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

Guinnog[edit]

Ended 10:18, 2006-08-30 (UTC)

Guinnog (talk · contribs) – What's not to like about a user whose Celtic username is taken from his favorite beer? Guinnog is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia with an excellent record of editing articles, uploading images and fighting vandals. He understands policy and is polite and constructive in his frequent interactions with other editors. He remains calm in discussions and works well to achieve consensus and improve the encyclopedia. It's time we gave him the mop.

Contributions review:

Please note that I have attempted to make this a fair and representative survey of the user's work. Therefore some diffs may show 'bad edits'. Whilst I obviously want this nomination to succeed, I think giving people an informed and complete picture of the candidate is more important than 'skipping over' anything that might not be quite perfect in an attempt to make this happen.

Summary: From Guinnog's userpage (which I strongly encourage you to read): "I wouldn't spend as much time as I do on it if I didn't still think Wikipedia was a great project. Unlike Usenet, it attracts predominantly the right sort of people, who want to write an on-line encyclopedia of human knowledge. How cool is that?" How cool indeed. Wikipedia will be much improved by giving this dedicated editor a few additional tools. Gwernol 07:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to accept your kind nomination. --Guinnog 10:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by candidate

After seven months editing Wikipedia, during which I've learned a lot about the goals, structures, policies and community of Wikipedia, and much soul-searching about my own suitability and readiness for the role, I now think I would like to become an admin here.

Partly this reflects my increasing move towards fulfilling admin-type functions in the last few months. I know I made mistakes (especially early on; for my first several thousand edits I almost never used edit summaries for example), but I think I have learned a lot, and that my overall contribution has been positive. I still do make mistakes from time to time, especially as my emphasis has moved from learning about content and presentation in researching and improving articles, to learning about policy and community and the way they drive the overall progress of the encyclopedia forward. This makes for a steeper learning curve, but I am happy enough with my progress so far to think I can be entrusted not to abuse admin privileges. Increasingly I have the confidence to know when to take a firm line (on blatant vandalism for example) and when to stand back or to ask for advice from people I know here.

I have hesitated for a while to accept this nomination partly because I know I have edited articles on controversial subjects, one of which is already mentioned above, and fear that this may annoy or worry some people. Although I try to make clear on my user page where my political and philosophical POV are likely to come from, I don't think I am a knee-jerk anything. I always try very hard (as we all should) to listen to others' views and (especially) to follow core policies like WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:V.

I'm sure I will continue to learn from my mistakes whether or not this RfA is successful.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd enjoy having the ability to block persistent vandals instead of having to use WP:AIV, adding to someone else's workload. I know that I have already done some work in warning vandals, but it would be nice to have the wherewithal to follow up a warning with a block myself when necessary. Having the rollback feature would make reverting vandalism easier than doing it by hand as I currently do. Protecting and semi-protecting articles to stop edit wars or major vandalism are other areas where I could lend a hand. I would undertake to help in AIV and WP:AN/3RR and with speedy deletion and closing AfDs. I would like to take more of a role too in WP:ANI; I think I could be a positive influence there, in spite of the less-than-stellar success of my last contribution there (see Q3 below). There are other backlogs I'm sure I can help with as I get more understanding of the issues involved, but I would plan to start off fairly slowly; there is more than enough needing done that I am confident I already know how to do and am already doing, but would find easier if I had the tools to do so.
In the longer term, I would like to take part more in policy discussions, and help with copyright issues, especially image copyright. This is an area which even experienced editors sometimes find difficult, and where intelligent formulation of policy and application of the policies we have, can have a big influence on the future of our project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My creation and expansion of the articles on the novels of my favourite modern author fairly early on in my time here gave me great pleasure.
I am proud of helping to slightly defuse the sectarian tension in the Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. pages by inserting a section called "The Old Firm and sectarianism" to each article; this has helped over time not only to balance the two articles, but also to avoid vandalism by presenting a more balanced and consistent approach to the issue across them. The sections have survived a good few months now.
Bringing Chinook Helicopter Crash (1994) from a conspiracy-fest to a reasonably balanced and informative article was satisfying (one of my very first anon edits was to remove nonsense from it[6]), as was working to help bring Redwood National and State Parks to FA status. Having some of my pictures and graphics included in articles was a nice feeling too, and my one featured picture was a nice surprise.
Gwernol has been kind enough to point out my many civil contributions in his statement, and I think a sampling of my edits will bear this out. I particularly enjoy occasions where I am able to intervene and calm a situation down; warning a vandal and seeing them stop vandalising; or just finding an article riddled with factual, spelling or formatting errors and tidy it up. It was what first brought me here and I continue to enjoy it.
Finally, I was delighted when my Football (Soccer) Star was adopted as a project award [7].
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: Conflict is inevitable in a project like this; with so many editors of different backgrounds and interests contributing freely, it is a tribute to the project that it works with as (relatively) little conflict as it does. In my first week here, I insulted [8] another user. Although it was meant to be light-hearted (I used a 'smiley'), and I eventually plucked up the courage to apologise[9], it made me feel so bad for so long that I think I learned from it, and have made an extra-strong effort always to be WP:CIVIL since.
As Gwernol points out above, I probably earned no friends and certainly didn't help the project by my arguments on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Although I think I fell below my own standards of civility and level-headedness when it seemed to me that other editors were assuming bad faith on my part, I think I learned from it as I did from the incident above. I didn't edit-war, and I apologised to the editors (who I realised were obviously acting in good faith, as I was myself) for my lack of civility. If something like this were to happen again, I would take it to a different forum rather than have a prolonged argument in an article talk page. It's maybe worth saying that I would absolutely never use admin powers in a situation like this.
More recently, my attempt to have a user's block reviewed[10] was unsuccessful. I felt that having an editor indefinitely blocked for one incident seemed harsh, and it seemed to me that he had shown sufficient commitment to refrain from the problematic behaviour in future that we could reasonably reconsider the length of the block. Although I am in no way supportive of breaches of WP:POINT, I thought that the punishment seemed unduly severe for the actual evidence demonstrated. I was influenced too by the fact that the edits the blocked user made were right. I erred in this instance by accepting another editor's characterisation of what I was doing as "mediation" when what I was actually trying to do was to support an editor who made a mistake and (it seemed to me) had learned from it. Next time, I would make it clear all the way that what I was doing was not mediating but suggesting a review. I also wouldn't start a conversation like this when I knew I would be going away on holiday in a few days, with restricted internet access. I'd never really done anything like it before, would do it better the next time, and would absolutely never use admin powers in a situation like this either.
Having said all that, I wouldn't really say I found any of the above incidents enormously stressful. I did a relatively stressful job in real life until recently, and if anything I would say Wikipedia has been a welcome haven from stress in my life. An enormous majority of people here are civil and kind, when you think about it. This took me a while to get used to, but I like it.
I find increasingly that it is often far more effective to defuse tension than to confront it. One thing I have learned is not to be in a hurry; if there is a poor sentence or a disputed phrase somebody cares enough about to edit war with you over, often leaving it a week can make things a lot easier; even a day can allow emotions to cool down. In all but unambiguous vandalism and breaches of policies with legal implications, it is nearly always better to walk away, have a cup of tea, and return with a cool head.
Questions from Andeh:
4. Would you agree that over half of your article space edits are minor edits done using AWB, and have ever considered opening a bot account to do all that redirect fixing?[11][12][13]
A. I certainly made heavy use of the tool when I first got it. Of these diffs, I'd say the first and third were good edits, as I was able (manually) to reduce overlinking to date articles. In [14], I was also correcting a faulty capitalisation. The second was a bad edit, caused by my misunderstanding of the preferred style[15] for redirection. Freakofnurture and pschemp were good enough to pull me back from doing more edits like this. I accepted reversion of the edits I wrongly made like this, and refrained from doing more edits like this. In general, and in total honesty, I was probably a bit too ready at first to make sweeping changes using AWB; however, of the many edits I made with it, I think only one or two have been reverted and the vast majority have been beneficial. I would now use AWB only to fix mis-spellings using RETP or to disambiguate links. I've never considered using a bot, as AWB is already efficient enough for me, and provides a chance to manually edit and check before pressing save, although it does seem (see below) that I've made a few unnecessary edits. Changing instances of "humourous" to "humorous" after achieving consensus[16] that this was the preferred spelling in all national varieties of English took 577 edits, and these resulted in only one query (see my user talk) which I was able to resolve by reference to the consensus-building exercise I had done. This is a good example of how I would use AWB in future.
5. Were you aware of the AWB basic rule to avoid very minor edits?[17][18]
A. Yes, I was, and these must have slipped through the net, for which I apologise. In neither of these was any harm caused, and I was unaware of them until now. Sorry, and thanks for raising these questions here. --Guinnog 11:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Username Guinnog
Total edits 13301
Distinct pages edited 6420
Average edits/page 2.072
First edit 09:28, 8 January 2006
(main) 10341
Talk 830
User 313
User talk 941
Image 305
Image talk 8
Template 30
Template talk 24
Category 10
Category talk 5
Wikipedia 445
Wikipedia talk 43
Portal 6
Final: (62/18/3)
Support
  1. Support a great editor who will make a great administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Fantastic nom and seemingly fantastic canditate :) - GIen 10:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as per convincing nomination and positive impression I've had of Guinnog's contributions in dealing with sensitive or difficult situations, where I've seen him occasionally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, this is the sort of person I want to see as an admin. While I didn't dig quite enough to co-nom, I did a level of research more into this candidate than usual when simply !voting on an RFA, and whilst I came across some (relatively minor) issues, the attitude shown by this candidate to fixing and learning from them was admirable. Petros471 10:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The nominator paints an excellent picture of the candidate and per my own brief overview, I think this candidate is not only to be trusted with the extra buttons, but he will make very good use of them as well. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nom, looks like an absolutely excellent user and one I would certainly trust with the tools. RandyWang (chat/patch) 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as nominator. Gwernol 11:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. We needed a Botswanan administrator, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that very weak support in light of 7WTC. I still believe you will be a net positive to this project. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support great editor, will be a great admin. Awesome to see people learning from minor mistakes. Good luck :) --james(talk) 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support learn to use AWB properly! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - Nothing but positive interactions with this user. Meets my standards. —Mets501 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak support, despite misuse of AWB and possibly in denial of having an infection ;) (see Qs), I liked A2.--Andeh 14:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I have seen this editor around a lot, and have only seen positive things. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support strongly, for he satisfies all my criteria (which, no, I haven't explicated at Wikipedia). — President Lethe 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Would have liked to see more *fD edits in last 1,000. From what I saw judgment looks sound. :) Dlohcierekim 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support levelheaded with a great attitude -- Samir धर्म 16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Well, what can I say? His dedication to this project is exceptional. It is time to give him janitoral duties. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good candidate! Anger22 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. From what I can see there don't seem to be any major issues. —Khoikhoi 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Helpful user, will make a good admin. Better than me at vandal-fighting anyhow! --TheM62Manchester 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per nom, answers, and above. Contributions in several areas. Newyorkbrad 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support for a user with barely 8 months experience, has quite a lot of edits. time to give him admin tools --Ageo020 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Rama's arrow 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support, good editor who will make good use of the tools. Eluchil404 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Quality editor. Will make a good admin. --Ezeu 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Good editor. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support with the faith that Guinnog will take the comments and criticisms below to heart, and will learn from them. Their concerns are valid. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per the awesome nom. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak support While I'm disturbed by Guinnog's comments at Talk:7 World Trade Center, they did occur over a month ago, and he does seem to have learned from it. No other major issues that I can see. BryanG(talk) 06:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support thoughtful, and committed editor with the capacity for learning and improvement. My perception is of a responsible person who is likely to mop well. MLA 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I have slight concerns about civility issues but they seem minor enough. The user is more than willing to admit his mistakes (which are rare). The project will benefiti from Guinnog having the mop. JoshuaZ 13:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Merovingian - Talk 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support This might come as a shock to a number of the people in opposition below. In no way do I mean to undermine what they say, I simply have a different opinion now. As noted below, I was directly involved in the 7 World Trade Center dispute. To be frank, I was upset with Guinnog's behavior at the time. Recently, I opposed an admin nominee because of an incident that had happened two weeks prior to his RfA nom. There was no time for him to demonstrate new behavior. In this case, there's been two months since the rather negative debate at 7 WTC. If it had been in the last two weeks, no question I'd flatly oppose. The behavior was quite poor. However, two months time is enough time to demonstrate improved behavior. It is my belief that this user has clearly demonstrated learned behavior from this incident. I note [19], followed by [20]. Understanding of the role of consensus [21]. Understanding that a site on the net isn't necessarily usable (a point of contention on 7 WTC) [22]. He understands that NPOV is important [23]. He has recently demonstrated willingness to seek input on spellings [24]. He's been calm in the face of insults (an important characteristic for admins) [25]. Further, he understands WP:CIVIL [26]. He's also exhibited a good sense of humor, also important for an admin [27][28][29]. Also, I have reviewed the recent User:KarlV dispute extensively, concentrating on Guinnog's role in the dispute. There was considerable heat generated in that discussion, but from everything I've read, which includes diffs provided by one of the people against Guinnog in the debate (I discussed it with the opposing person on IRC), Guinnog wasn't adding heat to the debate. In fact, rather the opposite. I found considerable evidence that he was actively working to reduce heat and add light to the conversation [30][31][32]. Guinnog's behavior in the last two months have convinced me he is quite capable of being a good administrator. Further, if there are any doubts about his ability his willingness to stand for recall in the face of such doubts should allay any such fears. --Durin 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "light", but the first diff you provided also shows Guinnog reopening the content debate, which had long been closed. This did detract from the subject of the discussion (i.e. whether and when to shorten KarlV's block), and did add heat. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion was active and ongoing. As for 'light', I mean constructive efforts towards dispute resolution. --Durin 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my comment again. I am talking about the content discussion, by which I am referring to the debate about the content of the article that stirred up the whole KarlV thing. I'm not going to restate what the content debate was about because it will not serve the focus of this RfA. It's fairly clear from the diff anyway. Upshot is, one should avoid referring back to things that are already settled, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In the event, it wasn't. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree. This disagreement, if you wish to pursue it, should be taken elsewhere. --Durin 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy not to pursue it if you are. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. support: Ombudsman 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Guinnog and I had some serious disagreements on talk pages related to 9/11 articles but he remained generally calm and civil throughout that episode, so that is to be commended. Additionally, he helped me bring Redwood National and State Parks to FA level and that is notable. I don't see any strong evidence he will abuse his admin tools.--MONGO 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2006
  40. Support Excellent editor, will make a good admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Excellent editor, cares about policies, is reasonable and civil. Will make a trustworthy admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Gwernol and Durin. See nothing to worry now. Learning from past mistakes is a good thing. Makes admins more helpful to users that need coaching. FloNight talk 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - good candidate -- Lost(talk) 09:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Martin 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I've encountered Guinnog around before, doing much good work. I usually wait some time before offering opinions on a candidate to allow any notable concerns to be raised (call me a lazy sod, but it does make the assessment process somewhat less onerous :). I've been watching this one for a while now, and was leaning towards a neutral, given the concerns raised by opposers below, particularly the 7 WTC issue. I've just spent a considerable amount of time trawling through the archives reading the extensive and long running debates in more detail than before, and there were some issues, although I have to say that Guinnog generally conducted himself civilly. What has convinced me to support is the fact that two of the main protagonists in the various debates on the opposite side of the fence to Guinnog have come out in support. This is telling, and Durin's excellent analysis demonstrates that the candidate has learned from the experience, and there is no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. Extensive use of AWB for a large number of minor edits, is not a problem for me - being a part time wikignome is no reason to be disbarred from adminship. We need a diverse range of admin types, not a bunch of clones being churned out of a wikifactory. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: enough experience, and cares about the project. I would have no difficulty working with this person as an Admin. Stephen B Streater 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support—weak, but support. The response to question 2 was good (although an "easter egg" link jumps out; Guinnog might well review the Wikipolicy on piped links with attention to the guidance to avoid easter eggs). And service time is rather short. But for all my grumbling here, I'm comfortable that Guinnog'll be a satisfactory admin. Williamborg (Bill) 03:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per Cactus, Williamborg, and, especially, JoshuaZ, and consistent with my my RfA guidelines. Joe 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Guinnog seems very much in earnest, which is more than I can say of my perception of some admins; and seems interested in what's best for Wikipedia, rather than in the "status" of being an admin. Cheers, Outriggr 04:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Seems to take policy seriously, which is important. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. To counter Cyde's strawman oppose. However, it annoys *me* that my "voice" counts much less than Cyde's oppose. Guinnog deserves the mop. No valid reason presented here not to give him the sysop bits. --Ligulem 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: seems to have learned lessons from what he mentioned in question three, seems to try to be civil. I see no evidence that he would misuse the tools. TimBentley (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, a dedicated, civil user, and nothing shows an unfamiliarity with policy. Guinnog will (hopefully, seeing all the oppose comments, which I've read and disagreed with) make a good administrator. Picaroon9288|ta co 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support for an intelligent and objective voice of reason, regardless of popularity, whose concern is providing access to the sum of all human knowledge. Durin and MONGO are to be commended for putting the present interests of the project before past conflicts. Tyrenius 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support I have read through the comments on this RfA and looked at the talk WTC7 archive four. What I saw was a user who was trying to improve an article. There is no doubt that many editors did not agree with the content he wished to add but he was trying to make his case. Many other experienced editors also agreed with his opinions. Whether one agrees with the edits he wished to make or not, one cannot deny that he tried to present a case for his edits. If i had seen him edit warring over the artilce in the same time frame I may have opposed, however, there was no obvious edit warring on the main page while the discussion continued. To tell you the truth I was move worried by other admins trying to use an argument from authority to counter guinnogs argument. i see no reason why this editor should not be promoted to admin status. David D. (Talk) 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your observations on Guinnog. Tyrenius 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Guinnog the level-headed? Natch. Rich Farmbrough 22:03 29 August 2006 (GMT).
  58. Support I too enjoy beer. Whatever this AWB thing is does not trump that. Also, per above support comments. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per answers and Durin and Flonight's comments. Garion96 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support impressive answers, responsible editing, and a demonstration of desire and ability to make the kind of edits that the mop is about. TewfikTalk 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, a strong and reasonable editor. Would made an excellent administrator.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support as a dedicated user who won't abuse the tools, and per Petros471's comments. —Xyrael / 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Vast majority of edits were made with AWB. I don't see a lot of content in this persons contributions, and it took an awful long time for him to start using edit summaries correctly. I'd like to see an admin with a bit more experience in all the parts of wikipedia, not just fixing spelling mistakes. Also, his offer to mediate in the KarlV affair when he had clearly already made up his mind was unhelpful and showed his lack of knowledge of consesnus and being neutral. I don't expect anyone to agree with a certian point of veiw, but if you offer to mediate, you should at least consider it. pschemp | talk 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the points you make. It may be a little unfair to characterise my edits to Wikipedia as "just fixing spelling mistakes", as I think some of the other contributions I've made are laid out in the nomination statement above, and in my answer to Q2. I don't think either that the "vast majority" of my edits were made with AWB, although I can't provide a percentage. I'd be interested to see the actual number, if anyone does know how to extract it from my contributions. As to the KarlV affair, I can only repeat my message in my answer to Q3 above that I think I learned from it and would do better in future. I'm certainly sorry for any stress that my intervention caused you. On edit summaries you are quite right that it took me a long time to start using them, as I acknowledged in my statement at the top of the page. I think my edit summary use has been 100% for quite a while now. --Guinnog 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once upon a time, in an RFA, your whole edit summary percentage counted, not just your recent one. Reforming is nice, but what worries me is *why* it took you so long to figure out that edit summaries are important. It makes me think it will take you a long time to figure out why other things we do are important. Also, I looked through all your contirbutions and the majority of your article edits are done with AWB. Count 'em up. pschemp | talk 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer to question 2 shows some nice content additions, opposing because the user took some time learning about edit summaries seems a little over the top to me.--Andeh 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's time to configure Preferences to default to the setting that automatically prompts for an edit summary when the user is about to post an edit without one. Where do I post this suggestion? Newyorkbrad 21:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I downloaded Guinnog's edit history and did some analysis of his use of AWB. Around 40% were made with AWB, which means he's made over 6000 manual article edits. Gwernol 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose His relentless lack of WP:AGF over a long period of time at 7 World Trade Center this isn't the place to continue that debate but there are plenty of examples [33][34], Especially worrying is his insistence on the addition of links and/or sources that exist only to push a POV. During the most active phase on 7 World Trade Center he worked constantly against consensus and wasted an enormous amount of time wiki-lawyering in support of additions that were clearly not consensual. He was not above personal attacks personal attacks (link removed) and over all took the position that the article was not complete until he got his POV pushing sources included. Now, we all have our opinions about what should and shouldn't be added to articles we work on, but this went far beyond a simple difference of opinion and ended up somewhere else entirely. Rx StrangeLove 17:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I respect your right to oppose my adminship, I think you'll find that two of the three diffs you quoted were actually by User:Goethean. See also my answer to Q3. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, got my G's mixed up...I adjusted/removed the links. My points stand though. I did indeed read Q3 and was glad to hear it but I think that some time needs to pass, at least speaking for myself. I think that many editors that participated in that debate felt that it went on far too long and was avoidable. What made it so lengthy was the wikilawyering and working against consensus. I'd ask you if you really think that my main points are not valid. Rx StrangeLove 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per pschemp Republitarian 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to save anyone else checking, the user does have nearly 500 edits (albeit no userpage at the time of this writing) and has been contributing since 9 August. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever its worth, Republitarian took an "indefinite leave of absence" two days after this comment (see User talk:Republitarian) and has not been in a position to participate in this discussion since. Gwernol 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's anyone's priviledge to take a break. Events that occur during the RfA should not have to be taken account of by contributors, nor should contributors be obliged to stick around for discussion during the entire duration of an RfA. People have lives to live. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone interested, this seems to be the concern that caused the user to leave. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Please register a separate bot account for en masse automated edits. Seeing thousands of robotic edits in a user's contribs annoys me and makes it a lot harder to find relevant human-made contribs. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument is a straw man, because AWB is not a bot. Users do review each diff before save. Also there is a text window where manual edits can be done at the same time. There are also admins that use their accounts to do edits with AWB. I do not assume you request them to create an admin sock account, which is not allowed. I suggest you find a stronger oppose argument. --Ligulem 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this RfA may be better served by not launching into a discussion of whether or not AWB can be technically considered a bot. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Samsara. But if opposers base their arguments on false technical premises, then those fallacies can and should be adressed. Especially on knee jerk oppose votes in RFA's. --Ligulem 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your good suggestion, I had never thought of doing that. I'm assuming you are familiar with AWB and know that it is not a bot. I would characterise it as "semi-automated" rather than capable of "en masse automated edits", at least the way I use it. See also my answers to Q2 (for some of my favourite non-AWB contributions) and Q4 (for an example of how I believe I have used AWB well, to correct a pernicious spelling mistake). Thanks for your input though, and I'll certainly consider your suggestion. --Guinnog 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Have created User:Spellmaster which I will use in future for AWB spelling edits. --Guinnog 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've reviewed Talk:7_World_Trade_Center/archive4 and I find it quite a disturbing (review Durin's comment at the very bottom) example of POV pushing, and as outlined in response to Samsara's neutral, I have serious concerns about Guinnog's judgement, and his ability to admit fault, and to let things go instead of trying to have his argument carry the day. I also do not think well of his contribution to how poorly that whole affair unfolded. With great regret, given those folk I highly respect who are in support, I must oppose, for I do not think I trust his judgement at this time. The excessive and inappropriate use of AWB and the long time to start using edit summaries are also of concern, but far smaller and would not in my view be sufficient to oppose in and of themselves. In view of how hard it is to remove admins at this time, (if voluntary recall were more widely accepted, or if ArbCom processes were more lightweight... but they are not) I do not think this is a good risk. Perhaps later. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. If you think it is too soon after June 24 (the archive you referred to, and which I also talked about in my answer to Q3 above) for you to support my candidacy, then I respect that. If it makes any difference, I am a supporter of the Category:Administrators open to recall idea, and would be happy to sign up to that if I was successful. --Guinnog 21:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding WTC 7, it's not a matter of elapsed time, but of demonstrating change. That, as you are no doubt well aware is secondary to my concern about the KarlV affair. Civility is easy enough to achieve, but fundamental philosophical issues are more concerning. At the root, I need to trust the judgement of an admin candidate... judgement is very important. We need admins that can make snap judgements, and then go back and gracefully change what they did if it turns out wrong (that is very important, this is a wiki and we are making it all up as we go along), and at the same time admins who can think long and hard about complicated things and make the right decision on the first try, and admins who can tell which approach is needed in which case. Further, my view is that by default, barring other information, or if it's balanced, we as admins should trust other admins before we trust random users. I just got the idea that you were taking KarlV's side in this against admins that were just trying to do a hard job. And that's why I have concerns about your judgement. Maybe I'm wrong. Heck, maybe the fact that there have been concerns raised will cause you, should this nom succeed, to think longer and harder about what to do, so my oppose will have done some good even then. Finally while I think it laudable that you're willing to stand for recall, I'm not asking that question any more :) and besides, I'd rather not have to put anyone through a recall unnecessarily. If I'm right, you're not suited. Better to make that determination early than later. I'm terrifically sorry to have said it that way, for you've clearly made lots of positive contributions to articlespace and I would hope that would continue no matter what happens. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Lar for your thoughtful and insightful reply. I assure you that regardless of whether this nom succeeds, I will take very careful account of all the input people have been kind enough to make, and try to incorporate the comments into my style when editing. I will also, regardless of how the nom goes, continue to contribute to the project. I'm sorry for all the stress I realise I caused you on the KarlV affair; by implication I did think you were wrong, but maybe I was wrong. It's so very hard to hold a disagreement with people without being offensive, and on both the key areas which the majority of the oppose !votes have been centred on here, it seems I failed. That saddens me, as it was absolutely never my intention to show anything but respect for everybody involved. I can only try to learn from it. --Guinnog 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I too find some of the conduct at Talk:7 World Trade Center unsettling and the AWB quite excessive. Furthermore, looking further into the AWB edits, I see repeated changes of publically to publicly, even though publically is a valid alternate spelling. I see humourous changed to humorous repeatedly, as well, despite the fact that the former is simply British English. Guinnog even requested the former (incorrect) spelling fix (see User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix#Misspellings added because of user input). -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Humourous" is not a normal spelling anywhere in the world in the modern era. Please see my answer to Q4 above, and the link where I sought consensus for this change. "Publically" is perhaps more debatable; see the same discussion at [35]. --Guinnog 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I'll stand by the first sentence. I am curious, however, how a conversation – the one you pointed out – that barely lasted twelve hours would go from controversial, yet used spelling to worthy of being replaced semi-automatically with AWB so quickly. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From 11:18, 5 August 2006[36] to 11:33, 6 August 2006[37] is just over 24 hours in fact. Do you think I should have left it longer? --Guinnog 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using your 00:54 (UTC) comment on Wikipedia talk:Typo as a benchmark. It seems little trouble has been raised because of those additions to AWB, so I suppose it's not a big deal. My issue now, given that you have clarified that discussion occurred, really doesn't relate to you or your adminship specifically, but more with the idea that controversial spellings are being deemed wrong according to RegExTypoFix. My oppose vote is based primarily on the first sentence of my statement. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I have dealt extensively with Guinnog on Talk:7 World Trade Center, and don't have confidence that he will respect consensus. Also, have seen problems with civility. Time and again, we cited policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Consensus. Despite that, he comes back at us with comments like "What is it that you think gives you and your friends the right to censor wikipedia?" [38] Other troublesome diffs [39] That was all at the beginning of June, and Guinnog came back on June 22 and reinserted the material into the article (despite extensive discussion and consensus) [40] [41]. Aside from my dealings with Guinnog on this article, I'm aware of his valuable, positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'm just not comfortable with him having admin tools and doing things like closing AfDs. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all those diffs you've provided are made by Guinnog. Could you please check that you meant to include ones like this? Petros471 23:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake on the one diff. Aside from that, my concern centers on the specific discussion threads linked (including the reply by Durin and Kmf164 (me, my former username)), and Guinnog's conduct there. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first diff ([42], 5 June), I can only repeat my previous apology; I know I did badly there, and would not behave like that again. I was uncivil to Durin and by implication you, and I apologise once again. On the second[43], I'm not sure what you're getting at at all. On the third, I see now that I was unduly prolonging a debate that needed to go elsewhere. The diff you meant was likely [44], on 22 June. --Guinnog 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Assumptions of bad faith seem to be of concern. I'm also worried about repeated cries of "Censorship!" in discussions of minority viewpoint inclusion; it as an unnaceptably confrontational approach to a legitimate content disagreement. I am not confident that this user, if made an administrator, would properly enforce policy in similar content disputes. -- SCZenz 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that Guinnog's critical self-evaluation of his actions in the 7 World Trade Center matter is a very positive step; however, given the recentness of the conflict and the others that have occured, I'm not comfortable granting adminship just yet. -- SCZenz 00:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - per above concerns. Zaxem 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose after viewing his commentaries in the 7 World Trade Center talk page. I don't think the user was "actively promoting a point-of-view" but I do think he was indifferent to blatant point-of-view promotion going on in that article (which has become increasingly common on 9/11-related articles by those involved in the 9/11 truth movement) and thus do not believe that as an adminstrator he'd actively work to stop these users from point-of-view promotion. Sorry, the problem has grown to large to be ignored and we need people willing to do something about it.--Jersey Devil 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral.--Jersey Devil 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per 7 World Trade Center discussion page. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - too many serious concerns. I think this is a user who might make a good admin, but it would be helpful for him to have a few more months before another nomination so we can be sure the lessons have been well learned. If that happens, I'll give sympathetic consideration when the time comes. Metamagician3000 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per RX Strangelove and Lar. For now, there are serious concerns about editor's temperment. Six months of problem-free editing would go a long way to allaying these concerns. Xoloz 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per SCZenz.Voice-of-All 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per above concerns. Needs problem free time to prove he can handle the tools responsibly. The JPStalk to me 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Lar. Michael 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per pschemp. juppiter talk #c 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for now. The 7 WTC discussion makes me uncomfortable about supporting adminship at this time. Aren't I Obscure? 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per above concerns and my comments below. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Edit count is inflated by AWB abuse, including but not limited the semi-automated piping of links to "avoid" single redirects that are neither inappropriate nor broken, e.g.
    [[airplane]] → [[Fixed-wing aircraft|airplane]]
    [[space shuttle]] → [[Space Shuttle program|space shuttle]]
    Edits like these are likely to do more harm than good. —freak(talk) 16:58, Aug. 29, 2006 (UTC)
    You must be kidding. AWB "abuse"? Tough word, isn't it? BTW if you do have some free time you might want to go cut down on WP:CP. This would actually further the project. --Ligulem 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Freakofnurture. I accept that these edits I made from two months ago were a mistake, due to my misunderstanding of the preferred style for redirection over piped links. Nobody complained about these mistaken edits until you did (with the Space Shuttle ones on 2 July); if they had, I would certainly not have made them, or would have reverted them. I'm happy to revert them now if anyone thinks it desirable. You say "including but not limited (to)"; are there other categories of mistaken edit I have made, beyond this category (which I was already aware of, and discussed in answer to Andeh's questions above)? I am not in any way questioning your right to oppose me for this, but trying to take an opportunity to learn. And a belated thanks to you and pschemp for pointing out the preferred style to me at the time. --Guinnog 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
(Changed to oppose) There is no doubt in my mind that this user is a competent editor, as I've said before,[45] and I've had numerous friendly interactions with him. As for his candidacy for adminship, I am concerned about his contribution to a recent unblocking discussion for a user that had been indef blocked for a violation of WP:POINT. The blocked user had posted an apology that was phrased as though to avoid admitting he had violated POINT, and many admins were concerned he might offend again if unblocked. Guinnog offered to mediate between KarlV (the blocked user) and those in favour of maintaining the block, and to ask Karl if he would be willing to give us a better idea that he understood the problem and would not be disruptive again. However, Guinnog, rather than acting as a mediator, decided to then impose himself as a judge and throughout the debate refused to accept that a POINT violation had occurred, which contributed to the discussion grinding to a halt. The discussion lasted a strenuous five days, and to the best of my knowledge, KarlV has yet to learn the outcome. In conclusion, I would like to see this admin candidate gain a clearer understanding of the role of a mediator, assume good faith with respect to block reasons given by fellow admins, and become more relaxed about alternate views [46] before I can whole-heartedly support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Samsara. I think I have covered the lessons I have learned from the two issues you raise here in some depth in my answer to question 3 above. I would underline again that I didn't offer to mediate, but agree I was wrong to accept that characterisation of what I was trying to do. As I've said before, I'm sorry you were unhappy with my intervention here, which I realise must have caused you stress. I would do better next time as a result of my mistakes, and understand perfectly if you are unable to support my candidacy as a result. --Guinnog 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit of some confusion, please see the tail end of this diff: [47] and if you would, explain how that's not an offer to mediate. I think (but am not sure) that's the first introduction of the term "mediate" into the thread and it reads to me like you were indeed offering to do just that. Absent a better explanation of what you were up to, I'd characterise your subsquent actions in that thread as more than just ill advised, I'd call them singularly unhelpful and contributing to significant disharmony and stress to other editors in the thread. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what does "I am happy to mediate" mean then, if not an offer to mediate? pschemp | talk 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took quite a while to find the diff [48] where Samsara makes (I think) the first use of the word at 17:35, 12 August 2006. My use of it in the diff above was at 08:06, 13 August 2006 and was the mistaken acceptance of the term that I mentioned in my answer to Q3 above. Hope that clarifies things. --Guinnog 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming you don't know what the term mediate means? I find that hard to believe. pschemp | talk 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnog did not use the term "mediate", but his words were to that effect - if anything, he was offering more than mediation: [49] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find I am if anything, more confused by this answer than before Guinnog. I rarely oppose, but when I do, it's usually for the reason that I have fundamental concerns that the editor in question has a good grasp of how things are done here, or that they are able to operate in a collegial manner, and most importantly that they can admit fault without making it seem like they are squirming out of things in so doing. Right now I'm finding myself having some difficulty seeing how you've addressed these concerns that are building in me. Your last comment seems like the very sort of squirming, albeit more mild, that those of us opposed to lifting KarlV's block took issue with in KarlV's wording. I just can't abide wikilawyering and I can't really go for people that don't tend to give admins the benefit of the doubt compared to disruptors. I acknowledge that there are a number of people in support who I have a great deal of respect for, so I'm not ready to oppose just yet but I have very serious concerns. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you find my answer "squirming" and that you still have concerns. I certainly don't want to seem as if I'm wikilawyering or being argumentative. Beyond repeating again that I know I made a mistake, that I would not do it like that another time, I can only refer you to the full (and I think accurate) account of this in my answer to Q3. If you have any other specific questions, I'd be glad to answer them. --Guinnog 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hmmm, now it's my turn to be confused over the apparent acrimoniousness of this exchange. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as someone who has had no involvement in that KarlV affair at all, for me the picture that emerges is this: there was a dispute, Guinnog had previously made clear where he stood in that dispute; he then offered to do something which he thought would help to resolve the dispute; Samsara applied the term "mediation" to this offer; Guinnog took up that term. Now, instead of quibbling over whether "mediation" was a proper term for whatever Guinnog was offering, can we just agree that he was making a perfectly good-faith attempt at helping to solve a dispute? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) While I always assume good faith until proven wrong, I think we have to judge outcomes as well, it is not enough to act in good faith, one also has to be effective, and to be willing to take criticism about it. I stand by my characterisation of Guinnog's contributions to that mess as "singularly unhelpful". It should have been clear to him at the time that it was as well, and he should have changed his approach. That's the judgement part I find of concern. That and whether he's really learned from it, or whether he is just speaking as a politician does, in a way that is crafted to not give offense but not admit culpability. Not whether he acted in good faith or not, I'm not questioning that. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this page is already getting a pagelength warning, any objections to this conversation being moved to the talk page? Petros471 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Too early in this nom for that, commentors really need to be aware of this and not have it buried. Fair warning, I'll refactor it back, once, if you move it. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you move it to the talk page of this page? Then it's close to the discussion and you can just put a link here. Just an idea --- Martinp23 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's exactly Petro471's suggestion already and I've already said why, but I'll be blunter, it has been my experience in the past that doing so when the discussion is running fast gives the appearance, (and often the outcome) of brushing an issue under the rug. That may not be the intent, but see above, it often is the outcome. I judge on outcomes too, not just intent. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops - sorry, I misread Petros471's comment. Martinp23 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Weak Neutral -- I was going to oppose as this user fails my 9 month standard, but answer to question 2 impressed me, and I couldn't bring myself to oppose over a single month --T-rex 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Changed from oppose, per Durin. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Changed from oppose following User:MONGO's reassurance in support vote.--Jersey Devil 23:31, 25 August 2006 (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.
Category