Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kinu

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] Kinu

Final (68/1/0); Ended 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinu (talk · contribs) – It gives me great pleasure to nominate Kinu (talk · contribs) for adminship. Kinu, a Yale University graduate, has made nearly 7,000 edits with the project since joining Wikipedia in March 2005. He became an active user in February of this year, and has continued to edit at a steady pace since. Besides being an excellent contributor to the article mainspace, Kinu has participated in hundreds of XfD's in his time with the project. The user also has an excellent track history at AIV, where he has made over 100 successful reports thus far. A trusted and civil user, I have no doubts that Kinu will be an exceptional admin in the future. Nishkid64 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination, and look forward to everyone's input over the next week. --Kinu t/c 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate Nishkid64's enthusiasm and confidence in my past edits, and I certainly hope they are a barometer of the quality of what I hope to be my future contributions as an administrator. I am always looking for new and exciting ways to be a part of and help the Wikipedia project, be it a new trick or shortcut, a new script or software package that allows me to be more efficient in activities, or simply the ability to spread good cheer and foster a sense of community. As my edit history indicates, there are a few areas (namely the article talk space and the Wikipedia talk space) in which I have fewer edits than I do in others; however, I look forward to continue branching out and exploring other namespaces and projects, and in the interim I would welcome the Wikimop and participate in administrative duties in the areas in which I already have a significant amount of familiarity. All criticism is appreciated, good or bad, and please feel free to ask me any additional questions you may have. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I look forward to continuing my service to the community and my fellow users.

Comment from the candidate: Yikes! I do plan on answering most, if not all, of these optional questions... I've just been a little swamped in the real world today. I'll be sure to get to your questions as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience! --Kinu t/c 05:34, 3 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As the nomination indicates, I have a background in vandal-fighting, and while this activity does not directly require the use of administrative tools, the ability to put the brakes on such problems (especially clearing out WP:AIV and page protection) when other administrators are not around would be a responsibility I would welcome. Also, given my frequent participation at WP:AFD, I see myself working on the closure side in some capacity. Further, I would welcome the opportunity to work on clearing out backlogs, including but not limited to WP:CSD, and other activities such as page moves. Obviously, there are many powers that come with being an administrator, but along with that comes the need to make sure that the power does not corrupt the one who holds it. As a result, despite the multiple activities of which I could be a part as an administrator, I will likely stick to my "core competencies" as indicated in the nomination and herein in the beginning of my tenure. I would certainly tread lightly at first, and as I see adminship as a learning experience in the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, I look forward to working with other administrators at WP:AN on any issues which may be even the slightest bit controversial.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Copied from my editor review, since it is relatively recent It's hard to pare down to specifics... ideally one should be proud of all of their contributions to the project. However, I must say that the ability to create new pages (some of which I have highlighted on my user page) is the best part of working here: the ability to add knowledge, casting the first stone to allow others to add their input to what could eventually be a full encyclopedic article. Creating these nascent articles brings a certain sense of satisfaction, and knowing that my work will provide the basis for other editors' improvements is certainly humbling!
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you believe other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Copied from my editor review, since it is relatively recent Naturally other editors have caused me stress... it's a given when on new page patrol or when fighting vandalism. I've learned that simply reverting the suspected vandalism isn't enough, as often these are good faith actions by new editors. I've learned to make full use of the warning templates, and more importantly that dropping a {{welcome}} on a new user page often goes further in the way of fostering dialogue with a potential new community member. On AfD, I've had my share of disagreements, but I try to keep things objective. Whether I have been successful or not, and whether I could do more to put the brakes on conflicts... I'll leave that assessment to my reviewers. :P

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: While I support the ideas behind WP:IAR and WP:SNOW, I feel that in some cases editors use them as a crutch, such as in AfD cases, in lieu of allowing process to provide a reasonable outcome or result. I have quoted the snowball clause a few times myself, usually when I was absolutely sure that other policies and guidelines would also support the same outcome (for example, violation of WP:V on an obvious fan fiction text dump). However, applying WP:IAR and WP:SNOW is completely different from simply throwing a link to it in the middle of a discussion, and I would tend to tread very lightly in applying them. While there are avenues to revert overzealous use of these clauses (such as WP:DRV), the crux is that these clauses exist to support the building of the project, and while common sense is appropriate in some cases (once again, my example), anything and everything that may raise discussion should be taken through process.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: In my mind, blocks should never be punitive; they are designed a last resort for problematic offenders, to prevent any further disruption, only after the full array of warning templates and other attempts at communication have failed. While it is always a gray area and clashes with a broader interpretation of WP:AGF at times (we could always argue hypothetical questions, such as: can we automatically assume that someone who vandalizes once past {{test4}} will continue to do so?), I see them more as a "necessary evil" whose existence is solely for the protection of the integrity of the project.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Determining whether a business-related article is blatant advertising requires some work, in that I would have to determine if, within all of the marketing hype, there is a claim to notability of some sort. If that is the case, I would likely flag the article for cleanup (or possibly look for reliable sources and attempt to do so myself) or, if I feel the claim is weak per WP:CORP, have it sent to AfD for review. However, if there is no true claim, and the article reads like PR weasel-wording or an unencyclopedic copy of the company's website, my own version of the duck test would seem to apply, and in such obvious cases, I would probably have little hesitation in applying G11 to that type of an article.
7. Can you provide examples outside of Wikipedia where you have had to evaluate research and reliable sources? If yes, please provide examples.
A: The need for truly reliable sources is especially apparent in this age of blogging, and the ability to sort fact from junk has been a necessity. As an analyst for a market research and consulting firm, some of the claims that our client companies make in their in-house research, sent to us for analysis from a sector perspective, were ludicrous. Much of my work consisted of separating the garbage (one company that is actually third-tier claimed it held 90% of the market!) from the true facts (such as SEC filings and peer-reviewed journals). It surprised me how often these sources would cite unreliable articles that are themselves uncited, and through a vicious cycle almost every company would end up with the same "facts" whose ultimate source was probably some guy posting a random number on a blog. Indeed, much of my work involved putting a stop to that cycle, such as determining a more reliable number based on facts. Of course, it was quite humbling sometimes: to think that multimillion dollar companies may be basing their marketing strategies on randomguy.blogspot.com boggles my mind.
8. What is your educational experience with relation to research, proper sourcing, and reading comprehension?
A:

Optional Question by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?


Optional questions from Iced Kola

10. Under what circumstances would you place a longterm or indefinite block on an expierenced editor?
A:
11. If you encounter a dispute in which users are being incivil torwards each other, how will you try to make everyone remain civil and follow the dispute resolution process?
A:

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

12. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that?

Question by --Foundby 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Say an Anon user vandalizes, what would be the first step you would take? (I am not an admin but I usually send them the Welcome anon vandal template lol) --Foundby 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - you appear a good candidate. Yuser31415 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - nice to see a candidate already actively participating WP:AIV and placing warnings as per this history Gnangarra 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Happy New Year. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support. - you've done a great job in your counter-vandalism efforts. It'll carry over well as a sysop. alphachimp. 07:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Beat-the-nom support You deserve need tools. JorcogaYell! 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 10:40Z
  7. No problem. >Radiant< 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Confused... checks the user rights log... - crz crztalk 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. A great user well-suited to being an admin. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 12:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - strong candidate. Metamagician3000 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong support I gotta say, good catch Nishkid. Nothing to say, great candidate. ← ANAS Talk? 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Clear support - knows what is needed for adminship. Insanephantom 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I can't believe that this came online five minutes after I left for work this morning! Now I get lucky thirteenth support position! No problems with this application, so far as I can see. (aeropagitica) 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Rettetast
  15. I always see Kinu in my watchlist, was thinking about nominating him a few montha back Overdue Jaranda wat's sup 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Fine. --Bhadani 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Nominator Support. Sigh...I'm always late on my own nominations. Nishkid64 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. It's about time.. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom. —sd31415 (sign here) 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support WP needs more admins, and the answers above sound fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support A very good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support a very good contributor.-- danntm T C 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support highly qualified, no hesitation. MLA 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Very good user, no doubt admin material Oliver202 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Everything looks good... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. This is a "he wasn't an admin already?" support. -- Kicking222 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support My support of this editor is very strong. He should of been made a sysop a long time ago. --Sir James Paul 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, not enough experience with MediaWiki namespaceSupport. -Amarkov blahedits 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support This is based on above comments and a lot of support. Good luck as a sysop. --Sir James Paul 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    No double votes, please. –The Great Llamasign here 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Struck out his vote. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. While there are less than 100 talk edits, quality means more than quantity, and pretty much all of those edits are high quality. Everything else is really, really awesome though. –The Great Llamasign here 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Zaxem 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support A fantastic editor and vandal-fighter. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but the fact that the wikispace is the highest instead means I'm prefectly fine with him as an admin. --Wizardman 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. G.He 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support -Great user and per above. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. What, you're not one? Looks very good to me. Grandmasterka 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, meets my standards, and my observations of him have been positive. Accurizer 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support John254 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, not an admin yet? Great editor and looking good. Terence Ong 08:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support - Great Wikipedian that really deserves the tools. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support- per all. --teh tennisman 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. No problems, good candidate. Prolog 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Good answers to questions, seems to be a strong candidate Bwithh 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Solid and long time participation in AFD - excellent article mopper. Unreserved support. Kuru talk 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Everything looks spectacular, should be a great admin.Ganfon 02:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support as per Nishkid64. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support unreservedly. And much too modest about his talk space edits; active and thoughtful contributor. -- Satori Son 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Another easy one to support. Keep up good communication with users. This is a key issue in being a good administrator, in my eyes. --Kukini 19:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. Strong Support of course.--Húsönd 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    Strong Support-Per nom and what I've seen of the user. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    You appear already to have !voted, viz., at #34. :) Joe 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support ~ trialsanderrors 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I offered to nominate a long time ago! This user is gold! -- Samir धर्म 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support --Tone 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support, No problems evident, good experience, looks like a good Admin candidate to me! Yaf 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support sounds good to me. James086Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support per record of valuable contributions, good answers, no concerns. In light of the caution expressed in the candidate's answer to optional question 4, I find the opposer's rationale extremely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - per nom --T-rex 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support, no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support; glad to see this editor hasn't answered any of the most recent "optional" questions. Ral315 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Will make a good admin. Dionyseus 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 09:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support Great contributions, good answers to RfA questions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  66. We need more admins, and lack of any opposers but one at this point suggests, by the wisdom of crowds, that this be a good candidate. Also, the identity of the one opposer is duly noted. --Cyde Weys 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

#:support no reason for a oppose --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)sorry --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: quoting IAR/SNOW when you lacked the tools almost certainly ensures doing so with them, and that's a major problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Non-admins can close AfD's when SNOW applies for keep and there is no indication that the policy applies only to admins. He didn't say he had quoted IAR. They are only problematic when misused. James086Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, no, they can't. If they're closing AfDs early, they're wrong, and if they're closing AfDs as overwhelming keep after the time alotted, there's no SNOW situation. Finally, since IAR/SNOW involves inherent misuse, it's fairly open and shut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    You're correct. My apologies. James086Talk | Contribs 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.