Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KieferSkunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] KieferSkunk

FINAL (42/8/2); Scheduled to end 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk (talk · contribs) - It is my great pleasure to nominate KieferSkunk for adminship. Whilst I have not worked extensively directly with this user, I have witnessed his capabilities as an editor, and potential admin, on numerous occasions.

KieferSkunk is most active in areas relating to video games, centering around WikiProject video games. As well as working hard to improve articles he is interested, he helps out in numerous content disputes. Recently, he has done excellent work in a dispute relating to the use of “fuck” in relation to Pac-Man (See Talk:Pac-Man), and has received a barnstar for his mediation efforts. Whilst mediation ability isn’t a criterion for an administrator, and whilst everyone knows my stance on admins who don’t take part in such areas, I still think it important that we do also promote admins who are willing to help solve disputes, and KieferSkunk is surely an excellent example of someone who would excel in that field.

As well as his article work, KieferSkunk also partakes in great amounts of discussion at WikiProject video games’ talk page. He spends his time there, as he does in other places, helping to solve disputes, and dealing out advice on how to best improve articles. Whilst some regular participants may request a high project space edit count, which they say is indicative of XfD participation etc., I think they will find that KieferSkunk demonstrates an excellent knowledge of policies and guidelines through his comments at WT:VG.

It is my belief that KieferSkunk would be an asset to adminship on the English Wikipedia, and I hope that you, his and my peers, will join me in granting him the mop and bucket. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: my use of “he” is not indicative of anything, and I apologise if KieferSkunk turns out to be a “she”.
I'm male - you're fine. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, and I appreciate the consideration. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by the candidate

Thank you for this nomination, H2O. I am honored to be considered for adminship here on Wikipedia.
I'd like to mention that the Barnstar I received for my work on Pac-Man was in relation to the game's release date - I facilitated discussion between two other users (one anonymous) as to the most notable, verifiable sources that backed up the Japanese release date. This discussion touched on WP:V and MoS issues, including the fact that the best source was available only in Japanese. We were able to come to a consensus, and I appreciated knowing that Wgungfu (the person who initially opposed the Japanese source) was not upset or offended by my efforts.
In addition to WP:VG, I have also been active in Wikiquette Alerts, helping to resolve or redirect interpersonal disputes between WP users. I have helped to resolve more than a dozen disputes before they escalated to higher forms of WP:DR, and I've become intimately familiar with many policies in the process. I intend to continue helping in this area, whether or not I have administrative capabilities to do so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: (revised 10/22/07 11:14am) Having looked over Wikipedia:Administrators more closely, I believe the areas I can be the most useful are:
  • Reverting vandalism and other unhelpful edits.
  • Blocking repeat vandals, 3RR violators, etc., and unblocking when appropriate.
  • Unblocking users affected by IP-blocks and range blocks.
  • Protecting and unprotecting pages as needed, and editing protected pages per user requests, if appropriate.
  • Participating in AN/I as time allows - both helping to make decisions through discussion and helping to execute those decisions.
  • Helping to improve the Wikipedia interface, again as needed and appropriate.
  • Doing jack-of-all-trades admin work (see below).
One of my strengths is in my ability to learn quickly, and to learn as I go. I am well-versed in some areas (such as dealing with vandals, 3RR, etc.), and less knowledgeable in other areas. But I would be able to help out in other areas by following the examples of other administrators, learning the procedures and policies on the fly, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions have been to WikiProject Video games:
  • I've added Fair-Use rationales to more than 200 images in the project. To help with this, I created Template:Vgrationale, a flexible template that employs the standard FUR template in a manner specific to video games. See my Fair Use Log. :)
  • I helped Super Nintendo Entertainment System become a Featured Article, which went on to be featured on Wikipedia's Main Page very soon afterward.
  • I've performed large amounts of cleanup on numerous articles. I keep a log of my major contributions on my user page.
  • I've helped to clarify the article guidelines for the VG project, particularly in what information should be included in articles.
I believe that my work has helped improve the quality of Wikipedia's content, as well as the ease of improving that content.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In June or July of this year, I got into a large-scale argument with another user, User:JAF1970, over a content dispute in Pac-Man Championship Edition. The game had been released not too long before I went to edit its article, and my edits were intended to condense the content and remove unencyclopedic details (as dictated by the VG guidelines). JAF took great offense to my edits and called me out on them, and I admit that I did not handle the situation well. The dispute boiled over into WT:VG and WP:WQA, and I also called for an Arbcom case (which was declined - I kept an archive of my complaints for future reference).
At first, it ended up just being a shouting match between JAF and myself, but eventually other members of the project became involved as well, and a consensus was eventually reached on the nature of the content that should be included. This consensus was implemented in the project guidelines and affected numerous Pac-Man-related articles. The dispute eventually fizzled and was archived, and I learned a lot from the experience, especially with regard to civility policies and WP:COOL.
Some time later, User:Andrevan asked me if I was interested in an RfA similar to this one. I suggested that we wait for a little while, since my dispute with JAF was still somewhat fresh. In the meantime, I've had a couple other cases where I've had to deal with unruly users - User:Ludovicapipa left a rather long series of comments on my Talk page (see User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 3 for details), in which I eventually had to ask her to stop posting there since I was unable to help her. I feel much better about how I handled that situation than the dispute with JAF.
I feel that I have grown considerably in my knowledge of WP policies and my ability to mediate and stay neutral since the dispute in June. And having been in administrative positions on user forums and other websites in the past, I am well aware of how important it is to stay neutral and not let personal issues get in the way of fair administration of policies. As such, if an issue comes up that involves me personally, I vow to defer to another administrator for help rather than to take matters into my own hands. If I feel that someone should be blocked for an attack against me personally, I will not be the one to execute the block. And I will do my best to remain civil throughout. :)

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the RfA process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

4. (as always, remember that RfA questions are optional) Looking through your deleted contributions, I'm concerned at the number of images that you contributed to that have been deleted (the recent cases are mostly orphaned images for which you wrote the fair-use rationale). (The complete lack of participation in any deletion tagging other than a few images you speedied yourself is also slightly unusual in an admin candidate, but that's another story.) What is your understanding of the fair-use image policy? --ais523 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the fair-use policy is that any copyrighted image that is being used in the Wikipedia article namespace MUST have a fair-use rationale attached to it, or else it may be deleted. I have helped add fair-use rationales to over 200 images in the video-game project, but some of those images have later become orphaned because the articles they were being used in were shortened, deleted or merged, and thus the images were no longer applicable. I have not participated in deletion-tagging images because I prefer to justify why the images should stay on Wikipedia than to get rid of them entirely. And since I became aware of the fair-use policy, I have made an effort to add rationales to every image I upload - this is something that many editors do not do, and many of the editors that uploaded the images being used in VGProj articles no longer edit Wikipedia at all, thus no active participants get notice that the images need to be rationale'd, unless the tagger is nice enough to also add a note to the affected article.
And as with my response to #1 above, I do not believe that my level of participation or number of edits in this area should necessarily reflect upon my ability or willingness to participate in such activity as an admin. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
5 Why do you have skunk in your username? Just curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.97.176 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For the same reason that the person who nominated me has a username describing water. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from User:Piotrus
6: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would. I believe that, as with virtually any position of power, accountability is very important. I'm glad such a venue exists, and I would always be open to feedback from users and fellow admins about the quality of my participation and my behavior. I have no problem being held accountable for my actions, and if a recall were requested, I would participate openly and in good faith. (I would defend my actions as I felt appropriate, but I would not attempt to block the recall process.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/KieferSkunk before commenting.

[edit] Questions from the Candidate to Reviewers

(— KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

1. In order to be an admin, is it necessary to have participated extensively in AIV, AN/I, etc.? My focus has been almost exclusively to improve the quality of WP's articles and to mediate between users who are fighting with one another, so I've had little reason to spend much time reporting vandals or responding to AN issues. (The few experiences I've had on the admin noticeboards have been very discouraging, since those reports have been ignored or declined without comment. This is an experience I would try to help improve if I were to become an admin.)

2. Is an admin required or expected to be available for longer periods of uninterrupted time than an average user? My level of participation on Wikipedia will not change significantly if I'm made an admin, as real-life factors such as my job and family are unlikely to change. If an admin is expected to invest more overall time than a regular user, I am unlikely to be able to fulfill that requirement.

Excellent article writers have sometimes been turned down. Racepacket's RFA was snowed down with such comments. On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deckiller's RFA, one person voted neutral because he felt that such great article writers shoudl not be burdened with admin chores. hbdragon88 06:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And that is something I've considered, too. As I mentioned, I'm unlikely to change what I do all that much if I'm given the mop - it will enable me to do some of my tasks more efficiently, and to more effectively keep edit wars and vandalism in check, but I will still spend most of my time either mediating or contributing to articles. I would just like to be able to help out where help is needed, and to provide another friendly voice to the admins that regular and anonymous users look to for support in stressful situations. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Bearing in mind the guidelines at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, I would like to ask if those who oppose my nomination oppose it because they feel I am not trustworthy or capable of holding the mop, or if the opposition is merely due to what is perceived as a lack of knowledge of the specific admin areas (whether by number of edits to specific places, participation in AIV, XfD, etc.). Do you feel that I can be fair in my administration duties, even if I'm not right now completely familiar with them? If not, why not? (I don't mean to coerce people into supporting me, but I do feel that some of the arguments against are placing a lot more weight on specific experience rather than trustworthiness. I personally would pay much more attention to a person's potential than just basing my decision on what they've already done.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - He seems like he has made some good contributions. Looks like a broad range of different video game articles he has edited, and he seems to have edited them well. I think he would be a good admin. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support This user would be an asset to this project if he is given the admin tools. I am confident that this user will make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support– I do think, however, that you should try to find a few particular areas where you think you could use admin tools to the best of their ability. Admins are looked up upon as role models, and I think that it'd be helpful if you picked a couple areas to contribute, such as WP:ANI, WP:AN/3RR, WP:AFD, etc. Ksy92003(talk) 03:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per Ksy92003 and above. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Great nom, user has a good understanding of the many facets of Wikipedia. Phgao 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per nom, obviously. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per nom. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Resourceful and innovative mediation skills, not stubborn, friendly, and always with good argumentation to support a position. User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, there's more to being an admin than blocking vandals, thought the user was an admin already. Hiding Talk 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Very friendly and civil editor. Certainly will make a good administrator. --Carioca 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Weak support - good lately, but rather spotty history in editing; an admin should be more consistent. Meets my generally minimum edit count standard of 3,000. Bearian 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. PxMa 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support — user has sufficient experience to convince me that the user will do well, provided that he sticks to participating in areas in which he's knowledgeable, to avoid any unpleasantness. --Agüeybaná 03:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - A user does not need to be a big AIV or XfD warrior to be a good admin. A cool head and a kind word can be just as effective, especially when backed up by the ability to protect a page in an edit war or block disruptive users. —dgiestc 07:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per nom, and very good distribution of edits. Temperalxy 16:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. The user hasn't given me any reason not to trust them. Acalamari 16:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Sure. Any admin work done is helpful, a user doesn't need to be an expert/help with everything. --Kbdank71 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. WEAK support I feel a chance is warranted. Dustihowe 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I had voted oppose before but I'm changing to support because of his will to improve his knowledge and wikipedia. As it was not a self nomination I think it's a bit harsh to oppose, when he accepted the nomination and is willing to use admin status to help out. Jackaranga 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Right kind of person for admin. Will have no problem learning specifics as needed. --Rat at WikiFur 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I see no strong rationale behind forcing the candidate to do 8 weeks of admin-related edits, when the candidate has expressed that these are not areas in which he will be active. I still sleep well at night knowing that my Father is an accomplished homicide detective despite the fact that he is not well-read on current traffic regulations. the_undertow talk 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Opposition seems to amount to "no need for tools", as if we were running out of mops. And experience at mediation is a much better indicator of the candidate's qualification to be an admin than making reports to AIV. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Great user. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-24 23:03
  24. Support Appears to be sensible from what I saw of his contributions. And excellent points at "Questions from the Candidate to Reviewers". :) - TwoOars (Rev) 08:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support See my previous oppose. east.718 at 14:03, 10/25/2007
  26. Why the hell not? I see nothing here that would indicate any reason to distrust him. Ral315 » 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Switch Support - reviewed my "very weak oppose". Good luck. Rudget Contributions 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support this user is headed in the right direction, which is where all us admins were at the RFA point. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Capable and sensible editor.--Father Goose 17:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I've run accross him before---don't ask me where because our interest are different---but I've been impressed with what I've seen.Balloonman 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support. Basic support in that he's a solid, dependable trustworthy editor who is good for Wikipedia, has shown he cares about the project, attention to detail and accuracy, and an excellent ability to avoid conflict and stay on track with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Why do I add "Strong" support? Because I have seen him in action at WP:WQA, where I also volunteered for a while. I've seen him help resolve many conflicts, including a wide variety of emotionally charged situations with significantly uncivil editors. It's challenging to make a real difference in bitter disputes without admin tools. KieferSkunk has shown he can do so, fairly, effectively, and based in policy. Ultimately, it's trust that is the most important criteria for the sysop bit. This candidate easily passes that test for me. --Parsifal Hello 02:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. SupportAs per Track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I sure I can trust him! I have a good feeling about this one! PatPolitics rule! 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Weak support my comments in the neutral section still stand but this RfA is actually much closer than I'd expected. So I'll support with some reservations and I hope KieferSkunk will take things slow and ask around for advice before using the tools. Pascal.Tesson 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Adminship is no big deal, user does not have to run the gamut of trivial gnoming to be trusted with the tools. - hahnchen 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. I've only dealt with him on one issue, but was impressed with his calm, mediating abilities. Unschool 00:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support John254 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. Contrib history and expanded question answers seem to demonstrate sound judgment. WjBscribe 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Seems a good candidate.--Bedivere 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per lack of substantial reasons not to. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

I am going to have to oppose this request. The user has virtually no edits to Wikipedia space that are not mediation/arbitration related, and no participation in AIV or any XfD discussion ever. Administrators execute the enforcement of policy relating to the maintenance of the encyclopedia and in determining community consensus. Dispute resolution is outside the realm of administrative tasks. Good user, but I cannot trust the tools when the user admits they don't know what the buttons are for. Keegantalk 05:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will go to neutral, and for readability sum it up here. Initially the nominee did not show an understanding of the mop, but I see a willingness and good attitude to learn. Trustable, but I'm still neutral. Keegantalk 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk has not indicated that he will participate in XfD issues, or in AIV for that matter. So sorry Keegan, but that's a rather weak rationale. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In his answer to Q1 he says "I intend to assist more fully in promoting and enforcing Wikipedia policies, particularly with regard to vandalism", and in this context noting that he hasn't made any AIV reports has relevance. Also, his mediation involvement wasn't as mediator - he was a party. Overall, I consider Keegan's reasons for opposing to be reasonable. Addhoc 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Part of the reason I haven't participated extensively in AIV or other AN boards is that, frankly, I've felt rather discouraged when I *have* attempted to participate there. I have reported a few repeat vandals, requested page protection for a page that was being consistently vandalized, and have participated in a couple of discussions on the AN, and each time my requests have been ignored or declined without comment. This has given me the impression that the admins there don't really care about the issues I've attempted to bring to their attention. So, frankly, I've left it up to other people who are willing to put more effort into raising those issues. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, heavy experience with reporting to AIV generally comes with RC patrol, and just because KieferSkunk hasn't reported tons of vandals doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't know how to deal with them. I know I had very limited experience with AIV when my RfA passed, but that hasn't stopped me from applying a few hundred blocks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note that my comment said "...no edits to Wikipedia space that are not mediation/arbitration related, and no participation in AIV or any XfD...", supplemented by how that relates to my views of the function of an administrator and why I wouldn't trust the tools to KieferSkunk at the moment. It is not a question of the appropriateness of the application of the buttons- I don't assume the user will do harm. It's a question, in my mind, of whether the user is ready to be a sysop. Based on contributions and answers to questions, I oppose. So I fail to see weakness in my rationale. Keegantalk 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I realize that your oppose is for multiple reasons, which is why I wasn't saying "you shouldn't oppose"; I was just highlighting a common problem with AIV experience. Your concerns are perfectly valid. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Lack of edits to Wikipedia space and involvement in admin related areas. Epbr123 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Regrettably, I'm going to have to oppose based on the concerns that Keegan has brought up. I'm not impressed with the answer to Q1 either. east.718 at 13:41, 10/22/2007
    Struck my oppose. east.718 at 14:03, 10/25/2007
  2. Oppose per Keegan and Epbr123. Answer to Q. 1 is also troubling. If one is unfamiliar "with the full gamut" of admin jobs, one has not read the requested reading for admins, which is strongly recommended for all candidates, precisely so that they will know what they're applying for. That, taken together with lack of experience, really indicates more time is needed here. Xoloz 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    In my defense, I accepted the nomination and responded to the initial set of questions before I noticed the request to read the Admin page. Please give me a little more time to finish reading that page and become familiar with the admin duties I may be asked to perform. If it would help, I'll be happy to revise my response to #1 once I've finished. (It's been a busy weekend, so I have not had much time to devote to Wikipedia in general since the nomination was entered.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - lack of involvement in admin related areas, combined with a vague answer to Q1. Addhoc 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Is my response really still that vague? How would you have me improve it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's less than convincing in the context of not reporting any vandals to AIV. Suggest you re-apply in 6-8 weeks after gaining more experience of admin related areas. Addhoc 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    As I mentioned elsewhere, I tend to focus more of my efforts on improving articles, rather than spending my time reporting vandals. Up until recently, I didn't have any tools installed (like TW) to help with this, so I had to do all the work manually, and I found it to be more of a pain than I was willing to put up with. TW has definitely made it easier to send warnings to vandals and will make it easier to participate in AIV, but since installing and learning how to use TW, I haven't run into any situations where I needed to report vandals. (Keep in mind that frequently, other users take care of this sort of thing much faster than I'm able to, due to various circumstances.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose - Lack of experience as cited by others. The answer to Q1 is extremely vague and sounds a lot like "I don't know really what I'm going to do but I could do something". Good editor but not someone that needs the tools. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    WP:NONEEDFORTOOLS isn't really a valid reason to oppose. east.718 at 05:05, 10/23/2007
    It is in my judgement. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 07:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    Whilst WP:NONEEDFORTOOLS isn't considered a valid oppose reason by some people, but there's no consensus that it's invalid full stop. Saying so is like citing the Jedi Council. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    I wasn't trying to berate you at all, just pointing it out in case you weren't aware. :) You did make good points in your vote. east.718 at 08:54, 10/23/2007
    Oppose Not enough experience in admin related domains. Notably AfD. Please see this AN thread here, it shows perhaps a lack of knowledge on notability and inclusion guidelines. As he hasn't participated in policy debate much since, so I don't really think he has enough experience. He seems nice though and in that AN thread he backed down when he saw consensus was against him (this may or may not be a good thing I don't know). (this next bit is not directly about Kiefer, just providing background info on the AN report: User:TTN comes under a lot of fire because he redirects massive amounts of fancruft into the main article on the subject, he gets almost monthly AN reports and tons of personal attacks, his edits are almost always right.) I think KieferSkunk may be swayed by arguments such as "I like it" or "it's doing no harm why delete it". So oppose for now, but a renomination after a few months of policy/AfD/RfC related edits would not be unwelcome. As it is now I see no real need for admin rights, and feel he may use them to attempt to keep fancruft articles. Jackaranga 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    To be honest though opposing is kind of harsh because he didn't nominate himself, and I doubt that if someone were to nominate me I would fare any better, so this kind of voting is a bit mean really. Just want to add that I don't think he would make a bad administrator because he is considerate of others. Jackaranga 16:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    I appreciate the feedback. At the time I made that report to the AN, I had consulted with several other people before taking it to the AN, asking for opinions and advice on what to do. My point in the report wasn't at all to keep any cruft (I'm against cruft myself), but rather to ask TTN to scale it down a bit - he appeared to be quite disruptive and pushy in his attempts to perform the mass-merging he was doing. Having not been familiar with his history at the time, it looked to me as though he was doing more harm than good, and I wanted to try to steer him more toward discussing the issues before just performing the merges. (As I'd stated at the time, his attitude during one such discussion came across as "Can I merge it yet? Huh? Can I? Can I?") I backed down when I learned that TTN's actions were sanctioned - I respect consensus even when I disagree with it, so the fact that a consensus had been reached on that user's merge activity meant that there was nothing more for me to argue, lest I be seen as pushy and belligerent.
    The majority of my article edits have been to reword and condense text in such a way that it reads like an encyclopedia. Where I see fancruft, I generally remove it or try to reword it so that it isn't crufty. I am well aware of the policies regarding cruft, verifiability and notability (I disagree somewhat with one of the policies regarding plot summaries and in-universe information, but have not taken the time to try to argue my points there yet), and I assure you that I would not use the admin tools to enforce my own POV or keep crufty material. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - No, my standards aren't fully met yet. Try again in a few months with more participation in Wikipedia space. Lradrama 10:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose without prejudice, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Very Weak Oppose - I quote from above:
    "Protecting and unprotecting pages as needed, and editing protected pages per user requests, if appropriate." yet I can find only 5 edits at RFP, so I don't believe you will play the part suggested. However, I do understand that you wish to be a "Jack-of-all-trades", which is more than helpful. Rudget Contributions 13:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose frustration at AIV leaves me questioning KieferSkunk's understanding of this process and thus readiness for the tools. The vagueness of the answer to Q1 leaves me not feeling that KieferSkunk has no need for the tools but that there is no demonstrated readiness for the tools. Does have an expressed willingness to learn. Please try again later. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    To be clear, my frustration is not so much about whether my reports at AIV were appropriate or what not - I'm certainly fine with being corrected if I misunderstand the purpose of the board, etc. My frustration has been with the lack of clear communication from other admins on why a particular report was declined or ignored, especially when I see similar reports get immediate attention. All I've ever asked from the people who run such fora is that, if my request is worthy of being declined, they give me a clear explanation as to why it is being declined. Just seeing "Declined" with no explanation, and seeing no response to a follow-up question, sends a message that the people there are either playing favorites or simply don't care. I know better than to believe either of those things fully, but it's still rather discouraging to see, and as I said, it's something that I would try to address if/when I'm in a position to respond to such requests.
    As for my answer to #1: I'm still seeing people say that my response is vague. Could someone please explain what's vague about it? It's a rather vague question, really - I responded (the second time around) with a list of duties and areas that I believe I'm qualified to help out with, as well as saying very specifically that I'll need to learn the tools, but that I believe I can do so very quickly and effectively. To be frank, I'm not going to learn much about using admin tools if I can't access them - if everyone's concern is not about whether I'd abuse the tools, just about whether I need them or have enough experience to be able to use them, I'd think there would be no harm in allowing me to learn how to use them. Virtually every action is undoable - blocks and article deletions can be undone, so if I made a mistake, it would be easy for a more experienced admin to correct. Has anyone considered the possibility of a mentor-like trial period, where someone could watch me for a while to be sure that I'm using the tools properly? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your note. To take things bullet pint by bullet point. 1) One does not need admin tools to revert vandalism/unconstructive edits. Historically, this has been taken by some as an indication of unfamiliarity with the tools. 2)Blocking "repeat" vandals etc, coupled with expressed frustration at AIV suggests lack of understanding of progressive warning and blocking policy, and the possibility of accidental misuse of the block. 3)"Helping to make decisions through discussion and helping to execute those decisions." at AN/I is something you can do without being an admin. If this is your cup of tea, you should probably be involved there now before getting the block button. 4)"Jack of all trades" is vague. It suggests a lack of familiarity of admin duties you wish to engatge in. I would rather someone say, "I don't want the tools for such and such, because I'm weak there." It lets me know the nom understands there own weaknesses. Further, your questions to the questioners, and your leaving me an expansive note on my talk page after leaving me a response here makes me feel you are a little too hyper. Your RfA looks likely to pass regardless of my !vote. Trust to consensus. Since this looks likely to pass, my concerns probably do not have merit. Don't be too worried about the opinions of others. If you are right, you are right. If not, discussion and consensus building will sort it out. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. Sorry if it seemed I was badgering you about it - I appreciate you explaining what was vague about my response. About all I can say to the "Jack of all trades" part is that I have always had the ability to learn quickly and to take on a variety of tasks, so I'm simply indicating that it's something I'm willing to do here too. I can (and have shown in many different places) become an expert at a lot of varied tasks, and I like to be challenged. So by saying that I'm willing to help out everywhere, I'm admitting that I am weak in certain areas, but I'm not saying that I'm not willing to learn them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Just a bit lacking in overall experience, but that will be corrected by next Rfa I am sure. Jmlk17 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

Lack of involvement in admin related areas, combined with a vague answer to Q1. Addhoc 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) change 'vote' to oppose

  1. (changed to weak support) Not a bad candidate but I'm somewhat concerned with experience. I don't find the project space edit count unreasonably low but it is concentrated in very few areas and I'd like to see at least a bit of experience with some deletion process either through XfD or through speedy-deletion tagging before I can support. I suggest returning to RfA in a couple of months and perhaps withdrawing the current nomination since the odds of success are pretty slim. Pascal.Tesson 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Not to nit-pick, but may I ask what the bar is for number of edits and breadth of experience? It's taken me two years to get to the 1500+ main namespace edits that I've made. I have a full-time job and a family, and many interests outside of Wikipedia that take up the vast majority of my time, and frankly I do not have a strong desire to increase my participation just so I can increase my edit count. I prefer to focus on the quality of my edits rather than the quantity, and to do that, I focus my attention on articles and projects that I personally find interesting. Because of that focus, I have not participated in XfDs simply because I haven't come across them or felt a need to nominate any articles for deletion. That does not mean I don't understand the process - I just have not had a reason to take part in such discussion yet.
    If sheer volume of experience is a requirement, then I'm very unlikely to ever meet that bar. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, what I was trying to say is that the number of edits to the project space is not an issue for me. However, I do think that some familiarity with some deletion process would be a plus. Same goes for the blocking of vandals. That doesn't mean participating in a gazillion deletion discussions or making hundreds of AIV reports: it's not rocket science and you can get a sense of it pretty quickly but it's hard to really gauge your understanding of the admin-related aspect of the wiki when your participation in it has been so limited. I'm not (and I don't think anybody is) suggesting you should spend another hour a day filling these gaps but if you occasionally do a bit of work in other areas, people will be much more comfortable supporting you. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    Understood, and thank you for the reply. About all I can say in my defense on that is that I have experience with user blocking/banning in other forums (have been an admin on non-wiki sites numerous times in the past) - just have not been involved in that practice here on Wikipedia. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't make a good judgement call on this user right now. I will think it over and return with a resonse later. Dustihowe 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)) change 'vote' to Support

  1. Neutral Per Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs)'s oppose reasoning, but please do try again later. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
    Even if he passes? There must be a double jeopardy clause around here somewhere. the_undertow talk 06:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
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.