Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi

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] Khoikhoi

I have decided to withdraw my nomination. --Khoikhoi 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Final (21/20/1) ending 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) – I am nominating Khoikhoi, formerly known as Hottentot (talk · contribs), for adminship. He has been with us since last April (in his previous account) and has made 13,398 edits with under his old name and 14,134 under his current name. I think this satisfies the most stringent requirements regarding the edit count. Khoikhoi does RC patrol, helps in various maintenance tasks, notably VFDs, and has a very civil manner. I have never seen him be uncivil or make personal attacks, even when attacked himself. He makes good article contributions and has been helping in dispute resolution my mediating on at least one occasion. I cannot think of a good enough reason not to promote him. --Latinus 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks, I accept. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per myself. --Latinus 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, and actually somewhat surprised Khoikhoi wasn't an admin already --Deville (Talk) 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support; meets most, if not all of my criteria. Nice job! — Deckiller 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support because he has all that is required to be a good administrator and for his civil manners.--Hectorian 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - surprised you're not already an admin - Green Giant 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, looks good to me. JIP | Talk 07:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - a good editor. I'm waiting for someone to say that his edit count is too high for him to be an admin. - Richardcavell 07:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - excellent editor who has earned the promotion--Looper5920 08:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Good editor with an extremely high edit count. As the others have stated, I'm surprised that you haven't become an admin yet. --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Does good! --Moby 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Long overdue (see my talk page for details;). El_C 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support A very good editor who has kept his cool on a number of articles where others would have most defintley lost it. Englishrose 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support A fantastic candidate. He always keeps it cool and neutral. --Kash 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support We disperatly need an administrator like him, even thought I have disagreed with him in some of his decisions, I strongly believe that he would be one of the best administrator in heated debates with touches the middle East and Caucasus. That some Turks and Kurds (who opposes eachothers) both opposes him is enought evidences that he is doing something right. While we could propose him in few months as some might suggest, we disperatly need him NOW!!!
  17. Support Per nom! --Scaife (Talk) 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per all of his supporters ! He is a great candidate. Amir85 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Good user. 5 blocks per 27 thousand edits? i think it just demonstrates 3rr rottenness. --tasc 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support - Excellent hardworking editor, good mediator, I actually thought he is an admin already. abakharev 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Great contributor.  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 19:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Questionable block history, plus I've previously encountered this user revert-warring at Germanic peoples, so until I can be otherwise inclined to change my mind, oppose. NSLE (T+C) at 04:32 UTC (2006-03-26)
    Do you have some evidence, ie. can you show me the links to these edit wars please? GizzaChat © 12:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Edit wars. --Masssiveego 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose He has been in Edit wars since he came here,was banned several times and always tries to push his POV in articles,also always disturbs the Turkish users. (Metb82 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC))
  4. Oppose (Metb82 is right. He always has problems with Turkish editors. TuzsuzDeliBekir 14:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose so far from the administration--hakozen 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Edit wars and POV pushing on articles concerning Macedonian issues. --Realek 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - as Realek. Luka Jačov 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Some sort of edit warring occurred less than two weeks ago. Not comfortable with promotion yet; more learning time is always good. Xoloz 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - This user POV pushes (Greek POV) the articles related to Macedonia. Bomac 16:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - POV-push in articles regarding Macedonia Vlatko 18:56 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Mainly for edit warring and POV-push. High Elf 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak Oppose - I am hesitant about adminship for anyone who has an easily defineable POV bias, especially a nationalistic one. Joey 17:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strongly oppose, Unfortunately this user only keeps pushing his POV. I have provided some links below. He facttionalize the discussions. Xebat Talk + 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Track-record is in poor shape. --Jay(Reply) 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - This user always has problems with Turkish editors. Memty 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Ths user doesn't know the difference between a Greek POV and the truth. Macedonia
  17. Oppose. I agree that he keeps his cool, but revert wars seem to attract him (or he attracts them). I saw him on Persian people doing the same. I'm not sure if a person who so quickly takes sides in different disputes would make a good admin. AucamanTalk 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Does a lot of good work, but edit warring far too recently, and may be a POV purveyor. Also, I am concerned that some of his email correspondences with other editors (mentioned on his talk page) may concern wikipedia article discussions, which would be highly innapropriate. Either way, not ready for the responsibility just yet IMHO. --InShaneee 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - I searched this users edits about turkey related pages, which are a lot and i think he is not neutral at all. the most disturbing thing is that this user seems to be too certain for many subjects which really really contain many uncertainties. i am from turkey and i am not so certain and strict about many turkey related problems which i know and search about for years. i know they are very complicated. i know that many things the turkish goverment and people assert are not true, and many of the opposers are not also. so the only thing this behaviour tells me that whether this user has a narrow view over these subjects or is not trying to be neutral at all. tembelejderha 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. While I have nothing particular against this user, I am not totally convinced of Khoikhoi's neutrality on several subjects. It is my belief that adminship should require crystal-clear neutrality. Also, I came to recognize this user's name primarily because of edit wars. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. This person liked, Kurdish, and Armenian People, they are enemy of Turkish People, this user doing to propagandize.Please don.t making to administrator...

A admiminstrator is to be neutral, in this respect, i don.t want this user...Isimsizzorbebe 13:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I do not know anything about this user and I refuse to vote oppose to a person based on peoples comments presented here regading if he is a pov pusher or not. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Latinus, are sure that those are edits or reverts wars of Khoi ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 14:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
How come I haven't seen his fantastic and neutral personality yet. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You can see one of Khoikhoi's edit wars here (Metb82 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC))
I think the he's handled these problems quite well and has been civil at all times. If he gave into some of the demands then all articles would have content that is not favoured by the people of Turkey removed, which would not make the the articles neutral. Englishrose 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This user has and keeps a POV in all Iranian and Kurdish and maybe other related articles. When he is asked for citiation he rejects and claims the article is well-cited [1]. Such a actions usually starts long factionalizings between users as now we see between some users. He even uses irrelevant links to the matter to support his POV [2].Xebat Talk + 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Khoikhoi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • Comment. An anonymous editor is trying to advertise this RfA by leaving notes on everyone who is in Category:tr-N's talk page. The message is in Turkish, but what appears to be an English translation was left on User:Cool Cat's talk page and says:

Hi, Sorry for wasting your time, Khoi. who has always problems with Turk related articles will be an admin, unless you vote for opposition. [[3]]--TuzsuzDeliBekir 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Englishrose , but we all know that you had SOS from Khoi.. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If you think I've recieved a message from Khoi, please check my talk page. You will then find out that I have NEVER had any contact with him on my talk page. Englishrose 20:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

--Rory096 18:29, 26 March 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. Probably the mandatory stuff, such as closing AfDs, checking on the 3RR reports page and WP:AIV. As I've been doing, I'll look for vandalism to revert, usually from pages in my watchlist, although recently I have been looking at the Recent Changes page, the latter of which I'm going to do more often. I've also worked very hard in the past month on trying to meditate in a conflict on the Persian people, tasks such as this I intend to continue whatever the outcome of this RfA.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Despite that I don't spend most of my time contributing material to articles, I'm pretty pleased with what I've done to the articles on the various Pashtun tribes, the Dall Sheep article, and my cleanup to the articles in Category:Extinct fish. I spend most of my time fixing and cleaning up ethnic group and language related articles however. Two of the ones that I've worked on include Mari language and Western New Guinea. In addition to this, I have also tried to assist administrative maintenance tasks, for example in TFDs, by substituting deleted templates.
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. Yes, I've normally had conflicts over controversial articles. During the dispute, I've kept cool, not made any personal attacks (even when I was attacked), and tried to work things out and explain things to the user or users. Sometimes a dispute will be resolved immediately, sometimes the user or users will continue to revert the page without further discussion. When this happens I notify other users and ask them for help. In the future, I will continue to do this.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  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?
    I would leave a message on their talk page, in which I would tell them that it would be a good idea to stop. However, I would not block the user, or take any administrative action.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    I would talk to the admin who deleted the article. If I haven't been able to convince him or her, then I would probably have a word with other admins, to see what they think. If they all disagree I suppose I'd just forget about it.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    Personally, I don't consider vandalism to my userpage vandalism in the strict sense, so I wouldn't block for that. I think that I'd probably leave the article for a couple of hours before deleting it after the anon had recreated it after having been asked not to. That way, he may have got fed up and left by the time I re-deleted it and not recreate it. If that failed, I would probably AFD the article(s) and if the outcome was delete and the anon kept on recreating it, then I'd be able to protect it against recreation. I would not block in these circumstances without actual vandalism.
  4. 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?
    I think that the admin should only have blocked them if they were warned prior, and continued to revert. What if they were newbies? In this case, it's not really clear if they were warned, so it depends if I'd respect the admin's decision or not. I would try to see if we could come to a compromise between the two parties, probably by email or IRC if necessary, but once they've been unblocked I'd use the talk page. I would try RFC before RFAR, if Arbcom rejected the case, then I would ask for other administrators and trusted users to help me out with the meditation if it still wasn't working.