Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graft

Graft

Vote here (9/1/4) ending 21:03 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Graft (talk · contribs) – (Self-nomination) I've been editing here for many years and recently decided I ought to be doing more to contribute in a community-wise way. I'm pretty even-keeled, rarely get in protracted fights, never been disciplined for anything, and I think I'm pretty good at finding compromises. I haven't, however, been much involved in arbitration, RfCs, etc., and think that I should maybe be doing more things other than editing at this point. Graft 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strongest possible support - excellent editor, strong contributor, been here forever. Guettarda 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
2. JobE6 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Long overdue. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, good editor. --Alcidebava 13:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Unflocinaucinihilipilificative support, damn the editcounting! ~~ N (t/c) 17:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Pcb21| Pete 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support looks good. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Looks pretty good to me, has enough edits and has been on long enough. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 15:25, 1 Oct 2005 (CDT)}
9. Support. Graft has demonstrated a real commitment to the concept of Wikipedia, doesn't shy away from controversial subjects (like Global Warming), but instead makes an honest effort to really work through them and address them thoroughly, in an even-handed way. DanKeshet 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support I believe he has good reasons to be an admin, and will be of service to WP. --Blackcap | talk 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, this person has been here since 2002, and only has over 2000 edits. Any passive editor could do that in three years. I don't think you're qualified for adminship. Private Butcher 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Comment That doesn't mean that much, really, other than editcountitis. Even for the editcountitis bit, have you seen Durin's completely brilliant charts? They show the frequency of edits in a given period, among other things, and that's more important than total edits. Anyway, just because this fellow hasn't put in 50 edits a day since day one doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. Some people go on long wikibreaks, and God bless them for it—there's something called life out there that's good to be a part of sometimes. If someone registers, has 30 edits, leaves, comes back a year later, signs in again and is an active contributor, than he's hardly at fault for having, say, only 2000 edits in a eighteen month period. Just thought that that's kinda a stringent requirement for adminship. I mean, an admin doesn't have to be someone who logs on every other day, they can just as easily be someone who puts in a few edits a week on RC patrol. It won't kill us. And anyway, after having gone through his contribs, it looks to me like he's editing on at least a bi- or tri-weekly basis and has been for some time (save a wee gap in September). --Blackcap | talk 00:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose till user sets an email id. User:Nichalp/sg 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Hmm I don't know. I don't think he understands policy enough being as he can't be involved in arbitration anyways unless he is an arbitrator. JobE6 22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

   Re-read his comment if you would - I don't read them that way at all. Guettarda 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   My bad. Took it the wrong way. JobE6 02:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Please answer the standard questions below. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Please answer the standard questions before I can tell anything! Thanks! Deryck C. ^RfA 02:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   I can see that the nominee hasn't stated acceptance yet. Maybe we should decide things later? Deryck C. ^RfA 02:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is a self-nomination, so it's fair to assume that it's accepted. . . (preceding unsigned comment by Mirv (talk · contribs) Revision as of 08:12, October 1, 2005)

4. Neutral No excuse in not answereing the questions on a self nom. JobE6 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral I'm afraid - one of the reasons being the few Wikipedia namespace edits. FireFox ^{T C} 17:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Err, sorry for the delay in filling out these questions - I didn't realize this process moved so quickly and mere hours would be so significant! Graft 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Although I don't imagine I'm going to be that helpful as far as watching for vandalism or edit wars because I don't edit for many hours continuously, I'd like to be useful in general janitorial tasks (like deleting/moving pages) which need to get done.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I was rather pleased with the first version of binocular vision that I wrote long ago, in the middle of editing a whole spate of visual system articles, but that version is long gone now. I rewrote genetic drift a while ago into a much more coherent form. Also I wrote a bunch of stuff about the Mexican Revolution which I thought was rather good at the time (although probably not by "modern" standards).

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. I've obviously been involved in many editing conflicts. I don't think I get greatly stressed out by it. My usual method of dealing with conflicts is simply adhering to the facts of the debate, delineating and spelling out my arguments in support of the points at issue, and generally eschewing ad hominem as much as possible, which is I think the way to be most productive towards resolving and moving past the dispute.