Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grsz11

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

Grsz11

(38/32/7); Scheduled to end 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC); withdrawn by candidate at 01:21, 6 December 2009.

Nomination

Grsz11 (talk · contribs) – I have the pleasure of nominating Grsz11 for adminship. He has been in the project since March 2007 and has over 15,000 edits. While he had a rough start in the project, having three 3rr blocks, it was over a year ago and it’s clear he reformed since that time. He has one featured article, one featured list, one good article, and at least 20 Did you knows . He is well-versed with policy guidelines, especially with WP:BLP, seen here for an example. He actively participates in AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Murray, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Qudus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off), where he helped calmed down an ugly situation. He has accurate rate on AIV for an example. He also has over 1,000 mainspace talk edits, 1,000 user talk edits, and over 100 Wikipedia talk edits, so communication is there. I think Grsz11 will make an excellent admin. Secret ^account 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate Secret's confidence in my contributions here and my ability to handle the tools. I am honored to have such a strong nomination. I will work on the questions and post answers shortly. Grsz¹¹ 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I am going to withdraw this nomination now. Thanks to Secret for his nomination and all those who responded. I've read all of your comments and hope they can all be beneficial. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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: As a non-admin with a couple of notice and request pages on my watchlist, I've seen frequent backlogs at a few of these pages. I imagine I would work mostly in these areas, at pages such as WP:RM, WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:RPP, and WP:UAA. I have also been involved at Did you know, contributing articles and reviewing when I can. I also poke in at In the news from time to time, and I would chip in at these pages if needed.

I enjoy writing articles and increasing Wikipedia coverage across a vast array of subjects, as evident with my contributions. I intend to continue that activity and hope that the tools can only improve how I edit here.

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

A: I expanded Idlewild Park to GA, then FA, and it was also featured on the main page back in May. I also have one featured list. Along with User:Blackngold29, I helped to get 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season to GA, which was the first GA for a ice hockey team season. I also have several DYK articles featuring a variety of different topics. I really enjoy contributing DYKs, my current project is historic sites in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I was involved with Barack Obama-related articles last year, an area which everybody knows created issues. I tried my best to keep these pages clear of POV, which came from a variety of single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, and several continuously disruptive editors, most of which have been blocked or topic-banned. I clearly felt the collateral damage. I attempted to use proper dispute resolution channels when the need arose. After the most recent incident, I backed away from the area, as I felt it was too much stress and drama than it was worth. However, it has certainly given me the experience in that sort of environment, as it has for everybody involved, and I feel that if a similar issue where to arise again, I would be much more equipped to handle the situation.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: I have no reason to disagree with anything stated at WP:COOLDOWN. "Cool down" blocks should not be used because like stated there, they are most likely to have the opposite effect. If somebody were to block me saying "I think you need a little time away." I would frankly be insulted. I would much rather prefer some words, even a very brief note, from an editor or admin noting their concern. I would do the same to somebody who I thought needed to calm down but weren't being overtly disruptive. If they are being disruptive however, and continue to do so after comments or warnings, well, then that isn't a cool-down block anymore.

5. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: I may be out there with this one (but maybe not, I haven't really discussed it with anybody) but I feel that the policy on wheel-warring should be at the top. All too often have we seen disputes, ArbCom cases and the like about incidents where two or more have been involved in this process. It's unproductive to say the least. When non-administrators see this kind of behavior from admins, it reflects poorly on the guilty individual(s) and in many cases, the admin community as a whole. I don't feel that it is unreasonable to expect someone to leave a note on the talk page saying "Hey, I'm not so sure that you were right here" and if needed, bring the issue up at AN or ANI, where, if consensus dictates that an action be overturned or re-instated, atleast there was thorough discussion about the issue, and nobody can point fingers.

6. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the second revert or the third?

A: In the perfect Wiki-world, an editor would leave a note or an adequately descriptive edit summary for every revert that wasn't vandalism or blatant violations. However, if counter-reverts continue it is essential that communication exists via the talk page in an attempt to find a consensus. While using the undo or rollback buttons is easier and quicker, all editors are expected to know that edit-warring is bad and if they don't they are made aware via warnings, and discussion should occur if reverts are continuing. Discussion should be made whenever there are conflicting opinions evident.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

7. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A: Marginal BLPs are the toughest to deal with. While I'm not likely to be involved at AfD very much, I agree that issues such as this one are important to overall judgement. In situations like that one, the closing admin has to judge the weight of the respective sides of the discussion. If I were to close this particular discussion, I would have deleted. My closing comments would reflect that I felt the deletion arguments were more substantial than the keeps.

8. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A: I have nominated marginal BLPs Wolfgang Werlé and more recently Rachel Uchitel. We have a tendency now to create articles for every little thing in the news (Balloon boy, Mihcaele and Tareq Salahi). Even though these individuals are notable for just a single event, with the sensational media coverage today, these events blow up into huge productions and there is significant coverage to achieve WP:GNG. It makes the situation very hard to deal with. If it weren't for that kind of environment, all of these articles would be deleted. People say John Hinckley, Jr. (I don't know how many times I've seen that or another individual argued in an AfD) is only notable for one event, but the event he is notable for is much more substantial than any of these other individuals. I feel that if there is one portion that could use work, it is BLP1E.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

9. You have indicated you might work at UAA. What would you do in the following cases:

• User:Iloveadolfhitler has registered an account but not made any contributions
• User:Boggleheadproductions has written an lame, just-got-speedy-deleted article on their YouTube account of the same name. (Let's assume there is not any other organization or website with this name)
• User:H8tful is rreported by a user for their name, but they are making productive edits so far

A: Thanks for the question Bebblebrox. For the first, I would wait to see if the contributions are disruptive. With the second, as it is not a actual business, is not blatantly promotional. I would likely wait to see if the disruption continues, as it likely wouldn't. Finally, I don't see a problem with the third, especially if they are being productive.

Follow-up: I've been doing some reading on this, and I don't see any reason why simply waiting is unacceptable. At Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Listing instructions says: "inappropriate usernames do not need to be reported or blocked if the user has made no contributions". I should have also clarified that I would not simply have ignored the issue, but strongly suggested that the user change there username, pointing out relevant guidelines. It's hard to WP:AGF in a situation such as that one, but I personally would sit on it for a time. I'm the kind of editor who hits refresh frequently. Also, I certainly wouldn't object if somebody else came and blocked. I realize this probably won't help much, just hoping to clarify my position.

This is a good point: What would we gain if the same extremist user were to hide behind the name "iamneutral"? — Sebastian 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from A Stop at Willoughby

10. Are there restrictions on the kinds of Wikipedia-related essays that users may write in the project namespace? Are there any grounds on which you would delete such an essay? Are there any grounds on which you would userfy such an essay?

A: Obviously disruptive essays would be inappropriate in the project namespace. If I came across one that I felt was inappropriate but not blatantly disruptive, I would likely bring it up at the appropriate forum for discussion.

Additional optional question from Hoary

11. In this edit (7 October) to User talk:Die4Dixie, I get the impression that you (i) concede that a rule may have been broken, but (ii) tell one or more interested admins to "go solve a real issue". Very possibly I misunderstand you (and either way, let's not reexamine that controversial user page), but it prompts a question: What would you tend to do on coming across clear but (in your view) insignificant infractions?

A: The userpage issue has comes up frequently. Looking back at it, and I don't remember all the details, I believe my main point was that it could at the very least been handled differently. Now, I'm unsure if your question is referring to just the userspace. In that situation, I would seek further input from the community via ANI. If it was blatant enough, like "I really hate User:Example and wish s/he would die", I would remove, yet still leave a comment for the community. Hope that helps, if I interpreted your question wrong or incompletely, just let me know.

Follow-up: As this issue is getting some attention, I felt it appropriate to follow-up. I don't feel that it is accurate to describe my actions as defending him. While I certainly don't share or condone his opinion (ask him, I lean left) I defended his right to have an opinion and was simply expressing my frustration with the situation and how it was handled, and other editor's did the same.

Additional question from Crohnie

12. I just want a little clarity on the BLP question asked about the no consensus question. Would the candidate mind responding just a little bit more about this? What I am interested in knowing is if there is no consensus but the keep/deletes are equally good then what would you do at closing? No consensus = keep or nc = delete? Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A: I would hope not to come across such a discussion where the weight of each side was exactly the same, and I can say I likely wouldn't involve myself in such discussions. But to answer the question, if a deletion discussion on a BLP had no consensus, it would depend on the situation. If the content was consistent with policies such as WP:BLP and WP:V then I would keep it, but if articles exhibited serious issues such as BLP concerns and such issues were brought up in the discussion, I would likely default delete, but I can only anticipate likelihood without having an actual example. Hope that helps.

Additional question from Matt57

13. Here you put a POV tag in an article. You made a minor comment on the talk page. Then you didnt say anything for 2 weeks and you left the tag in for that whole time. Could you explain? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A: Well to be honest, it's likely I forgot about it. I didn't return to that page after those few hours. It was back during the Fort Hood shooting follow-up, and every marginally related page was bombarded with any and all information that was out there. While I understand that discussion is needed on the tag specifially, I did leave a related comment on the talk page Talk:Shaker Elsayed#El Sayyid Nosair and Meir Kahane, and additionally, I felt my edit summary adequately explained my stance, and I had made the same argument to the same editors elsewhere, so they knew exactly what I meant. Also, while Elsayed may be controversial, he's not on a same line as an extremist, so I don't see this as "defending an extremist". Even still, we have BLP policies that require legitimate treatment of every person, including the ones we don't like, and that's why I was drawn there in the first place.

Yes I did link the comment you made on the talk page there. You still have some time to resolve the issue there or let the editor know that the problem has been resolved because they had been wondering about the tag for 2 weeks. Its been about a day since I left this question for you. It isnt good practice to leave things hanging. In an admin role there will be more issues to look after. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand I made a mistake with that issue, I must have forgotten to watchlist it and haven't been back since. Anybody can remove a tag if there is no relevant discussion, and I have no issue with them doing so; that's how it's suppose to work. Grsz¹¹ 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Grsz11: Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Grsz11 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Grsz11 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support In my interactions with Grsz, despite some disagreements I believe he's very capable and would make a solid administrator.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. No concerns.  IShadowed  ✰  23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
3. I kind of thought Grsz was already an admin. I see no reason to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator Secret ^account 00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support any new editor can accidentally break 3rr. He looks like a solid mainspace editor and should be allowed to hold the mop. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I think this editor's article contributions are impressive and agree with most of his answers to the questions. Given the heated nature of the articles that spurred the 3RR blocks, as well as the time that has passed, I feel safe in assuming that the editor has learned proper behavior in that area. Mrathel (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Addition I would like to add that having reviewed Grsz11's edits thoroughly before voting, I did notice that his political views do appear to be on the liberal side, which is why I am able to take the controversy regarding the supportive edit on Dixie's talk page with a grain of salt. Being able to put his own views aside and agree that the situation was mishandled even if he would otherwise disagree with the content is a sign that this editor will use the sysop tools fairly. Given the fact that this user has made 16k edits, I see this issue as minor and reject the idea that anyone can be guilty by association. Mrathel (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Quality editor who deserves the mop. Good luck with it! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak Support. Quality editor and 3RR blocks are no big deal. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Although he has been blocked for 3RR, I've reviewed his contributions and he's clearly reformed and responsible. Great contribs! --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong Support The politeness is a big plus for me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Has shown that he is not afraid to comment on controversial topics, seems to strive to improve the project, excellent content contributions. Good luck J04n(talk page) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Great answers to questions, I've seen you around a lot, you'll do great! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support 3RR concerns are nonexistant practically... they were so long ago, and he was new. I fully trust this editor. The thing that should not be 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Yep; good balance of content work and administrative stuff. Seems trustworthy and experienced. –Juliancolton | ^Talk
15. Support No concerns here! Great content contributions. Airplaneman ^talk 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Per above.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Looks like very good admin material to me -- Marek.69 ^talk 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support very close to Strong Support - No concerns here, will make a good admin. December21st2012Freak (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Support I particularly like your views on BLPs. Aditya Ex Machina 09:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support I noticed some overenthusiastic speedy tagging in April, but you seem to have shifted to using prod since with very rare speedy tags. Block log has been clean for the last 13 months so I take that issue as historical. Striking support per the UAA concerns below. ϢereSpielChequers 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

20. Support Grsz11 is an excellent contributor and he has shown a capacity to learn from his mistakes - a creditable trait in an admin candidate. Rje (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support A well-rounded candidate with good dispute resolution skills, policy knowledge, and fantastic article contributions. -- Atama頭 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. @Kate (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Looks good. Warrah (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support per above--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support An editor well versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines who also provides a fair, balanced perspective to discussions. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support The opposes aren't anything to worry about. Grsz11 seems to have a good grasp on the full ramifications of WP:NOTCENSOR. Editors shouldn't be blocked for their views but their contributions. No other issues; candidate has clue. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    On second thought, I'm torn between NOTCENSOR and SPADE over the Hitler name. It's not enough to oppose over because that user would likely be either unproductive or face a username RfC during his first few edits if he wasn't blocked. ThemFromSpace 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

28. IMHO, Grsz11 is wrong about what to do with User:Iloveadolfhitler, but I don't demand perfection in an admin; I prefer humans instead. Everything else about this candidate looks OK, so I see no harm in overlooking one small (and, note, long-term harmless) error and giving him the tools. To those opposing over his answer to this question: do you have any other concerns, or are you really opposing over one single thing that you disagree with? If my opinion changes after a more in-depth review later, I'll update this comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per William S. Saturn. Black Kite 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support . This user has what it takes now.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm a bit confused: User:Die4Dixie has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia among accusations of, among other things, Antisemitism. I cannot tell from all the back-and-forth and blocks on his User talk page whether this charge is in any way justified or not. yet he is voting here. He has been unblocked just so as to be able to vote for Grsz11's RFA, with the candidate having been one of the few to argue in favour of his right to display some deleted but apparently offensive image on his Talk page. How this is supposed to make me feel more comfortable about a candidate who's cool with User:Iloveadolfhitler, I don't know. But I'm out of here. Good luck, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Just as a note, Die4Dixie was unblocked several hours ago by User:Wehwalt. I haven't followed the situation, so I don't know what is going on, but I don't see how he has been unblocked solely to vote here. Grsz¹¹ 02:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Another note. I've been heavily involved in the discussion surrounding Die4Dixie's unblock. It had absolutely nothing to do with Grsz11. Die4Dixie is, for better or worse, a community member in good standing and eligible to participate here. The timing of this is a non-issue, and this all should probably be moved to the talk page. AniMate 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has been community banned via discussion at ANI. GedUK  14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

30. Despite the answer to one question, I've seen all around great work from Grsz and thus I have no reservations in supporting him. I hope you pass. ceranthor 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I may disagree with the usernames issue but it is not unreasonable enough to be a big deal. Also, the blocks were too long ago. Triplestop x3 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, much appreciated. I think you will make a very good administrator. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Had considered an oppose due to the block log, but then I realised if such a troubled editor could turn around and actually become a productive member of the Wikipedia community, then perhaps, given the chance, he can lead and guide those in similar positions currently to become productive themselves. Further, username policy enforcement can be a delicate exercise, and therefore the questionable answers come down to (in)experience more than anything. Good luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
34. UAA is fiddly, and if the user hasn't edited, I don't see the problem with the name; the only time another user will see it is if they visit UAA or the new user list. The blocks were a long enough time ago to discount, and I like Nja247's thought above. Overall, should be a net benefit. GedUK  14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak Support Blocks over a year ago are concerning. But they are over a year ago. I will assume good faith that the editor has turned over a new leaf, sides Micheal cane put it best in Batman, we have to fall to pick ourselves up. Otherwise recent work as far as i can tell is decent. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Overall he showed good judgement in the past. I'm sure he'll make a good admin.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support - I see some reason to withhold the extra buttons (3RR), but overall a good editor. He meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, etc. I don't like to paint broad strokes, so a year without a block is fine. 3RR is not a mortal sin. We need more admins. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - I see no problems here. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Although I feel that this user is established and responsible, the 3RR blocks sway my vote. I feel that a little more waiting would be best for this candidate before adminship.  IShadowed  ✰  22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that those blocks occured a year and two months ago.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That changes things.  IShadowed  ✰  23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose: As someone who unblocked this editor. I think the multiple 3RR blocks are problematic. The editor may be a fine contributor these day but admins are held to much higher standards. Yes it's been a while ago, but it's more than one occurrence. Toddst1 (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   On the other hand, he last edited the problematic article in February this year and isn't editing any related articles and hasn't been blocked for over a year. Do you think that editors can improve their behavior and community spirit on wikipedia, or that, once they've exhibited problems (definite plural) they can never change? To me, not allowing editors to improve their behavior is a problem when it comes to finding good candidates for administrator. You don't have to answer, Toddst1, of course, but I'm curious enough to ask. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose: user has a problematic view of BLP, especially surrounding the Fort Hood terrorist attack. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate, with diffs if possible? Robofish (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   As a note, I did not create or advocate that redirect; I'm not sure if that's how that statement would be interpreted. Grsz¹¹ 15:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, I've figured it out. William S. Saturn is opposed because you argued to delete that redirect, citing BLP, while he wanted to keep it. The full discussion is here. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. For several reasons, including opposing a block for egregious disruption ([1]) and the multiple edit warring blocks, I've got a bad feeling about this nomination. These issues might not derail a nomination on their own, but taken together they raise plenty of red flags for me.  Sandstein  21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose reluctantly per answer to User:Iloveadolfhitler. This is, to me, a blatantly disruptive and offensive username and I would want an admin to move swiftly to block it, regardless of whether or not contributions were "disruptive." Sorry, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Yea I was a little worried about that as well. An name like that should be blocked before it's starts editing. But it was a very simple mistake, and at least he didn't say the username was acceptable. Secret ^account 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Sorry, when people make an offensive username like "ilovehitler" and "Fagwithaguitar" (which actually was a real username) they should automatically be blocked. People with ridiculous usernames like such are not here to help write an encyclopedia. Also, the extensive block log history is ridiculous. No way. A8UDI 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
6. oppose Just don't trust user with tools per association with should-be-banned Die4Dixie. Hipocrite (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Weakish oppose I've seen Grz11 around and he displays a definite sense of clue. However, deffending Die4Dixie's user page, where he gloated over the death of a political figure and hoped that more "leftists" would die, doesn't fill me with confidence. The iloveadolfhitler user name question was a gimme, and he blew it. Badly. I respect this user, but cannot support at this time. AniMate 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose At first glance, Grsz11 is a terrific candidate for adminship. His article work is impressive (I very much enjoyed reading his FA, Idlewild and Soak Zone), his project namespace experience (particularly his AfD work) is good, and he generally seems to be polite. The edit warring blocks are so far in the past that they shouldn't even be considered here. But there are definitely some significant causes for concern. The first part of the candidate's answer to Q9 was fundamentally wrong; that user could be blocked on sight. His answer to Q10, which I asked, left a lot to be desired; it was a short, plain-vanilla response which, while not incorrect, didn't give much insight into his policy knowledge. His answer to Q11 is also very troubling. No disrespect intended, but it made me wonder how this could not be construed as a "real problem," as the blatantly polemical statement on User:Die4Dixie's userpage clearly violated WP:UP#NOT. I don't want to hold the user's association with Die4Dixie against him too much, but it certainly is unfortunate to have a proposed community ban of that user being voted on while this RfA is still ongoing. Despite the bad timing, I don't think it can be completely ignored. All things considered, I commend Grsz11 for his excellent contributions to and work on the encyclopedia, but his policy knowledge has some apparent gaps that are causing me to ultimately oppose this nomination. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Sorry, too many red flags popped up for me to be comfortable in supporting, namely the iloveadolfhitler username. That either demonstrates a lack of, or insufficient amount of clue, or alternatively, lack of understanding of policy. Either the former or latter are concerns enough for me to oppose, sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Block for egregious disruption Opposing block for egregious disruption, 3RR blocks (I think three, but perhaps I'm wrong on the number), answer to user:iloveadophhitler, Die4Dixie position (relates in part to my first point) ... just way, way too many warning signs for me to trust him with the mop. Sorry.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Would you be able to clarify which block you deem was for "egregious disruption", as AFAIK, they were all for 3RR, and not a different form of disruption. Grsz¹¹ 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    You're correct ... dropped the first word; corrected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Strong Oppose. Guilt by association, and the block history is unbecoming. After reading a bit more on the D4D situation, you really hitched your horse to the wrong wagon on that one. Wow. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm uncertain who the "guilt by association" is suppose to be related to, if you care to clarify. Grsz¹¹ 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    That guy who finds joy in other people's deaths. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    I have stated several times I did not support his opinion, only his right to have one. Grsz¹¹ 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose I can't support an editor who has multiple(not one) blocks. BejinhanTalk 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose per the username issues. This editor is lacking sufficient clue to be given the tools. Crafty (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Largely per Steven Zhang and Epeefleche above. None of these concerns singly would be enough to disqualify, but the accumulated weight of them give an impression of questionable judgment and lack of sufficient familiarity with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Previous blocks for 3RR give me pause, but answers to questions 9 in particular leaves me unable to support this candidate...Modernist (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Overall I get a sense of questionable judgment. The (old) blocks indicate an old judgment problem. The answers to 9 and 12 indicate a lack of understanding of policy and when to use one's own judgment and when to follow the rules. Some of the issues with D4D reinforce my sense of poor judgment (though I think that was much more of a mixed bag). Nothing overwhelming, but put together are enough to oppose. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per Bejinha (willing to change my vote if convinced otherwise by the nominee).----Gilisa (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Comment And how could I do that? :) Grsz¹¹ 06:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Response: If one want to be an admin, then, as I see it, he/she have to have the ability to keep on cool head even when provoked and also an admin must constantly aspire to lead to constructive negotiation when touching controversial issues. There are red lines that are expected not to be crossed by typical nominee for adminship. It seems that you crossed these lines in the past -so, if you can convince that this bad judgment is no longer there, I would be happy to support your nominee.--Gilisa (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    Comment I like to think that from my experiences a year+ ago, I have learned that line. While all people are human and even expected to slip up once in awhile, I feel that I have learned how to respond better in these types of situations. Grsz¹¹ 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose per A9 and A11, and the guilt by association through Die4Dixie. Though the candidate seems to have learned a lesson from his edit warring, I just don't feel comfortable with this candidates level of policy knowledge with regards to WP:UAA. ArcAngel (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    As a note, Die4Dixie is now community-banned. I do not see how this is coming up as a concern. In the past, my relationship with him was very contentious. I feel that my ability to change that relationship is a positive thing. We aren't the best of buds by any stretch of the imagination, but we aren't at each other's throats every chance we get anymore, which I feel is a positive, not a negative. Of course I disagree with many of his views, but that does not mean I'm not allowed to interact with him. Grsz¹¹ 15:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

19. Reluctant Oppose I'm sorry, I really am, but 'iloveadolfhitler' is an instant block on any respectable network. No matter how productive the user may actually be that user name is will attract controversy where ever it goes except the blocked list. The blocks are also a concern, as you were blocked three times for similar incidents- all were edit warring. Anyone- and I do mean anyone- could fall prey to that once in the heat of the moment; but three times indicates an ability to get too caught up in the moment. Again, I really am sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose: Here Grsz11 inserted a POV tag on an article on an Islamic extremist (or a person with links to terrorism) and he didnt explain at all what exactly the problem was on the talk page. In addition to that, it looks like someone defending extremism and that makes you no different from similiar editors. Sorry but this isnt going to work. You'll have to work very hard until your next nomination if it happens. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    comment Just to clarify; he tagged a BLP for POV because he felt it was "evident", which I do not necessarily agree with, but in that case you accuse him here (thought the text is somewhat hard to discern), saying "[he?] looks like someone defending extremeism?"? That accusation is in no way supported by the meager description given in his edit summary. Mrathel (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    When you put a tag in an article, you have to explain why you put the tag there - do you not? Do you see any talk page discussion on the tag? The rest of what I said should be clear to anyone. The article is about an extremist and he didnt like the negative views being said about the Islamic extremist (hence the tag). What do you think thats all about? That along with the tag placement with no talk page discussion is a serious issue. This is like someone putting a tag on Osama Bin Laden's article with no discussion and saying "I think this is fairly evident". What would you think about that? Isnt it obvious? What does that say about the (1) placing a tag with no discussion (2) Disliking negative information about an Islamic extremist (by putting a POV tag). Are these two issues of no concern to you?

    The tag says and let me bold it for you: "Please see the discussion on the talk page." <----- Do you see the discussion on the talk page? No there's no discussion there. If he doesnt care what a tag says, what does that say about him? Do you agree that a tag can be placed on a page without any talk page discussion? Please, answer the question. [edit] --> He did have a comment on the talk page but it was minor and he left the tag in there for 2 weeks with no replies on the talk page. So I stand by my comments: He objected to negative information about an Islamic extremist and he left the POV tag in the article for 2 weeks and never came back to discuss. This means he was unable to resolve the issue that he had brought up. That doesnt much about resolving issues for other people. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    I would have liked to have seen better justification in the edit box or on the talk page, but I also assume good faith. Because an editor places POV tag on an article about an "extremist" does not give any indication of his or her political views, and I would refrain from drawing conclusions about a person's belief system based on a tag. Mrathel (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    If we assumed good faith all the time we'd unban all community banned people and make them admins. Anyone wanting to be an editor strives for higher goals and expectations than an average editor and even a good average editor would not take tags lightly. I understand you're the 6th person for support and gave a lengthy reasoned explanation for your support so you're motivated to respond to any oppose, but my point stands. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose per answer to Q11 partly, and especially per answer to Q4. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    What is your issue with his answer to question 4? Just curious. GedUK  15:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    The fact that cool-down blocks are, in fact, quite justified at times. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm, well, I don't think you'll find any admins who'll admit to that point of view, mainly because it's wrong. GedUK  22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Kurt has a long history of making votes at AfDs that reflect opinions that fall outside the mainstream of Wikipedia, for better or worse. (As you'd expect, most people think it's for the worse.) -- Atama頭 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's not wrong. Cool-down blocks are indeed a good idea and appropriate at times. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    But that's just your personal opinion. Your personal opinion isn't consistent with wikipedia's policy. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you still follow wikipedia policy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

    You're wrong. So-called "policy" on Wikipedia is anything but. It is merely a description of what has been typically done in the past in certain situations--it is certainly not a "rule" of any sort that is at all binding. On Wikipedia, we don't make decisions on rules, because we don't have any. We simply use our best judgment to decide what is the most appropriate course of action, in the best interests of the encyclopedia, in a given situation. We may choose to use precedent to help us make our decision, but we're not bound by it. So so-called "policy" is really not binding at all: if there's a difference between what, in our judgment, is best for the encyclopedia, and what so-called "policy" says, then so-called "policy" loses. I realize the unfortunate choice of the word "policy" may be misleading, but I hope now you understand what these so-called "policies" really are. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose. As various other oppose !voters have noted, the candidate's answers to too many questions are off-base, superficial, or otherwise never really address the central issues involved. Admins must be ready to give clear and cogent justifications for their actions, and the overall set of answers gives me pause here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose – along with the concerns brought forth above, some of the answers to the questions doesn't instill me much confidence here, especially Q4 (which doesn't go into any insight or anything) and Q9 (for the "Hitler" account, such accounts should be immediately (soft)blocked). There are differences between "what the rules say" and "what is general practice"; the two are not always in sync with each other. MuZemike 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Struck the Q4 part. I think I misread the response, thinking that he was just re-stating what WP:COOLDOWN says. I'm afraid I have to stick with my "oppose" because of everything else, however. MuZemike 19:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - History of questionable judgment. Questions not handled well. Senatrix (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm assuming this user wasn't supposed to be allowed to participate in RFA discussions, being a sock. Sorry if I went over any bureaucrats' heads here. Please correct if I made any error here. MuZemike 09:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose - Re: above reasons. --Mista-X (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose This seems like one of those editors that is a great contributor as an editor, but questionable as an admin. I have to oppose for several reasons. One of the reasons is the blocks. I am a firm believer in forgiveness and second chances but I just don't feel this user has really understood the problem. Their description of the Barack Obama article doesn't seem to show remorse for their actions. Also, I don't feel their answers about WP:UAA are correct and the user has expressed interest in working that area. I'll keep an eye on this RfA because my mind can change.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says it well. An example of that is the situation of Q13 and the answer to the question: It already shows a lack of care to give no better explanation than "i think this is fairly evident" when tagging a whole article. Q13 provided a chance to make up for the mistake by explaining what he felt was wrong with the article so that we all can understand what he meant. Instead, the candidate only focuses on "the same editors" - which indicates a complete lack of understanding ofthat you did not think of the first principle of Dispute Resolution: Focus on content, not on other editors. — Sebastian 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    All I meant by that comment, was that I was part of the same small group of editors editing related pages and we were all aware of each other's concerns. Grsz¹¹ 04:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking my post kindly. I realized that my wording was too harsh and just fixed it. Still, your reply confirms our impression: You're again not addressing the real issue. I still don't see any focus on content. As I wrote above, you are not only dealing with a small group of editors, but you are accountable to the community at large. — Sebastian 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    What I meant was that the group of editors were aware of each other's concerns regarding the content, and I assumed that my edit summary comment would sufficiently inform them that I felt the same issues applied to that content. Grsz¹¹ 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'll reply on your talk page. — Sebastian 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please let me know.)

    Hi. Was I one of those editors who you felt knew your concerns?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

27. Oppose, concerns about answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose: sorry, but the answers to Q9 leave me with concerns about someone who wants to work at WP:UAA -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Q9, defending Die4Dixie against a block w/ an implied argument that users have a right to freely express their opinions (not exactly inline with WP:UP and WP:SOAP), and an overall feeling that Grsz11 priorities are unideal for a wikipedia admin (to say the least). Rami R 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose I was not happy with some of the answers to the questions - especially those for Q9 from someone who specifically said they wanted to work on UAA. Overall, I feel uncomfortable with the thought of this candidate having the mop. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Firm Oppose Candidate has not shown the judgment, respectful communication skills, or sense of fairness that is required to be an effective admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose because of the answer on Q7. I do not necessarily mind if someone has a view that policy is wrong, but saying they would deal with it by interpreting the results to fit their own view of what policy ought to be, is not acceptable--or at least that's how aI understand the somewhat confused responses here about BLP issues. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral pending answer to Q11, though answer to Q4 is distressing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) changed to Oppose Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Not entirely satisfied with the answers to the questions. Not to the point of opposing, as I doubt this user will explode the 'pedia as an admin, but enough to cause me to withhold support. Shereth 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I think the candidate is well suited to the areas indicated. If it were possible to give him tools for the purposes of those areas exclusively, I would most certainly support. However, I'm not comfortable with the user getting involved with actually deleting articles. I'd question the suggestion that he did anything to diffuse the situation at this AfD with remarks such as "Sorry, but characterizing it as a "diplomatic incident" is outrageous" and "It's important to a lot of pissed off Irishmen right now, sure,...". I accept that MickMacNee was going out of his way to provoke a reaction, and that you had a valid deletion argument, but I'd be uncomfortable giving the deletion and block buttons to you just yet. WFCforLife (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - not happy about the username stuff. Crafty (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Shifting to oppose. Crafty (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now: still reading, still thinking. But I'll say now that I reject "guilt by association" and am appalled by some of the commentary in the "oppose" section above. -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. The contributions and work lead me to support, but two red flags stand out: the answers to questions are OK but not detailed enough to give me a strong basis upon which to judge how the candidate would do. In fact, some answers lead me to believe the candidate would avoid controversial situations, which are the primary times an admin is needed. Additionally, the block log is concerning, but it's over a year ago and I'm willing to assume good faith in that the candidate has turned this around. While these issues are not significant enough for me to oppose this candidate, I cannot support this candidate without more assertive answers indicating true judgement skills. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral: concerned about the multiple blocks. South Bay (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. placeholder really. Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - You have been blocked more then once for the same action, even though you knew WP:3RR looking at your contributions. And either way, you were blocked more then once, which means you didn't really read why you were blocked. Can't support. But can't oppose. smithers - talk - sign! 20:53, 5 December 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.