Grandiose (talk·contribs) – I have been on Wikipedia from around 2009, although my edits at that time were most IPs – I started contributing significantly in December 2010. That being two-and-a-half years ago, I felt now was the right time to apply for the mop. I have made around 8,000 edits; 40% of which have been to article space and further 5% have been Good Article review-related edits. There are 17 articles to which I have significantly contributed which are now Good Articles, and one Featured Article. I have also contributed six featured pictures and made about 75 Good Article reviews. I was made a Military History Co-ordinator almost a year ago and will seek re-election in a month's time. I have also helped at a couple of Wikimedia UK events and attended a hand-full of meetups. I feel now that if there are any issues with my becoming an admin, it would be helpful to bring them to my attention so as to change my behavior – and a self-nomination will give everyone else a better change of finding them critically. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 22:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: First and foremost, I would like to be able to marshal military history talk-page discussions, along with other discussions on topics of interest, where such discussions have a "personal or ideological" element that requires administrative action. Second, I would like to be able to help tidy MILHIST project pages, and other routine deletions affecting articles in my areas of interest. Third, I contribute occasionally at Media Copyright Questions, Non-free content review and as a image reviewer at A-class review, Good Article Nominations and WP:Featured Article Candidates and would look to take on more responsibilities for deleting infringing files and closing contentious discussions, something which I shall not be rushing into. Other areas of administrative work I'd save for the future.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As I mention in my nomination statement, I was responsible for writing one Featured Article, on the Nyon Conference in 1937. I see myself foremost as a content contributor, which is why I have not sought adminship sooner; but far from distracting from that I feel it could be strengthened. That FAC represented the last of several previously unsuccessful nominations (for the Livonian War and the Background of the Spanish Civil War articles) and involved the very highest of Wikipedia's standards – the fine-tooth comb, if you will. It came out the process as a piece of quality prose with which I'm proud to be associated.
Another high point has been the Henry VIII of England article. By contrast, that article is still imperfect: but it is read 10,000 times per day. I like to joke that such is the number of British children asked to write their homework on the man, I may well be the most plagiarised man in England. Knowing that I'm contributing to the open knowledge movement in a non-trivial way is important to me and there can be no greater satisfaction than having an article like that read.
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've not had any personal disagreements that haven't been quickly resolved, or any of note. (I think, despite reading WP:AN and WP:ANI for two years, I've never been mentioned been mentioned non-trivially once.) The only editing conflict that has been a significant issue for me has been over perceptions of bias in the Spanish Civil War article. I took the straightforward approach of asking the other editor to justify that claim. That not having been answered fully, I did act on those parts where I recognised on reflection the article might appear biased, but the accusation was made again and at that point I looked for a third (and, if I recall correctly, fourth) opinion to ensure my contributions to the article weren't blinding me. Ultimately the other editor didn't go further than to repeatedly state the accusation and the article is semi-protected, which I think is unfortunate but regretably necessary. I wasn't too stressed about it, because ultimately even that article represented a small fraction of what I've contributed to, but it was (and is) distracting.
4. In your answer to question one, you talk about discussions that 'have a "personal or ideological" element that requires administrative action'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Could you explain what such a discussion might be, and what you mean by "marshalling" it?
A: Taking the second question first, I used 'marshalling' to mean either resolving a discussion or moving a discussion forward through some positive step. 'Personal or ideological' is a useful phrase taken from the policy on consensus as an indication of when a discussion may need administrative or community involvement: whether it involves a lot of playing the man, not the ball (personal) or tedentious editing because of the strength of feeling driven by off-wiki factors (ideological), both of which mean that a discussion is unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved without positive action being taken by a third party. I quoted the policy before because sometimes it can feel like adminship is a 'badge' in these contexts, but there may also be an element of tool use. By illustration, marhsalling the discussion might include closing a hotly-debated discussion with a view to changes; and closing with a view to moving the discussion to another forum; identifying the discussion as tedentious and taking steps to prevent further abuse.
5. You indicate an interest in marshal[ing] military history talk-page discussions. I believe you mainly contribute in that area. Could you briefly discuss the pros and cons of admins taking administrative actions in areas where they are regular editors regularly edit? And could you express how you'll balance those pros and cons as an admin?
A: I'd say around two-thirds of my content contributions have been military history-related, but by no means all. (My userpage lists some others.) However, obviously that doesn't make the question any less valid. I'd say the number one issue could be over-familiarity with the content or topic area - a failure to require the same level of sourcing where the statement fits with my pre-existing knowledge as where it would challenge my own opinion; coming in as a third-O this is particularly important to keep checked. Additionally, it means I know members of the community that might similarly prejudice my way of looking at a discussion if, for example, one side of it was being put by another MILHIST co-ord; it might also mean that editors which I've disagreed with in one area re-appear in another and I'd need to make sure that wasn't clouding my judgment either. On all these issues it helps to be aware of the potential pitfalls. Moving onto the positives, please excuse a short story. Not so long ago, a man wrote in to the New Scientist magazine. He complained, inter alia, that some articles were too technical and incomprehensible to the lay reader. One such article, he said, was the article on the weak interaction. I wrote back to the New Scientist explaining that most of that article had been written by me, and that the technicality came not from too much understanding but from too little. That's why many of our articles at a mid-stage of development tend to look like a series of things thrown together. Understanding connections between issues or events and processes means that as an admin I'd be better able to look at a dispute or discussion and understand due weight, where the neutral point of view might lie, and so forth, which an editor without experience in the general area might lack the context to find.
6. How do you interpret our policy on civility? Are there any instances in which you think blocking is appropriate for violations of the policy? Can you envision yourself personally blocking any users for violating this policy?
A: Well dealing briefly with the first question, I think "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs" best sums up what it means to be incivil. It might appear to an observer that dealing with the issues in a robust way would be difficult to distinguish from being incivil, but in practice I haven't found that so. I would not consider violations of civility thus defined worthy of a block, which would normally seek to escalate something like that - normally best to remember that on the Internet nobody knows anything about you and therefore characterise the insult as hollow. That being said, the civility policy highlights additional factors that would commonly (and this has been my experience also) accompany incivility that I would consider frequently deserve a block: most notably, a campaign of harassment or significant disruption to the building of the encyclopedia. I those cases, I would always state the rationale as that accompanying factor rather than mere incivility. Where I could properly understand the situation giving rise to the harassment or disruption, yes, I would be personally prepared to block – but my finger wouldn't be itching on the trigger.
7. How do you rate yourself in terms of experience with tackling vandalism?
A: I have experience in identifying different types of vandalism (abusive language; POV-pushing; repeated uploading of copyrighted material and so forth) and some experience with rollback. However, processes such as AIV, whilst I know about them from a reporting side I'm not fully familiar with and I don't propose to make central to my time on Wikipedia if made an administrator.
A: As someone who has written articles that have then been either changed considerably or been critiqued in a negative way, I think that Ownership is most a passive-aggressive thing. I think one can easily be blinded to the flaws in one's own article and obvious to the fact that in many cases, your contributions were not the first an therefore they should not be the last. Clearly, if when writing an article you chose to balance competing sides in a particular way and the result of another editor's contributions is to change that, then you are likely to want to argue that the balance was correct the first time – but as far as possible it's best to take a step back. It can feel like your hours of work are being spoilt by some newcomer in their half-hour lunch break, but that is a sunk cost fallacy. Sometimes passersby make improtant contributions and it is vital to the 'pedia that they can do that and aren't faced with a brick wall on some of our most important articles (so, for example, I'm confident if I wanted to that I could blockade Henry VIII of England from new contributions).
9. How many times have you gone through the AFC process for the 39 articles you created(rephrase: How many of the 39 articles have been created through the AFC process?) Also which do you term the best and worst articles you created?
A: I don't believe any of my articles went through an AFC process. I had the support of User:Jarry1250 with my first edits. One recent article however, the Disappearance of Charlene Downes did take a fair amount of preparatory work before I was confident of notability – the article was prompted by a blog post on the Daily Telegraph website noting its non existence. The best article I've created is probably on the Nyon Conference which I followed through to FA-standard; everything from nothing if you will. The worst is probably iniuria which isn't read more than a couple of times a day and probably doesn't help those readers since they are likely to know as much already as is contained in the article: little "added value".
As an administrator working with non-free images, you will be called upon to delete files that were uploaded in good faith by users that either do not understand, or in some cases understand but are working to subvert (work in legal grey areas around), the complex monstrosity that is international copyright law. Uploaders can become surprisingly attached to their images, especially ones that they took themselves, and frequently see the deletion of images they uploaded as a personal attack against them. Burnout amongst those that work with non-free images is high, both because the hostility that they receive from those that have their images deleted, and because it is an area where no matter how much effort is put in, it always seems that the problems are getting worse, not better. With that in mind:
10. Why do you want to work with non-free images in an admin capacity, and how much experience do you have with copyright and with non-free images in a non-admin capacity?
A: I've had lots of experience reviewing many free and non-free images at the GAN, ACR and FAC stage. The most common problems are a singular PD-US tag but no given publication details (or no country of origin tag for files on Commons), or PD-old and nothing else, or no supporting dates for authors (I think the idea of a file that's 150 years old being in copyright might surprise people, but it's plausible on a life+70 or life+100 basis). I've contributed to several discussions on Wikipedia:Non-free content review and examined many more where I didn't feel I needed to contribute. You'll be aware Sven that for the reasons you identify often contentious closes need administrator involvement, as well as taking charge of file removal and/or deletion once orphaned. If I might say as a general response under this header, it's clear that in some areas de facto standards are not even close to policy or current guidelines and looking at these areas (so, for example, the use of non-free images on artists' or art history pages where the image itself has its own article; or 'replacability' in the context of armorials) and I'd definitely look at what could or should be done in those cases. That would take some of the fuel from the fire, so to speak.
11. How much responsibility does the admin deleting a non-free image have for educating the uploader about why the image had to be deleted? If user nominating the image for deletion and the admin deleting the image are two different people, who should be more responsible for explaining why the image had to be deleted?
A: Good question. Many non-free files are incorrectly used because of a lack of understanding of what is or isn't appropriate, such as guidelines on press agency files, living people, or the aforementioned artwork issue, So in the long run it's best to ensure that the uploader understands why the file was deleted. That's best practice: it would be the steady crawl to bureaucracy to require a full rationale before deleting or risk having it overturned, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask admins to do it in future. I would expect a nominator to list a criterion under which they feel the image should be removed and/or deleted. Between him/her and the admin, the uploader should be notified at least of that and preferably a little bit more by way of explanation. If the nominator hasn't done so, then the deleting admin should. However, as before to say "should" is not to say "must" – there is nothing procedurally incorrect about the deletion if this doesn't happen and the deletion can't be impugned on that basis.
12. Suppose that you are confronted with the following: (this is drawn from a real case I dealt with, and happens often)
A user is uploading a large number of images, all of which are tagged as own work, and all of which are released under a free license
Some portion of those images are derivative works, and therefore are non-free (for example, the user is uploading photographs of maps that are posted at the location he is photographing)
After an admin provides a thorough explanation of derivative works, the user continues to upload derivative works. It appears that this is happening because the user does not understand the concept, and is not intentionally trying to cause problems
What is the appropriate admin response in this case? What would be the appropriate admin response if the user is given a second thorough explanation of derivative works, but the user again begins to upload derivative works and appears to still not understand the concept?
A: I think the appropriate response would be three-fold: firstly, ensure that all steps have been taken to explain the policy to the user; secondly, to move increasingly quickly to notify the uploader of objections to particular files and delete them since the time is intended to allow the uploader to understand the issue before the file is deleted; thirdly, to stay calm and concentrate on step one for as long as possible and then some, but, after a point, it will become difficult to assume that the uploader is taking the requisite care. Only then – once my opinion of the uploader has changed – would I consider it appropriate to think about blocks. The line between requiring some level of competence and bad faith may in reality be difficult to draw.
A: A ban is instituted by the community or ArbCom (or fiat), rather than by a single admin, as an indication that a contributor is no longer part of the community. An indefinite ban is not necessary infinite, but rather of no definite duration. The presumption must be that an indeff'ed user could, in principle, return to editing productively. Thus whilst the contributions of a banned user would normally be reverted in toto (those exceptions, such as typographical corrections and so forth, being an application of WP:IAR to the principle), a blocked contributor's would normally be looked at more critically, with a view to only reverting those which would have been reverted on ordinary principles if brought to the community's attention earlier. A ban would usually be considered after several blocks and where the user's actions have shown contempt for the community, so the fact that it is almost impossible to return from a ban is partly a result of this practical truth as well.
14. At the end of your reply to Q5, you say: "Understanding connections between issues or events and processes means that as an admin I'd be better able to look at a dispute or discussion and understand due weight, where the neutral point of view might lie, and so forth, which an editor without experience in the general area might lack the context to find." Are these not simply things that more experienced editors can do better than less experienced editors? Why would being an admin make you better able to understand due weight, NPOV and the like? The reason for this question is that you are speaking of using the admin tools in the area -- MILHIST -- where your greatest contributions as an editor have been made. How would you apply WP:INVOLVED to your "marshaling" activities at MILHIST?
A: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. I meant "historical issues, historical events, historical processes" rather than wiki issues/events/processes. In the context of #5, the comparison I was making was between an admin who had experience in military history and one who did not – rather than a user who was an admin and one who wasn't.
INVOLVED involves a narrowly defined area ('disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about' or 'current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)'), such as say at Spanish Civil War in my case, rather than military history as a whole. I do not imagine there would be many disputes where I would be considered involved, but I'll always be careful to ensure I don't act in a way inconsistent with that part of the policy.
15. You've been involved very little at the administrative notice boards (ANI, AN, AN3, AE). Not sure about AIV. Do you expect that would change if you're successful? If so, how?
A: There will be more opportunities for me to get involved – it'll be my prerogative to, for example, report more vandals – but I don't expect a sea change. I'll probably start offering my opinion a bit more at AN and ANI to ensure I have a bit of experience if a big issue does come across my desk.
16. Your editing history shows a relatively low level of activity and not that many edits to articles. Do you expect that to remain the same if you're successful?
A: I think some types of wiki-activity generate a higher edit count than others. Since January I've done most of the work to Henry VIII, two Featured Pictures, tidying World War I, and so forth, so I'd be hesitant to accept the premise that I have a low level of activity. To shed a little light on proportions: in addition to the 40% to article space, about 8% have been drafting edits to my own user space; perhaps 7% of my edits are in relation to a review of some sort but aren't to article space and 8% are to the refdesks (something I used to do more). I would expect it to rise a little, but edit counts aren't everything. Some days. I might add an entire section in a single edit; others it'll be reference formatting done one-by-one. I check Wikipedia most days; it's not inactivity in that sense.
17. Why did you choose to nominate yourself? Did you consult with anyone before coming here?
A: I'm certain if I had chosen to find somebody I could have done; but rather, I felt it was unnecessary with three years' experience of the wiki and with 8,000 edits to move this RfA out of NOTNOW territory. Ultimately therefore I felt it would be opposes that would be my issue, not finding supports. So I'd rather be free of the complication and allow absolutely everyone to examine my record freely.
18. Suppose you are editing in an area you know well (say, an article in military history), and a relatively new editor is making some disruptive edits (a mix of good but mainly bad edits). The regular editors are becoming exasperated at having to revert some of his/her edits and complain to you. What would be the actions would you take in response to the situation?
A: Stay calm would be a first step - and always an aim if not reality. The second step would be to look at the user's contributions to assess whether he or she is merely misguided or is being deliberately disruptive. In the latter case, it must be accepted that many disruptive editors make at least some positive contributions, so it is likely (assuming the disruption is not trivial) that by this stage a block would need to be considered. In the former case, it's about supporting the editor to understand core policies and respect them. Often exasperated editors are simply too curt to explain fully, which is understandable but should be avoided where possible. As I say above, after a time one's understanding of the editor's faith might need to be re-examined if they seem to "not get it" after an extended period of time.
19. How has your work as Military History Co-ordinator affected how you approach user interaction? Further, how do you think it will help you in performing administrative duties?
A: As far as user interaction goes, I wouldn't say so. It's best to avoid any feeling of superiority; pride cometh before a fall. As to helping with administrative duties the difference will be in exposure. As a co-ord I'm more likelt to be aware of discussions and disputes and other housework – some that arises from the project itself, some among the articles in the Wikiproject's scope. It might also mean that I would be more often sought out by those looking to resolve issues, because the co-ordination pages are designed to give editors a place of contact if need be.
This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations... The photograph may not be manipulated in any way ..."
So if it was up to you to decide whether it's appropriate to upload (or delete) it, what and how would you decide? Is this photo OK here, per ((PD-USGov)), or is it under a -ND (no derivatives) license, and hence not OK?
A: Well, if it were under a no derivatives or only-press restriction, then we could use it. However. the consensus is that files like this taken as part of a White House photographer's official duties and thus in the public domain, a status that cannot be affected by a claim of restrictions on the part of the White House (statement on Commons). Personality rights are retained however, and there is good reason to believe that the White House would be sufficiently worried about that (being associated with the promotion of a product and so forth) that the restriction you give is directed at that, so I concur with the current consensus.
21. You have correctly blocked an editor who has repeatedly made personal attacks and edit warred in a particular military history article that you have never substantially edited. They've made an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if people were offended by what I said to them," and requesting that they be able edit other MILHIST articles with the suggestion that they will not edit the article where they made trouble initially. How would you handle this unblock request?
A: I would endorse the rope principle. A generally good faith editor whose judgment has temporarily lapsed will stick closely to the spirit of any unblock conditions – it will generally become rapidly clear if he or she intends to return to the disruptive behavior that got them blocked. Ultimately, their actions are identical to those of the lapse-in-judgment editor and therefore I would tend to unblock. If there is any project that better reflects human fallibility than Wikipedia, I would be surprised. As I say, I would be surprised if any uncertainty did not resolve itself quickly. If the user did need to be reblocked, then that would need to be confirmed by another admin.
22. First of all, sorry for all the questions, this is the most questions I've seen in an RfA for a long time and given how complete your answers are, I realize you are having to spend a lot of time answering them. I've some worries about the fact you have apparently shared an IP address with a current admin for some 4 years, but I'm having a hard time expressing those worries. Basically, I'd like you to tell me how, if at all, you two interact with respect to Wikipedia. Could you tell us how, if at all, you two collaborate here? Have there been any problems (e.g. accidentally using the other person's account) and anything you feel might be perceived as "meatpuppetry"? When you answered #17, you didn't address the "Did you consult with anyone before coming here?" part, so could you do that at least with respect to Jarry1250? Thanks.
A: Jarry1250 is my brother. We've co-ordinated on some articles, including Henry VIII (I took the lead there), but not greatly. Yes, I have used his account accidentally before – being left logged in on our shared computer is usually to blame – but not often; I share an IP address for half the year only (at home rather than Uni) and there's more than one PC here. I think I caught most of them though and noted in an edit summary what had happened. We've never crossed paths in anything contentious and that has been deliberate. I didn't tell Jarry1250 about this nomination until eighteen hours after I started it (he was pinged by mentioning him above, but didn't see that immediately) since he wouldn't be able to contribute on that basis (and it was late at night at the time). But I'm sure he would vouch for me!
23. Do you feel WikiProjects are important? How many WikiProjects are there?
A: They can be useful. The most important thing to remember is that they may be more than the sum of their parts but that doesn't mean that without users they are meaningful. We should be prepared to ditch inactive projects and look for new ground where necessary - there are always new things to do on WIkipedia, that's part of the joy of it. I don't know if "How many Wikiprojects are there?" is inviting a purely numerical response, but in words: lots. Some are about single book or television series; some, like MILHIST, span tens or even hundreds of thousands of articles.
24. Without looking up the formal definition, please provide your definition of "marshal" as used in the context of your response to question one. This seems to be causing confusion at the moment.
A: "To organise or arrange, based on previous experience or knowledge", e.g. car parking attendants marshal cars, or to "ensure something is in the correct format", e.g. to marshal one's (or a group's) thoughts. I meant both of these. To quote my answer to question 4, "by illustration, marhsalling the discussion might include closing a hotly-debated discussion with a view to changes; and closing with a view to moving the discussion to another forum; identifying the discussion as tedentious and taking steps to prevent further abuse."
Edit summary usage for Grandiose can be found here.
Edit stats have been posted on the RfA talk page by Grandiose; a strong indication of initiative in my opinion :)John Cline (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
I'm surprised by the reactions from editors I respect to Grandiose's answer to Q1. Going by past interactions and a clean edit history, I see no reason that he actually meant "marshaling" in the way people are taking it. Do you have any reassurances to offer, Grandiose? The concerns about his brother—who is a respected administrator, featured article writer, and former editor-in-chief of the Signpost—are also misplaced, IMHO. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen Grandiose a couple of times here and there, and I have been pleasant with what I've seen. I'm not sure that he could remember me, but I think we first shared routes in the June-July 2012 GAN drive, where I was a coordinator, and he was one of the top reviewers back then. Sadly, we've not crossed paths very much since then, but the good impression he left on me still stands as of today. Also, the fact that he has been able to stay out of AN and ANI in two-and-a-half years of career is amazing, specially if you follow it. — ΛΧΣ21 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you follow WP:AN and WP:ANI, I honestly see tons of potential of you helping out over there. buffbills7701 23:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Level-headed, clueful content contributor who provided thoughtful answers to the questions and seems well-versed in Wikipedia policies. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 23:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A clean block log is a rare thing on here! Recent edits show a rather level-headed editor that stays away from edit wars (Always a good thing!) and would probably make a good admin! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sensible, clear, intelligent --Redrose64 (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, this is the strongest self nomination I've seen, or imagined seeing. A cursory review is more than sufficient for me to support with confidence. :)John Cline (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 13:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent answer to my question. GoPhightins! 13:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good contributions. Axl¤[Talk] 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely no concerns with Grandiose becoming an admin. Best of luck, Signalizing (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Being Level headed is very critical to being an admin and I find this quality in him. A candidate worth Supporting. A m i t 웃 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am always worried when people who I haven't seen in the non-free media space state an intention to wade into the non-free media space, because [rant about the complexity of copyright law] and [rant about how grueling working in that area is], however I'm satisfied by Grandiose's responses to my questions. Sven ManguardWha? 01:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Our critics say we already have too many admins with feelings of grandiosity (including myself); this candidate at least is up-front about it. More seriously, I'm impressed by his record of contributions and answers to the questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well answered questions, and contributions look good. Seems to have ample common sense and relevant knowledge, and I see nothing to make me think that the candidate having the tools would not be a net positive. Begoontalk 06:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great contributor, plenty of clue, nice nomination and excellent answers to questions (I particularly like the answer to Q17). Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great answers to the questions, very level-headed candidate. TCN7JM 09:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer. Grandiose will do an excellent job. Kurtis(talk) 10:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support! :) Mediran (t • c) 10:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grandiose is an excellent and highly collaborative editor who's also made a useful contribution to the more boring side of Wikipedia as a coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject. Their rationale for seeking the admin tools and responses to the questions are eminently sensible. As such, I'm confident that they'll use the admin tools responsibly and am very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He has shown a willingness and ability to effectively collaborate with others, which is extremely important in an admin. He seems to understand policy well, and is polite in his dealings with others. And we could certainly use more admins willing to help deal with non-free content issues, especially ones who are polite and able to explain policy to newbies. – Quadell(talk) 12:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like his detailed and responsive answers. He looks like a great candidate to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks good to me, and I expect Grandiose will make a thoughtful and approachable admin. Grandiose, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Everyone else, I hope you'll think twice before asking any more - I'm already feeling a little guilty for having contributed to his writing load here. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 16:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's an excellent editor, and I think he'll make a decent admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't know this editor very well, but after looking through their article contributions and a sample of his interactions with other editors, and that I am very pleased with the editor's responses to the many, many questions here, it seems kind of silly to wait until Grandiose answers mine to express my support. Excellent work, and admirable level-headedness and attitude toward adminship makes this a very easy decision. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am impressed by all the answers given by this candidate. Alex ShihTalk 18:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Though I don't partake in your areas of expertise, looking through your edits, you've done a fantastic job and we could always use a level-headed editor who will use administrator rights to help with content creation just as much as we need them for gnomish activities. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He has good content contributions and a sensible head on his shoulders. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent editor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I appreciate your thoughtful answer to my question. It seems to me that too many Admins have an itchy finger on the block button. I'm glad that you take WP:AGF towards newbie editors seriously. NewJerseyLizLet's Talk 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that he's carefully thought out his answers, given complete thoughts, and has provided an in-depth response shows that he doesn't "act on the fly" - he has a clear thought process and is able to think and act reasonably. We need more administrators who think before they click. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Article edit count is my min at 3K; distribution OK but I'd like stronger content. AfD sample small and stale but heavy delete (and failed 3rd nom). Q1 is a bit scary; admins don't marshall discussions. Little AfD experience says stay away from those decisions for a time. Gives impression of weak understanding of admin role and involved. Copyright a plus. Q2 is good. Q3 states minimal conflict experience; I want to see more. Overall, answers show depth and deliberation. Even if candidate makes mistakes down the road, they should be fixable. I'd like more, but there's enough here. Glrx (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed by this comment and the diligent review indicated by it. I've noticed the recurring theme related to the marshal comment and believe I can offer mitigation that may be of value. I am a veteran of the US Army and the MILHIST project indicates Grandiose may be as well. I believe his usage of marshal is a form of professional jargon that is ubiquitous in the military; related to staging troops and equipment for maximum effectiveness. It should never be assumed that such a specialized term has any degree of universal understanding, but instead it should be avoided because of anticipated confusion. I believe Grandiose intended some form of to arrange, place, or set in methodical order though it reached a civilian audience sounding more like "there's a new sheriff in town"; or some such. Imagine had Grandiose simply said "First and foremost, I would like to be able to ensure military history talk-page discussions stay on topic to maximize the likelihood of a successful outcome. I'll leave it for his further elaboration, but I hope I've helped in some small way. :)John Cline (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Ordo ab chao. — ΛΧΣ21 15:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate sounds like an undergraduate rather than a military veteran. FWIW, I took marshal in the military sense. The problem is that the candidate suggests the admin bit allows him to control the content discussion, and that is not its purpose. Marshal in the sense of sheriff is the better analogy: if someone complains about a drunk citizen (3RR editor), then the sheriff (admin) throws the drunk in jail overnight to sober up (blocks him for day to cool off). Admin action is not about controlling or directing content but rather reining in bad behavior. Admins are not arbiters of content. Glrx (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Blocks are NOT to be used for someone to "cool down". The guiding principle for blocks is "preventative, not punitive". Admins are not sheriffs, they're closer to janitors. It's part of why adminship is euphemistically called "the mop".
Admins serve the project (and by extension, the community), not the other way round. - jc37 05:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate could be a US veteran, but as he appears to be studying jurisprudence at Oxford, I would doubt it. Under- or post- graduate isn't stated - and for me is irrelevant. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely to break the wiki, should be a clear WP:NETPOS. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a net positive, and I think the candidate understands WP:INVOLVED. Miniapolis 02:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I think the choice of marshalling was not the best, I do believe that this editor can work with in the area they are familiar with out running into problems with INVOLVED. Working with in an area and seeing a need for administrative help does not necessarily mean an abuse of power. Mkdwtalk 05:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A great editor who I would trust with the tools, and he has answered the questions satisfactorily for me. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no reason to oppose, think this user will do a good job, and salute anyone that has the guts to file an RFA in today's totally dysfunctional world. PumpkinSkytalk 12:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With regards to the concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections, I don't perceive an actual problem, and in any case I think the candidate is clearly sensible and careful enough to not abuse his tools. AGK[•] 12:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I have some worries about the use of tools in MILHIST project, John Cline's explanation serves as a good relief. The candidate has good content contributions (quality over quantity), no red flags, positive talk page interactions and good answers to questions. Mohamed CJ(talk) 14:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, and the INVOLVED opposes do not reflect the reality of being a "content admin". --Rschen7754 18:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Rschen7754. When this RfA started I believe I held a view very close to what I see reflected by your comment. In fact however, you, nor I, nor another, for that matter, has any legitimate jurisdiction over "reality"; only our perception of it. Therefor while I did not hold administering within the main editing sphere as problematic, I would be inflexibly stubborn if I did not recognize that the editors below, having iterated a concern in good faith, have in fact illuminated an editing paradigm just as real as anything I may have held true afore. Sometimes we are better to modify our own behavior if for no other reason than to remove any cause for a brother's stumbling. Therefor what I did believe, is not stringent enough to override what I've been shown, and I am modifying my own steps to give deference to an expanded reality, that includes my brother's, very real concern. I hope you will as well. Cheers. :)John Cline (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my main issue is that it is allowed by policy, and sometimes it takes an expert to know if someone is introducing deliberate factual errors or not. There are various instances where policy prohibits using the tools in areas that you edit, and rightfully so. But I'd rather not get into that debate on someone's RFA. :) --Rschen7754 00:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Active Wikipedian, understands policies/guidelines/expectations, committed to the WP community both online and offline. Good content and WikiProject track record. Would be a good admin. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid contributor; will be an asset to the project as an admin. SpencerT♦C 05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I tend to default to support, but the answer to Q1, in particular, is a bit of a concern (i'm hoping it's just differences in language use ~ marshalling is scary); the idea of going into an area he has edited previously with the new mop would perhaps not be the best. I also think that the number of edits in article space is at the low end of the range i'd look for. Cheers, LindsayHello 07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The nominee gave solid answers to the questions and seems level-headed. Should be a net positive for the project. - tucoxn\talk 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have worked with Grandiose before and I am confident that he can be trusted as an admin. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have also had first hand dealings with Grandiose and believe he would be a suitable admin. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Have never encountered this editor to my knowledge but appears to be a solid contributor with no blocks and a fair grasp of policy. I agree with those noting a lower edit count than is usual for a new admin, and not a lot of admin-area work to date. Also suggest that care be taken using the tools in military article areas that have been this editor's area of expertise. I extend my thanks for this offer of service. Jusdafax 19:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not an editor I've encountered before, but I like everything I see. I wouldn't say editing or adminning within one's own area of interest & expertise is a bad thing by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like his answers, seems like a level headed person Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Grandiose has answered the questions well and can be trusted as an admin. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. We've interacted on content before, and he's demonstrated an open mind and sound judgment in every area I've seen him work on. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see any reason that he would not make a competent admin. Also, I will add that being able to answer RfA questions with the skill of a politician is not a trait I look for in a candidate; nitpicks of "well, I didn't really like the answer to question X" are of less importance to me in my analysis of a candidate. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 20:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me! -- Ϫ 11:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The typical editor that I would like to see handle a mop. Writing in the MilHIST area is not easy thing, and so isnt' the legal area, where Grandiose has profitably endeavored: it seems like whereever they put their hands, they do it for a great profit of Wikipedia. Grandiose has had over the years a great experience with editing, and they seem to have a good character and a collaborating spirit. I don't think there is any good reason why I should believe they will misuse the tools. For those who are concerned with the quantity of edits: I think the number of edits is enough and it is in complicated areas, where lots of time is spent thinking before clicking that "Save" button. There are two things that are really important (among other that the candidate has done): their involvement with 75 GA reviews, and their work as a coordinator of the very important Military History wikiproject. An admin should not be involved, but should know what is being done. Grandiose knows what is going on: that doesn't make them involved, it makes them informed. I wish Grandiose all the best in this voting process! --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, albeit with a lot of caution. I looked in here a few days ago, expecting to support, but a lot of the comments, particularly in the neutral section, really gave me pause. I've re-read the answers to questions here (of which there really are too many), thinking carefully about whether or not I believe that the candidate "gets it", and I've concluded that they do. I came very close to writing a not-yet oppose similar to Dennis Brown's, but I ultimately decided that this is an intelligent content editor who has enough sense to learn from the feedback here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some merits below, but i think the editor will be a plus overall. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with two strong provisos. First, I'd counsel avoiding using the admin tools on any area in which you edit actively. I have the bit and I also edit semi-actively in areas to do with Paganism, Wicca etc. But I don't use the tools in those areas precisely because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Second, you don't need the tools to do the marshalling of which you speak. Sure, you may feel they act as a kind of guarantee of your bona fides which may add weight to your opinions, but all the admin status gives you is the ability to block editors and protect pages. These two tools are blunt instruments and have no place in the more delicate matter of what you call marshalling, and what I call consensus-raising. These are two pretty strong provisos, but I have faith that with your record you will take these structures on board. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The evidence that user will misuse the tools or position is too weak to oppose.--MONGO 20:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to oppose. Lots of good comments by others above and after reviewing the editors contributions over the past few days they seem like they will be fine. Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like a good candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have pretty solid faith in the competence and good willing of this contributor. I am confident he is taking full notice of the responses to the various questions, and will not do anything to disappoint us if he passes. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting detailed answers, candidate appears very trustworthy. No reasons to oppose. Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid contributor with a good history. I suppose I could be wrong but I am not worried by his use of the word "marshal," which I think he uses in an organizational (or putting in order) sense, although I am not sure why he would need administrative tools for such work. The shared computer does not worry me because his brother is already an administrator and I think that the discussion here will be a firm reminder to exercise care in logging in and out. His content contributions are non-trivial and certainly have been enough to give some experience in issues which can arise and how to deal with them. It seems to me his history and answers show he will be careful and considerate in working in administrative areas where he has had little previous experience. Donner60 (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems qualified and unlikely to abuse the tools. --Laser brain(talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just about ... I'm really not happy about the "marshalling" comment and a couple of the other answers, but it would really be useful to have another admin who has clearly got their head screwed on about non-free issues, and contributes there as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<redacted> comment by Chutznik (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing this trolling "vote". I have warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the comment is better redacted opposed to merely indented. It may be reviewed in the editing history or as an internal comment and I submit my judgement to the community to revert my edit if I am out of line; I believe I am not. :)John Cline (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The answer to question one is a red flag:"First and foremost, I would like to be able to marshal military history talk-page discussions, along with other discussions on topics of interest, where such discussions have a "personal or ideological" element that requires administrative action. Second, I would like to be able to help tidy MILHIST project pages, and other routine deletions affecting articles in my areas of interest." As an admin you would be too involved to take "administrative action" in this area and you absolutely did not answer the question with an area where administration is required, needed or usual. And that was just a look at the first answer alone.--Mark 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also VERY dissatisfied with the answer to question 8. I don't think you actually answered the question at all.--Mark 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger but I think that he did answer #8. My perspective, though. — ΛΧΣ21 22:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly uncommon for administrators to mainly use the tools in the broad topics which they edit (as this is what they have watchlisted, and where editors will most frequently approach them for assistance). As long as they don't use the tools in regards to articles or editors with which they have had previous direct involvement and take a common-sense approach, this isn't problematic or 'involvement'. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick and ΛΧΣ. I still don't see the answer of #8 but I have never seen you (ΛΧΣ21) badger anyone. I also still see a red flag to #1.--Mark 23:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read question one as a desire to extend the ways he could help at MilHist. As a co-ordinator, the sysop tools would be of great benefit for him to excercise his position. It's like me. I would find very useful ways to use the tools at FLC, where I am a delegate, and which is one of the areas I visit the most, but that doesn't mean that I will be biased or involved in every action I take. That's where discretion to take or not to take action plays a key role (like when I nominate a list, for example). I saw the answer to #8 as a half-methaphor-half-example one. He first explains his perspective of ownership ("a passive-aggressive thing") and then explores the ways ownership evolves ("one can easily be blinded to the flaws in one's own article"). He then continues by talking about how it appears and how to avoid it ("it's best to take a step back"). So in short, he expressed his feelings and opinions about ownership, which was the question. Again, my perspective though. — ΛΧΣ21 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ans 1 rings the bell for me. Further answers to 5, 14, 18, 21 ring further bells. An ed administrating an area they are editing can have a chilling effect on the eds opposed to them and skew all the articles in some particular way, thereby subverting neutrality in the area. All this is against what I think admins could/should be doing. The candidate may not intend to do this, but for me, it is simply unacceptable that an ed be adminning mainly in their main editing sphere. Actually, except for tackling VERY obvious vandalisms in cases of dire emergency where it is somehow not possible to ask some other admin to look into it, I would prefer that an admin should take no admin actions in their main editing sphere. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Also not thrilled with the words of answer #1. And several others, for that matter. I was tempted to add my questions to see if such answers would help alleviate my concerns. (And looking over contribs did not much to help either.) But the answer to #22 is a complete non-starter for me. If he "accidentally" can edit as his brother, so too can his brother "accidentally" edit as him as an admin (as could anyone else sitting at his computer). And this is compounded by what we've seen: his seeming nonchalance of concern about this. I feel I am just forced to oppose. - jc37 04:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that his brother is an admin too. — ΛΧΣ21 05:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pro tem. The above worries me a bit - if an admin is editing from a shared computer, they should make sure to log off when leaving the machine. Why not just get another computer - they're not all that expensive - and be certain? I'm not sure what one does to "marshal military history talk-page discussions, along with other discussions on topics of interest, where such discussions have a "personal or ideological" element that requires administrative action". I've 'chaired' a few discussions without having needed admin powers to do so. I rarely oppose, but sometimes comment as a Neutral, or stay out. I don't see any real need for the mop here, and share the concerns about mop wielding in an area of content involvement. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not get another computer", you say. Most people in the world today don't have the disposable income to simply go out and buy a redundant computer. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The machine I'm editing from cost £100 including a 17" LCD monitor and a keyboard. Plenty of machines around for less. Doesn't affect my worries about signing in and out. Peridon (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And many people don't even have 100 pounds in disposable income. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a request at WP:VPT which is now tracking as a new bug. Perhaps we will get a technical option to mitigate the concerns raised here. :)John Cline (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - slight unease at some of the answers has left me with an ill feeling, not sure this candidate is suitable at the moment. GiantSnowman 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unease at the "marshalling" language is minor but real. Our editors are volunteers and do not need to be treated like pawns in a military hierarchy. Peridon's concern about occasionally sharing a log-on are the clincher; we need admin accounts to be really secure. --John (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per John, and in particular the "marshalling" language. EricCorbett 19:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Partly per GiantSnowman, partly per his "specialization", and partly per Hobit's neutral (although obviously stronger). I don't see any real need for the tools except to facilitate his content contributions. I also find his answers disjointed and somewhat off-putting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the "marshaling" response. The purpose of an administrator is most certainly not to decide the outcome of content disputes. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've thought about this a great deal, and I'm just not comfortable with him having the bit right now. Maybe some day, but the answers, the language, the INVOLVED concerns and more have convinced me that that has the potential to be a real problem, and I just don't think he is fully prepared to serve yet. I will gladly be open minded in a year, but my gut has been saying "no" since I first read the answers, and I have to follow it here. Too high a risk at this time, from my perspective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - People are misunderstanding what "marshal" means. While it has military origins, it does not always mean to command—as a verb, it commonly means to arrange in order.defn And what is wrong with attempting to keep discussions orderly, except that it is not an admin task (i.e. anybody can do it)? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word "marshal" was a poor choice on his part, but the singular use of that word wasn't the deciding factor that pushed me from neutral to oppose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we need to get an answer as far as what "marshalling the talk pages" means, but I understand it as reordering them, in order to keep track of topics that have already been discussed, so that the new user is not confused, but is easily guided, to where the discussion has already taken place. That is something that very few people do in wikipedia. I actually wish more admins were involved in the process. The approach, taken by Grandiose, as I understand it, is to carefully lead people through the topics already discussed. Sometimes the same topic is brought back: for instance a new IP comes in and reproposes the same concerns someone had many years earlier, and, has no clue that a similar discussion took place, say, 8 years earlier in page 12 of the 25 archived talk pages. It would be good to have admins involved in that, rather than an annoyed watchdog, who will annoyingly say "that's been discussed before, you're rehashing the same discussion over and over, a consensus was reached, go read the talk pages, and don't waste people's time". That will be a complete turnoff for the new user. I would like to see more admins be involved in the leading process. Rather than have admins be mostly involved in the ANI process, where a relatively new editor sees themselves "tried", as reported by another editor, I would like to see admins be involved in preventing that an unnecessary ANI occurs. Several times new editors can be baited by old ones, and trapped into exploding, and not giving their best in wikipedia. When a gentle admin is able to lead the newby in the right place in the first place, all of that can be avoided. Manners and information of an admin and their experience with the history of the article can be irreplaceable. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an admin function, no tools are required so any user can and should do that. And again, that is not why I am opposing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Military History Talk pages should not be marshalled by insiders, but by general purpose marshalls. What are to be enforced, if necessary, are the general rules of a larger community, by people having the knowledge and the practice of how things are done in this larger community. Pldx1 (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally don't put anything here (if I'm not sure I'll just stay out) but not real happy with his answer to my question (would have liked to see something about WP:INVOLVED and a bit more notion of the problems of using admin tools in an area you work in) and the other answers, while complete, don't get me into the support column. I just generally feel he's not ready yet, but nothing so strong I'm willing to oppose. So since I feel I should say something as I asked a question, I'm here. I do suggest Grandiose read WP:INVOLVED carefully in any case as his answer to #1 makes me a bit worried (which is why I asked the question). Hobit (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with the answers to Q1 and Q14. It seems the editor intends to use the tools in their area of editing, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
moved to opposeNeutral for now but very concerned about the answered to several of the questions, as well as lack of experience in anything remotely admin related. I'm not convinced they understand WP:INVOLVED, for starters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I really don't like the answer to #1, which to me implies involved or semi-involved action in military history content disputes. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm sure the nominee has had a few squirmieses at assorted Military History articles. To now come wearing the Robes of Adminship, to articles he previously worked at, may be disconcerting to his fellow editors. A waiting period and involvement elsewhere may be in order. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with regret. I was going to oppose with regret but I saw Ed's comment in the last minute in the discussion section and decided to go neutral instead. As my extremely long RFA voting history shows, I prefer content contributors and subject experts as administrators as they are more aware dealing with policy matters and content disputes and so forth than a vandal fighter or ANI troll. However something felt uneasy that I decided to wait and see how this RFA goes instead of supporting right away. Usually people from the Military WikiProject who passes RFA goes on to become some of the most esteemed members in the project, later elected to ArbCom, Audit Subcommittee, etc but I just don't feel the comfort level here with Grandiose. Maybe its the "shared computer" thing or the answer to question 1, as there has been cases of brothers, married couples and the likes whose living arrangements forces them to use the same IP addresses however with different computers, and the same one and marshaling a Wikiproject?. But question 15 was the one that tipped me in the oppose neutral section as it was one of these important dealbreaker questions and I wouldn't want to support someone who will "report more vandals" (instead of looking at AIV and deal with them) with the conflicting question 7 as none of his instances he mentioned, POV pushers, abusive language, etc... are considered vandalism, among others shows someone who is rather confused on the role of being an administrator, which is a bad trait IMO. Secretaccount 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Some of the issues brought up in opposition aren't things I'm too bothered about. Account security stuff is a minor mistake, and can be easily resolved. Most modern operating systems allow you to have more than one user account on the computer. Use that feature. I'm sure Grandiose is aware that account security breaches with admin accounts will rightly cause more concern than non-admin accounts. If he isn't, then I'll say it now: whether or not you get the mop, you need to take active steps to protect the security of your account. The other concern raised is use of admin tools in areas you edit. Again, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it requires judgment. I use my admin tools in areas I edit, because otherwise it might be the case that the admin tasks in that area never get done; the trick is making sure you don't use the mop to your own advantage when you are dealing with topics you edit. I'm willing to extend Grandiose trust that he will apply common sense and good judgment in in knowing when to use the mop and when he is too involved. My concerns are as follows: firstly, the candidate has stated that they have no familiarity with admin processes. We elect admins to do administrative tasks. Some basic familiarity with said processes is important, even if the admin is intending to hang out only in their own quarters and deal only with the administrative work related to their particular subcommunity (MILHIST, in Grandiose's case). Sometimes people in said community will report things to RFPP or will paritcipate in AfDs. I'm not expecting policy wonkery from admins who aren't interested in participating in those tasks, but a bit more familiarity is something that would make this candidate significantly more supportable than he currently is. The second cause for unease I have is communication. Obviously, the candidate is able to write Wikipedia articles, as his participation in the GA and FA process show. But the answer to questions one and four give me reason to be slightly apprehensive. Dealing with people on-wiki requires simple, plain-spoken language. If you were to use the sort of language ("personal or ideological") in the answer to question one while, say, making a contentious block or closing an AfD or RfC, then you were to respond to people not understanding you with the sort of response you gave in answer four, you would rapidly be dragged to the dramaboards or to WP:DRV. I have read your answer to Q4 three times now and I still am struggling to work out what you are saying, even if I ignore the troublesome metaphor of "marshaling". These two snags, while expressed at length, are not enough for me to oppose. I hope the candidate takes these concerns seriously. If they find themselves enmopped, I hope they'll take the time to familiarise themselves with admin processes: I'm happy to give advice and I'm sure plenty of other admins would be willing to help if asked. And I hope a dose of Orwell's Politics and the English Language (or something similar) will sort out the second slight irritation. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth considering if the language used in WP:CONSENSUS could be made more user-friendly. (I must admit I fell back on it, given the pressure RfA candidates are under not to gloss policy in a way that might make commenters unfavourable to their promotion.) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:37, 20 August 2013 (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.