Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khukri

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

[edit] Khukri

Final (15/5/0) ended 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Khukri (talk • contribs) – I started editing Wikipedia anonymously around Feb 2005, with a few dabble edits, but my first logged in edits weren't until December of last year. With only a few edits to articles of interest in between, I didn't really start editing with any seriousness until May of this year. This was when, as with the majority of new users, I became involved in vandalism revision. Since then I have just over 4,000 edits admittedly from mostly vandalism reverts and the issuing of warnings, interspersed with the occasional AfD. For the last month or so, with one other editor, I have taken a leading role in WikiProject on user warnings. It is my work within this project and it's goals that has lead me to this self-nomination, the details of which I will explain below. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn Before it begins to snowball, as it does with RfA's I'll withdraw my self nomination, and go back to the back seat. If someone would be so kind as to tidy up. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:14, 30 November 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 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: As I've already mentioned, I've recently become heavily involved in WP:UW. Whilst carrying out RcP duties I started to believe that 1) the warning templates had alot of duplicityduplication, and 2) often had discrepancies and intonation differences in the wording of similarly levelled warnings. I realised that these templates must go though some sort of peer review, so I decided I wanted to be involved. Now a month on, to fully take ownership of my work, I would like to have access to the fully protected templates. Some templates that have seen vandalism over the years have been protected, whereas others can be edited by anyone. With the workload to be carried out I do not wish to be a burden on other admins continually asking to implement my changes, and to re-protect our new templates afterwards.

This project will only run for a finite time, and my intentions of being an administrator doesn't just look to short term. I started out in RcP and I would certainly devote some of my time, to lending a hand at AIV as I believe that speed in the management of vandals by administators is what keeps alot of new editors motivated, keeping them interested and does not let them feel like their reports are falling on deaf ears. I believe in order, and certainly am not adversed to the repetative tasks that adminship brings. I will help out with the 100's of AfD's created daily, reviewing the arguments and votes, and taking the appropriate actions. Of personal interest, moving on from vandalism I would be very keen to help out with the personal attacks noticeboard, which I'd started to watch just before I became involved with user warnings.

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

A: For articles, It would have to be Moss Evans. It's not a fantastic article nor has it reached featured status, but he was friend of the family, and a guy who I respected. Just personal sentiment.

For contribution, it has to be seeing the work within WP:UW coming to fruition. The overview page which list the new structure, to the discussion with other users on our general direction. It is work of which I'm genuinely proud, and as you can read on the project page, I believe it's changes will be seen on Wikipedia for years to come.

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 haven't that I can think of been in any conflict situations on wikipedia. All of the articles I've done haven't been contentious, and whilst on RcP I mainly do only anon IP edits. Occasionally someone gets abusive, but that's the name of vandal fighting. Insulting someone who's peeved because they've received a warning, isn't going to help the situation. I'll be the first to admit I've used the occasional flippant comment, having reverted "John smells of poo" for the 20th time, but throughout my time here nothing that could be called conflict.

As for stress, I do my work on wikipedia for entertainment in my spare time. I have enough stress in the real world, and if I thought that this was adding to it in anyway, I'd just walk away until the air had cooled.

General comments

• See Khukri's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• View Khukri's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Discussion

• Comment Just a quick point about word usage and this isn't meant to cast any negative shadow on your RFA...however, I am sure you meant to say in your response to Q1 that the user warnings have "a lot of duplication" rather than "a lot of duplicity". Normally, I would consider it nitpicky to jump on poor diction in an RFA but "duplicity" is so egregiously the wrong meaning that I think you might want to fix this by striking it out and inserting the correct word. --Richard 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  oops, thanks for that, changed. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Your answers to the questions aren't stellar, but I have no doubt that you have the experience needed to help Wikipedia, and I believe you have the desire to help that is necessary to get the job done well. I also looked into your work with the user warnings project and am very impressed -- I'm glad somebody has taken initiative to get this going! It's been needed for a long time. -- Renesis (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Candidate's revised answers leave me with no concern -- Renesis (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Support User refined their answer to Q1. I'm confident Khukri will make a fine admin. Nishkid64 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per answer to question posed in Neutral vote. User seems to check out. Canadian-Bacon 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support looks like a well meaning and dedicated user who meats my candidate guidelines. I'm not going to fret about whether the answers to Q1 was subpar, just be sure to read up on the duties of the mop, whichever way this RfA goes.-- danntm ^T _C 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support: Looks solid, with lots of RFA and countervandal activites. Heimstern Läufer 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support--Húsönd 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Terence Ong 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Changed as per revised answer to Q1. (aeropagitica) 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Must^TC 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Looks fine. OK, so he's a WikiGnome who doesn't do "major edits". I prefer humility and reticence to cocksure self-assuredness and obstinacy. Wikipedia needs both prolific editors like Giano and WikiGnomes like Khukri. --Richard 09:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
11. --Dario vet 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A great candidate, but I'd like to see some more "major edits" every now and then. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per express use for tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - on the basis of this user being very familiar with warnings and vandalism, and wanting to see him have the tools to do even more in that field. However, I think many of us do hope that, at least initially, he somewhat confine himself to his areas of greatest expertise. We can always use more people there, anyway. Badbilltucker 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Support I would also like to see some more major edits from this user, but I'll support. Hello32020 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, regretfully. If mathbot's tool is not wrong, Khukri has only 7 major edits in the article namespace. I think an administrator should have more experience than that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I was altogether prepared to suggest that the candidate's deficiency was simply his failure to mark edits as other-than-minor, but I find there to be no substantive contribution amongst the candidate's last 500 mainspace edits (I suppose I ought to have appreciated that the ever-reasonable and -pensive Oleg wouldn't have opposed without having investigated further). I am not amongst the number who think a lack of substantial mainspace work to be disqualifying (and, at least after cursory consideration, imagine that I will happily support), but I found the absence of mainspace contributions (and the adduction of Moss Evans as the candidate's best contribution, inasmuch as, even as Khukri readily concedes that such article isn't of FA quality [neither, to be sure, is any to which I have been a principal contributor], I can't imagine that one would want such article, in view of its several departures from the MoS [and a disconcerting understanding of MoS evidenced thereby], to be understood as representative of his best work) to be remarkable nonetheless. Joe 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I would be extremely disheartened if I thought my work over the last month or so with the user warnings project weren't considered to be substantive contributions. Admittedly my main space major edits are low, and you correctly surmised whilst I was doing main space edits, more often as not I would not de-check the minor edits box. I'm an average run of the mill guy, and subjects I do know about CERN, and it's accelerators for instance, already have pages written far better than I could do, and anything I could add would be just tweaks. I believe my abilities however lie towards organisation, identifying procedural shortfalls and helping to rectify. I fully appreciate that this is an encyclopedia and needs article editors, but I also believe there need to be people behind the scenes willing to keep the well oiled machine running smoothly, and that's where I can help. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Apologies if I didn't convey my full assessment of the situation. I am altogether fine with our sysopping someone who hasn't made many substantive mainspace contributions; indeed, my RfA guidelines go toward the proposition of your ultimate sentence (in fact, I am very, very glad that you set forth why you think one who has not contributed profoundly to articles might nevertheless be an excellent admin, because such formulation is much too often rejected). I meant only to suggest that those who think it important that a prospective admin have made broad mainspace contributions directly (as against indirectly, e.g., by his/her undertaking to warn users in order that vandalism should be curtailed)—of whom I am, to be sure, not one—will probably have good cause to oppose. I, of course, imagine that I'll support after taking a more-than-cursory look here. Joe 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Oleg and lack of activity in mainspace - only FOUR mainspace edits this month, and all minor vandal reversions at that. – Chacor 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Changed to weak oppose upon realising user went on break. – Chacor 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
3. This user appears to be unfamiliar with the "minor edit" checkbox, as 99% of his edits in the last two months are minor. This may sound trivial, but if a user doesn't know how this checkbox works I am hesitant to trust him with block/protect/delete buttons. (Radiant) 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   You are correct, 99% of my last two months, and I will say 99% of my last 12 months edits are minor edits. As I put in my response to Joe, I'm sure you will find instances where an edit is arguably major if you look hard enough or I have forgotten to de-check the box, but that I will guarantee that is the rarity, simply because of my editing history, and in no way implies I do not understand the usage of the minor edits check box. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm quite willing to take your word for it that you do know how this box works, but that would imply that you have been pretty much inactive for the last two months since you basically haven't made any major edits between the beginning of October and yesterday. (Radiant) 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Is no major edits a criteria for being inactive? The last 2 months I have around a 1000 edits with the large portion on the re-organisation of WP:UW, and have so far been told within the framework of this RfA that this has not been substantive contributions and that I've been inactive. As I said before you are correct they amass to alot minor edits throughout my time here without major edits to article mainspace, but I do take exception to being told I've been inactive, by implication or not. I cannot change my edit history and seek to make no excuse for it. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think we're using different definitions of "inactive" here; I did not mean "absent" but I meant "less active than is desirable for an admin candidate". We're not talking about few major edits here, but about zero major edits in the two months before yesterday. (Radiant) 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Relatively low number of wiki-space edits suggests a lack of familiarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per inexperience in both the project- and the article-spaces, each one of which would have sufficed. - crz crztalk 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. I'm not particularly impressed by your answer to Q1 since it appears your main goal for getting adminship is just so you can bypass protection and edit high-risk templates. Also, you barely mentioned AIV and AfD, and you made no mention of doing any work in the admin backlogs. If you revise your answer, I will support you. Nishkid64 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, I hope I've explained my future intentions more clearly, if not please let me know. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Vote changed to Support. Nishkid64 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

#Neutral The only reason why I am neutral on this AfD at the moment is because the answer to question 1 appears to indicate a short-term approach to the disposal of admin powers. I would like to see more of a definite idea regarding the ongoing usage of the tools if-and-when they are granted. If you can revise your answer to question 1 then I will review my position. I have no doubt as to your abilities as an editor, by the way!(aeropagitica) 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral looking through your edit history, I find that your contributions spiked down this month. Wondering if you have any sort of reason for this sudden drop in relation to the timing of this RFA. Other than that, I'd support pending an answer to this question. Canadian-Bacon 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I went on a wikibreak, see here and with the user warnings, I've done very little RcP work in the last month. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed to support. Canadian-Bacon 23:51, 29 November 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.