Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keldan

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] Keldan

Final (3/23/3) ended 15:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keldan (talk · contribs) – I've been editing on the Wikipedia for the past two years, mostly editing articles on the Bahá'í Faith, linguistics topics, and ecological areas. I do a lot of interwiki work, as I'm also active on the Esperanto Vikipedio (since September 2003), as well as tidying up of grammar, smoothing tone, working to create an NPOV, and reverting vandalism. Keldan 09:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. Keldan 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support all the way. I think 86 good edits is more than enough to become a decent administrator. No lack of experience, I support the person that can do a good job. I am in the minority, but this is the way that is best. Thistheman 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support--Bling-chav 13:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, per WP:AGF. Sarge Baldy 20:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Obvious reasons. NSLE (T+C) 09:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, and I recommend that you withdraw this nomination until you have more experience. 84 edits and none on policy matters means that we cannot predict if you will use the admin tools in a responsible manner or how you will handle difficult situations which may arise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, as per above. It is hard to judge a person with so few edits. Also, I'd recommend you increase your usage of edit summaries as people who vote often like to see a high usage. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, sorry, at 84 edits (58 in the last year), you are much too inactive and inexperienced on en-Wikipedia. With some more edits, you'll have a much better chance next time. --Deathphoenix 12:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, too few edits. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 13:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Sorry, I just don't feel confident in knowing how you'd behave as an admin. -Colin Kimbrell 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per all of the above. Kusonaga 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose per above Cynical 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Simply not enough edits to get a feel for this user, also not enough work across the namespaces. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per everything said above. I simply cannot support someone who cannot vote for ArbCom for admin. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Try getting involved in the village pump more, and doing some vandal fighting, please come back when you understand all of Wikipedia. --Masssiveego 07:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Editcountitis oppose votes are usually bad, but this is an exceptional case. Only 86 edits in two years' time? I think most people who are up on RfA get more than that in a month. JIP | Talk 09:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Too few edits. I cannot get a feel for what kind of editor you are with such a small amount of work to go off of. --Zsinj 14:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose insufficient experience. need to use edit summaries more, too └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Not yet. --King of All the Franks 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, You've been on the project for two years and you lack a sufficent amount of experience and edits. I strongly encourage you to refractor this nomination. -ZeroTalk 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Nowhere near enough experience to really know how adminship works. Not an admin myself (I'll be applying sometime in March) but I have experience with adminship on some Wikicities, and I no matter how good he is just not enough experience. Period--M W Johnson 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose The edit count is too low.--Jusjih 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Edit count is a valid reason to oppose here. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, but please try again with more experience. Jonathunder 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I wish you all the best in any future RFAs once you have sufficient experience.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 07:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose for lack of participation/experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 23:32Z
  22. Oppose, lacks of experience and edits. Try again when you are ready. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - far too little experience. --Whouk (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. No "bad" edits, but I think you need to improve (1) your familiarity with Wikipedia on the project side, and (2) your overall edit count - 86 is too few to be an appropriate sample size. Show us more of what you can do and come back. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. You do not have enough experience at this time. I also recommend that you use increase edit summary usage.--Dakota ~ ε 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Far too few edits. Blnguyen 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 61% for major edits and 86% for minor edits. Based on the last 18 major and 42 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See information about Keldan's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • I cannot support you- see my RfA criteria, but I will not vote for reasons explained there. --Petros471 10:34, 24 January 2006 (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 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. Although I'm not looking for places to use administrative rights per se, I'd certainly be happy to be active on nominations for deletion (which is how the idea to become an administrator first came into my head). I'm also more than happy to work in arbitration and settling disputes, if needed. I tend to keep an eye out for vandalism, too, which is an area I might be handy in.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think my work on the Bahá'í calendar article made me very happy, because I got to use linguistics information to answer some legitimate questions on transliteration that arose. I also was proud of my work on the Appalachia page. I feel the section I dealt with looks much more dignified and professional now.
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 honestly haven't had any run-ins with anyone here. I left a response for an anon who had been reverting the aforementioned Bahá'í calendar article, which I think I handled well enough. I'm a big fan of the Assume good faith and Don't bite the newcomers policies, so I definitely do and will try to uphold them from my end.


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.