Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NYC Guru

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

NYC Guru

Final (0/15/0); ended per

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self accept. NYC Guru (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: Throughout my edit experience there are area I feel I could be do better than many others, especially blocking and protections. I ofter feel the reaction by many to vandalism is an indef block which to me is unfair since the person blocking fails to realize the person vandalising is genuinely editing Wikipedia for the first time and is unaware of it's policies. Such blocking only create a vicious cycle of that person socking when a timestamped 1-day block would have caused the person to wait out the block and try again. See so many

unblock and see if that person goes on the strait and narrow

? Feeling helpless in this area led me to create this nomination.

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

A: I've had a passion for editing bible articles since I joined. Many of my bible edits cite anomalies in the bible text. I have many more planned but I often tend to wait until that section is read. I even had one of my synagogue articles evolve into

featured article status: Synagogue of Deal

. But credit goes to another editor that really expanded article and not me.

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: Before the above-mention article became featured status it was nominated for deletion. I left it alone and it unanimously was kept. With regards to Super Bowl 60, I took a leap of faith to undraftify the article and make it a redirect to preserve the text of the draft given that 60 is just 4 years away. An admin agreed to tweak the redirect to direct further edits posting a "redirect with possibilities" temp on the article.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Discussion

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

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

Support

Oppose

1. I tried to warn them on their user talk page (
   Fram (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   It's not only about edit count, but this will allow other editors to ask questions as this proceeds. The editors that further oppose have every right to do so, but it's certainly not fair to say I'm doing this out of hand being I've edited for 2 years now. NYC Guru (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   The issue is not your specific edit count, but the fact that it demonstrates your lack of experience. You didn't have to make a formal nomination to solicit questions(you could have done an RFA poll). 331dot (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. The user's stance on not indefinitely blocking VOAs is alone enough for me to oppose. Despite this bold stand on changing long-standing consensus on the blocking policy, the user has made a total of 1 (one) edit to Wikipedia talk space. If you think the blocking policy is wrong, I recommend you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy rather than starting a premature RFA. Also the article you linked to is not a featured article - it was on DYK. There's a difference. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Lack of experience. One example is only having participated in five AfDs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. User lacks the technical skill to set the end time correctly and lacks the social skills to listen to advice. They also do not know Wikipedia all that well (exemplified by the DYK/FA issue and lack of understanding of the blocking policy), despite spending two years here. They should not be an admin, and this request should be closed within the next few hours and not run for seven days. —Kusma (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strongly oppose – The difficulty with which this editor has submitted their RfA is highly indicative of their suitability for the position. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. oppose. skimming through your edits, i see a good-faith contributor. unfortunately, however, i believe your edits are currently lacking, both in quantity and in quality. for example, misspelling "quantity" when requesting the community to evaluate the quality of your edits is not a good sign. if you "value input from the community", please listen to the community regarding whether your rfa should run for the full seven days. dying (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. The truth is that users who actually want to improve Wikipedia will not repeatedly make edits that will cause them to be blocked. Even if there are cases as such, then it should be easy for them to admit their mistakes and say that they would like to make constructive contributions. It also doesn't make a case for why you should become an admin just because you think there are people being treated harshly by blocks. A better way to help these users would be to make them understand why their edits were nonconstructive by leaving messages on their talk page, and not simply unblocking them. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per all the comments above. 600 edits?!?! You don't have enough experience here on WP. Maybe when you spend several years on WP and know a lot on how WP works, you can retry. Sheep (talk • he/him) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per
   WP:NOTNOW 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Oppose. Synagogue of Deal is a C-grade article, not an FA. If you can't recognise the difference between C grade and what you think is an FA, then you don't have enough knowledge of WP's practices and procedures. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose and recommend closing. I don't find their answers satisfactory and they seem to reflect some fundamental misunderstandings. I also don't think they have the requisite experience nor have they demonstrated a need for the tools; the nomination seems to be a statement about admin conduct- which, if they want to change or address, can be done without them being an admin. Closing will save the nominated person grief and us time. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose and recommend speedy closing. I'm sorry,
    WP:FA status, I am seeing quite a few MOS-related issues in the content you are creating, and your participation in behind the scenes areas like AfD is limited, and still at the beginner stage (for example I see you making mistakes that you have to go back and fix, failing to sign comments, nominating things for AfD where a CSD criterion would have sufficed). Thanks for putting yourself forward, and keep building up your experience, but you don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to serve the community in this role. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Oppose and suggest SNOW closure. The candidate's lack of activity and unwillingness to listen to Fram shows a definite lack of
    The Night Watch (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Oppose VOAs are blocked indef due to the damage they commit to the encyclopedia. It's not just because admins want to treat them harshly. I do not think you understand why this is do, or why so many unblocks are denied. Additionally, 600 edits? While I don't think edit count is highly important, that is far, far too low of a count for you to have any expertise in editing Wikipedia. Look, I understand you want to help out as an admin, however I would suggest closing this now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Even disregarding the edit count, there is such a lack of maturity, proven by the headstrong do-no-evil mentality displayed here. Oh, and claiming an article as one of your best works because someone else expanded it even though all you did was create a 2-sentence unsourced stub and add some images is incredibly cheap. Curbon7 (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

General comments

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.