Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kwsn 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.

Kwsn

[edit]

(55/17/6); ended 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn (talk · contribs) - Please let me introduce Kwsn to you. He's been a wikipedian since March 2007 and has just over 4000 edits. Kwsn does some great anti-antivandalism work and always appropriately warns users after they have vandalised, giving them a chance to change their ways. In discussion, Kwsn is always well reasoned and sticks to policy. His speedy tagging of pages is always accurate, showing a good understanding of the notability criteria, this is also shown in his work at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you take a look at Kwsn's talk page edits you will notice he is a very diligent user who always remains civil - a quick look at his own talk page will show that people appreciate what he does here. I've been very impressed with the way he has improved from his first RfA and feel he is now ready to use the tools wisely. I ask that you support this request and give Kwsn the admin flag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:21, 23 October 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: Namely anti-vandal work during the mid-day in the US. There aren't many admins on at that time and schools are in session, leading to a ton of vandalism and AIV getting clogged. My second task would to help clear out the backlogs, namely the ones at WP:RPP and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My anti-vandal work primarily, more so during the day when the school vandals are out in force. I also got the project page for AFC going, which has influenced that area. I know a lot of people don't look highly on pure anti-vandalism admins, but there sometimes isn't enough of them.
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: Not recently, I have in the past however, and knowing this place, will in the future. Though if you're looking for a past source of stress, my last RFA was one, though the comments pretty much were true.
Optional question from User:Shalom:
4. On May 29, you started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin L. Manheim Award For Significant Contributions in the Field of Workflow, and you withdrew the nomination two days later. Could you articulate your thought process when you evaluate whether an article should be deleted for lack of notability? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Part of the reason for that AfD was because I prodded it for borderline notability, which got removed by the creator, so I took it to AfD. For notability on other things I would read the article to see if it has any chance of being notable. If there isn't, I would delete it. If there is, I'd look off the site to see if any other sites back it up. If they do, I'd remove the tag, if not I'd probably delete the page.

Questions by Miranda:

5. What is your interpretation of BLP?
A. BLP is a two fold policy. First it's to prevent pure attacks on the subjects and keep the article neutral. Secondly it's to protect the project from lawsuits from the subject.
Requested clarification: I'll be perfectly honest, I've never had a BLP dispute, and never have been really involved in that area of the project, so please forgive my lack of experience with it. Wikipedia is one of the highest viewed sites in the world, and if the someone from say press sees that famous person X supposedly did action Y (which they didn't) and reports on it, it could end up being a whole fiasco for both the project, and the person's life. Because of situations like that one, editors are allowed to remove any libel and/or unsourced, non-neutral statements from the article to prevent harm to the subject.
6. If you had a dispute with a user, and you are an admin, would you block that user and why?
A. I would not block the user because that would be abusing admin powers to gain an upper hand in a dispute. Instead I'd try to find a third party that's neutral to get a new opinion. But if the user is disruptive I'd take it to the appropriate noticeboard.
7. What is 3RR, and when should you ignore it?
A. 3RR is more than three reverts on the same article within 24 hours and should be enforced in content disputes. It should be ignored when A. the user making the edits that are being reverted is clearly a sock of a banned or blocked user, B. plain and simple vandalism is being removed, or C. when what being reverted is a clear violation of another policy.

Question from User:Pedro

8. Hi, and thank you for offering to help out. I notice from your answer to Q1 you're planning on helping at C:CSD. As an admin you come across the following article text, tagged with {{db-bio}}.

James Jones is a well know artist from England. His work has appeared at the Tate Modern and it's great. More to follow soon.

What would be your actions ? Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. First off, I'd check to see what Tate Modern is (which turns out to be Britian's national modern art museum). On that aspect alone, I'd probably remove the tag given the notability of the place that the art is in and the artist has a good notability claim. WP:CSD#A7 says "An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". I think being featured in a country's national modern art museum falls under being at least somewhat signficant, therefore nulling the A7. However, it does not mean that the article in question would survive an AfD as it stands or even could fall under WP:CSD#A1, but the fact that the author claimed additional content was on the way would prevent me from deleting under A1. If it can fall under one of the crieteria given at WP:BIO after expansion, then it's likely to be notable and kept at an AfD (see here, under creative professionals). So in short, I'd remove the DB tag, but that does not mean it will be kept in the future.
Q --Followup Yes, you'd be right to remove the tag for the reason you gave. But is there anything else you would do or say? DGG (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: First I'd try to find some sources proving the claim, if I can find some, I'll add them into the article, it not, I'd ask the creator where he found this fact out. Depending on outcome of this, I'd either A. let it stay (meaning sources were found), or B. inform the creator that unless sources are found soon, it's likely to get prodded or sent to AfD (but I would not do the actual nominating myself, that would seem a little bitey to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q --Further Followup How about looking past the db-bio tag and looking at the actual text. Is it encyclopedic? What editing changes would you make? Other than sourcing, grammar, spelling, are there any issues? --Richard 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I'll do this in parts here. "Is it encyclopedic?" That requirement isn't a big one. A lot of articles start out looking, for lack of better words, crappy. Which leads me to "What editing changes would you make?" I'd try my hardest to hash it into sections it it's long enough for them or condense it into one if it's not. Then I'd add whatever sources I could find to the end of the article and perhaps add a bit more info if I can find it. "Other than sourcing, grammar, spelling, are there any issues?" If there are any POV or other MOS violating sections, I'd remove them or tweak them if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what answer Pedro was looking for when he asked the question. What I saw when I read the question, aside from what you pointed out about figuring out what the Tate Modern Museum was and whether the fact could be sourced, was the WP:OR in the assertion "it's great" (subjective opinion) and the unencyclopedicity of "More to follow." (wouldn't leave those in an article, would you?) Not a big deal. Just a couple of picky points. --Richard 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer I was looking for was what I got - a decline to speedy delete. If that exact text appeared it would never fall foul of any speedy deletion criteria I can see. WP:AFD maybe so, but never Speedy. WP:OR is not a speedy criteria. Neither is being too short, poorly written or subjective. If in doubt, shove it to AFD and make certain IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I agree. I didn't say I would delete the article, did I? I would fix the problems I mentioned by deleting the specific text that I called attention to. That's what WikiGnomes do with or without the admin tools. I value the vandal-fighting and AFD work that this editor does but I would like to see more editing of the text as well. If you see bad writing, why not fix it as long as you're looking at it? --Richard 22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Piotrus
9: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes, adminship is gained though the trust of the community. If the community loses trust in the admin, then the admin should have to deal with the consequences of being recalled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carnildo

10. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?
A: IAR is one of the oldest rules on the project, but one that shouldn't be used willingly. The only time I can really see it being used without problem is when the project is on the line. Most other problems we have poilcies and such, but sometimes even they hurt the project. Those cases are when IAR could be used. IAR shouldn't be used negatively, and only as a last resort.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]

I dont understand why he tagged my update on Memory leak as vandalism I beleive the information is totally incorrect in the example of a elevator/lift personally beleive this person just clicks undo/vandalism button without reading ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.235.188 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

terrible signature therefore I say oppose. But of course, I have no voice in the matter because I refuse to register a username. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit...especially with a username" 68.143.88.2 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. This isn't an article. Neil ☎ 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for screwing things up with my previous edit to this page - Majoreditor drew my attention to the irregularity of my last edit and when I reviewed it, I was puzzled to see that the edit counts had dropped from 51/13/6 to 45/11/5. At first, I thought that somebody had managed to hijack my account or something but I figured it out. The "vandal" is me. I got here by looking at Mikkalai's !vote (there's some controversy about the way he's !voting against "professional police"). I started reading the entire RFA and decided to add a follow-up to Pedro's question but I forgot that I needed to edit the current revision so I accidentally edited the old revision. Yeah, yeah, I know there's a big pink bar up there at the top that says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikkalai...". I guess I haven't woken up completely yet. My apologies, once again. --Richard 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support
[edit]
  1. Support per my nom - best of luck mate :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I supported last time. Good user. Acalamari 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Definitely has a clue. —Animum (etc.) 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I've seen this user as a constructive editor several times. This user will be a good admin. NHRHS2010 talk 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Best of luck.   jj137 (Talk) 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PxMa 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Will work for the improvement of Wikipedia!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as I did last time. He has plenty of experience in the areas which he intends to frequent as an admin, has lots of common sense and remains nice and civil. Will make a fine admin. Will (aka Wimt) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Kwsn is mature and ready for the mop. I support. Regards, Neranei (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. That explains what happened to "Whsitchy"! Despite the lack of article writing, I think he's ready to take on the vandals. I'd like a little more info regarding deletions; see question 4 above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I thought the previous RfA had passed. Anyway I can't see anything really wrong in Kwsn's contributions, so there's no reason to oppose. - TwoOars (Rev) 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Trust nom, user seems to know policy well, and a great vandal fighter! Tiddly-Tom 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - experienced vandal fighter, mature, thoughtful and willing to help with blocking vandals. Addhoc 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I trust him with the tools, and believe he knows how to use them. --Mark (Mschel) 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I trust this user with the tools and has improved his understanding of the notability criteria. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I have seen Kwsn doing good work in a number of areas and his checkuser clerking is helpful. He makes sensible contributions to deletion discussions and to Arbitration workshops. Seems sane and to understand our policies. His weakness is in a lack of content writing, but I do not think that alone should disqualify him - I think Wikipedia will gain from him being able to perform more administrative tasks. I am reassured by the expanded answer to Q.5. I think Kwsn is aware of what areas he is sufficiently experienced to apply to tools to and which it would be better if he steared away from. WjBscribe 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, the issue I had has been cleared, and I find "lack of article writing" to be a rather superficial oppose. Wizardman 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support Not everyone can create reams of content, and as ever I give out my total respect to our hard working editors that do. But as the project grows the janitorial element is ever more important to keep this place tidy for the most important thing on Wikipedia - our readers. Your answer to my question was spot on, really spot on. Best wishes, and I hope the opposers take note of your clear knowledge of policy despite scant content contributions. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - plenty of experience and good answers to questions. Bearian 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I see nothing that would cause me to oppose. Captain panda 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support without reservation. As a checkuser, I know how useful it is when clerks on RFCU have administrator rights. Performing so many checks, I frequently don't have the time to decide whether or not to block the socks/sockmaster as well. Kwsn is an active clerk on RFCU. Being an administrator greatly improves the quality of one's work clerking on RFCU, though it is by no means a requirement. This specific requirement for the tool, coupled with the fact that I trust Kwsn to not abuse the tools means this user should have administrator rights. --Deskana (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. It bugs me to see the opposition below based on lack of article contributions. Administrators do not need to be good editors, they just need to be able to keep a cool head and be trustable with the tools. Everything I've seen about Kwsn has shown me that that is likely to be the case. However, one thing I would ask you to do is trim some or all of the HTML from your signature, as it's going to cause you unnecessary problems in the future. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Good luck. Rudget Contributions 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Why the hell not? Don't care about mainspace so long as the user seems to understand things pretty well. Ral315 » 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support As per Deskana. Track is good and user has been regular contributor through account was created only in March.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per above reasons and meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards, particularly User:Dlohcierekim/standards#Tyrenius_on_adminship_from_Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. An editor need not be a great encyclopedia builder to block vandals and delete CSD articles. Given the chronic backlog at CSD and AIV, I believe this user will be an asset. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS A lack of contentiousness should not be a disqualifier. While admins do need to be firm at times, they need not be spoiling for trouble. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Yep, no signs this user will abuse the tools. GDonato (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good user.—treyomg he's back 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Accidentally found you while attempting to nominate you ;) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Crap, I accidentally put oppose at first because I thought you vandalized the Titans page, but you actually reverted the vandalizism. Sorry about that. I think he'd be a great admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs)
  31. Support I supported this users last RfA, and I see no reason to change my !vote. While the user may not be the most prolific article writer, the areas in which he contributes in greatly benefit from his presence. henrik•talk 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I have supported him before, and I will do it again! PatPolitics rule! 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Behind-the-scenes work contributes to building the encyclopedia too, and this candidate's work in that area is exceptional. ArakunemTalk 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support My reason for opposing was a little ridiculous, nothing wrong with the candidate. east.718 at 19:25, 10/27/2007
  35. Support John254 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support despite your garish signature. :P --Werdan7T @ 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Jmlk17 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support While content is important so is other duties in Wikipedia; housekeeping. Phgao 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Nothing wrong with specialists. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Involvements in various Wiki-related articles.--JForget 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, of course support. We'll need his help come the ninth. *Cremepuff222* 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - I see no reason in particular to oppose, and kwsn has a track record in my books of being decently friendly while an effective vandalism fighter. Allowing him to block vandals rather than merely revert them would help. Nihiltres(t.l) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support solid question answers --Pumpmeup 04:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per nom and more specifically per WJBscribe and Deskana. Pigman 04:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. Majorly (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. User is a hard worker and the detractors do not show anything worrisome. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Candidate is fully qualified for the administrator tasks he proposes to perform. Many of us should do a little bit more mainspace editing, but its lack should not deter us from promoting a candidate with a good record of contributions in other areas. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - User seems adequately responsible and helpful. No concerns here. --After Midnight 0001 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Quick contrib check, and we need good admins. K. Scott Bailey 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I can't see a real reason not to. Plus, we do need more good admins! SQLQuery me! 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. He may not be a fantastic content contributor, but we always need more admins who are willing to take on dull maintenance and housekeeping tasks. WaltonOne 11:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. People are complaining that he doesn't "write the 'Pedia" enough. Well, administrator tools do absolutely nothing to "write the 'Pedia" either, but they would help Kwsn in what he does. Why deny the tools to a decent vandal-fighter? We've seen so many RfAs pass now where the candidate says, "I don't really think I'll use the tools", and now people are trying to deny the tools to someone who could actually use them to better the encyclopedia... Seen the user around. Interesting variety of POVs among the supporters. Seems good. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, looks good to me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Won't abuse the tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per Newyorkbrad. Good editor who can be trusted with the tools. --Farosdaughter 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I do not see any improvement since the last RfA, only a higher edit count, but that means nothing, as they're all vandalism reversions. Let's take a look at the points raised by the opposition last time, shall we?
    1.) No real mainspace contribs — I do not see any improvement, or even an attempt at fixing this.
    2.) Problems with your participation at XfDs — I have no way of knowing if you've improved, as I don't see any recent, significant participation in discussions.
    3.) Inability to handle disputes — You say you haven't gotten in any disputes recently. If this is true, how are we supposed to evaluate your (in)ability to handle them?
    Also, Ryan, you say that the candidate "always remains civil". Well, of course he does; most of his user talk page edits are slapping user warning templates. There's not a better way to be civil than that in the universe, is there? :-) Sorry, man, but oppose. Best of luck, though. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever he's in discussion he's civil, there's evidence in his contribs. The key to this is will he abuse the tools? I think Kwsn has proven his trust. He does invaluble work to the encyclopedia, yeah it might not be main space work, but it's still great work and he has shown a real need for the tools. You have made no commentary as to how you believe the tools will be misued by Kwsn. He's improved his knowledge of policy since his last RfA and his requests for creation contributions are clear evidence that he understands notability criteria. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, Ryan, the important thing here is trust. This user has not gained my trust by not improving the points I mentioned. It's as simple as that. Sorry. --Agüeybaná 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who is no longer active on Wikipedia, I find it odd you find your way to the RFA page to oppose someone. --86.29.37.121 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what happens when you forget to clear your watchlist when you "leave" ;-) --Agüeybaná 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check his contribs. He's plenty active, just probably not as much since joining Evilzendium :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I can almost hear The Imperial March when he's around now... :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. One of the reasons your last RfA failed was due to lack of encyclopedia-building experience. I'm sorry to see that you haven't made much headway. Come on, there must be some articles you'd like to help along! Otherwise, you're doing some great work--keep it up. Majoreditor 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But how will not editing articles have an effect on the way he uses the tools in the areas he wants to use them? This is the sort of person that really needs the tools. The article writers are often better off without them so they can concentrate on what they are good at - writing. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's best for an admin to first try walking a mile in an editor's shoes. Majoreditor 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Shown little to no improvement since last time. T Rex | talk 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And explain how he should have made improavement? I strongly believe he has improved his understanding of the notaility criteria from the work he has done at articles for creation. Remember, it's not the article wirters that need the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I opposed last time due this user not making any mainspace contributions, such as creating articles. I still oppose on that ground, as well as the answer to question #5. Miranda 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Without commenting on anything else, I find the answer to Q. 5 woefully vague and incomplete. I will be happy to reconsider this position if the candidate rethinks and expands his answer. Xoloz 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose not enough article work. Q2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - the most number of edits made to any one mainspace article is 7 (?!) - [1]. The whole point is 'pedia building and only by doing this can one appreciate the effort involved when nominating and deleting. I do agree you've done some useful work bu c'mon one GA or some DYK or something. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Lack of mainspace contributions is worrisome.--MONGO 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Not opposing because of the lack of mainspace contributions per se, but because that was the reason the last RfA tanked and advice for improvement there was not heeded. east.718 at 12:45, 10/27/2007
    Struck my oppose. east.718 at 19:25, 10/27/2007
  9. Oppose good simple vandalism experience but not a lot of intereaction with mainspace articles or regular contributors. --DHeyward 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose There are only two articles where he has made more than 5 edits. Zero mainpages where he has made more than 7! His edit count is rather low for a person who is primarily a vandal fighter. With all the tools available for vandal fighting, 2K is nothing. This is a sign of somebody who is very one dimensional in his contributions.Balloonman 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I am concerned with the answer to Q2. Vandal fighting is very important to this project, but it is not the only area where an admin needs to have experience. I believe article writing and editing exposure are needed as well for the advanced tools to be granted. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This seems likely to pass, so this is mostly a symbolic oppose. Please consider doing some article work. It will give you a fuller perspective on this project. Far too often we see administrators who do no article work but build sprawling halls of bureaucracy and write vast tomes of wikilaws; who do not recognize the valuable contributor who quietly toils on some obscure corner of the wiki -- a little known painting, a long dead king, some complicated physics thing; who are quick to delete content because, indeed, such content just appears of its own accord! Very few sysops do such things in bad faith -- they may not even realize they're doing it! -- but by not ever having worked on articles they simply don't understand. --JayHenry 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - quickly scrolling hru last 1000 edits I failed to see not a single contribution of article text. May be I was scrolling too fast, but I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think he would abuse or misuse the tools? --Mark (Mschel) 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we need editors who after sufficient time become respectable contributiors and entrusted with the sherriff's star. Your accent of "tools" is misplaced. I think he would misunderstand what policies are for: they are for editing, not for policing. Unless you are an editor, you don't feel it. Fighting "bad guys" is not an issue in wikipedia. The main and hard task is dealing with "good guys" who make errors. And no amount of tools gives you this knack, neither learning of policies by heart. `'Míkka 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have not answered my question. Could you just give a yes or no? Thanks. --Mark (Mschel) 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: Solely on the basis that the candidate has made no attempt to prevent the above heckling. If the candidate can't successfully defuse such behaviour on their own RfA, they're not ready to do so anywhere else on the project. Nick 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Opppose - I don't believe the user has the broad experience I like to see in a candidate. Comparing to previous RfA, I don't see adequate progress. Also, I'm not particularly impressed with answers to some of the questions, #5 and #6, in particular. Lara❤Love 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Good vandal fighting, but consider addressing the concerns of the previous RFA, such as mainspace article writing experience.--Alasdair 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    E kala mai for elbowing in here, but may I ask what administrator tools have to do with mainspace article writing? To me, this argument is specious and moot. He's asking for some deletion tools and vandal-fighting powers, not research, prose writing, and grammar-improvement devices. How would mainspace writing make him more worthy of the sysop tools? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good article writing can be seen as a practise to see which policies apply to certain articles, such as BLP, etc. We have people and bots to revert vandalism, but with the tools, you have to apply cases separately on a case by case basis. Miranda 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to Ali'i: What admin tools are needed to fight vandals that are not already available to the admin?
    The issue here is that admin tools include the ability to block and the ability to protect a page. To use these tools well in the enforcement of policy, it helps to understand what it's like to be in a dispute with a non-vandal editor or at least editing a page on which there is such a dispute. Fighting vandals is like shooting ducks in a pond. There may be a lot of ducks but they're still ducks. If you haven't proved your mettle in a content dispute, then you're not fully qualified in my book. Content disputes happen when you're editing articles. They could happen in an AFD also but many AFD's are slam-dunk pile-on me-too fests. --Richard 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral leaning towards support Has not done much article writing but is otherwise a hard worker and would not abuse the tools. Waiting on questions 5, 6, 7. --Hdt83 Chat 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I wasn't going to !vote on this RFA until Kwsn answered the fifth question, the response to that question proves that this user isn't familiar with BLP, though the evidence of contribution to Wikipedia space and the response to question #6 prevent me from opposing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - this is the first time in ages I've gone to neutral. I hate doing it but I'm afraid I can't do anything else yet (see my standards). Your contributions are excellent, and you've achieved a real lot in your time here, but mainspace article work is at a big low. I'd like to see more work there. Lradrama 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Per reasoning given by Agüeybaná (talk · contribs) in the oppose section. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Neutral A mix of votes above. Somewhat shaky answers and lack of mainspace edits. tosh²(talk) 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral the concerns of the opposers also concern me, but not enough to oppose. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 29 October 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/Kwsn_2&oldid=1242986571"