Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gurch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Gurch

[edit]

Final (65/1/4) ended 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gurch (talk · contribs) – Looks like this user has the right stuff to be a Wikipedia administrator. Deleterious 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gurch (talk · contribs) I found this tagged as {{db-vand}}, but I know this guy and, cliche aside, honestly believed him to be an administrator. During his 9 months of active participation in the RfA process Wikipedia Whoops. Werdna (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC), he's accrued a staggering 18180 edits, a good 16000 of those to mainspace, 623 to talk, 489 to Project-space, etc. Some may see this as not enough focus on policy, but I see this as commendable dedication to the project and and what it truly is. I have no doubt that Gurch will make a fine administrator, and it's my privilege to nominate him. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept – Gurch 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Cheating nobody-beats-me nominator Support Werdna (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat the nominator support. I need another admin to do my bidding. --Rory096 08:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. A great mainspace contributor. Good edit distribution between Talk and WP namespaces. Kalani [talk] 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support seems like a great contributor hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, great user. --Tone 10:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. How did this great user slip past without having a nomination for so long? DarthVader 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per above abakharev 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. A great contributor. Zaxem 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--Jusjih 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support18,000 Edits!?--Imhungry
  13. Support But the candidate should have voted mindlessly in AfDs (project spaaaace) for a few weeks and this would have been a landslide of editcountitis voters :-) --W.marsh 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  15. Support 18,000 edits? Need...medic... Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support absolutely. Caveat that edit summaries should be used more frequently. -- Samir धर्म 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I found the end of the previous voter's sig support - and no, you can't support per Tawker with this vote :) -- Tawker 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Merovingian {T C @} 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I know, DarthVader. How? Royboycrashfan 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support - so many edits shows a real committment, plus there are plenty of edits to the project namespace to show a knowledge of policy. —Mets501talk 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. More edit summary usage would be good, but how could I not? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak Support - More edit summary usage would be good, more project editing would be good, and a lot of his edits are minor copy-editing stuff. However, he is still a good user overall. Deserves the toolbox. -zappa.jake (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support strong editor with attention to detail needed to take our wiki to a higher quality. Give the editor a broom! --CTSWyneken 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. All my interactions with Gurch have been positive.--ragesoss 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Pepsidrinka 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Lack of edit summaries has nothing to do with being an administrator. freestylefrappe 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support--digital_me(t/c) 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Yup. 18000+ says it all. G.He 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support looks good. Edit summary use is NOT low, I know the actual stats.Voice-of-AllTalk 00:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. In this case, the edit count summary is misleading. It seems clear that this wikignome will make good use of the tools, and has been very uncontroversial. Grandmasterka 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I posted a more reasonable value below.Voice-of-AllTalk 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Crazy Yee-haw-hoo-doggy support. Yes is the short version. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. According to VoiceofAll last 500 edits mostly have summaries which knocks out my only complaint.--SomeStranger (T | C) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Boom!--digital_me(t/c) 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support for sure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as per all above.Timothy Usher 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Absolutely. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. ANOTHER LONG RAMBLING ALL CAPS SUPPORT FROM SASQUATCH WHO THINKS THAT GURCH RHYMES WITH LURCH AND CHURCH AND I LIKE BIRCH!!!!! OMGWTFBBQAYBARTULOLROFLBRB! Sasquatch t|c 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Cliché support. SushiGeek 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Bien sür. robchurch | talk 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Suppurch Proto||type 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support CABAL! Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Jaranda wat's sup 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support. Gurch is an excellent user with whom I have had some extensive interactions. At one point he took the time to create a spreadsheet for me using a software tool he wrote. I have little doubt he will make a fine admininstrator.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Looks good-- admin status would help with vandal control. Nephron  T|C 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Entirely satisfied with answers to the questions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I like his answers. MaxSem 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Well-rounded user.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Why not? A good editor. -MrFizyx 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: Could become Wikipedia's ultimate spellchecker. --Slgrandson 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support this excellent candidate Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Well qualified and will make a great administrator. — TheKMantalk 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Joe I 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per his promise on IRC to help me out with the 5am backlogs on CAT:CSD =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support ...Scott5114 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --HappyCamper 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Mhking 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Extremely good contributor. With 18,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin. In fact he should have , in my opinion, been am admin long back. Jordy 12:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support An excellent contributor who will make Wikipedia a better place if en-mopped. Gwernol 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, commendable performance, deserving of adminship. DVD+ R/W 04:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Has addressed concerns to my satisfaction. Eluchil404 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. --Avenue 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Thumbs seriously down Does not have any templates signifying any ability to communicate in a non-native lanaguge, or can prove such an ability any other way, I'm sorry. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Gurch.com.au 11:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a ridiculous reason to oppose. NSLE (T+C) at 11:50 UTC (2006-06-08)
    What NSLE said. I've heard of "uses userboxes" as a reason to oppose, but "has no userboxes"? You've got to be kidding me! Werdna (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I point you here for the sketchy beginnings of a constructed language I am co-developing – Gurch 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know...this is the English Wikipedia. Sure, knowing other languages could be useful here and there, but it's irrelevant to adminship. — TheKMantalk 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Wouldn't normally pass my criteria due to project edits ratio, but due to mitigating factors I believe it would not be right to oppose this user. Therefore, I am neutral, for now. NSLE (T+C) at 08:31 UTC (2006-06-05)
    Neutral. I am a little bothered by the lack of commenting on his edits. Comment summmaries are an important part of wikipedia and administrators, being the leaders of the community should uphold to a certain standard. However, since this is a small point I will remain neutral as it seems wrong to oppose someone purely on edit commentary.--SomeStranger (T | C) 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to support.--SomeStranger (T | C) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Only makes 3/4 on my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning towards support Lack of edit summaries is a minor stumbling block. However, the user has shown that he is dedicated to this project. It would not be right to oppose him just because of edit summaries, given the amount of work and dedication he put into this project. Moreover, edit summaries are an important part of Wikipedia. Anyway, if you become an admin, I would personally be delighted. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of edit summaries has nothing to do with being an administrator. If you dont understand such a basic fact then perhaps you should not be voting, much less running for administratorship. freestylefrappe 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIV. Yes it does. Go read up on the past five months of RFAs. NSLE (T+C) at 00:47 UTC (2006-06-06)
    I should point out that his edit summary use for his last 500 article edits is 95+% for minor and major edits, so this isue is moot.Voice-of-AllTalk 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for the information, Voice of all. But I am sticking to my neutral vote for the time being as this nomination is very likely to succeed. And as for freestylefrappe's personal comments about my incompetence, that is for other more civil users to decide whether I am fit to be running for adminship. I do not wish to be engaging in an argument here. My edit histories and behaviour towards other users and RfA nominations speak for themself. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unfortunately, does not appear to meet 1FA...sorry. But one thing's for sure - Gurch is a fantastic WikiGnome around. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note: Since it takes a while for the system to find the edit summary usage of 18000 edits, here is the summary as of 5 June 2006:

Edit summary usage for Gurch: 33% for major edits and 95% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Note from Rory096, who didn't add this. It's not that it takes a while for it to find 18,000 edits, because it only bases it on the last 150 minor and major, it's that it took so long to find 150 major edits. Apparently he rarely uses major edits, so most of them were a long time ago when he probably didn't know to use edit summaries. --Rory096 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article edit summary use (last 500 edits) : Major article edits: 95.45% Minor article edits: 97.91% per my JS tool.Voice-of-AllTalk 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Count with Tool2:
Username Gurch
Total edits 18180
Distinct pages edited 16241
Average edits/page 1.119
First edit 21:42, April 18, 2005

(main) 16055
Talk 623
User 419
User talk 235
Image 14
Image talk 2
MediaWiki talk 5
Template 95
Template talk 24
Help 1
Help talk 1
Category 114
Category talk 5
Wikipedia 489
Wikipedia talk 98

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 have worked on reverting vandalism in the past, and will likely do much more of this in the future; administrative tools will obviously be a great help for these purposes. Generally tidying the place up has always been my main focus (for example, I've recently been organizing talk archives), and I will be quite happy to deal with administrative backlogs if and when I have the time. I have requested speedy deletion hundreds of times, and feel I have a good knowledge of this and the various other deletion processes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: By their nature, the overwhelming majority of my contributions do not yield anything that can be singled out as particularly outstanding. I believe that any change, however small, that improves the quality of the encyclopedia is a good thing. Viewing my contributions as a whole, I consider them to be of value. I have developed my own editing tools specifically to deal with spellchecking; in this sense, I feel my programming knowledge has benefited the project. While most of my (admittedly somewhat inflated) edit count can be accounted for by spelling corrections, I have tried to give some attention to other parts of the project, both process- and content-related.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have always tried hard to avoid conflicts over any aspect of the project. So far, I have not had many negative encounters with other users; this is undoubtedly helped by the non-controversial nature of my edits. However, when it has happened, I have always remained calm and tried to act in a pleasant manner. I consider my presence on the project to be separate from any personal prejudices that I may have, and while I may argue a point when I believe it is appropriate, I have never allowed myself to become emotionally involved. At the end of the days, it's just a website full of articles, after all. I have yet to participate in an RfC or arbitration dispute; needless to say, were I to become involved in one I would continue to act as I have done so far, and I would not hesitate to request such a process if I honestly believed there was no alternative way to settle an issue.

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
A: A good question, but a hard one to answer, as obviously every administrator is unique, and some are better suited to certain tasks than others. Of course, there are some fairly general things to look for. One is experience – both with editing and with policy, the former being just as important as the latter. Commitment to the project is another; a quality that many attempt to quantify by laying their hands on as many statistics as possible: edit count, number of months since registration, breakdown of edits by namespace, and when all else fails the good old edit summary usage. These are all important figures, but care must be taken not to get a skewed picture of reality. An absence of conflicts, policy violations and of course vandalism can only be a good sign; but the converse should not leave a user's reputation forever tarnished – new users who have a genuine interest in the project will usually learn from their mistakes, and may well make good administrators a year or so down the line. Finally, looking at the user as an individual, their editing patterns (particularly with regard to "admin-like" maintenance work) and their interaction with other users should give some idea of whether they would be suited to administrative tasks.

Optional Question from zappa

Q: In your opinion, are there situation in which edit summaries do not need to be used?
A: There are a few special situations when I think they are not essential. For example, when making small changes to the layout of your own userpage – edits that are unlikely ever to be reviewed by anyone else. (Of course, leaving summaries in such circumstances may well benefit the user if they look back through their page history at a later date). As far as edits to articles, and pages in the other namespaces are concerned, no, I do not believe there are situations when edit summaries are not required.
Putting the question of my exact edit summary usage aside (there seems to be some doubt, I won't get involved), I have taken on board the concerns of a number of users, and I intend to maintain a high edit summary usage from now on. I think most of my recent summary-less edits are a case of me simply forgetting (or hitting the "Save" button by mistake when aiming for the summary box!) To this end, I have enabled the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in my user preferences, as an extra reminder.

Optional question from Simetrical

6. I notice that a few months ago you appeared to be running some kind of automated or semiautomated process to correct typos. Then, you were performing many minor edits in rapid succession, such as 12 edits at 11:33, 16 April. More recently, you've been doing similar things, presumably using AWB or similar, but more slowly. Is there a reason you haven't been doing such things from a separate bot account, and haven't asked for a bot flag (as far as I can find)? Why did you edit so quickly before, and why did you slow down more recently?
A: I agree that 12 edits per minute is a little fast (a little fast perhaps even for a bot). As you point out, I have not edited at this speed for a few months; I have moved away from this sort of editing, and do not intend to edit at that speed again any time soon. The typo corrections I made in the period February-April of this year were made using a tool that I have written myself; all edits I made were manually reviewed. At no point have I used any editing tool, AWB included, for any purpose other than typo correction – the more recent edits (such as the tagging of talk archives which you are possibly referring to) have just been done using a browser. I believe the speed of these – never more than three edits per minute – is not excessive for a normal user account. If I do decide to return to making high-speed edits similar to the ones I previously made, I will create a bot account and follow the approval process.

Optional questions from Rob Church

7. Just how badass is the Nazi moon base? robchurch | talk 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Very. Try to come up with a more useful question next time.
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/Gurch&oldid=1146615577"