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

GRBerry[edit]

Final (87/1/1); Ended 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry (talk · contribs) – GRBerry is an excellent RfA candidate. The man is a regular at AfD and DRV, his opinions are always thoughtful, and he adds value to any discussion he participates in. Here since April, in his 4400+ edits he has crammed a ridiculous amount of project participation, discussion, and yes, even article writing. This user is a Sysop's ChoiceTM candidate. He is well educated, well on in years, and will make an excellent addition to our sysop corps. Please join me in welcoming our next sysop, GRBerry. - crz crztalk 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination

With the permission of both GRBerry and Crzrussian, I add my hearty endorsement to this nomination. I have long been impressed with GR's ability cleverly to solve extremely contentious disputes by reaching to the root of the matter; his voice was so often the clearest and most decisive in AfD and DRV discussions that I independently resolved to nominate him shortly after the alacritous Crz had already done so. GR's true talent for adminship isn't simply his keen judgment; defying the "coldly-analytical" stereotype sometimes applied to his renowned alma mater, he is warm, friendly, and even more likely to ease tensions with a smile than with his exceptional intellect. Wikipedia has no user more prepared to enter the Admin-crops; GRBerry's mophood will be an enormous benefit to project. Xoloz 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. GRBerry 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first nominator is too positive about me. I am human. I make mistakes, put my foot in my mouth, and get things wrong. So I don't believe that I always add value when I participate in a discussion. I think normally add value, but I know there are exceptions. I also tend a bit to the long winded side, but you can tell that from the answers to the questions. You can see my WikiPhilosophy on my user page.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My primary focus of janitorial participation is article deletion - see User:GRBerry#Project Participation. I don't see any reason for that to change if I'm given the mop and bucket. I expect the priviledge that I'll use the most is reviewing the history of deleted pages. There is a significant fraction of discussions at WP:DRV that I refrain from participating in because I can't see the deleted history. And my participation in other reviews could be better if I saw the history. I'd also do some undeletions there, if I happened to be the first admin to spot a after the fact contested prod. (DRV currently has all the closers that it needs.) The natural next use is doing article deletions. I don't have strong plans here, and might do requested speedy deletions, backlogged AfDs, or expired prods, depending on my time available and current backlog levels. I'd be surprised if I ever did much blocking. Recent change patrolling is a possibility, as I have done it before, but my interests don't lean that way.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Ultimately the most important is the question I asked here: [1]. I believe that by asking what the German solution to the userbox situation was, I got people to actually look at it. Growing out of people looking and answering the question, Wikipedia has mostly adopted their solution. Was it critical that I ask the question? No. Eventually somebody would have both noticed Jimbo's statement and asked "what is he talking about?" But eventually could have been a lot more wasted time and hard feelings.
In retrospect, I feel pleased with my very first edit [2] which was to create a requested page. While there was a lack of sourcing and too much use of personal knowledge; that got somewhat better over the next two weeks as I kept working on the article. [3]. From the new page and recent change patrolling I've done, I wish we could pull everyone's first edit up to even that standard, improvable though it is.
Probably the article that I am most pleased with my contributions to is Zayat. I started it because I wanted to wikilink to it. Knowing essentially nothing on the topic before I began writing, over the course of about six hours, I produced a sourced article [4] that made ((Did you know))?.
Finally, I do have a brag page at User:GRBerry/Major contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: As a regular RfC commentator I've stuck my oar in many disputes, but generally they don't cause me any stress. I recognize that dealing with heated disputes is not something I enjoy. As discussed above, I intend to focus on the DRV & AFD areas. But here are the four disputes that have caused me stress that I can remember:
The first significant dispute I was involved in was the May round of the Userbox Wars, especially the T1 and T2 debates. A lot of the discussion is at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates and its talk page. At one point I got too stressed out to continue editing, and posted this request [5] for GTBacchus to review what I had done while I went to bed. The next day, I formed the impression that I had driven Tony Sidaway away from the discussion, and again asked GTBacchus to give me feedback. [6]. I should have apologized to Tony on his talk page.
The second significant dispute to end was a WP:BLP issue at Kyra Phillips. See User talk:GRBerry/Archive 2#Kyra Phillips and the immediately following sub-section, Talk:Kyra Phillips#RFC Repsonse and the remainder of the page, and the talk pages (or histories there of) of other participants. I should have asked for outside help sooner. This was at a time when WP:BLP was newly policy, and many people didn't understand it well yet. Unfortunately, an admin had to protect the page to stop an edit war that I was a participant in. Once that happened, engagement by all parties and more importantly other users occurred on the talk page, and I haven't touched the article since.
The third significant dispute to end was at B. H. Carroll Theological Institute. See the talk page there, User talk:GRBerry#B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, and the talk pages of other participants. This one I don't really know how I could have handled better. I was mostly on the talk pages here, though did have three effectively identical edits to the article. I eventually decided that even though I believed I was factually right, my article edits weren't important enough and weren't helping matters.
The second dispute to start, and one that hasn't yet ended, is a very low grade dispute oozing along like refrigerated molasses at Talk:Mami Wata. I showed up as an RfC responder in July. About a week ago I raised another RfC and asked GTBacchus to advise me on what else to do. He has chosen to step in and attempt mediation. At the pace this one is moving, I think we should have it settled by New Years - of 2009.

Question from AQu01rius (talk · contribs):

4. After you become a sysop, if a user requests you to help resolving a image dispute (let's say this one), how would you respond?
As you've seen from my contribution history, I have almost no image experience. (I also have very little image interest. For my first 2-3 months here I had my browser confifured so that most images would not display.) I also notice that that dispute is still unresolved. The evidence thus far presented is weaker than it could be - the email trail does not show the request. So I'd ask for a copy of the full email trail. That should clarify how the request was made. I get the feeling from the various discussions that this one was likely to have been made in poor and possibly unclear form (part of my job at work is reviewing draft contracts, so I know how easy it is to create ambiguous wording). What I would do next depends on the wording of the request. If it was only "use on Wikipedia" (which here the requester specifically disclaims), then it would have to be deleted, as explained at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#What not to ask permission for. (This would need to be explained better than , and given my limited experience I'd leave a note with my opinion on WP:PUI and leave the deletion to someone more experienced.) If it was poorly worded, I'd recommend the poster use one of the example requests on that page to solicit a clear statement of permissions, to be followed by emails of both the request and response (scanned if necessary) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", in order to preserve solid evidence of permission. If it was properly worded in the beginning, then I'd recommend the request and the response email be sent to the permissions email. In either case, the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed should be followed. That will eventually clear the dispute - either by getting clear and unambiguous notice that permission was received, or an explanation (from someone that knows this stuff well) that the permission is inadequate.
GREAT answer! I was just a little bit concerned about your lack of experience in image namespace, because images are like the second most likely source of dispute. I believe you won't have problem with images at all though. Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Aminz

Sorry for taking your time. I have a question regarding WP:RS and "WP:Beware of False Authority". How do you think one should concretely evaluate the reliability of a source which is written by person X and published by Press Y? I mean, what is the algorithm (e.g. 1. searching in google for X 2. etc etc) Sorry if the question looks silly.
The question looks tough, not silly. I probably could have answered before the clock ran out, but I missed it this afternoon, for which I apologize.
You missed two parts of the question though, I think. What is the claim W that is supposed to be verified by the source? What is the source Z?
If the claim is that person X holds an opinion, then the issues are whether person X is the author of Z and if person X is sufficiently prominent that their opinion merits inclusion in the article at question.
My experience through AfD and DrV has mostly been evaluating online sources. A good dose of the sniff test is the first step for those - "blog", "forum" or "list-serv" appearing the in the url is a downcheck immediately - unless there is compelling reason otherwise. After that, I follow the link and just get a feel for the page. My third step is to find the site's "about us" page. In the second and third steps I look for whether it is an advocacy site, whether the publisher is visible or not, whether the authors are visible or not, and whether the site claims to seek to be true (policies on material used, ways to submit corrections or comments to an ombudsman, etc...). Most unreliable web pages will visibly fail by this point.
For print media, the tests are similar. Is the source Z available for verification - if it is a rare book from long ago that has not been republished, it might not be available except to serious researchers in some librariy's rare books collection. Conversely, a modern print on demand book might not be in any libraries at all. If it isn't available for verification, who cares if it would be reliable? I rarely if ever initiate these tests myself.
Secondly, What do we know about person X? (Check for a Wikipedia page; who are they in relation to the article and claim in question, are they an academic researcher, advocate, both of the former, or something else; can I find a reliable biography of them?) What do we know about press Y? (Do I recognize them, are they a university press, are they a print on demand press?) Is source Z a book or a peer reviewed journal? What do reviews say about it - if it gets reviewed as a piece of serious work with comments like "soundly researched" it is good, if it gets reviewed as a piece of advocacy with comments like "compelling case" it is negative. The factors here have to be balanced - a source by a new professor (that clearly fails WP:PROF) in a peer reviewed journal is at least as likely to be reliable as a tenured faculty member from a leading university publishing an advocacy piece through a general publisher or in a popular magazine. These factors also have to be balanced with the claim and article.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Lol I beat both the noms support. Gee, I wonder if you'll pass? -Amarkov blahedits 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Maybe it's the pressure of not yet having my Christmas shopping done, but I'm racking my mind to recall seeing this user. I was trying to do so because it always gives me pause when the nomination lays it on so thick, which triggers my overdeveloped sense of scepticism. So rather than rushing to respond (which isn't something I do in any case), I took time to go through the nominee's contribution history and to all the other useful things one can look at in assessing a candidate. Happily, this nominee seems well suited to the tools and I am happy to support. Agent 86 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Unquestionably. -- Kicking222 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Looks good to me! The only candidate I can recall (other than myself) with more Wikipedia: edits than mainspace edits at the time of their RfA. Grandmasterka 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If I ever decide to run for adminship, I will surely have more WP-space edits than mainspace edits at that point (right now, it's something like 2500-2050, give or take). -- Kicking222 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support. Sysop's ChoiceTM. Well put, Crz. Nishkid64 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - great wikipedia. If CRZ is that strong a support as to nominate, I support too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Good answers to questions, seems like a fine candidate. Wikipedia needs more admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per noms. // I c e d K o l a 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support, slightly belated, from the co-nominator. Xoloz 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Looks good, plenty of experience. I especially like the varied afd comments - a mixture of keeps and deletes, always with reasoning provided. Picaroon 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks like a responsible, experienced editor.Ganfon 06:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support This is actually the first prospective admin whom I genuinely thought, as the cliché goes, already to be one. In any event, whilst I would surely have supported this RfA irrespective of the participation of others here, I cannot imagine that anyone supported by the ever-exacting and eminently reasonable Xoloz, Crz, and Amarkov should ever fare poorly here. I wonder, in fact, whether we might get Boothy443 and Masssiveego to support here (this is not, to be sure, a personal attack and is offered jocularly). Joe 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support knew he wasn't an admin because I'd looked into nominating in the past. Eluchil404 07:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with pleasure. --Kukini 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support although DRV could use another hand... ~ trialsanderrors 08:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Will have good use of tools, trusted editor. Delta Tango • Talk 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, I'd always thought this one was an admin already. But as apparently that's not the case, that needs fixed! Excellent editor. Seraphimblade 09:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. yes, of course --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-23 09:48Z
  21. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 11:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - looks good, I like the WikiPhilosophy, excellent nominators, no reason why not. Moreschi Deletion! 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Everything seems in order. James086Talk | Contribs 12:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 13:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 15:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No hidden agenda as per POV risks and Affiliations section on your talkpage. I've also appreciated your discussions and the way you dealt w/ reliable sources at Talk:Mami Wata. Deserved and welcome to the board. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Proto::► 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Looks like a good choice. Nephron  T|C 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I trust the nominator. Asteriontalk 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. Mainspace edits a little low in comparison to everything else, but that's not really a problem. --Wizardman 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per noms and Amarkov. Addhoc 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as per the noms. Shyam (T/C) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, all checks out very good. Sandstein 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Almost too qualified. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as per above. --SonicChao talk 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Eu apoio este utilizador.--Húsönd 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Number 40? :) Wow. Nom support. - crz crztalk 23:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support-Great user. Only thing that I wish is that he doesn't make XFD too primary, LIKE he stated because other things are important too. And on an unrelated note, this is my 2,000 th edit! TeckWizTalkContribs@ 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, obviously --BigDT 05:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: Looks like an easy one. He's aleady correcting admins that miss steps in processes! —Wknight94 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Outstanding. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Haven't always agreed with him, but seems like a good candidate for adminship. Jayjg (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Rettetast 11:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like this RfA will pass easily, and rightly so, but I'll just pile on my support, too. Coemgenus 15:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Terence Ong 15:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, per nom(s) — Arjun 16:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support appears to be an excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon 17:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Well-qualified editor.Ganfon 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you already !voted (see support #11 above). --210physicq (c) 20:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Great Job! -Advanced 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - well-qualified candidate, good statement and answers, no issues. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per above. Just H 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Do I really need to state my reason? –The Great Llamasign here 21:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support strong candidate, impressive noms. Dar-Ape 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support - User is logical and careful. Seems to always have a clear sense of what's right. Strong support! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support One of the best users of this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Solid candidate with excellent reputation Bwithh 04:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've never come across this candidate, but his contributions look stellar, and I trust the judgment of both of his nominators -- Samir धर्म 06:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support given past experience with this user over at AfD, as well as answers to questions. --Coredesat 06:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Happy Holidays -- Tawker 06:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support though if this had been a self-nom I would have opposed had the candidate written a statement similar to Crazyrussian's. I don't intend to penalise the candidate or raise the point further here though. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support valuable, responsible editor. Lots of AfD experience. Pascal.Tesson 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, and merry Christmas. The Blue Lion 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, looks good. delldot | talk 14:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All-around awesome contributor. –The Great Llamasign here 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One per customer please - crz crztalk 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, I need to wake up. I gotm in an edit conflict with crz removing my support vote. D'oh! –The Great Llamasign here 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - May very well have the best user page on wikipedia. If not for lack of experience within the image namespace this would be a strong support --T-rex 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - GRBerry's AfD participation suggests a strong knowledge of policy and a commitment to Wikipedia's principles. GabrielF 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Hooray! Jorcoga† 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Often see him around, respect his decisions Jenny Wong 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support One of the best in a while. I'm very confident he will be a great admin here. ← ANAS Talk? 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support One of those guys you always see around saying and doing sensible things. Surprised to find he wasn't an admin yet. - Merzbow 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. You're doing such a great job as it is that I'm almost tempted to oppose. You're going to make an excellent administrator. alphachimp. 08:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, Without question or reservation. This is someone who I actually thought was an admin already! --Mhking 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Docg 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Yanksox 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Everything seems to be well in order here. IronDuke 01:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support Great user! -- Cat Whisperer 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support Have what it takes to be an admin and will use tools wisely.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - changed from neutral. Gimmetrow 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I thought you were a sysop already.... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support quality AfD work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Shows good understanding of policy and good judgement. ColourBurst 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. If this didn't end tomorrow, I'd say "WP:100, anyone? --teh tennisman 14:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) duplicate see #19. - Agathoclea 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Sysop's Choice Agathoclea 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Support Great Wikipedian that is there to help if needed. Shows excellent leadership throughout his edits. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support Has deep knowledge of WP, and is quite skillful at resolving conflict in ways that improve content - improving content is at the core of WP. Lentower 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Bucketsofg 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Unfounded "abuse of discretion" accusations. El_C 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Abuse of discretion" in the context of a deletion review, per the candidate's userpage, has a specific meaning: that he believes the closing administrator made serious errors in weighing the various factors and comments in judging the AfD. (The candidate seems familiar with contrasting "abuse of discretion" with "de novo review" in the sense that they are used as legal terms, cf. the discussion at appeal, although his background seems to be in mathematics rather than law.) Such an observation is in no sense any form of personal attack or "accusation" against the closing admin, and in effect this oppose !vote comes down to disagreement with analysis on a single AfD/DRV, which is the commenter's right but to me hardly seems sufficient to base an oppose. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad has correctly understood the comment to which El C objects. Nonetheless, since the wording drew this misunderstanding both from him and another user, I am searching for another wording to use the next time I believe a close was incorrect. I am currently considering using "reversible error", but have not yet had occasion to use it. GRBerry 03:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to people purporting to read my mind. Also, the basis for opposition varies (esp. in relation to the final !count). El_C 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.
Category