GregRobson
final (11/2/0) ending 22:55 July 20 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I have been editing here for quite some time (as you can tell from my userpage and associated info). I currently have 1788 edits across all namespaces ( full details via Kate's tools). I have worked on some grunt work in the past and created a few articles to fill the occasional gaps in Wikipedia's knowledge ;) I would like admin status as I am constantly getting more involved, and wanting to tidy up the category namespace amongst many other tasks. I would rather not burden the deletion pages with constant requests for trivial matters. I would also like to be able to revert the vandalism I see. Thanks. Greg Robson 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: N/A — Self nomination
Support
- Yes. I will cast the first support vote for you. With over two years of contributions, and a demonstrated quality of accountability, the admin hat will fit you quite well. Denelson83 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lots of hard work editing, looks good to me Howee 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support I see no convincing reason that the user cannot be trusted with the key to the janitor's closet. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Andre ( talk) 01:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Will be a good sysop-- Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 12:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. JuntungWu 04:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Change to Support. Handy user. Sorry for the first oppose. Redwolf24 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I find his answers to the questions unconvincing. A self-nom should have clearer reasons for wanting to be adminified. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)I find his new answers a lot better, so I support. R adiant _>|< 13:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)Support. Has a good enough balance of edits in the talk and Wikipedia spaces that if he were going to be evil to people it would have shown up by now, especially considering the time lapse. Good interaction with other editors via the various talk and category discussions I looked at, too. - Splash 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- JamesTeterenko 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support Bluemoose 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - very shaky grip of policy. Answer below says he thinks that an admin can delete/rename categories on sight when there's a well established procedure. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Come back in a month (Definately NOT meant in a hostile way). It took you two years to make less than 2000 edits, you haven't been very active, so step it up a bit and come back and you'll get my vote :) Redwolf24 18:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)(Changed vote)
Neutral
Comments
- In response to Boothy443 (1st opposition vote) — Could you give me a reason for the opposition please? If there is any flaw in my work I would like to know (even if it's lack of edits... you have no entry on Standars for Adminship page) Greg Robson 09:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Users need neither give a reason for opposing (or supporting), nor have an entry on the page you mention. I don't, and I don't plan to make one. Boothy443, however, opposes almost all RfAs. I imagine the bureaucrats are well aware of this fact. - Splash 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was just curious :) Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- In responsone to Redwolf24 (2nd opposition vote) — of my 1795 edits here to date, 1739 were made since November 2004. This is when I really started getting hooked. This past year has involved me doing the final year of my degree in Computer Science... the count would have been higher without the workload of a degree! My recent lack of updates were due to exams and getting involved heavily at Wikisource wikisource:Special:Contributions/GregRobson. No offence is taken by his comments. Greg Robson 19:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- In response to Radiant! (3rd opposition vote) — I have added to my answers... I didn't realise how much others had written when scrolling through the page. Greg Robson 09:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Question: what do you mean exactly by "The ability to delete the many incorrectly named or capitalised category pages would be a great bonus and timesaver for myself"? -
Splash 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are many straightforward cases of poor capitalisation or items that don't fit a naming scheme (i.e. Fooish Mountains instead of Mountains in Foo), it's time consuming to have them all listed on CfD, only for an admin to "speedy delete" them. It would benefit everyone to have someone handling the clear-cut cases. Of course anything that I wasn't 100% sure on, or that people might object on would get listed on CfD. Also as I get cracking with
WikiProject Categories we'll probably be suggesting lots of changes, most of which might be minor.
Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of. There is a process for renaming categories, and it is not done unilaterally by an admin who spots something. There's even a speedy rename process, but there certainly isn't a process that says "an admin can change anything they think is minor enough to not take to CfR/CfD. I'm afraid I'm going to oppose based on a shaky grip of an important policy. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could clarify then: on
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy renaming procedure it states that Users that are not administrators cannot rename categories by themselves, so they should list them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming. I take this to indicate that administrators can perform speedy renames (as they will only be dumping work on another admin by listing them which is an ineffective use of resources). If I have misunderstood this then perhaps the language needs to be improved to make it clearer?
Greg Robson 15:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are right to say the phrasing is unclear. But the examples you give (such as the Fooish Mountains and renaming for consistency) do not meet the speedy criteria. The incorrectly capitalized cats you mention I'd have less of a problem with (although they seem routinely to brought to CfD anyway), but the inaccurately named ones simply must go to CfD. -
Splash 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I stand corrected in that case. I would like to say I know every rule back to front, but then Wikipedia is constantly changing and I have been focusing on other tasks lately.
Greg Robson 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (though how dare you have a life outside Wiki?), but I'd still prefer a firmer grip on policy before you turn into an admin. Imagine the noise if you had decided to summarily delete/rename categories out of process! -
Splash 18:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- By other tasks I meant Wikisource! Greg Robson 22:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (though how dare you have a life outside Wiki?), but I'd still prefer a firmer grip on policy before you turn into an admin. Imagine the noise if you had decided to summarily delete/rename categories out of process! -
Splash 18:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I stand corrected in that case. I would like to say I know every rule back to front, but then Wikipedia is constantly changing and I have been focusing on other tasks lately.
Greg Robson 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are right to say the phrasing is unclear. But the examples you give (such as the Fooish Mountains and renaming for consistency) do not meet the speedy criteria. The incorrectly capitalized cats you mention I'd have less of a problem with (although they seem routinely to brought to CfD anyway), but the inaccurately named ones simply must go to CfD. -
Splash 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could clarify then: on
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy renaming procedure it states that Users that are not administrators cannot rename categories by themselves, so they should list them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming. I take this to indicate that administrators can perform speedy renames (as they will only be dumping work on another admin by listing them which is an ineffective use of resources). If I have misunderstood this then perhaps the language needs to be improved to make it clearer?
Greg Robson 15:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of. There is a process for renaming categories, and it is not done unilaterally by an admin who spots something. There's even a speedy rename process, but there certainly isn't a process that says "an admin can change anything they think is minor enough to not take to CfR/CfD. I'm afraid I'm going to oppose based on a shaky grip of an important policy. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are many straightforward cases of poor capitalisation or items that don't fit a naming scheme (i.e. Fooish Mountains instead of Mountains in Foo), it's time consuming to have them all listed on CfD, only for an admin to "speedy delete" them. It would benefit everyone to have someone handling the clear-cut cases. Of course anything that I wasn't 100% sure on, or that people might object on would get listed on CfD. Also as I get cracking with
WikiProject Categories we'll probably be suggesting lots of changes, most of which might be minor.
Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 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. Probably the same that I do now, I do grunt work for the majority of my time. I expect though that I will continue to tidy up large areas of the category namespace like Category:Poker and Category:Education in the United Kingdom. The ability to delete the many incorrectly named or capitalised category pages would be a great bonus and timesaver for myself.
- WikiProject Categories — I founded this, and recently a few more people have signed up to it, I'm now looking to start and develop some consensus on how to categorise everything on Wikipedia.
- Of course the obvious things like reverting vandalism are important, and I am always keen to undo it. Although so far, other Wikipedians seem to beat me to it!
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Southam — it's my home town and I between myself and a couple of others it has turned into a very respectable article. Boo.com — because all I did was start it off and others have shown why Wikipedia works! Category:Education in the United Kingdom — I got lots of feedback from other users, and although it is still far from perfect in terms of language used, it is a lot better than before.
- I also did a lot of work on WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies for the UK General Election 2005. The work involved creating templates that were worked on a lot with User:80N (see my User talk:GregRobson for our discussion.
- I am overall pleased with all my contributions, especially my attention to detail (e.g. using — instead of -) and focus on making entries look more consistent.
- 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. Yes, there was an issues of "Public schools" on the capitalisation. I kept my cool however, and double checked my use of Proper nouns, and between us we cleared the matter up with a little bit of discussion. It still exists here along with other past discussions User talk:GregRobson/archive1
- I'll be honest and say that I haven't had many problems, I always tend to "take 5" and re-read comments before responding if they are contraversial. With users not always speaking fluent English, or mistyping sentences, it is very easy to misread statements and take them the wrong way.
- I'm completely behind the Wiki-philosophy. So long as edits are not graffiti, or copyright vios etc I'm more than happy to see my work deleted/altered/enhanced. There's no such thing as my edit... only Wikipedia edits.
GregRobson
final (11/2/0) ending 22:55 July 20 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I have been editing here for quite some time (as you can tell from my userpage and associated info). I currently have 1788 edits across all namespaces ( full details via Kate's tools). I have worked on some grunt work in the past and created a few articles to fill the occasional gaps in Wikipedia's knowledge ;) I would like admin status as I am constantly getting more involved, and wanting to tidy up the category namespace amongst many other tasks. I would rather not burden the deletion pages with constant requests for trivial matters. I would also like to be able to revert the vandalism I see. Thanks. Greg Robson 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: N/A — Self nomination
Support
- Yes. I will cast the first support vote for you. With over two years of contributions, and a demonstrated quality of accountability, the admin hat will fit you quite well. Denelson83 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lots of hard work editing, looks good to me Howee 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support I see no convincing reason that the user cannot be trusted with the key to the janitor's closet. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Andre ( talk) 01:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 06:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Support Will be a good sysop-- Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 12:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. JuntungWu 04:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Change to Support. Handy user. Sorry for the first oppose. Redwolf24 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I find his answers to the questions unconvincing. A self-nom should have clearer reasons for wanting to be adminified. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)I find his new answers a lot better, so I support. R adiant _>|< 13:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)Support. Has a good enough balance of edits in the talk and Wikipedia spaces that if he were going to be evil to people it would have shown up by now, especially considering the time lapse. Good interaction with other editors via the various talk and category discussions I looked at, too. - Splash 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- JamesTeterenko 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support Bluemoose 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - very shaky grip of policy. Answer below says he thinks that an admin can delete/rename categories on sight when there's a well established procedure. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Come back in a month (Definately NOT meant in a hostile way). It took you two years to make less than 2000 edits, you haven't been very active, so step it up a bit and come back and you'll get my vote :) Redwolf24 18:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)(Changed vote)
Neutral
Comments
- In response to Boothy443 (1st opposition vote) — Could you give me a reason for the opposition please? If there is any flaw in my work I would like to know (even if it's lack of edits... you have no entry on Standars for Adminship page) Greg Robson 09:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Users need neither give a reason for opposing (or supporting), nor have an entry on the page you mention. I don't, and I don't plan to make one. Boothy443, however, opposes almost all RfAs. I imagine the bureaucrats are well aware of this fact. - Splash 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was just curious :) Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- In responsone to Redwolf24 (2nd opposition vote) — of my 1795 edits here to date, 1739 were made since November 2004. This is when I really started getting hooked. This past year has involved me doing the final year of my degree in Computer Science... the count would have been higher without the workload of a degree! My recent lack of updates were due to exams and getting involved heavily at Wikisource wikisource:Special:Contributions/GregRobson. No offence is taken by his comments. Greg Robson 19:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- In response to Radiant! (3rd opposition vote) — I have added to my answers... I didn't realise how much others had written when scrolling through the page. Greg Robson 09:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Question: what do you mean exactly by "The ability to delete the many incorrectly named or capitalised category pages would be a great bonus and timesaver for myself"? -
Splash 23:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are many straightforward cases of poor capitalisation or items that don't fit a naming scheme (i.e. Fooish Mountains instead of Mountains in Foo), it's time consuming to have them all listed on CfD, only for an admin to "speedy delete" them. It would benefit everyone to have someone handling the clear-cut cases. Of course anything that I wasn't 100% sure on, or that people might object on would get listed on CfD. Also as I get cracking with
WikiProject Categories we'll probably be suggesting lots of changes, most of which might be minor.
Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of. There is a process for renaming categories, and it is not done unilaterally by an admin who spots something. There's even a speedy rename process, but there certainly isn't a process that says "an admin can change anything they think is minor enough to not take to CfR/CfD. I'm afraid I'm going to oppose based on a shaky grip of an important policy. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could clarify then: on
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy renaming procedure it states that Users that are not administrators cannot rename categories by themselves, so they should list them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming. I take this to indicate that administrators can perform speedy renames (as they will only be dumping work on another admin by listing them which is an ineffective use of resources). If I have misunderstood this then perhaps the language needs to be improved to make it clearer?
Greg Robson 15:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are right to say the phrasing is unclear. But the examples you give (such as the Fooish Mountains and renaming for consistency) do not meet the speedy criteria. The incorrectly capitalized cats you mention I'd have less of a problem with (although they seem routinely to brought to CfD anyway), but the inaccurately named ones simply must go to CfD. -
Splash 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I stand corrected in that case. I would like to say I know every rule back to front, but then Wikipedia is constantly changing and I have been focusing on other tasks lately.
Greg Robson 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (though how dare you have a life outside Wiki?), but I'd still prefer a firmer grip on policy before you turn into an admin. Imagine the noise if you had decided to summarily delete/rename categories out of process! -
Splash 18:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- By other tasks I meant Wikisource! Greg Robson 22:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fair enough (though how dare you have a life outside Wiki?), but I'd still prefer a firmer grip on policy before you turn into an admin. Imagine the noise if you had decided to summarily delete/rename categories out of process! -
Splash 18:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I stand corrected in that case. I would like to say I know every rule back to front, but then Wikipedia is constantly changing and I have been focusing on other tasks lately.
Greg Robson 18:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- You are right to say the phrasing is unclear. But the examples you give (such as the Fooish Mountains and renaming for consistency) do not meet the speedy criteria. The incorrectly capitalized cats you mention I'd have less of a problem with (although they seem routinely to brought to CfD anyway), but the inaccurately named ones simply must go to CfD. -
Splash 16:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could clarify then: on
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies#Speedy renaming procedure it states that Users that are not administrators cannot rename categories by themselves, so they should list them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Speedy renaming. I take this to indicate that administrators can perform speedy renames (as they will only be dumping work on another admin by listing them which is an ineffective use of resources). If I have misunderstood this then perhaps the language needs to be improved to make it clearer?
Greg Robson 15:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was afraid of. There is a process for renaming categories, and it is not done unilaterally by an admin who spots something. There's even a speedy rename process, but there certainly isn't a process that says "an admin can change anything they think is minor enough to not take to CfR/CfD. I'm afraid I'm going to oppose based on a shaky grip of an important policy. -
Splash 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are many straightforward cases of poor capitalisation or items that don't fit a naming scheme (i.e. Fooish Mountains instead of Mountains in Foo), it's time consuming to have them all listed on CfD, only for an admin to "speedy delete" them. It would benefit everyone to have someone handling the clear-cut cases. Of course anything that I wasn't 100% sure on, or that people might object on would get listed on CfD. Also as I get cracking with
WikiProject Categories we'll probably be suggesting lots of changes, most of which might be minor.
Greg Robson 07:50, 17 July 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. Probably the same that I do now, I do grunt work for the majority of my time. I expect though that I will continue to tidy up large areas of the category namespace like Category:Poker and Category:Education in the United Kingdom. The ability to delete the many incorrectly named or capitalised category pages would be a great bonus and timesaver for myself.
- WikiProject Categories — I founded this, and recently a few more people have signed up to it, I'm now looking to start and develop some consensus on how to categorise everything on Wikipedia.
- Of course the obvious things like reverting vandalism are important, and I am always keen to undo it. Although so far, other Wikipedians seem to beat me to it!
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Southam — it's my home town and I between myself and a couple of others it has turned into a very respectable article. Boo.com — because all I did was start it off and others have shown why Wikipedia works! Category:Education in the United Kingdom — I got lots of feedback from other users, and although it is still far from perfect in terms of language used, it is a lot better than before.
- I also did a lot of work on WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies for the UK General Election 2005. The work involved creating templates that were worked on a lot with User:80N (see my User talk:GregRobson for our discussion.
- I am overall pleased with all my contributions, especially my attention to detail (e.g. using — instead of -) and focus on making entries look more consistent.
- 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. Yes, there was an issues of "Public schools" on the capitalisation. I kept my cool however, and double checked my use of Proper nouns, and between us we cleared the matter up with a little bit of discussion. It still exists here along with other past discussions User talk:GregRobson/archive1
- I'll be honest and say that I haven't had many problems, I always tend to "take 5" and re-read comments before responding if they are contraversial. With users not always speaking fluent English, or mistyping sentences, it is very easy to misread statements and take them the wrong way.
- I'm completely behind the Wiki-philosophy. So long as edits are not graffiti, or copyright vios etc I'm more than happy to see my work deleted/altered/enhanced. There's no such thing as my edit... only Wikipedia edits.