Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kjkolb

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] Kjkolb

Final (91/0/0) ended 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kjkolb (talk · contribs) – Kjkolb has been with us since September 2004, though the vast majority of his over 11,000 edits have been made since last August. He has started over 146 articles, with a noticeable focus on energy plants and bodies of water in California stemming from his interest in energy, as well as adding a similar number of articles from public domain sources as part of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. The large number of edits comes from his great work on articles that need to be wikified, which in turn led to his involvement listing questionable articles on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and WP:AFD. (User:Kjkolb/Copyvio is the relevant guideline for the wikifyers.) As a result he has over 1100 deleted edits not counted in the total above. His talk page is full of friendly and constructive interactions. I have absolutely no doubt that sysoping Kjkolb would be a clear gain for the project. - BanyanTree 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I believe that being an administrator would increase the contributions I can make to Wikipedia and allow me to provide more assistance to other editors. -- Kjkolb 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. - BanyanTree 19:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak SupportThetruthbelow(talk) 06:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Any particular reason why your support is weak? --Rory096 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Support Thetruthbelow(talk) 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom Amcfreely 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - Hahnchen 07:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support per nom. DarthVader 09:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Martin 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Of course Why weren't you nominated earlier? GizzaChat © 12:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom --Tone 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Kjkolb is a very good editor who probably shouldn't have had to wait this long. Rje 12:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, experienced and hard working user. I am also surprised you were never nominated before - it's time to solve it. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Seems to be a good user. Fetofs Hello! 13:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Seems the obvious choice. I hope this editor won't mind if I call on him once in a while for guidnace. :) Dlohcierekim 13:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Per nom. -- Wistless 13:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing bureaucrat: This user's fourth edit. - BanyanTree 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. This-guy-makes-me-feel-a-bit-inadequate Support. (Though where are those portal talk edits?) Bucketsofg✐ 14:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support I love those that list copyvio! __earth (Talk) 14:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Please see my comments on the talk page. --Bhadani 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Wow-that's-a-lot-of-edits Support - also has enough project space edits to be experienced —Mets501talk 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, more power to deal with copyvios! Kimchi.sg 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, per nom. --Mhking 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Of course! :P --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support--Jusjih 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, good editor. feydey 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per above. Keep on editing!—G.He 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Dr Zak 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support per answer to question 8. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support You have an astounding number of edits. Keep it up! The Gerg 18:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Well rounded, experienced, level-headed. Support, of course (to coin a phrase... [grin]). RadioKirk talk to me 19:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support -- knows what he's doing --T-rex 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. 'support --Bachrach44 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - well rounded user who can offer WP more from having the the buttons -- Tawker 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Must have been slipping under the radar for a long time to have avoided an admin nomination before now. Great user. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 20:55 UTC
  34. Support. Civil in his comments (see, [1], [2], and [3]. Also when addressing numerous copyright violations.). I also liked the way he approached link spam on Chernobyl disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster#Link_removal). Willing to spend time to do it right, as opposed to blustering through. Ted 21:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support A very civil user who would use his sysop powers wisely and with a cool head. Cowman109Talk 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor with an impressive wiki-career. Xoloz 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Thunderbrand 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 22:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, good answers. Royboycrashfan 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. From both previous comments by other users, and from what I've seen, he looks good enough for the mop. --NomaderTalk 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support I'm almost tempted to oppose; despite a clear need for the admin tools for a long time, the candidate did not self-nom or get someone to nominate. Kjkolb should have been an admin months ago and a failure to request the tools earlier indicates a possible lack of iniative on the candidates part. Admins should be willing to speak up and take the initiative when necessary. That said, this is one of the most qualified admin candidates I have ever seen. JoshuaZ 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Very surprised that he isn't one already! — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 00:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Voting support for his time spent on wikipedia, since sept. 2004 goes so far back, very proud to be able to vote for such a qualified user. - Patman2648 01:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Looks like this one's going to get into WP:100. It's a shame that great editors like this one weren't offered the mop a long time ago. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support without reservation --Deville (Talk) 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  46. Weak support. Only 350/11,000 edits are to user talk i.e. lack of interaction. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, not enough edits. Support, of course. Cool dude, good editor, etc. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support, yet another editor I thought was already an admin. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Terence Ong 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support, meets all of my standards. — May. 15, '06 [07:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  52. Support Will do well -- Samir धर्म 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Excellent candidate and well deserved promotion.--Looper5920 10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. A great asset in wikifying and chasing copyvios. Kevin 10:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. My pleasure to Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  57. A civil, industrious user --Knucmo2 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. An easy vote. Congrats!!! Kukini 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support per nom, good answers to questions, and solid editing record. If people are asking him admin-type questions, it's probably time for the bucket and mop. --Elkman - (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support My first vote, might as well make it one that I won't regret:-). I vote as per nom. Eagle talk 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  61. Very strong support per answer to number 8. --Rory096 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Excellent user--blue520 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support ForestH2
  64. Support - hardworking, meticulous and conscientious editor with an enviable track-record of remaining cool in discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support - how come nobody nominated Kjkolb before? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support Yeah, what they said. joturner 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  67. Unbelievable. —Encephalon 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  68. Michael Snow 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support per all above. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support - Of course! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  71. Pile-on support. -- DS1953 talk 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support I messed up bad. I've successfully nominated two other WP:MEA contributors and somehow missed you. I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed that you were already an admin. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support, excellent record, no reason to believe the mop and the flamethrower would be abused. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  74. More support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support - Great descriptions in his edits, very clear what he's thinking. Great trait in a potential admin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support per nom. Kimchi.sg 13:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Ack, double voted.
  76. Support, I have generally seen good work from this editor. BD2412 T 18:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  78. Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  79. Piling On Support highly qualified and well deserving of mop status. MLA 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  80. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. Lets get mopping? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support- um, how is it that this editor wasn't given the mop and bucket months ago? Reyk YO! 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support, well-rounded good editor. Kusma (討論) 13:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support DGX 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support, but of course. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hear that Kjkolb? Now you can't sleep too! __earth (Talk) 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support without question.--MONGO 12:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  89. Probably last Support WerdnaTc@bCmLt 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support Joe I 04:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Committed editor working on dry topic. -Will Beback 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Quick question here... why does it say "Discuss here" instead of "Vote here"? --NomaderTalk 23:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's a bit of idiosyncrasy from the nominator. I noticed a similar tweak in a previous nomination, thought that it was a neat almost subliminal indication of the tone I hoped would prevail, and copied it. Nice eyes. - BanyanTree 03:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, alright. Just something I was a bit curious about - it confused me for a little bit... but, all's well. --NomaderTalk 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 08:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Kjkolb (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 120 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 14, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 16, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 98.17% Minor edits: 97.21%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 99.71% Minor article edits: 97.57%
Average edits per day (current): 41.77
Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 5%
Unique pages edited: 3302 | Average edits per page: 1.51 | Edits on top: 35.46%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 26.24%
Minor edits (non reverts): 61.02%
Marked reverts: 12.04%
Unmarked edits: 0.7%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 66.74% (3337) | Article talk: 7.8% (390)
User: 2.48% (124) | User talk: 3.64% (182)
Wikipedia: 15.92% (796) | Wikipedia talk: 1.76% (88)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.3% (15)
Category: 0.74% (37)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.62% (31)

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: 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.
I think that I would participate in a wide range of chores, like helping out at copyright problems and requested moves, protecting and unprotecting pages as warranted. Also, I think that I would be able to help more people if I had administrative access, as I have been asked for help that requires administrative access on talk pages and by email. Being able to view deleted pages would be very useful for nominating an article for deletion. I have had to nominate articles for deletion that could have been speedily deleted because I could not tell if it was recreated content.
I would block an editor if necessary. If an editor blocked by another administrator requested to be unblocked, I would try to contact the administrator instead of unblocking the editor myself. If the administrator is unreachable, and I feel the block might be inappropriate, I would ask other administrators what they think before unblocking.
If I was an administrator I would speedy delete only those articles that any reasonable editor would agree that it meets the criteria. I would take anything else to AfD. I would close AfD nominations as well, but only if the consensus is clear, or if I have no strong opinion on the article to avoid bias. My opinion on what is encyclopedic is stricter than most, but I would not let it interfere with my judgment.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My largest contribution to a single article was to List of reservoirs and dams in California. I added about 100 entries to the table. For multiple articles, my biggest contribution has been my articles on rivers, lakes and dams in California. I have also contributed 18 pictures to Wikimedia Commons, which allows all of the projects to use them. Many of the pictures required substantial effort to take and giving them to Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL was a big deal for me.
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: I try to make my arguments persuasive and easy to understand, and sometimes that is mistaken for stress or as talking down to people, but I'm actually very laid back. Once, an editor was upset that I inappropriately marked an article of his as a copyright violation. I somehow managed to miss the blatant note in the edit summary. I apologized and restored the article. I do get frustrated with editors who post copyrighted material without permission, but most such editors are anonymous or only make a couple of posts before leaving Wikipedia. If I found that I was getting agitated, I would try to calm myself down and take a break before returning to editing.
4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A: I would use {{test1}} for test posts and only use {{bv}} when the editor is clearly maliciously vandalizing Wikipedia. A lot of people do test edits because they cannot believe that they are really able to edit the encyclopedia or they want to see whether their change will be reverted. Using a template like {{bv}} may offend them and stop them from becoming involved in the project or lead to true vandalism.
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 not block him or her. I would suggest to all involved parties that they work it out on the talk page, instead of just reverting one another. This is assuming that the reverts did not involve unambiguous vandalism. If the reverting continues, I would discuss options with admins and veteran editors such as blocking, a request for comment or mediation. This is my answer with my current knowledge. I intend to do additional studying on blocking policy and practice before I block or unblock anyone.
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A: I would only speedy delete an article that clearly meets the criteria and that any reasonable editor would delete. If the deletion would be at all controversial, I would nominate it for deletion on AfD. Deletions should be done carefully. Any editor can reverse an edit, but only an administrator can undelete articles.
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A: I have some experience with controversial articles, such as those related to nuclear power and renewable energy, which are more controversial than one might think. I try to give all the relevant information about a subject, not glossing over the disadvantages for one topic or focusing on the problems for another. For example, I favor expanding the use of photovoltaic panels, but the electricity they produce is intermittent and the current capacity for manufacturing the panels is not enough to displace large amounts of nuclear or fossil fuel energy. If all information, good and bad, is not included, it is not an encyclopedia article. It is promotional literature or an attack article.
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A: The amount of copyright violations and bad articles that fall through the cracks are my greatest frustrations, especially those that well-meaning editors mark for cleanup instead of identifying them as copyright violations or nominating them for deletion. -- Kjkolb 05:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


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.