Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michael Greiner

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] Michael Greiner

Final (24/3/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Greiner (talk · contribs) - Michael Greiner has been editing Wikipedia since July 2006, during which time he has made over 7,000 edits, including 4,200 to mainspace. He is a member of various American sports WikiProjects, and has helped get New Jersey Devils and "Weird Al" Yankovic to featured article status. He is a experienced in admin related areas, participating in around fifty XfD discussions, and making around a dozen posts to WP:AIV and WP:RFP. He is also a newpage patroller, and has tagged dozens of articles for speedy deletion. Michael Greiner is civil user with a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and is now ready to be trusted with the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Co-nomination by Sharkface217:

It is my honor to co-nominate Michael Greiner for Wikipedia adminship. A dedicated Wikipedian, he is committed to the often-boring but necessary tasks of Wikipedia. A user who often spends nearly a third of his day browsing, editing, and exploring Wikipedia, Michael Greiner is highly qualified for the mop. He has done his share of Wikipedia editing, and has even gone as far as taking pictures for the betterment of some articles, showing dedication that would even impress Bartleby. I feel that Michael Greiner is now ready for the mop, and it is my only hope that his fellow editors hold Michael Greiner in as high esteem as I do. --Sharkface217 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Michael Greiner 11:43, 6 December 2007 (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: I intend to work mainly with speedy deletions reviewing nominations and deleting articles. I would also review Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests to add noncontroversial edits to protected articles. Of course, I would also work in vandal fighting and clear out AIV if needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I consider my personal best work to be the article Flemington Speedway which I created and later became a Did You Know. I also am proud of the organization of minor league baseball stadiums I started creating categories and templates to easily link stadiums in each league together. (For example, Template:SAL ballparks and its associated category, Category:South Atlantic League ballparks which is a sub category of Category:Minor league baseball venues.)
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: I have been in a few conflicts, mainly with vandals who were angry that either their edit was reverted or article deleted. The these usually end with my user page vandalized and the vandal being blocked. I just usually shrug these off. One conflict that comes to mind as particularly ugly was my conflict at Talk:NASCAR with User:Alexander Bell of the inclusion of a section of the article for his personal website which mapped the location of NASCAR tracks. This was an obvious Conflict of Interest and I followed the guidelines there, but the user believed his site truly added information. Consensus eventually supported the removal of the section and I spent an AWB session removing his links.

Optional questions

4. What's the worst mistake you've made in Wikipedia, and what did you learn from this? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A: This is a tough question, and made me look back through all of my contribs. I found two examples. 1. Continuous updating of the Home Run Derby during the 2006 derby. I made 46 edits the night of the derby updating after each home run was hit. I later learned that wasn't a good idea by reading up on What Wikipedia is Not and finding out Wikipedia isn't a primary source. I chalk this up mostly to inexperience as it was my first time editing as an account. (I had signed up 3 & 1/2 months earlier but didn't log back in, editing between the dates on a semi-static IP) I later brought this policy to the attention of other editors. 2.I reverted an edit to the article Bob Saget using Vandalproof after a removal of a large amount of text. I did not realize that the edit was made as a WP:BLP concern and had warned User:Burntsauce with a standard text removal warning. Needless to say he wasn't too happy about it (it looked like this happened a lot to him) so I reverted my actions. This taught me to look longer at what I am reverting before I revert it and why the original edit was made in the first place. I hope that answers your question. --Michael Greiner 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Rotten but sincere Question from Pedro.

What will be the loss to Wikipedia by you not being an admin? Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A: Wow is all I can say to this question. Well, I don't think my editing style would change much if I don't get the mop. I would definitely not start commenting on every AFD created just to get more projectspace edits. Back to the actual question, I think Wikipedia would lose a chance to have an editor who cares about the project work to make it better than I can in my current position. I am on the wiki for more time than it looks, just reading random articles, trying to gain as much information as possible. In that time I could be removing backlogs, making edits on fully protected pages, or helping out at one of the many noticeboards. Although I may only make ~10 edits a day I may be on for about 2 hours. In that time I could be doing much more worthwhile tasks. (BTW, this question reeks of WP:CRYSTAL, but I understand your reasoning for asking it, I think.) --Michael Greiner 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A: No to both. --Michael Greiner 11:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, as the candidate seems to have experience with many of the functions most frequently in need of administrator intervention. The candidate's speedy deletion tags seem well placed, though I'd encourage additional attention to AfD's if approved as an admin. No concerns otherwise. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - but I am slightly concerned about the high number of automated edits. — Rudget speak.work 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. A bit dull even for a WikiGnome, but he meets all my standards. No reason to distrust. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. Appears to be a solid user. Have you ever met Weird Al though? He's a nice guy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't met Al personally but I have been about a foot away from him at one of his concerts. (He came out into the crowd) --Michael Greiner 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support No reason to distrust this user. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Excellent contributions. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Reports to AIV show a good level of blocking policy knowledge. Seems to have need for the tools, in areas where his lack of WP edits isn't too bad of a deal. SorryGuy 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - It's about the quality, not the quantity. The nom makes solid edits to the mainspace, and the Wikipedia edits he does have show considerable knowledge of policy. I'd actually point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Ironmen as probably the best example I found of this, as he properly references and applies WP:V and WP:NOT and, more importantly, shows the ability and willingness to change one's position as new information appears. IMHO, these are two extremely desirable characteristics in a potential admin. --jonny-mt 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Won't abuse the tools, we need more sports contributers as administators Secret account 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Clearly trustworrthy Redrocketboy 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, for good answer to a tough question. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support A exemplary Wikipedian, I have had the pleasure of meeting this user in meatspace. His dedication to the Wikipedia Project is unwavering, and it is my honor to endorse this user for the mop. --Sharkface217 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - No reason to oppose other than the lack of WP Edits compared to other edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PookeyMaster (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support Like you, I often spend hours on Wikipedia without making any edits, or just fixing minor typos, because I'm actually reading articles! You have appraised my (admitedly rotten) question well - if you don't get the tools we miss out on you helping out with them. Nothing in the contribution history concerns me, and whilst it's not demonstrable, reading both articles and meta discussions gives one a solid background for adminship. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Seems fine to me. Neıl ☎ 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - no reason why not.   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - conducive to 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:49, December 11, 2007
  23. Support good work at CSD & lots of deleted edits to show it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose per the unfortunate lack of projectspace work... hence, certainly a lack of work in admin-related areas. Jmlk17 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jmlk7. A minimal level of wiki-space participation is a necessity for an admin candidate. Xoloz (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Sorry, but too few contribs to WP space (around 204 + 38 to their talk pages). ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Sasha is right. The Project space edits are a little low. I can't support now, but won't oppose either. Good luck anyway. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning toward oppose. Not enough projectspace work or user talk interaction for me to be able to support. Mr.Z-man 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pending answer to Q6 from Jossi. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:42, December 11, 2007
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.