Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grendelkhan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Grendelkhan

(64/1/0) Ended 15:12, 2006-07-23 (UTC)

Grendelkhan (talk · contribs) – Grendelkhan has been editing here for nearly three years and has over seven-thousand substantive edits spread throughout various namespaces. He has undertaken numerous janitorial tasks, and has been particularly active in uploading and sourcing images for the project. In short, this user has given every indication that he will properly use the admin tools, and his promotion will be a benefit to the project. bd2412 T 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks! grendel|khan 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support It is a great honour for me to be able to be the first supporter of this excellent user. I am not sure how you are not an admin already!!! Abcdefghijklm 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I understand Joturner's objections in regard to few edits within the last 3 months. This is certainly a concern. I think, however, that this is far outweighed by the depth of this editor's contributions to Wikipedia, particularly in work related to administrative tools. He has an incredibly cool featured picture (dare I say, one of the best I've ever seen), spectacular use of edit summaries, and has been around here for time enough to have a cool perspective. It's my honor and pleasure to support him. Alphachimp talk 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Why should we punish people for not being active all the time who are clearly qualified and trustworthy to handle the tools nicely? People have lives outside of Wikipedia and just because someone may not be active all the time does not mean that they are not worthy of the tools. It just means that his helpful janitorial edits may be a bit fewer than other administrators if he isn't active all the time, but a little sysop help is much more beneficial than no sysop help. Cowman109Talk 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I can't oppose because of a drop in edit frequency. I feel that there is enough information to establish a perspective, and evidence to support considerable administrative usage, especially since you are not a burned out user. I actually like that you are going for adminship with a refreshed attitude. Besides, administrators only hurt the community when they abuse their tools or, as a group, do not perform the janitorial duties. — Deckiller 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Relaxed, late-breaking nominator support. bd2412 T 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This Fire Burns Always 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Guinnog 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Cliche! 1ne 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Very good editor.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per all above. Roy A.A. 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Any ulterior motives must be gone by now! :) Nookdog 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. The apparently scanty interaction with other users due to few edits to article/user/project talk spaces is a minor concern; but the great experience he shows in other areas, combined with the long time he's consistently invested in the project easily compensates for this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. DarthVader 22:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above abakharev 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support meets my criteria —Mets501 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Edits show a fair and even handed approached. Would make an excellent admin. Agne27 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support long term and quality editor - Peripitus (Talk) 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support The fact that you do have a life outside Wikipedia makes me support you even MORE! TruthCrusader 07:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 13:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom. RFerreira 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support BDA has high standards.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per one of my standards: (h) taking into account other editors' comments, the recent inactivity should not be a problem. Grendelkhan's answer also provides some reassurance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support This user is a great contributor and deserves the admin tools. --WillMak050389 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Seems like a very strong user who has done a great deal for Wikipedia. Michael 06:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. --A. B. 08:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Nice amount of edits Grendelkhan. -ScotchMB 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I thought you were an admin already... --Mhking 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: fine. --Bhadani 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. - Rjm656s 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per nom, three years and 7,000 edits? Now where did my RFA cliché template wander off to... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Joe I 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - per nomination -- PerfectStorm (Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!) 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Seems like a perfectly reasonable and hard-working fellow. Also, hey, Grendel Khan! With fury and grace, eh? -- Captain Disdain 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Looks substantive.--MONGO 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. support. looks good. Semperf 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per, inter al., Cowman109, who expresses more cogently than I have yet the idea that, where a user is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even through ignorance) the admin tools, he or she ought to be supported for adminship, even where he or she intends to use the tools infrequently: a little sysop help is much more beneficial than no sysop help. Joe 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per Cowman et al. Bucketsofg✐ 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Adminship is No big deal. In three years, this user hasn't convinced me that they will abuse the mop, no matter however few edits the user has made recently. Good luck! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. - BT 20:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Not needed but happily given Support - experienced editor who probably should have been "mopped" a long time ago :) - Glen 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--Jusjih 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support a lot of distinct page edits, been here a while. I'm happy.--Andeh 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. You clearly deserve the mop. --Draicone (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Why? Why not? --Terrancommander 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per nom. Substantial contributions and a long time editor who should make proper use of the tools. Silensor 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Established editor with good edit history. No "oppose" is a testament to this. Killfest2 (Talk) 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Hrm I honestly thought I already supported Support He's obviously qualified and I really like his willingness to spend some of his valuable time keeping an eye on WP:IFD doing some RC patrolling with his new tools. I haven't seen many recent RfA candidates citing the wish to cleanup the images and media for deletion backlog for wanting the tools, and he'll certainly be of great help to Wikipedia in that respect hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Over qualified. Good luck. SynergeticMaggot 08:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Why would I oppose? Viva La Vie Boheme 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Meets all of my criteria --Wisden17 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Speculative Fictional Support NoSeptember 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support, naturally. Longstanding contributor with good edits. Valentinian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Mild Oppose Awaiting answer to question per one of my standards (v) Your involvement has been minimal over the past several months. Two hundred edits ago for you was December 2005 and four hundred edits ago was August 2005. You may have had a use for the tools in the past, but you don't seem to have one now. -- joturner 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is some special circumstance (Grendel, you don't have to go into great detail if you don't want to), I don't see how "lives outside of Wikipedia" can fit in here. But a year of what I see as inactivity needs some explanation. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I do think that an explanation is in order, I think that this is a bit of an overreaction. People really do have lives outside of Wikipedia, and I think that administrators with them are significantly more balanced. Alphachimp talk 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled by opposition based on a low level of recent activity - there's no question that this editor has been here for years, has thousands of edits, and (despite reduced levels of activity in recent months) has consistently continued to contribute to the project. I don't see how giving Grendelkahn admin powers would do anything but benefit Wikipedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike out my vote, and wait for the answer. I wasn't trying to say that admins shouldn't have lives (of course not). What I was saying was that that could easily explain several weeks or a couple months of inactivity. But this is a year. Certainly there are explanations for a year of inactivity, but I would hardly consider it explanable by simply "people have lives". Anyway, I'll await Grendelkhan's answer. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything that leads you to believe that he would abuse the admin tools? Do you have any reason to suppose that this year of inactivity has somehow made this guy ineligible for adminship? Has he perhaps forgotten relevant policies (or, more importantly, lost the ability to look them up before acting)? I really, really don't see why he needs to justify this. He's been here for three years, and he's coming up on eight thousand edits. I see no evidence of uncivility, malevolence, rashness, a desire to disrupt Wikipedia or inability to follow policy. I've complained about making people jump through idiotic hoops before, and I'm sorry, this is a prime example of that. If you think making him an admin will be harmful, that's one thing. I'm all for speaking up in such a situation. But right now it seems that you just want him to justify himself for reasons that have nothing to do with his actual capability to use admin powers properly. No offense, man -- honestly -- but that just sucks. -- Captain Disdain 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why comment on this now? The user you are addressing long ago reconsidered and withdrew his vote, asked the nominee the question directly, and apparently received a satisfactory response. bd2412 T 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think it is pretty much a perfect example of something that I find extremely problematic about the RfA process, and I doubt the problem is going to go away on its own unless people bring attention to it. I could undoubtedly have worded that in a little more neutral manner, and I apologize for that. That said, honestly, I know that he withdrew his vote, but that's beside the point. Rather than with the vote, my problem is with the fact that questions and comments like this are now pretty much a permanent fixture on RfAs, even though they have nothing to do with the candidate's ability to use the admin tools in a responsible manner. (Just to clarify, I'm not talking about opposing candidates on reasonable grounds, such as former behavior or obvious lack of experience or whatnot. Those are completely different issues.) I find this trend extremely demoralizing. I've discussed this before on the talk page, and as I said there, it's possible that it's just me -- but just the same, I find the issue important enough to bring it up. It's nothing personal against Joturner, and I believe that the people who engage in this do so from the best of intentions... but that doesn't make it any less problematic. For me, at least. -- Captain Disdain 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well respond (for the record, I didn't take your comments personally). Essentially, I don't want someone quitting Wikipedia and then coming back and saying they want to become an admin. Liken it to an American living in a foreign country - for no exceptional reason - for five years and then coming back to the United States saying he or she wants to become president. Maybe living outside the country doesn't diminish one's leadership abilities, but it indicates that perhaps the person isn't dedicated enough to the US to become one of its leaders. Or perhaps that person may not be familiar with how times had changed (think about the huge difference between July 2001 and July 2006). Those were my same worries here; I was afraid Grendelkhan decided to quit Wikipedia because she wasn't dedicated to the project. I was worried that perhaps that year off would have resulted in a loss of familiarity with Wikipedia and how it works (people do forget; I can't remember everything about July 2005). Since July 2005, Wikipedia has gained - off the top of my head - at least two major policies: proposed deletion ({{prod}}) and semi-protection. Featured article standards have been raised (although this isn't really relevant to adminship) and, of course, adminship standards have gotten higher. The treatment of fair use images is a bit different (new speedy deletion criteria, for instance). Wikipedia is always changing, and for that reason I wouldn't want a potential admin to simply come out of retirement and request adminship, despite their experience a year (or two or three) ago. However, Grendelkhan's answer, and the comments of other editors, have assured me that he (is it he?) is up to date with July 2006 Wikipedia and that he wasn't in retirement over the past year, but simply could not find the time to contribute. To me, that's acceptable. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose For the same reason I gave on Misza13's rfa. (Or one of the reasons.) I find the huge number of support votes incredible. And on top of that, because of what Joturner says concerning date that all these edits were made, though the number is impressive, I wonder if this editor will be here much now. If not, what is the point? There also is an enoromous number of the same support voters (or clique members) in many, if not all, of the current rfa's. Shannonduck talk 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Err...Shannon, did you ever consider that the large ammount of support for Grendelkhan is because (heaven forbid) Grendelkhan is a good user who deserves the tools? I know that's a radical idea... Also, the reason you see many of the same voters is because Editors like to see who is up for adminship, and vote accordingly, nothing to do with a clique. Try and assume good faith, because right now your oppose is looking very bad faith. Thε Halo Θ 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If it makes you feel better, I'm just as surprised as you are; I've been looking through the usernames on this page, and I don't recognize any of them from before my nomination. If I'm in a clique, I'm the last person to know about it. grendel|khan 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Grendelkhan (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 621 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 17, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 4, October, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.97% Minor edits: 99.83%
Average edits per day: 1.55 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 711 edits): Major article edits: 98.8% Minor article edits: 99.82%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.14% (7)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 7.26% (363)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 46.36% (2318)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 86.48%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4013 | Average edits per page: 1.25 | Edits on top: 15.44%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 26.1% (1305 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 68.72% (3436 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.7% (235 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.36% (18 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 57.84% (2892) | Article talk: 3.78% (189)
User: 1.68% (84) | User talk: 1.96% (98)
Wikipedia: 9.22% (461) | Wikipedia talk: 1.1% (55)
Image: 22.4% (1120)
Template: 1.32% (66)
Category: 0.26% (13)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.44% (22)
As this seems to be standard practice, here are my stats:
Total edits 7770
Distinct pages edited 5851
Average edits/page 1.328
First edit 15:07, 31 July 2003
(main) 4819
Talk 241
User 199
User talk 161
Image 1285
Image talk 5
Template 110
Template talk 17
Category 102
Category talk 9
Wikipedia 749
Wikipedia talk 73
Edit summary usage is 99% for major edits, 100% for minor edits.
Questions for the candidate

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I've spent a good amount of time on images and media for deletion in the past; I feel I could be of use keeping it up to date. I've spent some time on RC patrol in the past, which I'd be quite willing to do more of, especially with the added ease of the "rollback" option. In general, my administrative attentions would be directed toward obstructed page-moves, and the performance of any minor tasks which require administrative access.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm most proud of my image contributions, especially the collar picture, which I've seen floating around the internet as a Livejournal usericon or basis for an "LJSecret" postcard, and this Maurycy Gottlieb painting. I'm also pleased with some of the small, nitpicky work I've done, like cross-linking works to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database and the Project Gutenberg catalog.
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: I generally try to avoid controversial topics; I think my time is better spent including noncontroversial information---of which there's certainly plenty to be done. I strongly believe that personal attacks have no place here, but that's generally not an issue in the types of editing I've done. I'm confident that I can fairly enforce policy if and when the need arises.

Optional question from Cowman109Talk I noticed you don't have your e-mail activated. Having an active e-mail accessible through Wikipedia is important should people need to contact you through private means, or if people aren't able to contact you through Wikipedia at all (I.E. a blocked user). So, would you activate your e-mail, please? :)

A: That's a good idea. Done! grendel|khan 16:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tariqabjotu: Why have you been largely inactive over the past year? Have there been other ways in which you have been contributing to Wikipedia over the past year that cannot be seen in your contribution history?

A: The short version is that I got a job at a startup--wonderful opportunity for me, but it ate up pretty much all of my free time for a while--which coincided with some personal problems, which I'd prefer not to discuss unless you really think it necessary; it's over and done with now. I managed to take up photography during that time, and I have a variety of photos (see the taxoboxes for Allen's swamp monkey and Rock Pigeon), but most of them aren't prepared or uploaded. I hope that answers your question; I'll try and clarify if you have more that you wanted to know.

Optional question from Lar: (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I like the idea of accountability, and I've seen gripes here and there about the unfairness of the admin system, how the admins are a cabal with godlike power on a vendetta against that particular user. I'm not sure a new process is really needed; an RfC should be able to lead to that sort of sanction, or perhaps a repeat of the confirmation process if an admin is guilty of gross abuse of janitorial powers. If I start swinging my cod around and trampling other users' rights, I'd want to know about it. If the only way they can do that is by adding me to a hilarious category, I'm fine with that too. Does that answer your question?
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Grendelkhan&oldid=1150711175"