Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/NYC Guru

@Dying, RickinBaltimore, Kusma, and Curbon7: Though I'm disappointed this did close sooner than I wanted, I thank everyone for the input and I learned a lot. I have to admit I was ready to reopen this had it not been for a comment on my talk page. Though I was well aware I was unlikely to pass now, I was hoping for more questions from other editors and maybe a couscous addressing of the issues at hand. I'm not too happy that many used the basis of my grammar errors to oppose or the fact I confused the FA with a DYK. Keep in mind this happened over 2 years ago and I remember little about the details surrounding the article as it was expanded by another editor and not me. I hope for this to be a learning curve and perhaps maybe just maybe I'll do better in a few thousand more edits. And now for my responses. NYC Guru (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following editors opposed this RFA

  1. I tried to warn them on their user talk page (User talk:NYC Guru#Your RFA) that this was a bad idea, not only for their lack of experience, but also considering the incorrect or unverifiable claims in their nom statement. They refused to listen... 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]
    @Kusma: Not everyone admin focuses their efforts to things behind the scenes. Many editors like myself focus on improving the encyclopedia and that why I stressed quality over quantity. NYC Guru (talk) 15:53, 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. 5225C (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]
    @Dying: I wanted at least 50 supports and/or opposes before deciding closure if that's not asking too much. NYC Guru (talk) 15:53, 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, NYC Guru, I'm sure you started this in good faith, but you simply don't have the experience. You are conflating a WP:DYK credit with 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]
    @Girth Summit: I sign most of my comments. If can cite one place I missed a signature put it here. NYC Guru (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NYC Guru This is, I am afraid, another example of your lack of knowledge and experience - none of these pings will have worked (certainly the one to me didn't), because you didn't add them on a new line in a post with a new four tilde signature. You can't insert pings into old messages retrospectively - the template is added, but no notification is issued. There is more on this at WP:PING.
    Edits without signatures - sure. Your edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannasit Sukchareon were unsigned (and in the wrong place, but at least you self-reverted). You edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retroactive continuities were unsigned. I didn't look further to see if there were others - I looked at two AfD discussions, and found two sets of unsigned comments, which was enough of a concern for me to mention it.
    I'm not saying any of this to discourage you, it just seems clear to me that you don't really understand how everything works yet, either behind the scenes, or with the MOS, or in the article quality scale. That's absolutely fine for someone of your level of experience - you're not expected to understand everything immediately. It's not fine in an admin though. Girth Summit (blether) 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly fine with the opposes and I wasn't expecting to pass the first time, few people do. I was hoping for maybe 50 comment before the snowflakes set in. Though I can't deny it's over and it would be stupid for me to try again right now I don't think it hurts to address the issues here. NYC Guru (talk) 02:33, 21 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 WP:CLUE that I would not like to see in a candidate. 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]
    If vandal blocks were timestamped based on severity Wikipedia would prolly be flooded by far fewer sock puppet accounts. Indef blocking a vandal is often the cause. NYC Guru (talk) 16:54, 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]
    True I mistaked featured article with "did you know?" but you obviously didn't read the whole answer to Q2 with clearly states But credit goes to another editor that really expanded article and not me. That was there from the very start. NYC Guru (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYC Guru - these pings will also not have worked, because you didn't sign the post in the same edit that you added the template. Think about it - we don't want a notification to be issued every time someone edits a page with a ping template on it! It's the signature that triggers the ping - when the software sees four tildes, it converts it into a signature, and it looks to see whether any new ping templates have been added - if they have, it sends a notification. There was no signature in this instance, so the above-mentioned editors will not have received any notification. I am about to type my four tildes however, so you will hopefully receive a notification of this message. I hope that makes sense. Girth Summit (blether) 11:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: You mean like this? NYC Guru (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that one worked. Girth Summit (blether) 09:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think that some editors interpret the fact the the RFA page is 30/500 protected to mean "I should immediately start an RFA as soon as I'm extended confirmed". Partofthemachine (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/NYC_Guru&oldid=1134895984"