Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kilo-Lima

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] Kilo-Lima

Final (60/4/0) ended 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kilo-Lima (talk · contribs) – I was recently encouraged by Coffee to become an Admin [1], stating that I had a good use of edit summaries, never been blocked, almost 4000 edits and almost here for six months. I had been think previously before this; but still decided to wait a while. At first starting in Wikipedia, I was unfamiliar with hardly any of our policies, particularly WP:MOS. Recently I have been editing and cleaning up disambiguation pages [2] [3], wikifying pages recently, too. [4] I have been welcoming a lot of users [5] [6] [7]. Reverting vandalism [8] [9] [10] [11]. I have also been going around tagging images without any sources. [12] [13] and warning users [14] [15] I have a quite a good understanding of all of our policies and guidelines. 63% of my contributions are in the article namespace. I don't do a lot of RC patrolling because by the time I get to it, it's already reverted. I have, on the other hand, been active in the Special:Newpages part; tagging some for Speedy Deletion. I go back and forth between any article, whether or not I am a member of the WikiProject. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, self-nom. 13:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support (S). — FireFox • T [13:51, 7 April 2006]
  2. Support The ed17 14:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)
  3. Support - He's doing a lot of tedious repetitive work which seems to inflate his edit count; the number of contributions with real substance is a lot lower than the average for those with 4000 edits. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. In any case, his substantial contributions in chemistry are excellent and valuable. He seems to understand the system. Support. - Richardcavell 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, of course. --Joseph Solis 15:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 14:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Dragon's Blood 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    Curious note: User does not appear on Interiot's tool [16] due to replication lag, because the account was created only yesterday. What brings you to this RFA, sir? — Apr. 7, '06 [19:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    In my twenty years of administering websites and bulletin boards, I've found judging the character of other people to be my strongest suit. I have great faith in Kilo-Lima to do the kind of clean up work that this user describes in the answers below. Kilo-Lima seems sincere to me, but more importantly, I feel this user understands that admin powers don't make a user smarter or more capable of judging good content. Kilo-Lima will be the same as everyone else in that respect, and because of that I give my support. --Dragon's Blood 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. This vote has been brought to you by New Page Patrol (R) - because if you don't, chances are no-one else will either (tm). BIG Support the Shazaam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support He seems like a solid contributor, working in many areas -- Snailwalker | talk 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I would have nominated him myself. :) Coffee 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per answers and looking over his contributions, seems to have a decent grasp of policy and a willingness to learn, should make a good janitor. --W.marsh 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support JoshuaZ 18:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Moe ε 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Great candidate. (^'-')^ Covington 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. This person sounds responsible. Tyrenius 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Joe I 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I have come across this user several times and his work is sound. He will be a good safe pair of hands with the mop and bucket. --Bduke 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, hits the spot. Deizio 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support--Adam (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Jay(Reply) 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Looks very well qualified. -- Patman2648 | Ahoy-hoy
  22. Support.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. It all sounds good, been here long enough where I have no fears. Edits also seem good. SorryGuy 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, seems like a user who could use the mop. Henrik 05:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support definitely qualified --Deville (Talk) 06:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, good contribs, good answers. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per nom and Bduke. Meets/surpasses my criteria. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Dedicated and humble too ;) Ansell 08:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support well deserved--Looper5920 11:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support dedicated, well deserved Leidiot 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Thunderbrand 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Kilo-Support, bringing the vote tally of this RfA to (1033/0/2), which is by far the most supported ever. To the closing bureaucrat: please speedy promote this user. =) JIP | Talk 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support--Jusjih 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Weak support per above --Masssiveego 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Rama's Arrow 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Full support; this user is impeccably qualified and merits the mop. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support.  Grue  07:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support- User's contributions to the project are outstanding- great candidate.--Adam (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support --Spasage 08:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Sceptre (Talk) 11:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support --Ahonc (Talk) 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-11 01:48Z
  48. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Merecat 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Great work. DarthVader 07:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. --Rob from NY 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support - Don't see why the "restricting edits to registered users" opinion or slightly low talk-page count should be a problem. kL has shown more than enough of the right stuff. ProhibitOnions 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support will make a good admin --rogerd 04:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support No problems that I can see. _-M o P-_ 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Is a good editor. Should be a good administrator, too. No reason to think he will abuse any powers. Learning on the job is okay with a careful user. FloNight talk 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support, good editor. --Tone 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support fine user. — Deckiller 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support: looks like he's ready. Thumbelina 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Although the additional questions have been answered, I still don't feel that this user fully comprehends what it means to be an administrator. Using edit summaries, having lots of edits, and being around for a long time might sound good, but I'm unsettled by the way the candidate has answered the questions presented to them. Alphax τεχ 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The stats look good (although talk edits are rather low), but I find the candidate's answers to some of the questions to be troubling. The answer to question one is not very compelling, and the fact that this user's most major conflict was a result of adding an s to the word jungle does not speak to the level of experience necessary to handle the controversies faced by an admin. One thing that really worries me is that the candidate is in favor of restricting editing to registered users, a rather unwiki-like viewpont. I think this user needs to interact more with the community and needs to spend more time coming to understand its values. I would happily support in the future. Canderson7 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. His answers to the questions don't convince me that he has the sort of understanding of Wikipedia I like to see from admins. I'm particularly concerned about his reply to wmarsh's question about AfDs. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    What is concerning you about my answer to my answer to W. Marsh's question. Please, tell us. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, you mentioned the percentage value of the vote tally, which is utterly irrelevant. I'm not sure where the "reliable sources" bit came in; being able to cite reliable sources is a powerful argument for keeping, but your segue didn't explain how you suddenly got here from there. I also wonder why you'd go for "no consensus" and not "keep"; how would you determine when to go for what? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    The percentage is, as I may agree, irrelevant but I think it's good to see what percentage of people would like to see done with something, and in this case, the article. The "reliable sources" bit came in when the question said "The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence". I went for "no consensus; keep" because it would be an obvious keep if everybody said "keep"—unlike this situation. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable supporting at this time. Although the edit history looks fine, I'm unhappy with the responses to the questions below. In particular, I consider interaction with the Wikipedia community as an important part of adminship, particularly since conflicts can and will arise between users. --Alan Au 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

# Neutral pending answers to additional questions. A brief skim of this user's contributions shows that they have good intentions, but the answers to the questions so far seem a bit naïve. Alphax τεχ 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

# Neutral pending answers to additional questions as well.--Jusjih 16:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Support now, see above.

Comments

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: Yes, as I said before, by the time I get into the RC it had already been reverted. With the rollback I will obviously start doing RC patrol because it will be much easier. I would still also continuing my movement in Special:Newpages, but would also be closing AFD debates. I would also be around the 3RR violations, intervention against vandalism and WP:RM. I did previously go around there helping people move pages (even although it is generally an admin thing), but decided to be bold and help anyway. I would also like to go around the copyright problems, especially those that are images; mainly because it is one of the main criticism of Wikipedia. So that would mean hanging about WP:IFD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, Xenomorph (Alien) was very close to becoming a Featured Article, but there were a few problems regarding the style of writing and one or two references; and one fan seen as fan-fiction. It previously had quite a bit of original research, all of which is removed now and full of sources. I al also pleased to say that I substituted lots of articles' {{prettytable}}, something which gave me a big boost in the number of edits last month; mainly around the March 18 area to March 16. I am also quite glad that I was the first person to update all of the films around the 2006 area on Sigourney Weaver, and created all of the pages there.
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, the most major one was this edit that, quite frankly, was not intended. [17] I was adding into our article on Episodes of Lost (season 1). I remember typing out all of the information in the bottom of the page "adding in why we know the shrapnel is not from the plane". I then remember my browser jumping to the top of the page, and it done so while I was typing; which resulted in me accidentally typing an "s" into "jungle". This then resulted in this edit on my talk page [18] However, Yamla was very informative of my mistake and said it was nothing personal. I was actually quite annoyed at this, but then I realised that it really was nothing that disastrous.

Additional question from W.marsh

  1. Thanks in advance for answering a pedantic question. You mention that you'd like to close AfDs as an admin, so here's a hypothetical situation usually left to admins. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD? --W.marsh 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
A Well.. 7 out of 11 peopel is just 63% of people wanting it deleted. If the sources the people cite are acceptable and from known sources, such as the IMDb (but even if it isn't a large website with large notability, the evidence should still be seen and noted anyway) I would probably have to say no consensus; keep. If they appear to have been in something major, like a film or book, then most people here are notable. And, as the policy states, "If in doubt, don't delete."
This actually happened on Microsoft interview, where I wanted it to be deleted, but the most people said delete but the result actually was no consensus; keep.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 To clarify your answer to question 3, you have had no content disputes beyond the minor misunderstanding discussed in your answer to 3?
A There was once when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, where I put a {{hoax}} tag onto Gunnamatta Bay becuase it seemed quite off. WAvegetarian was kind enought to contact and inform me that even although the article is likely to be poorly written, seemed quite spurious and written anonymously, it shouldn't always be tagged as such and to basically to a Google test on in it (which I, unfortunately, did not do) to confirm it's validity.
2 You have proportionally what could be argued to be proportionally very few talk edits. Under 1/6th of all your edits are to some form of talk. Please explain.
A Yes, I suppose, as only about 15 or 16% are to some sort of talk page. Generally, most talk edits to any pages are either becuase I have made some sort of very big or major revisions that require someone to know I have done this. I have also always used some sort of {{test}} on someone's talk page.
3 You have only one report on WP:AIV, given that, how do you have the experience necessary to deal with vandalism at an admin level?
A That edit was for someone who had vandalised past his {{test4}}. "Unfortunately" I have not been able to report anyone who has vandalised past the {{test4}} becuase it seems that the only vandals who I find seem to be first-time vandals, and haven't had any sort of vandalism in their history.
4 You have a lot of edits at the Reference Desks, particularly the science reference desk and the miscelaneous reference desk. Could you discuss what you've done there and what experience you've gained from it?
A Sure, here in the Reference Desk people ask questions, normally something that people will not be able to know or "what happens when this happens." You optionally, either using a seach engine or Wikipedia itself, find the answer to the question. Sometimes the user replying to the question will already know the answer to the question and reply to you below your question. From answering and asking questions here, I have learned that interaction between people is very important. Mainly becuase we shouldn't annoy the vandals... Especially when the questions are a bit informal.
5 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
A Interesting... I would have to say that I would probably give people the ability to move a page that already exists. Mainly so that WP:RM doesn't get over loaded, but other than that minor thing, I cannot think of anything else.
6 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A Even although I certainly do not feel strongly about this and I am not part of Wikipedians against anonymous editing, I would probably say that one would require an account to edit. Wikipedia could still stick by its Main Page motto, "... That anyone can edit" - but just requires an account to do so.
7 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A Sock puppet account, but evidence should be seen first; offensive usernames; and user accounts that impersonate other users are the ones I can think of.


Questions from Masssiveego 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You have 3 orphan pictures. Can you explain why?

A I definetly know that Image:Statureofliberty... is an orphan image. I took it and I added it to our article on Statue of Liberty. It was later removed becuase it was very hard to make out the Statue itself. I cannot find the other two, could you name them for me please? I will still continue looking for them.


Image:Bud-NO.JPG, Image:Anti communist.png It would be thoughtful to use Wikipedia's resources fully for articles, and tie loose ends. Link of the gallery.

[[19]] Masssiveego 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:Image:Bud-NO.JPG was uploaded by me for a template. :Image:Anti communist.png was not uploaded by me; I only edited the image because it had a few painting difficulties. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. I've notice no archives avaliable of your past talk page, from which in the "I love you If you wish to nominate this article for deletion, please follow the instructions for doing so. You haven't actually performed any of the three steps. Uncle G 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)" was noticed. Do you know how to archive your talk page?

A Of course, I recently done it yesterday; before you asked this question. I only added the link to my archive today. It's here: User talk:Kilo-Lima/Archive 1.

3. What was the correct manner to carrying out the aboves AfD?

A First you must establish if the issue is "controversial". If it is not, use {{Prod}}; if it is, use AfD. Put the tag on the article: First, edit the article and add {{subst:afd1}}, leaving something similar in the edit summary.
Create the article's discussion page: Click on "This article's entry" in the tag. Add {{subst:afd2|pg=PageName|text=Reason}}; fill this out and sign, including the page name and the reason.
Notify users: Follow the automatic link that changes according to the date. Add {{subst:afd3|pg=PageName}} to the bottom of the page, and remember to add in the page name in PageName.

Generic questions from Vulcanstar6

1. What is the main reason why you would like to be an admin?

A Being around Wkipedia for a while now, and I thought I could really help more with the extra additions. And most admins appear to suffer from stress and sometimes decide to go onto long Wikibreaks, maybe even leaving; so who will replace them? And that's also hoping that newly created admins will not suffer from a lot of stress.

2. Would you run for bureaucrat any time after this RFA?

A Time will tell, I suppose. But I will have to be around Wikipedia a lot more, probably a year, to even consider becoming one. Our list of bureaucrats is very short, so it seems to me that it is quite hard to become one.


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.