Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Kafziel

Final (9/11/5) ending 21:49, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel (talk • contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I never thought I would do this, but I've been at Wikipedia for a while now, and a few things I saw today made me think it might be time to put myself out there. I've been contributing for about a year, mostly in the main namespace. At the time of this writing I have a little over 6,000 edits, but I suppose you'll all see that easily enough. I circulate through Articles for Deletion, 3rd Opinion, Requested Moves, and Featured Article Candidates, and have created somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 articles. I edit with AWB and use Vandalproof to patrol Recent Changes. I have never vandalized a page or broken 3RR. I think I'd be a good administrator because I have a good grasp of policy, I have experience with a lot of different projects, I work at home (so I'm online all day, every day), I'm always happy to answer questions, and - most importantly - I care about Wikipedia. Kafziel 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Sheepishly accept. Kafziel 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I withdraw my request. Kafziel 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't going to reply to any of the objections here, because I don't think it's right to try to hijack polls by bothering everyone who votes against you, but since some users think replying to them is a good thing, I do want to at least point out that the discussion in question was more than a thousand edits ago. No, I didn't know much about coding categories. A thousand edits ago. Yes, I lost my temper. A thousand edits ago. Am I the lovingest, cuddliest person in the world? Hell, no. I'm a New Yorker and a former Marine, so I guess my idea of "nice" might not be the same as everyone else's. I do try to keep that in mind when I write, and I'm not exactly asking to be in charge of Esperanza. But no matter what, except for one time—a thousand edits ago—I base my statements on policy as best I can, and I try not to get involved in anything until I understand the whole story.

I don't want to be an admin so I can make lots of new friends. I don't want to be an admin so I can feel special and get lots of power. In fact, I don't have a great desire to be an admin at all. I just want to make a better encyclopedia. I think adminship is something everyone should do if they have the time and the ability, which I do, but they shouldn't be made to jump through hoops. If you feel that my track record over the course of a year, 6,000 edits, and 3,000 pages, is ruined by one exchange, then I won't try to discourage you. I'm content to continue editing as I have been, if that's the outcome, and I won't request adminship again. Thanks - Kafziel 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment If you feel you will make a good admin, submit your RFA at a later date and I'm sure it will be more successful.--Andeh 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt I will. This one was pretty ridiculous. Kafziel 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Naconkantari 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Thoughtful and committed with a good understanding of administrative responsibilities. I see him as a potent vandal fighter -- Samir धर्म 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Mostly Rainy 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support after thorough investigation of User talk, block logs, user log, etc. Werdna (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   [1]? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   [2]? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. digital_me^(t/c) 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing to neutral--digital_me^(t/c) 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Support using my first "thought he already was one". -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|666} 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Terence Ong 03:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support solid contributor with an obvious interest in the position. I like his attitude toward being frank with vandals and unhelpful contributors, which is something I think we could use more of (err, frankness, that is, not vandals and unhelpful contributors). Opabinia regalis 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, As everything above. So, I nominate him for Administrator '''*Daniel*''' 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Good user. DarthVader 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose provocative unfriendly responses/threatening to block a user; at the bottom of this page. Not the kind of attitude I want admins around here to have. This was a month ago so I don't know if your attitude is still the same. Sorry.--Andeh 01:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to weak oppose as his intentions only seem good apart from that.--Andeh 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose; the conversation pointed out by Andeh shows a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes vandalism, how the category system works, and what actions may result in blocks. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   I understand your concerns. Apart from his threats and cursing, which usually don't bother me so much, I can't really explain what it was about him that got to me so quickly. However, telling him he could be blocked was purely about vandalism, not personal - he was acting like a vandal, and had already received multiple warnings on his user page, but I had just started using Vandalproof, and hadn't quite gotten the hang of the custom warning messages. So I stepped back over to Firefox to try to talk to him normally, but he wouldn't have it. He's actually one of the users I mentioned in question #2, at the bottom; I didn't want to call him out by name because he has had a lot of other problems. All I can say is that that was a weird situation, and has not been repeated. Kafziel 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   He didn't personally attack you, he was just disgruntled at the fact you reverted his edits. He didn't approach you in the right manor but by threatening to block him just escalated the situation.--Andeh 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   I'm the first to admit it could have been worded better, but I was right - if he had kept reverting without discussion, he could have been blocked. I've seen that enough times to know. I didn't just make it up to intimidate him. I usually find it's better to be frank with people, rather than being uber-polite until you list them on AIV or 3RR with no explanation except a handful of "test" messages. I always want to try to discuss things for real, not just with stock messages, before it comes to that. He's not new here—he knew I wasn't an admin and wasn't going to block him myself—and it did get him to talk to me, and my mistake was immediately cleared up without any further issue. Kafziel 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Andypandy. ForestH2 03:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The conversation cited by Andeh, if you go back and look at the history in The Shield, reveals a number of errors by Kafziel. First, reverting and then reverting as vandalism an edit that looks like an effort to contribute; the correct action would have been to ask the user about the edit before reverting. Second, letting VandalProof leave messages that (under the circumstances) were rude. Third, failing to communicate politely with a user who was frustrated because of the first two errors. Fourth, demanding an explanation of the "|" symbol in order to "ok" the edits rather than investigating the effects of the edit himself. Fifth, not apologizing when everything was explained. In short, I see lack of understanding of Wikipedia features, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, failure to assume good faith, and the potential to bite newbies (whose good-faith edits sometimes look more like vandalism). As for the continued assertion that the user in question could have been blocked, he couldn't have been blocked any more or less than Kafziel could have been—they were both reverting with either no explanation or an inaccurate one. The admins Wikipedia needs least are the ones who, through ignorance or frustration, might turn good-faith users away from the project. All that being said, some of the answers below indicate you've got the right idea even if you made a mistake in this case. I therefore suggest learning more and trying again later. -- SCZenz 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The talk page pointed out by Andeh is a little worrying - I'd hope never to see an administrator stooping to threats (especially unrealistic ones, used simply to bully another user), petty antagonism and the like. I'll happily support you in a few months, provided you cool off a bit and take a more reasonable stance in future conflicts. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Admins can get away with being rude ... but not that rude. --Cyde↔Weys 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   The part of that comment before the ellipses appears to miss a number of important points. -Splash - tk 17:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose I have to oppose based on this user's attitude toward others in the community. He seems standoff-ish in a way that makes me uncomfortable with giving him more responsibility and opportunity to interact with users. See this response to a user's communication on his talk page; to me, it is dripping with condescension. Aguerriero (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose per comments above. Serious concerns with civility; blocking should never be a threat. Shell ^babelfish 16:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Civility concerns per Andeh. The fact that one is correct does not justify boorish behavior. Xoloz 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose civility concerns.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Meets 1FA, but per civility concerns above...Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm sitting on the fence for now. Yanksox 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral User shows that he is dedicated to this project. However, unfriendly responses seem to be of a concern. I feel that it is not right to oppose him because of this, BUT I cannot support him at the moment. However, his acknowledgement in wording his replies could have been much better is taken into strong consideration here. I may have to look at the responses he makes to oppose votes to change my vote in the near future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral at the moment. After perusing user talk, I found a number of interchanges that seemed "unfriendly" at best. For example, [3]. I am not sure that this is the type of approach that encourages collaboration. Kukini 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now. Worried about the unfriendly exchanges. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per civility concerns. --digital_me^(t/c) 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Someone is vandalising this nomination - note to closing Bureaucrat to review history. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  I've removed the fake votes added by the IP vandal, hopefully it should be clean now.--Andeh 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Kafziel's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Kafziel
Total edits 6260
Distinct pages edited 3332
Average edits/page 1.879
First edit 14:49, June 15, 2005
 
(main) 3382
Talk 689
User 346
User talk 1031
Image 94
Image talk 6
Template 17
Template talk 7
Category 5
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 635
Wikipedia talk 44
Portal 1
Portal talk 1

• See Kafziel's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

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: I would certainly work on AIV and AfD, but I would like to pay particular attention to the Adminstrators' noticeboard for 3RR. I think edit warring can be the worst kind of vandalism and the most discouraging to other users, and it can take too long to get a response there at times. Otherwise, as I say on my user page, I think staying too long in one spot can make editors bitter. It's important to me to circulate, to be on call, and not to specialize too much in one particular area. Creating and maintaining articles will always be my number one priority, so vandal fighting will be my most common activity, but I'd also like to learn more about portals and templates. I like to do a little bit of everything.

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

A: As far as the article process goes, I'm most proud of Invasion. I worked on it from the time it was a stub, through Collaboration of the Week, through Peer Review, to FA status, and now it will be included in Wikipedia 0.5. That was my first experience with FAC, it was an opportunity to see the whole creation of an article, and I'm proud of what we accomplished. As far as some smaller articles that I've created myself, I'm happy with Spirit of the American Doughboy, Iron Mike, and Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame. They're small, but they're comprehensive. On a much more trivial note, I reverted some vandalism on Jimbo's userpage today, so I got a kick out of that.

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 certainly seen my share of conflicts, between vandal fighting, requested moves, and 3RR. How I've dealt with them has depended on the circumstances, but I think they've all been fair. I've taken an issue to the Mediation Cabal once (for Camp Delta) and started one RFC on a user. I've had one or two users blocked for 3RR, and two confirmed as sockpuppeteers. Usually, though, all it takes is the willingness to keep discussing it all day long. I once sat up until 2 in the morning explaining to a spammer why he couldn't do that, and now he's a legitimate editor. It can be done. Of course, sometimes you just have to be willing to step back and let others take a crack at it, and I'm not above asking for help. Ultimately, I believe I'm on good terms with every editor I've ever had a real disagreement with. I do my best to be fair and impartial, and when I can't, I do my best to find someone who can.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What was an important lesson you learned from creating a FAC article? Yanksox 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A: On the practical side, that was my first use of the new "cite" reference format, which was an adventure. Rentastrawberry and I learned it as we went along, and it's been very good to know, since it's now the standard.

On a more philosophical note, that was the project that made me realize how hovering around a project for too long can really drain you. Once the FAC was over, I took my first wikibreak, and regained my sanity. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Anything that would help you in being an admin? Anything that would assist you outside of Wikipedia? Yanksox 01:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel all admins need to be great at writing articles—there's plenty of other things to be done here—so I don't necessarily think writing an FA will translate into being a solid admin. But working in the FA process branches out to other projects that admins should be familiar with, like Good Articles and Peer Reviews, introduces you to a lot of editors and subjects you wouldn’t normally be involved with, and gives you a better sense of the current standards (which are always changing, and an admin should be aware of that). Kafziel 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

5. What's the deal with minor edits? You basically have none. If took Mathbot 2000 edits to dig out 150 minor edits. Were 1850 of them major? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be right, yes. If I make a truly minor edit (like fixing the spelling of a word or something) I'll mark it as such, but most of my edits are more than that. The majority of my minor edits now come from Vandalproof. The overall bulk of my edits are still made by hand and consist of more than minor tweaks. Kafziel 11:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, yes, I think admins should stick to policy. Wikipedia has been around long enough to have reasonably comprehensive guidelines, and if something isn't included in them, there's usually a reason. There was one instance where I asked an admin to delete a redirect for me and after some discussion about how it wasn't quite in line with policy (someone else had edited it a long time ago), he did it. No one was hurt by it, and it was refreshing to see someone think for himself. So, in that very rare case, where there was no "victim" and it made sense to all involved, it wasn't a problem. But as far as deleting an active article or issuing a block for some kind of convoluted reason, yes - I definitely think punishment would be in order. I'm not an admin so I'm not experienced in all of that, but off the top of my head I'd say the best thing to do on a first offense would be to reverse the block: if he blocked another user for a day, unblock them and block him for a day instead. The second time, they should lose their administrator privileges. Of course, things are never that simple here, but since we're speaking hypothetically... Kafziel 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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.