Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grubber


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

Grubber
Final (18/21/9); Ended Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:10:02 (UTC)

- I am nominating myself for adminship. I have been a member of the WP community since June 2005 and am especially proud of my work in support of WikiProject Disambiguation (for which I was one of the first members) and WikiProject Vienna (for which I have translated 20 articles). The more I edit WP, the more I feel adminship will help me be a more productive editor. grubber 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. grubber 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * 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: Regarding the admin chores, I would enjoy helping patrol the entries on WP:AIV and CAT:CSD to reduce the backlog. I am an active anti-vandalist with more than 500 pages on my watchlist, which I review daily (if not more often). A great number of my edits begin with "rvv"; the ability to easily handle vandalism (with the bonus of a more detailed edit summary) is one of my prime motivators for applying for adminship.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I have kept a list of my favorite contributions of my 2400+ edits. A few highlights:
 * In support of WikiProject Vienna, I have translated more than 20 articles (almost all new to en:) from the German WP. One of them, Karl-Marx-Hof was featured on the Main Page as a "Did you know?" for July 16, 2005. I also created Infobox Vienna District and added the template (and appropriate info) to all 23 Vienna district pages.
 * I have created substantial original content, including Symphony No. 3 (Bernstein), major fact corrections in Markov chain, rewrite of almost surely, and lots of new content to both group theory and group (mathematics), among others. (See my list for more details.)
 * Countless disambig cleanup edits. Building consistent formats on disambig pages is one of my carnal pleasures. I would guess that I have improved the formatting of more than 300 unique dab pages (possibly more?). An example from one of my recent edits that I am proud of is a major cleanup of James (compare to the daunting previous version).


 * 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: I have been involved in very few conflicts, and as a whole I kept my cool and never had any major problems (as is evidenced by my fairly calm talk page). Some of my bold disambig format edits riled some feathers, especially in the "early days" before WP:WPDAB when dab edits were not as common. Usually a polite post to a talk page was all it took to remove any feelings of hostility (for example, this Sep 2006 discussion), but I did have an unresponsive editor early on (see Herod history; I gave up trying, since it was a minor issue and he was not willing to talk about the issue at all). I was also involved in trying to reason with User:Gabrielsimon, but later helped the RfC move forward to block him indefinitely. In the future, I will continue to do what I have done: keep a cool head, explain my reasoning, and concede when consensus disagrees with me.
 * 4. Can you give us some insight on how you interpret and apply the WP guidelines for notability?--Kevin Murray 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: (Since the majority of my edits deal in dab, I'll answer from a dab viewpoint) Notability is a tough call, and it depends on the type of page. The main criterion is: Do I believe someone really meant to go to page Y by typing X in the search box? Many times I look to the article as reference. For example:
 * For acronyms, does the WP article itself even use an abbreviation?
 * For nicknames, does the article refer to the person by the nickname?
 * Do the external links use the term?
 * Finally, if I removed the entry, could they still find the article with the Search button instead?
 * I try to err on the side of caution, but then again, dab pages that are unnecessarily long are threatening to users as a wall of text. It's a tough call, and I'm sure I've made some errors. If an editor comes back and reinserts a link I deleted, I tend to let it be (when it's a toss-up situation) or go to talk to resolve the dispute. - grubber 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. Can you give some examples of how you have been involved in the deletion process in other than a minor way?--Kevin Murray 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I think being a good disambig editor requires me to be a savvy deleter. Many of my major dab edits require me use my discretion to make massive deletions (Two ex: or ). I must choose whether my bold deletion requires discussion or can be done at my discretion; working in CAT:CSD will require the same judgment. I believe my edits show I can exercise restraint and good judgment in gray areas. My activity with page deletions itself has been incidental, posting prod or db as I come upon pages in my wiki-activity that deserve them. I hope to use my adminship to take the next step, helping clear the backlog in CAT:CSD. - grubber 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6. Can you give examples of a few articles that you have either begun or substantially expanded or improved?--Kevin Murray 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A: The following articles are some examples:
 * Hernals and 20 other Vienna articles - New articles to the English WP, translated from German
 * Markov chain (specifically these edits) - removed numerous inaccurate statements and added new concepts important but neglected previously
 * Group theory (specifically ) and Group (mathematics) (for example and )- expanding these article to incorporate diverse concepts in group theory
 * Symphony No. 3 (Bernstein) - new article
 * -grubber 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion


 * Since this RfA is closing soon, I just wanted to say thanks for the comments. The main objections were that I have not participated in XfD enough and that I should warn every user that I revert for vandalism. I have begun to do both of these things and I have benefited greatly from the criticism. I look forward to trying again. Thanks again. - grubber 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that you will come back in a near day after having more experience and I would be pleased to support you again. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support - Does good work, is circumspect enough when required. I think he would err on the side of safety when he is unsure, which is OK. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Blnguyen. This will probably fail, but if you get more active, get more experience in Wikipedia space and warn vandals, you'll be better set up for next time. Grand  master  ka  04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. 1ne 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support converging all factors that a good admin required. Causesobad --> (Talk) 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: given Grubber's current high activity level, his presence as sysop should be a good asset for Wikipedia. --Deryck C. 12:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Blnguyen. - Don't let yourself be disheartened with this apparently failing. keep up the good work and try again. Agathoclea 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I've read the comments opposing the nomination and share some concern that the candidate has narrow experience here at WP. However, this is a dedicated wikipedian who puts out a tremendous effort in a much neglected area, because he/she cares about the project.  After reading the user and discussion pages I'm impressed with the candidate's attititude, integrity, stability, and the ability to make informed choices.  In a job interview I look for those attributes -- the broader experience will come with time.  I think that we can assume good faith that Grubber will not abuse the authority and that trust invested by us will be rewarded.  Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support the candidate does good work and is dedicated to the project.-- danntm T C 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Conscientious and trustworthy.--Brownlee 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Dedicated Wikipedians make good admins. Khoikhoi 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I don't think the editcount is too low; 2400 edits is plenty to establish that this user is trustworthy and has a knowledge of policy. Although more experience of XfDs etc. would be good, I would still favour giving admin tools to this user. Walton monarchist89 11:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support- per proven knowladge of policy.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - He seems dedicated to the project, and I found the answers to the questions quite impressive :)-from  K37  08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support per all opposers, actually. A casual, non-bureaucratic admin is exactly the sort of admins that do the most benefit IMO.  Milto LOL pia 09:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per above. Picaroon 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support More than sufficient activity. No conduct problems.  Well intended.  Should do just fine.Edivorce 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support As above. Drmaik 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Belated near-closing support per candidate's comments under "discussion," and glad to see you've taken the comments and process the right way. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Your sole qualification for adminship, based on what you said, is vandal fighting. I don't think that's sufficient evidence that you'll do well, but you say you want it for better edit summaries? There are at least two tools that will give you the same edit summary (Vandalproof and popups). And as much as I'd love an admin to reduce the backlog at CAT:CSD, I see no evidence that you've ever done much with speedy deletion, so I have no idea if you'll do any good or not. -Amark moo! 01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Either vandalproof and popups require at least two pageloads to revert an edit, one for loading the edit page, the other for saving, which is not convenient enough for a frequent vandal-sweeper because of the burden put onto both client machines and internet lines, let alone servers. Therefore, if one has the ability to handle it well, the rollback button is a valid reason for desiring adminship. --Deryck C. 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if it's the sole thing you want, it's not a valid reason for giving adminship. -Amark moo! 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In a few months, after more active participation, I might reconsider. Alex43223Talk 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Minor Oppose Too few mainspace edits ; too little experience. -- Captain Wikify Argh! 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... are you sure you mean mainspace? There are a good almost 2500 what he said there. -Amark moo! 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The numbers are >2400 total, >1800 in mainspace. - grubber 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a typo on my part; I was doing a kagillion things at once. The lack of experience, however, is still a concern. But other than that you look alright. -- Captain Wikify Argh! 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, edit count is too low, especially on Wikipedia space. Also, reverting vandals without placing warnings, and a current level of activity that is rather low too. -- Hús  ö  nd  02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only added uw-* warnings to users who were rampant vandalizers. I will make sure to begin doing this each time from now on. - grubber 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that warnings are required before asking for a vandal to be blocked, but why in the world would you leave vandalism intact while going through a warning process. This is wikinonsense.  --Kevin Murray 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - You don't seem very active and you should work on Wikipedia edits-- SU IT  42 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry, low Wikipedia namespace edits. Talkspace edits are 14% of the total edits, which is also slightly low for admin candidates. Inconsistency is also an issue. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's the correct percentage? Picaroon 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but a lack of experience with tasks other than vandal-fighting provides little evidence of your qualification or need for adminship. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose you don't really need the tools yet, using VPRF or pop-ups is a good start for improving your vandal hunting, and I think more time spent in XFDs wouldn't be a bad thing. The Rambling Man 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose for now - too few WP space and user talk (which for a vandal fighter, should have a lot of) edits.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per low WP edits – PeaceNT 10:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Extreme Oppose We can't have people like that as editors --MikeHunt35 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Vote removed per WP:NPA. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we do requests for de-editorship now? On a serious note, though, I wonder if you might offer some more comprehensive explanatory comments lest some should disregard your !vote as being unsubstantial. Joe 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this user's vote should be eliminated. It seems that this is a sockpuppet of someone who oppose to Grubber since I find that MikeHunt35's contributions just vote and vote. S/he doesn't have either userpage or talk page. Causesobad --> (Talk) 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The name Mike Hunt is frequently used as a gag see Mike Hunt. --Kevin Murray 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "We can't have people like that as editors"? Do you suspect his potential as an editor? Or do you make some mistakes for someone else? Grubber does good work as an editor. Grubber has made 2451 edits in total up til now, in which the mainspace takes up 1819, it means that his devotion to mainspace occupies approximately 74.2146%. Although his edit count seems to be low but his edit quality is irreproachable. For example, you can see how he was devoted to improving the content of the article; logicized and rearranged the structures, tireless disambiguations here, here and here etc. With such a huge contribution to improve mainspaces, I wonder why you "extreme oppose" with a very funny reason "We can't have people like that as editors". Causesobad --> (Talk) 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to what Causesobad said. Grubber is a good editor, I can't deny that, but what does MikeHunt35 mean by "We can't have people like that as editors". His/Her reason is not credible. Just remove his vote. Ac s 4b 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no need to remove MikeHunt35's vote; let the closing bureaucrat decide what is or is note a legitimate argument. A Train take the 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but 110 wiki-space edits (especially for a vandal fighter) is not enough. Also, 2400 edits is the bare minimum you usually have to have to be an admin. I have almost 3000, but I know that I would never make it in an RfA just yet. Try again in a few months when you have more edits, especially wiki-space edits. Diez2 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To update, his Wiki space is 125 now. Moreover, please see his answer rather than judge his true ability by the quantity of edits. Grubber joined Wiki since 10 June 2005. I believe that he has certain knowledge of admin tools and Wikipedia activities (or he won't have such confidence for RfA). Just >2400 edits doesn't prevent him to become a good admin, since I have known a lot of people succeeded in adminship with just approximately 2000 ones.  Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, lacks of edits in Wikipedia namespace, don't seem to need the tools. Do xFDs and participate at places where discussion is active. Terence Ong 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, just not enough XfD participation.-- Wizardman 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per lack of contributions to the Wikipedia: namespace. Please increase your involvement in such areas and reapply in a few months. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Wizardman. Michael 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The candidate's work as an editor is admirable, but he lacks experience in consensus-building, and has no understading at all of the Wikipedia deletion process. I concur with those who say that vandalfighting alone is not sufficient reason to grant adminship to this candidate. YechielMan 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to too few edits in wikipspace but also conistancy in editing, you should be doing 300(ish) edits per month but you generally do less than 100. Try increasing the number edits you do by about 10 a day then try again Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose The low wikipedia namespace edits is a concern here. Try again after a few months. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Opppose Needs mor experiance. Sorry! WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • count ) Review Me! 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. No demonstrated need for admin tools. (Lack of) experience is less important than that. Argyriou (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment. I'd like to debate that subtle point with you when this is closed. :) - grubber 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, needs more experience before. Shyam  ( T / C ) 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) NeutralSorry, but you do not have proper qualifications. Imageboy1 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I feel you have the level-headedness to be an admin, but do not have a clear understanding of the tools, adminship is about getting tools to do things, not about recognition for your contributions. --Matthew 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, per above. Ac s 4b 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Low edit count and low activity in the projectspace stop me from supporting. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Too tough a call. Personally I dont think your edit count is low.  I'd like to see more Wiki edits.  Your answers are just mediocre.  I think you're almost there, but not quite yet. Gan fon  19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral this time, but likely to support with more experience. Johnbod 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral per Johnbod. S .D. <font color="#120a8f">¿п?  § 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral for now. Work on your Wiki editing a little and I may support another RfA. Regards, Kncyu38 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral leaning towards support. As per Imjustmatthew, I feel you have the level-headedness to be an admin, and I'm not too concerned with your edit count, but I'd definitely like to see warnings left after every vandalism revert and some of the other points made by the oppose voters have some merit, such as low Wikipedia space edits. I'd likely support you with a bit more experience and if you start warning after vandalism. VegaDark 21:04, 5 February 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.