Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gryffindor

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] Gryffindor

Final: (88/3/1) ended 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gryffindor (talk · contribs) – Gryffindor is one of those users that truly epitomizes dedication to the project. He has amassed more than 9,000 edits and is a vital member of various different Wikipedia projects, especially Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. He had an edit conflict several months ago with certain users who had apparently, to the best of my knowledge, come over from the Italian Wikipedia to rename articles from the English standard to the Italian version. In my opinion, he backed up his reasoning to block this motion extremely well, and the vast majority of users who have contributed regularly to the English wiki translation services agreed with him. However, I believe it was pointed out to him that he might have not fully abided by WP:CIV during the disagreements, and he clearly listened to the criticism. Ever since then, he has shown an unbelievable amount of effort to abide by WP:CIV in practically all interactions with other users. His admin coaching sessions are not only a great read for anyone interested in administrative duties, but show exactly how willing he is to learn and to become an expert at conflict resolution (one of the most important duties of an administrator). One example that I am familiar with is how he handled a conflict between User:Cfvh and the German-English translation team in which he guided the user from being an action user to a much more discussion-based user [1] [2] [3]. I sincerely trust Gryffindor to be a fantastic administrator as he has shown serious dedication to the project and a desire to consistently get better at crucial administrative duties. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Gryffindor 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Big time nominator support. I think I said it all above. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support I've worked with Gryffindor on several occasions. Very good, valuable contributor. Levelheaded and polite. Will be an even more valuable member of the pedia with the mop. Go to it, Gryff! --Mmounties (Talk) 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support; everything looks in order, but try to work on those edit summaries. They are important. joturner 05:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Meets my standards. --maru (talk) contribs 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - strong candidate with positive appoach - Green Giant 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. His image work is fantastic, and he is very thorough in copyright questions. When he and I have disagreed (usually on naming conventions questions), he was always polite and nice. I also like the answers to questions 2 and 3. Kusma (討論) 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support I have slight concern with his low edit summary numbers, but everything else looks great. Given the sheer number of mainspace edits, I am highly surprised that he wasn't nominated earlier. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks like he'd make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, I see no problem. JIP | Talk 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Read his admin coaching page & he seems like good admin material. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support He's a good admin candidate. I'm pedantic about spelling and grammar, though. Please be mindful of these, Gryffindor - Richardcavell 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support The sorting hat says: "Hmmmmm...Cabal House."--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Completely trustworthy. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Good editor, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Good admin candidate. --Andy123(talk) 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Seems to be a good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers. --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Wow! Your answers to the questions are the longest I've ever seen - practically essays! :) A friendly and courteous Pedian - good luck! Brisvegas 10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - per all of the above. Great editor and deserves the promotion--Looper5920 10:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support- Friendly, enthusiastic, and hardworking.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support A simply brilliant Aussie --GizzaChat © 12:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Extreme "Oh, no! Not another cliche!" support - great guy. --Celestianpower háblame 12:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support: --Bhadani 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support --Terence Ong 13:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Good guy. El_C 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Does rock solid work, reliable. TruthCrusader 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Great, personable contributor and an asset to Wp. And for those wishing to preclude his adminship based on 3RR, noone is a paragon of virtue. Get over it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Easy Support. Easy. --ViolinGirl♪ 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support A brilliant user. Will be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per TBC. —Mirlen 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Admin coach support to a responsible, courteous, and kind Wikipedian with an excellent grip on policy. Sango123 (e) 16:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Wha... He's not... Support! But use more edit summaries, ok? Misza13 T C 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support definitely. --Jay(Reply) 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. yes, Si, oui, jawohl A capable multilingual admin Lectonar 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support Super Ted 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Would be a good admin. Fetofs Hello! 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, got a great coaching. very good Shyam (T/C) 22:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose because I'm a Ravenclaw Support. David | Talk 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Meets my requirements over 100%. Great edit count. Oh. and besides, I'm a fan of Harry Potter and my favorite house is Gryffindor. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. of course. pschemp | talk 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Good editor, though an annoying signature. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Suppport. A trustworthy user. --TantalumTelluride 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support despite our ongoing dispute as to Gryffindor's interpretations of WP:NPOV. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. support sehr gut. Grutness...wha? 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Leidiot 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support as above. enochlau (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Super gigumbous support just one of those guys... American Patriot 1776 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support great user! Keep the edit summary usage up though.. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Appears to be an excellent editor and I'm really impressed with Gryffindor's response to the 3RR issue. Too many editors whine and rationalize away their mistakes but Gryffindor admitted the mistake while also explaining what happened. I'm sure Gryffindor will make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Jon Harald Søby 18:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. As the person blocking Gryffindor for the Terrible Crime of 3RR, I draw the opposite conclusion to those commenting/opposing on those grounds: to wit, that when he makes a mistake, he is capable of acknowleging it, as ALboy comments, and that he's capable of learning from it. (I've no doubt that it was indeed a matter of good-faith intent, and an incomplete understanding of the rule.) That's surely a better recommendation than "has never made a mistake" (which is not only unlikely, but would implicitly be qualified "... so far"). Alai 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Joe I 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, despite the fact that he's in the wrong House. But work on the edit summaries. Hermione1980 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. support Benon 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Perhaps not a "born admin" in terms of what is planned for the tools, but a great Wikipedian who will grow into the post. Deizio 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support --Ugur Basak 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support of course. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Moe ε 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support based on past experiences and his sincere desire to improve the project. Olessi 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support, yup. Proto||type 11:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. One of the people I consider most suited for adminship. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - should do fine from what I've seen over at the Wikipedia:German-English translation requests project Aquilina 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support - I hope we find many more of this kind of Wikipedians ;-) Fantasy 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Because he voted for me in the Esperanza elections. Wait, did he? Oh, whatever, he's a good guy. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Automation for edit summary reminding has been around for a while now. There is NO reason to have a low percentage of edit summaries any more, and that needs to be corrected going forward, IMHO. Still, that flaw is handily outweighed by all the positive aspects of this user. Sehr Güt! Support ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's "sehr gut", thank you very much, unless you mean some obscure South German dialect I've never heard instead of proper grammatical German. JIP | Talk 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    Although we all know that South German is the only real kind of German, whereas North German technically just missed out on a couple of the language changes over the last millenium. ;) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    Aye, aye. There is some serious coloring missing in "North German".  :) --Mmounties (Talk) 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. utcursch | talk 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support per utcursch. Hiding talk 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Edit summaries looking better, very positive contributor. Messy userpage though ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support A rather late admin coach pileon support, but this editor really deserves this mop. Hard working, diligent, good admin material. Banez 23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Good candidate --rogerd 02:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support Good candidate, however, the stunt with the redlink signature is not amusing. :).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support: Have observed candidate's style in many differnt places, and he is very capable. _-M o P-_ 07:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support - Great contribution to wikipedia. - Aksi_great 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. A great user from what I have seen, with a potential to grow as an admin. Not impressed with the opposition arguments.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support, someone please check that I hadn't supported before... ;) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support --Edwy 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support Good editor and thoughtful and (long) answers to questions. FloNight talk 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  86. support - anyone without at least one 3rrv isn't trying hard enough :-) William M. Connolley 19:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  87. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose. I only support members of Slytherin house. Support The Sorting Hat told me to change my vote. Jayjg (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose 3rr violation. --Masssiveego 08:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Based on this user's vote in several other RfAs, I sincerely question his judgment. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    But, nonetheless, Gryffindor did have one 3rr violation...an issue which has been addressed. JHMM13 (T | C) 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    1st Warning; Please do keep your discussions about the candidate to the RFA vote on hand, WP:Personal Attacks on my voting record are not relevent to this discussion. I am allowed to use the standard of a clean record as a means to disqualify any candidate from admin duties. --Masssiveego 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is my right as a user to question your judgment of RfA votes based on previous ones. Considering your voting record, the disputes you've caused, and the reasoning you've given for your oppose votes. Please do not place the NPA template on my talk page as this is clearly not an instance of an unfounded personal attack. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    There is no exception to the WP:Personal attack that allows for ad hominem responses. The argument made was a question about judgement based voting record. This is clearly an attack that has no bearing what so ever on the fact that the canidate in question has committed a 3rr violation. Raising doubt via voting record and "I question his judgement" is attacking the person voting, not the argument made that there is a 3rr violation by the canidate that disqualifies them from the admin position. The personal attack template was well warrented, by this unfounded personal attack by attempting to raise doubt via voting record of the person, thereby attacking the credibility of the voter, or tarnish his reputation in question, to discredit the voter. The first line there was no arguement about the reason of the vote, hence it is by the definition of ad hominem a personal attack. Please do not engage in personal attacks. --Masssiveego 06:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Regardless of what you think, your voting record is called into question when you oppose for reasons like you did here. That link alone gives me enough cause to say specifically "I question this user's judgment," because I sincerely do. I did not call you names or make unfounded claims, I honestly question your judgment of RfA voting because of that vote. Please explain to me how that's wrong. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    What does the voting history, and the canidates Gryffindor's 3rr violation have in common? Nothing. The voting history was brought up to discredit the claim of a 3rr violation. The rules are the voting history may be used to determine on the right to vote, there is nothing in the rules allowing the voting history to be used for any other purpose or exemption to Wikipedia no personal attack policy after that. With no other purpose then to raise doubt, the wording is an attack on my credibility. Which is not relevant to 3rr violation problem, at which point it is a personal attack. There is no written exemption to the person attack policy that allows for the use of the voting record to question the voters based on their voting history. In effect the claim is the judgement is faulty in line one with no evidence. Technically the wording is only an insult to credibility, thus cannot be tolerated. As for the previous RFA, it is not relevent to Gryffindor RFA at this time, please take all such requests for an explaintion of votes to adminship request talk page. This is the end of discussion on the personal attack topic, any further discussion distract from this RFA, therefore please take any further questiosn to the main RFA talk page --Masssiveego 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, sorry. I feel bad opposing someone who is obviously committed to the project, but to be consistent and fair to other candidates I feel I have to apply my own personal standards consistently. My reasons for opposing are: 1. I think someone who has had "admin coaching" should have a much higher edit summary usage. I would expect both minor and major edits to be closer to 100% than the 33% he has for minor edits. 2. I'm impressed with the number of contributions he's made to the mainspace, but I'm unimpressed with the (relative) number of edits to project space (265 out of 9148). 3. The fact that until a couple of weeks ago he had never even heard of Willy on Wheels makes me think he is inexperienced in some area but I'm honestly not sure whether it's because he doesn't participate in project space or whether he's not involved in vandal fighting or if it's something else, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about the level of experience in admin related areas. 4. Just from scanning his contributions, it seems that most of what he does is creating redirects, adding pictures from commons, adding extra bits of info etc. I might have missed something, but I fail to see any editing activity that warrants admin tools. I don't believe that wanting to see how the rollback button works is a valid or relevant reason for granting adminship. Nor is wanting to be a mediator in NPOV conflicts since this can be done entirely without adminship. So, sorry, but I feel I have to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: though this editor has progressed, I have to agree with much of what Sarah said. Not ready yet. Jonathunder 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often, including for minor edits.--Jusjih 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 82% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Gryffindor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Oppose blocked for 3rr [4] too recently, back in January. --205.188.116.200 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous IP's cannot vote in this. Green Giant 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [moved to comments]
Concerning the 3rr block, which I am obviously extremely embarassed about, I can only say to my defence that I was reverting edits of a POV warrior (see history of [5]). That user's edits were reverted by other users later anyways. But I clearly was not fully aware back then of the exact functioning of the rule, that nevertheless I would still have to watch out for the 3 reverts, since I assumed I was reverting vandalism. I have talked about this with various users about what the correct procedure should have been [6]. We learn from mistakes, clearly this will never happen again. Gryffindor 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Further comment: Apparently my edit summary seems to be of concern to some users. When I started helping Wikipedia one year ago, I was not aware that this was mandatory, only recently during my admin. coaching was this pointed out to me. I have since then started summarising all my major edits, if minor edits should all be summarised as well I will obviously do so, transparency is of key importance to me. Gryffindor

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. At this point I have over 800 pages on my personal watchlist, it keeps on growing obviously. I have been a member now for close to over a year and I think I have a good feeling of how things work on Wikipedia, especially concerning difficult situations and difficult users. I notice vandalism, however it does happen often that by the time I finally reach the page and am about to revert it, someone else has beat me to it. I suspect it's because they have the rollback tool, which I am very interested in to see how it works. Haukurth's report on this sounds very interesting. I have been receiving training from my Esperanza coaches User:Banes and User:Sango123, who are super-nice, on my own personal admin. coaching page User:Gryffindor/AdminCoaching. I would love to help out with cleaning up more, so I hope that having sysop powers is like getting a broom. For example I would love to help out in the backlog of Articles to be merged as well as Articles to be split. I have done some work also with Cleanup by months, however sometimes you hit articles that need more expertise and I can't always improve on the article as required, since I lack the knowlegdge in the area. I would also love to be a mediator in NPOV conflicts, since neutrality to me is one of the most basic, fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. The Administrator's noticeboard looks very interesting and I am looking forward to participating in it as well.
One of my concerns is the use of information from other internet sites that are sometimes verbatim being brought into Wikipedia. I don't want Wikipedia to be seen as some gigantic information black-hole that gobbles up information from other websites and sources, when in fact we should respect the works of others.
I am also a member of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags team, checking to see if images are up to code. My concern is that many images are not, and I intend to be more forceful on this issue (not to be confused with copyright paranoia) however I strongly believe that rules and guidelines need to be followed, even if it isn't always pleasant. I intend to use my sysop powers to clean up with any image backlog and to check on images if they are within the rules.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am quite proud of the article junihitoe and sudare, as well as suetsumuhana because it all stems from knowledge in my head, I didn't have to do almost any research on it, I still remembered everything from class. Articles that I did a lot of extra-research for and completely wrote from scratch are Palais Rothschild and Palais Lanckoronski, they have lately been a little bit like my two babies. I noticed that there are no articles existing on the internet on these two places, Google search now lands a direct number one hit when searching for that, so I am quite proud of it. Concerning my translation work from articles on the German-language Wikipedia to English I am proud of Communist Party of Austria, Austrian Green Party, and Kronen Zeitung, because some of that translation work was a true nitemare that I stayed up for hours on end until late night sometimes, as well as improving and reading up on other sources on the article I think in the end the English version is now even longer than the German original one. Also getting logos for political parties was quite difficult, because I had to write separate emails to each one of them, bugging them to release a logo for Wikipedia, which they almost all granted (see Image:Logo 4c.png, Image:Sp-bundKopie.PNG, Image:FP LOGO rgb.png, Image:LIF-LOGO CMYK.PNG, etc.). Apart from that, I am member in numerous Wikiprojects, such as WikiProject Films, the Judaism WikiProject, WikiProject Japanese mythology, WikiProject Vienna, just to name a few. Of course I can't always constantly participate in all of them, but I add whatever and whenever I can. I sometimes try to do interdiscplinary articles which are useful for multiple projects, such as my article Hotel Metropol or Leopoldstädter Tempel.
I am happy and honoured to be part of the Welcoming Committee, trying to make new users feel welcome and trying to be there for them should anyone have a question or need some help, it is a true pleasure to help out other users and I really enjoy doing it. I am a proud member of Esperanza since almost the beginning, where I have met wonderful users. Whenever I met new users and sense that they are nice and kind enough, I invite them to join Esperanza, since I believe that "quality" control is important as well if other users are going to be helped. Reflecting my philosophy I am also a member of the Kindness Campaign, because I know the going can sometimes get tough and everyone appreciates support and help when needed.
One thing I am quite happy though is how much I have learned through Wikipedia not only knowledge-based (meaning pure information), but how to do deal better with different opinions, how to argue and convince someone else, but also how to get convinced by others and reach a compromise. I have learned alot about the workings of Wikipedia and the learning process in itself has been very interesting and exciting (as well as frustrating sometimes obviously). The experience and time spend on Wikipedia has now formed a core set of beliefs in me, for example the strict neutrality on all issues, the objective point of view in articles (regardless what we personally might think about the issue), a zero-tolerance policy on rudeness or impolitness, and above all always to be patient and calm with everything and everyone. always.
One thing that is important to me is to make Wikipedia more efficient. For example this means trying to cut down on memory space for images for example. I have made substantial contributions to the Wikipedia:Commons, having contributed over 100s of 100s of images. I also try to bring images from this Wikipedia into the commons, in order to make them available for other language Wikipedias. By making more efficient use of the commons, we could cut down on the memory space that we need for saving images here.
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.Yes, there are always difficult users and difficult issues. The trick is to get the right "feeling" for what kind of a user one is dealing with, if it's a novice, or if it's a veritable troll. I also find trying to figure out the reasons why someone is doing something quite interesting, and listen to their reasoning. One of my worst cases was actually right in the beginning when I started with a user called User:Arrigo, who has left Wikipedia because s/he ended up getting into conflicts with almost everyone. That beginning was really tough for me, but I learned a lot from it as well, and there were a number of users who were nice and patient enough to support me. If there is one thing that I hate (and I will not mince my words here), it is chauvinism, racism, intolerance, or everything combined. One of my biggest battle royal was probably concerning Trentino-South Tyrol which was sometimes just mind-boggling because my user page ended up getting vandalised and I was personally attacked and verbally abused on my talk page as well as other places by users who IMO were taking the whole thing a little too serious and personal. So that was really tough because personal attacks can really hit you sometimes, but I stayed calm and rode it out. I would never resort to any abusive language nor have I ever done so, a respectful tone is the basis for mutual cooperation.
As pointed out by JHMM13 about the most recent development, the discussions I had with User:Cfvh to me were hardly conflicts, because I think that that user still has knowledge and good intentions, that only need to be directed into the right direction, meaning discuss controversial things first. then move or change. Compared to the storms I have weathered before, I would hardly say that I "argued" with him. We politely discussed our different viewpoints in a gentlemanly fashion, that's all :-)
I invite criticism (if it's constructive) from anyone on anything, since I do aim to be a perfect user and sysop. For that purpose I created my own RfC page.
How do I deal with stress? I try to find support with other users first of all. See if they see it similarly. Thank goodness I have been able to build my trust into some users now at this point, where I know I can rely on them and we see things similarly, therefore if I ever need something, I turn to them for support, or to Esperanza. I am excited to see how working with other sysops battling vandals and reverting vandalism is going to be, because right now I am "handicapped" if you will. Doing it all by yourself will not work, good teamwork is the most important thing here on Wikipedia. Should the going get so tough that and I sense that the situation is getting completely out of control (constant personal attacks, vandalism until no end, verbal abuse, stalking, etc.), I normally take a step back, just to clear my mind a little and let things settle a bit.
I hope this answered your questions a bit. Feel free to ask me anything else, I will gladly answer, thank you. Gryffindor 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Additional questions from Rob Church
  1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    Answer Burnout syndrome, hm that's really not good. I think if you reach critical levels of burnout, then you must be doing something wrong, because no work no matter what should start affecting your health and your overall performance. This is not too belittle the hard work that has been done, however it is my conviction that one is able to perform and serve much better and of higher quality if you are rested and your head is cool. This would entail exposing yourself only to levels of stress that are relatively stable and do not start affecting your general performance because one feels overwhelmed. Sometimes situations for a moment can be tough obviously, but it should never last for so long that in the end you burn out, that's really not good. If I feel overwhelmed, I would start seeking help from other users, because there will always be someone who is willing to help if it's a valid situation. If this is an exceptionally big problem, I would obviously have to reduce the amount of work spend on other projects and concentrate on the more pressing issue first. If it still becomes too much (let's say a very persistent vandal who is totally nuts and stalks me in the end or something out of control like that), then take a break in order to cool down the overheated situation. Sometimes it's better to take a step back instead of fighting out a war all by yourself. And then return to it later.
  2. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    Answer As an administrator I want to be able to help and assist Wikipedia more efficiently. Many times I have had to ask a sysop for help when cleaning up a certain thing (images, articles, categories, etc.), or about merging or splitting articles, fighting vandals, etc. I also get approached by users who need some assistance, however it is frustrating at points not to be able to help more. As I have grown into and with Wikipedia, becoming a sysop would be to me the next natural step. As a sysop I will be an asset and not a liability to Wikipedia.
  3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    Answer Difficult to say, define "technical position" and "political position". I am assuming "technical" in this case means being something like a technocrat, to assist in the daily runnings of our common project (cleanups, blocks, deletions, etc..) so yes, obviously a technical position. I am not sure how you define "political", I am assuming it means on questions of how would you see the content of a certain article, the topic it talks about, the tone of the article, how objective is it, etc...? I am utterly devoted to the neutrality and neutral tone of an article. Now that can obviously be a bone of contention, but a certain modus vivendi can always be found by having a discussion and coming to a compromise and a solution. This can be difficult sometimes when confronted by a number of users (let's say from a specific country) that simply overwhelm you with their votes and views as opposed to the other side who might not have so many users number-wise. Nevertheless an article still has to be neutral, for everyone and I stress the "everyone" part. Wikipedia should not be a forum (a)bused for political or even nationalistic agendas, as a matter of fact for any agendas of any kind. We need to be matter-of-fact so yes, to answer your questions if there is any "political position" administrators need to have, then it's to be neutral. This is difficult to differentiate sometimes from personal feelings obviously, for example I am strongly opposed to racism, fascism, anti-semitism, human-related phobias of any kind, etc. But I don't think we would ever find an article proclaiming the merits of fascism purely written from a POV, even such an article on issues we feel strongly about can still be written objectively and in a neutral tone, regardless of our personal opinions.

Thanks. Rob Church 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Gryffindor 17:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.