Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

KI

[edit]

Final (10/18/7) ended 20:43, 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

  1. 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]
  2. Moral Support. Please do answer the additional questions below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. The quality of his contributions and his moderation guarantee he will be a good admin.--Aldux 11:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He has a good quality of contributions and is unlikely to abuse admin tools. We should give him a chance. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Jusjih 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I would have been neutral, but after I read his responses for the questions, I was just barely pushed over to the "Support" side. JaredW! [[User talk:Steveo2|Respond]] 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral Support --Jay(Reply) 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no real reason to oppose.  Grue  18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Your answers have convinced me to support. Royboycrashfan 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. A good editor helping to counter wikibias in a big way. I'm rather perturbed at the oppose votes that say this editor is "too eager"... And the fact that some valid disputes are being carried over onto here. This seems rather unfair. So what if it's "only" been a month and a half since the last RFA? To me that's a tremedous amount of time for wikipedia. (I think I'm a far more developed editor now than a month and a half ago, even if I haven't gone out looking for new policies to learn! Sheesh.) Grandmasterka 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 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]
  2. Oppose per above Masssiveego 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. per anon editor.--Adam (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. Oppose Candidate seems to eager and appears to be 10 Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the personal attack, could you provide some sort of rational for your oppose vote? Thanks. KI 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I share a sense that candidate is too eager; two RfAs in five months here is rushing things. Wait several months before reapplying, and I'm sure things will go well. Xoloz 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Three users on my last RFA told me to re-apply within one-two months. KI 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong in KI's little tussle with Geo Swan. But a good admin (or the personality of someone who will make a good admin) is someone whose edits de-escalate situations like these. And although I have not read through the debate in question, I'm also concerned that someone who will fight to rename Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism hasn't internalized WP:NPOV. Bucketsofg 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comments. I'm a little underwhelmed by the candidate's answers to the questions. The answer on editing work that he is most proud of first produced a lengthy and undifferentiated list; once forced to specify one, he picked a good article that he should be justifiably proud, but he seems not to actually explain what it is about his contribution is notable. Or his answer to JoshZ's third question, where he has misunderstood the rationale behind the no-new-articles-by-new-users rule. Bucketsofg 21:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "misunderstood the rationale behind the no-new-articles-by-new-users rule." Really? How's that...? KI 14:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose is self-evidently in order to stop new users creating new articles that are bogus, not (as your answer seemed to suggest) to stop vandalism of existing ones. (It was in the papers: it is alluded to here, e.g.) Now, I don't mind if you think that the current policy should be changed. But to argue against it on the basis of a misstatement of its rationale is a problem. Bucketsofg 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. (should be #11, ignore the miscount on the left Thanks, Naconkantari) A great start. Read the other users' comments, learn from your mistakes, and I will be willing to support you in another three months. (^'-')^ Covington 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it for you. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I wouldnt support a user with under 5 months editing... so this RFA is a little hypocritical if not premature. (from KI's previous RFA) Your first edit was on 18 December, and today is 11 April. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Merecat 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose A tiny bit more experience and time, plus a good time buffer in between this RFA and your next, and I'll gladly vote support. _-M o P-_ 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak oppose - I think you've gotten a lot better but you're not quite 100% there yet. You're a good editor but Anon editor has a few points I'd like to see resolved first -- Tawker 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I agree with most of the concerns raised above. Btw, I don't see the relevance of another editor mistakenly thinking you were an admin--I've been mistaken for one before, too, as have many other non-admins. That isn't a valid or supporting reason for actually becoming one. Sarah Ewart (Talk)
  17. Oppose for this alone. The user made an inappropriate pagemove, deliberately introducing a less neutral title, then snarled when confronted about it. That sort of behavior begs for a block, not a promotion. — Apr. 16, '06 [06:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  18. Oppose - I was going to construct an elaborate set of reasons, but after seeing the edit mentioned above by freakofnurture, that's all I need to see. Oppose. - Richardcavell 09:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Pending followup questions below. — xaosflux Talk 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining Neutral. — xaosflux Talk 19:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Shows some improvement over last time but I don't want to support just yet. Also waiting for answers to followup questions. JIP | Talk 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral pending answers to additional questions. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral --Rob from NY 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You certainly have enough edits, and you have done a fine job in editing wikipedia, but you need more time. Beside, no image uploads?. The Republican 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, maybe in a few months time I will support you. --Terence Ong 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the 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? — xaosflux Talk 03:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left messages on their talk pages, waited a day, and they did nothing. KI 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from 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.

5 Do you have any response to Geo Swan's concerns mentioned on the talk page under the sections accountability and candor?

See the talk page.

Questions from User:Geo Swan
1 One thing many of those who voted against your administratorship during your first nomination has in common with many of those who are voting against you this time around, is a concern that you lack experience. Some of your recent comments [1] seem to indicate that you feel you were as qualified then as you are now -- and that if your support votes fall short, those voters who think we should wait a bit a longer, are incorrect -- that you won't actually learn anything, don't actually have anything to learn. So, what, if anything, do you think you learned in the 44 days since your previous run?

2 Followup to the preceding question - if this run fails, do you think you should try to improve and grow? Do you think there are any aspects of wiki policies, procedures and guidelines where your knowledge, understanding or practice has room for improvement?

3 Do you think you have anything to learn how to be tactful? Helpful? Fair-minded?

4 Do you think it is important for an administrator to set a good example, and refrain from using inflammatory language?

5 How important do you think it is for an administrator to avoid snap judgements and short tempered replies?

6 Do you think it is more important or less important for an administrator to be open to good faith, non-inflammatory criticism than it is for us ordinary users?

7 Do you think that we should expect an administrator to resign if it becomes clear that they have been allowing their POV or their emotions to color their decisions? What about if they can't or won't own up to having made mistakes?

  • Note - Although the candidate didn't choose to respond to my questions here, they have responded, here and here. The short version is that they say they regard my questions as a form of harrassment. -- Geo Swan 12:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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/KI_2&oldid=1089731489"