Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kntrabssi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Kntrabssi

Voice your opinion (1/7/0); Scheduled to end 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kntrabssi (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedia user since 05, but didn't get an account until December-ish of 05. I have contributed fairly frequently, despite taking a mini break from May of 06 to October. I have focused really on doing one thing here, and that is RC Patrolling and reverting vandalism. I contribute to articles, but prefer to spend most of my time cleaning up the mess that vandals leave behind. I feel that being granted administrative tools would help me greatly in combatting vandalism, as well as allow me to clean up Speedy Deletion articles and allow me to participate in AIV and Issues which may need an Administrator. I ask you not to judge me on my post count, as post counts can be extremely misleading, and, as I said, I have spent most of my time dealing with vandalism. Administrators are Wikipedians with a mop and a broom, and I'm asking you to grant me the cleaning tools which will allow me to clean up better. Thank you.Kntrabssi 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Nearly all of them. For sure, Administrator Intervention against Vandalism, 3RR violations, speedy deletion, blocking, banning, arbitration, Issues which may need an Administrator, and working out the backlogs, as well as my current RC Patrolling.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As mentioned, I haven't spent as much time focusing of edits as I have on reverting vandalism, but I am particularly proud of my additions to the Double Bass article. I helped restructure the article and added a lot of content, some which came from an unregistered IP and some which came from my own screen name, and I feel like my contributions helped the article get nominated for Featured Article status.
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: As far as conflicts go, I had a dispute with an editor from the Double Bass article which I think I handled as well as I could, until it became apparent that he was not treating me with civility, in which I brought it to his attention, and we settled the dispute without needing any kind of intervention. It was brought to my attention, around a year ago, that blocks were to be used preventatively instead of punitively, which I acknowledged and treated accordingly from then on. I feel I have followed the vandalism policy by the letter and would like to do more in this area.
General comments
  • See Kntrabssi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • My intention is to used administrative tools to help my already ongoing fight against vandalism. I have applied for Administrative Coaching, and look forward to following through with that. I am really enthusiastic about doing more for Wikipedia, such as clearing the Speedy Deletion backlog and dealing with AfD, Prods and Speedy Deletes; AIV and Issues which may need an Admin, and all of the afformentioned sysop chores. Again, I implore you not to judge my experience based on my edit total alone, but understand that I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism and wish to continue doing it at a higher level than I am now. Thank you.
    • I would also like to mention that I am currently a music student attending college, so my edit count may be lower than some would hope, but it is not without reason.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • Important Comment - The normal editcounter doesn't seem to be working - use this one to count the user's edits. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignore the above - normal editcounter is working now. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After searching under Smith-Magenis syndrome, which I created, I found the IP address with which I contributed before I logged in. If you are judging me by my post count, contrary to my request, please add these in as well. 216.195.219.66

Contrary to my plea for people to not put weight into my edit count but instead focus on what I will do with administrative tools, it is apparent that the majority of the community here believes that only those with a set number of edits deserve administrative privileges.In light of this, I withdraw my request for administrative tools. Kntrabssi 23:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Support

  1. Support - why not? Walton Vivat Regina! 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Hmm.... Less than 700 total edits. Very little recent activity. 84 edits so far this month, but only 13 edits between June and February. Continue editing with a bit more frequency over the next few months and try again.↔NMajdan•talk 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Typical editcountitis. This user has enough edits to prove that they are not a vandal or POV-pusher. Therefore they should be trusted with the admin tools. Adminship is not a big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your position, but this user has not established my trust yet. He wants to be an admin and have the tools to handle speedy deletions but cannot identify an SD [1] and then listed an AfD incorrectly [2]. This user has had less than 100 edits in the last 9 months. The editor needs more time on Wikipedia before being given the mop.↔NMajdan•talk 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    In response to this, under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, notability is NOT criteria for speedy deletion, and my reason for nominating this was that it was not notable. You can see the mix up. I have recently nominated Snookerpool and Cork's apple for deletion and followed the correct procedures. Kntrabssi 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure the mistake listing the AfD was just that, a mistake, and should be overlooked. But the article in question failed A7 (so my apologies, its CSD for that reason, not WP:BAND.)↔NMajdan•talk 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Very general answer to question 1 is not impressive considering they have so little experience in policy areas. —dgiestc 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - No prolonged period of contributions to WP. More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support. Yaf 21:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose sorry but, for me, simply not active nor experienced enough. The Rambling Man 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose-Too little edits, and you haven't been active for many months. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Few edits with only sudden renewal of activity.--Wizardman 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Good user but edit count is a little low. Come back when you have over 3000 edits. -Mschel 23:34, 12 March 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.