Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CRGreathouse

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

CRGreathouse

Nomination

FINAL (77/19/9); closed 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC) by EVula

CRGreathouse (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate CRGreathouse for adminship. CRGreathouse is a mathematician who has worked tirelessly, since 2006, at maintaining our articles on mathematical topics and some other topics as well, keeping them accurate, accessible, and free of unsupported claims and crank theories.
I have encountered him a few times in editing articles, and the interactions have always been positive -- CRGreathouse knows what he's talking about and knows how to improve Wikipedia. Once, when I disagreed with him regarding how to handle another user's edits, he gave me a great explanation of the approach he was taking and how it promoted civility and good content, and I ended up agreeing with his approach.
CRGreathouse is not your usual "admin-track" candidate. You may not be used to seeing candidates who take this much time between edits, but CRGreathouse often does the kind of editing that involves serious research, such as verifying and adding references on obscure topics. As Wikipedia grows and gets more accurate, it takes more research than ever before to find and fix the problems that remain. CRGreathouse has been doing his part to mop up Wikipedia's content for years, and Wikipedia will benefit if we give him a better mop to do it with. rspεεr (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Spam and eggs. What's purple and commutes?

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Reviewing speedy deletions, checking copyright issues—I have some IP knowledge, fighting vandalism, and generally keeping civility. I'll take the block/semiprotect/protect piece, but keep it holstered as long as possible. The admin anti-vandalism tools should be handy, and many parts of page management require admin powers (like moving a page to a former redirect). I also hope to be the traditional "uninvolved admin" that can be called in as needed in a variety of situations.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm rather fond of Dickman-de Bruijn function, which took 30+ hours of research. But my edits have been widespread: computer science (Big O notation#Orders of common functions), economics (theorems of May and Duggan-Schwartz, see also the section-in-progress at User:CRGreathouse/Arrow), mathematics (Double exponential function), and linguistics (I've started at least 6 pages for languages). But these examples aside, I've focused mainly on improving the quality rather than the quantity at Wikipedia. This is largely by improving sources, adding new results, or rewriting to make connections between different parts of an article or with other articles more clear.

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: Through happenstance or a fluke of psychology, other users don't cause stress for me. But like any other established editor, I've had my fair share of conflict. I find that after discussing the issue at hand, most everyone is reasonable—and once both sides understand the other, they can work together rather than against each other. This isn't a platitude:

• User:TerriersFan and I were (and are) on opposite sides of the school article divide (TF is a splitter and I'm a lumper), but after discussing our views on each other' talk pages and working on a (failed) standard for school articles we came to cite each other on AfD on a majority of articles where we both posted. Evidence of this collaboration goes throughout our edit histories: for example, after !voting differently than TF would/did, I got a ping [1] as requested when more information came to light, letting me change my !vote.
• I 'met' User:SandyGeorgia after she reverted one of my changed to Hugo Chávez. After some discussion on her Talk page we ironed it out and worked together to improve the article (mostly by adding comparative data and improving references, which at that point were strongly POV).
• User:VoteFair was apparently disrupting Kemeny-Young method, but (as rspεεr mentioned in the nomination!) working with him resulted in a stronger article. Once it was clear that no one could push unilateral changes through, each 'side' moved to include more information to the article (and eventually, good sourcing as well).
• After creating User:CRGreathouse/Large and small sets, I asked for feedback on incorporating it into the article namespace. User:Trovatore objected that it was a WP:SYNTH. Recognizing him as the (mathematical) expert he is, I followed his advice. Rather than fight me, he created an article [2] where the content could go!
• I never did end up working with User:SuperFlanker. Instead, I let my WP:0RR tendencies go wild and brought the whole issue to Talk, letting the other editors carry the day: [3]. I'm happy to say that the final consensus version was better than my own.
• User:Lawrencekhoo and I 'met' when we had different views on how to repair Jevons paradox. I'm pretty sure we both thought the other didn't know the subject. But after talking over the different approaches and the merits of various sources, we found much more in common than not. (I got the sources I wanted, LK got the desired rewrite.) I also saw that there was some value to my blind WP:FAITH: LK is actually far more expert than I on the subject. I now have great respect for LK and follow his posts whenever they show up on WP:ECON's Talk.

(See also question #24.)

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

4. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. If it's gone that far, I think I'd let the 1-week duration run its course. Anons don't have much to lose by saying "you can block me for life". And if nothing else, the user can create content on their Talk page until the block. If (at my suggestion -- the idea might not occur otherwise) the user did create some useful new content on their Talk page in preparation for the block expiration, I might ask an uninvolved admin to review the case. Surely at that point I'd be too heavily invested to properly decide.

Strictly optional questions from TotientDragooned (talk)

5. In your opinion, is adminship a big deal? I'm not necessarily looking for a copy-paste from WP:ADMIN; several very prominent community members disagree. Do you believe there's a rift between how policy states adminship should be perceived, and how it is actually perceived? If so, is that a problem?

A. I rather agree with WP:NOBIGDEAL, personally. As for others, I've seen a remarkable plurality of opinion on the subject. But I don't think that it's a problem, because I'd prefer people to keep their own views than to homogenize them across Wikipedia. If the community feels strongly enough, they can change the importance of the position, both by changing how they nominate and vote for admins, and by changing the actual powers granted to admins.

6. Do you believe in the Axiom of Choice? ;)

A. Actually, I think that's an excellent question, since explaining the answer may provide insight. :) I used to believe Platonically in the independent reality of ZFC. In fact, one of the early versions of my user page even claimed as much! [4] But in the time since, I've come to understand the foundations of math better. While I'm still essentially a Platonist, I'm not at all sure of the 'truth' of the Axiom of Choice. Further, I'm not even convinced that ZF is sufficient to meet my ontological needs: the foundation axiom seems overly strong and not needed for most proofs. I have a passing interest in reverse mathematics as a result, trying to find how little math is needed for certain theorems.

Of course, favoring number theory over analysis gives me the luxury of not considering AC all the time. Working with real numbers is difficult without some kind of choice, and nonstandard analysis is flat-out impossible. But as long as I can remain sheltered from it, I shy away from AC. At the least, I like to consider when I'm using it (and the axiom of foundation) in my proofs.

Questions from flaminglawyer^c

7. The classic: What's the difference between a ban and a block?

A. Bans are a decision to stop someone from editing. A block prevents someone from editing. Bans come from ArbCom (or Jimbo Wales, or others delegated authority), while any (uninvolved) admin can block users. Blocking is usually just a quick tool to let tensions cool, though it can be for a long time or even permanent.

(added later) As a clarification, I was referring to WP:3RR and bad cases of WP:NPA, not WP:CDB.

8. One I just made up: You have just been granted adminship after a successful 75/8/4 RfA. A prominent, tenured admin, checkuser, and bureaucrat blocks you for 10 days, with no explanation. You have tried to email the blocking admin, but get no response. You have tried to create a new account and post your situation at AN/I, but every time you do, the blocking admin immediately deletes-and-salts your post, and indefblocks you as a sock of your original account (abusing his checkuser rights, obviously). What will you do now?

A. I'd be surprised if someone went through that much trouble. I'd probably leave the situation alone for a few days at least, to let the `crat cool down, then try the AN/I approach again. If the blocking admin had contact information on his/her user page I might send an email asking for clarification. I'd need to know more about the reasons behind the unusual behavior before knowing where to go from there. But in the likely case that the `crat's anger is misdirected, I don't think it would even bother me, at least once I was unblocked. In the meantime I can do more research for articles!

Question from Goodmorningworld (talk)

9. A real live mathematician! Sounds great. I have two questions: In your most recent 1000 edits I found none at the Reference Desk. Could you see your way to contributing there occasionally or are the questions there too beginnerish for your taste? Second, Wikipedia desperately needs subject-matter experts who combat the pseudo science peddlers. One editor who was very prominent in this effort recently flamed out (and many people think he went overboard in the opposite direction.) Would you consider devoting some of your time to this effort and how would you see yourself doing so in your new "job" as admin?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A: First, I don't want to oversell my mathematical abilities here: I do research mathematics only in my spare time, working as a programmer during the day. But I do like to work on entries to Sloane's OEIS and work on primepuzzles and the like.

I have to say that the main reason I don't post over at the Reference Desk is just that I don't happen by there often. I do often help beginners at mymathforum or physicsforums, where I have the same username, but I don't often happen by the refdesk. Maybe that'll change, maybe not.

I'm a very strong opponent of pseudoscience/pseudomathematics and combat it wherever I see it. I'm amused by the list at [5].

Optional question from RMHED

10. You say that you want to use the admin tools to review speedy deletions, yet I can find no evidence of you doing this as a non-admin. Can you show diffs to the contrary? If not why should I trust your judgement on CSD's?

A. K50 Dude, below, opposed my candidacy for this reason. I responded that his criticism was valid: although I have worked with speedy deletions (I may provide diffs later, let me answer the rest of the questions for now), I don't believe I have done any in the last few months (unless possibly with WP:SCHOOLS-related work).

But I'm not sure why, a priori, that should inspire distrust. The founding principle of Wikipedia is that the value of many contributors is greater than any individual contribution, and the germ of that idea led to the concept that *any* user (well, almost any... certain restrictions do apply) could add or remove the speedy template. In areas where I have expertise, I feel that I am rather qualified to make these decisions. In clear-cut cases, as in vandalism, I also have no trouble picking the appropriate actions. It's true, there may be some gray areas where I won't feel comfortable making the decision. Here are diffs from a recent similar (prod/AfD rather than speedy) case: [6][7] I removed one {{prod}} tag but did not vote on the related AfD because I didn't feel the resolution was clear. But I don't think it's bad to be limited like that (at least at first), especially if you know your limits.

Very optional questions from Stifle

11. What's your favourite lemma/theorem/principle/etc. that's equivalent to the axiom of choice?

A. Depends on how I'm feeling about it at the moment. When I'm pro-AC, I think of trichotomy. I mean, c'mon... how can you not have trichotomy? When I'm feeling anti-, I go for the well-ordering principle. How can it be that *every* set has a well-ordering? That's strong stuff.

It's not every set, only every non-trivial subset of ℕ. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The subsets of ℕ are well-ordered even without AC. But under AC it can be shown that every set has a well-order. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

O RLY? Stifle (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I got mixed up between the well-ordering principle and the well-ordering theorem, again. Although perhaps, so did you. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've never seen that article before. In any case, I fall into the article's The phrase "well-ordering principle" is sometimes taken to be synonymous with the "well-ordering theorem"..

12. What's your Erdös number?

A. ∞, sadly enough.

Optional question from Keepscases

13. Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not?

A: Of course. Do you want the 3 * (1/3) proof, the limit proof (lim 1 - (10^n - 1)/10^n = lim 10^-n = 0), or the Completeness proof? Of course there are systems with nonzero infinitesmals, but when people talk about 0.999… I assume they implicitly mean the real number 0.999….

Optional question from TheIntersect

14. In your opinion, what is the most beautiful math equation ever derived?

A: I'm going to have to cop out and say Euler's formula. I'm partial to Fermat's little theorem, but nothing can match Euler's formula for sheer beauty. Of course Hamilton's formula $i^{2}=j^{2}=k^{2}=ijk=-1$ is pretty nice too.

Optional question from Wehwalt

By a theorem of Wiles, we know that $a^{n}+b^{n}=c^{n}$ for nonzero a,b,c implies n ≤ 2, QED.

15. In the margin space to the left, solve Fermat's Last Theorem. A: OK. I've used only one piece of mathematics not available to Pierre de Fermat; I hope that's acceptable.

Of course, after all, the solution is obvious from inspection.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question from Mr. IP

16. Do you think the community should make changes to counteract declining public participation at Wikipedia? If so, what policies should we change?

A. First of all, I don't think that the public or new users are familiar at all with Wikipedia policies, so I wouldn't change them for that reason. (I might want to change them for other reasons, but that wouldn't be one.) To some extent, a leveling off of user registrations and a decline in article creation are signs of a maturing encyclopedia and community, so I don't have any strong fears. But if this turns out to be a trend (not a seasonal issue) I could see value in changing other things that new users and prospective editors do see: our main page, our self-descriptions ("how to edit a page" and the like), and so forth.

Loaded, non-math-related Q from flaminglawyer^c

17. Why do you want to be an admin? i.e., if you had to write a self-nom for yourself, what would it say?

A. It's just the next thing I can do to help the community out. I don't think I could top the nomination above, especially as I don't like to self-promote. I'm much the hopeless idealist à la George Washington: candidates shouldn't promote themselves, but simply present themselves to the nation (community, in this case) to be selected, or not.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

18. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A. Look, I'm a nice guy and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But abusing sockpuppets to game support on AfDs or proposals, etc. is a violation of community trust. My tendency would be the hammer: indefblock the socks. Without more details I can't say much more.

19. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A. I would respect the other admin's decision. I would submit a statement to RFAR and leave it in their hands. Assuming (per the scenario) that it's rejected, I would discuss resolution with the other admin. The other admin is probably more knowledgeable about the dispute, since I've just been called in, and the reasons that admin has are probably valid. But I'd want to make sure the other admin was sufficiently uninvolved to make fair decisions.

But overall, assuming good faith applies to admins as well as users, and wheel-warring is never a good idea.

20. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A. That's the beauty of it, isn't it? The changes I want, I can make!

21. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A. Actually, I can't immediately think of any reason I would: indefinitely is a long time. Surely a shorter block would give ArbCom enough time to decide if indefinite blocking is needed.

22. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A. Sockpuppet abuse, as I wrote above (see question #18), is very bad. I would certainly discount sock votes in all cases; if that leads to deletion, so be it. Meatpuppetry is a more subtle issue. But if meatpuppets would push an issue from keep to delete or the reverse, I would tend to throw the result to no consensus—let the community decide again. But even that is subject to a reasonableness test. Are we talking about a guy and his two friends, or 100 people from a forum with new accounts?

23. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A. That depends on how strong the consensus is. If everyone is quite agreed on the outcome and the reasons, I could see closing with as few as perhaps four !votes. But in most cases I'd want twice as many. There is also a minimum time, even if an apparent consensus has been reached.

24. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A. I've saved a friend from bleeding to death, extinguished a house fire, and worked with plutonium. After that, edit wars on Wikipedia just don't have much effect on me.

25. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A. As in #17, because I want to help out. I think Wikipedia is creating real value, and I'd like to be a tiny part of that.

And one of my own.

26. Is it more important to speedily delete articles that meet WP:CSD as they sit, or to first make a search for reliable sources and verifiable information that would show them to meet notability requirements?

A. For CSD, generally as they sit. Even if a good article could be written on the subject, the page should still be deleted if it's a complete WP:COPYVIO. AfD is much more nuanced.

Follow up first, how about the ones that might meet the other dozen or so reasons for CSD besides copyvio?
Second, what does CSD actually say about when you should or should not delete copyvios? DGG (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The copyvios that I'm talking about are ones like I've seen: the whole page is lifted verbatim from a copyrighted source. Obviously when it's just content in the middle of a page, it can simply be removed. There are nitty-gritty issues relating the the copyrighted material in the edit history, but the Wikimedia Foundation has decided on an interpretation under which this practice is not in violation of US copyright law.

you seem to have answered only one part of the question & are still not aware, even with several hints, that most CSDs are not copyvios. This certainly confirms my view that you are not yet ready. DGG (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course most speedies aren't copyvios. But the follow-up question (part 2) asked about copyvios, so I responded about that. Further, I pointed out in my opening statement that copyright issues were to be a focus of mine, so it seemed especially relevant here. But the large majority of speedy deletions I've seen (85%) have been mistaken applications of the criteria, so there's not much to say about them -- they simply need to be relisted or have the speedy removed. But I'm still unsure as to what your follwo-up question (part 1) even means. The original question was "as it sits, or as it could be"? My answer was, and is, "as it sits". It's hard to say much more without knowing, for example, which of the speedy deletion criteria have been claimed, how narrowly the criteria must be interpreted to fit, and what the surrounding circumstances are. But speedy deletion is not for nuanced discussions of what sources might be available or of what quality they are; it is for pages with major problems: blatant ads, empty pages, patent nonsense, etc. If the sourcing on notability is borderline, the page shouldn't be speedily deleted—it would need a full AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Dank55

27. Pick your favorite policy or guideline discussion, and tell us what you said in support or opposition.

A. Probably Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks. In one of the versions of this discussion (I may dig up diffs later) I wrote in support of the core policy: quotations are sacrosanct.

Two optional and largely irrelevant questions from Geometry guy

(Since the candidate seems to like answering questions, and gives concise and interesting answers.)

28. On your talk page, you release your contributions into the public domain. Why, and does that not conflict with the GFDL?

A. I prefer to allow people more freedoms than the GFDL allows. Public domain materials can be freely used with the GPL, GFDL, BSD-style licenses, LGPL, etc.

There can be no conflict with the GFDL because a public domain grant is not a license. The material is released, and then can be incorporated into, well, just about anything.

29. Top of your mainspace edits are your early contributions to Great power. The article was recently delisted as a GA. Do you agree with the reassessment, and how would you improve the article?

A. Yes, I agree with the reassessment. The article was borderline GA when I was working on it, and while GA standards have increased the article has essentially stagnated. The article's major problem is that it doesn't provide much information on modern Great Powers, but this is largely because the decision of which countries are Great Powers and what makes them so is contentious. Improving the article will require adding many new (that is, post-2000 or so, since the situation is rapidly changing with the rise of China and the EU at the expense of the US and the EU member states) sources.

Question from Gimmetrow

30. You say you'll work with anti-vandalism. Assuming that includes WP:AIV, here's WP:AIV as it looked 21:42, 11 January 2009. Would you block the two IPs listed as user-reported? Why or why not? If so, for how long? (Ignore the bot-reported IPs; those are transcluded and will change)

A. No, I wouldn't block either. The first IP editor seems unaware of Wikipedia Talk page policy; a reminder would be more useful than a block. Barring information about the sockpuppet status of the second (I'd ban a sock that seems to exist only to abuse other users), I'd simply use {{test2}} for the latter.

I see a lot of vandalism on the math articles, and I have no problem blocking abusing IPs (especially for short periods). But these seem to be more questionable.

Question from NuclearWarfare

31. Are too many questions being asked at RfAs? If so, do you have any ideas on how to reverse this trend?

A. Yes, probably, but it needn't be a bad thing. If users want information that's fair enough. I think that the questions should be treated as optional to reduce the time demand on admin candidates—now they seem to be de facto required, despite being labeled 'optional'—but I don't think a limit would be a good idea.

Optional humorous question from User:Davidwr

32. Please answer one of the questions from User:Davidwr/RFAs#Humorous_questions or make up your own silly question.

A. Only admins who know precisely what is meant by "commissariat" may delete the main page, and then only when bringing beer and chips.

Re-added question from User:Flaming

33. Ummm... I don't really understand your comment for your acceptance of your RfA. Can you explain? (Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Spam and eggs. What's purple and commutes?) ← that's the comment.

A. I thought I'd add this question back in since some have commented on it in their !votes. I simply intended it as a humorous alternative to the usual dry 'Yes, I accept'. The first is Chomsky's famous syntactically correct but semantically void phrase; the second, both a reference to Monty Python and a common metasyntactic variable like foo/bar; the third, an algebraic joke. The phrases refer to some of my interests: linguistics, programming, and mathematics. I couldn't think of a good phrase from the dismal science, more's the pity.

Thought I do feel that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, my acceptance comment was not meant as anything other than lightheartedness to amuse the readers of the page. I figured that many/most of those participating would be likely to get one of the in-jokes, and that this would be a good way to let off steam. I hope no one was seriously offended by that—I did leave a comment in the source explaining that it was just a humorous acceptance, but unsurprisingly (in retrospect) that wasn't noticed.

General comments

• Links for CRGreathouse: CRGreathouse (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• An Abelian grape. Amazing that we have an article on mathematical jokes. Keegan^talk 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of irrelevant questions above, 11-13 are really nothing to do with adminship. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The questions are, of course, completely optional, thus if the candidate feels that way they are not obligated to answer. In my view the questions are related to adminship in that they give us a sense of who we are dealing with. For example the answer to question 13 will require a good explanation with well thought-out reasoning, which is an essential ability for an administrator to possess. ~ TheIntersect 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, those (and several others!) aren't directly relevant. But people did ask them, and surely they have their reasons. Maybe they want to see how I think, or maybe they just found them funny. I enjoyed answering them -- they were a nice break from the more serious ones. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• 26 RfA Questions already? Come on, people, that's flat out ridiculous. (and we all know the questions aren't really optional) Wizardman 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, it is a lot. But people want to make informed !votes, I suppose, and I can't begrudge them that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • And I apologize for the 27th question ... I've read everything and I'm still on the fence. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. I think that you're justified in wanting more information before making a decision. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Refactored comment). The folks piling on questions here need to engage in a bit of review on whether it was a good idea. Perhaps the folks asking the unrelated questions in the beginning thought that it wouldn't turn into a comedy of many questions. Probably all the other questions were intended in good faith, with the askers honestly interested in the answers. But when the result is a huge list of exam-like questions on the RfA page, that the candidate is effectively required to answer, it indicates that somewhere along the lines people who should have stopped to think did not. More comments at WT:RFA. Avruch ^T 00:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually carefully weighed the matter and determined I did not have enough information, even after my review of the contribs, to make a decision. I felt that, as the earlier questions were in jest, and as I needed a reason to support, that it would be a net positive. As for the questions I used, they have been around since before I became active at RFA. I still find them useful in getting an idea of a candidates strengths and weaknesses. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I didn't expect someone of your obvious intellect to make the mistake you did in Q21. Indefinite != infinite. When you are blocking someone until a decision is made, indefinite is exactly the way you want to go. Jussayin'. Tan | 39 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A user blocked for 7 days can be unblocked before the 7 days are up, if there's a reason to do so. An indefinite block is one that ends only when the user is unblocked. Thus, it functions precisely like a block of specified length ∞. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I need clarification on this. You state that an indefinite block functions precisely like a block of specified length (infinite). In other words, you believe that an indefinite block is the same as an infinite block. Can you verify this belief? Tan | 39 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to verify. What other qualities would you assign to an infinite block, beside those of an indefinite block? I see no other qualities to add (or, for that matter, to subtract), thus the two would be the same to me. But perhaps (apparently?) you have a different concept in mind than I have of what an infinite block would entail.

It's somewhat hard to discuss this without even working definitions, and the standard definitions won't really apply here (what would the difference be between a block of 1e50 and 1e100 seconds, if a lifetime is only 3e9 seconds?).

**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While you are clearly a brilliant person, if this tunnel-visioned logic is what you apply to all situations, I'm not sure I want you with some tools that require subjective reasoning. Simple dictionary definitions should tip you off here; infinite = "having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude; "the infinite ingenuity of man"; "infinite wealth"". Indefinite = "vague or not clearly defined or stated; "must you be so indefinite?"; "amorphous blots of color having vague and indefinite edges"". These are not even similar. One is forever; the other is undefined. In the context of blocking, this is important. One is a de facto ban, the other is a block until lifted - typically until an explanation is provided, until further input from third-party editors can be obtained, until a committee makes a judgment, etc. Tan | 39 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But all blocks are blocks until lifted. Even I (who haven't had much reason to look at block logs, having no ability to block people) have seen blocks for specified periods of time end before their time. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're both right, in my view - indefinite and infinite, in this sense, were intended to be different but often have the same effect. Many, if not most, indefinite blocks are of infinite length - they don't expire, and aren't intended to. It's semantics, really. Infinite and indefinite on Wikipedia are exactly the same function with a different name, and they are often treated in an identical manner. Both can be reversed at any time, or last forever. Both tend to last forever. In popular usage, its vogue in the last year or so to try to get people to use "indefinite" in accord with its meaning... But it doesn't seem to have had that much impact on actual practice. Vandal accounts and banned editors still get "indefinitely" blocked, and all the block templates for accounts that are permanently banned still say indefinitely. Avruch ^T 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wanted to write something for this discussion, but I had a question. I'm a retired wikipedian, but I checked my user page and then checked flaming lawyer then read this and I feel this RFA is very sad. For starters, you guys jumped on him about his CSD answer and made way too much of it. If you read this guys edits, he is not the type of person to pass RFA then do lots of CSD work. Its just an answer he had to give to the "why do you need the tools" question, not an answer that he was going to do lots of edits, starting the day after his RFA. I wish to write about 4 major things that have went wrong in this RFA. CRG is a great person but he's not typical pre-admin, and he is being judged the same way all admins are judged (which is perhaps a good thing, but I would like to make a strong case against it and offer evidence of why it's a bad thing). If someone can come to my userpage, I need 3 answers from somebody: do people who have already voted oppose, watch this page? Is this the correct area for me to write my short essay (under 600 words)? and finally what percentage of supports to opposes are generally the discretionary area for the closer to have the option to interpret concensus in either way? (some admin's talk page had a link to an RFA about beancounting, and I would love to have that link again--I read the whole thing and was one of my favorite discussions). The link was about some RFA candidate had less than X% but the closer passed him anyway? I'm sure half of you know the case, and can tell me at my talk page. Thanks (p.s. I retired because I'm a perfectionist, although I do help out at wikibooks). Sentriclecub (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 1) I personally watchlist all RFA's I comment on, and I believe many others do as well, but it is not mandatory. 2) If you want to add a short essay by all means do - RFA is a discussion and input is allways desireable. 3) Common practice is that 70-75% percent support is the discretionary range (you can check the main RFA talk page for a quick glance at the current number) Pedro :  Chat  07:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll write one now and save the other three for a rainy day. First of all, you guys need to know some of the pitfalls of the way you analyze data to make decisions. This process you use works well, but it also promotes feigned sincerity [8]. In this example, I tried to make myself a wikipedia Hero by leaving stern messages on two users talkpages [9][10] at the same time emailing them and say its just for show and to earn Mike's trust, and to not take the message seriously. To both experienced editors' surprise, I did in fact befriend mike and turned him into a contributor, and he uploaded every set of park photos in florida that I wanted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WV-Mike I felt bad about actually using his pictures and having manipulated him to prove a point against user:A_knight_who_says_ni so I stopped asking after the third set which would have been Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, the photos are still uploaded to wikipedia commons, but there not yet at the Wakulla springs State park article. My year I spent on wikipedia was full of social experimentation like that and I wanted to understand the workings of this thing inside and out, because it is remarkably complicated and the dynamics that govern how wikipedians interact with one another, are just fascinating to me. I understand and lot, and have learned a lot. The relevance is that CRGreathouse is a real Wikipedia Hero and is not a fake. He is the actual epitome of what I concluded was the perfect wikipedian. He's 100% sincere and trustworthy. I investigated his edit history relentlessly looking to see if he's real or just a pretender. Unfortunately he's not typical pre-Admin. He's not self-promoting, he works on wikipedia for the right reasons. His edit history doesn't reflect someone trying to prepare for months getting the right type of edit history to pass an RFA with flying colors. He's analytical, and he came to the same conclusion as me. He is the best type of wikipedia admin. He's not after power, he does not make edits to try and make himself a hero, he's genuine and one slight failure of wikipedia is that he's not as appreciated as someone who is 80% genuine but 20% self-promoting wikipedia hero. I learned that many admins get in by doing everything perfect for ca. 6 months to a year. While this is good, and some of you may be reading this, your intentions aren't as pure and as a group, you are dangerous to the future of wikipedia. For some people, wikipedia is an MMORPG and getting admin is like making level 70. The threat to the future of wikipedia, is that 20% of your enjoyment is derived from sources that aren't in the best interests of wikipedia. One form of hazing that I see go on, is when someone likes to oppose the RFA of someone and then go to their talk page and try and give a very apologetic message of reassurance. When I look up these people, I see the pattern that they are growing bored of making wikipedia better, and they just like to get random fun where they can from various corners of wikipeda (such as making the rouge admin page, or creating funny user boxes). The RFA process favors people who treat wikipedia like an MMORPG. The sincerest type of wikipedia editor, is one who actively tries to retain the integrity of a math or science article, as I have found countless times in CRG's contribs. One of my most disappointing moments was when I tried to delete an article called chessmetrics because on the guy's self-promoting website[11] he even writes Hello, I'm Jeff Sonas and I'd like to welcome you to my new and improved Chessmetrics site. This website is devoted to statistics about chess. Since the summer of 1999, I have spent countless hours analyzing chess statistics, inventing formulas and other analysis techniques, and calculating historical ratings.. This was junk science trying to get into wikipeda and these people are self promoting and have HUGE incentive to bypass the peer-review process that hard-science scientists go through, and they operate through meatpuppets, one of his are still around today and makes most of the edits to that article. I've worked hard in school my whole life and I feel personally responsible to defend wikipedia from junk science, and I see that passion is strong within CRG. He's the best type of wikipedian you can hope for, he's a real hero and his intentions on this site are perfect. The fact that he has oppose votes, just frustrate him because he knows they are flawed. He's too nice to actually defend them either. I have read his arguments on discussion pages, and he is brilliant at explaining to others why they may be wrong, but he has not chosen to do so here because he's torn not to. He's a real wikipedian hero who would like to pass RFA based on whether you the community trust him with the tools, and don't feel he will misuse them. Sorry that I broke 600 words, but I'll finish with my main point. This type of editor is the best you can have. The easiest way to pass RFA is to treat it like a challenge and work at it. This individual believed[12] that his talents and value would shine through to everyone. This is the best candidate I have seen in the last 6 months. He's not self promoting, so he needs that factored in. You guys are used to typical pre-admins who try and sugar coat their resume with hero stories and boilerplate experience in every corner of wikipedia that helps for RFA. I ask everyone to look again at this candidate and realize how genuine that he is, and try and find a single contrib in his edit history, of where there is even remote suggest that he might damage wikipedia because he tests important tools before learning how to use them. I've analyzed wikipedia and tried to look at the way dynamics govern and shape policy and if wikipedia is a viable (nonprofit) business. The reason I asked pedro on his talk page for permission to write this short essay is because he's the another wikipedian i have studied and is also one of your best, for the same reasons that CRG is. All one has to do to pass RFA is make zero questionable edits, do a lot of hero stories, and do boilerplate work in the 6 months prior your RFA. Anybody can become admin if they are halfway intelligent and can learn the patterns of successful RFA's. My reason for worrying about the long-term viability of wikipedia is that the 80/20 style admins will stick around longer and have more influence than the Primum non nocere attitudes of someone like CRG. You all can not afford to let any people like CRG not become admins. He indicated that he only intends to run once, and he's being truthful. To him, RFA is feedback of how much this community trusts him and values him not to damage the project, given some powerful tools. You need everyone like him to become an admin, while raising the bar a bit higher to those who systematically do all the pre-admin work so that they can pass without any tough questioning. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Beautifully written, heartfelt statement that is at the same time a cogent analysis, worthy of preservation. Thank you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom support - Not seen any issues so far, not really sure of what is going on in Wily's diff - if someone can explain why it is so bad to me it would be much appreciated, I might be missing the context. — neuro^(talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support, if only all users were like CRGreathouse! --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 21:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Contributions seem sound. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support because of my experiences with GRGreathouse. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support for now, based solely upon the math joke. Mind may be changed later, depending on your answers to questions. flaminglawyer^c 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   confirmed support The 27 questions have done it. flaminglawyer^c 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Support I have no doubt in my mind that he won't use the tools the correctly.--Iamawesome800 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   That doesn't strike me as a great reason for supporting. Guest9999 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Support Based on candidate's answers to questions and AGF.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Support the math jokes are great, and the opposition just doesn't add up.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Hello, I'm J. Robert Oppenheimer and I just split the atom...anyone want half an atom? Oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for someone who knows 2+2 and then some! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Great candidate, unlike to abuse the tools. VX!^~~~ 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
11. (e/c) Why not. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support as nom. By the way, am I just being dense, are you a bit addled from too many questions, or are we supposed to catch at some point that that's not Fermat's Last Theorem at all? rspεεr (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Established editor, good contributions, good interactions with others, no problems as a general editor. I see no indication that the admin tools would be misused to harm the project. --NrDg 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Support good contributor, sole oppose vote does not sound at all convincing, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Looks like a good candidate. Tiptoety ^talk 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Looks great! LittleMountain5 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Weak SupportCan't decide what looks to be a clueful character.

    I also want to note WilyD's note may not have been the best idea. He's free to vote how he wishes, but I just want to point out that this is probably not the best place to bring it up. Flagged Revisions carries only about 60% community support at best, and attempting to sink an RfA on such highly divisive grounds is patently unfair, in my opinion. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    1. Reinstate weak support. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

18. Strong Support Wizardman 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Support John254 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Good editor and seems trustable. Low activity, but can make up with commons sense. Take it easy with speedy deletions though. Do read on other policies and practices too, there are plenty of (almost intentional) traps for new admins. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. Some of the answers to policy questions above are slightly off the mark, but policy can easily be learned post-promotion, common sense cannot. TotientDragooned (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
22. Support based on my experience with CRGreathouse on other forums. AfD hero (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Candidate displays a great deal of maturity. His answers to questions are very good, and his explanation for a relatively low edit-count makes sense. Good luck. Dean B (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
24. Support, an excellent candidate with the intellectual acumen necessary for adminship :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Sensible, it seems. Regularly has ideas outside of the RFA mainstream, and nothing he's done is enough to give me pause. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. The candidate's history is a good one of substantial edits. I see a few opposes based on "low" recent activity but in my opinion that doesn't hold water: this user has more than enough edits to establish a track record and I'd much rather see a user like this one with healthy complement of real, constructive edits than an editor with tens of thousands of vandalism reverts, or worse, yet another incessant AWB fiddler. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - I thing CR would be an good choice for admin as this user seems unlikely to abuse the tools granted to him. In regard to the dissenters, I think that a knowledge of the tools is what primarily counts. Far too often we tend to forget that edit counts mean little to the efficacy of an individual. Heck, every time I try to use AfD, UAA, AN/I, etc. I'm usually beaten to the punch anyway. Therefore, I don't think that a lack of their use in his contributions listing should be weighted negatively. Good luck! —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    it is exactly the lack of knowledge of the tools which is the issue here. Nobody thinks he will abuse them deliberately, just that he doesn't yet know the basics about how they work. DGG (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

28. Support - Excellent editor. Also a trustworthy user unlikely to abuse the tools. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - We need good and solid people. This individual has been editing Wikipedia since 2006. The editor is not a fireball with 3000 edits per month... more like 40 to 150 most months (595 one month, 420 another). I don't see this as a disadvantage. I read the Opposes and I despair. Most of us who are going to fall in love with Wikipedia already have. We need to stop looking for insisting on those(they are magnificent... but how many are there, really?), and start looking for the over-the-long-haul admins who are going to chug along for the next 20 years or so. I'll fall out of love, at some point, and I bet that this editor is still here, making 40 edits a month, putting out fires, zapping bad edits and bad articles.sinneed (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Weak support – whilst answer to #26 might have been on the poor side, he is generally good in other aspects. I would encourage CRGreathouse to ask before doing anything borderline at CSD or XfD – I would usually oppose because of the low number of contributions he has in these areas, but I feel that he would make a good administrator due to the net positive of other aspects that I should take into consideration. Caulde 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Smart, responsible contributor. The deletion circuit is easy to unravel and doesn't require the sort of experience demanded by some of the oppose rationales. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps you aren't familiar with the problems of CSD---an area he expressed interest to work in?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    I am quite familiar with the workings of CSD[13], thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

32. support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Ray (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Support User is experienced over a large timeframe, and I don't see a whole lot of fire to the opposition's arguments. FlyingToaster 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Experienced user, sense of humor, no sense that he will abuse the tools. Also no sense that he'll be using WP:PERNOM in the near future. :-) I expect that he'll pick up the rest of the WP:CSD in short order.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to Really Really Strong Support after reading Q24. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'm glad you enjoyed that. :) It's all true! **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

36. Support. Switched from oppose. To pass RFA, it's my sense that candidates have to 1. show competence (and there's evidence that voters will give you wiggle-room on general wiki-competence vs. competence at specific admin tasks, to some extent), 2. "play well with others", and 3. show emotional and intellectual connection to this community, and there's evidence that voters will give you some wiggle-room here, too; some candidates really get into "being an admin", some feel more at home in wikiprojects or review processes. A candidate who comes across as rarely venturing out into the "wilds" (as they perceive it) of Wikipedia may wind up failing all 3 tests, and these kinds of concerns are what I'm seeing from the opposition. But I'm switching my vote after seeing his willingness to answer a lot of questions, and good answers to many of them, and after reading this: I'm an introvert, and this kind of process is both painful and tiring for me. The big question for me was whether this candidate was willing to push himself past his comfort zone, to talk with more people in more forums than he is apparently comfortable doing, as much as is required to make sure that others don't get hurt by his actions as an admin. I never doubted that he didn't want to hurt anyone. He understands now, if he didn't before, that he has to supplement his knowledge of subject matter with more knowledge of what the community expects before he does the deed himself. When he's willing to speak up, his voice is a knowledgeable and calming influence, and I'd like to see him with the mop in the hope that this form of acceptance will help him overcome his wiki-shyness, which will be a great benefit to the wikiprojects he enjoys. On the technical point of most of the opposition, that he said that he wants to do CSD but isn't good at it: he didn't say he wants to do CSD, he said he wanted to review CSD decisions ... presumably to pull articles out of the fire when his expert knowledge tells him the articles can be saved. There's a difference. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Can see nothing to suggest that they will be anything other than an excellent admin. (Quentin X (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC))
38. Support from neutral, and from previous oppose. Sure, I still have some concerns, notably about CSD. But the candidate is clearly open to feedback, and it seems like he's more interested in consensus-building than being right, which is a pretty big deal for an admin. He might make some mistakes now and then, but who doesn't? He won't abuse the tools. Townlake (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Has clue and will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I've encountered CRGreathouse in AfD discussions related to schools and education topics. While we don't always agree (on occasions I thought he was dead wrong), I have found him to be consistently reasonable, and I fully expect him to use admin tools responsibly. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
42. Support We need more responsible, thoughtful, intelligent admins. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. In a recent RfA, an excellent editor with limited administrative experience passed comfortably for being thoroughly trusted and showing good judgement. Indeed I went to some effort to test whether the lack of such experience was an issue for the community, and it was found not to be so. Here we have another excellent editor of the same mold. In that light, there is nothing obvious to oppose here. Too few edits per month recently? So what? Often contributes to AfD with "per user" !votes? What is wrong with consensus building? Indeed the nomination demonstrates the benefits of it. These might be grounds not to support, or to vote neutral, but they are hardly grounds to oppose. The questions, answered thoughtfully and concisely, show every sign of an editor who will take advice and familiarize himself with policy before taking administrative actions in new areas. Dank, originally opposing, presents a thorough support vote above. I hope that others opposing or thinking of opposing will consider whether this is the kind of adminship request which should fail. Personally, I prefer adminship requests from editors who are not overly eager to get the tools, and this is such a request. Geometry guy 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
44. Despite, my reservations, I think the candidate will be careful enough to be a net positive. per townlake and orlady, among others Dlohcierekim 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Make it strong support, 'cause this user seems the best tempered I've seen in a long time. See my WT:RFA comment after Avruch's. I am convinced he will not abuse/misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

45. Good user. Twenty-seven additional questions? Acalamari 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
46. Though I disagree with you on the .9999 thing: 1/3*3=1, not .9999.... Then again, I'm not a mathematician. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'd be happy to discuss 0.999… = 1 with you on your Talk page or on any of the forums I frequent. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

47. Support x 0.9999999... Good contributor and seems to be able to cope with flak. WereSpielChequers 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
48. Support As far as I can tell the editor is reasonable, mature, and dedicated to the Wikipedia Project. Excellent work so far, and good luck as an admin! The .999 thing always blows my mind, btw. I had tremendous difficulty grasping that when I was younger. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - I take Useight and DGGs opposes on board (and the comments of those who echoed similar concerns). The relative inactivity is somewhat concerning, and the issue of experience in some areas is not to be dismissed. On the other hand, this guy's conduct in this particular request has been perfect. I know people say that candidates are on their best behavior during the request, and for the most part I think that's true -- but you still tend to see the true colors of people when they're subjected to the stress this process can produce. That he answered all the questions faithfully, and responded thoughtfully to the opposes with substantive concerns, speaks well for his ability to function as an administrator. I do think he needs some experience in CSD before he starts responding to tags, and I'd also like to see a bit more detailed contributions to AfD. But I think with experience he'll do fine, and he's reasonable enough that he won't delete the main page (metaphorically, since you can't now) before he's up to speed. Avruch ^T 00:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
50. Support I have not seen a valid reason given to oppose this candidate, but plenty of poor ones. The candidate is civil, can be trusted not to abuse the tools, is unlikely to go whacko and start jumping into fields where he is lacking experience. Being an administrator is not rocket surgery and the basics can be picked up fairly quickly. A good temperament and mature disposition is much more valuable than any "experience" in the dramaz of AN/I or 100s of !votes at AfD. If the candidate is not highly active with the tools, so what? It's not like there is a limited amount of admin spots and he/she would be taking up a position that could go to a more active administrator. Any correct use of the tools, no matter how minor, is something another administrator does not have to do. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    You are right that I'm not likely to be highly active with the tools, at least for a while. I suppose that many people see that as a reason to oppose (as is their right). It seems better than the other extreme of jumping in to use all the tools without proper preparation! **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

51. Support. Burnout, IMO, is directly proportional to frequency and repetitiveness of editing. At the rate you are going, your personal burn out should be in the year 2018 or so. You are civil, clueful, and generally speaking, you don't suck. The rest is simply overly self-important jibberish. In my opinion. You aren't going to break anything. Because of this and other reasons, I've determined that you are one of the better candidates to come around in a long while, ironically and precisely for reasons that some have listed below in the oppose section. Keeper | 76 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
52. Support per stupid oppose reasons. Prodego ^talk 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - Not convinced by the oppose arguments. I was impressed by the link given by the nominator, Rspeer, showing Greathouse planning a way to get good contributions to an article from editors who seemed highly opinionated and affected by personal COIs. EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
54. Support I wasn't going to comment on this RFA but I see that it is close. On balance a net positive, but I would urge the candidate, if this passes, to tread carefuly and feel no embarassment about asking for help with the admin tools if needed. If in doubt, don't. However I think that there is enough evidence that this candidate will not go rushing in anywhere, and will be considered and measured if they do need to use the extra bits, to offer support. Best. Pedro :  Chat  09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
55. Support After reading all questions, answers and comments I found no reason to oppose. Ruslik (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Seems like CRGreathouse can be trusted with the tools and no reason to oppose. --Patrick (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
57. Support For the excellent answer to question 20. I think it worthwhile to point out that the lack of involvement with 'adminly' areas can be viewed as a positive. The candidate seems more interested in the encyclopedia than in working to became an administrator. Nothing wrong with that - IMO - and combined with what seems to be an even temperament, I can't see him/her behaving precipitously.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support - Net positive, won't misuse the tools. Normally, this would warrant just a "support", but 31 questions and no anger from CRG makes this strong. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
59. Support I like the cut of his jib. You don't need to be an expert on every single Wiki-policy before becoming an admin. You can teach a person Wikipedia rules. You can't teach editing manner and personality. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Some dodgy AfD work initially made me plan on opposing, but I pulled myself up. From an overall view of CRG's contributions, combined with his behaviour at this RfA, I really get the feeling that he's easily mature and smart enough not to do the old wade-into-CSD-with-an-ill-informed-machete trick. I'm very confident he won't intentionally misuse the tools, and more than confident enough that he won't do so by ignorance either - he appears sensible enough to look before leaping. Clear net-positive. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I would prefer to see a bit more admin area experience, but I don't see you acting rashly and breaking anything. In short, I see your contributions and attitude as more convincing than the oppose reasons cited. Plus, like Tool2Die4, I like the cut of your jib.--Kubigula (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. I think this editor is highly likely to do well as an admin because it's clear that he's very intelligent and even-keeled (even under considerable pressure and intense questioning, it would seem). --JayHenry (t) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. Selectively quoting an opposer: "Wikipedia needs admins like you." The logical thing to do, if RfA was in fact a logical process, is make you an admin. I'm not too chuffed by the diff Useight provided, but if that's all that can be dug up from such a long term contributor then I don't have any significant concerns. Active editing on 728 of the last 1,037 days indicate a commitment far outweighing the low edit rate. No idea why you want to work with CSD, but from your reasoned comments on article talk pages and the way you have handled this RfA, I find it hard to imagine that you will (accidentally) do anything illogical to the detriment of Wikipedia in speedy deletion, or elsewhere. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, after this grilling, I might rethink working in CSD… at least for a while. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

64. Support Dedicated editor. Reasonable, cooperative, detailed, well-thought out, wants to help. No indication of mischief or high jinks. Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. I've been mulling over this RfA for a few days now, and have decided that my first instinct to support was correct. With little in the way of project space contribution outside AfD (what rspεεr refers to in his nom as the "admin track"), I don't see a particular problem with a rigorous treatment of the candidate; !voters need some indication of how he handles himself under pressure. Having observed his calm, reasoned and thoughtful responses, and coupled with his excellent mainspace work, I have no doubt that CRGreathouse would make a fine addition to the janitorial corps. For me, intimate policy knowledge is largely irrelevant - it only takes a few clicks to obtain this. Clue, however, is not so easy to come by, and this candidate appears to have plenty. EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
66. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL and no good reason to oppose. David Shankbone 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
67. Per WP:It ain’t rocket science. Seems to be mature and clueful, and doesn’t seem to thrive on unnecessary conflict. 95% of the time, problems with admins occur when they get too cocky and think they can do anything they want, not because they are "unfamiliar with policy" in some area. This does not appear to be the case here. Someone who appears to want to get it right, who appears likely to learn quickly from any mistakes, and who appears willing to go slow at first, can only be a net benefit. --barneca (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Seems to have enough clue & trustworthiness. hmwithτ 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
69. Support per Barneca, by way of eVula Avenue. Tan | 39 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - seems like a sensible user with a good attitude; I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. I'm particularly impressed with the way he's calmly put up with a frankly ridiculous amount of questioning in this RFA. As for the lack of deletion experience, it's not a great concern for me, as there's no evidence that he would show bad judgement in such areas; I would simply advise him to be sure of the policies before making any speedy deletions. Terraxos (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
71. Strong Support for this obviously well-qualified candidate. Common-sense answers to the questions (for just one example, Q21), obvious dedication to the project, humility, and expertise in esoteric areas. Of course I checked contributions as well, and because of some opposes, I specifically looked at AfD work; I see nuanced opinions expressed which are in line with policy and common sense. Great editor, will be a great admin - my only regret here is I didn't support earlier.  Frank  |  talk  16:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
72. Strong support - Generally, I don't support candidates who have little experience in admin-related areas, but this is an exceptional case. After analyzing his edits, I found out that he has made high-quality edits to mathematics-related articles. I not convinced by the arguments in the oppose section. If you can make high-quality edits to subjects like mathematics, you can easily understand the duties of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for your compliment. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

73. Support, seems sound and trustworthy. MURGH ^disc. 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Seems reasonable enough for admin. Doesn't meet perfection standards but many admins don't. Good luck. Chergles (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Candidate shows compelling evidence of maturity, reflection, intelligence, and patience. Good skills. What we require of admins is that they have judgement, the ability to stay cool under stress and are not dishonest. I think that has been proved on this AfD. People will always have personal issues with where an individual has or has not worked on the project, if an individual can recite their favourite policy backwards, and the way an individual votes at AfD. And I understand that. But these personal issues are colouring. The basic structure here is very sound. SilkTork *^YES! 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    I can write a script to give a favorite policy backward, if required. ;-) **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

76. Support. Answer to Q30 doesn't show a lot of awareness of the issues I would hope an admin would look for, but I would rather see non-actions than bad blocks. Gimmetrow 09:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
77. Support: Admin is no big deal. We need more people here other than computer professionals and Wizkids at Wikipedia. I hope you keep up my trust . Best wishes to you -- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - We can't afford more admins who simply don't think about the consequences of their actions/our actions. This has to make the candidacy a non-starter. WilyD 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   What's wrong with that comment? That he opposes flagged revisions? TotientDragooned (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Agree with confusion, what's going on here? It's not like he's being uncivil, or insulting, thats just a honest opinion on flagged revisions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Not to pile on, but I'm going to have to disagree. Everybody is allowed their own opinion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   And everyone is allowed to discuss said opinion. I've said this too many times today but, this is not a vote. Unless you're defending CRGreathouse having his opinion at the FR discussion, in which case, carry on and ignore me being over sensitive. John Sloan (view / chat) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   True dat. To each man his own. (fwiw, John, you e/c'd me 3 times in less than a minute) flaminglawyer^c 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Oh sorry! I bet that was frustrating :D John Sloan (view / chat) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yeh, but no hard feelings. flaminglawyer^c 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is now a prominent website with the ability to affect the lives of real people, in many cases in harmful ways. It is our responsibility to wield this power ethically and so forth. Those who fail to realise that, or who just don't care, simply shouldn't be given that power. Whether it reflects ignorance, carelessness or indifference, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. In any case, whatever their motives, it betrays an unsuitability for a position of responsibility here (as much as technically admins have no responsibilities, they can take them and all that). WilyD 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   I wouldn't have worded it like that, but 100% agree. flaminglawyer^c 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   It's a great speech, but doesn't apply to this particular user. flaminglawyer^c 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   How does that diff indicate that the user would act 'unethically', or has? — neuro^(talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Unethically is probably too strong. Carelessly is probably the best guess . But we have an ethical duty to protect people from serious harm due to our carelessness - I simply cannot trust someone to wield administrative powers who either doesn't appreciate that, or doesn't care. WilyD 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm actually not seeing anything indicative of "unethitcality," "carelessness," or anything similar. All I see is that one link from Wily, which I don't see anything wrong with. flaminglawyer^c 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Personally, all I see is the classic explanation of why there are fewer admin candidates, fewer editors: if you don't agree with someone, you are evil at worst, and incompetent at best. Many people take positions very similar to the one voiced here by user:WilyD. Since WilyD's position is correct, and the matter is important, no objection can be valid. I call this the "Wish Method".sinneed (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Not to change your mind or anything, but I did support the trial run of flagged revisions. I do think that they will prove harmful in the long run, but if they're good the trial would let me change my mind. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   This is not really "so much" about flagged revisions. But "do nothing about BLPs" is really too extreme for any potential admin to endorse. For myself, I like flag revisions, and am a little conflicted about semi-protection. I would be open to a variety of other solutions (though I don't know any good ones that've been suggested). We can, as reasonable people, disagree about what to do, but I don't think we can disagree as responsible people as to whether anything needs to be done. My own nonsexual crush on flagged revisions not withstanding, I would take issue with other perspectives that recognised the seriousness of the problem and the pressing need to do something about it. In short, this is fundamentally about BLP, not fundamentally about FlaggedRevs (me being me, I can understand why one might confuse the point). WilyD 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   He didn't say "do nothing about Blps" or anyhting like that. he said "If the cure is worse tahn the disease..." and by using "disease" he indicated he thought there was a problem with Blps.--Patton^t/c 23:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   This is a simply ridiculous oppose. People can disagree about how we should handle various problems. Some people think we should semiprotect BLPs. Others want flagged revisions. Others want other solutions. A user disagreeing with what we should implement is in no way a reason to vote against them by any reasonable standard. The question entails whether they will use the tools well. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. After looking at your contributions, you haven't worked with a speedy deletion related article and I looked thru August 2008. That is 5 and a half months. I don't know if you did some work before that, however without recent activity in an area of focus, I can't support. I didn't even have an account on Wikipedia back then! I appreciate your work in AfD's but still... WP:CSD is what you said and you clearly don't have experience in the last couple months of that to what I saw. K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   He said that is what he would use the mop for, not that he did it in the past.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   But CSD is absolutely the last area where we want to be promoting somebody who is going to only learn on the job. Too much damage can be done by hasty speedy deleters that we need to have some idea as to how he approaches CSD. There is zero chance that I can support somebody who explicitly wants to work with CSD who has no experience there---especially when that is his primary need for the tools.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   The criticism is essentially valid. I have speedied articles, and removed speedy templates, but not often or recently. In fairness, though, I didn't claim that I had, just that that was the intended use for my 'powers'. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, then what do you want your main focus to be on when you start working (if this passes) on admin-related tasks? K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Primarily copyright issues, undeletion and deletion (there's always prod and AfD, not just speedies), moving pages (this has been something of a problem in my experience), and of course the anti-vandal tools (rollback and recent change avoidance). CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Weak Oppose for now. I'm on the fence with this one. The first thing I noticed about the candidate was that his talk page goes back a year and a half, a sign of little communication with other editors. (Actually, the first thing I noticed was that he knows C++, as per his userpage, but that was pretty irrelevant). I was also put off because of his lack of communication here, when a new editor of only a month and a half came to him with a legitimate question regarding a particular individual's behavior and its relation to policy. CRGreathouse did not attempt to answer the question, give the new editor a policy link, or even point him to someone who he thought could help, instead responding, "I'm not an admin", which was completely unhelpful. Now, obviously that diff is from six months ago, but it was within the candidate's last 50 User Talk edits. Next, CRGreathouse's last 500 edits go back over five months, so that makes me question whether he remains all that current on the goings-on here on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm aware of real-life, but having so few recent edits gives me the feeling that maybe he's a little "rusty". I was also not a fan of his edit here, where he said, "I shouldn't have to do it [RFA] more than once." To me, that came off extremely cocky. Also, looking through his project space contribs, I see that he works nearly exclusively in AFD (now don't get me wrong, his work there looks good), so I'd be comfortable with him working there, but he doesn't mention it in Q1, unless that was included by "many parts of page management", but he instead speaks of CSD, an area in which he appears to have little experience. I'm probably going to be coming back to this repeatedly over the next week, but that's what I'm seeing at the moment. Useight (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Those are actually all valid concerns. I would like to qualify "I shouldn't have to do it more than once", though. I might make sysop, I might not; either is fine with me. But if I don't make it, I don't think I'll run again. I'm happy to edit articles normally. I do think I'd be even more handy as an admin, but if the community decides otherwise, who am I to disagree?

   The "I'm not an admin" response was, as you pointed out, unhelpful. In my defense, though, the section (and edit summary, as I recall) was titled "Are you an admin?", so my response (though terse) was correct. Admittedly, I could have posted some policies to point the poster in the right direction, but I didn't; I think I was about to leave then, so I was a bit rushed.

   CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Good to know about that "more than once" comment. As for the "I'm not an admin", true, the header was indeed "Are you an admin?", but there was a more important question in the body of the text that you left completely unanswered. I also wanted to mention that I disagreed with your answer to Q7 about cool-down blocks, but I forgot that part in my oppose above. Useight (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I respect consensus, and that's one reason I'm almost reluctant to discuss your oppose !vote: as long as you're deciding on reasonable grounds, why should I object? I don't think I phrased my answer to #7 very well (see below), so we may not actually conflict on that point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   To clarify, the main reason I'm opposing if because of the lack of experience in relation to CSD. Useight (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose. There are several very obvious reasons to oppose this candidate. First, this user has fewer than 800 edits over the past 8 months. In only two months has he had more than 100 edits. While a lot of edits doesn't mean anything, a dearth of edits is a concern. The nominator may try to rationalize this away, but fewer than 100 edits in 6 of the past 8 months? I want to see people who are more active as admins---plus the lack of edits makes it hard to gauge. His last 50 talk space edits takes us all the way back to Jun 08. His last 50 user talk takes us back to early May of last year. That's about 6-7 edits per month in those key areas for admins. Second, with the exception of AFD and Wikiproject Math, he has virtually zero experience in adminly areas. So how does he vote in AfD's? These are from his last 100 Wikispace edits (so probably less than 50 AFD's):Redirect or deleteper Per Per Per per per perper per per per per merge else delete per He does provide more elaborate reasons when dealing with schools, but for the most part, his AFD !voting doesn't really stand out as exemplary. Which brings me to my third, and most important reason for opposing. GRC indicates a desire to work with CSD. This is an explicit reason he gave in answer number 1, but he has zero experience there. If somebody wants to work in CSD they need to have ample experience there. That is one area where we can't afford to let others learn on the job. Mistakes there can have dire consequences. I MIGHT be able to over look this lack if his AFD work was top notch, but as he defers to others so much, I can't.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Made it a weak oppose. I can't bring myself to support, but I've been impressed with his demeanor and attitude... and his supporters.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - The lack of activity isn't necessarily that much of a concern - advanced and esoteric subjects sometimes require intense research, so the candidate obviously puts considerable thought into each edit. In other words, it isn't wikignome work. However, that being said, I am concerned by the distinct lack of communication cited above, as well as the paucity of experience in the deletion area. The candidate indicates right off the bat - CSD, yet CSD is one, if not the area where we want careful, capable and qualified administrators. At this point in time I am not comfortable supporting this candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I will have to oppose too, as I just can't overlook the fact that you haven't been active in CSD (or much at all) in quite a few months. I agree with Wisdom and Balloonman, CSD is one of those places where we can't be promoting administrators who learn while working on it. In addition, the lack of communication shown above is even more of an offputter. Surely you could have pointed him somewhere. If I were a new editor in those shoes, I would see that as exceedingly unfriendly. Put together with the many "per" links by Balloonman, I will have to oppose. Xclamation point 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose Lack of admin-related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Per awful AfD commentary which Balloonman highlighted. I don't think inactivity is a reason to oppose though; I seldom make more than 150 edits a month but I log in and edit every day.--Patton^t/c 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Regretful not quite ready yet. Although I have a sense that CRG won't abuse the tools out of malice or ill temper, I'm concerned about the lack of CSD experience, coupled with the preference for deletion over improvement. Even a copyvio can be written out, and if the source meets WP:RS, then we've one less unsourced stub running around. Deletion should be the last resort. However, from what I've seen of CRG here, I like their temperament, and we certainly need more editors with expertise in content. (There is a big difference between inactivity and taking the time to do the research on which article building depends. We need more of this, and less worrying about building up a high monthly edit count.) I would like very much to see the candidate deepen their knowledge of CSD and blocking and return for another RFA later. We need more even tempered admins. Dlohcierekim 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the kind words, but I'll probably not run again. If, as seems likely, I don't make this RfA, I'll just stay a normal editor. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   No, you will stay a really great editor who needs more experience with the mop. And you're welcome. Ah calls 'em as Ah sees 'em. Cheers, 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, I'm an editor (I'm too bashful to repeat your kind 'great') who won't need to get more experience with the mop. :) Perhaps that's a good thing, letting me focus on math more. But really, I appreciate your comments. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   change to support. Go softly. When in doubt, don't and you'll do fine. Dlohcierekim 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Balloonman. iMatthew // talk // 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Very Regretful Oppose User is a true gentleman ,civil and do not see the user misusing the tools.The user can clearly be a good admin.I really appreciate the user for answering 26 questions so far.But adminship is also about experience and I have agree with what User Balloonman has said .I would earnestly appeal you to try again if this RFA fails because Wikipedia needs admins like you.Really very sorry.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    (ec)I oouldn't have put it better myself... CRG is one of the few people whom I've given a strong oppose, but went almost immediately to the talk page with some praise. Unfortunately, the experience is just isn't there---especially for one of the area where he wants to work. If he gained a little experience with CSD and avoided the "per" reasoning at AfD, he would likely easily pass his next try.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sure Wikipedia will find plenty of other admin candidates. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    Regretful Oppose I seldom use "per" in RfAs, but in this case I have to say "per Balloonman". While any admin handling CSD is a benefit with the frequent backlogs there, I too cannot support a candidate who has not shown any knowledge in that area. I'd be happy to support a future RfA if and when the candidate demonstrated knowledge in the areas he wants to work in. SoWhy 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (switched to neutral)

    The criteria for speedy deletion aren't rocket science. If CRGreathouse can understand the intricacies of abstract mathematics, he can easily determine whether a page falls within one of the classifications described at WP:CSD :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    The number of administrators who currently misinterpret the criteria and expunge appropriate articles is staggering. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, take a look at the survey results linked in my sig...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    As editors familiar with my participation in deletion review know, I am quite committed to a narrow application of the criteria for speedy deletion Why, then, have I supported CRGreathouse, despite the repeated claims that he might incorrectly speedily delete articles? Because I question the assumption that incorrect speedy deletions are primarily attributable to inexperience on the part of the deleting administrators. Indeed, most of the improper speedy deletions that I've seen have been performed by administrators with extensive prior deletion experience, who know full well that the deletions are incorrect, but simply don't care. As an extreme example, let's consider Yanksox's speedy deletions of Daniel Brandt. Clearly, Yanksox could not have sincerely believed that the article actually met any criteria for speedy deletion -- he was intentionally performing a disruptive deletion to make a point. I believe that, if CRGreathouse were granted adminship, he would read the criteria for speedy deletion carefully, and actually follow them, especially given the degree to which he has been chastened for lack of speedy deletion experience in this RFA. John254 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    I do not want to make any statement about whether he will make mistakes, I do not believe it. My point is that there is no real contributions in that area to judge him by. But you make a very good point here. I do think the candidate to be a good user who will not do intentional harm and the lack of good contributions to attribute knowledge in CSD does not mean that he will make bad contributions there, so you are correct to scold my reasoning. I will switch to neutral as I simply cannot judge whether he will make mistakes or not and WP:AGF compels me to assume he won't. Regards SoWhy 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

11. Strong oppose An excellent editor, and for the time being, that's what he should stick to. First, with respect to Speedy deletion, he does not seem to understand that deletion is the last resort, that alternatives to deletion should be examined, that thee are many reasons for speedy besides copyvio--which is far from the most frequent reason-- and that for copyvio one does not speedy delete if there is a noncopyvio version, if the copyvio material can be removed, or if the material was not introduced at the same time by a single person. second, the only way to demonstrate understanding of process is to participate in them, and, as mentioned, his AfD participation gives insufficient evidence to judge his understanding & there's nothing specifically related to speedy. When asked about this, he answered (in essence) that he wanted the authority first and that he would learn afterwards. Third, his approach to problematic situations with other admins seems a little odd---if one actually encountered a situation as extraordinary as Q8, my first thought after an email to the admin would be an email to arb com. Forth, his attitude that adminship is no big deal, is compatible with his casual attitude to the actual tasks involved, which matter very much to the people concerned with the articles. How we treat newbies is a big deal for the future of Wikipedia, and immediately deleting every article that is on its face unsatisfactory is not the way to go with them. (and his unawareness of the degree to which we need newcomers as shown by the answer to Q 16. I would suggest a thorough reading of Wikipedia polices, some experience at the various boards, and then perhaps an application after some demonstrated knowledge and involvement. Intellectual or logical capacity in the abstract is not really what's needed for an admin--rather the intellectual capacity as applied to the problems here, with actual knowledge of how we do handle problems here. DGG (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    DGG, when he said "the page should still be deleted if it's a complete WP:COPYVIO", the "complete" part seems to mean that all the current content and everything in the page history are all copyright violations, just like it says in CSD G12. Should he have said "For example, " before talking about copyright violations, just so you couldn't say that he's claiming only copyright violations are speedyable? Yes. But to choose your words with such caution is the craft of lawyers, not sysops, and we don't need folks acting the part of prosecutor general :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Balloonman, Dlohcierekim & DGG have stated it much better than I can. A fine editor but not yet experienced enough in admin-related areas. The answer to Q26 in particular was disquietening. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Attitude toward speedy deletion + the manner in which the RfA nomination was "accepted." (I assume we're working under IAR at the moment.) I dig the sense of humor and all, but I just don't see the candidate working effectively with new-to-Wikipedia content contributors. Townlake (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to neutral

13. Oppose, the user is a fantastic editor, and I do hope that they'll consider running again in the future, despite what they said above. However, the complete lack of CSD experience and patchy XfD work are a bit of a worry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

    There's almost no chance I'll subject myself to this again. I'm an introvert, and this kind of process is both painful and tiring for me. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

    That's a shame, because I'm sure with a bit more experience, you'd make a wonderful admin. Like I said, I hope you change your mind down the road, although of course if you don't I will respect that as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

    I appreciate all parts of that response: that you think I'm close to having the requisite experience, that with the experience I'd be "wonderful" rather than simply passable, and most of all that you'd respect my decision (down the road) to not run again. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting sarcasm here…) **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose. Moving to support. Wikipedia is a big tent, and people like this candidate who stay in one part of the tent and do a terrific job are the people most responsible for making Wikipedia great. But, per my unanswered question (#27) and reading his talk page, contribs and everything above, I don't see any evidence that this editor has made a comment in any guideline or policy discussion, ever (before this RFA). He's intelligent, civil and mature, and I'm sure if he were interested in participating in the larger melee on Wikipedia, he'd do a fine job of it ... but I just don't see any evidence that that's what he's interested in; this RFA seems to have been someone else's idea. He's said he's not going to run again (more evidence that he's just not that interested), but I would vote for him enthusiastically if he runs in another 3 months, if it looks like he's productively engaging a wider community. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    It was an optional question, wasn't it, Dan? :-) I hope you don't mind me taking you up on this, but what has contributing to policy discussions got to do with adminship? Admin tools are "the mop", right? Not (per se) tokens of leadership. I would have thought that we could use some admins who have no interest in policy discussions per WP:BURO. And I would also consider a healthy disinterest in receiving the tools a plus point: the candidates that concern me are the ones who are eager to get the tools as some sort of status symbol. Geometry guy 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    Kristin said above, "If CRGreathouse can understand the intricacies of abstract mathematics, he can easily determine whether a page falls within one of the classifications described at WP:CSD". Yes, he could easily learn this stuff if he wanted to, but I can't find evidence that he has commented on or put effort into learning any Wikipedian practices or policy related to any of the many things admins do. I can only find evidence that he cares about, and is very good with, a few specific subjects. Some of the questions he hasn't answered yet might change my mind, though. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

    I got around to answering the latest round of questions, including your #27. I've participated in a number of discussions relating to WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and WP:CONTEXT in the past; probably others, but none come to mind. I am somewhat curious, though: I see admins as enforcing rather than creating policy, so I don't know why you'd think of that as disqualifying. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

14. Weak Oppose I'm very very sorry, but I have to agree with Pharoah of the Wizards here. You're clearly a great editor, but I'm just not sure adminship is right at the moment. I would strongly encourage you to run in the future, though; you've clearly got enough clue for the job, all that's lacking is a bit of experience. GlassCobra 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per Balloonman. I do say that if you follow the concerns of the other editors, perhaps you will be an admin! Good luck. America69 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak oppose - almost there as far as my standards are concerned. Interesting user page. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Weak Oppose - per Balloonman. I don't like to pile on, but in this particular instance the link dump of "Pers" and evaluation of contributions lead me to believe this user may be a good editor, just not experienced to become an admin, yet. To nominee - I've gone through this process twice, don't give up. Best of luck. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    Without offense, I don't intend to follow your advice ("don't give up"). I intend this to be my first and last run for admin, win or lose. The process is difficult and time-consuming. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

    frankly, I think this answer is an excellent demonstration of why you are in fact not ready for the position; it does not show a willingness to learn from experience, and strikes me as perhaps a little arrogant--I apologize for using a strong word, but it seems the exact one. DGG (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

    I'll admit I don't follow that. I don't enjoy the RfA process, and I don't want to go through it again. How that personal preference relates to being stubborn/unwilling to learn or being arrogant is beyond me. (If being an administrator is service to the community, and I said that I wouldn't be willing to be an administrator [my reasons notwithstanding], that might be uncharitable—but you said "arrogant", not "uncharitable".) But then again, I also don't quite follow your reasoning for opposing. You seem to think I'd be deleting lots of articles, and I don't know where you get the idea. I've trawled through the {{prod}} list at times to find articles to rescue (related diff [though actually brought up on the math project not on the prod list] I found for Dloh: [14]). But maybe that's not your main issue and I've missed the thrust of your argument. No matter, I suppose; you're entitled to your !vote regardless of whether I understand it or not. And there are enough good arguments here for opposing (many users, like Balloonman, feel that I don't have enough experience), if nothing else. **CRGreathouse** (t | c) 00:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

    no, I do not think you will delete too many articles. i think you do not know which ones to delete and which ones not, due to your inexperience,. DGG (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

18. Reluctant oppose. I'm sorry, but working on AfD has given me a strong aversion to the practice of treating AfD discussions as votes instead of, well, discussions. Voting "per nom" or "per so-and-so" doesn't contribute anything and reduces the process to a show of hands rather than a meaningful exchange. It's troubling coming from a potential admin's recent activity because it shows that the editor doesn't understand the deletion process. I cringe every time I see a pile of "per" votes on an AfD discussion - it just shows that the editors "voting" are too lazy to add anything of their own. This is especially important when the article was created by a new user; it may be obvious to a seasoned editor why a page should be deleted, but it's important to give the newbies something to go on. Fantastic editor otherwise, but I'd like to see more and better experience with deletion in general before I give my support. Graymornings_(talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Balloonman, Useeight, and DGG. Lack of experience is not a good thing for an administrator to have when he or she wants to become one and as Balloonman has pointed out, lack of good reasoning for AfD reasonings is not a good thing either. Good luck in the future! Razorflame 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Answer to Q7 is wrong, blocks should not be used to allow people to calm down. This shows a lack of key policy knowledge by the candidate. I'll wait a while before making any further decision. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   I like the answer to xeno's RfA question. However, some of the problems brought up in the oppose section keep me neutral. John Sloan's IPavoider (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   If I am usually a good editor but am very passioante about some article which I wrote, and all of a sudden it goes up for deletion, I might get a bit annoyed and start insulting people. Usually I'd be blocked for 12-24 hours for this, to prevent further disruption. Now how do you think blocking me prevents further disruption? That's right, I have time to cool down and think about my actions. Cool down blocks happen on a regular basis and are not controversial.--Patton^t/c 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   There was a long discussion down at the WT about this before. There was general agreement that policy wording on CDB's needed to be modified, if I recall. — neuro^(talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   "blocks should not be used to allow people to calm down" -- isn't this what WP:3RR is all about? Maybe I just phrased my response poorly. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   There has been tons of discussion on RfA about cool down blocks, which you may not have seen if you havenn't hunt around here. I'd suggest looking at WP:BLOCK again though. The main part about them is that they should be preventative, not punitive. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I was actually referring to the effect of short-duration blocks, mostly 3RR, which do cool down edit wars in progress (in my experience, at least). I don't really support blocks just for cooling down, only when there are other policy violations at issue. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yes these are the kind of pre-emptive blocks that everyone seems to think are "cool down blocks" when they're not. Anyone who makes a pre-emptive blcok per "I think this user is going to go mental because I declined his tagging of a page for speedy deletion" should be desysopped immediatly...--Patton^t/c 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   This actually goes to a deeper subject, the value of recalling admins who don't live up to the standards expected of them (for that or any other reason). Voluntary recall is fine, but I'd prefer to make the process mandatory. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm sticking with neutral. Balloonman's comment influenced me the most on this one, especially the bit about your AfD contributions. The comments about your edits per month do not hold much sway with me, but I do think that you need to make higher quality edits in the deletion area if you wish to go into it as an administrator. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral (switched from oppose) per John254 (talk · contribs) who convinced me that no signs of CSD knowledge does not mean that the candidate will make mistakes but that I just cannot judge how he will behave. Regards SoWhy 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm amused that I get oppose !votes for not editing enough, and yet get a neutral (effectively oppose) for having too many edits. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral. CRGreathouse is undoubtedly a great editor. However, his answers to questions above question his knowledge of policy; something required for RfA. I have no reason to oppose on the basis that I do not believe he will negatively affect Wikipedia as an admin, but I also cannot support. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   That is a high compliment, for which I think you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral. Support as candidate has never been blocked and per 6 reasonable AfD arguments in discussions in which we both commented in, but oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westland High School (Galloway, Ohio) (use of WP:PERNOM and vote out of touch with close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough guy (2nd nomination) (another WP:PERNOM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School (a WP:JNN inconsistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School (another per nom inconsistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA in fiction (again, a per nom inconsistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of advertising slogans (again, no argument, just a vote, really), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xenosaga cast members (WP:PERNOM), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination) (weak), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo (again, need more why), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Hawkins Elementary School (2nd) (more per votes), etc., i.e. these comments do not reflect careful enough consideration, which I look for in admin candidates. So, not really enough to move me one way or the other, thus neutral, i.e. some good, some concerns. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, from what you write, I think you should be !voting 'oppose'. I suppose my ego appreciates your decision to keep it to 'neutral', but is neutral a true indication of your feelings on my RfA? I suppose neutral has the same effect as oppose, though, so perhaps it doesn't matter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't like to argue to oppose unless if the negatives decisively outweigh the positives. Here, I see a number (10) of questionable AfD comments; however, they were a bit ago and you did have 6 reasonable enough arguments I looked at and another positive in not being blocked. I can't support due to the ten weak or non-arguments cited above, but it's hard to outright oppose in the face of some positives. Maybe ten trumps six, but I don't know. Stuff like this that insults the opposers makes it hard to want to be a part of any such support section with those kinds of comments in that people should be able to support or oppose without being inuslted in the process, yet, I can't blame you for that. Anyway, as you can see, I'm divided (conflicted?) thus neutral. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   In other words, you don't support him because he !votes opposite to you at AFD? Stifle (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   In a larger sense a main reason why I have concerns with admin candidates who do not offer compelling reasons for deletion is because of examples of questionable closes by existing admins. As much as I really do not wish to call anyone out, but in order to sustain my argument here, it is probably necessary to provide a couple examples so you can understand where I am coming from. Consider first Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock). The discussion had three editors call for it to be kept, two for merge, and one for redirect. You only have two outright deletes outside the nomination. Now, let us look at these deletes. The nomination itself is a bot-like copy-and-paste “rationale” applied to literally hundreds of articles of varying degrees of notability and verifiability. See the most recent hundreds at [15]. If you look through those, you will see the next delete “vote” in the example I am singling out here has also been made in copy and paste fashion across a number of those discussions as well. In those and this discussion this particular “vote” just repeats almost verbatim a part of the copy and paste nominations. Finally, you have a WP:JNN from someone with a clear bias against these sorts of articles. Thus, to what extent are these comments truly reflective of the individual article in question? More importantly, how can these minority opinions possibly trump the more detailed and diverse arguments for keeping or at least merging? For something that looks way more like a “no consensus” than “delete”, why is no explanation provided as to how the admin came to his conclusion in the closing summary? Or how about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sennon? Aside from yet another of the same copy and paste nomination that is applied to every article concerning an aspect of fiction by that nominator, everyone in the discussion (even the two that have a delete in bold) also at least have a redirect and merge. No one just has a bold “delete”. But again the discussion is somehow closed as “delete” with no reason explaining how that conclusion was reached rather than the redirect that no one in the discussion really seemed opposed to. Now again, I am not trying to call that admin out or to start a discussion on the nominator. I am trying to show what I have seen that I do not want to see repeated by new admins. If I oppose candidates because they don’t offer detailed explanations and I think they might close discussions with similar inadequate “rationales”, it is because others have done just that when they become admins. Volunteer editors and arguers deserve explanations at least as a courtesy as to why their contributions are not worthy for inclusion or not persuasive. So, I have these past examples in mind when I look over a candidate’s contributions and make my recommendation based on wanting to avoid us having to waste time beyond an AfD asking for explanations of closes on talk pages or at DRVs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Candidate seems trustworthy and likable, but non-knowledge of CSD issues (only an issue because he wants to work in it) and the oddball acceptance of the nomination (weird way to commence a request to the community for the extra buttons) make me skittish about supporting. Good luck regardless, and thank you for all you do for the project. Townlake (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Switch to support

   Well, thanks for the complements. I'm vaguely amused that you found my attempt to inject humor into what is otherwise a dry statement objectionable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I know it seems a bit request for process-y to badger you about that. It certainly wasn't oppose-worthy on reflection. But RfA isn't about proving how clever you are, and that's relevant in the context of how well you'd communicate with new people who are confused over the nuts and bolts of this place and need straightforward answers to binary questions. Again nothing personal, and take my observation with as many grains of salt as you see fit. Townlake (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I made the assumption that there wouldn't be many Wikipedia neophytes reading this RfA. If there were, I'd have to be much more careful about abbreviations like RfA, AGF, WP:MOS, and the like, in addition to perhaps being more straightforward in answering those process questions. But point taken regardless. CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I think that you've established a foundation for disproving the opposing editors' claims. Let's try a proof by contradiction:

   The opposing editors claim that you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. But if this were true to the extent they assert, then you wouldn't know the meaning of "abbreviations like RfA, AGF, WP:MOS, and the like". However, through your participation in this RFA discussion, you've demonstrated your knowledge of "abbreviations like RfA, AGF, WP:MOS, and the like". So, clearly they're wrong. Quod erat demonstrandum :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, nowhere do I make the claim that he is unfamiliar with the alphabet soup that exists out there, what I point to are a large number of AFD's where he didn't demonstrate any independent thought, and used the old standbye, "per." AND his stated desire to work with CSD, despite not having ANY experience in that area. If somebody wants to become an admin to work in that area, then they need to demonstrate that they can interpret CSD policy and guidelines in practice, not just in theory.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Just some thoughts: I am confident that CRGreathouse is the kind of person who will ask for plenty of guidance as he starts CSDing; he won't be parachuting in with a machete and a blowtorch. As you might or might not have noticed, I share your concerns with bad CSDers in most cases; I just don't see CRGreathouse being irresponsible in this area. "I want to help in this area" is different from "I can't wait to get started." Townlake (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. Seems like an intelligent fellow, but per AfD diffs above and the "indefinite vs. infinite" discussion up above in the discussion section, I'm not convinced he'll use proper reasoning while using the admin tools. Tan | 39 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Moved to support.Tan | 39 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral. CRGreathouse is a good editor. However I'm not convinced that he has the required experience in admin-related areas. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral Balloonman (talk · contribs)'s comments makes me unable to support, but I just can't support because of a lot of the supports (not the number, but the reasons), so I'm neutral for now. — RyanCross (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Good editor, but unimpressive AfD work. DiverseMentality 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral not really a neutral, but an apologetic abstention. I took the time to ask a question but didn't take the time to look at this candidate enough to support or not and won't have time before it closes. Had I not already contributed to this RFA I would've just stayed silent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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.