Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gurch 2


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

Gurch
Final: (67/28/1); Closed 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) by Daniel as candidate withdrew; Scheduled to end 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not already one, though many people seem to think I am. I was, once, but I resigned. This request is considered necessary due to a change in circumstances.

I began contributing in October 2005. I was an administrator between June 2006 and January 2007. I edited as between January and March 2007.

I have 74,000 edits. I also made 36,000 edits as Qxz. The edit counter used for these requests does not count beyond 45,000 edits, so if that is the given total, please ignore the statistics.

This request is not an indication of power-hunger. I have already experienced the status I am requesting, and assert that it is nothing special, that I do not particularly want it, and that I honestly do not care about the outcome.

It seems likely that one week from now, creation of articles by anonymous users will once again be possible. I anticipate a significant increase in the activity of the deletion processes, which I wish to help with. I am making this request now in order that it is completed before anonymous article creation is re-enabled on 9 November 2007. In the event that the current state of affairs is restored, I will reconsider the necessity of this.

I believe I have the experience necessary to do things that I have done many times before. However, I appreciate the change in circumstances and expectations since I was previously nominated.

I have contributed very little to the content of the encyclopedia. My contributions maintain existing content. I believe such maintenance to be essential. If this prevents me taking on additional content maintenance tasks, so be it.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: – Gurch 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Request withdrawn: It would appear that my assistance is not desired. That is fine. I trust that those of you who opposed have a lot of spare time this coming month; you will need it – Gurch 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:


 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The same things as before. Mostly the deletion processes, but almost everything to some degree, with the exception of those procedures requiring a full understanding of the media use policy, which I will not even pretend to comprehend.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As mere consolidation of existing content, all are worthless when taken individually. Collectively, the situation is somewhat better, though not much. Perhaps the best thing that can be said is that there are a lot of them.


 * 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: Yes; more than can be concisely listed here. All I can say is that I must presumably, somewhere deep down, believe in this project, as I seem to continue contributing to it despite its repeated attempts to shoot itself in the foot. Such is life.


 * 4. Why did you resign? &mdash;Cryptic 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I was fed up and no longer wanted the status. I still don't, but it's more important that the consequences of the recent decision to re-enable anonymous article creation are dealt with.


 * 5. Did you really remove the link to Luna Santin's blog because you thought it qualified as an attack site, or were you trying to make a point (or point, if you're so inclined) with regard to all the heat and noise and drama surrounding BADSITES? — Dorftrottel⁠ 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. Do you agree that the following three factors: 1) your addiction, 2) giving you the tools back, 3) anon page creation, add up to one deceased (from dehydration) Gurch after 200 straight hours of newpages/CSD patrol? Миша 13 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 7. Why is a fish? Миша 13 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8. What do you want Wikipedia to be in the future?  Marlith  T / C  00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A:


 * 9 Can you explain your blocks and vandalism spree? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A

General comments

 * See Gurch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user: 


 * Links for Gurch:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gurch before commenting.''

Discussion

 * First, I've been doing a detailed review of the evidence about Gurch's activity as an admin and later. It's worth looking at the AN/ANI search results (I've adapted that link to search for AN/ANI/3RR results for both Gurch and Qxz). There is a lot of controversy and disagreement, as might be expected for a former administrator; there is the usual being hated by vandals and trolls, for instance. There is one incident where Gurch was given a 'stern warning' for 3RR (mitigated by the fact that the other user that was adding negative unsourced information and continued to be reverted by other users after Gurch stopped); there are several discussions about the admins' IRC channel; there is a claim that Gurch may have been using a deletion bot after managing 100 deletions in 259 seconds; there is various fallout from the somewhat dramatic departure of Qxz (who basically went and opposed all the currently running RfAs, memorable for me because it created the only oppose vote on mine, making comments about how Wikipedia was a waste of time, after having been vandalfighting for 24 hours straight). I also see Gurch complaining about being considered excessively deletionist, which I suppose is par for the course for an admin who makes/made a lot of deletions. This amount of controversy is usually enough to doom an RfA to being no consensus from the start. But my interactions with Gurch have mostly been positive; for instance, even as a non-admin, Gurch has done a lot of wikignoming of high-risk-protected pages and interface messages (I know this because I made several of those edits on Gurch's behalf via CAT:PER), has shown dedicated vandalfighting (which can be controversial, but seems less controversial than expected given the sheer quantity of vandalfighting edits carried out; I worry that it may be excessively dedicated, given the large spread of times over which Gurch has edited, implying that Gurch sometimes decides to edit throughout the night), and helps with the technical side of things. Most importantly, giving/denying a user the admin tools is a matter comparing the potential benefit with the potential risk. 'Seems unlikely to go crazy' is one common reason to support an RfA; it seems to me that if and when Gurch does go crazy, it's unlikely to be in a way that could harm the project. This isn't a usual support comment; but basically I think that Gurch is unlikely to do something that would harm the project (which ties in with the stated motive for applying for adminship in the first place here; Gurch seems to believe that not applying for adminship at this point would harm the project (I don't know whether or not that's correct, but it's a reasonable point of view)) even if given the admin tools, and the potential benefit for the project as a result is large. I'm slightly worried that this aid will come at the cost of Gurch's own sleep patterns (I hope that doesn't happen), though; I'll leave it to the rest of the commentors here to decide whether RfA should be concerned about that or not. Oh, and I'll leave it to the rest of the people here to decide whether this is a 'Support' vote and should be counted in the tally and the percentage; I don't particularly care about that. --ais523 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a matter of time until we see "Oppose, user edits at the wrong time of day -- ~ ". If it really bothers you that much, I can promise not to edit during the arbitrary span of time some choose to label as "night", though that would inevitably be accompanied by a drop in contributions – Gurch 11:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sparta. That is all. Miranda 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support this deeply experienced former administrator, so we can get him back before the onslaught of rubbish at CSD. Pedro : Chat  10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A very experienced former admin. No reason to oppose. We need more admins! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Gurch is someone who has been in the past very devoted to wikipedia. As an admin he would not abuse his tools. Those to things I look for in an admin. I believe them to be the 2 most important things for an admin to have.--SJP 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My support of you is weak though. You have done a lot to help, and were not abusive with the tools, but you have been a disruption in the near past. We all make mistakes though.--SJP 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - you don't quite reach my minimum standard of 200,000 edits, you're not that active (I like more than 1,000 edits every day), and you don't meet 1FA. However, as you self nominated on the first of the month, and your name starts with G, that cancels those things out. Good luck!  Majorly  (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - lowish edit count, but support anyway. Addhoc 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. No reason not to.  Neil   ☎  11:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Is there a reason you can't just get a 'crat to restore your flag? Spartaz Humbug! 11:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Pedro. Gurch has indicated that due to past issues he wishes to re-run through RfA. I believe that this opportunity to ascertain the communities desire for him to be resysopped is totally positive, and the fact Gurch didn't just go to WP:BN first but launched this RFA is a testament to his transparency and openness. Pedro : Chat  11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Few have shown the kind of dedication to the project that Gurch has, and he obviously has plenty of experience with the tools. And we certainly will need more people experienced with making deletions in a few days' time. Will (aka Wimt ) 11:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Yes. - eo 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Candor, experience, serious. Modernist 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Has a proven ability to nuke vanity/spam/attack/nonsense pages. MER-C 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support to implement the result he would have got by requesting directly on WP:BN. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Don't think you'll go nuts, in fact, you'll probably be a huge help. SQL Query me!  12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support obviously. Besides being very experienced, I have seen him being very helpful to new and anonymous editors. - Two  Oars   (Rev)  12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) All his experience aside, Gurch can also be something of a major pain in the ass. Which is precisely why I would much appreciate his comeback to the admin corps. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, and per Majorly, this is of course a very³ weakingishly "support", almost neutral and leaning to strong oppose. I'm afraid you fall short of all my criteria, such as (i) this is a self-nom, and your primate face looks power-hungry, (ii) you have less than 20 FAs (you know, the articles we figure are not so bad as the bulk), (iii) you have less than 10 WikiProjects endorsing your candidacy, (iv) your mainspace contributions are a joke not worth mentioning, (v) you obviously don't know the first thing about how Wikipedia works or what it is— let's just say it's a wonder you ever found the site in the first place (StumbeUpon, I'm guessing?), (vi) your wikispace contribs— do you have any?, (vii) just not enough cowbell for my taste (I'm sorry, these are my criteria, to which I am entitled). — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I think he'll be fine second time around. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support. If Gurch returns to the admin corps, he will dominate the field. Other sysops will have little or nothing to do. We'll go homeless, unloved, and unfed, begging passersby for food on the streets so we have the energy to log in "one last time." At the risk of my own job security, here goes! RyanGerbil10 (C-Town) 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. I am on Wikipedia almost everyday reverting vandalism. Would you like a block with that? Would you like a block with that? Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. AIV is full. Delete, delete, delete, delete. Wait for the block. Here comes the block. Oh no, there's the block. Ding...Gurch is here. DING GURCH IS HERE! Miranda 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Well, duh! - no further comment necessary :) - A l is o n  ❤ 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Gurch without all the tools makes Wikipedia better. Gurch with the tools will make Wikipedia doubleplusbetter. --barneca (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Doy.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose (support actually) User edits at wrong time of day Kwsn   (Ni!)  14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Definitely a gimme. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose User is obviously power-hungry. This conflicts with my own power hunger, so I must oppose. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oooh so tempted "Oppose, user edits at the wrong time of day --~" .  Boring but just plain old support -- Herby  talk thyme 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support Plenty of solid work in areas in which the admin tools would be highly beneficial. Certainly no concerns regarding amount of experience.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Shameless troll. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, Per Riana. But seriously, I trust him with the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - some concerns, but nothing to warrant opposing. Did good work with the tools in the past. Will do good work with them in the future. Carcharoth 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Fnord. -- John Reaves 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Have you also noticed that he picked up the rare occasion when we have 22 active nominations, in order to sneak through this sleazy attempt at adminship? No Va! Duja ► 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Thought he was one and such   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong support. I continue to hold Gurch in high regard - his contributions have been overwhelmingly beneficial to the project and in my opinion make up for the odd error in judgment. I think Wikipedia would definitely benefit from his having access to sysop tools again. WjBscribe 16:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) The most common name I've seen when encountering the deleted user/user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users was Gurch, as he was the one who deleted those pages. It'll be nice to have him helping to clear Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages again, as well as CSD. Acalamari 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) I changed my mind from opposing, user could actually improve the wiki by clearing almost every backlog. Onwards to progress! The sunder king 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support for many of the reasons given above. We'll be needing admins like this. --Bradeos Graphon 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Yes, the candidate's track record is a bit too interesting and may raise one's eyebrow. However, Gurch has been a valuable member of the community. He's a workhorse. He knows his way around. He's willing to tackle problems, be they vandals or grandstanding, arm-waving troublemakers. Gurch has proven his worth and I trust him with the tools. Majoreditor 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support We need now, and even more so later, his dedication. JodyBRoll, Tide, Roll 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support We can really use this kind of help :) Shell babelfish 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I cringe at the thought of allowing anons to create pages. I'm glad Gurch is stepping up to the plate to help us clean up. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good reason to oppose the out-of-touch decision to change page creation... not to give admin tools to people who've gone on vandal sprees and been blocked for trolling and edit warring. --W.marsh 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with some reservation. Gurch has shown poor judgment in the past that does indeed concern me; however, his work against vandals is some of the best out there and would be helped greatly with the buttons. That's why I'm going to support and at least give him a shot at using the tools well. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gurch's experience will help greatly at CSD if the expected torrent of new articles materializes. JavaTenor 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gurch is good. &mdash; trey  omg he's back 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I have some concerns about Gurch's emotional stability and how likely he is to fly off the handle again (As with the blanking of many pages, including the main page talk, noted below). But, the trade off is worth it and if he goes nuts again it'll be spectacular enough that no long-term damage will be done. He doesn't get involved in dispute resolution or areas of complex judgement, so the potential for really damaging admin abuse is limited. Avruch Talk 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support based on past blocks, but we'll need every deck on hand very soon. Bearian 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Titanium/Diamond/fnord Support - As far as I know, Gurch being a former admin has shown that he can and will be able to handle everything that is dished out to him and yes he has an unbalanced record, but he has shown in the past couple of months that he is up for a challenge and his contributions to the wikipedia is really impressive both by him and his alter-ego Qxz (not to mention the anon-edits :P )..I trust him with the tools and i believe he is exactly what we should look for in a future admin prospect..-- Cometstyles 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Yeah, I suppose he is civil enough --Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)
 * 8) Pointy bastard... Just don't send a nuclear bomb to the database to prove you can, and I'll be happy... ;) -- DarkFalls talk 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I am concerned about the edit warring, but I think there is still cause to support. Captain   panda  21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Has common sense. &mdash;Animum ( etc. ) 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support —DerHexer (Talk) 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) [[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|15px]]  This LIAR said he would never be admin again. W/e - we need such addicts - who else would do all the work? *huggles* Миша 13 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Hell yes  C O  22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I first met Gurch as Qxz early this year, so I'm not as well-acquainted with him as some; but I've had only good experiences with him, and I trust him with the tools.  Gurch, if you ever want to Talk/vent, my home is always open. :) Willow 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) The opposing votes have raised important concerns. Administrators in peticular should not edit war. However, per MER-C, I think that the canadate would make a great vandal fighter, and we need all the vandal fighting admins we can get.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) support User has a lot of experience and is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia. This is shown by the fact that even with all the pressure against him (blocks, etc.), he still chugs along. -- Hdt 83     Chat 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support and I hope I won't have cause to regret this opinion. Blocks and such aside, seems like an asset in many ways. We'll just see. Pigman what? / trail 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support A super tireless contributor.  Marlith  T / C  00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support--Golden Wattle talk 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support His nom satisfies me. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Yeah I see no major concerns. Phgao 02:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose, user edits at the wrong time of day &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support long-standing & experienced editor. Renata 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support There are some uncomfortable realities to consider, but I believe the main point of Gurch's request, i.e. that administrative responsibilities are increasing, and he is more than prepared to deal with these responsibilities. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I do not fear that Gurch will abuse the tools. - auburn pilot   talk  03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. He's had his moments, but I've never doubted Gurch's heart is in the right place.  He won't abuse the tools and the project will be better off if he has the extra buttons.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm sorry to be the one who has to do this. I know you were a former administrator, but all you ever do is revert vandalism, I seem to recall a couple of months back that you made almost 1,000 edits in a period of one day, this clearly shows an unhealthy addiction to Wikipedia. I'm extremely impressed with your edits, but most of them are just vandal reverts, there is no contributing to the encyclopedia. You also strike me as being very argumentative, for example when I was on IRC before I was unbanned, I noticed a user talk page which was receiving some talk page abuse, I requested on IRC that an admin take a look, and provided a link to the user talk page, (obviously I could not request it myself), you then replied by saying the page doesn't exist, and you had looked on the wrong page (despite the fact I provided a clear link), then when checking it out, you then said it would editing on behalf of a banned user, however since the page was receiving several bad edits in the space of a minute by the blocked user, this would be standard Wikipedia practise. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't support. Qst  10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * His contribution to the WP:MISSING project didn't involve vandal reverting. Addhoc 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I take issue at the statement that all I do is revert vandalism. Certainly I do a lot of that, but to suggest it's all I do is to gloss over a lot of other stuff. For example, about 13,000 of my edits are typo corrections. A further 6,000 or so are discussion archive tagging. Now I'm not suggesting that these are particularly special things – they're not – but they're definitely not reverting vandalism – Gurch 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't get with your unhealthy addiction to Wikipedia comment. When my job requires me to go on call on premises, I have a computer.  I might do 1 grand of edits.  Please AGF.  M er cury    12:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1,000 edits in a day shows pure dedication, and while it might be an addiction, there's worse things one can become addicted to. He should be applauded not opposed for editing as much as he does. I agree, there's a lot of vandal fighting. That's what admins do though. And as Qxz, Gurch made vast improvements to Wikipedia, one of our most viewed articles.  Majorly  (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see his devotion, or as you say his unhealthy adiction to wikipedia, a positive. You want admins who are devoted and will be here often. That is the way I see it. He seems argumentative to me as well, that is a negative, though that one thing is not enough for me to oppose. All it does is make my support of him not as hard as it would be.--SJP 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) 1) Please do not ask me to assume good faith, Mercury &mdash; because I stopped and thought before commenting here. 2) SJP, I am not in any way attempting to be argumentative, I'm merely giving my thoughts on the matter, I consider your above comment to be rather insulting. 3) Majorly, what you said above is highly hipocritical, you opposed an RfA was because of a large amount of edits in one day (see here — Requests for adminship/AGK), I know Gurch did some good work, but I have the right to my opinion on this matter, and all protesting it without discussion is not going to help. For the record, I stand by what I said. Qst  17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we seem to be forgetting that he was blocked for edit-warring only 13 days ago, and has an extensive block log of disruption, not something I'd like to see in an admin, or at least not so soon after the blocking. Qst  18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't look at what I wrote. 1) I didn't oppose 2) I never mentioned edit count, I simply said editing 24 hours straight is bad for your health. And it is, and I never said it wasn't here. Please explain how I'm highly hypocritical.  Majorly  (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainly because editing for a period of 24 hours, and Gurhc editing with 1,000 edits per day, I think they both clearly show an unhealthy and obsessive addiction, in order to revert 500 vandalism edits (and warn 500 users), you'd need to edit for a length of time which would be near to 24 hours, I have explained my reasoning, and the edit warring. I called you a hipocrite Majorly, because you said above something similar to: 1,000 edits in one day should not be oppose for, it should be applauded, but like I said above, you commented on AGK (yes, although not opposing him) for editing for 24hrs straight, to which he replied with a valid reason for, both are on similar lines of addiction. I have nothing further to comment. Qst  18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of my comments struck out by myself above, no offence was meant. Qst  20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Qst, you have misunderstood what I am saying. I said that he, as in Gurch seems to be argumentative, not you:) Why would I say you are argumentative? You have not shown any signs of being argumentative. Thanks for yout time.--SJP 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm sorry but I can only vote based on my experience with an editor, and in this case I experienced someone who acted wildly inappropriate at the Gracenotes RFA. For anyone who was not involved in that vote, Gurch made constant angry accusations against anyone who did not vote in the same direction as him and really just went completely out of control. From what I have heard it seems he continued with the belligerent attitude for some time to come. I suppose it was possible that Gurch has never acted so rude or obstinate before or since and that he was simply too full of yellow bile (anyone get that one?:)), but I have to say that I simply cannot ignore such an episode.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose blocked 13 days ago for apparently a good reason... we already have enough current admins getting themselves blocked over edit warring... do we really need more? --W.marsh 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This candidate's contributions show vast amounts of repetitive automated or semi-automated robotic edits, often many hours at a time. I feel this gives a skewed view of the true contributions of the human editor behind the account, unassisted by an automated script or a bot. In my opinion, massive robotic or bot-assisted edits should not be done from a human account. In addition, as Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg notes above, my experience with this editor during that RfA was very poor, as s/he was pushing very hard every single nay vote. I also noticed this editor pushing hard to allow open proxy editing, something I believe will damage this project. Crum375 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this editor seems to have gone on a wild vandalism spree, for which s/he was blocked. In fact, it seems this editor has been blocked often in recent months, for multiple infractions. I just can't see this behavior and personality being consistent with an admin. Crum375 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the spree: can we trust this person with admin tools, not to mention confidential and sensitive personal information? Crum375 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can. He was upset/angry iirc, and lashed out. It happens. He could have done worse things. It looks bad, but out of more than 110,000 edits, and a pretty unblemished record as an administrator, it's nothing really. And I don't know how confidential and sensitive personal information comes into it. When I was an admin, I never saw personal and confidential information.  Majorly  (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of these edits are semi-automated &mdash; simply a single push of a button, most of them generated at a high rate of thousands per sitting. The actual number of true human edits, that require thought and actual typing, are unknown, but likely to be much smaller. I wonder what kind of admin work you did if you didn't get to deal with personal and sensitive information. Crum375 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're free to look at my logs, but it was mostly deletes/protects/blocks. Only when I started answering OTRS enquiries did I ever see any real personal information. BUT... I'm not sure how that extra comment about personal information relates to a vandal spree.  Majorly  (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't do OTRS, yet I deal with sensitive information and people's trust all the time. A person who "loses it" and starts lashing out, or one who routinely ignores policies and gets blocked, does not convey a sense of maturity and trust you'd expect from an admin. All it takes is one "lashing out" to disclose sensitive personal information about someone to his/her stalkers or attackers, for example. Crum375 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Different admins do different things.  Majorly  (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the edits made with this account are completely automated – Gurch 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But it seems that the vast majority are semi-automated, where all you do is repetitively press a button, creating thousands of edits in a few hours. Crum375 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit-warring on User:Luna Santin over a rather pointy issue. Ral315 » 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Moshe and Crum375. --tickle me 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Moshe, W.Marsh, Crum375, and per Gurch 's responses to "questions for the applicant", esp. #4 where he says he doesn't want to be an admin. Tomertalk  18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Crum and response to question four. --Mantanmoreland 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per W.marsh. We can't have admins edit-warring. Wizardman  19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per question 4 and the Gracenotes situation, in which I had no other choice but to block you. Can't trust you with the tools for now at least. Jbeach sup 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose I have already experienced the status I am requesting, and assert that it is nothing special, that I do not particularly want it, and that I honestly do not care about the outcome. Uh what? That entire statement confuses the hell out of me, if you don't care and you don't particularly want it.... I can't support if that's the way you feel about it. The edit war over Luna's page was also troubling. Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He wants to serve the project - he ranks that above what he wants personally. &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Unfortunately, I cannot condone the departing behavior of Qxz, even if that account was really meant to be abandoned. TML 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was nearly 8 months ago. Forgive and forget?  Majorly  (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose A good editor but I have some concerns over his ability to assume good faith and stay civil. I need some reassurance that he'll stay civil in the future--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Moshe has raised valid concerns. Beit Or 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Unnerving block log, edit-warring on a user page is just silly.--Snakese 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Everybody's articulated my reasons for opposing far better than I ever could. east. 718 at 22:08, 11/1/2007
 * 4) Strong oppose per .  Daniel  22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) This user's block log, the vandalism spree, the Luna Santin issue, and Gracenotes' RFA make this user unsuitable to be an administrator. i (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) We don't need any more admins who are armed and ready for combat. -- Agüeybaná  22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I'm sorry, but your recent block log is a serious concern to me. --Angelo 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose The vandalism spree shows an extremely worrying lack of maturity. Because of that, this candidate appears to be completely unsuitable for adminship. TigerShark 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I sometimes disagree with many of the things that happen at Wikipedia, but the way to deal with such situations is not disruption, it's not edit warring over people's user pages. I hate to think what would happen if Gurch went on one of his rampages armed with block buttons and deletion tools.  And such disagreements are bound to happen -- it's impossible to have a community this big where everyone agrees on everything all the time.  It's tough, because Gurch is such a good, smart contributor, but seems unable to avoid bouts of disruption. --JayHenry 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit warring worries me. I think Gurch is a good faith contributor, but the concerns raised by those above outweigh the positives for me. -- B figura (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Switching to neutral after more consideration of users contribs. -- B figura  (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per - I was fed up and no longer wanted the status. I still don't,.... no matter what the reason one should not feel obliged to be an admin, and if you don't want it, don't do it. If you were fed up before doing a job you did not want to do previously, then I can only see history repeating itself. Khu  kri  00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He wants to serve the project - he ranks that above what he wants personally. &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Based on issues listed above, I cannot trust Gurch to not abuse the tools. Argyriou (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Khurki's and the I was fed up and no longer wanted the status. I still don't,.... line. That threw me off, too.  Add that to the edit warring, and I'm not too comfortable.  Jauerback 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per W. marsh and the recent block log. My personal experiences with the candidate also  have been negative, as he tends toward aggression, impoliteness, and curt behavior. Xoloz 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose Impressive block log, And not to mention s/he went on a vandalism spree (see edits on May 20th). I have seen bad behavior from this user (as seen in the block log), and I cannot support. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above comments. We need less drama on Wikipedia, not more.        6SJ7 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Crum and response to question four. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why?  C O  22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Ral315.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But per MER-C, I support. We do need more vandal fighters.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral I do agree that we need vandal fighters, but the recent block still bothers me. I'll stay neutral pending an answer to the block question. -- B figura (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.