Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:42, 10 April 2006

KI

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2|action=edit}} Vote here] (4/7/4) ending 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

KI (talk · contribs) – I've been editing since December 18, 2005 and I have 2,881 edits with an average 25.67 edits per day. Most of my edits are Chad-related, especially regarding the Chadian-Sudanese conflict which I hope to get up to featured article status once it ends. I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad and I've worked with Aldux, Grenavitar, and Natalinasmpf on several pages. I was recently mistaken for an administrator by Exploding Boy.

It is worth noting that all of the oppose votes on my last RFA were from my short time and # of edits. KI 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nom) KI 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support. I think that you would be a fine admin. You have been here for a reasonable amount of time and you have made a reasonable amount of good edits. I can't see anything negative that should hinder you from becoming an admin. Answer those followup questions. DarthVader 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support. Please do answer the additional questions below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The quality of his contributions and his moderation guarantee he will be a good admin.--Aldux 11:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has a good quality of contributions and is unlikely to abuse admin tools. We should give him a chance. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose too soon since last Rfa. Also anxiousness to block some users who weren't vandals, like in his answer to question #3, concerns me. KI is a good editor, but he needs more time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t
- While I can understand how this may be too soon since the last time I had an RFA, I dont understand how more time is going to change much. Is there something specific you think I should work on or look up on Wikipedia policies? KI 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Masssiveego 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per anon editor.--Adam ^(talk) 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would like to see a more varied palate (not just Chad related articles); also only been registered since December. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You seem to want adminship a little to much. One should wait 2-3 months before reapplying. I also would have waited for someone to nominate you. Self-noms under two months of your last RFA are usually frowned upon. You barely meet my criteria otherwise. Moe ε 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have concerns about the nominee's judgement and patience.
- I was very surprised to see the nominee's response to the question about whether they were involved in any conflicts that have caused them stress. So far as I am concerned us plain ordinary wikipedia contributors sign in so the rest of the wikipedia community can ask us questions, and hold us to account when our edits fall short of wikipedia policies and procedures. I think administrators, and those who nominate themselves, should be holding themselves to a higher level of accountability.
  - I left a message on the nominee's talk page about a renaming they did that struck me as irresponsible.
  - They said the rename was in conformance with (unspecified) wikipedia naming conventions. They also complained I wasn't being civil to them. To my way of thinking their reply demonstrated a lack of willingness to be held accountable for their decisions -- not a desirable feature in an administrator.
  - I asked them to educate me as to which wikipedia naming convention justified their rename.
  - They responded by leaving me a very brief note saying that WP:NPA justified their renaming Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism.
  - They also left a longer note on the administrator's noticeboard, complaining that I was harrassing them.
  - Even if, for the sake of argument, my two attempts to hold them responsible constituted harrassment could be described as harrassment -- why didn't they mention it in their answer to the question about past conflicts?
  - Nominee's Initial rename, IMO, appears to show bad judgement. and possibly a bias the nominee is not recognizing. Wikipedians with a tie to or respect for some of these charities are already very sensitive to having the wikipedia report the verifiable fact that they have been accused of ties to terrorism. Asking them to sit still for the wikipedia saying they are in fact tied to terrorism, when that has not been proven, is, IMO, extremely insensitive. Further, I would recommend the nominee to consider whether they might be demonstrating a bias they were unaware of.
  - Nominee's response, IMO, appear to show an unwillingness to be held accountable for their editing choices. We are all supposed to aim to make our edits from a neutral point of view. We don't always succeed. I know I fall short of that goal sometimes. So I welcome help when other contributors can help me recognize when I fell short. And I try my best to learn from the instances when my lapses are pointed out. I strongly urge the nominee to do likewise.
- I urge our nominee to think about whether stating their beliefs so firmly on their User Page really leaves the impression that they can be relied on to apply an unbiased NPOV in their adminship. Perhaps what we believe strongly should be reserved for our personal home-pages, not our wikipedia User Pages -- and for posts to sites that don't mind partisanship, like townhall.com and Daily Kos. -- Geo Swan 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, all that I did was move a page and you responded by pasting multiple tirades on my talk page about the American government torturing people illegaly and engaging in personal attacks. Your general incivility and the insignificance of the whole episode did not merit a noting here. KI 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesnt meet my criteria/you should wait at least 4 months to re-apply. (although IMO, if you lose once, its an indicator of future loss. people will dig up the same dirt...) Vulcanstar6 14:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But... what dirt is their to dig up... the only reason people voted oppose was the short time I've been here...unless I'm missing something... KI 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Pending followup questions below. — xaosflux ^[[Use

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[User:KI|KI]]===
 '''[{{fullurl:<nowiki>Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2</nowiki>|action=edit}} Vote here] '''
-'''(4/7/3) ending <nowiki>18:30</nowiki>, 16 April 2006 (UTC)'''
+'''(4/7/4) ending <nowiki>18:30</nowiki>, 16 April 2006 (UTC)'''
 {{User|KI}} – I've been editing since December 18, 2005 and I have 2,881 edits with an average 25.67 edits per day. Most of my edits are [[Chad]]-related, especially regarding the [[Chadian-Sudanese conflict]] which I hope to get up to featured article status once it ends. I started the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad]] and I've worked with [[User:Aldux|Aldux]], [[User:Grenavitar|Grenavitar]], and [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] on several pages. I was recently mistaken for an administrator by [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]].
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 '''Neutral'''
-# '''Neutral''' Pending followup questions below. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
+# '''Neutral''' Pending followup questions below. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[Use
-# '''Neutral'''. Shows some improvement over last time but I don't want to support just yet. Also waiting for answers to followup questions. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
-#'''Neutral''' pending answers to additional questions. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]] [[User:Wezzo/userboxes|(ubx)]]</small> 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
-#'''Neutral''', perhaps later. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
-'''Comments'''
-<!-- begin editcount box-->
-*See [[User:KI|KI]]'s edit count and contribution tree with [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=KI&dbname=enwiki_p Interiot's tool] and the edit summary usage with [http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=KI Mathbot's tool].
-<!-- end edit count box -->
-*For question number two, can you please explain ''why'' you're pleased with those articles? --[[User:TBC|<font color="gray">T</font><font color="blue">B</font><font color="purple">C</font>]][[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]]<small><sup>[[User talk:TBC|<font color="gray">???</font>]]  [[Special:Contributions/TBC|<font color="blue">???</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/TBC|<font color="purple">???</font>]]</sup></small> 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-*Prior [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI|RFA]](16/20/12) ended 22:08 February 26, 2006 (UTC).
-'''Questions for the candidate'''<br />
-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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog]], and read the page about [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators]] and the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]].
-::'''A:''' All around admin duties. Resolving disputes before they truly begin, vandal blocking, and rollbacks. With persistent vandals I lean towards individual blocks rather than protecting pages. I'll try to assume good faith and to reason with users before I block them as misunderstandings and mistakes do happen.
-:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
-::'''A:''' [[Chadian-Sudanese conflict]], [[Tripoli Agreement]], [[2006 State of the Union address]], [[Democratic response to 2006 State of the Union address]], [[2005 State of the Union address]], [[Nebro]], [[Second Battle of Adre]], [[United Front for Democratic Change]], [[Rally for Democracy and Liberty]], [[Platform for Change, Unity and Democracy]], [[People's Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy]], [[Consolatio peccatorum, seu Processus Luciferi contra Jesum Christum]]...
-:'''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:''' I contacted several administrators regarding repeated vandalism on [[Numa Numa]]. They neither reverted the vandalism, nor blocked the vandal, nor did they respond in any way. Other than that, no incidents have been particularly stressful.
-::'''3.1'''.  How did you contact these admins, and how did you confirm your message was read and ignored? — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 03:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
-I left messages on their talk pages, waited a day, and they did nothing. [[User:KI|KI]] 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
-'''Questions from [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]]'''
-: '''1''' Can you please expand on your answer to Question 2 above with more specific reasons for why you are proud of the articles?
-I'm proud of them because they are of high quality. The [[Chadian-Sudanese conflict]] was and is ignored by the majority of editors who focus on [[current events]]. If I had not worked on it, it would not exist.
-: '''2''' Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
-Rollback. Easy to undo and handy to use.
-: '''3''' If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
-I would let anonymous users start articles. The restriction on anonymous users creating their own articles was in reponse to vandalism to an already existing page. Adding the restriction ignored the problem and limited Wikipedia's potential for growth.
-: '''4''' Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
-Offensive usernames or obvious sockpuppetry, with a high margin of doubt for obvious. I am reluctant to indefinitely block users. Most learn their lesson with time.