Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greeves

Greeves

Voice your opinion (talk page) (13/2/2); Scheduled to end 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Greeves (talk · contribs) - Greeves has been here for approximately 9 months, and has done wonders since that time. He is a usual AfD commenter, founder of WikiProject:MMO, and is very active in fighing vandals. I believe that he would take great advantage of the tools, to continue to improve Wikipedia. GrooveDog 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept and I thank GrooveDog for the nomination. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I see myself as a regular WP:MfD and other WP:XFD closer. Though I may not !vote that often, am am often looking at WP:MFD and I feel confident in assessing community consensus (even when it is contrary to my own opinion).

I can also see myself helping out a little in a number of other places such as WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and CAT:CSD.

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

A: As a metapedianist, I cannot really write you a list of my featured article contributions as the closest thing that I came to a featured article was MMORPG which I helped out with a bit (currently a GA).

One contribution outside of the mainspace which I am particularly pleased with (which GrooveDog mentioned in the candidate presentation) is WikiProject MMO. WikiProject MMO is a WikiProject which I founded whose scope is MMO and MMO-related articles (a MMO is a genre of video games where the game is played in a persistent universe). I also created much of the framework for many parts of the project as well.

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: Luckily, I have not been in any real conflicts. If I were to though, I would assume good faith and try to work the problem out with the other party. If I ever became really stressed about the conflict I would leave the page(s) alone and maybe take a short wikibreak to to stay as cool as a cucumber.

Optional questions from User:N

4. There are two warnings on your talk page for changing people's talk comments. Is this a "conflict over editing"? And what have you learned from the relevant policies that would prevent this in the future?

A: I don't consider that a "conflict over editing" as I made one revert, had two people contact me on my talk page about it, and I realized that I was wrong to make that revert. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

5. What is Wikipedia's policy on non-free content in user space, and why did you have 3 of them in yours?

A: I believe that Wikipedia:Non-free content would be the appropriate policy/guideline here and I had them there because I was splitting the history section of the MMORPG article (see the history of User:Greeves/MMORPG History). I guess I didn't end up deleting the page, and after this RfA closes, I will be deleting the page (in case others are curious about the page's history). Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

General comments

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

• Links for Greeves: Greeves (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Most recent editor review: Wikipedia:Editor review/Greeves 2
• About my edit summary usage: To begin with on Wikipedia, I was mostly contributing to the mainspace (as most people do). As a newcomer, I did not see the point of adding an edit summary to all of my edits. Lately however, I have not been doing too much in the mainspace. As you will see, most of my recent edits outside of the mainspace (and even the few that I did do in mainspace) have edit summaries. As Casmith 789 pointed out in my recent editor review, there is a box in my preferences that I could use to to improve my edit summary usage, which I am now using, and I think has been making a difference. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• AfD: When GrooveDog said "He is a usual AfD commenter," I think he meant MfD. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Greeves before commenting.

Discussion

• Rhetorical question: What's more important, the huge amount of project space and talk edits, or the average mainspace count. Obviously, this user has done excellent work in running a WIkiproject, and this must be commended. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Rhetorical questions are not ment to be answered, they can be answeres by the person who asked the question. G1ggy, I'm looking at you (Hint Hint :) --Lwarf ^Talk! 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support You're on the right track, but with less then 1000 main space edits, your rfa isn't going to pass. Better luck next time around. ~ Wikihermit 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not to badger the commenters, (if I do not pass this, I will have gotten some constructive criticism) but are the number of mainspace edits a problem? I am a metapedianist and I believe that edits in the project space are equally as important as mainspace edits. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   I think so too, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. I don't go off edit count alone, but I like to see at least 800 main space edits. I've seen you around here though with the internal works, so that's the reason for my support. ~ Wikihermit 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. Why not? —AldeBaer 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Aldebaer said it. Plus the work I've seen from this user has been all good. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
4. I've been very impressed by Greeves. Daniel 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per the opposite of Wikihermit. I understand how frustrating it can be looking every day at your edit count to see how far away 1000 is, but as long as you're on track for it, you're fine. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
6. You get my Vote your contributions to pages in the WP:NAMESPACE Wikipedia project space seem very valuable. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I am happy to keep my commitment as expressed on WT:RFA. Yeesh, the editcountitis in oppose number two is really starting to scare me, and I will never fault a candidate for self-nominating or even for accepting a nomination from a known miscreant. Other than that, I see nothing to worry about. YechielMan 06:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I've been impressed with Greeves, he'll make a fine admin. N's oppose below I can understand, but polotics rule is one of the most baffling I've seen for some time. Why should prejudice be given to the candidate because of when the nominator joined? Why would that effect his admin capabilities? We're supposed to be a community, we should start acting like one. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support 1) Review of contribs reveals nothing worrying 2) Civility seems good 3) I've seen the editor around 4) Sensible discussion at WT:RFA about adding an RfA link to his signature (I know it had been discussed before, but fair play to check prior to the candidates own RfA IMHO) 5) Per Ryan above. Pedro |  Chat  08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, user uses Cursiva font in his signature. Will not make a good admin. groan at edit counters Not crazy, edits show caring attitude towards the project, civil and no indication that they will abuse the bit. Riana ⁂ 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose as per Riana and Jimbo Wales :P..--Cometstyles 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support- experienced enough to be an admin. Francisco Tevez 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - After looking through your contributions I can see that you are a good contributer who is civil and would make a good admin. Edit count does not concern me - you appear to have enough experience across the name spaces. Also, the discussion at WT:RFA helps convince me you think before you act. Camaron1 | Chris 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
14. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I found 3 notices of fair use images used in his user space on his talk page, his nominator has only been here since April, and the fact that he has had no disputes means (to me) he hasn't really delved into policy or any kind of controversial XfD work. Actually, looking at his talk page, it looks like he had a little spat a while ago about restoring deleted comments to talk pages in contravention of policy. -N 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   Please see his Q5 answer in regard to this. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose As was pointed out above, the Nominator and the person have very little knowledge of wiki policy. The nominator has been here since April, and has very little, to no experience. And the Greeves has less than 1000 edits. I don't really support people with less than 10000 edits. So I am opposed. Sorry. Good Luck! Politics rule 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   Greeves has 2638 edits actually. Captain panda 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   10,000 edits!?! Have you gone mad?! ~ Wikihermit 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   User:Politics rule has made several comments like this before: "(candidate) has only (inaccurately low number) edits, and I don't support anyone unless they have (ludicrous number that grows every time) edits". I think he's trolling RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   OMG! more editcounters :(, if I was held to that standard, I would not have been an admin 6 months ago. Just curious whats so special about 10,000 edits? I know bots that have 20 times that number. All that is really required for adminship is enough edits that people can see how you act. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   What changed? The only time recently that I opposed someone with 10,000-or-so edits was because they were all vandal-reverts, which told me nothing about their ability to make informed, complex decisions. I don't see this being a problem here, and nor do I see any other problem being cited by Politics rule, so we must assume that it's editcountitis. Daniel 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. As long as the nominee's edit counts are going up (period, I don't really think it matters how fast) and in the right direction; quality, not [necessarily] quantity. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   Unless I'm missing something, it's likely that Politics rule meant ...with less [sic] than 1000 edits; if one is to assume that standard to be relative only to mainspace edits, Greeves would indeed "fail". That is not, to be sure, to say that I think a 1000 mainspace edits or even 1000 total edits standard to be useful as a categorical test with which to adjudge a user's familiarity with the project or his fitness for adminship—I surely, surely don't—but that we might do well not to understand P r's oppose as being inconsistent with his past contributions or being entirely unreasonable (to the extent that all edit count-based opposes are not equally unreasonable); I think a good number of editors to refuse to support candidates (rightly or wrongly; wrongly, IMHO) with fewer than 1000 (or even fewer than 1000 mainspace) edits, and I gather that that's the standard P r meant to apply here (feel free, of course, to ignore me entirely if I've misunderstood here). Joe 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's what I get for not bothering to look at an individual's talk page first and proceeding with a rather useless exercise in AGF; Rspeer would seem to be quite right here. Oh well; if anything it's likely that this discussion will have the effect on this particular RfA of dissuading edit count-based opposes, so that's something. Joe 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

   *giggle* Saying as Politics rule started in April, I have to find the comment very amusing. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

2. Neutral looks like nice person, but he han't been on wikipedia for all that long and has a low editcount + the image on user space deal. Good Luck. --Lwarf ^Talk! 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral. His low mainspace edit counts is a major concern here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral due to low mainspace edit count. I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits – Gurch 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)