Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelapstick

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

Kelapstick

Final (48/8/6); Closing as withdrawn. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kelapstick (talk · contribs) – Kelapstick is a valued editor who has created valuable content, racked up 25 or more DYKs in the process, and made many friends along the way. I have come to know Kelapstick as a very friendly and helpful editor; he has assisted me in becoming a better Wikipedian, and I see from his edits and contributions that he has a calm and friendly demeanor toward new and inexperienced users. I see him on vandalism patrol, he categorizes articles, participates in helpful ways at AfD, and writes content. As a valued member in good standing of the Bacon Cabal he has been instrumental in documenting that important food.

I have participated with him on some articles and watched him at work on many others--on varied topics such as food (Bacon mania, Steamed clams, J-D's Down Home Enterprises), popular culture (This is why you're fat), politics (African American candidates for president of the United States, Black president in popular culture (United States)), architecture (MBM (architecture firm)), mining (Ninja miner), children's TV programs (Moose A. Moose)...I could go on--this is just a selection of his DYK articles. He is a member of WP:WikiProject Mining, helps other editors (such as me) with DYK nominations, does a ton of sometimes small but always important things.

I have never seen him make rude or hasty comments, and I have learned a lot from him and can learn more. As a contributor, a vandalism fighter, a fellow editor with now almost 10,000 edits, he would make a great admin. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would like to thank Drmies for his nomination and the kind words. I accept. --kelapstick (talk) 19:25, 26 May 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: I would like to start by helping out where it is needed most, for example the administrative backlog. The two categories Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Media requiring renaming currently have 118 items and 807 items respectively.

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

A: My contributions to mining related articles (of which six appeared as DYK articles), when I started editing here 2+ years ago a lot of the mining related articles were in pretty rough shape, while a lot of them still are, I feel they are in far better shape than they were which is in part by the formation of WikiProject Mining. I was also happy with the way Cortez Gold Mine and Batu Hijau mine turned out. I try to help new users when I come across edits or articles they have made that either do not conform to Wikipedia standards or inclusion criteria, and explain what is wrong with it and how they can fix it. Sometimes they listen and sometimes they do not, but I think that I am pretty good at explaining myself, and I try not to make things too complicated. I also revert a fair bit of vandalism (unless somebody beats me to it).

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: The most recent conflict that I have had was baseball related. A user had created upwards of 200 articles about minor league baseball players. There is a difference of opinion of how WP:ATHLETE is interpreted, both within and outside of WikiProject Baseball, some editors consider minor league players to be fully professional, I do not. I had proded a bunch of articles, they were contested (both by the article creator and other editors). The result was a collaborative effort to sort through the articles, and see what had been created. I ended up putting up 22 articles at AfD, with about a 50% being deleted. The rest were improved and kept based on the General Notability Guidelines (not WP:ATHLETE or baseball specific guidelines.) I was also in a dispute regarding the addition of commercial websites being used as a source for listing the dimensions of stick candy (a controversial subject I know).. The websites would be in violation of WP:SPAM, but not having anything to back up the claims to length and dimensions would be in violation of WP:V. I brought up the subject at WP:RSN, and suggested a solution on the article talk page that I felt would be acceptable by both parties involved, both parties rejected my suggestion. The result was keep the links out and add an original research tag. Another conflict (November last year I think) was regarding Mountaintop removal mining, and a regular editor of that page. I felt that the article was too biased towards the criticism section (and very external link heavy), so I split the criticism section to a new article, which (I was unaware of) a violation of the GFDL (I understand it far better about it now), the content was moved back and my split was deleted. I read the explanation about what I had done wrong, understood it, and went to bed.

4. Do you think IP's should be able to be blocked indefinitely for repeated vandalism? Drmies (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A: In my opinion, if it is a static IP address that is not registered to a public place, and all the edits originating from that IP for a prolonged period of time are vandalism, and multiple temporary blocks in the past have not changed anything, I think that an indefinite block the IP address may be appropriate, however there should be no prejudice towards unblocking upon request and explanation/commitment to constructively edit. If it is coming from a public place, such as a school or library (or if the IP is dynamic), the address should not be blocked indefinitely, a short temporary block will suffice until the offending editor is away from the computer, and if a somebody is prevented from editing Wikipedia because their IP address is blocked indefinitely, it may discourage them from becoming an editor in the future. Indef blocking dynamic IPs and those registered to public locations has an adverse effect on editors who are not involved in vandalism and is counterproductive to the overall goal of the project.

Optional question from User:zzuuzz

5. You have never made any edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do you plan on using the protection and blocking tools, and how would you describe your familiarity with the relevant policies and practice?

A: I have not made any edits to AIV or RPP as it has not been necessary for any of the areas that I routinely contribute to (typically after a few warnings the offending editor gets bored and goes away). I understand the rationale for protecting a page (typically full protection when there are content disputes by multiple registered editors, semi-protection for excessive vandalism by anon/unconfirmed users) and for blocking an editor, mainly persistent vandalism but also (persistent) incivility, edit/revert warring, personal attacks, or other policy violations. While I do not plan on jumping into adminship by protecting pages and blocking editors (really nobody wants to have to do that), I am able to recognize when it is appropriate and act accordingly, but am open to constructive criticism, and don't take offense when I am told I am wrong.

Optional question from FASTILY

6. Your nominator, Drmies, stated in the nomination statement at the beginning of this rfa that you, Kelapstick, are "a vandalism fighter". Yet, as noted in the above question, you have made 0 edits to either Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Could you please clarify this?

A: Perhaps a better phrase would be vandalism reverter? Most of the vandalism that I revert is on articles that I have worked on in the past and have on my watchlist, or are in articles that happen to be reading. More of my time on Wikipedia is spent adding content rather than patrolling recent changes. If an article on my watchlist (or as I am reading) has been vandalized, I revert it. As I said above, none of the incidents of vandalism I have been involved with have reached the point of requiring administrator intervention or page protection (or if they had, an admin blocked the user or protected the page without notification at AIV or RPP), which is why I have not made any edits to those pages. Somebody who's primary edits on Wikipedia are vandalism reversions might not refer to me as a fighter, I believe Drmies' comment was to point out that I do revert my share of vandalism.

If it is appropriate for me to say something here: that is indeed what I meant--I didn't use it as a technical term, just loosely in the sense that Kelapstick has explained, which is also the way I counter vandalism. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

7. If you were kidnapped by enemies of Wikipedia, would you divulge your password in exchange for your freedom?

A: If they are enemies of Wikipedia, they are probably not very smart, so I should probably be able to escape with minimal difficulty. Also I can run faster scared than most people can mad (or in this case in desire of an administrators password). So no I would not (not before my attempt at escape at least). The only case in which I initially might would be if they have clowns, since I am afraid of clowns.--kelapstick (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you might want to meet User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...who may actually have been kidnapped by enemies of Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I see being a Wikipedia editor as similar to having a drivers licence. It's more of a privlidge than a right. Anybody may hold a drivers licence provided they obide by the rules of the road, anybody may edit Wikipedia provided they obide by policy. If you are issued enough speeding tickets or other violations, your licence may be revoked for a set period of time (or perminantly in severe cases or after enough violations), if you are issued enough warnings you may be temprarily blocked, and if it is persistant and severe enough you may be blocked indefinitely from the project. Therefore editing Wikipedia is not a right that can not be taken away, it is a privlidge.

I feel that Wikipedia editors ony have the right not to be suject to incivility, harassment and personal attacks. That right is upheld by the community (both administrators and non-administrators) by notifying uncivlil/harassing/attacking editors about what they have done wrong, and in the case of administrators, blocking when appropriate. However in my opinion, there should never be a case where your right to not be the subject to incivility/harassment/persoanl attacks be taken away, even if the editor themself is acting uncivil. As such I will uphold that right in the manner I stated above.

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

9. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A I have only edited under this username.

Optional qustion from TharsHammar

10. This question is in regards to a recent comment of yours that raises concerns for me, [1]. Do you feel that wikipedia is made better or worse by editors and administrators getting involved in articles that they do not know about? As a followup: as an adminstator how would you approach tricky disputes involving content in articles you lack knowledge of? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A A snarky comment on my part, and I forgot to put on a <sarcasm> tag. It was in response to someone questioning the usefulness of a contributor who has over 20,000 edits in their first year of contributing. Stating that you shouldn't create articles (or set yourself up as the creator) about something you don't have a great deal of knowledge about (such as a book you haven't read) is contrary to the expansion of the project. I have written articles about subjects that I have little knowledge about, such as Dead Hot Workshop, I heard them referenced in a song by The Refreshments and came to Wikipedia to see who they were (turns out they were a popular band in Tempe in the 90s, along with The Refreshments and the Gin Blossoms). When I found they didn't have an article I wrote one about them. Part of what I love about Wikipedia is if I can not find the article I am looking for, I create it and learn something in the process. Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines ensure the articles accuracy. This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, if I want to edit an article about something I don't know about I can (again supported by verifiability and reliable sources).

Editors who get involved in editing articles about subjects they are unfamiliar with improve the impartiality of the subject as they do not have a preexisting bias of the subject. Administrators who get involved with disputes about articles on subjects they are unfamiliar with provide a valuable outside opinion on the content without preexisting bias. Complicated subjects may not be so cut and dry, an admin with more experience with the subject may be more appropriate, provided they can stay impartial. An example is the Ayn Rand issues that went on earlier in the year, I looked through it and just reading the article made my head hurt. I have absolutely no preexisting knowledge of the subject, and today I would not be a valuable asset to content discussions (without research). As an administrator involved in a dispute about content in an article about a subject that I am unfamiliar with I would first check the sources. The sources are the backbone of an article and if they are not there, the content should not be there as Wikipedia strives for verifiability not truth. I would make myself familiar with the subject and initiate discussion on the article talk page (if it has not taken place already). If no consensus is reached more in depth research on my part will have to take place. Upon reading all the sources of the disputed content I should have enough knowledge of the subject under dispute that I can propose a solution (including my rationale) that I feel will be acceptable to all parties. So I suppose in short, I support the editing of articles that a Wikipedian is unfamiliar with provided they follow WP:V and WP:RS, I encourage the unbiased opinion that comes from editors and administrators regarding article content about subjects they are unfamiliar with, and the impartial opinion from editors and administrators when they are familiar with the subject. I hope this answers your questions, let me know if I need to elaborate on anything.

Questions from Rootology

11. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: I think it is a shame that we need a specific policy about how to edit articles about a living person. I should be covered by no personal attacks (treating the subject of a BLP in the same as another editor), the reliable sources, verifiability and NPOV guidelines. Most of what is in BLP actuallly is covered elsewhere, BLP just says, "we really mean it here and with a higher sense of urgency". For example, you should not add dubious unsourced material to any article; BLP says that unsourced or contentious material (positive negative or neutral) needs to quickly be removed and without discussion. The policy is less than four years old, probably because so much of it is covered in those areas. While I am sorry that we need BLP, I understand why we do, and I agree with both the spirit and the policy itself as it stands today.

12. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: From the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists (attributed there to Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst) - "It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs." It's one of my favorite quotes. I don't have a strong religious affiliation and am not affiliated with a political party. The only actual association that I am affiliated with is the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, at least I was until my membership lapsed (which I guess means I will stop receiving their magazine). While I do strongly feel that mining has been over vilanized by environmental groups and non-governmental organizations over the past couple of decades (as was the issue in the dispute in question 3), I do not think it is necessary to permanently recuse myself from using admin tools on mining related articles as I am able to be impartial with their use (for example I would not protect a page to prevent an editor from adding content I was in disagreement with). Having said that (and in line with my answer to question 10) sometimes peoples judgment is clouded by preexisting opinions on subjects, and if I or any other editor involved felt that I could not be impartial on a subject or would have a conflict of interest (mining included), I would be willing recuse myself of administrative functions (permanently if necessary), but would still participate in discussion.

13. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?

A: Yes I will, I feel that people in positions of authority should be accountable for their actions and I will be open to Administrative Recall.

14. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: Yes administrators should be subject to blocks as they are "any other user", just with additional tools. If an administrator is committing blockable offenses there is no reason that they should not be subject to being blocked.

15. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A:

1. Chocolate - Growing up I didn't care for chocolate much, but since I had two wisdom teeth removed it is growing more on me. Still I never crave it (with the exception of peanut M&Ms)
2. Cake - Love it. At one time I asked my wife if there was a place in town that delivered it. Unfortunately there wasn't.
3. Beer - I Like Beer (unfortunately the song doesn't have a page so I had to link to the singer), but I miss Canadian beer (all you can get here is Moosehead), but I like the price of American beer.
4. Whiskey - I can take it or leave it. Although I once had a jacket that had an inside pocket that could hold a 26oz bottle of Royal Reserve.
5. Drama - I don't care for it, in real life (my brother is a drama queen) or on Wikipedia. I feel there is no place for drama here, I find it disruptive and feel it has an adverse affect on the project. (Full disclosure, I took two years of drama in high school and performed in our Grade 5 production of H.M.S. Pinafore)

Question from User:Gimmetrow

16. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a user block without prior discussion? (This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. But please don't limit your response to just this situation.)

A For the most part a block based on WP:CIVIL doesn't need to last more than a few hours (with the exception of gross incivility over a prolonged period of time with no indication that the user in question will change). Blocking for incivility (or for anything for that matter) isn't a punishment, it is to encourage the user to understand what they have done wrong and expedite a change in their behavior. For example, when I was young, if I said something rude to my mother I wasn't sent to my room for a month, I was smacked in the face. Not so much punishment, more of a Straighten Up and Fly Right. If an administrator blocked a user for a month for being uncivil and I felt it was unjustified, I would not unblock the user after a day without first speaking to the blocking admin. Mainly to ensure that I was not missing anything in the admin's justification for the long block. I would hope that an administrator changing the length of a block I imposed would do the same, at least as a courtesy. Before administering a block that would be longer than normal for the infractions in question I would be sure to get a second or third opinion before proceeding. If a user was blocked indefinably for vandalism and after a couple of months convinced me that they would change and contribute constructively and requested to be unblocked I would consider it. However first I would discuss it with the blocking admin to get their take on it. If I decided to unblock the user I would monitor their edits closely following the block to ensure they were contributing constructively, and if they were not I would reinstate the block.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

17A. As an admin you will be called upon - without benefit of a law degree - how much condensation and re-factoring, and paraphrasing is sufficient to no longer constitute plagiarism but is not too far off from the gist of the original to constitute original research. How and where do you draw the line?

A. If there was no attempt at rewording and/or there was no citation given I would consider it plagiarism, however provided there was an honest attempt to reword the content and the original author is attributed using a citation I would not call it plagiarism as the editor is not claiming the thoughts as theirs. I would call it poor adaption to their own language, and I will call it that until there is an actual definition of what "proper attribution" and "insufficiently adapted" actually mean at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I feel that the only important issue is fixing the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again. I also don't think that plagiarism is something that can be defined with a template such as the example Ottava gave "3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted". I think that example is defiantly a good rule of thumb to use when trying to identify it, in which case you can further investigate, and even if you find that it isn't plagiarism there is cause to notify the editor that they need to spend more time rewording their contributions, and and take a look at their past contributions and fix where appropriate. When the original sentence and the editors sentence are read, there should be no difference in the meaning, if there is a difference than it qualifies as original research and needs to be rewritten or the original sentence needs to be quoted. I am not sure if I actually answered your question, if I didn't, let me know and I will take another stab at it.

17B. In light of the comments and diffs highlighted by comments in the "oppose" section below, are any on the wrong side of that line - whether your edits or others' - if so, which?

A. The diffs that Ottava provided were insufficiently rewritten on my part. There was attribution and an attempt (albeit could have been better) to rewrite the content. Personally I think that the diffs would be pretty week if one were trying to stage a plagiarism witch-hunt (not that I am suggesting that here anybody here is), but they are certainly enough to warrant the proverbial trout slap that I received. I am willing to fix any issues that people may find, and on my own go back though articles I have created or had major contributions to and fix issues, I have already done so for at least one other article. I also fixed some other issues that I felt could use some more reworking when editing the articles that Ottiva listed.

Wikipedia:Plagiarism says:

"Plagiarism is the taking of someone else's work without providing adequate credit, whether reproducing it verbatim or with only minimal changes."

There is no indication as to what constitutes (1) adequate credit (1) minimal changes and I think we can all agree what verbatim means. My interpretation of that is if I have not done dramatic rewriting of the material and I give adequate credit, I am not committing plagiarism, and in my opinion a citation is adequate credit. Further to that:

"Even if a source is cited, plagiarism also occurs when text is directly copied without proper attribution or insufficiently adapted into original language."

Which gives a pretty open interpretation as to what "insufficiently adapted" means, in fact the only place where adapt shows up on the policy page is in the lead. There is no definition of what "insufficiently adapted" means. All of those sentences (both the ones from the article and the ones from the source) are taken out of context. To use one of Ottava's examples in the article Square milk jug the 11,000 fewer trucks sentence is actually:

"Because more milk fits on each truck, shipping costs can be reduced by 50% (an equivalent of 11,000 fewer trucks moving each year, reducing deliveries to stores that require five shipments per week down to two) resulting in less fuel being consumed."[2]

and the source is:

"Redesigning milk jugs to be taller and more square at Sam’s Clubs improved refrigerated truckload cube utilization 50 percent, resulting in 11,000 fewer trucks moving each year, he said. Stores that used to take five deliveries a week now take as few as two."[3]

Only six words appear exactly as shown in the original source, "11,000 fewer trucks moving each year", when I rewrote that section per the concerns raised here I made it say "off the road" which in my eyes constitutes original research or a change in meaning as the trucks are not actually "off the road" the are just not delivering milk, however it was the only way I could think of to reword it. I would call that sentence as a whole sufficiently adapted to not be in violation of Wikipedia:Plagiarism, even though there is still room for improvement. There is a fine line between a sentence needing improvement and being plagerized. In these cases I do not think that I have crossed it although I have not gone back through all my major contributions and created articles yet. Although in that same article when I used "are said to produce a wide torrent of milk spilling out when the jug is at a shallow slant", at a minimum I should not have replaced pouring with spilling, and I should have used quotes, and that was a mistake. I do feel Ottava was spot on correct regarding the bacon and beers happy hour in bacon mania.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see nothing wrong with this user. He will make a great administrator :). Renaissancee (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Meets my standards. Article building/DYK work indicates ability to create content and work well with others. Review of talk page shows civil, helpful, clueful editor whose temperament is unlikely to lead to trouble with the tools. Review of CSD taggings showed overall good work. Answer to Q3 shows editor solves disputes through discussion, consensus seeking, and learning. Dlohcierekim 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

3. DYK needs more admins who are actively involved there. ceranthor 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Absolutely no reason found that would suggest user would misuse administrative tools. I would love to have seen him right at least GA or FA but user seems to like to jump around a lot and help where it's needed which is cool with me.--(NGG) 21:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per above. One two three... 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Per above.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support Good choice!--Caspian blue 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to Neutral --Caspian blue 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - Looks quite good. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason Kelapstick would abuse the tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support No reason to see anything bad. America69 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - The thorough answer to Q3 shows that as an admin, Kelapstick will be ready to explain his actions as well as acknowledge any possible errors in judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Productive and collegial editor. Good temperament to be an admin. Bongomatic 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support A wonderfully supportive editor. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
13. SupportPer my basic guidelines dottydotdot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support Nakon 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) moved to neutral.

14. Support -download ׀ sign! 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I like the answers (esp. to Q4) and if Drmies is the nominator then consider Kelapstick already well whetted (pun intended)! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Joining the thus far unanimous support (bravo!) per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate's lone block was almost immediately undone by the blocking admin, I did not notice anything glaring in deletion discussions, userpage seems inviting, etc. Really, I have not located anything to jump out and in the absence of any opposes below suggesting my review of the candidate's edits is off, I am pleased to endorse this request for adminship. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
18. The bacon articles were fun. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support "I read the explanation about what I had done wrong, understood it, and went to bed" - from your Q3. Yes, I'd do well to remember that from time to time. Fantastic contributions - brilliant stuff. Pedro :  Chat  07:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) moving to neutral

20. Support Doesn't look like this user will be abuse the tools. hmwithτ 14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support > you look very sound and have good answers to questions. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong support Wizardman 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support good contributor who I do not think will abuse the tools. LadyofShalott 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support per excellent answer to question 7. Antivenin 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support We need more admins who will shrink the backlogs.--Res2216firestar 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Good luck! Metzujan (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - t'shael mindmeld 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Positive contributions to the project. One has to wonder what the moaners in the oppose section are on about! Seivad (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. I think you still have a lot to learn before you're ready for the admin tools, but you'll be OK learning on the job. Just go slow eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Eased my concerns. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support – Will not abuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak Support User has been around since Feb 2007 and is dedicated and commited to the project and feel giving the user tools will only be a net positive through I do agree with some of the concerns in the opposes .But do not see the user misuing the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support without equivocation. I have had nothing but positive interactions with the editor. His temperance and good nature are terrific qualities that benefit the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support I trust the user with the tools which seems to be the idea here but care should be taken to address any content issues to keep articles policy-compliant. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
39. support I'm not finding the problems listed in the on the talk page to be problematic and see no other reason to oppose. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support Definitely meets my standards. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong support Outstanding candidate who is an asset to Wikipedia and who can be trusted absolutely not to abuse the tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Answers indicate a calm, rational, collegial approach, qualities required for administrative actionsAlexandrDmitri (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good, no major problems. Plagiarism is a very serious accusation in academia. For matters outside serious academic work, I regard it as akin to spitting on the sidewalk, and an iffy accusation of plagiarism doesn't even rate. Ray^Talk 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support hesitantly. I believe the items brought to light by Durova are very important, but the candidate appears to be addressing these issues in a calm and professional manner. — Ched :  ?  05:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) addendum Perhaps I should note that I've worked with Kelapstick once and found him/her to be friendly and enjoyable to work with. I was also impressed with his/her ability to think outside the box in search of solutions to resolve an issue. — Ched :  ?  05:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak Support After looking at edit stats, I believe that, although Kelapstick's edits had gone down in the past few months, there is nothing major that should stop him from becoming an admin.
46. Support Seems to have clue. Answers to questions are commendable, particularly Q8, and indicate a solid foundation of knowledge of our policies. Plagiarism concerns, while somewhat valid, seem to be mostly resolved: the primary opposer for this reason has rescinded, plus the answers to the Q17 series are solid and alleviate any possibility that any possible plagiarism was done purposely. GlassCobra 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Weakly support. They say they will be open to recall, and just undertook a crash course in plagiarism at the school of hard knocks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Law _{type! snype?} 02:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lack of audited content contributions. The user suggests they will be clearing backlogs relating to images, but there is no indication of substantial experience in those areas. Little in the way of demonstrated conflict resolution/noticeboard activity. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose - FlyingToaster was involved in a post RfA scandal about plagiarism. Looking at the DYK above, I noticed a lot of the same things. For instance: Bacon_mania Article - 'At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point people clamor for the "Bacon and Beer Happy Hours"' Original - "At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point, people clamor for the Bacon and Beer Happy Hours." Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Note, the user was stated to be involved in the article, but only made one edit, which was to put in a category. The copied and pasted info came into the article here. Some of the other pages have equally dubious things. It shows a lack of effective checking the page and letting such obvious problems pass. A bad move. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the only edits Kelapstick made to the article were of a cosmetic nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   As I said, it was a problem in most of the pages. I found others. I will list them on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have made four edits to Bacon mania — Adding a picture,Changing a category using Hot Cat, Adding a pipelink, Changing from uncategorized to cagegorized using Hot Cat. Will check the diffs on the talk page when they are posted. --kelapstick (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   These are directly yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and please note, these are all articles that Kelapstick claims DYK credit for. So, any plagiarism, whether attributed to the article by him or not is his responsibility along with all others receiving credit. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how you could call that example, or the ones you cite on the talk page, plagiarism. In the case of Bacon mania, the entire paragraph is a condensation and paraphrasing of the article which is cited at the end. This point is moot, as far as I'm concerned, and I think Wikipedia:Plagiarism agrees with me. To compare this with FlyingToaster's issues is a bit specious; after all, the important cases there, if I'm not mistaken, involve the misattribution of material or even a total lack of attribution. That's not what we have here--what we have here is paraphrase and immediate reference. You could suggest to the editor either to cite directly or to paraphrase more loosely, but to accuse them of plagiarism is far-fetched. The essence of plagiarism is the lack of attribution, the presentation of someone else's ideas as your own, and that is not what is happening here, in any of the articles that I've looked at. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm one of the original people that put together the plagiarism clean up at DYK and fought for the guideline. The four examples on the page show more than 3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted, the very definition of plagiarism. FlyingToaster also put a citation at the end of a sentence but failed to quote the similar material. There is no difference between the two. And the Bacon mania line is not a "condensing", it is blatantly the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima, I couldn't disagree more, but I'll explain on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I have not paraphrased enough than that is my mistake. For the record, I was not given DYK credit for Bacon mania. --kelapstick (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   My mistake, I went off of "I could go on--this is just a selection of his DYK articles." in the nom. There was a list of articles put forth boasting about your content contribs. Whenever that happens, I always take a close look to see if there are any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, my mistake--I put that in my nomination. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   By the way - Kelapstick, I'm a strong believer in "plagiarism" being fixable and something that should be corrected when pointed out. As such, I will go neutral if you clean up the problems pointed out on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the due diligence you have done before giving your opinion Ottava, I have placed some diffs on the talk page.--kelapstick (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I struck my oppose out of Kelapstick's recent edits as promised above and a sign of good faith, as people in such situation should be given the benefit of the doubt of not realizing that there is a problem. I will re-examine the rest of Kelapstick's background and answers to determine if there is reason to resume opposing or if there is justification to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ottava Rima. In over three and a half years as a Wikipedian this is only my third RFA oppose (later conominated one of the two previous). Yet in light of the examples at FPC talk it's clear that this editor has either insufficient understanding or insufficient concern for the issue of plagiarism. Plagiarism is not mere lack of attribution; it's the failure to either paraphrase or set in quotation marks passages that are direct quotes. Competence in other areas cannnot compensate: this candidate clearly is not ready. Writing this oppose as the editor who promoted WP:PLAGIARISM to guideline. To the candidate: please correct the mistakes and return after a suitable interim. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "Yet in light of the examples at FPC talk it's clear that this editor has either insufficient understanding or insufficient concern for the issue of plagiarism."? I assume you mean featured picture candidates, of which I am not involved. If there is a link to the diffs that Ottava Rima has provided, I fail to see it. Or do you mean the talk page of this RfA? --kelapstick (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Typed the wrong acronym. Meant to indicate the talk page of this RfA. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. First, let me say I applaud your willingness to work on topics that might otherwise not be covered adequately (mmmm...bacon). At this time, though, I can't support this nomination. I'm troubled by the plagiarism problems (which I've also verified in a few articles listed on your DYK page), which indicates that your knowledge of content issues might need a little refining. I also don't see a lot of evidence that you have much experience in the area (image backlog) that you'd like to work in (if I've overlooked this, which is entirely possible, please let me know). I would recommend more experience in both images and content creation, and then come back again in a few months. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Reluctantly, per Durova. If the candidate fixes their mistakes and shows that they will not do so again, I will be glad to support next time. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Strike oppose, move to abstain.

5. Per Durova - this will probably pass, so this is more of a comment if anything. Please be careful when using sources. It's not easy by any means, but plagiarism is basically theft. It can disqualify you at college/university and on an academic level. At my university, for example, you can fail the entire course if plagiarism is discovered in your work. It is the fact it is that serious that I have to oppose this request. Majorly talk 17:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Switching from support. Also per Durova. These are serious concerns, so please be careful if you pass. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Durova, subtle plagiarism is a big problem and we don't need it from an admin. --B (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong oppose I rarely ever !vote on these pages unless I know the editor first-hand...I mostly just silently check content contributions in hopes that nothing is out of whack. In this case, I'm quite concerned that the two articles this editor specifically calls out with pride (Cortez Gold Mine and Batu Hijau mine) have copyvio issues.

   "Indonesia's Energy and Mines Minister called upon Newmont to quickly follow through, and said 10% percent of the shares must initially be offered to provincial authorities in the area of the Batu Hijau mine, while the other 7% must be offered to the central government" compared to source: "He called on Newmont to quickly follow through, saying 10 percent of the shares must initially be offered to provincial authorities in the area of the sprawling, open-pit Batu Hijau mine and the other 7 percent to the central government."

   "The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe are seeking an immediate injunction on the upcoming Cortez Hills expansion, saying it will cause irreparable harm and prevent their people from accessing areas that they use for religious purposes. This injunction is despite the establishment of the first ever mining company/indigenous communities' collaborative agreement. The agreement was signed by the leaders of four out of five Western Shoshone communities in Nevada." compare to source: "...Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, are seeking an immediate injunction saying that the mine will cause irreparable harm and prevent the Shoshone people from accessing areas that they use for religious purposes. This is despite the establishment of the first ever mining company/indigenous communities’ collaborative agreement which was signed by the leaders of four out of five Western Shoshone communities in Nevada."

   "There is a strong correlation between the distribution of copper sulphides (chalcopyrite and bornite) and gold: gold typically occurs as <10–15 µm (0.00039–0.00059 in) inclusions in the copper sulphides. As of the end of 2005, Batu Hijau had an ore reserve containing 2.77 million tonnes of copper grading 0.69g/t gold, which would allow mining to continue until 2025 at current production rates" Compare to source: "The deposits tend to be characterised by a strong correlation between the distribution of copper sulphides (chalcopyrite and bornite) and gold as the native metal in addition to having a notably higher magnetite content. Gold typically occurs as minute (<10-15 micron) inclusions in the copper sulphides. As of the end of 2005, Batu Hijau had an ore reserve containing 2.77Mt copper with 0.69g/t gold. At current production rates, mining should continue until 2025."

   These are just examples I picked up from the sources I had access to. I wonder what I'd find if I could access the subscription mining articles...

   I must oppose any candidate for adminship who does not fundamentally understand Wikipedia's policy on copyvio and actually flagrantly violates it. BuddingJournalist 02:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   update Upon further investigation, it seems almost all of the text on those two articles are problematic and largely violate copyright. I have tagged both with the copyvio template. BuddingJournalist 02:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Waiting for answer to question. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to Support

1. Neutral. Plagiarism concerns are worrying, but I don't see enough evidence either way to support or oppose. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Comment regarding the nomination statement: The nom statement indicates that Kelapstick created Steamed clams. In fact, however, Kelapstick only nominated this article for DYK. Regardless, I recall concerns about this article in the DYK discussion, as the article appeared to confound a type of clam (steamer clams) with a method of cooking clams (steamed). Reading the article in its current form, I find that it still seems to confuse these two concepts, and it looks to be sloppily researched. If Kelapstick had been the author rather than the nominator, I would be opposing this AfDRfA. For now, though, I'm not sure what I think. --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, that was really sloppy on my part--old age, I reckon. Orlady is right, as I see now: the badge on his talk page was for the nomination. If I am confused in these matters, it's because very often a small group of editors contribute on some articles (and sometimes in clusters), and I don't always pay sufficient attention to each individual's effort. I'm going to go up the page and strike that through; thanks, Orlady, for setting the record straight. I'm also going to see about steaming that clam properly, and I hope this relatively small matter won't take affect your final evaluation of this editor's hard work for the project. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's easy to make such a minor error, Orlady. For example, you yourself just confused "RFA" with "AfD". That's why on Wikipedia, anyone can fix the mistakes!

   Having said that, this is a definite case of a gentle piscine caress for Drmies :P—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Ouch*! But I deserved that. Pity I already had breakfast; I'll save my battered trout for lunch--I think I'll wrap it in bacon. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

3. (moved from support) I don't feel that plagiarism of content is relevant to how a user will properly use admin tools, but it does raise trust issues. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral (moved from support) I like your helpful editing to cuisine-related articles and civil attitude (so could not go to oppose), but we already have a serious issue on plagiarism just recently, so I can not support you until you fix the problem.Caspian blue 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral, from support per plagiarism issues. Not enough to oppose. Nakon 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral The very verbose questions I like a lot. The stuff from Durova etc has me on the line for now. rootology/equality 04:02, 30 May 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.