Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Graham87

Closed as successful by

14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Graham87 (talk · contribs) - Graham87, previously known as Pianoman87 until March 2006, has been an active and prolific member of Wikipedia since February 2005: amassing over 19,000 edits in that time...while using a screen reader to make all his edits. Most of his edits are in cleaning up pages by removing dead links, removing link spam, and correcting the general flow of the page. Graham has made extensive edits to various pages, from Asperger syndrome to Piano to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Graham has a knack of finding mistakes and correcting them or reporting them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. He's also active in the talk pages, keeping a level head and coming to consensus favorable to all parties involved.

I came across many of Graham's edits during my comparatively brief career on Wikipedia and always assumed that he was an admin. He seems to have slipped through the cracks by blending in and working well with others. That does not mean that his edits go unnoticed; Graham has already been offered to be nominated twice, but he turned the offers down due to obligations at those times.

I am confident Graham will be an exceptional admin. Jumping cheese 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Graham87 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in maintenance -
protected edit requests, as that has gotten in my way a few times
.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Out of the articles I have written, the one I am most proud of is
the accessibility guidelines across Wikipedia and pointed out accessibility problems with the then new Main Page design
.
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: Most of my conflicts have been about article content or external links. The conflict with Requestion about the appropriateness of researchchannel.org as an external link, most of which can be found here, taught me a lot about the interpretation of rules in Wikipedia. The conflict with netoholic at Wikipedia talk:HiddenStructure taught me the value of keeping conversations organised and in one place. I can be reasonable and listen to arguments as shown at User talk:Ariesmarte. I generally don't let conflict get to me - I try to focus on editing something else if conflict affects me too much.
Optional question from Jusjih
4. How would you think of images considered copyrighted in the USA even if now in the public domain in their source countries due to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term?
A: I think the Wikimedia Foundation should apply US copyright law so, at the moment, it should respect that the US does not acknowledge shorter public domain terms in other countries. That doesn't mean I don't want a change in this area - I'm in favour of relaxing copyright law in general. I think the Wikimedia Foundation projects show how valuable free content can be, and big corporations and governments will eventually take notice of how successful we have been at creating and using primarily free content. Graham87 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Arky
5. If a user is banned from editing Wikipedia, do they have the ability to edit pages?
A: No, and all their edits should be reverted. I don't have a problem if someone decides to reinstate a banned user's edit (a spelling correction for example), as long as they take full responsibility for the edit. But in principle, banned users cannot make any contributions to Wikipedia. Graham87 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC), as[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Graham87 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Very impressed. –
    sebi 06:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2.    "          "        Daniel→♦ 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3.    "          "       
    ╦ 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. T Rex | talk 08:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support good candidate. —Anas talk? 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Clearly to be trusted. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support looks good. <<-armon->> 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oh, yes. per this. Is there a minimalist feeling to this RFA? Pedro |  Chat  12:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Without a doubt a good, solid, hard working candidate. Definitely deserves the title.
    ScarianTalk 12:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Support nice answers to questions, everything looks fine.
    saran (formerly Salaskаn) 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Glad to support -
    Resurgent insurgent 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support - Sensible and trustworthy contributor. I see no reason to oppose. —Moondyne 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Happy to support, has been *very* active in maintenance in the projects I monitor for a very long time now. Orderinchaos 15:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - This editor makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I have no doubt that they will be a huge assistance in the fight against backlogs. Definitely can put the tools to good use, and deal with potentially problem making newcomers, too. --L-- 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Looks fine. —umdrums 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per it being obvious. Jmlk17 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A user every editor, including myself, should strive to emulate. -- Kicking222 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Definitely meets the criteria.
    ♥Love 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Support Excellent vandalism fighter with an impressive edit count. gidonb 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support his work on
    Wikipedia talk:Accessibility in making Wikipedia accessible for people with visual impairments has been out standing, now the next challenge will be to make the admin tools accessible as well. Graham87 has the patients and understanding of Wikipedia, JAWS and IPA to make it work. Graham87 also displays commons sense to seek out help when problems arise, no doubt he'll find initial problems with using the tools but the end result will a Wikipedia that accessible to more people we can only benefit from this. Gnangarra 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Support. Friendly, knowledgeable, humble.--ragesoss 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support why not? Crownofworms 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SupportPer Pedro. Politics rule 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Trouble free, good natured and hard working contributor. Even though there are 15540 mainspace edits, there's also a good spread of activity in other areas. SilkTork 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per gidonb. He is an unbelievably prolific editor, has been for a long time, and thus can clearly be trusted with the tools of the trade. Bearian 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  27. Support Per this this
    Plus im eating a gramham cracker! (kidding) _____.:!Ninja!:._____ 20:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: A brilliant contributer. Surprised he's not an admin already -
    Pheonix 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Support A great editor. Would make a fantastic admin. -Lemonflash(chat) 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A fantastic user, and soon-to-be fantastic admin! Amazing work. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, appears to be an excellent candidate based on editing experience and straightforward answers to questions. --
    desat 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Support good good editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support dedicated and productive user.--cj | talk 06:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34.    "          "       Giggy Talk | Review 06:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support capable user, will make great admin. Recurring dreams 07:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36.    "          "        (grins...) --DarkFalls talk 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Trustworthy and Hardworking. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support It is time to give this user the mop and bucket. --
    Siva1979Talk to me 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  39. Support - particularly because of the efforts to explain deletions, copyvios and so on rather than simply using templates. An apparently experienced and reliable editor who seems to have good reasons for wanting access to admin tools. Euryalus 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support - longstanding editor with wide experience across many areas of WP, yet no signs becoming jaded (maitains polite and constructive posts to other editors). Experienced in the backroom tasks. Overdue not only Siva1979's mop and bucket, but also a steam cleaner :-) David Ruben Talk 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good example to many of how to be a civil and hard working editor
    Suro 13:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Support. WjBscribe 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Perfect candidate. GDonato (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support – however, I'd ask Graham to use caution if he decides to get more involved in
    Anthøny 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  45. Support nice candidate, I see no problems here. Good luck. Carlosguitar 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support nothing wrong here. Acalamari 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No POV bias in edits ,good editor. Harlowraman 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. DA THING ...yes...it's DA THING--SUPPORT! Execelent user, and will not abuse the mops. --Hirohisat Talk 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support after answering my question.--Jusjih 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support great answers, great credentials, I see nothing wrong with the candidate. Good luck with that mop! Arky¡Hablar! 00:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per nom. Sarah 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- valuable editor who I suspect will make a valuable administrator. - Longhair\talk 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support ~ Wikihermit 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 10:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Excellent answers to questions, all well-backed up. I have faith that the tools will be put to good use. --Bennyboyz3000 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support has the qualifications and will do well. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Suppose - the wealth of experience here is wonderful! That this user hasn't been an admin for some time surprises me. Experienced in all the right areas, this is yet another strong candidate. Lradrama 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak Support has the edit count, but doesn't seem like they will be dedicated. Nevertheless, I still must support •Malinaccier• T/C 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support all I have to say to the above comment is..... wuh? Will make a fine administrator. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Aminz 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Super Duper Uper Strong Support Somehow I didn't notice I have not voted yet, until now...sorry about that. =) Anyways, Graham is a frankly amazing editor and I fully trust him with all the admin tools. Jumping cheese 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -WarthogDemon 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. ~ trialsanderrors 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. That isn't contractable inGrade II Braille at all - then again neither is "oppose" or "neutral". If only braille was designed for Wikipedia :-) Graham87 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- I don't see why he shouldn't get the mop! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Graham has done excellent work for Wikipedia, and would be an excellent admin. --Aude (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. --84.45.219.185 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in to comment in this section. —AldeBaer 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  67. —AldeBaer 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Graham87&oldid=1090627132"