Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Knowledge Seeker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Knowledge Seeker

final (28/0/0) ending 07:18 March 15, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker is a Wikipedian since November 2004. Besides article edits, he is especially active with maintenance and janitorial tasks, doing RC patrol, reverting vandalism, helping new users, and trying to solve disputes. My first contact with him was also related to a dispute between another user and me, and I was very impressed with his professional and calm approach. I have kept an eye on him ever since, with the idea to nominate him for adminship once his edit count exceeds 1000 edits. This has happened recently, and hence I would like to nominate this excellent user for adminship. He already does a large amount of janitorial tasks, and I believe adminship privileges would help him greatly in keeping Wikipedia clean. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I accept; thank you for the nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Chris 73 Talk 07:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
2. gadfium 07:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. I was waiting for this user to be listed here. Jordi·✆ 08:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. utcursch | talk 08:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
5. Of course. SWAdair | Talk 10:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. most welcome! dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Rje 14:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
8. Ryan! | Talk 15:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
9. Michael Snow 17:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. Sure. - RedWordSmith 17:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
11. Seems like a constructive and reasonable editor. Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
12. Yep. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
13. You betcha. Neutrality^talk 22:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
14. Nice to see someone being that good at using the edit summary line. Shanes 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
15. --Jason 04:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. SlimVirgin 05:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
17. {{USERNAME}} isn't an admin? ;) --Slowking Man 06:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
18. jni 10:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. JuntungWu 13:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
20. Good work. Support. Lupo 08:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. A thoughtful and careful editor should make a good admin. Jonathunder 23:06, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
22. I realise I rarely vote to support. I guess I think that there are usually plenty who will. But this is exactly the kind of editor who should be an admin.Dr Zen 06:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
23. Support for outstanding energy and patience. -- Hoary 07:37, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
24. Fine and excellent. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
25. Sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Suffice 02:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Seek thy Knowledge, may the additional tools such as this wonderous mop and bucket aid in your quest. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Some excellent users are supporting you, O Seeker of Knowledge. That is good enough for this most unworthy one. - Lucky 6.9 05:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• I'm a bit curious about the comments below regarding restoring a user's intentionally blanked talk page. If this is policy then it's the first I've heard of it. Some people may not like the practice of blanking such pages rather than archiving them, but it is the user's talk page and I believe they are given broad scope of what they can do with it. I think removing any comments (including all comments) is the user's perogitive. Looking at the voting for User:Josh Grosse below, it is noted that he has done the same thing, and it is there dismissed as a trivial potential breach of etiquitte. In fact, it is noted right next to a support vote. I would be hesitant to support a RfA for a user who admits he might block someone for such actions. -R. fiend 22:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. You bring up a good point. I hope I was not out of line. I should clarify that it was not solely about a user blanking his page, but a couple other issues as well. One is that this was an anonymous user, and I have seen reversion of anonymous users' talk pages frequently on Wikipedia, particularly when the comments are mostly or all negative (such as vandalism-related). The nature of the comments was another, as well as the user's pattern of edits. (Incidentally, the user was blocked shortly thereafter and now is the subject of a Request for Arbitration). I believed that I was doing the right thing, especially given the other editors restoring the comments and what I had seen before. However, if it was inappropriate, I would not do it again. I will seek further clarification before repeating this action. But I certainly would not block someone over blanking one's own talk page. Rereading my answer below, I realize that is ambiguous: the mention of a block is a response to the generic "how I will deal with conflicts in the future", not to this specific case. I view blocking as a last resort; one has to do something significantly worse, like repeated vandalism of articles despite warnings to stop, to merit a block. Repeated blanking of one's own talk page would not be sufficient for me. I hope this clarifies my views and actions; please mention any other concerns. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you; I find your reply quite satisfactory. Whether or not it was inappropriate I can't quite say. I don't pretend to be familiar with every wikipedia rule or policy; I tend to rely more on common sense. Logically I would sort of think that unregistered users would be less discouraged from blanking their talk page, as the IP might be used by more than one person, and hence someone might find a talk page littered with comments or criticisms that didn't apply to them. But I admit I'm not up on policy here entirely. Your comments did sort of seem to imply you considered such actions a blockable offense, and I'm glad you've set me straight. It was slightly ambiguous, but i consider it cleared up. -R. fiend 02:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. My chief interest is in RC patrol, which would definitely be easier with some additional tools. I also am interested in helping out at Copyright problems; I used to list articles there although I haven't done that much recently. If I am granted adminship, I expect other areas might pique my interest as well.

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

A. I'm most proud of Multilevel streets in Chicago and Wacker Drive. SPUI actually did most of the writing; my contribution was more of the "field research" variety (exploring intersections and taking photographs). I'm especially proud of the way Image:Chicago top down view.png turned out, although I didn't create it myself.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I suppose I have been in a couple "conflicts", although none have really caused me stress. I have been active in the RfC for User:Iasson (and User:Faethon) and found their behavior to be a bit frustrating at times. More recently, about a week ago, I was involved with User:199.111.225.59 who kept blanking his talk page, while I (along with some other editors) restored it. He and I did discuss back and forth why we were restoring the comments, and he seemed to have some confusion and anger over the matter. I did my best to explain our position and that we were not arbitrarily picking on him. I plan to deal with future conflicts the same way as in the past—through logic, reasoning, and patience. If someone refuses to stop despite explanations and repeated warnings, a block may be necessary, but I prefer to deal with conflicts the way I have been doing.