Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chrislk02 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Chrislk02

Final (65/6/4); Ended Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:17:44 UTC

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to submit Chrislk02 for your consideration, whom I believe fulfils all the requirements for adminship and would benefit Wikipedia if given access to the admin tools. Chris had a previous RfA on December 6, 2006. Back then, many users praised his already good knowledge of policy, editing skills and outstanding vandalfight. However, the RfA was not successful due to concerns expressed by many users that Chris was simply too new to Wikipedia. In turn, many of the opposers acknowledged that Chris was on the right track and should try again in the near future. It is my belief that the time has come. Chris has amassed more than 13000 edits in the last four months, having acquired good experience in a vast array of different areas, with particular emphasis on countervandalism. Chris is an outstanding vandalfighter, I'm always glad to see his frequent reports to WP:AIV as I foreknow that they are impeccably appropriate and always result in the vandal being blocked. Needless to say, this clearly denotes that Chris is perfectly aware of the circumstances under which should a block be applied. I trust this user and expect my fellow Wikipedians to make a good judgement of his experience, capabilities and potential, and give him the support that he, by now, rightfully deserves. Húsönd 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (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 participants:

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: There are several areas of Wikipedia that I will be able to assist in as a sysop. The first, and most prolific area that I am involved in is anti-vandalism. I very regulary report vandals to WP:AIV (after all appropriate warnings) and actually have it bookmarked on my toolbar. In addition to the vandalism reversions which I do, I would be able to monitor WP:AIV, and keep back log down by administering appropriate blocks. (There are many times that I am on when I run into a backlog). Another area I would be useful in is proposed deletions. I recently started working on the PROD patrol, reviewing proposed deletions and either supporting them with the {{prod2}} template, or contesting them, and alerting the editor who proposed the deletion. With sysop, I would review and articles that have been prodded for the appropriate amount of time and either delete them or contest them. I have also spent a fair amount of time on new page patrol and patrolling speedy deletions. During these times, I have saved a few articles from being speedied, while having many other article that I have nominated deleted. The last area that I feel I would be useul in is the Did you know section. I have designed many of the next updates and was part of the initial trials that allowed regular editors to design the next updates for the DYK section. With sysop, I would be able to update the next DYK at the appropriate times as well as watch for errors and update the DYK section accordingly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There are many articles that I am particulary proud of. Some of them include Joint Expedition Against Franklin, my addtions to Franklin, Virginia and more recently, the article on the Pitot-static system. THere are numerous other articles that I am proud of my additions to, particularly because of the proper citations that were added to the article. I very regularly check books out of the library and buy magazines to squeeze every bit if citable information out of them, then stack them to the side and move to the next. I am also in the progress of translating the article Tupolev Tu-134 to spanish on my spanish user page sandbox. In the Wikipedia namespace, I am particularly proud of my additions and involvement in Wiki project aircraft. Related to the aircraft project, I also have several templates I have designed as navigation aids among different models of aircrat. An example is {{Cessna}}.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a few minor, although I feel appropriate, edit conflicts here is an example. I believe that I have always handled myself in an appropriate manner. In short, I am fairly laid back, and do not stress out about anything (sames goes for myself in real life). I feel that admiting when one is wrong is a sign of strength, and have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake, and am always willing to take responsibility for my actions, and do what it takes to remedy any mistakes.
4. It has come to my attention that many editors believe themselves to be superior to everyone else. Would you act like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonhunter (talk • contribs)
A: I believe very strongly against that, both in real life, as well as on Wikipedia. I thing being humble is the best way to be in all situations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

5. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.
I, spending time on RC patrol, and even new page patrol have seen large amounts of spam. I think that the external links section should be minimal, and only contain information that would add value to a readers understanding of the article. I.E. perhaps an interactive diagram, or perhaps links to online FAA documentation on topics related to aircraft and flying. I think that external links should adhere to WP:RS and WP:V to merit inclusion. In above examples, FAA documentation is considered fairly reliable and verifiable source and therefore, assuming it added value by being included, merits inclusion in an article. My space and youtube however interseting the content may be, is hard to ensure it is accurate or even relevant and from NPOV. I think that any links in the external links section, especially viewed by outside readers, appears as though wikipedia "endorses" that site which could be dangerous for many reasons. I think many corporations see wikipedia as an avenue for cheap advertising, which cannot possibly be from the NPOV and therefore has no need for inclusion. In summary, I think that the external links section should always adhere to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and only after that, should they be considered for inclusion.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:BigDT

6. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A:I cannot think of any situations in which that would occur. I think that the current criteria for speedy deletion have come together through quite of bit of work of the community reaching consensus on what qualifies as being so worthless that it should be deleted immediatley. I personally feel that articles that are questionable for speedy should be afd'd to give them there due course to run. There are many topics I am admittadly unfamiliar with. To me, it may seem like rubbish where to a physicist, it might be what he does every day. In short, I think that by deleting articles outside of these critera shows a lack of respect for the community as well as a possible slap in the face of the main contributing editor.


7. For what cause(s) may a user be blocked? What are some examples of times when it is appropriate or inappropriate for an administrator to block a user? --BigDT 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A:The area that I am most familiar with is blatant and repeat vandalism. I generally patrol IP recent changes, and those follow a little different critera. Due to the possiblities associated with dynamic IP addresses, I think it is important that IP vandals be appropriatley warned before being blocked. I also feel that a little extra thought and time should be spent perusing the ips contribs and should also be taken into account. I also feel that these blocks should generally be brief(24 hours or so). There are a few situations that I believe are exceptions to this (like an IP address that have hundreds of vandal only edits etc. However, I still feel that these blocks should be limited as well. perhaps a week or two). I do not feel that blocks should be punitive, and if an anon does not vandalize after the final warning, I do not think a block should be immediatley applied, however the contribs watched for a repeat occurance. I realize that one of the most importance concepts of wikipedia is that anybody can contribute and I believe blocking is, while esential to the functioning of wikipedia, also a very dangerous concept that should never be taken lightly as it is denying an individual the right to contribute knowledge. A specific example of this belief to me is that there is a reason that anons do not have to register to contribute and I do not think that they should be necessarily singled out (because I have seen many excellent contribs from anons). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support as nom.--Húsönd 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Of course. I have great faith in this user and do not even contemplate that he would misuse the tools. Bubba hotep 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support − Wikipedia can always use more admins, and you will certainly make an excellent one! Excellent vandal-fighting. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support I wanted to nominate, :(. But seriously awesome user, one of those where you assumed he was an admin ~ Arjun 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. My only flaw in this is that it's pretty soon after your first nom. That being said, you didn't need to wait any longer, you're clearly deserving of the tools.--Wizardman 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Good user. --Majorly (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per nomination. S.D. ¿п? § 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support I offered to nominate first! :-) I congratulate you on either your successful nomination, or your very near success. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Since the last RfA, the user has gained valuable experience in dealing with many aspects of Wikipedia. Although I would normally be hesitant to support a nomination just two months after the previous RfA, I feel that Chris has demonstrated deep knowledge of policy and a strong commitment to the project. Nishkid64 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Can't see any probs here... WJBscribe 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Switched to neutral. WJBscribe 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Very good. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. The only problem I can see is that there should have been a period after "conflicts" in the first sentence of Question 3... –Llama man 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    A semicolon would have been even better. ;-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Or maybe an interrobang...or not. –Llama man 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I opposed Chris on his last RfA, but have seen a great improvement in the nearly two months since. I believe he is ready and will make a trustworthy addition to the admin team. Gwernol 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support ViridaeTalk 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support He now has the experience under his belt. GizzaChat © 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Chrislk02 has matured rapidly as an editor, and seems cut-out for mop duty. -- MarcoTolo 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Well deserved reward for project contributions.--Infrangible 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Suppert- Good user with good edits--SUIT42 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support good user, good vandalfighter, can certainly use the tool.-- danntm T C 05:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks like a much-improved candidate since their last RfA application. (aeropagitica) 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support a great candidate for adminship. It would be great to have someone like him with the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - some good work and vandal fighting. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Great improvements.yandman 08:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support as above.--Rudjek 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, personally I would have liked a bit more expansion on Q3, but maybe that's merely because I like to bore people with essays :) In all seriousness, a very good candidate, and one who is ready to admit when they are fault and try to rectify the mistake is better than one who isn't. Daniel.Bryant 09:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. I have absolutely no reason to say otherwise – PeaceNT 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Particularly happy to help promote someone who can admit mistakes. Dweller 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak support. Not very impressed of his answer to question two, but he is an excellent vandal-fighter and shows experience with the WP:AIV and deletion processes. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Terence Ong 13:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Will make good use of tools, no probs.--Alf melmac 13:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support much improved. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per above... Addhoc 15:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support good user, trustworthy. The Rambling Man 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support no concerns and the promotion of Chris will benefit Wikipedia. -- Heligoland 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. I've seen Chris around and like what I see. I think Chris can be trusted with the extra bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support per above. Just H 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support An excellent user. Of course. Retiono Virginian 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support No possible way to deny that edit count. A dedicated editor, a dedicated admin. Good luck. Ganfon 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support per very good editor.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per my comment last time. Still tons of scripted reverts, but I also see some good editorial contributions over the last week. ~ trialsanderrors 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good answer to my question.Cylonhunter 22:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Great user with good contributions. Hello32020 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, strong record, opposition is baseless. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. Why would I oppose? JorcogaYell! 07:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support No evidence that admin tools will be misused.--MONGO 08:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support per Proto (#6, below). If the honest and admitted mistake of an automated revert of non-vandalism is his worst sin, he has my support. Sorry to personalize this, but in my view, if that is the sole basis for oppose, is this perhaps a rationalization of something else I'm not aware of? Duja► 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support like I said I would :) -- Renesis (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    However, per Proto below, please be sure to make sure the edit was not in good faith (such as having an edit summary) before using rollback (or JS equiv.) -- Renesis (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. Strong Support Although he is a bit green behind the ears, Chris has been very active here and demonstrates a good grasp of Wikipedia policy. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support My one criterion on RfA is "Would Wikipedia be better off if this person were an admin?" The answer here is yes.--Runcorn 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Didn't see anything in opposition to deter me from supporting. Yonatanh 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good editor and no big concerns. Prolog 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. On a personality level, I wonder if the candidate is a little full of himself - but as a vandal fighter, deletion gatekeeper, and other functions, I think his contributions so far make an irrefutable case in his favor. YechielMan 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. Per nom. Dfrg.msc 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support - good answers to questions, strong anti-vandalism work. --BigDT 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support - vandal guy, and that's enough for me. ST47Talk 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support - strong vandal fighter, devoted contributor Alex Bakharev 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support - would have supported anyway, but asinine and illogical oppose votes encouraged me to go through this users contributions. I like what I see. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - user is civil, very hardworking, and devoted. KatalavenoTC 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support, very well aware of Wikipedia's policy. Would be a real asset to the project. Shyam (T/C) 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Great vandal fighting and would not abuse the tools RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose This person has only been active as long as I've been active, since August. Second, his last RfA was only last month. Usually, people need to wait at least 2 months before applying for another RfA. Third, Wikipedia does not need any more anti-vandal admins. The WP:AIV page is usually checked every 10 minutes at most. Diez2 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    I've only been here since August too, and yet, I look up to Chris. He very simply deserves the tools, and we would all benefit if he does have them. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Although I don't have the habit to contest opposition to candidates, I must say that I find your arguments very unreasonable. Firstly, time on Wikipedia is far from being a precise indicator of a user's experience, value and skills. You should instead focus on the contributions, and peruse them in order to attain an adequate evaluation of his participation in the project. Secondly, Wikipedia does need more anti-vandal admins. And even if it didn't, I find it hard to understand why would a surplus be a negative thing here. And thirdly, you really need not to stand so harshly against this user. Even if your reasons were unerring, which I disagree, that doesn't really seem to justify a "strong oppose" and a rather hostile stance.--Húsönd 17:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Hostility cleansed. Thank you.--Húsönd 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose : (a) Half-a-year is, by far, too short a time to be entrusted with admin duties, (b) It's been only 7 weeks since his last attempt ("back then" indeed!), (c) Some careless writing exhibited in his answers. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I was entrusted with admin duties after 3 months... plus I had one of the most supported RFA's in recent history. Just throwin' that out there. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Weak oppose. Although I think you've been around long enough, I have a few concerns. It hasn't even been two months since your last attempt; it would have been more prudent to decline this nomination and wait a little while longer. Secondly, your bolded comment after the questions reminds me of comments made by other editors- editors with persecution complexes. While I too believe humility is a virtue, bashing a bunch of unnamed editors who feel themselves to be superior is completely the wrong tone for an adminship candidate. Feel free to contact me; I may reconsider given your otherwise excellent track record. --Scimitar parley 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Looking through the edit history, only part of the bolded comment was posted by the nominee. The question itself was posted by User:Cylonhunter[1]. Agent 86 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    I split the two to make this more obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for the same reasons that many people cited during his previous RFA run last month: still too new (only active since October) and too inexperienced with policy application. Ratio of edits also skewed: lots of User Talk activity, but very little article-space or Wikipedia-space Talk, where substantive discussions occur. No work towards developing featured articles, that I see. As many others suggested on the prior RFA, please wait a bit before trying again. Four months of high activity tagging articles, reverting and issuing vandal warnings doesn't demonstrate enough commitment to be handed admin functions; vandal-fighting can be done with non-admin tools (as he's doing right now).--LeflymanTalk 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    I can totally understand your point, but there were many, many comments on Chris's previous RfA saying they would support the candidate in a couple of months, so you can't really fault the candidate for accepting a new nomination a couple of months later (yeah, I know, it's a few days short of two months, but who's counting). Wikipedia is literally being buried under an avalance of external links and ruined by vandalism, vanity articles and incorrectly licenced photographs; all these need administrators attention in varying degrees, and at the moment there's just not enough admins to go round. -- Heligoland 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue is not merely whether two months is long enough to have waited; it's that he hasn't demonstrated any actual knowledge of Wikipedia policy and standards in discussions in that time. I can find only two comments he's ever made on Wikipedia policy pages: [2] and [3], both on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion -- and those were back in November. The most comments he's left on any Wiki-space is for the "humor" page Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test. I just don't see much activity apart from vandalism patrol and stub sorting, which again are not admin-only duties. None of the things you have mentioned actually require admin status. External links and vandalism can be removed by anyone. "Vanity articles" (a term now deprecated) are handled through AfD -- there's no speedy-delete for them. Being an admin shouldn't be simply a reward for being a good Wikipedian.--LeflymanTalk 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. You still autorevert things which are not vandalism. I opposed you for the exact same reason last time... -Amark moo! 02:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    While it may not qualify as vandalism, I stand by that reversion. It was a block removal of cited information, by an anon. I gave them a test warning and upon their questioning, I gladly gave a through explanation as to why I took the actions that I took. If that means that I do not meet your specification for an admin, I respect that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I have no issue with the revert. The issue is that you reverted it as vandalism, with an automated tool. I can't help but think that you'll use rollback the same way. -Amark moo! 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Of all of vandalism that I have properly reverted, one or two will slip through the cracks. I will be the first person to admit that I make mistakes(and I go above and beyond to fix any mistakes that I do make). And, to be honest I will make mistakes again in the future (with the admin tools or not). I see it similar to collateral damage with autoblocking, it is going to happen. The question to me is, how does somebody handle it after it does. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    I understand that you make mistakes, but now you're just minimizing what you did. You used a Javascript tool to intervene in a content dispute. I can't support someone who would do that even as an honest mistake, especially soon after filing a second RfA, after being opposed for the same reason in the first one. -Amark moo! 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    I respect your oppose as well as your opinion on the topic. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this here with me, it is much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. Per the diff Amarkov provided, I do not feel I can trust this user with the admin tools. Rollback and its equivalent java tools are to be used for reverting vandalism, solely. Not - ever - for content disputes. Admitting it was a 'mistake' but then noting it is one he will make again in the future rather than pledging to not do it again strikes me as both arrogant and insultingly dismissive. This was one of the reasons Chris's first RFA fell through, so it is clear he lacks the ability to comprehend why what he did was wrong; he has repeated the error and sees it as 'collateral damage' and 'it is going to happen'. It's only going to happen if we trust people with the tools when they lack the basic understanding of what the tools are intended for, and the judgement to learn from their errors. Proto::► 12:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    I think there is some confusion related to my above answer. I was completley unaware of a content dispute. I was on RC patrol, checking recent changes and I made that reversion solely on the fact that I believed it to be vandalism. While I make every effort to assertain that a diff is truly vandalism before I revert it, a few slip through the cracks. That is what I am claiming above will happen again. I make every effort to handle content disputes appropriatley, and if I was aware of one, I would have handled the situation differently. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    There's no confusion. You used an automated rollback tool to revert an edit that had been made with a clear and obvious edit summary. By all means, if you disagreed with the edit, revert, but don't use an automated tool to do so. Less than two months after a previous RFA failed for the same issue shows you haven't learned. Proto::► 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know the user who's being nominated here and don't know whether he's worthy of being admin. However, I feel that the reason you're giving for opposing him is invalid. When you patrol recent changes for vandalism, you're gonna mess up at some point, reverting an edit that shouldn't have been reverted and warning a user that shouldn't have been warned. Chris acknowledges that he made a mistake but he's just as well saying that it's bound to happen again in the future as humans make mistakes and once in every say 100 edits you may accidentally rv something that wasn't vandalism accidentally - even if it has an edit summary explaining the edit. This scenario is unavoidable when reverting vandalism and I agree with him that what matters is how you handle the situation once the error has been brought to your attention. Yonatanh 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    It isn't unavoidable, though. It's unavoidable with the current mindset of "quick quick gotta revert" that prevails in RC patrollers, but you by no means must have that mindset. And the people with that mindset are the ones I do not want as admins. -Amark moo! 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    It is unavoidable. Fast or slow, mistakes will always happen. The "quick quick gotta revert" that prevails in RC patrollers is the only response to the "quick quick a hundred pages were vandalized in the last 3 minutes". Fighting vandalism is not just reverting poop, gay, hi mom and I like cheese, many edits are complex forms of vandalism and sometimes a vandalfighter makes a wrong judgement about a suspicious edit. Happens to all vandalfighters and I doubt that any user who's had any considerable experience in vandalism would ever pick on Chris because of this. What's important is that when mistakes happen, he's willing to acknowledge them and fix them.--Húsönd 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    You should not be reverting complex vandalism with a script that encourages rapid-fire reversion. If an edit is suspicious, but you are not willing to spend the time thinking about it that you should, let it pass. And while it's nice that he's willing to apologize for mistakes, that's not really very much consolation to good faith editors who get a slap in the face "Your edit isn't even good enough for me to waste more than a mouseclick on" implication. -Amark moo! 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    I understand that, for you, vandalfight might seem all black and white as you haven't been fighting a lot of vandalism (especially with java scripts), but allow me to remind you that mistakes happen not because of the script's fault, but the vandalfighter's fault. Missteps might occur regardless of a slow, thorough investigation of an edit with a slow, manual reversion with a neat, explanatory edit summary, or a fast, one-click rollback with a template dropped at the editor's talk page. The important is the vandalfighter's attitude upon realizing a mistake. Sometimes good-faith editors will angrily complain about their edits being reverted, and then we have a second look and realize that we actually made a mistake. We fix the damage in yet another one-click rollback, we apologize, they thank, no harm was done. Happens all the time to all vandalfighters. Now, allow me to add that even if you believe that this particular mistake was grossly mishandled, is it really an indicator that this user will make a lousy admin thus justifying your opposition? Please try to consider that in your own RFA you will realize that it's very unfair if other users start to oppose because of a rather unimportant mistake that you might have done and which in no way reflects your valued contributions to Wikipedia.--Húsönd 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it is just a mistake. The time before, I can see how it might have been an honest mistake. I do not see how you could possibly mistake this for vandalism, unless you ignored the edit summary. Thus, I see a user who overuses autorevert tools, and doesn't bother to check the edit summaries. -Amark moo! 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Using an automated rollback tool to label an edit as vandalism – when that edit had a clear edit summary explaining reasoning and did not otherwise appear to be vandalism – and writing it off as 'collateral damage'...just ain't right. A rollback says, "The preceding edit is so obviously harmful and in bad faith that I can revert it without any discussion or edit summary." (In addition, the tool used in this case specifically labels the reverted edits as 'vandalism' and links to the policy.) Give it some time and show that you read the edit summaries of the edits that you roll back and I could support in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Despite the fact that it appears the nominee has a need for the tools and has the trust of the community at large, I am unable to support only because "adminship is no big deal". While that term is often used in the sense that having the buttons is no big deal so that's no reason to deny assigning them to a user, to me it also means that being an admin should be no big deal. In this case, I don't understand the rush to become an admin. There is no deadline. The nominee was very quick out of the gate in seeking adminship the first time around. Waiting less than 2 months to try again seems rather impatient. Agent 86 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I still feel that this RfA is occuring much too quickly after the last one, but I'm not comfortable opposing any longer, and I wish Chrislk02 the best when this passes.--Scimitar parley 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. As said above, this is slightly too soon after the last RfA, and I am also concerned by some of the diffs raised by the oppose votes. That said, they are relatively rare and he seems in general to be trusted. Trebor 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral (changed from support) due to the candidate's attitude towards the rollback incident. There was a clear edit summary and brushing it off as colateral damage without an undertaking to be more careful in future is a little concerning in light of the previous RfA. Not enough to oppose, but I'm no longer comfortable supporting. WJBscribe 12:33, 27 January 2007 (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.