Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Graft

Vote here (26/4/2) ending 21:03 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Graft (talk · contribs) – (Self-nomination) I've been editing here for many years and recently decided I ought to be doing more to contribute in a community-wise way. I'm pretty even-keeled, rarely get in protracted fights, never been disciplined for anything, and I think I'm pretty good at finding compromises. I haven't, however, been much involved in arbitration, RfCs, etc., and think that I should maybe be doing more things other than editing at this point. Graft 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strongest possible support - excellent editor, strong contributor, been here forever. Guettarda 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Long overdue. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, good editor. --Alcidebava 13:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Unflocinaucinihilipilificative support, damn the editcounting! ~~ N (t/c) 17:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Pcb21| Pete 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support looks good. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Looks pretty good to me, has enough edits and has been on long enough. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 15:25, 1 Oct 2005 (CDT)
  8. Support. Graft has demonstrated a real commitment to the concept of Wikipedia, doesn't shy away from controversial subjects (like Global Warming), but instead makes an honest effort to really work through them and address them thoroughly, in an even-handed way. DanKeshet 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I believe he has good reasons to be an admin, and will be of service to WP. --Blackcap | talk 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. FireFox 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Make with the mop, Graft by nature... Alf melmac 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks good. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.  Grue  05:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, will make a good admin. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Good users don't need 4000 edits to be worthy. Ral315 WS 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Graft is objective, perceptive and tenacious... qualities that serve him well. Give him the mop. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - this user is quite observant and conscientious. I think the admin tools will be used wisely. --HappyCamper 00:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. I do not believe that a numerically high rate of contributions per day should become one of the myriad prerequisites for adminship. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Andre (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Low use of edit summaries is not quite enough to discount all the other positive factors to consider, but should be corrected as an important courtesy to others. Unfocused 12:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support wants to contribute, has been steady Dlyons493 Talk 20:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, too qualified be left without a mop in his hand. Shauri smile! 22:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Would prefer to see more edit summaries though. Carbonite | Talk 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Cannot find reasons to oppose. Deryck C. 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, this person has been here since 2002, and only has over 2000 edits. Any passive editor could do that in three years. I don't think you're qualified for adminship. Private Butcher 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Comment That doesn't mean that much, really, other than editcountitis. Even for the editcountitis bit, have you seen Durin's completely brilliant charts? They show the frequency of edits in a given period, among other things, and that's more important than total edits. Anyway, just because this fellow hasn't put in 50 edits a day since day one doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. Some people go on long wikibreaks, and God bless them for it—there's something called life out there that's good to be a part of sometimes. If someone registers, has 30 edits, leaves, comes back a year later, signs in again and is an active contributor, than he's hardly at fault for having, say, only 2000 edits in a eighteen month period. Just thought that that's kinda a stringent requirement for adminship. I mean, an admin doesn't have to be someone who logs on every other day, they can just as easily be someone who puts in a few edits a week on RC patrol. It won't kill us. And anyway, after having gone through his contribs, it looks to me like he's editing on at least a bi- or tri-weekly basis and has been for some time (save a wee gap in September). --Blackcap | talk 00:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Seconded, although this user has lots of time on wiki 50% of the total edit content is talk pages [1]. Perhaps its just me but I think admins should be doing more article editing/creation than just talking. Graft, please dont take this as a personal afront, what edits you do have are very good and quite useful, but it seems very low and very little for such a long time as a user.  ALKIVAR™ 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose till user sets an email id. User:Nichalp/sg 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Nominee has been here long enough to understand policies and their application. Edits look good. Seems a decent candidate with two exceptions; low use of edit summaries and the fact that the user is not on frequently enough to be a successful administrator. Administrators need to be available, in contact, and participating in ongoing discussions/debates. 1.2 edits per day over the last 90 days is just too low of a participation level for me to feel this admin will be successful. --Durin 14:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for reasons stated above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral Hmm I don't know. I don't think he understands policy enough being as he can't be involved in arbitration anyways unless he is an arbitrator. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Re-read his comment if you would - I don't read them that way at all. Guettarda 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
My bad. Took it the wrong way. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the standard questions below. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Please answer the standard questions before I can tell anything! Thanks! Deryck C. RfA 02:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I can see that the nominee hasn't stated acceptance yet. Maybe we should decide things later? Deryck C. RfA 02:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    This is a self-nomination, so it's fair to assume that it's accepted. . . (preceding unsigned comment by Mirv (talk · contribs) Revision as of 08:12, October 1, 2005)
  2. Neutral No excuse in not answereing the questions on a self nom. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    He's answered them now. --Blackcap | talk 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral I'm afraid - one of the reasons being the few Wikipedia namespace edits. FireFox T C 17:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'd take a look at m:Namespace shift. Just a thought. --Blackcap | talk 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Err, sorry for the delay in filling out these questions - I didn't realize this process moved so quickly and mere hours would be so significant! Graft 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total number of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Graft-edits.png. This chart was done on request of User:Dragons flight. --Durin 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Uses edit summaries 41% of the time, 34%% of the time over the last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 1.8, 1.2 over the last 90 days. --Durin 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this RfA is a perfect example of what's wrong with RfA (as discussed on the Talk page). After three years of solid contributions ("solid" in terms of quality of additions, and in terms of being level-headed), Graft has proven that he is a solid Wikipedian, who is highly unlikely to abuse admin tools. People can maintain a pretense for a few months - we have no problem promoting people who are relatively new but show promise. Jimbo described adminship as "no big deal" - simply the fact that users should not have extra powers until they are well enough known by the community. After three years, Graft is a known quantity. And unlike so many other people who burn brightly and then burn out, he's still here. So why the editcountitis? Cut the senior citizens a little slack ;) Guettarda 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For me, edit counting isn't the issue in the sense of only X number of edits over Y time. The issue is that this user's presence and activity in the project is quite low. An admin needs to be active in order to stay abreast of policy changes, be involved in ongoing debates and discussions to which they are party, and respond to user requests on issues the admin has taken action on. Low participation says nothing about the user's trustworthiness or ability to be a good editor. It does say, to me, a lot about the nominee's ability to succeed as an admin. If this user had the # of edits they have, but 80% of them were in the last six months, their level of activity over the recent period would be much higher. I'd be much more inclined to vote support. But, the pattern over the last three years has stayed relatively stable and low; there's no reason to expect a sudden increase in activity should they become an admin. --Durin 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your point makes sense if one pre-supposes an administrative function for admins. However, trustworthiness is the only criterion that matters for adminship. As I read things, there is no administrative role for admins - while many take an adminstrative role, it isn't part of the job description. There's a janitorial role for admins (if they choose to embrace it), but mostly adminship supplies editorial tools. I uploaded an image last week, realised there was a problem, and deleted it. If I was not an admin I would have had to put a {{speedy}} tag on it, and an admin would have had to delete it because s/he was trusted with tools that a non-admin did not have. As for "staying current", there is no guarantee that someone who has done a lot of editing in anticipation of an RFA will keep up with things. On the other hand, one can easily judge whether they think someone like Graft, who has a three-year history, will do things rashly (or whether, called upon to make a policy decision, is likely to act cautiously and find out what the rules are, if he doesn't know what they are). As for success as an admin - 172 and Everyking would meet your predictors for "success" as an admin, but one ended up de-sysop'd and the other had an arbcomm injunction against them. Ed Poor knows Wikipedia inside out, but keeps getting embroiled in controversy. When it comes down to it, this is a project to write an encylcopaedia, everything else is ancillary. Sysop tools are useful to editors. Anyone the community is sure won't abuse the tools should have them. Adminship should not be an elite club. There is no cabal. These are not the droids you are looking for. Guettarda 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. However, this RfA is not the forum for long discussions on these points and thus I will not respond in full as I did above. Thank you, --Durin 16:58, 4 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. Although I don't imagine I'm going to be that helpful as far as watching for vandalism or edit wars because I don't edit for many hours continuously, I'd like to be useful in general janitorial tasks (like deleting/moving pages) which need to get done.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I was rather pleased with the first version of binocular vision that I wrote long ago, in the middle of editing a whole spate of visual system articles, but that version is long gone now. I rewrote genetic drift a while ago into a much more coherent form. Also I wrote a bunch of stuff about the Mexican Revolution which I thought was rather good at the time (although probably not by "modern" standards).
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've obviously been involved in many editing conflicts. I don't think I get greatly stressed out by it. My usual method of dealing with conflicts is simply adhering to the facts of the debate, delineating and spelling out my arguments in support of the points at issue, and generally eschewing ad hominem as much as possible, which is I think the way to be most productive towards resolving and moving past the dispute.
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.