Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rkitko

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.

Rkitko[edit]

Final (41/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rkitko (talk · contribs) - Rkitko has been a steady contributor on Wikipedia who has recently logged his 10,000th edit. He is personally responsible for the creation and expansion of many articles on carnivorous plants, and is a helpful member of WP:PLANTS. In addition to contributing original articles and participating in community discussions, he runs BotanyBot, which has saved the plant editors many hours (even days) of updating taxoboxes and sorting new plant article stubs. As if all of that weren't enough, he is also the driving force behind the assessment of new plant articles for WP:PLANTS. I think he would make an excellent administrator. EncycloPetey 16:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you for the nomination. Rkitko (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to familiarize myself with the tools gradually, so the admin work I might do will be rather limited at first. Certainly moving pages I encounter over multiple-edit redirects to comply with naming conventions (such as WP:NC (flora), since I work mostly within the botany pages of Wikipedia) would be one use of the tools. From time to time I also have a need to update protected pages, such as {{WikiProject Plants}}. I do have an affinity for clearing backlogged pages and lists and would be open to suggestions on which backlogs to concentrate on.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As generously noted by EncycloPetey above, I monitor User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult and clean up the new articles that appear on the list. I also tag them for WikiProject Plants assessment to facilitate tracking and future improvement. It may be tedious, but I think these contributions are important for the sake of consistency. Aside from that tedium, my better contributions are the ones I've made to the members of the family Stylidiaceae. The family may not be a very popular one in cultivation or scientific study, but my quasi-obsession on this family has led to the creation of over 100 articles with general information about genera, subgenera, sections, and species that might otherwise not have been introduced to Wikipedia for some time.
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've been involved in a few edit conflicts in the past, mostly related to botany-related pages. In my earlier days of editing, before I was completely wiki-aware, there was a conflict regarding common name article titles of plant species. Through that discussion and subsequent discussions with members of WP:PLANTS, the flora naming convention was developed. Given enough time and reading, I now approach conflicts with assuming good faith. My personal preference is to discuss instead of revert and ask instead of demand. When conflicts do arise, I usually remind myself to leave the computer for a while to gain some perspective on the situation before returning and replying. I plan to continue these kinds of behaviors when it comes to conflicts in the future.


Optional questions from Balloonman:
4. Prior to this nomination, what did you do to prepare for the RfA?
A. Prior to the nomination, I hadn't really considered going through the RfA process. Only after EncycloPetey first suggested it did I then read through WP:ADMIN. I suppose you could say that all my efforts and edits on Wikipedia have been a preparation for RfA, since that would include familiarizing myself with all applicable policies and style guidelines.Rkitko (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. What are the four key policies regarding article content? Why are they there?
A. WP:NPOV exists to hold content to the standard of remaining neutral. An encyclopedia can hardly be trusted if its content pushes one point of view over another. WP:V exists as an inclusion requirement: content must be verifiable. If information cannot be verified, it may be an unverified opinion or break WP:OR. These three all exist to maintain Wikipedia's integrity and value as a resource. I'm not sure what the fourth one is that you're asking for, but many others could fill that spot and are as important as the ones already listed: WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:N, and WP:BLP (though I rarely if ever work on biographies).Rkitko (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I have a concern: Reviewing your past 2,500 edits, I didn't see much in the way of Xfd's... I'd be surprised if there were a dozen comments on AfD's in those 2,500 edits. One of the major tools available to Admins is the ability to delete pages, can you demonstrate that you have an adequate understanding/grasp on the policies/rules surrounding AfD's?
A. It's true that I haven't participated much in XfD's and have only come to them in either proposing something for discussion/deletion or by happening upon it in my daily editing. As I noted above, I don't intend to use all the tools granted to me, deletion is certainly one of them, unless it's an obvious copyright, non-notable, or otherwise speediable. Those I sometimes come across in watching the new plant pages list. I won't use any tools if I don't understand them completely and XfD is one realm where I'd need much more participation in before I begin to close debates.Rkitko (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. You have over 10K in edits, but those exits are on about 7K pages. Thus, you have an average of 1.5 edits per page. It appears as if a fair percentage of those pages are from assessing articles for Project Plant. What else do you do that has caused this low ratio (when compared to other non-anti-vandal editors?)
A. Assessing articles and cleaning up new plant pages are two of the major sinks which have brought down my edits per page count. I also have been slowly creeping my way through a list I created at User:BotanyBot/sandbox2, which includes cleaning up after User:Polbot's contributions that had some problems. I utilize User:BotanyBot for longer lists that need to be fixed, but the items listed there are ones I take care of by hand. All of that combined has contributed to my low ratio.Rkitko (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dlohcierekim
8 Hello, Rkitko, thanks for submitting your RfA. What prompted this comment from Firstfron? What does it say about your readiness for the block button? Dlohcierekim 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Hello, Dlohcierekim. This may be a rather long answer, so bear with me. I filed a sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Paul venter when I noticed User:Rotational following a similar pattern as User:Raasgat. See User talk:Raasgat for my first interaction with this user. When I approached Raasgat initially, it was with good faith, asking the user if they might mind doing a couple things to conform to article standards and guidelines. The discussion eventually devolved into a WP:OWN and WP:POINT situation. One of the user's points was that some Wikipedians don't know good style with regards to WP:HEAD (nesting headings correctly, starting with ==H2==) and taxoboxes. Raasgat eventually stopped editing, jumping again to a new sockpuppet account, Rotational. The report was filed as it appeared the user was avoiding scrutiny. The user appealed to User:Firsfron to be unblocked. Firs checked with the blocking admin, User:Rlevse. I noticed the discussion and interjected. Rotational was unblocked, which was fine since the user does add excellent content. Firs, when unblocking, did leave a note that the user should try to follow the MOS guidelines, including WP:HEAD. Following that, I noticed a contribution of Rotational's that continued the style crusade Raasgat had been on (using ===H3=== and ====H4==== as the primary heading). Thinking it wouldn't be in the best interest for me to remind the user again of the guideline or why it exists, I alerted Firs to the diff edit where Rotational ignored the advice Firs gave him. Firs, perhaps thinking I desired administrator intervention, responded on my talk page with that diff you cited. If you follow the remainder of the conversation, I clarified that I was simply looking for an editor other than myself to gently remind Rotational, again, of the guidelines since I had been so involved elsewhere. Phew, ok, that was the setup. Now for the answer: WP:BLOCK is rather clear. In this situation I value both of the administrators', Rlevse and Firsfron, opinions on the matter and would not have reblocked if I had that tool, preferring to discuss rather than revert an action by another admin. As I noted above in response to Balloonman's question regarding XfD's, this is another tool I won't use until I'm comfortable with the related policies. Even then, I will rely on other admin's expertise. In the situation noted above, I wouldn't have taken any initiative to block since I've been so involved - I would have relied upon other's perspective. Not all tools given to an admin must be utilized by every admin.Rkitko (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Balloonman
9. In your answer above you gave 4 possibilities to what the fourth key policy related to article content is. 2 of those items were in fact guidelines. Please explain the difference between a policy and a guideline?Balloonman 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. See below in my comment to your oppose note. The difference is obvious and again, apologies for the semantic mistake. I was simply listing items I thought were important to article content. Policies are seen as beyond debate. Guidelines are accepted by the community, but can have exceptions and can be ignored with good reason, if ignoring it is not otherwise disruptive. Rkitko (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Optional Questiona from The Placebo Effect
10. How do you interpret Ignore all rules? In what possible circumstances do you think it be acceptable to cite IAR when using an Sysop tool?
A. WP:IAR, along with WP:UCS, is important to the goal of Wikipedia. If it is not otherwise disruptive, an edit that ignores policy or guidelines can be justified if it improves the encyclopedia. I can't think of a time where I've had the opportunity to use IAR in a citation of any of my edits, having generally preferred to go and discuss possibilities with the people who generated that consensus over a particular policy or guideline. And usually, they're able to point me to other discussions that are pertinent. I see that trend continuing if I receive the mop and bucket. I can't think of any circumstances where I would cite IAR when using the admin tools, but perhaps those circumstances exist. Since the tools involve administrative tasks that can be viewed as drastic changes (page moving, protection, deletion, blocking), citing IAR while doing any of those doesn't seem like the best idea. Rkitko (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. If you are promoted to become a Sysop, would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Of course. Rkitko (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support as nominator. --EncycloPetey 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - you seem to well-involved with your subject, you AGF (as far as I can see!) and you're willing to discuss ideas on a subject at ANI. Perfect.— Rudget contributions 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support specialist looking to use tools in limited scope with little likelihood of abuse. Does not request tools for XFD. Seems to be knowledgeable and able to use tools within stated niche. Dlohcierekim 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Support -- great contributor, involved in maintenance tasks which have given him experience in seeing a variety of articles with different sorts of problems and assets, and is able to see what's good, what's needed, what needs improving, and how to improve things. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Don't see much wrong here... --DarkFalls talk 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, in the hope that Rkitko will get more involved in Administrator-related areas when he actually has the tools for himself. At the moment, he seems to do little counter-vandalism work, XfD participation, et cetera, and it would be great if he could chip in once-in-a-while if mopped. However, he's plenty trustworthy, and there's no reason to oppose. Anthøny 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support the plant gnome. No reason to think tools will be abused. Shell babelfish 20:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Good work with gnoming. We need more admin gnomes to clear the backlogs! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, looks like a good hardworking editor. Redrocketboy 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Is a good hard-working editor and I see no problems with him being given the tools. PookeyMaster 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. BLP concerns are warranted, but I think his explanation is fair, after all how many living people are referred to in plant articles? I see good judgment and a low level of likelihood to abuse. He needs to tools to improve the encyclopedia. As such, I think he is a great canidate for the tools. SorryGuy 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A good contributor to this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. No loose screws here. And it's nice to have an admin who cares about editing practice and negotiates solutions when problems crop up (no pun intended). Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Excellent candidate. Hesperian 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Obviously the type of level headed person needed in the role. Nick mallory 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SupportMmcknight4 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good contributor who is particularly interested in one area (a plus in my book), I see no reason to oppose. faithless (speak) 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I have observed consistently positive contributions from this user over a long period of time. --Melburnian 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - yes. Neil ☎ 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. This editor has worked in a very specialized area. Having an admin who knows his way around the botany articles could prove helpful. I see nothing to suggest a reason to be concerned so I give a green thumb up to this candidate. - JodyB talk 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - The Transhumanist 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support We could always use more Admins that are prolific editor/contributors, and versed in a science background. Cirt 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support Jmlk17 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, even if the tools are used only occasionally or only in limited areas, I have little doubt that they will be used well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Given his answers, i see no reason why not to. The Placebo Effect 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support We can always use grounded, serious editors as admins here! Monsieurdl 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, meets and exceeds every standard I've seen, prolific editor, etc. No reason not to trust with the mop. Great answers. Bearian 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support seems like a good addition to the mop crew. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good editor. I also liked his answers. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - we could use another admin among the biology articles --MoRsE (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support looks good to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Can't really say much, but we need more admins in biology stream. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Seems fine. Acalamari 17:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Per nom. --WriterListener (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - looks good to me. James086Talk | Email 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- will make a good admin even if he sometimes gets mixed up on policies vs. guidelines. (Quick quiz question: we now have 40+ pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy and 200+ in Category:Wikipedia guidelines and its subcategories -- please name them all) --A. B. (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Insists my stubs are starts, but he will be a great admin. cygnis insignis 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A great contributor and a fair handler of disputes in my experience Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Would like this person to step out of their place in wikipedia other then carnivorous plants. I wonder what you get if you cross Pinguicula grandiflora with Dionaea muscipula? --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose I have concerns about his lack of experience in the XfD arena. As deleting pages is one of the primary tools granted to Admins, I think there is an imperative that the user have some experience here. I was also concerned about his answer to my optional question regarding the 4 guidelines on article content. He nailed 3 of them, but then missed the fourth one. I might have accepted his answer anyways, because he listed 4 important considerations as possible answers, except for two things. First, he listed WP:N and WP:RS as policies---both are guidelines. Second, he indicated that he isn't that familiar with WP:BLP because he doesn't usually deal with biographies. BLP is more than just biographies, it applies to ANY article where a living person is referenced.Balloonman 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and reply, if I may. First, apologies for the incorrect wording regarding policy vs. guidelines; you gave me quite a lot to respond to! I, of course, recognize that WP:N and WP:RS are guidelines, not policies. Secondly, WP:BLP is not important in the contributions I make, so I haven't been very familiar with it. The only mention of living people in my contributions is who described which plant and when. The one time I have used WP:BLP directly was the concern an editor had over at a botanist's article, Allen Lowrie. In this diff, I think you'll find I applied WP:BLP correctly. And for future knowledge, is WP:BLP considered to be the fourth major policy? Regarding XfD's, I do have some experience, but probably not enough. I've never been too interested in deleting articles, so I haven't gotten involved over there unless it impacted articles I watch or edit. I recently took Uyot and Kaulim to debate (discussions here and here, respectively). Watching new pages as I have, I'm much more familiar with speedy criteria and find quite a few copyvios. The pages I might delete will fall under obvious speedy criteria, though if I'm in doubt I will bring it to AfD or tag it with a prod or speedy tag for another admin to take care of. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Per my comments above. I liked his response, but I can't support him at this time.Balloonman 01:34, 3 December 2007 (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/Rkitko&oldid=1141884117"