor of shutting WQA down as part of the recent reconfiguration that resulted in the DR board. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Oppose Question 5 was ignored/incorrectly answered. Civility concerns, limited content creations, some grammar/writing issues the user hints at. I don't think the dyslexia is of much concern though, but constant health issues such as dyslexia & this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&diff=461859490&oldid=461840127 are worrying. RFA Guy (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions are optional and besides, is the candidate not allowed to skip questions and answer them later? Are they required to answer all questions in chronological order? That is a rediculous reason to oppose. I've no comment on the rest, but your first sentence lacks substance. The candidate will get to question 5 when they get to question 5.--v/r - TP 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Question 5 was added after what are now questions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were already asked and answered. See [2]. I strongly suspect that the candidate has not seen it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Catfish Jim, I was going to strike the Q5 part of my comment but I don't know how. The candidate is handling himself well in this RFA. RFA Guy (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can strike comments by placing <s> and </s> around the text you wish to strike out. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Health shouldn't be a concern here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to think it is at least somewhat of a concern. I have noted health isn't much of a concern, but it can affect how much usage & and how one uses the tools. RFA Guy (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without further context, I am baffled as to how you can conclude it would affect his judgement as an admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose (moved from neutral) - As I said earlier in this nomination, I have problems with the candidate's civility - examples of argumentative and unpleasant behaviour has been provided by other people. I asked the candidate to provide evidence of positive conflict resolution and, though I have nothing wrong with the example given, I feel that this is not enough. In the face of the civility problems, I would liked to have seen examples of positive discussion which helps to move an issue forward. Guerillero is a good editor and valuable to the project; I just feel his conduct makes him an inappropriate admin candidate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. I don't want to oppose this RfA, and hope that someone will convince me to support it, but at the moment I just can't support. When a person doesn't name a specific area of admin work, I'm forced to look at excellence in all areas. I don't have any problems with his work at UAA, other than limited recent contributions- his most recent reports are in August, and the bulk of them are before April. Concerns about civility and a lack of content creation, worsened by only 27% of his edits being in the article space, should be noted in my oppose. However, I'd like to bring up his CSD record. I can't see deleted edits, and would appreciate an admin checking to see his record there. However, I can see his CSD log. He seems to have been keeping it since June 2011- yet in that time he only has 55 CSD nominations listed. Of these, less than a dozen seem to be for articles- and the overwhelming majority for files. Since Guerillero himself has expressed an intention to work in CSD, I must ask if he has demonstrated sufficient ability there for him to be granted the delete button. Moving on to his WP:AIV contributions, he only has 24 actual reports there- and only 1 in November, 2 in August, 1 in May, and the rest before April. That single report in November is one that also raises my eyebrows, [3], since he reported a person for making copyvio articles- yet never attempted to give him a warning or even talk to him. That kind of block-happy behavior seems, although within policy, to not be very friendly to new users. To sum up this block of text- my reasons for opposing are civility, limited content contribution, and concerns about AIV & CSD experience.--Slon02 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that you also look over In actu (talk · contribs), my semiautomated tools account, for a better picture of my AIV reports. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did- those AIV reports were included in my totals.--Slon02 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose Some concerns are raised. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per reasons articulated at great length above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose pending answer to my question. I'm concerned with the lack of experience with deletion work. The three articles I listed were almost the only three articles as contrasted to files or obvious mechanical deletions I could find--they're not cherry-picked. I'm not looking for an answer that agrees with me. but a reasoned answer of some sort. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Opposeself-nom implies overly power-hungry. assumption of bad faith on his arbcom guide.--NWA.Rep (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat - User:NWA.Rep is a Arbcom candidate who was rated unfavorably by this RfA candidate. This !vote may be retaliatory.--v/r - TP 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to TParis-It's not retaliatory. Assume good faith--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose-Civility concerns are too much for me on this one. Sorry.--SKATER Is Back 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the candidate has conducted himself with remarkable civility in this RFA, given the nitpicking that has gone on here. bd2412 T 18:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per civility concerns, lack of content creation, and weak admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Learning on the job is one thing, but "learning" during an RfA is a fish of an entirely different colour. Any sensible candidate will be on best behaviour for the week, but the question is, what about when the week's over? Either civility is important or it isn't, but there needs to be some consistency here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Sarek, DGG and Malleus. Concerns over health, level of experience, and temperament. No prejudice against coming back in a few months. --John (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would health be an issue? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See this, which someone already mentioned. --John (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... again, what is the relevance to adminship? If an admin has to take a break from Wikipedia due to health issues, then they have to take a break. It's hardly a problem, is it? Is 'no admin' better than an admin who is only able to be active 90% of the time? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
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.[reply]
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.[reply]
I'll vote later. The two links in the first couple opposes don't concern me. Townlake (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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) Moved to opposed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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) Move to support.[reply]
  2. Concerns about civility, maturity, little content creation, and a slew of spelling/grammar errors prevent me from supporting. However, they are all somewhat minor problems so I don't want to oppose either. The RfD diff (comments about WQA) doesn't concern me at all, but this one reveals recent comments that are unbecoming of an admin. —SW— confess 16:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (from oppose) Satisfied by answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some reasons in the section above give me reason to want to oppose but I'm undecided - I'd also like to see an answer to Q5. Mato (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Limited content contribution. Some issues with civility. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Neutral- Waiting for answer to second question. --Kangaroopowah 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry about the wait --Guerillero | My Talk 04:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I came after closing the Roll a D6 AfD, expecting to support, but the concerns of Sarek, DGG, and SnottyWong are too much, though not enough for an actual oppose given the evidence of good work. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guerillero&oldid=1142528155"