Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 4

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.

Ktr101[edit]

Withdrawn by candidate at (21/29/11). Juliancolton (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Ktr101 (talk · contribs) – I discovered Ktr101 while working at DYK a few days ago and was impressed enough to ask him about running for adminship. Ktr101 has worked diligently to improve himself since his last RFA. This current nomination will be his 4th. He's been working at AIV, ANI, AN, SPI, RFPP, and a slew of other areas. He is also a trainee clerk at SPI and has created 20 DYK hooks and nominated his GA article to A-class level. He has also created another WikiProject as well. He also adopts users. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks you Rlevse for the nomination which I accept. I also like the skeletons in the closet to be let out as there really isn't a better place than this to mention them. A few months ago I was alerted to a copyright problem at an article I created and realized that I still had a skeleton in the closet out there around that issue. I want it known that I have cleaned out all known issues out there and I am willing to fix anything that I might have overlooked. With so many articles edited, there is always the possibility that I have overlooked something. I also would like to admit here that I have made some stupid minor mistakes on things that I have sometimes overlooked. This could range anywhere from messing up the closing of an article for deletion to accidentally endorsing a sockpuppet investigation. As a result of the latter, I have become more cautious about what I have done here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 31 May 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: One reason that I would be honored by being granted the tools would be so that I will be able to edit templates and pages that are under full protection. By now, I feel rather silly asking for others to help me do something to a page which I am clearly not there to disrupt. In terms of things that I would do as an administrator, I would start slow by performing blocks on users who are clearly being disruptive. I would also work in the speedy deletion category as I have previously worked there and am familiar with the criteria for things there. As I am also a trainee clerk on the sockpuppet investigations page, I will eventually branch out to performing blocks on users who are clearly socks as well. As I improve, I plan on working with blocking sockpuppets and disruptive users more for a longer time period as I think that after a few months, I will have much more confidence than my first day.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well with almost 16,700 edits on almost 12,500 articles in the article space, I have many things that I am proud of. In addition to my twenty Did You Know nominations and my one GA/A-class article (same article), I am extremely proud of the military unit pages that I have worked on that have expanded on subjects that are pretty obscure in the scheme of things. I am also proud of the four WikiProjects that I have founded, as I have helped improve many articles with those who I have “met” through them. Finally, I am proud of the fact that I was able to help bring down a recent sockpuppeteer and I even ran into him again when he nominated an article of mine for deletion. The other night, I even helped to conclude that two long term sockpuppeteers were actually the same person.
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: Around the beginning of the year, I was involved in a conflict where another editor was going against the ideals of the community. This editor was a new user so I thought that I would help him out. Eventually it became apparent that he was operating sockpuppets to help skirt his misuse of the system. I offered to help him one final time and he took this as me agreeing to take his side, which I never did. Eventually he was banned and the drama stopped. More recently, I was involved with a user who believed that a user who removed some pages and replaced with redirects. This user believed that the edits were borderline vandalism, which they were not. I told them that we should take the calm and take the approach of negotiation. Interestingly, this user was also found out to be a sock. Other than that, I am unaware of any minor conflict that I have been involved in.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
4. I have already supported you but I am just curious about your opinion on Wikipedia's blocking policy. What is your opinion on it? Has there been a time where you've seen or felt that a sysop has blocked a user too liberally or conservatively? Describe the situation if you can think of one. Thanks
A: I view the policy as fair because it is a tried and tested method at keeping disruption to a minimum. When it comes to administrators blocking two harshly or leniently, I haven't witnessed anything yet that has made me disagree. If I do come across something in the future, I will ask then if they think that they are being too harsh or lenient. I would then explain to them what my length would be. Sorry I can't provide an example, but most of my recent user block experience includes indefinite blocks due to socking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
5. You have my sympathies for going through a fourth hell week, but I wonder if you could tell the nice people what you think the concerns were in your previous requests and how you think you have improved in the time since then?
A: Well hopefully this time it will actually fun the full length but basically when I evaluated what went wrong a few months ago, I came up with a few good points. One was my lack of knowledge in the various noticeboards. Pretty much immediately afer, I went out and became involved with them and I have learned a lot since then. The second major thing that I think sunk me based on the comments was the {{uw-cite}} template that I created. When I made it, I was under the impression that it would be useful to prevent users for spamming facts with citations. I found out later that this pretty much assumed bad faith and I have learned a lot from it. Otherwise, there's not much else that I can think of that really sunk me there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Do you foresee yourself requesting further permissions in the future if this RfA is successful?
A: I would be lying if I said I wasn't interested in running for the checkuser bit in a year. As I work on the SPI page, I have seen firsthand how bad it can get. The fact that there are always no checkusers around when you need one is a good reason. Another reason is that I have seen the lack of checkusers help balloon the checkuser requests on the page to up to fifteen at a time. For those of you who aren't familiar with the process, it can take many days to a week or two until some of the requests are processed. Another travesty is when the "quick" request section takes up to two weeks to be taken care of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Nsk92
7. When is it appropriate to indefinitely semi-protect a page?
A: I view indefinite semi-protection as necessary when either all else fails (i.e. increasing protection lengths) or if the page is a target for vandals because they are a well-known target for vandalism because they are a high-traffic page (i.e. Michael Jackson). Another good reason would be if a user had their page targeted multiple times and they were sick of reverting rampant vandalism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
8. In regards to WP:BITE, where is the line for blocking in your opinion, and do you think banning new users, even in checkuser cases, makes them go away?
A: Well if a new user is clearly promoting a product and they aren't responding to any requests to stop, then a block is in order because they clearly aren't understanding the ramifications for their actions. For new users who are messing a few things up that clearly run amok of the rules though, I would support a soft block as it would encourage them to think about their actions so that by the time they come back, they will be helpful. A good example of this is my block history, which really reformed me in a way. In regards to bans on new users, I am a bit confused on if you are referring to an indefinite block, which has happened with new users, or an outright ban, which I have never seen occur with new users. In terms of the outright removal of editing privileges, there are two things that can happen. The first is that they will understand their block and leave for good, with a possible return in the future under editing restrictions. The second is that they leave and then create socks to circumvent their blocks. In this case, they will either continue disruption for the forseeable future or give up when they realize that they can't win without a ton of effort. To answer the second half of your question, no because time has proven that people will try to circumvent their blocks as they are unlikely to get it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. If you had to make a specific maxim for new users explaining when it is and when it's not ok to invoke IAR, what would it be?
A: I interpret IAR as this: When you are planning on improving the encyclopedia and a rule gets in the way, just ignore it. This is due to the fact that rules will sometimes interfere with editing due to the fact that those who make the rules can never completely envision all the things that will eventually happen on the site. For new users, I would emphasize caution though and suggest that they seek an administrator or more experienced user's help in interpreting the rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Thparkth
10. You have indicated that one of the areas where you would be active as an administrator is in dealing with articles tagged for speedy deletion. a) Do you think the criteria for speedy deletion should be expanded to allow the speedy deletion of any types of article that are not presently covered? b) Are there any CSD tags which you feel are misused at present? c) If you found an article inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion (under A7 perhaps) and declined the delete, who would you notify of your decision to decline?
A: For question one, I agree that it should be expanded. The other day, I ran across the page where some editors are discussing things such as whether a "how-to" category should be added. In my opinion this makes sense because otherwise you have to type in a rationale for something that could easily be summarized elsewhere. For the second questions, I'm not really sure that I have seen many misuses of CSD tags as the taggers are pretty well-versed in policy from what I have seen. If I do end up running into one though, I would try to engage the tagger and ask what they meant if I can't figure it out from the article. Otherwise I would remove it if it was placed rather abusively. Finally, I would notify the editor and include rationale so that it would allow them to understand what I was thinking when I did a certain action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support as nom. And of course recuse from closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. Yesyesyes. Yesyes. I have been urging him to run for a while. And I recuse from closing too. (X! · talk)  · @962  ·  22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I take this as acceptance of your bit back. I will now head over to WP:BN to restore your access. Thank you! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I've been waiting for this. —Soap— 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Despite the mistakes! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that was like forever ago. Boy, I have improved so much. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Looks good to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After carefully going through the opposers, I am again supporting in good faith for a couple of reasons. First, I feel that Kevin has a high level of respect for being a sysop and I trust that he will use the new functions carefully and not out of impulsiveness, while I have some disdain with him being "honored" if becoming a sysop. I'd also like to say that Kevin has been here for a while and that also in good faith, being a sysop is not a big deal. I support in good faith because I think the impulsiveness worries, while having merit, are not enough to oppose. I feel he is a hard worker and excited about helping Wikipedia, as am I. Good luck —Tommy2010 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing but positive interactions. He/she will do good. :) Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Moving to neutral for now. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - per résumé and above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm sorry to hear about the problems at SPI. Although I trust NW, I'm going to support anyway ... my sense is that Kevin pushes himself to do lots of everything, and has done for a long time, so I'm not shocked that he occasionally screws up. I think the chances are zero that, if the community feels he's not ready to operate in an admin capacity at SPI, he would go ahead and barge in anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Don't see any major reason to oppose. Hi878 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Looks good. Pilif12p 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. New Mexico Support from the land of enchantment - Looks good. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Despite the opposes, I feel Kevin is a hardworking and clueful user who will tread carefully as an admin until he gains experience. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 01:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I see NW's oppose, and buffer that with Ktr101's agreement to pause more, and his deep contribs. →StaniStani  02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. With some hesitation, but I think overall Kevin will do OK on admin tasks. Fences&Windows 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Does almost everything right. A Rollbacker, an autoreviewer and a worker of many admin related areas. I realise the mistakes he made recently at WP:SPI, but hopefully, he won't fall into the trap. I think the safest bet is not to go there, and he should be fine. Minimac (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support Nothing majorly worrying, and seems well-intentioned.Acather96 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support willing to WP:AGF the the candidate will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as I have seen him about and he has done a bang up job. Should of been an admin a long time ago. WikiRalph1980 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Indented. Fences&Windows 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat: the above user has been indefinitely blocked as a troll/likely sockpuppet. (Not that this should reflect badly on Ktr101 in any way.) Robofish (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to everyone, the above sockpuppet is from a user who likes to troll others so it's not just a driveby sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I don't see anything to raise serious concerns. A "zero defect" mentality when it comes to admins is not sensible. It comes down to a question of good intentions and relative competence, and candidate clearly possesses both. Shame that he probably won't pass as of this writing RayTalk 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support despite the mistakes pointed out in the oppose section. I think having a such a good attitude overrides that and as Ray pointed out, he's far from incompetent, just hasty. I would suggest he slows down a bit with his editing, however, whether he gets the bit or not (not going to be negative!) and good luck to him! OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per content creation and per Wolfkeeper's oppose. Candidate, despite his flaws, demonstrates an appropriate amount of politically incorrect clue. The opposes are concerning, and you'll likely not pass, but you have my support with the proviso you learn from what's transpired here. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Agree with Jclemens. In my personal conversations with the candidate I suggested now might not be the best time to run, but after this bout of criticism I think it's fair to say he'll take it much more slowly in the future. Juliancolton (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Sorry Kevin; I am just not sure that you are ready yet. I, as well as other clerks and checkusers, have seen a number of mistakes from you at WP:SPI in the recent past. These number enough that I just would not feel comfortable with you having the tools just yet. NW (Talk) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Nuclear. If I do get the tools, I assure you that I will not go in with guns blazing as these tools are much more powerful than a simple endorsement of a sockpuppet case. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per NW, sadly. It's all right to be eager to help, but this is a bit too far. It's all right to be bold and make mistakes, none of us is perfect, but I've seen too many recent mistakes, despite the fact that you have been working for more than a month at SPI, to have confidence that you would look before you leap were you to be granted the tools. Sorry. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give some background on my action there, I had waited over a month and a half to get a response but I was kidding about going about just making null edits to the page to get attention drawn there. Looking back, I shouldn'tve said that that way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sad but definite oppose-- This is one where I have to give an unequivocal "No." Although Kevin is a very nice fellow and a productive editor in many ways, his lack of clue combined with a rogue streak leaves me no choice but to oppose. ([example]: why would he initially come to support this editor who created a major time-sink while admitting knowing nothing about the editor?) After joining SPI as a trainee clerk, he went "rogue", archiving cases without the socks being blocked, recommending checkuser on cases that absolutely did not call for it, on a bad faith case brought against two long term productive users which had previously admitted to being colleagues, one of whom ended up leaving the project as a result, causing his trainer to restrict his edits. He is just too eager for this. I think eagerness is getting in the way of thoughtfulness, and that's not a trait I feel comfortable having in an administrator. All in all, I don't see he has shown that he can use the extra tools wisely. Sorry. Auntie E. (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. per above. While I feel you've improved significantly after the last RfA, I don't think you're quite ready yet, especially after looking over the concerns noted by the other opposers. Sorry Kevin. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like the keenness and zeal I'm seeing here, and I look forward to supporting this candidate when he's developed his judgment and experience a little further. This diff, which Auntie E provided above, is a bit too recent for me to be comfortable with a promotion for Kevin this time around, but he needs only show me this passion for the work combined with a little more discretion to get a strong support from me later.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is a very sad oppose. I don't normally care for things like SPI because they are primarily a distraction from the encyclopedia, so any mistakes made there wouldn't really bother me. However, it appears you are inclined to rush things, which leads to careless errors, which may lead to quick decisions used with admin tools, which would affect a wider area than SPI. I don't think you're suited to the role. Aiken ♫ 02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm sorry. Maybe it'll be 5th time lucky, but for someone who wishes to be actively involved at SPI in an admin capacity and with an eye on the CU bit, I think you need more experience in the area and you need to take things a bit slower. You appear to have good judgement from what I've seen of you in my travels, so slow done, take a step back and use it. It's not a race- if you were to pass, you'd be one of around 1800 admins and you're not the only SPI clerk. If you're not sure what to do, consult those more experienced or just wait and see how they handle it so that you might be better able to make tough decisions in the future. It pains me to oppose, because I hold you in high esteem as an editor, but I just don't think you're ready yet. I don't think I've ever supported someone's 5th RfA, but if you adequately addressed the concerns raised here, I'd be happy to make your 5th my first, so to speak! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I came here prepared to support, but the response to the question about block policy put me off my feed. I recommend to the candidate:
    • Spend some time watching how editors are blocked and investigating the background. Sometimes the less disruptive editor is blocked. Was there an adequate investigation?
    • With sock puppets, look back at what caused this editor to start socking. With Scibaby, what really happened?
    • Think about and look for alternatives to blocking. For example, would the editor agree to a voluntary restriction? You won't know if you don't ask. When you see a noticeboard discussion that might lead to a block, go to the editor's page and suggest a voluntary agreement to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the community and yet leave the editor with dignity intact. Be supportive without supporting disruption. If you succeed, go back to the noticeboard and report, possibly as a resolved close.
    • Look around for blocks by administrators in a dispute of some kind with the editor, not simply that the admin was neutral and saw a cause for block. You can look for unblock templates (I never did this, but it could be a fast track to knowledge of the blocking situation).
    • And now the tough one: if you see admin abuse, consider speaking up about it. Unfortunately, this might torpedo your next RfA. That's a choice you'll have to make, I can understand if you just keep your mouth shut, but, at least, you won't make naive comments about blocks. Perhaps later, as an admin, you can help ameliorate such problems. And good luck next time, or even if you pass now, you've done a lot of good work, I'm sure. It may be more important than what you'd do with the tools. If you don't pass, let me know if you request again, it's not canvassing if I asked for it. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I ever indicate that I witnessed abuse? If so, point me to the words because I don't ever recall consciously doing so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! KR, please read what I wrote again. I was suggesting that you look for abuse, and then noting the problem that you might encounter if you do. Indeed, your comments indicated that you had not witnessed abuse. That might be because you were lucky, or it might indicate that you haven't been able to recognize it. It often takes a lot of work! That you misread my comment so badly is a sign that you did not read carefully. That's okay, no obligation, but .... --Abd (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, phew, I didn't think that's what you were saying but I wanted to make sure before jumping to conclusions. I'm sure I'll find abuse soon enough as I was once fearful that I would never be able to witness a sock if it was right in front of me. I guess I'll ask some others if they have any examples of this abuse. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Auntie E. and several of the questions. There are too many worries to support right now. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, concerns about temperament, experience, and lack of ability to think things through and slowly and methodically go over actions prior to acting them out on wiki, especially with regard to important processes like WP:SPI. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Kevin is a very well-meaning, hard working fellow and I have no doubts about his good intentions for the project. However, I have observed some of the problems referred to by NW, Auntie E and others and I can't support this request at this time. Sarah 05:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opposing, regretfully. As other have said, Kevin is a nice guy, and he's keen and eager to help, however, until these (excellent) traits are complimented by a bit more prudence and judgement, I do not feel confident that Kevin would be able to manage the admin tools sufficiently well, in particular at SPI. His mistakes there are just too serious and too recent to be overlooked, I don't want to add insult to injury, so I won't go into specifics. Kevin has great promise, and I look forward to a time when I feel confident enough in him to be adding my support to an RfA, however, at this time, I do not think it is appropriate for him to be taking up the tools. However, I encourage him to continue his work at SPI as a trainee clerk, and to carefully learn more about dealing with cases there. Apologies for this oppose, best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Nay Stwalkerster revoking your access to ACC and questioing your rushed actions [1] and then 10 hours later you ask PeterSymonds to train you as an SPI clerk [2] shows too much haste and not the best judgement. You have been welcomed back at ACC and noöne has had any issues with your actions there but you have only handled one request since being reïnstated. The nomination and first vote coming from a respected bureaucrat is impressive. The second vote of support coming from a temporarily resigned bureaucrat says a lot about some aspects of your contributions. That other users, mostly from SPI, have concerns such that the yea/nay is breaking even does not aleviate my concerns from almost 4 months ago. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delirious, that's an interesting observation about the ACC and SPI clerk link. When I was doing that, I wasn't even consciously thinking of being hasty there. I can see where you might be coming from there but I'll admit that is a bit weird. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being given a cooling off period to reflect on your actions on one project and instead jumping on board a different project is not really good. That you admit you were not "consciously thinking of being hasty" only proves my point. If there were no issues with your participation in SPI then i would not have mentioned ACC and might have supported. From what i read it appears that the issues are the same, merely the project has changed. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sorry, but D&L sums it up. Maybe a little too zealous, looking for adminship like a trophy. Sorry, that's how it's coming across.  f o x  08:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Candidate appears to be hat-collecting. Wikipedia is not an RPG. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per concerns both about prudence and about leveling-up. --LordPistachio talk 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose as per Deliriousandlost, Stifle... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. The fact that there are so many opposes from SPI clerks, under whom you are training, indicates that there is a lack of confidence in your ability to handle an admin bit at this time. Unfortunately I have to oppose. Valley2city‽ 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Although you are a productive editor, I must oppose due to the two blocks for repeated copyright violation. Immunize (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Immunize, I respect your oppose, but these issues were over two and a half years ago and I have never been blocked since. I clearly have grown up from my first fifty or so edits. I guess my question is, how long do I have to before these issues fade away? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Who cares about a block that's 2 years old, I think that's a little frustrating for the candidate, which many have said he's 'matured' much over the course of that time. —Tommy2010 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Agree don't seem ready just yet. And as deliriousandlost commented the ACC issue is not a light issue. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Still falling over his feet in order to get on. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. oppose per Auntie E. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Deliriousandlost.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongest possible oppose He just tried to close a contested deletion, 4 days early as a non administrative 'snow'. I can't begin to imagine how awful he would be as an actual admin if he's doing this kind of thing now. He just doesn't seem to be cut out for it.- Wolfkeeper 02:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This? I think it's fair to call it a snowball. Tim Song (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, and doing controversial closes while in the middle of your RFA also indicates bad judgement. On his talk page he describes it as a 'unilateral decision'. That's the opposite of what makes a good admin, and others went to discuss it on his talk page, and they were on the keep side; that's not a good sign either.- Wolfkeeper 03:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I am running an RFA doesn't mean I have to purify myself. There are twenty three keep votes to just two delete votes. I don't think that there is anything controversial about closing this. No one talked about it on my talk page except you and Dreamfocus and you both scolded me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't have to explain that the policy is that AFD is not a straight vote, it's about arguments. An administrator is supposed to consider the comments in view of the policies, not do a count. Counts are completely unreliable in the wikipedia because of various forms of vote stuffing.- Wolfkeeper 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly? Any one who close that as a delete (or perhaps even a no consensus) would absolutely get overturned at DRV. And it has since been closed as a snowball keep by another admin. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of looking like a jerk, have you ever seen what happens when an AFD is closed? Controversial decisons have a margin between 40-60 percent support. That AFD, which was just closed again, isn't even close to being controversial. If it was, I would've let it run but what's done is done here and I don't hold any animosity towards you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not changing my vote here, and if that's the case, he's just earned a DRV; admins don't get to unilaterally close reviews early either. It looks like you'll fail this RFA, and if there's another, I intend to oppose that as well; you have all the hallmarks of being an abusive admin.- Wolfkeeper 03:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no set keep/delete ratios that mandate a certain result. No opinion on this particular AfD, it may well be a snow keep. The most extreme example I know is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Masse, with seven bolded keeps and one weak delete, which was deleted, and the decision upheld at DRV. If you are calculating percentages based on bolded words and close AfDs based on that, you are closing them wrong. Numbers factor in, but they (should) never decide. Amalthea 11:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose You have a lot of good qualities, but in my judgement need more experience, then maybe I can vote 'support' in the future.--Hokeman (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per NW, Delirious, and this. I wanted to be in the support column here, but the good reasons why you're just not ready yet keep coming. The conversation on your talk page makes it even clearer- when you get called on doing something wrong, its time to admit it and fix it, instead of justifying yourself. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose After speaking to him on his talk page and waiting for his reply, I have to stay, I'm against this person being an administrator. The AFDs should remain open for all 7 days, not closed half way through, except in certain cases I mentioned. [3] There is no reason to rush through these things. Everyone should have a chance to speak their mind and discuss things. Dream Focus 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per NuclearWarfare et al. Some of the judgments I've seen made were not very good, including at SPI. –MuZemike 04:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose sadly, per your response on speedy deletion. Some people favor expanding what speedy deletion can be used for, and some people favor restricting it. Both of those are valid points of view. But people on both sides of that debate would probably agree that over-hasty use of the A1 and A3 tags, and stretchy attempts to use A7 to cover things that the template itself specifically says it does not cover, are quite common occurrences. Your answers suggest that you might not have much experience looking at how people use speedy deletion tags at present, and assessing whether the tagging is correct or not - something that any editor can do. Of course you are intelligent and keen and I'm sure you would learn these things quickly, but speedy deletion is very BITEy, and very difficult for new users to appeal, and a new admin with limited CSD judgement experience engaging in CSD deletions could potentially scare off quite a lot of potentially good new editors when their first experience of Wikipedia is having their good-faith, potentially-valuable new article deleted. I will support you in future if you have more experience in this area, but for now I must oppose a potential admin who specifically wants to carry out CSD work, but who does not perceive any misuse of the CSD system. Thparkth (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral per NuclearWarfare. I know you've been working hard to correct the mistakes, but I don't feel comfortable supporting right now as you mentioned that SPI would be one area you will plan to use the tools in. —fetch·comms 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning on support. I was going to support, but NuclearWarfare's comment is unreassuring. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral reluctantly. Although he is a great contributor (I can attest to that just by seeing him around this place), the SPI issues brought up in the opposes are things to work on. Until they are fixed, I'm not comfortable with Kevin becoming an admin. Keep it up, Airplaneman ✈ 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Airplaneman Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although you're a great contributor, the opposes are making me feel less confident about my support. I'll remain here for now. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral unfortunately. I cannot support in light of the opposes, but I can see that you are a well-intentioned editor. Keep up the good work! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - The candidate has been quite productive and seems eager with good intentions, but the issues raised in the oppose section make me uncomfortable with fully supporting at this time. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral From what I've seen is a productive and nice editor. However, per Auntie E and NW, I cannot support at this time. Elockid (Talk) 20:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral for the purpose of commenting on the non-admin closure of the Lady AfD (I did not thoroughly check other contributions, and the incident alone for me is not sufficient to oppose): While the decision itself was right and clueful (Note that he closed it "snow keep", not "speedy keep") he was not right in making this decision; the policy on this is rather specific. So yes, it is a concern. --Pgallert (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. On the plus side is the candidate's clear motivation and enthusiasm for the project, but on the minus side is a bit of over-enthusiasm and lack of "take it easy, there's no rush" cool. (The obvious example is the non-admin snow close, which was against policy - and it would have been nice to see an acceptance of that rather than continued arguing). I feel sure I'll be !voting Support in a future RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral support but neutral. Your enthusiasm is wonderful. Your haste, less so. You need a little more time to demonstrate some patience and consideration, I think. Shimeru (talk) 20:36, 2 June 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/Ktr101_4&oldid=1138299617"