Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI

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.

[edit] KI

final (16/20/12) ending 22:08 February 26, 2006 (UTC)

KI (talk · contribs) – I've been editing since December 18, 2005 and I have 1,440 edits. Most of my edits are Chad-related, especially regarding the Chadian-Sudanese conflict. I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad and I've worked with Aldux, Grenavitar, and Natalinasmpf on several pages. KI 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination (I accept) KI 22:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, seems to be a fine editor. I haven't visited RfA for a while, but I'm frankly stunned that an otherwise decent editor with 1500 edits over two months would attract this much opposition entirely over edit counts. 1500 edits is more than enough information to judge someone with. --Aquillion 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   While I agree that he is a fine editor, 2 months/1500 edits is hardly enough. Personally, I'm not that shocked that this RFA isn't passing because I have yet to have seen a successful RFA with a user that was only here for 2 months. While it is long enough to know a user, it's not long enough to tell if he/she will abuse admin tools. Although, I don't think KI would ever abuse them. ;-) And about the edit count, I haven't seen a user with less than 2,500 edits become admin. I would support but it's to soon a nomination for me. Moe ε 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I have seen other users promoted with < 2,000 edits, but now that I think about it, I wouldnt support a user with under 5 months editing... so this RFA is a little hypocritical if not premature....:) KI 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

   Why not pull out early then KI? Moe ε 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

   At this point I might as well let it run its course. KI 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support No good reason to belive admin tools will be abused. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I haven't yet seen a person here state they do not believe the user can be trusted. That's all we are here to decide. Seeing as everyone is indicating trust in the user, I'm going to actually trust that and support. Remember, adminship is no big deal. If people are indicating supporting the candidate in 1 to 2 months, let's just assume those two months have passed. Hiding talk 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A good and responsible editor. Editcountits can be ignored for this user as he/she has proven his/her capabilities. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, not likely to abuse admin powers. --Bjarki 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, per Hiding. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support we need some admins for under-adminned topics.  Grue  18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support see voting rational--Edivorce 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - you'll definitely need it. haz _(user talk)^e 12:57, 21 February 2006
12. Support Mjal 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per Edivorce Juppiter 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Moral Support. Try again in a few months. Elf-friend 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support I agree with Hiding. I vote to trust this user with admin powers. Wikipedia is growing so fast that its admin base is not keeping up with the growth. We need all the admins we can get, and this guy is good. He's done a fine job editing, and there's no reason to doubt he'll do equally well as an admin. --Go for it! 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I've had occasion to see KI's work on Chad-related articles, and I think he has proved to be a user of the highest quality. Even if it may seem early, I think that we shouldn't be shy in making good users admin. Aldux 11:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose Solid editor, happy to see interest in under-attended African topics, likely admin in the near-future; however, 2 months/1500 edits is a little less than I like to see in a self-nom. "Better safe than sorry vote", as I think more learning time is a plus in this case. I look forward to supporting the next nomination in a few months, if that is even necessary. Xoloz 22:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose Per Xoloz evidence. Moe ε 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Needs more experience, Project namespace edits are fairly restricted. --pgk^(talk) 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Seems like a great editor, but still relatively new. Try again in a few months. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose -- you remind me of me =). Keep working on the edits, and time here on Wikipedia, and you'll definately have my vote. Try again in April. -- Changed to support. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose You've gotten quite a few edits in a short amount of time, but you still need more edits and more time. Maybe in April I'll support. joturner 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Need more experience on Wikipedia space --Ugur Basak 01:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose: some things essential to this role are learned (and evaluated) only over time. Please try again in a few months. Jonathunder 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Standards. Feel free to try again later. Essexmutant 12:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose (reluctantly) but keep at it for a couple more months. ProhibitOnions 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: Time as a member and edit count aren't that important but if we are trying to determine if we trust this user we need a bigger sample of work. Very few non-namespace edits indicates a lack of experience where it matters most for admins. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Lack of time on Wikipedia. Rate of edits is good, and if kept up over a longer period of time I would easily support. Deskana (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose more experience needed DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose narrow experience. Mukadderat 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too little time, most project-space edits are RfAs or AfDs. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose editcount is fine, length of time isn't Cynical 12:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
16. oppose. too new, sorry. ... aa:talk 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who hasn't been around here that long at all. --Cyde Weys 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Just don't believe that user is familiar enough with community after such a short period of time. Believe more experience is needed.--Looper5920 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Needs more time/experience. I'm sure will make a good admin in a few months, based on good contributions so far. The JPS 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Two months isn't long enough to get the feel for how things happen here. I hope to be able to vote differently in the future. Keep the good work.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm gonna have to agree with Xoloz, 2/1500 is a bit too early for a self nom. You appear to be a great contributer, Always using good edit summaries, and great improvements on the articles you've mentioned, but while going through your contribs, there is a large lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. I will gladly support in 1.5-2 months time, but it's a bit too early. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Lightdarkness. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per all above oppose and neutral votes. Just too soon, my friend. --Aaron 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Sorry, KI, I have read many of your contributions and you're an excellent editor. I have no doubt whatsoever that you'll make a great admin in the near future, but - not yet. Patience, dear; give it a month or two, and it will just happens smoothly ;) Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. per most of the oppose, I'd suggest: Keeping up your good edits, getting more involoved in the Project Areas, and trying again in a month or two. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   1. Neutral per most other neutral voters, would like to see more Project related contributions as well. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. keep doing what you are doing and expand into some other namespaces. pschemp | talk 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Needs more time, though he seems like a reasonable guy and I agree with his political views almost 100%. The biggest reason I can't support is too little involvement in the project namespace... demonstrate some familiarity with administrative processes that can be noticed at a glance and I'm sure you will succeed next time. — Feb. 21, '06 [06:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
8. Neutral per both neutral and opposing votes. Kusonaga 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Needs a little more experience. Perhaps reapply after a month? JIP | Talk 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral Good edits, but probably a little too early. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Rob Church (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• See KI's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• What does your username mean? Kalium Iodide? Klax-Ishido? JIP | Talk 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Mainly vandal blocking and rollbacks. With persistent vandals I lean towards individual blocks rather than protecting pages. I'll try to assume good faith and to reason with users before I block them as misunderstandings and mistakes do happen.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Definitely Chadian-Sudanese conflict - which is listed as a good article. Other articles include 2006 State of the Union address, Democratic response to 2006 State of the Union address, and 2005 State of the Union address, Tripoli Agreement, Second Battle of Adre, United Front for Democratic Change, Rally for Democracy and Liberty, Platform for Change, Unity and Democracy, People's Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy, and Consolatio peccatorum, seu Processus Luciferi contra Jesum Christum.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I've never really been involved in any major editing conflict. The closest I can think of was over the dating style on the State of the Union pages... but that was more "heated debate" than a conflict. After it was resolved all major parties involved apologized and worked together to improve the articles.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.