Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Greb

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] J Greb

Final: (41/1/3); ended 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

J Greb (talk · contribs)

  • This is someone who I've known for some time. Very active in the Comics WikiProject. Knowledgeable about images (and in fact is usually my "first stop" - AKA my "go-to-guy" - concerning them), and rather active in WP:IFD. (And AfD, and CfD, and and and...) This is definitely someone who is active "in the trenches" of comics articles. It's rare to come to a talk page of a comics-related article, and not see him already there answering questions, clarifying guidelines or policy, and just in generally "joining in the discussion". As such, he's had his "frustration moments" (as we all have, I'm sure), though, in my experience, more in the past than in the present, and even then, I don't believe that I can recall a moment in which he ever crossed the line of incivility. (In fact, any time he feels that he might be coming close, he's gone to others for WP:3PO and/or guidance.) Note that right now he's updating a large chunk of comics-related infoboxes. WikiGnomish and WikiFairyish; not afraid to be bold, yet I don't recall ever seeing him reckless. And just generally helpful to most anyone who asks. I present J Greb. - jc37 23:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I do accept the nomination, and appreciate Jc37's comments and the spirit in which they are offered. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily where I would start would be working with other side of image maintenance and IfD, closing and actual clean up rather than just tagging and nomming. Beyond that, I would also like to help with regard to the other XfD sections. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are a few specific articles where I've made major contributions that I'm proud of, but I think the best contributions I've made are on the "hidden" side of Wiki. Among these are: trying to put in place a set of image categories at the Comics project that are constantly title and allow for easier searching; creating an maintaining various templates for the same project to help clean up items and to provide uniform (c)/TM information for the non-free images in use; and, as noted by the nom, trying to update, and clean up the infoboxes the Comics project uses. These are things that, to my mind, add to the stability of many articles, something that is as important as polishing individual articles. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (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: Yes, to both situations. And my responses have varied depending on the circumstance. There have been times where I've just "moved on", judging the point of contention not to be worth the stress. In most cases though, I stick with the issues and, if I think thing are going to cross, or already have crossed, civility, I ask a third, ans sometimes a fourth, party to have a look. And though those I ask are known to me, I ask them because I know them to be editors or admins that will call anyone involved, myself included, for breaching decorum. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?


5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?


6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?


7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

Struck. This isn't a game of 50 questions. Avruch T 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Wisdom89 lifted from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE.


8. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A- Based on the question, I'll assume there is a positive RCU and/or a definitive "Suspected sock puppets" case. In that case, warn the editor, and based on what I understand about SSP, block the socks. If the situation continues, have an RCU run on the apparent new socks and take the RCUs, SSP, and the difs showing the abuse to ANI as an ongoing problem. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

9. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- Three parts:
1) The other admin made a call, and I wouldn't second guess it unless it was done in a tone on par with the edit war. At the least I'd have to wonder why post it to ArbCom without suggesting Mediation.
2) If they're willing to talk and if they are blocked and unable to post to the RFAR, then they'll need someone to at least post there statements there.
3) Again, if they're willing to talk and still interested in the article, I'd try to get them engaged on the article's talk page. Get them to lay out what are the problems and why. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

10. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- To be honest, I can't see a particular aspect that I'd change. Are there things I dislike, yes, but that's more personal preference than seeing something that isn't working. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- An escalating, irate, already blocked editor would be one case. Another would be a verifiable repeat sockpuppeter. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- Start by remembering XfDs aren't straight votes. If there is a compelling argument, or set of arguments up or down, that's how it goes with the reason noted in the close. If it's murky, and suspected vote stacking would lend to that, closing as "no clear consensus" is always an option, as are referring the possibility of puppetry, along with cites, to SSP for review. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

13. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A- In general I think it's more of a time than numbers issue. An XfD needs a reasonable period for those who may be interested to find it and voice an opinion. And in most cases, there isn't a pressing need to put the XfD through. That being said, I'd be hard pressed to definitively close and AfD if only one or two editors piped up. CfDs, IfDs, and RfDs though, from what I've see, have a fair number of cases where that one voice brings a definitive point — either policy or precedent. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

14. 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?

A- Yes. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A.Looking at all of the questions posed, even those that were withdrawn, none seem to be irrelevant. - J Greb (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

16. Why do you think that?

A.All of them are based on situations, exaggerated at times, that can crop up for an editor. How a candidate for admin answers them is relevant since it can show that person's approach to problems as well as an indication of how they will act with access to the expanded tools of an admin. - J Greb (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A.No, and no. Editing articles isn't limited just to those who know the subject. Some aspects, such as spelling, grammar, and layout, which are not content driven are things that every one can edit with an eye to improving the article. The same is true with the removal of inappropriate content. - J Greb (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle 18. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be validly used on Wikipedia?

A.To my understanding there are 3 situations where this occurs: 1) a notable person who is reclusive to the point that it isn't possible for non-free images to be obtained; 2) a person who's notability rests on how they looked at a younger age; and 3) when the image is being used to illustrate something other than the person, such as an actor's role, a film, a magazine, an event, etc. There maybe more situations, but I haven't seen them crop up. And even with these, there needs to be some sort of solid, verifiable rationale for the use in situations 1 and 2. - J Greb (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/J Greb before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • NB: First three supports and first neutral added before transclusion. Avruch T 01:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe they were waiting for me to co-nom before transcluding, but I have been absent. Hiding T 11:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support J Greb has shown himself time and again to be a reasonable voice on the various articles where our paths have crossed, including incredible support during the revamping of a major comic book character's article. He is possessed of great pateince and would be an asset. ThuranX (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support a bright, reasonable, conscientious editor who's really on the ball, knows policy, and ever endeavors to improve Wikipedia and advance project goals. Doczilla RAWR! 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as J Greb is an excellent editor from all angles. (Emperor (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
  4. Support RfA's are, at their core, a request for the community to decide whether or not the candidate has exhibited the characteristics that the community requires of its sysops, whether or not demonstrated judgment that the community appreciates—even if they may disagree, and whether or not the community should extend its collective trust to the candidate and authorize them to exercise that judgment in protection and enhancement of the wikipedia project. This candidate's user history, in my opinion, does demonstrate good judgment, civil and polite interface, the best interests of the project, and an ability for their work to be enhanced by the tools. As such, I am comfortable extending my trust to this user. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support based on answers to Wisdom's very well thought out questions. I see nothing to suggest likelihood of misuse and candidate seems to have the common sense to think first or ask first and act later. Dlohcierekim 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - After thoroughly reading the answers to each question. Yup, if this is how the candidate thinks, and I'm certain that it is, he/she has my support. One of the rare exceptions to my balance criteria rule. Good show. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support, seems sensible enough, and no evidence that they would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
  9. Support - trustworthy editor, and very active in regard to images, an area where more help would be very welcome. Addhoc (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. He's not already? Will (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Will be a great help in the image area of Wikipedia. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Seems appropriate and well-deserving. Rudget. 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - the user has answered most questions to my full satisfaction and seems a generally good user with common sense. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Excellent answers to questions above, I have no concerns about your willingness to be helpful where help is needed. A net positive to give you the mop. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - Can't see any good reason to oppose, acknowledging comments below regarding some of the answers to the questions. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - A fine candidate. Completed lots of great work on Wikipedia so far. :-) Lradrama 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - looks fine and trustworthy. Good attitude. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Over 20000 edits with over 7000 mainspace edits.Good track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I don't think the opposes neutrals are that concerning. I, for one, would welcome another admin who works with images a lot. He was just short of the 25 points required on my RfA criteria for a definitive support (he had 23, discounting an early mistaken block), and that's impressive. Good luck! Xenon54 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support NHRHS2010 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - I do not even see a reason to explain my support, the user obviously is not only meeting but passing the standards for adminship. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support Impressive, and we can always use more image admins. GlassCobra 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. He's a fine candidate. Axl (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Majorly (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Only 23 supports this far in?
  25. Support - seems like a great candidate. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Gut feeling and the fact that more image admins are needed. SpencerT♦C 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support per many above who have mentioned images. нмŵוτнτ 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support = And with regards to question #9, how would your answer differ if the editor were a misplaced alien from Mars, with a Physical handicap and three little aliens to support, change? Shoessss |  Chat  02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Aye. Hiding T 11:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. Seems trustworthy, could use the administrator tools, no obvious problems. Best of luck, AGK (contact) 21:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    Further comment. As something of an extension, I have reviewed the concerns raised by those camping both in "oppose" and "neutral", and I appreciate their views. In the interests of compromise, I will uphold my support, on the basis that, if this RfA passes, the candidate will take on board and to heart the points raised by the editors concerned, and undertake remedial measures. Similarly, I would suggest that he offer a little more forethought and pondering on any further questions, if any are provided for the duration of this RfA, in order to "put to bed" the concerns regarding RfA question answering quality, and convey to the Community at large that the answers above are something of a slip-up, rather than a fundamental lack of readiness for the mop. Otherwise, I maintain my support, and my good wishes to the candidate for his RfA. AGK (contact) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support. Húsönd 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support. Looks good. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support per the imagesBalloonman (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Weak support - nice to intend to work on IfD, but make sure that you don't upset people. Lots of uploaders get upset when their images are tagged or deleted by impersonal admins for not filling out the correct ream of documentation - particularly when the admin could easily just fix the form theirself. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support happy with answers and with this candidate. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. He tangata pai, he tangata pono. In other words, he looks like a good guy and sounds true. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. I'm a bit uneasy with the answer to Q11, and I suggest you consider your options carefully if you're ever in this situation, but other than this I see no reason not to support you. —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. No problems here. Acalamari 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I think that this user will be a wonderful new admin :). Mifter (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Will make a great admin! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Questions 3 and 9 are answered decently. Question 10 though, you've got an opportunity to be honest and show your thoughtfulness, but didn't take it. Qu.11 ... you'd issue an indefinite block to a user because he was irate and already blocked? That'd be scary to be quite honest if it weren't for the thankful fact that it would certainly be overturned or reduced. I don't wanna be harsh, but there is too much thoughtlessness in these answers for me to ignore this nom and not oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Questions above answered with generalities. Editor focuses on technical details, needs more significant contributions on actual article content based on contributions. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    #Neutral - For now. I'm unimpressed by the Wikipedia contributions, even though the user proclaims he/she will work mostly with WP:IFD and the like. However, pending the answers to questions, I will make my decision. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Boy, I'm in the middle of the road on this one. RC-0722 communicator/kills 05:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - honestly, not ready yet. Another six months, perhaps. Has responded on some matters with a tad too much emotion (and had to apologise) and it has at times smacked of a grudge. Have dealt with other administrators who are more objective and not so quick to draw their six-guns. Review again in 6 months. Asgardian (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    #Neutral pending reply to my question. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
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.