Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kbh3rd

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] Kbh3rd

Final: (22/0/0) ended 18:30 December 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kbh3rd (talk · contribs) – Self nominating – I have been editing Wikpedia since July, 2004, accumulating well over 4000 edits. I have started a moderate number of articles (listed on my user page), and have submitted a large number of images, some of my own, and many from PD sources. I was very active in an earlier round of the untagged images project in an effort to keep Wikipedia's content legitimate. To that same end I investigate and flag any articles I find that look like cut-and-paste copyvios. My philosophy has shifted from somewhat deletionary early on to much more inclusionary now. I am concerned about the overall quality of Wikipedia, and lately I have been spending a lot of time just patroling vandalism to the 766 articles on my watchlist. Kbh3rd 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Kbh3rd 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, looks solid enough. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Ah, the joy of a well-qualified self-nom! Everything looks wonderful. Hardly any experience of controversies, but I doubt that would change with adminship. — David Remahl 19:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support - another good one signs up for extra duty! BD2412 T 19:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Quentin Pierce 19:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Obvious SupportGator (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Merovingian 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support as per David Remahl, BD2412 . Hamster Sandwich 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support good editor --Rogerd 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. MONGO 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Seems like a good well-rounded editor, and no real reason to oppose him. -Colin Kimbrell 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Extremely Obvious Support. --Interiot 07:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - well, duh! --Celestianpower hablamé 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Solid record, well-qualified for admin post. Xoloz 18:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, unlikely to abuse the administrator toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Thryduulf 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. --23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Great contributions. Nice images. Asset to wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. El_C 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support- JCarriker 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Edit history does not indicate any reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Though I've been active on Wikipedia for close to a year and a half, I've purposefully not sought the added responsibilities of adminship until now. It is the persistent and growing problem with vandalism that drives me to it. I find much of my time these days reverting. The possibility of being able to temporarily block obvious active vandals instead of just leaving warnings that I personally cannot act on is what brings me here. Over time I might feel comfortable exercising more admin "power", but I'm real leary about the ability to go overboard with it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As I mention on my user page, I'm particularly satisfied with Ogallala Aquifer, specifically because it was a successful collaboration. I rewrote the original stub article from scratch as best I could, being an interested but non-professional geologist "wanna-be". I then found an active Wikipedian with the required expertise and invited him to fill in the details to really flesh it out. I also like the Weaubleau-Osceola_structure and Fort de Chartres articles, among others, having researched and written them from scratch and provided the images for them. Note the references sections.
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. Not too much. I fear that I may have caused others stress in some copyright reverts. Though they were clearly in the wrong, I think I could have been more sensitive to their attachement to their subject and been more inviting of them to contribute original content on the subject.


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.