Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kc9cqj

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] KC9CQJ

Final (0/9/1) ended 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kc9cqj (talk · contribs) – I have been involved with Wikipedia for about a little over a year now. Since I've been here, I have edited a few articles mainly in the Scouting realm, but contributed to other articles in Indiana, and the United States. Recently, I have been working on RC patrol and helping to quell the tide of vandalism against Wikipedia. The main reason that I seek adminship is to assist with VfD nominations and helping to keep vandalism to a minimum so Wikipedia remains a good resource for the world. KC9CQJ 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination and I withdraw on the basis that apparently I don't have enough edits to even be considered. KC9CQJ 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose Just too few mainspace edits. --digital_me(t/c) 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Digitalme. Naconkantari 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames says that "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers" aren't allowed. As an admin, people are going to need to recognise you. You seem to be doing a good job as an editor and vandal fighter - head over to Wikipedia:Changing_username and then nominate yourself again in a month or two. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    What about User:BD2412, User:DF08, User:EWS23, User:Ixfd64, User:Kbh3rd, User:Mdd4696, User:Nv8200p, User:Rd232, and User:Zzyzx11? Naconkantari 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    He says on user page that it means something we'd figure out by looking at his userboxes. I couldn't, but if he says so... -Goldom (t) (Review) 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Nac: Zzyzx road -- Samir धर्म 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly my point. Seems like gibberish to me, but is relevent to others. Naconkantari 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's a ham radio callsign. --Elkman 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yup. It is, and it's my license plate number, my G-mail e-mail address, and my MySpace name too....KC9CQJ 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I think that guideline is intended to apply to longer, more random, names like "fjnkflwkfhflwlihfvwhpifhgrogighgrhigpihrgh" (typewriter spasm). Xoloz 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, good intentions, but under 1,000 mainspace edits bothers me for some reason. Give it a little more time, and create a useful article and groom it up. Yanksox 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too few mainspace edits. Gain more experience first. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Much more editing experience needed. Xoloz 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. Will support in a few months. --Rory096 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Rory096. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per all above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral- I'm not opposed to this user having admin powers, but perhaps some more experience first. Reyk YO! 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Kc9cqj
Total edits 1351
Distinct pages edited 538
Average edits/page 2.511
First edit 21:13, March 21, 2005

(main) 382
Talk 135
User 222
User talk 461
Image 6
Wikipedia 143
Wikipedia talk 2

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, 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: I anticipate mainly helping out with two major irritants that we have, one being vandalism and the other being speedy-deletion articles. I already do this to a certain degree by checking the RC list on a frequent basis, watching my own watchlist, and tagging articles for speedy deletion. I'm not opposed to watching pages for protection, blocking, and unblocking users as well. I mainly want to help out with the janitorial day-to-day upkeep of the project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my contributions to Firecrafter, which is the article that caused me to become involved with Wikipedia in the first place. I have been the main editor on the article and have had it fact-checked with many different individuals, both active and inactive on Wikipedia as editors. I also am pleased with the progress that the Order of the Arrow article has made over the last year or so. Most importantly, I feel as if every contribution I make here is beneficial and worthwhile, and has taught me about working with other people in a collaborative environment.
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 remember in my third or fourth month I started to do some work with the Association of Members' Advocates and did some work on the Javier Solana article with SqueakBox and his battles with Cumbey. It really wasn't my fight in the first place, I had come across an RfC and was helping him work on it when Cumbey threatened legal action and was barred. It frightened me, but that didn't stop me from coming back. Hindsight as 20/20, I could have thought a little more about what I was saying at the article, but I feel as if things worked out in the end. I can think of another edit conflict I was involved in at Order of the Arrow where we were going back and forth about secrecy warnings and spoiler tags and I gradually gave up after Johntex and I had some words. I left Wikipedia for a while and came back, and I think the reason I came back is that I figured out that I was taking things too personally. I would say that these two edit conflicts/situations have taught me that reading the whole truth and seeking true is the best way to work here on Wikipedia. Since then, I have used Wikipedia policy for the basis of my edits and stuck to the facts rather than semantics when in an edit conflict.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What is your knowledge of admin powers? What exactly could/would you do as an admin as opposed to being a normal user? Yanksox 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A:Administrators are, simply put, users who are given tools to allow them to protect pages, delete pages, and restrict user access from anonymous IP users and named Wikipedia editors. Any user can watch Wikipedia for recent changes and determine whether a given edit is vandalism or not, and that's something that I enjoy to do, especially with the cases of blatant vandalism. I want to be able to protect Wikipedia's reputation by watching for blatant and not-so-blatant vandalism (which I already do), and be able to block a repeat vandal if the need warrants (which I can't do). I want to be able to watch for speedy deletion cases (which I do) and remove them appropriately where warranted (which I can't do). In essence, I want to take my skills as an RC patroller to the next level - not only do I want to be able to find blatant vandalism, I want to be able to effectively stop it. One click rollback, I have that in VandalProof. User template warnings, I can do that in VandalProof. What I can't do is effectively solve the problem by some guy changing images in articles over to penis images and lock his account down, such as what occurred with Flower a few days ago. I can't remove the silly little "my friend does this and he's real notable" articles that drain bandwidth and clog the dataset. In essence, I aim to continue exactly what I'm doing right now, except with power to protect pages, block troublesome users, and speedy-delete articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and I'm not opposed to helping with backlogs or anything else that I'm suited for in addition.

Clarifying question (self-add)

5. Why, having less than 1500 edits, do you feel that you are suited for administrator tools? KC9CQJ 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A:My edit history is sporadic and low, which I'll admit right off the bat. I know that this is usually used an indicator of performance or ability on administrative issues. The main reason why my edit history is low is that I read Wikipedia a great deal more than I edit at times, or I get caught up in reading an article that I'm looking at for vandalism or something else. I feel that when I press the edit article key, that I need to have a good reason to edit the article, that it must be verifiable, and that it better darn well be correct. I feel that my expertise in certain areas (like Scouting) is eclipsed by work that other editors have already done on those articles. Some of my restaurant expertise is subject to non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements, so that really can't be added here or I'd end up in court. Also, some of the content that I'd add to articles is quite POV-ish or unverifiable, so in keeping with NPOV and the 'no original research' policy, I've kept my mouth shut. I'd like to think that all of the edits that I've done in the main namespace have been to the benefit of Wikipedia and that I've followed policy to the best of my ability.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A Sockpuppets are not generally permitted under Wikipedia policy, especially in an abusive manner. Regardless of the editor's knowledge in the community, he/she is still in violation of Wikipedia policy and still subject to the same standards that the rest of us are. Chances are that I'd tag the userpages of the sockpuppets appropriately, then file an RfC. If the RfC did not bring the necessary changes, then I'd file RfAr and hold up for a bit.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A The case would need to proceed to RfAr. I don't believe that other administrators should interfere with other administrator's affairs unless both of those administrators are in agreement with the steps to be taken. If RfAr failed, I would still attempt to work with the other administrator, form a consensus between ourselves, and proceed in due fashion. Collaboration hinges on agreement, not conflict, and a conflict between administrators would further undermine the situation at hand.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A I would honestly prefer for editors to be measured by edit content, not edit count, by substance and not by quantity. People can be the best pizza maker in the world and have no idea on how to run a pizza shop, on the same lines, the best managers can be the worst pizza makers. People have different needs and drivers, some good administrators may have low edit count, some may have high edit count. To me, it's about substance and background, not number.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    AI think that indefinite blocks are extreme, and I would be extremely hesitant to do so without ArbCom approval. However, I think that any circumstance in which legal threats, physical threats, or other extreme behavior along those lines warrants indefinite blocking, but I would definitely seek other opinions before blocking, though.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A Only by looking at the edit histories could one determine sockpuppetry. I would attempt to have someone with CheckUser access determine if there was true sockpuppetry first, then proceed from there. If this were an outright case of sockpuppetry, I'd make sure the article was tagged properly and ask other editors to take a look at the article before deletion just to make sure all the ducks were in a row. If there were no consensus, I'd do the same, just to make sure that every base were covered, minimizing the chance for the article to reappear at a later time.
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A I think that there needs to be a considerable amount of time to pass on an AfD or any deletion to gauge consensus. This ensures that everyone concerned with the article has time to add or delete content, and other editors can weigh in on the issue. Some articles will have ten people comment, some will have one hundred. Everyone should have their fair shot to take a look at the article, I generally believe that people should have about five to seven days to take a look at deletion articles before they are deleted (unless they're obvious speedies or vanity articles, in which case those can be trashed immediately).
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A Sure. If there's a situation that heats up a little too much, take a break and come back to it later. No sense getting worked up over little things. I think with only after looking at the facts can things be justified, and when I start to feel the burnout push, I generally take a break and play on MySpace, hit RC patrol, or go mess around on IRC before getting back to Wikipedia.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A Administrators help editors edit Wikipedia by providing for an orderly and fair experience in the best way possible. Administrators protect the data from corruption by blocking users, protecting pages, and deleting nonsense. I like to do the RC patrols, and the counter-vandalism work, and the little tasks that have to be done to keep this running. If there weren't administrators, Wikipedia would be crap. I read Wikipedia all the time, and I don't want to read crap nor get my friends who use Wikipedia to read crap. That's why I want to be an Administrator.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A Technical. Administrators do mainly janitorial work to Wikipedia. Politics ought have nothing to do about it.
  10. Are you a crank? What does your username mean (self-add)?
    AMy username is an amateur radio callsign issued by the US Federal Communications Commission, unique to me and me alone. I am the only person in the world identifiable as such. (Please see my talk page for more information). In essence, I live in the US, call area number 9, and I'm licensee CQJ.
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.