Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grika


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

grika
Final (5/13/6); Ended 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

? I am approaching my 2 year anniversary of contributing to Wikipedia. In addition to article creation, copy editing, wikilinking, etc., I have have contributed in the following: I have also:
 * Punctuation patrol
 * Dab patrol
 * Vandalism patrol
 * New article VfD patrol
 * Double redirect patrol
 * Joined the discussion on a number of contentious topics, mostly religion related.
 * Contributed to a number of articles before they became featured, most notably Cat.
 * Actively wrote articles to "fix" red links.
 * Converted a number of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904.
 * Received an Anti-vandalism barnstar

Grika 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I obviously accept my nomination.

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: One area I want to help with is article security (locking/unlocking). I also plan to continue to regularly perform Vandalism patrol and New article VfD patrol among others and to explore different patrols and other improvement categories I have yet to experience.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Creating the Pinewood derby article ? because no discussion of scouting is complete without it. Editing the Navy Reserve article ? because of the time I spent researching the history. Editing the Private library article ? because I took an article that was VfD'd and turned it into a good article. I'm also pleased with my contributions under the WikiProject Minnesota and my converting of articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia.


 * 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: The only real conflict I've been directly effected by concerns a number of language pronunciation articles I started. When the first one was recommended for conversion to a phonological article, I stated my opinion that articles should be written or at least have versions aimed at non-scientists. When everything language related includes examples employing IPA, it makes the articles less approachable by the general user. As the other pronunciation articles entered similar discussions, I simply added my voice after other users recommended keeping the articles for essentially that same reason stated above. And when the proponents for simplicity lost the debate, I added my article as a pronunciation guide to the respective language learning wikibook.

Optional questions from 
 * 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: IAR certainly embodies the mantra of "edit boldly." And indeed, I agree that users should not feel stymied when contributing as one of the expectations of the community in general and admins specifically, is to monitor submissions and act according to the rules of Wikipedia.

As for SNOW, it seems that it would be difficult if not impossible to expect that kind of foresight, as many of what I call superusers are passionate about their particular genre. I do feel that I understand the idea of SNOW and have backed out of, or tried to mitigate overly passionate discussions anticipating the potential result.


 * 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
 * A: Of course there are many reasons to impose a block, but the idea of "punitive" seems almost retributive. At some point all you can hope to do ethically, is to control abuses without impinging on people's freedoms.


 * 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A: I have been involved with a number of articles that intrinsically or by proxy, involve specific companies. In most cases, there is a clear differentiation between describing a company and its importance to the topic of the article or the industry in which it operates and using said description as advertising. Furthermore, the most blatant misuse is usually in the External links section of the article in question, thus the article itself is not necessarily at fault but simply requires redirection.


 * General comments


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

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Moral Support Excellent mainspace editor, has done good f work for the encyclopedia. Please continue editing.  Canadian - Bacon  04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'f' isn't even next to the 'w' key! :) -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My excuse is gonna be that I was hungry at the time.  Canadian - Bacon  06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support strongly you are a great mainspace editor, while you need to work on warnings and the Wiki-space I am sure you will make a fine admin. &mdash; Seadog  04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Moral Support because of your long and quality contribution history. -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify why I said "Moral" and why I am removing it: The comments below will likely reflect the feelings of many users; however, in reviewing your history and seeing your dedication to the project, I feel that you would have the demeanor to use the admin tools appropriately, and that you would learn to apply policy and participate in XFD discussions in time, and therefore (as Joe would say) that the net effect of your promotion on the project would be positive. -- Renesis (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether it's finally time for the elevation of What would Joe say (WP:WWJS) to guideline status... Joe 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - A good sense of NPOV. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that grika has placed a great deal of effort into cleaning up the wikipedia community and should be strongly condiered for adminship.StephenGarciaisthecoolestpersonever 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote struck out as it was cast by an indefinitely-blocked user. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't see why not. Reasonable contributor with some good discussions. Cribananda 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Only 39 Wikipedia-space edits. Sorry. - crz crztalk 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, I believe that you require more experience. No evident need for the tools. Sporadic vandalfight only, not warning the vandals. No XfD. No requests for page protection, an area that you state you would be willing to participate as an admin.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This pretty much says it all:
 * Talk: 85
 * User talk: 45
 * Wikipedia talk: 5
 * Wikipedia: 39
 * I can't support anyone who has barely any contact with the community whatsoever. -- Kicking222 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Article building, fixing, and stuff is good, but it doesn't need admin tools, and gives no indication that you can use them well. I don't think very many people understand that. And I don't see this XfD participation you claim to have (the fact that you still call it VfD indicates that you don't really participate, too). -Amarkov blahedits 05:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. May be a fine editor, but has shown relatively little interest in the policy and process that are the bread and butter of admin work.  --Dgies 05:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Edit count too low, not enough talking to the community. Build it up and come back; I'll be here to support you. Yuser31415 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not even 2000 edits. Dionyseus 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. A fine editor, but averaging around 30 edits a month since this summer. Admins don't need to eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia, but they should be spending more time here than that when they're active. A Train take the 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as per Yuser. I don't think edit count is as big a concern, but where those edits are is. I'd say work on anti-vandalism and New page patrol. David Fuchs 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Crazy and Husond. I also agree with A Train's comment about your average edits per month and Kicking's concern about your lack of interaction with the community. And I just can't see sufficient editing experience for adminship or any need at all for the tools. Sarah Ewart 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Edits reveal lack of experience, especially in dealing with other Wikipedians directly. As to answers to Q1: locking pages is (and should be) a rarely used final solution to a problem. Individual blocks of users involved in vandalism or edit wars should be the main approach. Being involved in vandalism and new article patrol can be done very effectively by non-admins. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Not enough experience yet. Would have no problems switching to support once experience level rises.  Yaf 21:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per lack of experience. Suggest a withdrawl.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose lacks in edits and experience. Ter e nce Ong 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose until you are more experienced. Jorcoga † 05:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Withdraw this RfA as it will not succeed. To use the admin tools you need to work on admin tasks - new page/recent change patrol; new user log; XfD discussions; vandal patrol; reporting vandals to WP:AIV when they have passed test4, etc.  You can also ask for an editor review and get some admin coaching when you have some experience of the above.  Really, if you can get your total contributions-to-date to be your average monthly contributions ~1500 - by doing the above tasks then you should be in a position to reapply in four months' time. (aeropagitica) 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Seems like a good editor, but probably needs more experience. Edit count isn't everything, but it's a proxy for everytyhing. --Coemg e nus 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral so as to avoid pile on. An admin should be more active on a day-to-day basis. Don't know that there is an absolute minimum, but 18 edits a day nets >500 edits a month. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral You do not deserve an oppose opinion as you are a long time contributor to this project, which must be taken into strong consideration. However, the lack of Wikipedia name-space edits is a major concern here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and work towards this area of Wikipedia. In time, I am sure you will succeed in a future nomination. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - needs more communication with the rest of the community. -- Selmo  (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Not enough contact with the Wikipedia community to warrent Adminship. Get out there, frequent such places as WP:RFA, WP:AFD, WP:FP, and WP:Village Pump, and come back here in 6 months with over 2000 edits. You'll get my vote then. Sharkface217 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral I suggest you withdraw and spend more time getting developing a deeper involvement in Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral Siva1979 said it all. You contributing time shows that you won't abuse the tools, but more participation in admin related tasks is neccessary (for my vote). James086Talk 02:50, 17 December 2006 (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.