Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kizor

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] Kizor

Final (40/0/4); Originally scheduled to end 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kizor (talk · contribs) - I'd like to ask that the community decides whether or not to make Kizor an administrator. I first met Kizor on IRC (please don't hold that against him :P) where he came to one of the Wikipedia-related channels to ask for some help with an uncontroversial but slightly confusing page move. I helped him with it, but my connection was too slow to do the entire process, so I just did the deletions for him. I was struck by his positive attitude and easy-going nature during the process, and I took a look around at some of his contributions. Users with a sense of humor like Kizor's are a strong asset to the community. On the occasion that he is involved in a disagreement, he defuses it with kind words and well-placed humor. He makes strong, positive contributions through the entire project, and very clearly is interested in improving Wikipedia. I see no evidence that he'd do anything but useful things with the few commands administrators have, and I hope those of you reading agree with me. kmccoy (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should note, by the way, for those who are suspicious of things arranged on IRC, that I only spoke with him there once. I was just genuinely struck by his positive attitude. I haven't seen him around on IRC since then. kmccoy (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. --Kizor 15:52, 11 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: To be honest, not a lot at first. I'll have to grow into the role before I start resolving problems on WP:ANI or the like. I would get a whole lot of use from the tools in fighting vandalism and RC patrol. I've been doing less of that as I've been slow in migrating away from my increasingly obsolete favored method - browsing the RC page unassisted - but the counter on my user page should disperse any doubts about my activity in the field. There's a clear need for closing AfDs, but I'd have to mostly recuse myself from fiction AfDs, where I've been particularily active lately since they've been the same.

Finally, I see myself doing a fair bit of grunt work. Undeleting and rationalizing procedurally deleted images that didn't receive fair use rationales in time (a pain with video game coverage), protecting, semi-protecting, unprotecting, dealing with moves over redirects, in general doing the things that I've asked admins to do when I've increasingly often found myself tugging on their sleeves. The event that Kmccoy mentioned is one example: An article on a Swedish children's book had a wrong title (an editor's translation not in general use), and a duplicate article since turned into a redirect to the former had the right title. To fix the situation without losing the latter's edit history, I wanted to swap the titles, which required three page moves and the deletions of three newly created redirects. (And if IRC conspirations bear such stigma, note that I hadn't been on the channel before and haven't since.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Those composing my marathon at the initial stages of the Virginia Tech massacre article. We're now one of the ten largest websites in the world, and when disaster strikes, are used as a major information source on par with some of the best of major news outlets in speed and coverage. I value that.

I jumped in some twenty minutes after the second shooting happened, kept at it for as long as I could stay awake, and continued on a somewhat less active basis for three more days, with a roughly estimated total of fifteen hours. Obligatory newspaper link. Kate's tool says that I clocked in well over 350 edits to the article, its talk page and assorted subarticles, but that total is greatly increased by the circumstances - the article was ceaselessly deluged by edits, so every change would have to be concise and fast or battle its way through edit conflicts. I did a number of things, adding new content, fighting vandalism, but mainly busied myself with helping to keep the article clear and coherent. At one point, this meant fixing citations for 90 minutes straight. (Don't.) Virginia Tech massacre is now a GA, but I can hardly take credit for that if next to none of my text has survived into the current version, now can I? :P

As an aside, I was here for the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Dawson College shooting as well and am now planning to start an "In case of emergency..." essay that would collect advice for editing crisis articles. This is in part because I'd get to use the acronym WP:BREAKGLASS.
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: Yes. Despite the nominator's praise, I do have a temper and events on Wikipedia have occasionally been enough to anger me. I haven't broken 3RR and I hope that I've never outright insulted another user, but I have used too harsh a tone in my comments or failed to assume good faith with what looked like questionable edits. The biggest conflict by far was over spoiler tags. I support the things - they make our coverage of fiction much more valuable for the readers. In late May a RfC was started over spoiler overuse, and I joined in at the start. In a few days the guideline page was rewritten to place great restrictions on their use, and then (starting when the rewrite was still a proposal, mind) a small group of half a dozen to a dozen anti-spoiler editors removed every single one of the 45'000 spoiler tags on Wikipedia. I participated in the bitter and protracted argument that ensued for two months, only quitting when I was too worn-down and exhausted to take it anymore. The debate continues to this day.

I like to think that the spoiler farce made me realize the value of the "Save page" button between (the virtual equivalents of) the mouth and the world. It only took three-plus years to learn, but when I'd like to say something I probably shouldn't, not saying anything is an option and I'm free to walk away from the computer. I try to stick to that.

Optional question(s) by ArielGold

4. I see a longstanding pattern of blank edit summaries. Your mathbot results are 76% for major edits, and 69% for minor edits. What are your views on the purpose and use of edit summaries, even for minor edits? Would you be willing to set your preferences to prompt you when you do not include an edit summary? Ariel♥Gold 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A: They're an important tool. A summary is often what separates a well-reasoned edit from an arbitrary one, and they make page histories MUCH more pleasant. At the same time, I don't see much point in summaries when there's nothing to clarify; when leaving a message on an AfD or a small talk page, your action is clear from the page itself. Judging from the discussion below they're clearly more important, so I've bowed to peer pressure and especially Pedro's point about admin accountability, and enabled the prompt. --Kizor 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

5. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A: That's new. A way to tell admins loud that they (and I quote) flumped, and deal with those who flump consistently, is a desirable safeguard. The way that it could conceivably be used for disputes or feuding is unnerving, but the requirements are considerable and so far it has only led to action for good reason. So yes, I would. (There's overlap with RfCs, but I've been observing a good-faith RfC that the target has dismissed as an attempt to discredit him, and appreciate something a bit more binding.) --Kizor 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Phgao

6. While I realise spoiler tags was the issue of your block, would you explain what your actions were that led to the block, if you engaged in any discussion with the editor that was removing spoiler tags before mass-reverting their edits, and what your own opinion is regarding the block? User:Phgao 14:12, 12 October 2007
A: I've reviewed my contribs from that period. As background, it was some two days into the RfC. The Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline had been rewritten from its previous, spoiler-friendly form into a much more restrictive one, but the latter was yet just a proposal. Some editors had taken to removing spoiler tags by the dozen, which I considered very bad form - taking it to the metaphorical streets felt disruptive to the RfC discussion and very unlikely to be productive. I'd restored some tags while leaving removals of superfluous ones alone.

At this point, David Gerard started using WP:AWB to remove spoiler warnings by the hundred, by the thousand, indiscriminately. I considered this an attempt to implement a Wikipedia-wide change without consensus, to solve the matter by force. I still do, and that's certainly what it was used for - the next day, Tony Sidaway claimed that the matter closed because pro-spoiler editors had not been able to restore nearly as many tags as anti-spoiler editors had been able to remove. That became a primary argument. That's not consensus, that's tug-of-war.

But I digress. That's what I was trying to stop by reverting, and Phil Sandifer blocked me after 18 reversions. Before I start claiming sainthood: Your question about discussion with the editor came as a surprise, meaning that the idea had never occured to me at the time, so I'd flown off the handle. Talking with Gerard is what I should have done. Phil Sandifer not seeking an uninvolved party was not a problem - a newcomer admin would've had to read too much too fast to form an informed opinion, never mind staying uninvolved at the same time - though a warning would've had the same effect while still allowing me to participate in the discussion. --Kizor 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Miranda

7. You seem to contribute well to breaking news stories (have you ever tried Wikinews?)  :-P Anyway, I have two questions relating to your contributions. First, if a breaking news story controversy with different conflicting sources occurred with a living person what would you do? And, what is your interpretation of ignoring the rules?
A: I might have at some point, but I prefer our style and size. Your first contributions question is a painfully good one. It's not something that I've had to deal with, persons of interest in major breaking news stories are generally dead. First, I'd really wish that I wasn't there. Second, I'd point the issue out on the talk page. Both consensus and manpower are important - an article on breaking news is in a constant state of change instead of the usual restful sequentialism. A decision without an agreement would most likely be unenforceable. Third, pending some weighty facts of the case or a consensus to do otherwise, I'd cover all sides in the article while explicitly mentioning the source for each statement, so that the media confusion was clear and (vitally) we don't say what happened, we say who says what happened. Not "The gunman in custody is X or Y", rather "The gunman in custody was reported to be X by CNN, citing police reports, while NBC gave his name as Y". Any suspect sources should be disregarded, and the cites possibly restricted to the most reliable and/or largest news sources - both matters for the talk page. Fortunately the biggest names also tend to be the fastest, and such confusion is short-lived. Removal of unsourced information is a must, and is already done stringently with breaking news. An awful lot of work for a small matter, but nothing's ever simple when WP:BLP is involved.

Ah, IAR, that cornerstone of our policies. Wikipedia is not immune to a common problem with volunteer and online projects: the tendency of the rules to be determined by those who care the most about rules, which easily leads to overlegistlation and process over product. IAR provides some counterbalance by being a reminder that policies and guidelines are means, tools for writing a good encyclopedia. Its loss would be an extremely worrying telltale shift in attitude.
When it comes to its use to actual content, I'd like to see it actually invoked succesfully once in a while. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means covers my position; I'd accept it as a valid argument when coupled with a reasonable explanation about why we should make an exemption to, or compromise with, guidelines. --Kizor 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
8. I have also noticed that you have a fair share of fair use warnings on your userpage beginning here for putting fair use images in your userspace. The images are currently obscured via Gnomebot, as seen via your sandbox. Although, I am assuming good faith with this, but tell me what you think is the difference between fair usage and free usage of images?
A: Free use is free use, unlimited distribution and modification while following any restrictions in place. Fair use is a diferent animal altogether, and has to follow the necessarily draconian rules of Wikipedia:Non-free content that basically considers it a necessary evil; among other things, such images must not be used more than is necessary to improve articles, and when they are, must be accompanied by a satisfactory explanation about why they're acceptable. That fair share of fair use warnings was where I found this out the hard way. --Kizor 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Gray62

9. Kizor, by your own account, you have a very busy real life recently. Do you think you can nonetheless do reasonable work as an admin, even though you would be hard pressed to follow up on the actions you start? Wouldn't it be a bit unfair towards editors to have to wait until you find the time to discuss any objections they might have regarding blocks, page protections etc? Gray62 12:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A: You're right in asking about my delays. I do have a problem with keeping things organized, and am consequently often tardy. It's good that the matter came up in this RfA. After thinking about your first question, the answer is yes. Despite the difficulty, I function normally as a student and hold a holiday office job, I don't believe that it precludes me from working as an admin.

You know the answer to the second question. I need to keep an eye on myself, especially to avoid overcommitment leading to such situations, and nowadays actually have a to-do list of limited size for Wikipedia on my bedroom wall. The more is on it, the fewer things get in. (This wasn't the huge geek-out that you might imagine, it just meant adding another column to an existing piece of paper.)

The root cause for my current overload of work is unusual and non-reoccuring. In fact, let's get the sob story over with. Some time ago I undertook ADHD testing as part of dealing with this very problem and was placed on ADHD medication without diagnosis as a test. It was discontinued six days later as completely unsuitable. I was left with a negative diagnosis, several days during which I'd been unable to get anything done, smashed routines and an inverted sleep rhythm. Study stuff has been piling up as I've tried to recover. I can confidently state that this sequence of events is not about to repeat itself. --Kizor 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • I've had a look at Kizor's contribs and through some prelim browsing came across that fact that he had been blocked [1]. Also some minor things include; this [2] where the user says "one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously", and it happens that two of these users were the users who blocked and then unblocked Kizor. I could be nitpicking here, but I just wanted to bring this to discussion to get a better feel of other editor's views on this. Phgao 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Phgao your hard work in providing a thorough review is always appreciated by candidates and other editors. May I suggest you address the issue to the candidate directly by using the Question section above? Pedro :  Chat  13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on his page, too. The way I read the second edit is simply that he learned during the conflict over spoiler tags how difficult it can be to be on the other side of an argument with David Gerard, Phil Sandifer, and Tony Sidaway. (I would probably make a similar comment if I was contemplating arguing on the side of those three! I say this with respect... I just don't know them as being push-overs.) It seems to me that he learned that conflicts on Wikipedia can turn nasty quite quickly. I would point out that he addresses this issue pretty extensively in his answer to the third question up above, but I'll leave it up to him if he wants to make any further statement about it. :) kmccoy (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked a question that specifically addresses the issue of the block, which isn't really addressed in Q3, although the issue itself is well explained there. Phgao 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer (the blocking admin) is one of the more vigorous opponents of spoiler warnings, and around that time there were users who were removing tens of thousands of spoiler warnings en masse without consensus[3]. I don't really think this block was appropriate, or something to worry about 5 months later. Melsaran (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestions to Neutrals; Why not register "Support" or "Oppose" on the proviso that you may return to Neutral before the close if questions remain unanswered (or indicate likely stance while still neutral) so other editors can evaluate your current thinking? It may also help the candidate. It is rare to see so many neutrals, against the number of supports and no opposes.LessHeard vanU 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. kmccoy (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support He has plenty of experience. I checked his edits to recent AFDs and an RC patrol revert, and everything looks okay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support this is the first time I haven't reviewed the userscontribs. He seems civil--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. A very dedicated wikipedian especially that can be seen that he is one of the earliest contributors to Virginia Tech MassacreSupport--WriterListener 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. A fine editor. Acalamari 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - I have no concerns. --Eye of the minD 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Support I trust a nomination from Kmccoy :) 86.29.39.5 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure that Kizor appreciates your anonymous support, but as you are not logged in as a username, your opinion cannot be counted. I'm sorry. I'll move your comment in so it isn't numbered, but you may wish to log in to be counted. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is just pure process wonkery, srsly. At least I didn't oppose lol. 86.29.39.5 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes NHRHS2010 Talk 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I have found Kizor to be both friendly and reasonable and I think he would make a good administrator. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support A very civil user who deserves the mop. No major concerns here and I think that he will make a fine admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support A solid candidate. — Wenli (reply here) 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support Lots of experiance, committed to the job, honest. Aflumpire 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Good contributions. --Shirahadasha 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Yeah I think Kizor could make a good admin. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Per interaction only yesterday, and a review of your contributions, civility and dedication. However please consider turning on the automatic edit summary in your preferences. It's vital (IMHO) for admins to justify and describe actions through this method. No concerns other than that however. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, no concerns. Neil ム 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support As per Acalamari and Good contributions with over 5000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Good editor. --- RockMFR 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support I have never supported an applicant with so much red in the edit summary column, and I would urge Kizor to change the preferences to force adding edit summaries. Otherwise, I only see good things and nothing to suggest the abuse of the mop. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support General awesomeness. User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Contribs look good, dedicated, long-time editor, great admin candidate... κaτaʟavenoTC 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Very positive interactions with Kizor when working on Virginia Tech massacre. Happy to support. Ronnotel 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I think it is time to give Kizor the mop.  :) -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support I agree with Cobi. :) L337p4wn 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Looks good. Melsaran (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Edit summaries and images notwithstanding, I think Kizor looks like a great candidate. Good luck! --FolicAcid 12:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - not worried about the block, however more edit summaries would be nice. Overall a fine candidate. Addhoc 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support, though I'd like to see the response to the remaining unanswered questions. I don't believe they will change my opinion, though, and look forward to mopping with Kizor. - Philippe | Talk 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support;mdash I thought you were and admin already =P. Good edit counts and pretty good contributions. Impressive collection of barnstars! •Malinaccier• T/C 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support John254 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Jmlk17 06:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Excellent candidate from what I can see. Lradrama 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Pleased with honest answer, block was a long time ago (May), so I give Kizor my support. Phgao 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support I thought Kizor was already an admin anyway. Rray 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Weak Support Kizor is an extremely prolific, useful editor, even on Male pregnancy, with dozens of scars from vandal-fighting. I am worried about his block for mass edits, albeit some time ago, and also the lack of edit summaries, but on the whole I trust Kizor to use the mop. Bearian 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support no reason not to; RC patrolling is an area that needs more help and s/he knows what s/he's doing there; I don't think s/he'll be jumping in to close the most contentious AFD's on day one but I think s/he realizes this as well. P.S. there are lots of other special pages other than RC that need admin attention too (can I plug short pages, here?) Carlossuarez46 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support A frivolous five-month-old block on Orwellian grounds is no reason to oppose. --JayHenry 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Kizor has a strong contribution history and has given rather thoughtful answers to the questions asked. I think this more than displaces any concern I'd have from the block. It looks as though s/he'll make a good admin. --Bfigura (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 07:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - yes. Great editor. Rudget Contributions 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Changed from 'Neutral'. Checking this RfA for the last days, it has been increasingly clear that this is the wrong time for the candidate to become admin. By his own statements, real life is leaving him with very little time for WP. Looking into the contribs, we find he really hasn't had much time to do editing. That's totally ok. But that's also showing that he won't have time to use admin tools in a reasonable and responsible way. He simply won't be there most of the time to catch up on the actions he started, and this would be unfair and not helpful for affected editors and other admins who would have to take over his unfinished businesses. We need more admins, but admins who don't have the time make no sense. They only inflate the numbers, without adding anything to the workforce. Of course, I see that this RfA will still go through. Ok, not really a big problem. But we shouldn't pat ourself on the shoulder for having 1354 admins now. New staffers that ain't got the time to pick up their share of work aren't really a support for the other admins. We need more good candidates who actually have some time on their hands to invest in WP. Gray62 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the thoughtful and reflective way in which Kizor answered my question assures me that he's aware of the problem I outlined here, and I'm reasonably confident now that he won't take on more than he can handle as an admin. However, I still think the timing of this RfA was less than satisfactory. On the other hand, Kizor's contribs so far speak for themselves, and if he has more time on his hands, he will be a very valuable addition for the admin team. So, ok, I switch a last time to 'Neutral'. Sry for messing this thread up, but this really was a serious point of concerns for me! :-( Gray62 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I just cannot trust a user who cannot answer all the questions posed at him/her (i.e. Q6). I know it is optional, but what are you trying to hide? Yahel Guhan 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the candidate had to run out before finishing answering all of the questions? Personally, I'd prefer a substantial and well-thought-out answer to such a pivotal question, rather than a rush-job. With all due respect, I think this oppose is a little harsh. Daniel 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this RfA run until the 18th? I would assume the candidate will still answer the questions. κaτaʟavenoTC 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, most of us here have a real life, to. Having to check daily if the candidate submitted another answer is inconvenient, to say it politely. And, hypothetically, let's say a candidate choses to answer the questions on the last day of his RfA. Would you think this is ok? :-/ Gray62 12:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I have seen new questions asked near the last day in other RfAs. But it is irrelevant what I think about your inconveniences. If the inconvenience damages your trust in the candidate, then you can oppose. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a point here. Imho it is irrelevant what we think about Kizor's inconveniences, too. The question should be, will they negatively affect his work as an admin? :-/ And, as for the questions, I should have been more precise: Would you think it's ok if on the last day of the RfA, questions that are already three days old are still left unanswered??? Gray62 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well checking the contribs history, he has edited wikipedia over the last three days, and has answered questions 7 and 8. He has also commented today. Yet even dispite my pointing this out, he still hasn't answered question 6. I don't think he is too busy to answer that question or hasn't gotten to it yet, for if he was, He probably wouldn't have answered questions 7 or 8 either yet (or maybe not even have commented on this page). I think he is deliberately ignoring that question, and I don't know why, and it makes me suspecious of him. Yahel Guhan 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
They are optional questions, all of them. There is no requirement to answer, nor to give any reason for not answering. Participants are entitled to make a decision based in part on the non-response, but they have no right to demand a response so that they may make a judgement. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is also no requirement for us to support a candidate if we have the increasing impression that he won't be there to do any admin work. This RfA has already been more effort than those of better candidates, and I'm really starting to ask myself if Kizor shouldn't have chosen a later date when he's got more time on his hands to make this step... :-( Gray62 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been working through the questions from the easiest to the hardest, and reviewed my contributions from that period to properly answer question 6. Though these are optional - thanks, LessHeard - such a matter as a block does deserve an explanation. --Kizor 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems he answered the question, to some satisfaction, so for now, I'm changing my vote to neutral. I'm not convinced at this point to give support, but I have no other objections at this time. As for LessHeard's comment, I recognize that he doesn't have to answer the question, as I have stated myself above in my original post, and I am not demanding that. However, I and other users are entitled to judge him on that action (or inaction). Yahel Guhan 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Will be interested by response to Q.4 and Q.6 - I would have asked similar things had other people not already done so. WjBscribe 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm going to remain neutral. I don't like the mass reverting in the spoiler debate issue. I don't like the fact it was done without edit summaries and frankly I think David Gerard was utterly right that spoiler warnings on sections called "plot" or "synopsis" are pointless self-reference. That someone chose mass reverting over further discussion bodes ill for how they will handle dispute as an admin. I note that over time those spoiler warnings have not been restored to those articles, which seems a strong indicator of consensus. Sometimes the best approach is "wait and see" if others agree. That applies particularly to admin actions that can have much more serious consequences. I am sufficiently persuaded by those supporting and by the responses by Kizor not to oppose, but a I'm not willing to support an RfA at this stage. WjBscribe 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral for now I can't really make a decision without the editor themselves answering the questions asked of them. Phgao 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral for now. A very promising candidate, refreshingly different. I think his approach, especially regarding deleted pictures, is very valuable. That's the kind of admin noob editors, who often have trouble adjusting their contributions to the guidelines, need for support. However, the candidate should take this process here more seriously and answer the questions asap! I refuse to give a support vote as long as the candidate doesn't participate here. Gray62 08:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Looking into Kizor's contribs, I see he has been editing today, but didn't care for answering the questions here. While I'm with the majority in believing he would be a good admin, I think his lack of attention to this process is reason for concerns. Imho we don't need admins that aren't there when their participation is needed :-( Gray62 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Whoa, apologies. I've had two assignments of the "work through the evening, pull an all-nighter, apply finishing touches on your way to university" variety, making it rather tricky to muster the time to answer the questions properly. You're right, though, I'll get right on it (and have already enabled forced summaries). --Kizor 13:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is an example of why I personally find RFA so frustrating. :/ Kizor doesn't answer questions for two days and it's treated as a personal attack against the editors who spend a large amount of time on this page. No regard is given to the possibility of real-life activities. Taking your time to consider a thoughtful answer to a question is also written off as "not caring". While I, personally, am in the "not a big deal" group, I understand that some people think it's more of a serious concern. I just hope you're putting it in the proper context. This isn't a job interview. It's important to find people who aren't going to blow up and do a bunch of deletion and blocking on their way, and try to prevent things like that. But an admin who doesn't trip over themselves rushing to respond to requests from people isn't harmful. An admin who has real life concerns isn't harmful. The difference between this and a job interview is that in a job interview, you need to find the most qualified candidate(s) to fill the number of jobs you have open, based on how much salary you want to offer. Here, we have no limits on the number of positions to fill, so we are just trying to avoid "hiring" people who will cause more harm than good. If there's further discussion to be had on this topic, I'll continue it on WT:RFA, since I've pretty much stretched the boundaries of relevance to Kizor's RFA. Thanks for indulging me. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Kizor, thx for this info, looking forward to your answers. And, Kmccoy, I don't think I deserve criticism for pointing out that doing other edits and leaving the questions unanswered begs some questions. I'm pleased that Kizor now explained his problem. Gray62 23:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral pending to answering questions four through seven. Miranda 09:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral per Miranda. Vote changed to Support if only for the answer to question 7. Definitely subject to change though. Wisdom89 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral changed vote from oppose to neutral for now per my statements above. Yahel Guhan 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Kizor's answer to my question and per my arguments above. I apologize for being such a flipflopper, but I really thought it was important to clarify the point about the possible consequences of, uh, a 'time-handicapped' admin. Gray62 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    What, exactly, do you see as those consequences? Surely some help is better than no help? Some sort of "must be on the site 2 hours a day" requirement is something I think we should really strongly avoid. --JayHenry 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well,I see it this way: Having been less than two hours at WP for some time now is an issue that has to be considered when giving admin tools. After all, as an admin the candidate could start ll kinds of actions that would require his attention. We may like it or not, but many admins are reluctant to overrule the decisions of a collegue, even if there is good cuase for doing so. They want to contact this admin first, and in cases like Kirzon's, this would be difficult. Also, as in the case of User:Bblackmoor, which we discussed in another RfA, there are some difficult cases where the offending party calls for an admin, and the other editor is blocked very soon, without the admins doing enough to check the timeline of such editwars. Such collateral damage is hurting good faith editors and WP. An admin who hasn't enough time on his hands should stay away from such cases, or else there is a high risk he would do more harm than help. Well, I stand by my opinion that this is an issue. Gray62 14:51, 16 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.