Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kf4bdy

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

[edit] Kf4bdy

Final (2/5/1) Ended 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kf4bdy (talk • contribs) – I have been an editor here at Wikipedia since September of 2005. I recently dealt with the deletion of an article that I had written and while I did not handle the situation well at first, I think I learned a lot from the experience about how to handle confrontation here at Wikipedia. I would like to be an admin so that I can help in clearing a lot of the backlog that has built up over time. I would do my best to adhere to the rules governing admins and I would try to help as many people as I can. Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I withdraw my nomination.

I want to thank all those that voted. I have no hard feelings and look forward to using the suggestions made here to develop into a stronger Wikipedian. Again, thanks to everyone for taking the time to vote at my RfA. :)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would like to work on clearing the backlog of Candidates for speedy deletion, Redirects for deletion, All orphaned fairuse images and Category needed, as well as anything else I can be of service doing.

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

A: I am please with my work to help stop vandalism. I am glad to help revert edits so that Wikipedia can continue to enjoy a good reputation.

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 recently dealt with the AfD of an article I created. I did not handle it very well and felt that I was being personally attacked. I am sorry for the way I responded and I apologized to those that I offended. The whole process taught me a lot about how Wikipedia works and has helped me to become a more productive member of the Wikipedia community.

General comments

• See Kf4bdy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support(edit conflict) extensive work with new users -- the admin tools would be greatly useful in helping those new users with tasks that require admin intervention. I'm also seeing a lot of vandal reverts on the contribution list, for which the rollback feature would be userful without a doubt. 6,000 edits? Why not. - Mike | Talk 03:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - I'm not terribly happy about the self nom on RFA but honestly, I don't think you're going to abuse the tools at all and that's what RFA is about. Your work w/ new users has been great and I see no reason other than editcountis (which is bad) to indicate otherwise -- Tawker 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fails my criteria, sort of 400 (aprox) mainspace edits, just doesn't feel right to support, if you can get 500 Main edits before this thing ends i'll support †he Bread 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. You are a great civil user, but I don't see that much article-building from you. All I see is restoration after deletions and vandalism revertions. I don't see a lot of major article contributions amongst the 6,000+ edits you have. I do appreciate all the hard work you put into welcoming new users, but I believe you need more Wikipedia and article experience. Nishkid64 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose You've been doing a good job, but your contributions seem to just alternate between reverting vandalism and welcoming newcomers. I see no recent participation in XfD. And your mainspace count is too low. You are a valued contributor but I believe that in order to become an administrator you really need to diversify your contributions.--Húsönd 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose I do not hold the lack of non-minor article edits against you, as article writing has little to do with the admin controls. However, the combined lack of Talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk contributions, and the few WP:AIV reports you have filed combine to make a support vote impossible for me to give in good conscience. In the former cases, the low-to-nonexistant amounts of participation in these areas of the encyclopedia make it impossible for me to accurately judge your understanding of policy. In the final case, the lack of WP:AIV reports means that for all the test warnings you have given, almost 0 blocks have been done. If you don't get a recurring vandal blocked, how will you be certain they are no longer vandalizing? It's not possible to watchlist a contribs page after all. You are a good welcomer, that's for certain, and a good vandal reverter, but your community interaction with established users and vandalism blocks leave much to be desired. I recognize the tediousness of filing AIV reports, but I believe there are 3rd-party tools that can aid in these processes such as Vandalproof. So I must regretfully vote oppose. --tjstrf 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Your handling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ancient Apostolic Communion was, as you mentioned, inappropriate. However, that incident was only two weeks ago. Too soon. Additionally, comments like "Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia" [1][2][3] and "Even non-notable ministers have their place at Wikipedia" [4] lead me to believe that you don't have a clear understanding of what Wikipedia is and what is is not. Finally, calling Wikipedia "a sham" and threatening to quit if the community decided that the article you created about your church was not appropriate for Wikipedia [5] is not conduct I would like to expect from an administrator candidate. Neil916 (Talk) 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral The answers above lack evidence - can you provide difs for the AfD discussion and articles to which you have contributed substantially, please. I would also like to see difs for discussions that don't involve welcoming new users and warning vandals. (aeropagitica) 04:46, 20 October 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.