Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grenavitar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Grenavitar

Final count: (54/2/1) ended 01:53 10/26/05 10/19/05 (UTC)

Grenavitar (talk • contribs) – Grenavitar has been here for ages (November 27, 2004). 9442 total edits with 1.64 on average per page, and substantial communal interaction. Anyone who edits pages related to Islam knows his quality contributions. freestylefrappe 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and give a thanks for thinking me worthy. gren グレン 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong support as nominator. freestylefrappe 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support, but use more edit summaries? :) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. I very rarely vote here, but I've met Gren in person (he goes to my university) and I find him very trustworthy. →Raul654 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support a good editor --Rogerd 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. That watchlist says it all :)!!!Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 04:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support by a long shot. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support MONGO 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Go for it. Klonimus 06:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support I've seen good etc. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Seems like a good one. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I know I tend to say "RFA cliche #1" a lot, but this time I really, seriously thought Grenavitare was an admin. I can't say I remember having any specific contect with him, but he's one of those users whose comments you see around and think "that's exactly what needed to be said." Dmcdevit·t 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. FireFox 08:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. The Minister of War 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. I found myself on the other side of discussions with gren on various talk pages, and despite the occasional disagreement always found gren to be good to work with and a positive presence on the whole. I think gren'll make a strong addition to Wikipedia's admins.—thames 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, no question. Great contributor. Shauri smile! 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. InshAllah you will be an admin soon. - Darwinek 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, Without a doubt. Private Butcher 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Orane (t) (c) (@) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Infobox conversion Support Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 19:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support good user --JAranda | watz sup 20:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support, ditto all of the above.  BD2412 talk 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. EXTREME [I'm too lazy to insert a witty comment here even though I have a good one in mind, so could you please do it for me] SUPPORT as per all the reasons stated above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. There's nothing else to say, then. Support. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Grenavitar shows exactly the kind of maturity needed to stop edit wars and other hostility. For example, the exchange on Talk:Ali_Sina demonstrates his even-tempered, accommodating yet true-to-policy stance against an onslaught of POV-driven attacks. We need him as an admin! Owen× ☎ 12:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support see him around a lot. Dlyons493 Talk 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Gren is level-headed, civil even when highly provoked, even-handed, and prepared to seek compromise. He's exactly the type of editor who'll make a good admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Excellent choice. Same reasons as SV. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. I didn't even know Gren wasn't a sysop, but he should be. He seems to be knowledgeable and civil, and would be a great admin--Shanel 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support That was simple. Mr. Gren obviously has some skill and has passion in all that he does. His sincerity shows through and through with his edits and comments and I have full faith in his dedication and that his adminship will be an asset to farmers worldwide. ^_^ Sorna Doon 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Robert 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support as per OwenX. Titoxd(?!?) 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 13:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support - The more decent admins the better! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. Supportas per Irishpunktom . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support - again, I thought I had done already. Sadly, I was wrong. --Celestianpower háblame 21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support - The guy deserves it. As per Shanel, he is a knowledgeable and civil wikipedian. -- Svest 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
  39. Support -- Gren keeps his temper in fraught situations where I'm losing it. I highly respect his equanimity. Zora 01:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support—like you need another vote! kwami 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support Another well rounded editor that will do well with the mop. Alf melmac 08:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC).
  42. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. Seems to be a great contributor. --Kefalonia 10:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support Yuber(talk) 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support Gryffindor 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support -- Francs2000 21:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. El_C 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Thought I had supported already. the wub "?!" 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Thoroughly unnecessary and late (but deserved) support. Proto t c 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support -- Karl Meier 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support I trust Genavitar to use the tools of adminship wisely. Johntex\talk 18:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  53. THE STRONGEST SUPPORT CONCEIVABLE Okay so I really, really, really tried to oppose gren, I mean he vandalized my user page, however he was looking over my shoulder while I voted, and well, I just didn't have the heart to say no. Is pity a crime? rydia 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    I Oppose you, Pikachu!! Image:Pikachu2.gif. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. User:Nichalp/sg 11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    thanks for enabling it. User:Nichalp/sg 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I find it very hard to assume good faith with Boothy's oppositions. Opposing nearly all potential admins. without explanation is essentially incivil, and without such explanation, in fact, he is not abiding by WikiGuidelines. Furthermore, I believe that these oppositions are a result of simple malice. I noticed that Boothy has 16,000 edits, but is not an adm - perhaps he is trying to hold others back. His contributions reflect a tendency of anger when people have only asked a simple question [1] or he is excessivley sarcastic [2]. I request that medition or arbitration be considered against this user. Him abusing the rights of RfA is harmful to the Wiki in my opinion - trolls, vandals and spammers are not allowed to continue in bad faith - so this user should also comport himself in a civil manner on these RfAs. He is abusing his rights here - and he is apparently making no attempts to stop. He has the right to vote, sure, but all the other Wikipedians have the right to a fair RfA. Something needs to happen! Molotov (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral I changed my vote to "neutral". I still don't think there is any reason to believe that Gren will abuse his admin powers, but on the other hand I don't like that he is attacking a list a named Wikipedians on his userpage. I believe such hitlists is not acceptabel, and that Gren should instead file an RfC or an RfA against these Wikipedians, if he feel that there is a problem with their general conduct/behavior. Other such lists has previously been made, and one of the more well-known is the "Elders of Wikipedia", made by a member of the NAZI "Stormfront" website. Admins should be a good example to everybody else here, and I can't recommend that we start to make lists of users that we don't appriciate, in places where they can't respond to the criticism that is being raised against them. -- Karl Meier 16:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    I do not think this list is used in attacking the wikipedians, it was created out of a genuine concern. I added that list in the height of the Ali Sina / FFI link debates because we had found links on the FFI forums saying more or less to come and push a POV here. With this came so many claims of sock puppetry that it made my head spin. Personally, I don't like to call people sock puppets because I really cannot tell beyond hearsay, so I tried dealing with this by problem whom I don't always agree with POV wise (which you would fit into) and users that were creating problems through vandalism. It was my view that because of the problems arising that vandalism had to be severely dealt with because it is much more frustrating for someone to be involved in long discussions than to just ignore the rules and by dealing with those who ignored the rules. The comment referring to User:Rydia is about my "vandalism" on his page since he is my roommate and we joke around. I didn't file RfCs because these were events that admins knew about and had commented on and the first two left and Zeno stopped doing that kind of thing. He received a lot of flack for doing that and stopped and I just never bothered to take it down since it fit into my vandalizing my roommate's page joke. It wasn't users I didn't appreciate, it was out and out vandalism that I was trying to keep track of, not a partisan list of users I didn't like. They could have easily responded on my talk page and I would have discussed it with them but for the most part. Sadduj in fact appears to be a fan of mine since he calls me a "righteous Dhimmi" on his user page. I'm nots sure how this relates to Stormfront list exactly... and I hope this answers questions / concerns. If you want me to elaborate more discuss it more feel free to ask. (This list is out of date now and serves no purpose, I will remove it when the RfA is over but I don't want to do it now since it's not something I'm trying to hide) gren グレン 16:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I would like to note that occassionally on new articles only editted by anons I would sometimes not use edit summaries. This is a flaw that will be remedied. :) --gren グレン 02:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I plan to continue my regular new page patrols which I have been active in (as my avg. edits per page attests) and having the power of deletion will aid me greatly. I also realize that with this comes the new responsibility of making sure my deletions are doubtlessly CSDs. I currently have over 4,500 pages on my watchlist which would make the revert tool very useful aside from formal RC patrols. These would be the main uses of my tools since I am currently fully fit to perform them. As times goes on I hope to be an admin helpful in resolving disputes, but I will probably not be as active in this field in the beginning because I realize that I need to get a feel for it and feel that starting tool strongly with such admin powers could create problems.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. In terms of a single article I am most pleased with my edits to Canton in France translated from the French wikipedia. It showed me the potential for dissemination of information between the various language wikis. In terms of aggregate time expended I have spent the most on Islam related articles. I feel that I have at times been helpful in being a more neutral figure in these debates and we have made some definite progress in terms of scope of our articles and I have noticed that edit contents have slowly been moving towards more specific articles rather than the major ones. I would like to think that some of this has been because of my efforts and efforts of those like Zora who can often be found questioning edits as being too pietistic or others as too attacking. Although results per hour of work probably remain lower on these articles than on less controversial ones I think (and hope) that my involvement has led to improvements in these articles, as well as an increase in subject depth due to the articles I have created.
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. In line with my contributions to Islam related articles comes the most controversy I am embroiled in. In the course of my involvement with these articles I have disagreed with most editors at some time or another. I have been called everything from a jihadi, to a Muslim woman (I am a man by the way), to an Islamaphobic editor. I have tried dealing with this with a sense of humor. While I am personally not insulted, I try to tell the user that such behavior is unnacceptable. I also try to revert only in cases of blatant necessity and I do discuss edits, which, although it sometimes feels futile, I still continue. I hope that most users, even those that disagree with me, will see that I try for discussion. This hasn't really caused me stress, but I have, on occassion, probably reverted prematurely when I feel that an editor is not trying to do their part. One example is this dif where after ordering the women by date it was reverted as a part of a long going revert war I had been trying to avoid. I had hoped that when adding in the red links the user would have ordered them and I thought it was not too much to ask. No one is perfect, but I do try to talk with users and discuss the issues. As for the future of this issue, I think I should make it clear that I would not use administrator abilities to become the police of Islam related articles. I am too involved in many of the articles to be an objective outside force and would take that into account. As for the issue of stress, it only takes about five minutes on Counter-Strike to cure the little bit that happens.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Grenavitar_753e.html"