Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kungfuadam 2

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

kungfuadam[edit]

Final (56/1/1) ended 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

kungfuadam (talk · contribs) – kungfuadam has been with us since August 2005 and has brought up a wide wide range of his expertise to our community including translations, RC patrol, spoken Wikipedia and more. With a large number of very well distributed edits (if you want to see, check the editcounts; editcountis can be fatal) I am honoured and thrilled to nominate kungfuadam for adminship Tawker 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Accept--Adam (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - as nominator -- Tawker 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Great vandalwhacker, would make an even better admin. Plus, I need a noob admin to stalk !admin in #vandalism-en-wp so i can endlessly annoy them; all the old admins have stopped stalking it :-/ --Rory096 04:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Has been around for a while, done good article work, great work against vandals and vandalism, and has found the Golden Wiki Idol in the Temple of Jimbo. Meets all of my standards. --InShaneee 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support I would prefer more detailed answers to the various questions, but everything else appears to be in order. JoshuaZ 05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom and per Rory. Joe 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support--Jusjih 09:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per rory. Vandal fighting for the win. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 11:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Per nom Leidiot 12:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. support of course i support this good user, nothing but good experinces with themBenon 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as per User:Benon --HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I like to see fellow vandal fighters get put up for RfA. Astrovia, Comerade! --NightDragon 14:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above. Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, looks good. Hiding talk 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support everything is in order; I trust that he won't misuse the tools. --Jay(Reply) 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support TigerShark 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support; I don't see any major problems. joturner 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I like what I see on your page and in your contributions. Nice going! --Mmounties (Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per several above --Deville (Talk) 03:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Leidiot 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - looks good. Also, vandal fighters with admin tools is a good thing. Nephron  T|C 04:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, for "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world"... unless we have more good vandal-fighters like kungfuadam, of course! Sandstein 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good vandal fighter --Adam1213 Talk + 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: Excellent vandal-fighter, and would make good use of the upgraded admin tools. _-M o P-_ 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, needs the tool, will use the tool, is not a nutjob, good enough for me. Proto||type 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Terence Ong 11:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per Proto. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. A good vandal-whacker is not all that's necessary to be a good admin, actual editing of the encyclopedia is needed too, and Kungfuadam passes that mark. I've been trying to work on Io and he's done a good job in that article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Moe ε 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. A well balanced edit count, lots of edits, and a combator of vandalism. You can't ask for much more. Weatherman90 00:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, Good contribution to talk pages and mainspace. Shyam (T/C) 07:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support this nomination. Yamaguchi先生 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Have no prob with this editor becoming admin, will use the tools well. --Alf melmac 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Edwy 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Ixfd64 04:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Kungfuadam is active in vandal fighting, but he has also done lots of good work in other areas of Wikipedia, which is always great. :D --Shanel 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - vandal+editor=good administratorň - Aksi_great 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --Ugur Basak 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per everyone above Jedi6-(need help?) 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:37, 3 April 2006]
  47. Support--MONGO 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, it all adds up to the mop. Deizio 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, I like his answers. Royboycrashfan 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Great contributions. Covington 06:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Great user. StabiloBoss 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Richardcavell 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support - good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, fails my criteria, plus we're here to build an encyclopedia and your edits don't show that to me. Good vandal fighter not necessarily = good admin. NSLE (T+C) at 05:07 UTC (2006-03-30)
IIRC, building an encyclopedia involves not losing everything the minute you submit it. --Rory096 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is? NSLE (T+C) at 06:42 UTC (2006-03-30)
I guess the point is that if no one removed vandalism there wouldn't be much of an encyclopaedia left, so removal is contribution towards building the encyclopaedia. I haven't looked into the contribs, but generally I agree it's good for admins to have a broad base and hence a better empathetic understanding of the editors they will likely have to deal with. --pgk(talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the contributions and it looks to me like this candidate has done quite a bit in terms of writing and translating and seems to have the respect for that sort of work and for general editors that that you referred to. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Totally inactive with the Wikipedia community, project edits, photo uploads very low. --Masssiveego 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due repect, this user has opposed almost everyone including Clown for being "inactive" -- Tawker 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Photo uploads?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, like above, I think Masssiveego is simply living up to his name. --Jay(Reply) 20:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentlemen, please remember there are no grounds for issuing personal attacks against another user. None. 86.140.128.28 07:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. From oppose. NSLE (T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-03-31)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See kungfuadam's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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: As an administrator, I anticipate closing out WP:AFD debates and taking the necessary actions. I would like to work on merge and split backlogs. I would like to keep up on the page protections to ensure a page isn't protected too long. Also, I feel my proactiveness to vandalism would be beneficial to the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have translated entire articles or major sections from Portuguese in the last few months. I am particularly please with my edits to Io (moon), and now Treaty of Asunción is a work in progress.
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 recently was in a discussion with a user about WP:3RR violations and POV pushing. I felt that I remained calm, but to settle the situation, I apologized. The history is here: [1]

Questions by JoshuaZ

1. You have less than 200 talk edits in the mainspace. Could you comment on why you have so few? JoshuaZ 05:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Many issues I have with editing of articles I have taken up with individual editors. Many of my Wikipedia contributions have been house keeping, formatting, and things of that nature.
2. Please discuss under what, if any, circumstances you would indefinitely block a user without direction from the ArbCom.
A:I would indefinitely block a user that has an offensive username, one that is similar to an existing user, and those that have user names that are sockpuppets of already ruled-upon users such as WoW.--Adam (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1.You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
First I would properly warn the sockpuppets telling them their behavior is not accetable on wikipedia. Then I would block the for a time period, depending on the offense. Only if I can prove that these are sockpuppets of the established member, would I take any action against the established member. I would try to have a discussion with the member. I feel that the sockpuppets can only be blocked indefintely if they are proven to be sockpuppets AND if they are used to support the main account's position in votes. Also, it is a blockable offense of the sockpuppet if they are used to circumvent policy such as the 3 revert rule. Again, I must be certain that these accounts are indeed sockpuppets.
2.While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
I would contact that admin and let them know my thoughts on why this article should be kept. I would hope to come to a resolution that we can undelete the article, and ask him/her to list it on AFD. However, if this admin felt strongly about deleting after we talked, I would respect the decision. I do not believe in undoing the work of other admins without discussion.
3.You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
I think that blocking the user could be a conflict of interest, if this is the only activity that the user is doing to merit a block. I would perhaps post a notice on the Administrator's Notice Board asking the other admins to look into it. Also, I would warn the user for vandalism and the uncivil comments. I believe blocking the user on these grounds is a conflict of interest because it is in a sense a type of edit warring.
4.An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
I would remain in the discussion with the users, and discuss with the blocking admin that I believe that this conflict can be resolved and the RFAR is a last resort. I would respect the admin's decision, but I would continue to attempt to resolve the conflict. The users would remain blocked until the conflict is resolved, the block period is over, or the other admin unblocks them. I would state my position at the RFAR. If the case were rejected, I would try to mediate it through a third party.--Adam (talk) 14:37, 30 March 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/Kungfuadam_2&oldid=1082477764"