Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grant65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Grant65 (talk page)

Final count: (54/0/0); ended 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Grant65 (talk · contribs) - Grant65 is way overdue for the mop, as he has been around much longer than you have; since March 2004 to be precise. Normally nominating such an experienced editor would be fraught with danger, as many editors would have picked up some baggage along the way. But Grant has been a helpful, polite and constructive contributor throughout. He has consistently shown excellent judgment and a level head; he has rarely become involved in disputes, and has comported himself well in situations where dispute was inevitable; oh, and he has authored heaps of quality content. Hesperian 13:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Thanks, Hesperian and those supporting. Grant | Talk 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to all those who have voted so far; I will be away from home until July 7, and my net access will be limited, so please bear with me if you have any questions, etc. Grant | Talk 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Much of my work at Wikipedia, and my natural bias, has been maintenance-oriented rather than focused on the creation of GAs/FAs. For instance, I have learnt a lot about many different subjects by cleaning up, wikifying and copyediting random articles and have now put {{Opentask}} on my watchlist, user and talk pages.
The issue of article names and avoiding ambiguity and confusion is one that I am interested in and have been involved in a lot. I have created/improved a lot of redirects, dab pages and dablinks, especially in relation to biographical articles. (Obviously, this a major and increasing issue because of the WP:BLP rules and guidelines.)
I have not had cause to get deeply involved in deletion debates, but it is an issue that I find very interesting and I have now put all of the Wikipedia:Deletion debates sub-pages on my watchlist. I have also just joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
Some people favour the blocking of all unregistered editors, but I'm not one of them. However I do think there is a case for the more widespread use of permanent semi-protection and protection, subject of course to Wikipedia:Protection policy. Lately I have been trying to put appropriate warning templates on vandal talk pages, where I see a need.
I have also just added Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism subpages, Category:Administrative backlog, and Category:Possible copyright violations to my watchlist.
I have also done a lot of ad hoc work re-organising mainspace categories, mostly sub-categories within Category:World War II Pacific Theatre. Grant | Talk 07:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of my record in monitoring and improving many "difficult" pages, which deal with complex/controversial subjects, are still works-in-progress (and probably will remain so) and/or undergo a lots of edits from a lot of different editors, including Japanese war crimes, Kamikaze, Battle of Singapore, P-40, Battle of Long Tan and Football. In the past I have also been very involved with Australian English, Slavery and their subsidiary articles.
In terms of articles I have started, one of the most unusual and rewarding was History of American football — following a challenge on a point of fact from another editor, I ended up researching and writing most of the article. Among the other articles I have substantially researched and written are Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan, Battle of Vevi (1941), Koombana, Yamashita's gold and Oldest football club. I had little knowledge of any of these subjects, before I did the research for these articles.
I am also proud of my work on the myriad of subsidiary articles and campaignboxes in Template:Campaignbox South West Pacific, especially my research and organisation of Template:Campaignbox New Guinea and Template:Campaignbox Battle for Australia, and the writing of several of their subsidiary campaignboxes and articles. I think many will agree with me that the South West Pacific theatre of WW2 is very underdone, not just on Wikipedia, but also in general studies of the war. There are many subjects that I am just as interested in, and which have a better "fit" with my own life and knowledge, but I feel driven to address the neglect of these important and terrible historical subjects. Grant | Talk 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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: Patience, patience and more patience is the answer to both questions. I have learnt that WP:Assume good faith is a great rule. Edits/talk page posts which at first glance seem to be trolling or blatant POV-pushing, may in fact seem reasonable to the person concerned.
One technique that I have used to resolve genuine content disputes is to experiment with wording, and attempt to arrive at a form of words which is accurate, encyclopedic and acceptable to all parties. This often does the trick. If that fails, then citations are also a great ender of arguments.
When it comes to Class A "Wikisociopaths", who are fewer than they might seem, the situation is a little more difficult. User:Licinius and his sockpuppets were posting abusively at Talk:Football for several weeks, pushing eccentric edits that few, if any, other genuine editors accepted. I was confident that common sense would prevail and held my ground. I was probably too tolerant in this particular case but am now more aware of the options fo dealing with bad faith editors. Grant | Talk 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Grant65 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Per my nomination. Hesperian 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support A solid all-round contributor and editor, we need more capable, competent and non-combative mop-holders :) Orderinchaos 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. A wonderful long-time editor whose contributions to Military history of Australia and Australiana in general are perhaps not fully recognised. I just read his edits at this discussion in which Grant65 argues with logic and clarity, calmness and civility. He will make an excellent admin. —Moondyne 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I strongly support this nomination. Aside from his impressive work on military history articles, over the last year or so I've repeatedly seen Grant participate calmly and sensibly in debates over the content of articles. His comments in debates and edits on disputed issues are always valuable and often bold and he would make a great admin. --Nick Dowling 08:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support An extremely valuable contributor to the project that I've had the pleasure to work with on numerous articles in WP:MILHIST. Always displays a calm, reasoned, and thorough approach to whatever he's doing and would be of great value to the project as an administrator. CLA 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Have met in a range of situations in different wikipedia subject areas and followed some of his work that coincides with my work - and always impressed by the thoroughness and the follow up that gives quality to his work SatuSuro 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yep. Daniel 06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support This user seems reliable.--†Sir James Paul† 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support How do I make my support super-strong, bolded, underlined, surrounded with asterisks and neon flashing? Can't sing his praises loudly enough. Unfailingly helpful, hugely knowledgable and an asset to the 'pedia. Jasper33 07:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support -- looks like a good candidate who's well overdue for administrator status. - Longhair\talk 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support with enthusiasm. A solid contributor who's well-qualified. Good job Hesperian for nom'ing.--cj | talk 08:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Against my usual list of reasons here I need only 1) The response to Q3 and as evidenced by contribution history. Civility, assuming the faith, tolerance, hearing the other side - A1 admin comments. Pedro |  Chat  08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong support based on personal experience of the user, where has has always been very sensible and an asset to the project. JPD (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support another good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 10:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - I like the answers to his questions and he is very experienced and a worthy candidate for the mop..--Cometstyles 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support good user. Acalamari 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support no concerns here. Grant is definitely admin material. —Anas talk? 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. SupportFootball has been a minefield in the past and he's done more than anyone to keep it on the straight and narrow. Oldelpaso 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support great editor, creates and edits in under served areas of the encyclopedia, civil and able to take criticism. Enjoy the tools mate. I'm sure you'll use them well. Paxse 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. S-U-P-P-O-R-T! We need admins like this! ~EdBoy[c] 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Sure, been a while since we had any Western Aussies go through RfA :) Riana (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Always great to get new admins as experienced as you - brings a lot of good things. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I have no qualms. Jmlk17 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support good user, no problems - Zeibura (Talk) 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Strong support - Battle of Long Tan reminds me of where I picked up this name in my consciousness. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Rebecca 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Strong Support Gnangarra 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. After Mailer Diablo as usual. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I notice that he is a very consistent editor over the months and years he has been here. It's also true that what Hesperian said about picking up baggage along the way, yet none has yet shown up. That's a real good sign. JodyB talk 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Terence 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - No concerns. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - No problems here. Valentinian T / C 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - Good editor! Supergeo 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support semper fictilis 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - a consistent user not chosen as a admin for too long. H irohisatTalk Page 07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - Grant's contributions are a useful combination of content enhancement, housekeeping duties and policy discussion - should make a good admin. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per stamp of approval by Hesp. No worries at all. Sarah 09:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - good answers to question and great track record as an editor. Mop time! - Alison ☺ 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support—No concerns. --Paul Erik 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support per nom. Peacent 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support more admins needed. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support worthy candidate. Andre (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support, everything looks good. Kirill 05:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Supportper wave of support above, contibutions, etc. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. I have seen him many times in WWII Pacific issues and Grant always helped strongly to enrich Wikipedia in this area. - Darwinek 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Passed WP:50. Now onto WP:100. Trustworthy and long due. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Hell yeah. There isn't much to add for me.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  53. The nominee has demonstrated qualities desirable in an effective administrator. In particlar, he shows perspicacity and correctness during discussions; his genuine manner is an effective sop, to unsubstantiated claims and facetious responses, for example. - Sam and ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support- Per nom & above. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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.