Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kirachinmoku 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.

Kirachinmoku[edit]

Final (0/11/1); Closed at 00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

Nomination[edit]

Kirachinmoku (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination as well as my second RFA. After my first RFA which failed i took the advice about spending several months collection experience and making more edits. My primary task as i see it is combating the vandalism that Wikipedia is subjected to. To do this i have employed the use of the Huggle tool. The reason for making this RFA is to extend what is essentially how useful i am to the Wikipedia Project. I often spend a lot of time undoing offences committed by vandals that have been reported but not blocked. And it is unfortunate that there are no admins able to deal with the offender at the time and so they are left to continue vandalising. This is what i hope to help rectify by becoming an admin. I want to be able to help put a stop to vandalism by doing my part, and unfortunately for me i feel that i am not living up to my potential here on Wikipedia as just a rollbacker.

Although a heavy amount of my edits are so called "automated edits" this is literally just due to my use of the Huggle Tool. And while i also do not have a huge amount of edits, i believe it is the quality that should be taken into account, and not the quantity.

KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this RFA to be closed. It is clear i am not going to get the positive votes i need. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 intend to block users that make constant vandalism edits, while helping new users to overcome their urge to do so. I am already a rollbacker and so am able to combat vandalism, but only to a cirtain extent. By becoming an admin i would be able to fix the causes and not just the effects.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: By best contributions would by far have to be the anti-vandal edits i have made. I have received 2 barnstars to this effect, and hope to receive many more as a sign from those who appreciate the work i do. I have also worked on several articles of medium importance to the extent of requesting page protection on a few due to multiple vandalisms. I have also spent some time welcoming new users by leaving them messages welcoming them to the community using Friendly
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 have been in a few disputes over new page validity, largely due to a user trying to create a main article about themselves, in which i have tagged it for deletion as it is not a person of importance or significance. In this i have always been backed up by other users or admins.
Additional optional question from Iridescent
4. I appreciate it was almost five months ago, but what was the line of thought that led here?
A: At the time there was an extreme lack of citations, information, and just about everything. The user creating the page hadn't bothered putting in even the basic amount of effort into the pages creation. An thus the page was tagged for deletion. As i see it now, what i did was the right thing as even though it was rejected, the current version of the page, is not much longer then the original, and still doesn't contain many citations, proving i made the right choice.
I think you're missing the point; what I'm asking is why you tagged an article on a battle in 1512 as a BLP? ("Lack of citations" is never grounds for speedy deletion, BTW.) – iridescent 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as A1 (No Context). When i looked at the page i failed to see any context. This was due to the lack of citations. If there are not citations there cant possible be any context. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No context means there is not enough information to identify the subject. As it was described (rather than just saying X was a battle in Y, as implied by the title), although not particlularly clearly, then Wikipedia:CSD#A1 cannot apply - an article can be completely false, but if it clearly describes the subject, then it should be tagged as a hoax, and not under A1. "Context" does not = verifiability, which is what sources provide. Jhbuk (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you that this was one of the first CSDs i ever did, back when i had only just started editing on wikipedia. So this really shouldn't be held against me, we've all made mistakes when we were new, this is one of mine. I know now that it should be tagged as hoax in this situation and not as no context, and if i had known then i would have done it that way. But i didn't, so i didn't. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(od) The reason we still have an objection is not because you made a mistake, but because "i failed to see any context. This was due to the lack of citations." suggests you are arguing it is not a mistake, and that you do not understand CSD policy. Jhbuk (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) And BTW, I wasn't saying it was necessarily a hoax - that was just an example.[reply]
I was asked to explain my thinking then, i did that. That was my thinking when i made the CSD. I never said it is now. I know now what i did wrong, and i knew what i did wrong from around a few weeks after that. For clarifications: that was my thinking then and is not my thinking now. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:
  • Edit summary usage for Kirachinmoku can be found here.


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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose No, sorry. Sporadic editing, with very little content contibution and a heavy reliance on automated tools. Slender input to the maintenance side with the exception of vandal fighting. Simply not enough evidence for me to extend trust at this time in respect of the block, protect and delete tools. My apologies and please do not feel down heartened as your contributions are very much valued. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Need deeper (more) and broader (in other admin-like areas) experience. Less than 3000 edits, around 75% which are automated, is just not enough of a contribution to just suitability for adminship at this time. I suggest branching out from anti-vandalism (not that anti-vandalism isn't an essential part of the project) into other areas. Sorry --Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Serious concerns with experience and breadth of exposure. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - per Pedro. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per your answer to Q4. Dead wrong, context has nothing to do with referencing. Demonstrative of a general lack of knowledge and experience in admin areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, essentially agree with Pedro (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Vandal-fighting is useful contribution. However it's also important to have constructive collaboration with other editors. Unfortunately Kirachinmoku doesn't do much of this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry to pile-on, but your answer to my question shows a serious misunderstanding of deletion policy. I can't trust you with deletion powers if you think "unreferenced" is ever grounds for speedy deletion. – iridescent 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Unreferenced wasent the grounds as i have explained. A1 no context was the grounds. The post had very little context at the time, and it still doenst. No citations i know isnt a CSD ground, and i didnt use it as one, it backed up my decision yes, but it wasent my primary thinking. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But your answer says quite clearly " If there are not citations there cant possible be any context." So you're kind of double talking either here or there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What i mean is due to the lack of citations, there was a lack of context. However as in a comment above i have already explained this, so look there. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, this is still a NOTNOW case. I'd recommend several things. First, you need a more sustained level of engagement with the project: for the last year you only had 2 out of 12 months with more than 40 edits per month. Second, you need to develop a more substantive mainspace contrib record: preferably write at least a few articles from scratch, and participate in substantially improving/extending some existing articles. For now almost all of your mainspace edits are vandalism reverts. Third, as others have noted, you need a more varied and substantive projectspace contrib record, not limited to WP:AIV (some wikiproject activity, at least occasional participation at pages like WP:ANI, WP:RPP, WP:UAA, some XfDs, etc). As answer to Q4 shows, you are still quite unfamiliar with our deletion policy. Blocking vandals is the least sophisticated task that an admin has to do, and some degree of experience related to dispute resolution or at least to project-space collaborative activities is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: With regards to missing a few months out. I cannot explain all of that, however some of it is due to things in my personal life. This is not to say that it means i am incapable, but like all other editors, i cannot be expected to spend all my life on wikipedia just for the sake of an even post record. As for my posts being anti-vandal edits, thats what i do best. I find it hard to write articles from scratch, but that doesnt mean im not a good candidate. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
    For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
    1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
    2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
    3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
    4. Negotiate a compromise.
    Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. December21st2012Freak Happy St. Patrick's Day! 23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ... Sorry, but the candidate's consistent use of lower-case "i" as a first-person pronoun in their responses here, as well as other spelling errors, makes me (a) question their comprehension of the English language, and (b) creates an impression of lack of either maturity or formal education on the one side, and simple laziness on the other ... Happy Editing! — 71.166.152.95 (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence, but that is a poor oppose argument, the use of "i" instead of "I" as a first person pronoun. My English is not perfect no, but given that i am a native English speaker of 17years and 10months, i must say i find your comment rather insulting. KiraChinmoku (T, ¤) 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per sporadic editing and lack of overall experience. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per sporadic editing history as well as Pedro.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kirachinmoku_2&oldid=1136072861"