Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KillerChihuahua

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] KillerChihuahua

final (58/7/2) ending 13:20 14 January 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate KillerChihuahua for adminship. Although she has been a user here since June of 2004, she has been most active since the middle of last year. In that time she has shown herself to be a solid contributor with a good sense of humour. At the same time, she has shown herself to be polite and thoughtful, even in difficult situations. I have been impressed with her as a contributor, and I feel quite confident that she will make an excellent admin. Guettarda 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Kate's tool says: Total edits - 3183, Articles - 1217, go look for the rest yourself lazybones :P  ALKIVAR™ 14:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. No outstanding issues; looks dedicated to the project, trustworthy, in my opinion. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support.Yodo 13:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    removed for meat puppetry (Wikipedia:Sock puppet). Sciurinæ 14:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    and your evidence to support this claim? I'm going to have to call shenannigans without supporting evidence. 1) you are not an admin (and no offense but your less likely to know how to recognize one), 2) you do not have checkuser powers (even less likely to be able to verify), 3) even us admins take great care to back up our claims (you have yet to do so). I disagree that this user is a meatpuppet on a few grounds 1) user is from poland (only edited Romania before today) and user:KillerChihuahua is not, not likely to be friends in the "real world". 2) User is clearly new to wikipedia but this does not de facto make them a meatpuppet/sockpuppet. 3) even new users are allowed to vote here. As this user has no history of vandalism (at least none that i've seen). I'm going to reinstate this vote until other facts are brought to light.  ALKIVAR™ 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. This user will do great.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support she has always been WP:CIVIL in her interactions with me. Seems to be doing good work contributing. Been here with an account only a week shorter than I have so I certainly cant object on those grounds :) Keep up the good work!  ALKIVAR™ 14:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support-as-nominator-who-fell-asleep-and-was-relegated-to-voting-fifth! - Guettarda 14:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Nice puppy. --King of All the Franks 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good participation in project talk namespace. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Vsmith 16:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Has taught me a thing or two... FeloniousMonk 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 18:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. support' — Dunc|☺ 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Image:ChihuahuaVyolett.jpg
  15. Support -- KC will be great for more reasons than I can list here without taking up half a page. I've learned a lot from KC, and have relied on "one puppy's advice" more times than I can count (unless I take my socks off).  :) Jim62sch 21:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Ditto. --Jay (Reply) 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Good editor, will be good admin. --rogerd 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support: --Bhadani 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Boxero 07:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Solid user. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 08:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Sure. --Chris S. 09:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. From what I have seen, would be a great administrator. I agree with Natalinasmpf's analysis of KillerChihuahua's comments on Dunc's RFC. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 17:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - Sango123 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Izehar 18:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support as per Johnleemk. Also, has a fine taste in RFA voting :-) William M. Connolley 20:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
  27. Support Astrotrain 20:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems like she'll be a good admin. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support good answers to the questions and creative username. I see no incivility. KI 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. PJM 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, will do fine. BD2412 T 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. I find the civility objection unpersuasive. -Colin Kimbrell 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. KC seems to me to display sound judgment and an open mind. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 12:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - I consider the civility objection to be without any factual basis. I have seen nothing but good contributions from this editor thus far. KillerChihuahua's style of prose is refreshing compared to the annoying amount of tip-toeing in discussions here at Wikipedia. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support -- Mihai -talk 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Woof woof... er support --Admrboltz (T | C) 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - My personal observation of how she deals with fellow Wikipedeans is as follows. As previously mentioned, KC is a nice puppy (most of the time). I think she does have a temper (who doesn't?), but it only appears to manifest itself under really trying circumstances. That means, KC is a nice puppy but not an easy push-over.Lovecoconuts 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support is logical, .....dave souza 06:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support 172 16:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Will likely make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - Good amount of experience, good manners, good spread across various project spaces, great use of edit summaries. Looks like someone we can trust with the admin tools. Johntex\talk 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support... you've done great work. Don't stop... don't stop the funk! :"D RoyBoy 800 06:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. I've only been around (again) for a short while, but your good work is evident in revision histories of some important articles. Keep it up! - Samsara 07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Looks good. -Rebelguys2 08:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 13:11Z
  48. Support Not perfect, but close enough.--Tznkai 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Her behavior in the Free Republic affair, acting as neutrally and mature as possible in spite of all the frustration we've suffered at the hands of the offending user convinces me that she can well be trusted to use adminship effectively. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. My interactions with this user were peripheral but quite positive. Herostratus 04:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support: I have frequently worked with KC and she is one of the most fair and insightful editors on Wikipedia. I have no doubt that these qualities will serve her well as a sysop. I'm glad I got back from vacation in time to throw my support behind her. (ack, forgot to sign): Parallel or Together? 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Sounds good to me, good luck. Gryffindor 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support --Ghirla | talk 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Sup ... port. That was me stumbling over the principle of never using {{blatantvandal}}, presumably as being too cruel to our vulnerable PENIS PENIS PENIS snowflake vandals. But I won't nitpick with this excellent user, who I see doing good work and saying sensible things all over the place. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
    ROFL! of course you're right. Its not that I don't recognize bv, its that biting them almost guarantees they will never become useful participants. Think about it from their perspective - bored jd loose in the computer lab, adds trash words to snicker at and show his buddys. Then what happens? 1) As usual, the Authority Figure smacks him verbally and issues a Dire Threat - or 2) A cheerful, respectful invitation to help out - the epitome of AGF. I admit, the success rate might be low, but IMHO why not give the chance? Juvies usually grow up, and they grow up faster if they're treated like there is hope for them. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, to be entirely serious, I was thinking of racist crap, from people of whatever age. I don't cycle through test 1 to 4 for that filth; I'm glad to have a one-warning-is-enough template for it. Not wanting to exemplify such things on your nice RFA page, I used (not logic, but) a BODY PART euphemism. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
  55. Seems trustworthy. DES (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support I see little of substance to opposition below, it's no big deal.--MONGO 04:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Sarah Ewart 06:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Ben Aveling 12:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - User views the use of "fuck off" in edit summaries as not a problem, and not a violation of WP:CIVIL [1]. Accuses people who find such edit summaries to be problematic and unnecessary of being "brainwashed", and insists that their motivation is simple puritan-esque affrontry at the use of "bad words" [2]. Not someone I want rendering judgement over whether a block made for incivility should stand. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well he did say "Dunc is my poster child of incivility, to the point that I have used him as a 'bad example' - but this does not merit an Rfc" - I don't see how he thinks it isn't incivil. He just didn't think it was a problem that merited an RFC. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak. I like to see more policy-space involvment, it assures me that the candidate if comfortable with the guidelines/rules/ideas that they'll be enforcing. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Not always "polite and thoughtful" enough. --Kefalonia 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Ben 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Object As per Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak. This kind of ideal is what provokes vandals. You might as well tell them they can't say "fuck you", but instead say "fuck off" if this user gets through. Edits are good, but as with all I've voted on today, maturity is questionable. Spawn Man 06:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppse. Response to the cited RfC and answers to the questions indicate a distinct lack of subtlety of approach. Needs more time, experience (and perhaps criticism) to see that, sometimes, what lots of people say is wrong is wrong. -Splashtalk 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Gateman1997 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - User has been very civil and conciliatory when I've interacted with her. Unfortunately she's also made some unilateral moves of pages that proved to be incorrect.
  2. ghost 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) - I have not had an issue with KC. I've seen others that have. A gifted editor with room for improvement who cares about the project. Needs to avoid being dragged down.

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


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. I spend a lot of my time reverting vandalism and reporting vandals, so I will continue RC patrol and use the rollback button to help combat vandalism, as well as blocking active vandals for short periods. I will probably use that most often with IP vandals, who I frequently find tend to vandalize in flurries of activity (that one free hour in the computer lab is too much for some bored students.) I will not be able to add significantly to my time commitment here - in fact, at first I will probably be brushing up at WP:ARL and have less time for making edits. I am willing to do anything that needs doing, if I am capable, whenever and wherever I can.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. This is such a hard question to answer: I'm tempted to say "the last one I made" because I try always to improve WP, whatever namespace I am in. (This is where Murphy's law will apply - someone checks the contribs and finds my last entry was a bad pun on a usertalk page.) Usually, I don't make extensive edits to articles, although I have started and written several. I like research, and am happy when I can locate good sources for content - which often results in the article being corrected to become more accurate. The contribution in the Article namespace with which I am most pleased is probably Comanche, which began as an enormous, partially copy-vio essay, and with a very synergistic effort on the part of myself, TheMadBaron, and an unregistered editor named Matt, it is now quite acceptable, if still a little longer than I'd like - we're still working on it, although more slowly. I think that overall, the edit or contribution of which I am most proud is registering, because it meant joining this wonderfully vibrant and exiting project, and making a commitment to contribute what I can to it.
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. The vast majority of interactions here on WP have been positive for me. As you can see from my edit history, I spend a lot of time on the article talk pages to ensure edits don't cause conflict to begin with. There have been a couple of misunderstandings, but from my perspective none have gone to the point of "conflicts." I try to follow the old woodworking maxim of "measure twice, cut once." On the flip side, if someone mis-takes something I've said, I try to apologize for my error in not being clearer - although if I'm obviously being attacked, I will decline to accept that. Basically, I try not to have any conflicts to start with, and so far that has worked well.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I use subst:test1-n through subst:test4-n. I do not forsee there ever being a situation which would lead to me using bv.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I would discuss this on their talk page or the article talk page, as that is certainly approaching POINT and is probably part of an EW.
6. In your opinion, when would you delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I would be cautious (but not paranoid) about deleting under CSD A7 - as it is, I often research Afd noms and find that the article is merely poorly written. If I were to research and find nothing on an article which makes zero claims of any kind of notablility for the subject, I would speedy.
7. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. I would not. I might have suspicions, due to over-familiarity with process, similar edit style and articles edited, and such; but if they are new enough to be possibly a new user, suspicion, however well-founded, is all I would have. If the situation warranted it, I would ask for an IP check.
8. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. This is the easiest of your questions, and the hardest. Easiest because "in every possible way" would apply, hardest because that answers nothing and to answer this question fully would be a very long essay indeed. I, personally, try to ensure that I apply NPOV to my own writing; I have given and received suggestions when there have been difficulties in writing in a NPOV manner; I cite different segments of the NPOV policy as appropriate. Hopefully that brief answer will give an indication.
Moved from Coments:
9. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important?
Decent essay, some very good points. Did you have something more specific in mind?
10. How far would you define "vandalism" - from simple blanking and filling with nonsense, or as far as subtle POV rewording? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A. Difficult question, as that can be a nebulous distinction. Blanking, nonsense, and such are clear vandalism; what may appear to be subtle POV rewording I usually consider a good-faith, but misguided, effort. If the editor is clearly POV-pushing, that is an issue, but I don't know that I would call it vandalism. It is certainly disruptive. Pushed to an extreme, it can become vandalism. Each situation is different, so I cannot give a cut-and-dried response. I AGF until it becomes an untenable position.
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.