Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kaldari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kaldari

final (32/1/0) ending 04:12 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari (talk · contribs) asked me if I wouldn't mind nominating him, which I'm happy to do. For some reason he waited until he had 3000 edits, easily more than I think should be necessary, after having been around since April 2004 and a regular contributor since November. In any case, I think Kaldari has shown that he understands how Wikipedia works and is willing to abide by its policies, such as they are. --Michael Snow 04:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. BTW, I didn't specifically wait until I had 3000 edits, I just thought maybe it was a good time to ask for the mop and bucket :) Kaldari 04:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Michael Snow 04:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Exir KamalabadiLeave me a note! 05:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Theres a mop in my toolshed with your name on it. The pay's not good and the kid's may throw things at you but you'll find it rewarding ;) Redwolf24 06:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Made a good effort to forge a compromise on era styles. Maurreen (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. utcursch | talk 08:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Kaldari. El_C 08:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Cool. JuntungWu 11:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Thunderbrand 17:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support dab (ᛏ) 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. You're gettin' the green light from me, pal.  Denelson83  18:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. --Jusjih 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. I support for many reasons, not the least of which is that I'm often driven to a support vote by reading the reasons that Ryan gives for neutral or oppose votes. But more importantly, not a vandal, and a nom from Mike Snow doesn't hurt either. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. No question. He's a good, dedicated editor and he'll make a responsible admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support nice tweaking of the Marshall, Texas article series among other things. -JCarriker 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support User:Nichalp/sg
  17. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support - Sango123 15:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  19.  BRIAN0918  20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  20. Yea. Tomer TALK 01:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, I see no reason not to. Asking somebody for a nomination in the open is nothing to be ashamed of. Asking by means of e-mail and other personal means, that is something to be ashamed of, but that's definitely not the case here. --Sn0wflake 02:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    It must just be my naivete then. I always assumed either you got nominated by someone, or you nominated yourself. This is the first time I ever heard of someone asking another to do it for them. Whatever, I trust your judgement and will change my vote. Ryan 03:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Situations vary, of course. In this case, a respected editor - Michael Snow - was asked to nominate him, and given that he accepted making the nomination, it is assumed that he'd nominate the editor under other circunstances, but that the thought hadn't occured him. It is a little unnusual to ask for a nomination, but in this case, I see no problem worth of opposition. In your postion I'd vote Neutral, which is what I usually do when I do not agree with some particularity, but that's personal opinion, really. --Sn0wflake 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  22. I have no reason not to now. Ryan 03:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Well he doesnt meet my minimum standards of having 100,000 edits, 35 featured articles, 6.3 years experience and be a personal friend of jimbo wales. but what the heck. Support. Martin (Bluemoose) 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Sure. Carbonite | Talk 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Will make a valuable administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. I've seen that this editor has a level-head and can be trusted with authority. -Willmcw 19:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. I regularly come across Kaldari's edits, and he is a valuable contributor and a reasonable voice in controversial discussions. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support All looks good. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. All does indeed look good. Func( t, c ) 04:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. DS1953 13:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. FeloniousMonk 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral It sort of rubs me the wrong way that you had to ask someone to nominate you. You can have nominated yourself, you know. If you aren't willing to do things for yourself, you might not be admin material. I mean, when it comes to crunch time, are you going to delete the page or wait for someone else to? However, I do not have it in my heart to oppose, as everything else you have done is in your favor. Ryan 00:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed to support. Ryan 03:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Hehe, guess I should have nominated myself. I just thought it would be even more tacky than asking someone else to do it. At least it shows initiative ;) Kaldari 01:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • My stats for the statisticians: Total edits - 3032; Articles - 1870; Talk - 354; Wikipedia - 373. I'm also active on a few of the sister projects, specifically Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wiktionary. Kaldari
  • Since the propriety of asking to be nominated has come up, I will offer this comment. In my view, asking is a legitimate way to get feedback on whether a nomination would be a good idea, rather than going blindly into a self-nomination and finding out people don't trust you enough yet. If I had had any concerns about Kaldari, I would have declined the request. If it still bugs anyone that Kaldari took a little initiative here, feel free to apply the standards you would use for a self-nomination; even then, I see no reason why he wouldn't deserve your support. --Michael Snow 16:21, 5 August 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. I intend to use the admin privs for whatever tasks I'm most needed for. It seems a lot of admin chores are getting backlogged these days. I would love to help clear out some backlogs and keep things running efficiently. I'm especially interested in copyright issues and would probably help out with copyvio reviews and related chores. And of course, vandal patrol!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've done a fair bit of work on Nashville, Tennessee, although it's not FA-caliber yet. It's definitely undergone a pretty substantial improvement though (including the development of numerous related articles that I've also worked on). Also, I was fairly pleased with my Signpost article about the London Bombings article. It was fun working on a deadline.
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. Like most active editors, I've been in a few editing conflicts, mostly NPOV disputes. I practice the one-revert rule though, so I'm generally not a party to edit wars. I often try to find compromises between conflicting parties, and I always discuss any conflicts on the discussion pages. I've found that even the most stubborn POV-pushers can be reasonable if you're patient enough to negotiate. And of course keeping an open mind helps.