🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Greeves
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greeves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Greeves

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 05:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC) at (45/4/6); Scheduled end time 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeves (talk · contribs) - Greeves has been here for approximately 9 months, and has done wonders since that time. He is a usual AfD commenter, founder of WikiProject:MMO, and is very active in fighing vandals. I believe that he would take great advantage of the tools, to continue to improve Wikipedia. GrooveDog 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept and I thank GrooveDog for the nomination. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I see myself as a regular WP:MfD and other WP:XFD closer. Though I may not !vote that often, am am often looking at WP:MFD and I feel confident in assessing community consensus (even when it is contrary to my own opinion).
I can also see myself helping out a little in a number of other places such as WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and CAT:CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As a metapedianist, I cannot really write you a list of my featured article contributions as the closest thing that I came to a featured article was MMORPG which I helped out with a bit (currently a GA).
One contribution outside of the mainspace which I am particularly pleased with (which GrooveDog mentioned in the candidate presentation) is WikiProject MMO. WikiProject MMO is a WikiProject which I founded whose scope is MMO and MMO-related articles (a MMO is a genre of video games where the game is played in a persistent universe). I also created much of the framework for many parts of the project as well.
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: Luckily, I have not been in any real conflicts. If I were to though, I would assume good faith and try to work the problem out with the other party. If I ever became really stressed about the conflict I would leave the page(s) alone and maybe take a short wikibreak to to stay as cool as a cucumber.

Optional questions from User:N

4. There are two warnings on your talk page for changing people's talk comments. Is this a "conflict over editing"? And what have you learned from the relevant policies that would prevent this in the future?
A: I don't consider that a "conflict over editing" as I made one revert, had two people contact me on my talk page about it, and I realized that I was wrong to make that revert. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. What is Wikipedia's policy on non-free content in user space, and why did you have 3 of them in yours?
A: I believe that Wikipedia:Non-free content would be the appropriate policy/guideline here and I had them there because I was splitting the history section of the MMORPG article (see the history of User:Greeves/MMORPG History). I guess I didn't end up deleting the page, and after this RfA closes, I will be deleting the page (in case others are curious about the page's history). Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: I don't really think that this question is really relevant to a RfA, but I don't mind answering it.
WP:IAR and WP:SNOW really captures one of the major points of Wikipedia - we are not about following firm rules and policies, we are about doing what's right regardless of the rules, assuming that "what's right" is what the community also thinks. Which brings be to my next page: WP:CON. This is another important aspect of Wikipedia. Without this, we would either have a dictator or have elected admins decide everything for us. Concensus is what drives Wikipedia.
Away from policies, I find the article on MMORPGs quite informative and I have done a little work to try to improve it. Now to take it from GA to FA! Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-did some of the numbering as there were two question nines. Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by Richardshusr

7. Under what conditions would you block an established user (e.g. one with more than 500 edits)? Under what conditions would you block another admin?
A: This is a really hard question as it, in my opinion, should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A truly established user (ie. 1000+ edits) would probably need community consensus or an ArbCom decision to be blocked. Simple vandalism I would easily block as I would a regular user (but send an e-mail in case someone had taken over that account). Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7b. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Please review WP:BP and WP:BAN and reconsider your answer to Q7.
A: I got a little side-tracked at the beginning of my answer talking about when you can be banned. For vandalism and the like, I would e-mail the user, but block them none the less in case someone had gotten hold of their password. For a 3RR violation, I would be more lenient and would probably discuss at WP:ANI if a block is really necessary. I would only block another admin for simple vandalism and the like (as described above) or any other extremities (in case of emergency). Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7c. Is it then reasonable to infer that you believe warnings are not necessary before blocking established users on the assumption that they should already understand Wikipedia policy? Please refer to WP:BP again and explain when relatively new users should be blocked and when established users should be blocked.
A: No, for vandalism, an established user should have been given warnings, (maybe skipping level one as to not welcome them to Wikipedia) but I would make sure to e-mail them in case of someone else using their account. When I answered above, I meant block after warnings, I should have stated that more clearly.
For a new user I would do the same, maybe without an e-mail though. When warning I follow the standard set at WP:UTM
  • Level 1 - Assumes good faith
  • Level 2 - No faith assumption
  • Level 3 - Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
  • Level 4 - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
  • Level 4im - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning
In short, when blocking I would treat an established user and a new user the same except I would send a e-mail to an established user and skip level one for vandalism. Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from TREYWiki

8. How would you deal with a sockpuppet? What would you do?
A: Sorry I have been late with responses to a few questions recently (mostly this one and Q6). I have been busy in real life.
Onto the question however, I would first check to see if it was a sockpuppet through WP:RFCU and/or WP:SSP. Afterwards, I would check to see what instances they !voted on something (with multiple accounts, enough to influence a closing admin) at the same location and make a note of it there and I would have all sockpuppets indef blocked. Depending on the severity of the instance would depend on how long the sockpuppeteer is blocked, up to an indef block.
Sorry for the wait! Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Krator

9. Considering you are both active in the deletion process and video games related projects, what is your stance towards (unnecessarily) detailed plot summaries and lists (sometimes referred to as "cruft") in this area?
A: I support plot summaries for video games - to an extent. When a video game's plot summary becomes more than a few paragraphs, it's no longer a general overview of the plot as expected in an encyclopedia. For lists please specify what kind of lists you are referring to.
Also, I do not believe that most crufty articles should be deleted. If it is notable and more than a paragraph or two of non-cruft text can be salvaged, I will probably not !vote delete on it under an AfD. Greeves (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • Links for Greeves: Greeves (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Most recent editor review: Wikipedia:Editor review/Greeves 2
  • About my edit summary usage: To begin with on Wikipedia, I was mostly contributing to the mainspace (as most people do). As a newcomer, I did not see the point of adding an edit summary to all of my edits. Lately however, I have not been doing too much in the mainspace. As you will see, most of my recent edits outside of the mainspace (and even the few that I did do in mainspace) have edit summaries. As Casmith 789 pointed out in my recent editor review, there is a box in my preferences that I could use to to improve my edit summary usage, which I am now using, and I think has been making a difference. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD: When GrooveDog said "He is a usual AfD commenter," I think he meant MfD. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey I noticed that you said in response to some comments in the discussion that you have recently been busy in real life. This is probably not one of the best times to be busy. Not that you're desperate for support, but perhaps more people would feel you take the role of administrator more seriously if you had been more focused on your RfA. You still have my support. J-stan 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no worries! I wasn't affected by this, but I just thought it was just some bad timing. J-stan 02:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Rhetorical question: What's more important, the huge amount of project space and talk edits, or the average mainspace count? Obviously, this user has done excellent work in running a WIkiproject, and this must be commended. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Rhetorical questions are not ment to be answered, they can be answeres by the person who asked the question. G1ggy, I'm looking at you (Hint Hint :) --Lwarf Talk! 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the rationale that people have of saying "this person has very little mainspace edits". Admins, although still contributors to Wikipedia, usually help with maintenance tasks outside of article space. Mainspace edits should not be a contributing factor to whether an RfA nominee successfully accomplishes his adminship request. Also, I don't believe the length of WikiTime of the nominator matters, as was stated below. GrooveDog 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lwarf, but GrooveDog doesn't know the meaning of rhetorical. If he did, I'd be answering it the way he did anyway. Which brings me to the fact that opposing per mainspace is like making any comments per Gurch's reasoning in this RfA. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do know what rhetorcal means, but I wasn't talking about your question, I was talking about the "oppose" and "neutral" rationales. :) GrooveDog 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Weak Support You're on the right track, but with less then 1000 main space edits, your rfa isn't going to pass. Better luck next time around. ~ Wikihermit 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger the commenters, (if I do not pass this, I will have gotten some constructive criticism) but are the number of mainspace edits a problem? I am a metapedianist and I believe that edits in the project space are equally as important as mainspace edits. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so too, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. I don't go off edit count alone, but I like to see at least 800 main space edits. I've seen you around here though with the internal works, so that's the reason for my support. ~ Wikihermit 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason people look at edit counts is that, unless they know you, it's the only easy way to figure out how much experience you have. I think there is a kind of reasoning that says "Anybody who has made over 1000 main space edits and not gotten blocked is probably reasonably civil, doesn't engage in personal attacks or violate the WP:3RR rule." --Richard 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Why not? —AldeBaer 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Aldebaer said it. Plus the work I've seen from this user has been all good. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've been very impressed by Greeves. Daniel 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per the opposite of Wikihermit. I understand how frustrating it can be looking every day at your edit count to see how far away 1000 is, but as long as you're on track for it, you're fine. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. You get my Vote your contributions to pages in the WP:NAMESPACE Wikipedia project space seem very valuable. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 05:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I am happy to keep my commitment as expressed on WT:RFA. Yeesh, the editcountitis in oppose number two is really starting to scare me, and I will never fault a candidate for self-nominating or even for accepting a nomination from a known miscreant. Other than that, I see nothing to worry about. YechielMan 06:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I've been impressed with Greeves, he'll make a fine admin. N's oppose below I can understand, but polotics rule is one of the most baffling I've seen for some time. Why should prejudice be given to the candidate because of when the nominator joined? Why would that effect his admin capabilities? We're supposed to be a community, we should start acting like one. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support 1) Review of contribs reveals nothing worrying 2) Civility seems good 3) I've seen the editor around 4) Sensible discussion at WT:RFA about adding an RfA link to his signature (I know it had been discussed before, but fair play to check prior to the candidates own RfA IMHO) 5) Per Ryan above. Pedro |  Chat  08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, user uses Cursiva font in his signature. Will not make a good admin. groan at edit counters Not crazy, edits show caring attitude towards the project, civil and no indication that they will abuse the bit. Riana ⁂ 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's Lucida Calligraphy. ;-) Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per Riana and Jimbo Wales :P..--Cometstyles 10:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support- experienced enough to be an admin. Francisco Tevez 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - After looking through your contributions I can see that you are a good contributer who is civil and would make a good admin. Edit count does not concern me - you appear to have enough experience across the name spaces. Also, the discussion at WT:RFA helps convince me you think before you act. Camaron1 | Chris 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support qualified. —Anas talk? 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support After reviewing your contributions, talk pages and katewannabe's count I do not see you as being an imminent threat to the project if handed the mop. --Ozgod 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support I came across Greeves when I edited as Tellyaddict and found him to be friendly and polite, I dont think the mainspace edit count is too much of a worry, I think its how he'll use the tools what count. The Sunshine Man 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, I see no reason Greeves can't be trusted, though I don't usually support users with less then 14495 edits. :P Prodego talk 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per AldeBaer. Waltontalk 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems fine. Acalamari 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Damn it. I have RfA watchlisted, but I still miss requests that I could comment on. </rant> Anyhoo, WP:MMO needs an admin or two on board, and I trust Greeves with the tools. Mainspace edits are a bit low, but I don't mind. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - hahnchen 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support- per AldeBaer. Eddie 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support I will agree that it is not an edit count, so I will support. Just try to do more editing. Politics rule 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I think you are a trustable person, with a decent amount of experience. You have my support. However, I would like to ask Cometstyles and Riana why they put their oppose votes in the support section? Or were they meant to be support, but they wrote oppose instead? Stwalkerster talk 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as nom for all reasons in candidate presentation. GrooveDog 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - No worries. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Looks like a good user. Captain panda 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom.Mainemainer 21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. You sound like you'll use the tools provided correctly, and you have a good edit count. -- :) Chetblong 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I do not see a marginally below average Mainspace editcount as a problem. We are deciding if this user can be trusted with the tools.And on the basis of contributions to date, the answer is clearly yes.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Good contributor, trustworthy and I think he is ready for the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - The normal requirements seem good, and the editor answered my question in a sensible way. --User:Krator (t c) 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. He's been an exemplary user, kept a cool head, and done nothing to suggest he is not qualified for the tools. Fair use images having appeared in his user space at some point in the past does not disqualify him from being a sysop, jeez. Italiavivi 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support- answered my question very well, sorry for all the flopping around =).--trey 03:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support An edit count has no bearing on how good a possible admin will be. Furthermore, the time factor is not that important either; you generally need to exercise good judgement. Greeves does just that. (→zelzany - fish) 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Moderate Support I don't believe in edit counts, So I didn't check yours. I believe that a good administrator needs more social experience in Wikipedia. Metapedianists seem like the best choices. I think you've got what it takes, but still, you seem a little inexperienced. Maybe adminship will give you some more experience. J-stan 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've seen this guy about so I think he'll do a good job, but I'm also wanting to counter the opposes below which in no way demonstrate why this candidate is unsuited to becoming an administrator. Nick 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above. Peacent 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per good response to my concern. I appreciate thoughtful admins. Antelan talk 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. WjBscribe 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Sometimes I think projectspace users are too under-rated (that would include me). Writing an encyclopedia is important, but not everyone enjoys or is good at doing so. Projectspace users are the backbone of this project, and keep the Wiki standing up. I completely diregard edit count as well. Experience and understanding of policy is more important, and I think you have those qualities. Sr13 08:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I'm usually in the habit of explaining my thought process in detail but most of the points I was going to make, have already been made. Bottom line: do I trust the candidate with the tools? And, based on what I've seen so far, the answer is yes. -- S up? 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Moderate support I'm not certain, the candidate's clarifications notwithstanding, that I can complete appreciate his views with respect to blocking or the extent to which he understands BP, but that may well be a result of my being dense (there is, in either case, not much there to engender concern). In any event, I was mildly disconcerted by Greeves' statement of his conception of IAR, but both his full answer to question six and his contribution record make clear that he well and properly conceives of adminship as ministerial in nature and is certainly capable of divining for what action in a given situation a consensus of the community might exist and then effecting that action (his understanding of IAR, in fact, seems properly limited by his understanding of consensus); his deliberative temperament, generally civil demeanor, and apparently sound judgment, then, lead me to conclude with a fair amount of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I found 3 notices of fair use images used in his user space on his talk page, his nominator has only been here since April, and the fact that he has had no disputes means (to me) he hasn't really delved into policy or any kind of controversial XfD work. Actually, looking at his talk page, it looks like he had a little spat a while ago about restoring deleted comments to talk pages in contravention of policy. -N 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see his Q5 answer in regard to this. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As was pointed out above, the Nominator and the person have very little knowledge of wiki policy. The nominator has been here since April, and has very little, to no experience. And the Greeves has less than 1000 edits. I don't really support people with less than 10000 edits. So I am opposed. Sorry. Good Luck! Politics rule 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Greeves has 2638 edits actually. Captain panda 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    10,000 edits!?! Have you gone mad?! ~ Wikihermit 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Politics rule has made several comments like this before: "(candidate) has only (inaccurately low number) edits, and I don't support anyone unless they have (ludicrous number that grows every time) edits". I think he's trolling RfA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG! more editcounters :(, if I was held to that standard, I would not have been an admin 6 months ago. Just curious whats so special about 10,000 edits? I know bots that have 20 times that number. All that is really required for adminship is enough edits that people can see how you act. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What changed? The only time recently that I opposed someone with 10,000-or-so edits was because they were all vandal-reverts, which told me nothing about their ability to make informed, complex decisions. I don't see this being a problem here, and nor do I see any other problem being cited by Politics rule, so we must assume that it's editcountitis. Daniel 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. As long as the nominee's edit counts are going up (period, I don't really think it matters how fast) and in the right direction; quality, not [necessarily] quantity. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I've never encountered an edit count that was going down... :-) Waltontalk 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit count of User:ais523 non-admin drops from time to time; I mainly use it for WP:ACC work, and the history of that page is deleted every now and then to remove email addresses from it. --ais523 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Unless I'm missing something, it's likely that Politics rule meant ...with less [sic] than 1000 edits; if one is to assume that standard to be relative only to mainspace edits, Greeves would indeed "fail". That is not, to be sure, to say that I think a 1000 mainspace edits or even 1000 total edits standard to be useful as a categorical test with which to adjudge a user's familiarity with the project or his fitness for adminship—I surely, surely don't—but that we might do well not to understand P r's oppose as being inconsistent with his past contributions or being entirely unreasonable (to the extent that all edit count-based opposes are not equally unreasonable); I think a good number of editors to refuse to support candidates (rightly or wrongly; wrongly, IMHO) with fewer than 1000 (or even fewer than 1000 mainspace) edits, and I gather that that's the standard P r meant to apply here (feel free, of course, to ignore me entirely if I've misunderstood here). Joe 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I get for not bothering to look at an individual's talk page first and proceeding with a rather useless exercise in AGF; Rspeer would seem to be quite right here. Oh well; if anything it's likely that this discussion will have the effect on this particular RfA of dissuading edit count-based opposes, so that's something. Joe 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *giggle* Saying as Politics rule started in April, I have to find the comment very amusing. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have this question... what about admins and crats under 10000 edits. As far as I'm aware, Redux is below 6000 edits. Evilclown93(talk) 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to change my vote, but give me a reason to. He has not been here long, and I personally think he does not have experience. I am willing to reconsider however! Politics rule 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been here for 8 months... And this is not a vote count. ~ Wikihermit 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. --Rory096 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated, but I'd like to suggest a method to enlarge your edit count to our edit-counting friend. Just click the "BUY NOW" in my signature and see. :) bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, changed from neutral-I would like someone more active as an admin and more out there going at vandalism. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How will the tools help me with vandalism fighting? Besides, not everyone needs to do everything. Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Hasn't been here that long and doesn't make enough contributions each day. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With the greatest respect, what kind of an oppose is that? He's been here long enough, check through his contribs and see if he'll make a good administrator, he's got enough of them. We don't judge candidates on edit count - we judge them on their contributions. In response to "doesn't make enough contributions a day," how many is the perfect number? Anyway, how will that make him a poor administrator? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oysterguiyarist, how many people, be they admin or not, do you believe edit wikipedia every single day? I feel that this criterion you have expressed here would rule out probably something like 99% of current admins, and an even higher percentage of editors.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing per day is ridiculous. Trust me, even Jimbo doesn't go on Wikipedia 365 days a year. Honestly, this oppose shouldn't be counted because the reason doesn't stand at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While there are quite a number of people who at least check Wikipedia if not edit every day, I agree that such a requirement is not necessary for adminship. Greeves has been averaging 10-15 edits a day or in excess of 300 edits a month. This comes to 3600 edits/year which ought to be enough to satisfy anybody. --Richard 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeChange to Support Seems to have ignored my question, answered around it. Not confident in his knowledge of how to deal with a sockpuppet.--trey 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, for the same reasons I opposed Pedro's RfA. Barely any mainspace contributions. Creating megs of waffle in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia_talk: space is all very well and good, but we're here to write an encyclopedia and as Greeves hasn't made much use of the tools available to him as an ordinary editor to improve the encyclopedia, I have no reason to expect that he would use the admin tools to some particularly useful purpose. The article he has edited most is barely more than a stub with a few lists on the end. How can he be expected to enforce policy if he has not actually come into contact with said policy? Kamryn Matika 16:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the supporters are claiming that he has 'good judgement'; however, going through his contribution history I can find no particular instance which shows any kind of judgement being made at all, good or bad. With regards to the 'edit countitis' comments, I think that it's more likely that the supporters that have the 'editcountitis' here (i.e. "ooh he has lots of edits, he must be trustworthy!") Kamryn Matika 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral looks like nice person, but he han't been on wikipedia for all that long and has a low editcount + the image on user space deal. Good Luck. --Lwarf Talk! 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. His low mainspace edit counts is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral due to low mainspace edit count. I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits – Gurch 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurch that means only 3 users that you will support..But I think they are already admins :)..--Cometstyles 13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Make it double that, then – Gurch 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    /me huggles Gurch G1ggy Talk/Contribs 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the user's contributions, not the edit count, that shows understanding consensus of the Wikipedia policy. — N96 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral At [1] you commented on a MfD: Keep - I think that vandalism subpages should be allowed. (I !voted to delete that one & I agree it's debatable)--could you explain your reasoning. At [2] you commented with respect to Username "Z135256" "Neutral - I'm on the fence here" -- could you expand on that a little? DGG 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll answer this in two parts:
    I believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I agree with Jimbo (I can't find a quote right now) in the sense that it is important to keep the community spirits up. This is why a little fun can't hurt us and vandalism sub-pages are so common now. For these reasons is why I !voted keep for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TV-VCR/Vandalism. Here is a quote from Jimbo that I did find:
    "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal." Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia-l mailing list
    If you were to see a new page of that sort on New Pages, what would you do?DGG 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to see a new vandalism sub-page while new page patrolling, I would probably leave it alone for reasons mentioned above. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Z135256 (talk · contribs), I was on the fence as I couldn't decide weather that was a legitimate name or random garbage they put in.
    OK, this one was borderline DGG 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that that sums it up! Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC) OK. but still neutral due to low substantial edits. But this is not an oppose. DGG 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, turned off by low edit count and only a few edits a day. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Someone removed my oppose vote for some odd reason, but I will wait for an answer to my question before supporting or opposing. --trey 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)change to Oppose (see above)--trey 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (Changed to support, above) I'd prefer not to see a response to every less-than-fully-positive comment, including weak supports. My preference would be for a future admin to let people make their statements, take it all in, process it in the gestalt, then reply to those that most require a reply. That being said, I don't mean this as a meta-statement that will scare you away from replying to this, so feel free to reply to this one. Antelan talk 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel that there is a problem giving responses to specific criticism. Besides, I only made comments to three !votes (not counting this one). One neutral comment specifically requested a response (DGG, neutral #4). The second comment that I received was was a moral support (pretty much a nice way to say oppose, IMO) which was made due to my mainspace edit count (from Wikihermit, support #1). He/she later changed to weak support. Third was an oppose due to activity and not enough vandal fighting which I did not think was needed (from JetLover oppose #2). I don't think that there is any problems with those responses. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral though I tend toward opposition on the basis of 'feeling that mainspace edits are less important than project and talk edits' not for the number of edits but for the attitude. Really, we are writing an encyclopedia and you can't run it without reading it ... and if you are reading it and don't see a thousand corrections to make in a pretty short time, you probably aren't qualified to run it. In my opinion. I do like that he has a 'pet project' and has acquainted himself with policy etc. User:Pedant 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral leaning oppose I hate editcountitis too. It sucks. However, the statistics help me gauge an editor's experience and civility. Creation of the WikiProject is terrific and appreciated and he's a nice fellow, but he just hasn't edited in the mainspace enough to convince me he understands content as well as process. With a few weeks of solid contributions to articles, I'd certainly support. - KrakatoaKatie 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Greeves&oldid=1145854318"