Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Kappa

Closed (12/10/1) ending 21:08 October 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kappa (talk · contribs) – Less than 10 edits shy of 16-thousand edits on Wikipedia, User:Kappa is another one of the very few contributors who are part of the 15,000 club without admin privileges. Since September 2004, Kappa has been tirelessly contributing to Wikipedia for over a year now, constantly watching over Special:Newpages, peer checking speedy deletion candidates, and promoting article development. He has been nominated once before, with no consensus. I believe that Kappa has proven to be an exceptional contributor who will not abuse administrative powers and give him my full support. Hall Monitor 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • I decline this nomination with thanks. I learned from my previous nomination that many people consider me an "exterme inclusionist" and think that makes me likely to abuse admin powers, and I don't believe that this situation will change. Kappa 21:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Although I just noted on his talk page that I respect his decision, on second thought I say we draft him anyway - he's too good not to be an admin. -- BD2412 talk 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong support - one of our most dedicated editors. -- BD2412 talk 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong support, agree with nominator.  ;-) Hall Monitor 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Very strong support - very strong and dedicated editor and highly unlikely to abuse his powers. I see no reason that being an "inclusionist" as a bad quality in an admin. --Celestianpower hablamé 21:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support 16,000 edits is more than enough. freestylefrappe 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support Martin 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. support Yuckfoo 21:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support with my pack of wild wolverines While Kappa is a bit too inclusionist for my tastes, politics is no reason to keep a qualified candidate out of adminship. I see no evidence that he will, for instance, go around doing rogue undeletions. — Phil Welch 21:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support per BD2412 and Hall Monitor. Hardly likely to abuse powers. Sam Vimes 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support we're on opposing sides of the inclusionist scale, and I still respect his viewpoint and carriage. Would make a great admin. Wikibofh 22:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support hopefully Kappa changes his mind... he'd make a good admin.  ALKIVAR™ 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Tintin 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support and sincerely hope that he reconsiders his declination. Silensor 23:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. It looks like the main reasons that Kappa's nomination failed last time were his excessive focus on VFD and his strong, predictable, and often perplexing inclusionist streak. I don't see that this has changed, as he still seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on VFD, and I still personally think that he votes to keep many things that seem like clear candidates for deletion to me (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qui-Gon Jinn 12" Inch). Sorry. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    How, exactly, does that make him a bad candidate for an admin? We know he won't delete something that shouldn't be deleted, but everything in his contribution history suggests that he would respect the consensus to delete an article that he would personally prefer kept. Besides, we generally count consistent AfD participation as a good thing, why should it matter what opinion an editor expresses there so long as it is backed by a rational explanation (which Kappa's always are)? -- BD2412 talk 21:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    I think saying they are always backed by a rational explanation is a bit of an overstatement. For example Articles for deletion/Machine Poets, where his assertion of notability boils down to "Cnwb seems like a honest person." Yet by the same token he accuses others of insufficient research based on their editing timestamps as in:Articles for deletion/Bai-dal. More irrationality: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livonia Mall, Articles for deletion/Houses in Finland. Though I do sometimes get a chuckle out of comments like, "small transparent green stones used for purposes of divination are inherently encyclopedic." [1] --Tabor 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps we're disagreeing on the meaning of "rational explanation" - I meant it in contrast with an unexplained vote to keep for the sake of keeping, or for some irrational (e.g. obviously disruptive) purpose. I may often disagree with Kappa's votes, but I can understand his reasoning, which could well be characterised as exhibiting good faith in article contributors. In any event, I don't see how any of this disqualifies him from having a mop. -- BD2412 talk 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • For Articles for deletion/Machine Poets my vote boils down to "Cnwb asserts it's a project by 3 "prominent figures in Australia's independent music scene", no-one offered any evidence against that, and a quick google check shows evidence in favor. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livonia Mall my comment is a response to "article manages to establish non-notability". I should have continued "but anyway malls are large and important and should all kept or merged somewhere". Kappa 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    I make an effort to vote "keep" and or "merge" on anything that should be preserved in some form, even if the topic is of no interest to me personally, partly because I believe wikipedia would benefit from greater consistency in its deletion policy. Kappa 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose There is nothing wrong per se with an inclusionist streak, unless it leads to frivoulous editing, such as his Category:Elf schools. Has in the past voted for keeping categories and templates that were so crufty that they verged on disruptiveness. I'm just not sure I trust his judgement... Others do have other opinions however.. Fawcett5 21:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    Icelandic Elf School has to go somewhere in Category:Schools by type. I was think if anything similar showed up there could be a Category:Schools of folk beliefs or something but currently I think it's unique in wikipedia. Kappa 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, with caveat: While I agree that Kappa is worthy - and I certainly have no objections to an inclusionist - I'm concerned that it looks like he's being forced into this vote when he's reluctant. I don't think people should be forced to be admins if they don't want to be, so unless there's indication that he's happy to be an admin, I'm opposing. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. If he doesn't want to be an admin, don't make him one. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. While he's a good contributor, Kappa has issues with civility. When people disagree with him, he is far too quick to make snide remarks, or accuse them of bad faith, or of breach of policy - e.g. [2], [3], [4]. Also, he seems to have a misunderstanding of CSD ([5]) and has very little edits in Wikipedia namespace other than AFD discussions. Radiant_>|< 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    Your first two diffs are expressions of dismay, in the first case because users will access to information, and in the second because I really don't like the idea that we should discrimate against TV stations in non-English languages. The third is simply a comparison of one article about an adjective with another, however it turns out that Peter is consistent in his opposition to adjectives, so that's fair enough. Kappa 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, per above. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strongly oppose: Same issues as last time. Few actual contributions to the body of the project, constant campaigning on VfD to prevent deletion, pretending that there is a consensus, or even policy, for his views when there isn't, badgering people who nominate for deletion and vote for deletion. You have to either agree with the policies or agree to abide by them, and certainly not misrepresent them, to be an administrator of the policies. Geogre 01:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    The rich irony! Those with striped bodies should take care not to call others badgers, Geogre. Kappa stands firmly behind the deletion policy by voting to keep articles that don't meet the criteria for deletion. I'd definitely support Kappa if he accepted.Grace Note 04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Would strongly support if candidate showed interest. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Needs more experience with policy. Carbonite | Talk 02:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose till user sets an email id. User:Nichalp/sg 05:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I would support, only that he didn't accept the nomination! Titoxd 02:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Kappa's first nomination. Everything seems to be in order now, but I will support when the candidate answers questions; I can get a feel of what the candidate is all about (even though I trust the nominator).→Journalist >>talk<< 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I respect Kappa's wish not to stand again. I lament this. Last time one of the most influential of his opponents falsely claimed, through ignorance, that a VFU vote is required for any undeletion, this time his first opposer claimed, contrary to the deletion policy and surely through ignorance, that Kappa voted keep or merge on an "obvious delete candidate". The article in question, Qui-Gon Jinn 12" Inch, while it probably doesn merit an article of its own, is one of those articles that are explicitly described in our deletion policy as "problems not requiring deletion", but should instead be merged and no need to bother AfD at all. I wish more candidates for the mop and broom respected our deletion policy as Kappa does. Having said that, I would never, ever oppose a sysop candidate because of my perception of his beliefs on an issue which clearly does not command consensus either way. Wikipedia as an institution is neither deletionist nor inclusionist. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can only hope that anyone reading the above actually investigates what Tony's saying, as it is an example of pretending that there is a consensus for something that, when he puts it into practice, nets him an RfC and which is not supported by the community. Tony has worked on the "there is no law against what I'm doing, and therefore it is how things should be done" model. It is exactly that sort of gaming of the system and selective lawyering that I would fear from Kappa. It's bad enough that we have one person willing to offend every other administrator and flush community practice for his personal view. Geogre 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I shudder at the thought that you actually do represent the "community", Geogre. Tony walked the line on a few VfD closes. I suppose he was a bit cheeky. But I just don't see you complaining when nominators flagrantly abuse the process, or when deletionists nominate schools time and again, despite their knowing there is no consensus for it. You just aren't bothered by their ignoring the lack of consensus for what they do. So, please, spare us the latest instalment of your campaign against editors who do not think the encyclopaedia is actually improved by losing content. Grace Note 04:57, 30 September 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.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.