Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kpjas

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] Kpjas

Final (77/7/5) Ending 14:03, 2006-08-26 (UTC)

Kpjas (talk · contribs) – Kpjas has been around since 2001 on the English Wikipedia and has gotten over 5000 edits. He is kind and helpful. He helps write the Wikipedia Signpost, Kpjas also Assumes good faith to all users that talk to him. When new users come to him he never bites them. I think he deserves to be an administrator and I think you should think that too. ForestH2 t/c 14:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gratefully acknowledge this nomination and after the promotion I hope to better serve Wikipedia and the community respecting all rules and guidelines. Kpjas 21:53, 18 August 2006 (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, 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: Although I am an old-timer, I had a period of relative inactivity in the English Wikipedia due to my dedication to improving the Polish Wikipedia. Now I'm back spending here a few hours a day almost every day. I intend to increase my activity:
fighting vandals/vandalism
watch speedy deletion cat
wikify, tag and categorise
extend my help to newbies
generally oversee smooth relationships within the community
and my promotion will definitely be a great incentive.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Probably I'm not a great writer but I think I can be helpful and productive especially in the field of articles related to medicine and life science.
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 avoid aggravation but in the old times I had some conflicts with Larry Sanger and the unspeakable HJ. Generally I'm easy-going, don't get annoyed easily and try to mend relationships in every possible way. However I believe in being strict with people who refuse to cooperate.
4. Optional question. Your edit summary usage is 67% for major edits and 83% for minor edits. Could you say what you think the purpose of edit summaries is, and why your usage is so low? Tyrenius 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I'm not sure but the reason for this might be that a part of my edits were made before edit summary has become a guideline. I subscribe to this guideline and I think about 90% of my recent edits have edit summaries.
Subquestion: Will you adjust your Preferences by electing the option to automatically warn you if you are able to post an edit without an edit summary, thereby addressing this issue? Newyorkbrad 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: Sure. Useful reminder for these rare cases when I forget to fill in an edit summary.
5. Optional question. Your answers to the standard questions seem somewhat cursory, compared to those normally expected of successful candidates. Did you study previous RfAs to gauge the normal standard? If not, why not? If you did, then why are yours so short? Could you now expand them? Tyrenius 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I am fully aware that my current activity and my contributions as an aspiring admin are somewhat below a standard for most nominees. Supporting such a nomination would require a large amount of trust. Some people, like me, feel they have a moral obligation to live up to this kind of expectations.
6. Optional question. You have only named two things for which you specifically need admin tools, "fighting vandals" and "speedy deletion". Is this what you have done on the Polish wiki, or, if more tasks, could you please detail them? Tyrenius 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: Protecting/unprotecting pages, editing protected pages, reverts, user blocks, deletion(often)/undeletion (rarely)
7. Optional question. Are there any differences between the Polish and English wikis which you would need to take into account as an English admin? Tyrenius 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: Generally in the English the amount of incidents that require intervention is larger but overall aministrator's work is practically the sa me.
8. Optional question. How long have you been a Polish admin, and from that experience, what have you found to be the most difficult part of adminship? Tyrenius 09:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I am the co-founder of WP-PL (Sept 2001) so from the very start. The most difficult and stressful part of adminship is dealing with problem users and reaching agreement and enforcing common administrative decisions. (But I think the administration of the English WP is something to look up to, so it won't be a problem).
9. Optional question. Thanks for your prompt and frank answers, which are helping those of us who don't know you to become acquainted. One last (I hope), if I may. You mentioned "being strict with people who refuse to cooperate." I wonder if you could clarify what "cooperate" entails in this phrase? Could you give an example of this in action, perhaps from Polish wiki, or else a hypothetical example? Do you think most admins on enwiki are "strict" in this way, or would you see the desirability of perhaps an increased severity of general admin responses? Tyrenius 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I strongly believe in the rule Don't bite newbies. I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Even an example of foolish or seemingly disruptive behaviour does not outright make someone unfit to become a Wikpedia editor in future. But at the same time I see willingness to cooperate with others and civility indispensable characteristics of all Wikipedia authors.
English Wikipedia has developed a set of reasonable administrative tools and a code of conduct therefore although freedom of choosing own way is a prerequisite, larger Wikipedias' administrative solutions could be modelled on the English.
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Kpjas (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 1651 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 21, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 13, January, 2002
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 78.26% Minor edits: 65.4%
Average edits per day: 1.65 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 845 edits): Major article edits: 76.19% Minor article edits: 64.08%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.42% (21)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.5% (75)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 80.12% (4006)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 95.79%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 0.3% (15 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.04% (2 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.12% (6 edit(s)) (2 moves(s))
Page redirections: 1.78% (89 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3479 | Average edits per page: 1.44 | Edits on top: 2.24%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 4.54% (227 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 64.72% (3236 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.38% (219 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 2.4% (120 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 88.5% (4425) | Article talk: 3.1% (155)
User: 0.66% (33) | User talk: 1.86% (93)
Wikipedia: 3.74% (187) | Wikipedia talk: 0.6% (30)
Image: 0.94% (47)
Template: 0.4% (20)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0.04% (2)
Other talk pages: 0.06% (3)

Username Kpjas
Total edits 5098
Distinct pages edited 3544
Average edits/page 1.438
First edit 11:31, 6 May 2001
 
(main) 4508
Talk 160
User 35
User talk 93
Image 47
MediaWiki 2
Template 20
Template talk 2
Category 4
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 195
Wikipedia talk 30
Portal 1
Support
  1. Support As nominater. ForestH2 t/c 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for nearly five years has a handle on how Wikipedia works. As such, while I haven't encountered the candidate personally, I feel confident in strongly supporting the RfA as the candidate has demonstrated a long and consistent dedication to the project. Furthermore, the candidate is to be trusted with the extra buttons (no blocks or warnings in five years speaks a lot louder than x-space edits). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support This is indeed a difficult case. This user has been in this project for about five years and this is his first RfA! He has never been blocked and shows a consistent dedication to this project. He has also a good knowledge of policy. However, the low Wikipedia space edits is a minor concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. "Support Since this user's been around 5 years he should know a lot. Grassland T/ C 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support User doesn't get into conflicts that much and has made 5,000 edits. RainbowSwirl 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. RiverlarkZ
  7. Support You don't spend five years hanging out on the same website and never develop an understanding of policy. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Meets my requirements. :) Dlohcierekim 01:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Very signficant record of useful contributions. Dryman 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I'm ignoring my usual standards on this one, anyone who's been here 5 years knows how it works and won't be abusing the tools. BryanG(talk) 06:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support My usual criteria hardly apply here. I was nearly convinced by the oppose points of view below, but then Hoopydink reminded everyone that Kpjas' contributions work out to "one edit every eight hours for five years in a row." That's dedication. Also, I'd really like for Wikipedia to never forget its humble roots. It seems like by far the majority of users populate Wikipedia for only a couple of years and then vanish; we've got entire lists of admins who are no longer at all active, and a hundred more who are only semi-active. It says a lot to me that Kpjas is still (or again) hanging around, editing and interested in contributing as an Administrator. It seems quite clear that he is unlikely to misuse the tools, and judging from his contributions and recent edits, he's a friendly and helpful user. There is no doubt that Wikipedia has evolved since 2001, but there's no reason we can't learn from the past; a great way to do that would be to promote and support the efforts of long-time users who were there from the beginning (or nearly the beginning): we've lost so much that even basic facts, for example, "Who founded Wikipedia" are now huge points of contention. Helpful, knowledgeable, and willing to do the job; considering our huge Admin backlogs which grow larger every day, there is no reason to be choosy over this user. --Firsfron of Ronchester 13:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Also, please folks, don't oppose based on inexperience: Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per above. (Changed from neutral - see below for reasoning) ViridaeTalk 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per all above, especially Firsfron. Five years veterancy is worth so much more than a mere stack of project-space edits could possibly be (for those who must count edits, count some of the 38,000 on the Polish Wikipedia). A contributor across multiple projects who is expressing a desire to be even more helpful here, and whom should be permitted to help as much as they please. --bainer (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Throwing out the standards and giving him my support: anyone who has stayed active for 5 years is admin worthy. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong support per BryanG and, to be sure, Firsfron, and consistent with my RfA standards. (I should add, I think, that, IMHO, the only relevant question here ought to be as to whether the candidate is likely to abuse or, even avolitionally [in view of his non-conversance with a specific area of policy in which he nevertheless acts], misuse the tools; surely this user's judgment and sens de soi-même are such that one needn't to worry). Joe 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support -- 5 years with no blocks, as well as experience on other language wikipedias is more than enough reason to support --T-rex 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - Firsfron has informed me that Kpjas is an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, with a substantial amount of edits (37,000!) with 2600 to the Wikipedia space there. As I said below, anyone who has hung around for five years probably has a substantial knowledge of policy, and since my experience concerns have been allayed, I trust Kpjas will do his job well. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. (Changed from oppose vote below.) I spotted this link on someone's talk page, indicating 37,000 edits in the Polish WP, including 2,600 to WP space. Given that, and knowing Kpjas is an admin on the Polish WP, I feel only good can come of making Kpjas an admin. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, as seems to be well established admin on Polish Wiki.--Andeh 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support. I was going to do either a "weak support" or a "neutral" when I learned of this user's work on the Polish Wikipedia. Five years of experience, far more than anyone else on this page I think, is plenty. (Waiving my previous stupidity.) 37,000 edits to another Wikipedia (one of the largest) cannot be ignored, and accounting for edits on another wikipedia will become a part of several revisions I will make to my criteria. Outstanding work. Grandmasterka 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support We have know he won't abuse the tools (from his massive amount of time on the Polish wiki) and we know he will use the tools productively here. We need more people paying attention to the speedy deletion cats. JoshuaZ 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Amen! :) Dlohcierekim 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Admin on other wiki is automatic support from me. Kim Bruning 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support [note that the Polish WP edit counts don't carry a lot of weight with me - this is not the Polish Wikipedia :)] even though WP: space edits are a bit weak, I'm definitely willing to waive that based on the fact you have sysop experience. Will do good work with the tools. :) --james(talk) 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, per lack of sanity shown by opposition.--SB | T 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I take exception to the tone of your comment. Please note that as of now, this RFA has been active for 38 hours but the information about his contributions to the Polish wiki was only added 3 hours ago. I believe most of the oppose votes came in before that time. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's reasonable to assume that everyone who has participated in the RfA took five seconds to look at the candidate's user page where this information is prominently featured before voicing an opinion. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I would have assumed that too, except that now there are a flurry of supports coming with the "new" information, and a few people switched from oppose to neutral or support. It's obviously "new info" to some. Grandmasterka 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    To be honest, I had no idea what that was all about. ViridaeTalk 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support if he is doing a good job here, and at Polish WP, where he is an admin, I am sure he will do a fine job here. Most policies don't change much between languages, and if there is, I am sure that Kpjas will learn them quickly and well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support I'm not sure I understand the "lack of WP edits" concern below. From what I understand, being an admin means that you're given a mop (more tools with which to help). And I haven't seen any concerns about this editor's temperment. And he's an admin elsewhere? The only reason that I don't vote "strong support" is that I have not personally encountered this editor. - Jc37 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Im going to Support, even though the answers to the questions are poor and I think you need to put more time into answering them. Regardless you are an excellent well meaning editor, active across loads of wikis (including meta) and the founder of the Polish one. I have to say that you are welcome (IMO) to the admin tools here on en-wiki as I see no reason why you would abuse them. Seeing as you are one of the earliest contributors and have probably been arounsd longer than any of the people voting here I dont think they can claim you have no policy knowledge. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Per Sean Black too, great comment! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support No problems seen in review of edits. Looking forward to working with this fine user. FloNight talk 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good users don't stay around for 5 years that often, and when they do we should be acknowledging them. Adminship is not a big deal, so give him the mop I say. -- I@n 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Very experienced. QuarterZ | *t* | *c 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. His five years here and experience on the Polish WP are good enough for me. Robert 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. 5 years, no blocks or other bad behavior, and 42 THOUSAND edits between en and pl? of course! --heah 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support per Heah. That's a very impressive record. Yankee Rajput 03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Also of note might be his 500 odd edits on Meta. Not much by comparison but still counts... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not to pile on, but besides .pl, .en, and meta, he was apparently involved with Nupedia, too, back in the day. His userpage states that he is user #11 on Wikipedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Exchanges such as these are definitely interesting. Heavy activity in Wikimedia projects since they were conceived indicates that he can be trusted with admin tools. Five years of experience say that he has the ability to deal with conflicts positively, because he wouldn't have lasted this long if he couldn't do that. Overall, I am not swayed by the allegations of inexperience, so I support. Titoxd(?!?) 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-21 06:50Z
  36. Support, long-time experience proves he can be trusted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. I do trust this user not to abuse the tools. A helping hand on sysophood is always welcome (See WP:CP ;-) (please don't thank me for "voting", thanks) --Ligulem 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per Firsfron of Ronchester's comments - his Wikipedia space edits are irrelevant, since he's already an administrator elsewhere. If he's not already aware of policy, I'd be very surprised. RandyWang (chat/patch) 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Changed from oppose. Please try and be more active on en.wiki as an admin. -- Steel 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, we can use people with long-time and cross-project experience. Kusma (討論) 12:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support I can trust an admin from another 'pedia with this much experience. Yanksox 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Maybe if you mentioned you had 37k+ edits on the Polish wikipedia and were an admin, then I would have supported you in the first place. You now have my trust. And for all those people who think there's a difference between the pedias...let me just tell you...there is NO DIFFERENCE. --Nishkid64 14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Experience counts for everything :) - GIen 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support per additional information available. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support -- having been in conflict with Larry Sanger is a good thing, perhaps. / Fred-Chess 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support I was asked to reconsider by Firsfron, so I did. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    You have both supported and weighed in as a neutral, M.D. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the note. I forgot to update my old vote, my apologies! m(_ _)m - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support based on long-term dedication to the entire Wiki project. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support SynergeticMaggot 19:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Five years of experience shows that the user is familiar with most rules of wiki. Clearly, we would benefit with Kpjas's tenure as admin. --Ageo020 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - we don't pay admins so the more experienced users.. the better -- Tawker 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. Jaranda wat's sup 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong Support I don't know about you, but someone whose read the policies and witnessed the evolution of this site for the last five years knows a LOT more than someone making XXX project space edits in 3 months. This user has been pacing, and I'm glad to see an interest in the tools, becuase it shows that the user is ready to pick it up even more. I don't want a burned out admin, which seems to be the case nowadays with standards that cause people to tailor their accounts for months (thus burning them out). Oh, and could someone explain why (lately) RfA candidates practically already have to be administrators to be given the tools to become...admins? It honestly seems like a double standard. But I'll leave this subject for the talkpage discussion. — Deckiller 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Suppoort. Seems pretty good to me. Deuterium 04:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support per Deckiller. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  57. Emphatic double sister hearty support, whatever that means. Seriously, I couldn't have said it better than Deckiller, not to mention this person is two accounts shy of being a single-digit user here. Increased edit summaries would be nice, but I have the utmost confidence that Kpjas will make appropriate use of the admin tools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support, good editor with long time experience. That's what we want as an admin, but I would like you to have more edits in the WP and User talk namespace. --Terence Ong (T | C) 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  59. Merovingian - Talk 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support There has been quite a bit of activity on the Oppose and Neutral side of this RfA. I believe this user has worked hard. BTW, its not so much the edit count quantity, but more the quality of the edit that counts. "Give-em-the-mop" - JungleCat talk/contrib 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  62. support. any user that has been with the project since 2001 deserves admin. «ct» (t|e) 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support An exceptional circumstance. He asks for some trust, and if he feels the tools would be an asset which would benefit the project, I am prepared to extend that trust. Tyrenius 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support VanM 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support for nominee's five years of staying power.-- danntm T C 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support per JungleCat. Dionyseus 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Will be an asset to Wikipedia.--Runcorn 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Experience on Polish Wikipedia bears strongly in determining whether he can be trusted with the tools, so I think concerns about insufficient activity on English Wikipedia are misplaced. Even if he only uses them occasionally, it does some good and no harm for him to have the tools. -- SCZenz 00:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support per SCZenz--Holdenhurst 12:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support trust with tools, experience not limited to a short span of time, I think that's a plus. Pete.Hurd 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. One of those 'he is not an admin yet??' cases.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. Radomil talk 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support / tsca @ 22:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support he's got more than enough experience. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support He doesn't need a mop, he needs a ham sandwich. SchmuckyTheCat 07:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. Needs to sell himself a little better, but hey, he's Wikipedian #11, and a big contributor to pl. as well.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. — FireFox (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2006
Oppose
Kpjas has under 200 edits in Wikipedia space, no edits to the administrative noticeboard or intervention against vandalism, and fewer than 10 edits to AfD, the most recent in October, 2005. While I am sure he is a valuable contributor, he has no involvement in any of the areas administrators have to deal with on a daily basis. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral, see below. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Thatcher131. Editor is too inexperienced in wiki-process at this time. Xoloz 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    A reply to some questions regarding my opposition to this nomination is given here. Xoloz 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Reluctant oppose. I don't doubt his knowledge of policy after having been here five years, but if he plans to do vandal-fighting and deletions, then I'd like him to have more experience in those particular areas. Sorry. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support - see above. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose being here for 5 years and having less that 5000 article edits doesn't give me the impression that this user is committed to spending time on Wikipedia. --CFIF ☎ 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Complete lack of edits to projectspace and (user)talkspace given the time he/she has been here. -- Steel 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to support. -- Steel 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Lack of edits to user_talk and Wikipedia spaces even though he/she's been here since 2001. --Nishkid64 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Support.
    Oppose, sorry I must oppose in this case. You say you want to tackle vandalism yet I see no evidence of vandal fighting already. You have been here since 2001, have less than 100 user talk edits, and less than 200 WP edits. You sound like a great editor but I don't feel you need admin just yet until you acquire the experience that admins need. Gain experience in these areas and have more community interaction and I will certainly consider supporting any of your future RfAs.--Andeh 01:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Moved to Support.
    Oppose <joke>too soon</joke> way not enough talking and WP editing. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough - withdrawn with my apologies to the nominee. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    In response to Firsfron's concerns, I maintain my opposition. Kpjas has not had enough community interaction here, nor has he had enough exposure to the policies and culture here which may be quite different from what they've got on pl: - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I appreciate that you at least looked into the matter, CR. I don't agree with your argument, because my experience on 3 or 4 wikis indicates policies aren't all that different, but I am glad you've reviewed the evidence and clarified your views. Thanks. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hmmm, 5000 edits in 5 years. I wonder if he hasn't had enough experience? Kim Bruning 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    He has had enough experience, Kim. You know precisely what I meant. Your sarcasm is mispalced. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Alright, well, putting sarcasm and jokes aside; and knowing what I do about multi-wiki experts; I seriously don't have a clue what you might be thinking! The one possible reading I can think of seems too far fetched, so you must mean something else. I hope? Kim Bruning 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    From my experience on the Spanish-language Wikipedia, I can see where Crz is coming from. The atmosphere there is nothing like it is here. I can extrapolate that the culture of en.wiki is unique and probably 10x as complex. Therefore, it can be argued that experience on a foreign-language wiki does not necessarily translate here. I changed my vote because I'm willing to let Kpjas prove that it does. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. 5000 edits in 5 years. That's not much. Also Per Crzrussian. JorcogaETC. 10:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    To put it in perspective, it works out to be an edit every eight hours for five years in a row. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's a very interesting point. How many people do you know that have 5 years of experience? How many of them are still active on the wiki. Can you make an estimate? Kim Bruning 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose. I have no problem with the edit count; my only concern is that I see no evidence at all that Kpjas has any need for the tools. I don't think he'd abuse them, so I'm close to a neutral vote on this, but I would prefer to see the admin bit go to editors who are involved in tasks where it helps to be an admin. I'd support very soon (in a matter of weeks), if I saw interest in those areas. Mike Christie (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support; see above.
    Oppose as per Thatcher131. Dionyseus 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Answers to the questions don't really illustrate a need for admin tools. Kpjas seems to enjoy helping users, and he can do plenty of that without adminship. Use of edit summaries is also poor - sorry, but a pet peeve of mine. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Crzrussian. --WillMak050389 02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral.
  4. Reluctantly Oppose On his User Page he wrote My participation in the English Wikipedia waned and now I'm usually available at the Polish language version and spend quite a lot there.. On his contribution list the first screen (250 entries) goes back to March, the second screen goes back year ago to August 2005. What the advantage of having an admin who is simply not here, bot on the other Wiki? I could change my vote, if there is a joint Pl-En project that will benefit from him having the tools abakharev 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Reluctant oppose: not active or experienced enough yet. Thumbelina 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    You have got to be joking. :( --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    My vote is based on experience and activity on this project. Thumbelina 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above.Voice-of-All 03:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Only 4500 edits in 5 years, and almost no interaction with other editors. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral Tough. This user's been around long enough and has made enough edits but he has less than 200 edits in the Wikipedia space so I can't support. QuarterZ | *t* | *c 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Changing to support. QuarterZ | *t* | *c 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. A reluctant neutral - you seem like a great, experienced editor, but from your answers to the questions above and user contributions, I don't see any compelling evidence that the admin tools would greatly enhance your editing. You said you want to increase your activity by "fighting vandals/vandalism, watch speedy deletion cat, wikify, tag and categorise, extend my help to newbies, generally oversee smooth relationships within the community" - all those are noble goals that can be done without the mop (other than deleting CSDs, though you can tag them). You have a great number of edits in the mainspace, though your usertalk edits are quite low, and as Thatcher131 pointed out, your Wikipedia space edits aren't in administrative areas. I would gladly support you in a few months if you actively worked on those five items you listed above. Fabricationary 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral per Fabricationary. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support, see above
    Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, neither can I support nor oppose. Your stay here has been long, but try to have more edits in the WP and user talk namespace, and I can support you the next time. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. Terence Ong (T | C) 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral sorry but although I have absoloutely no misgivings about you ptoential to abuse the tools, I do feel that your involvement with XFDs is not high enough for me to support. If you are serious about being an admin, get some sustained involvement in that area and I would be most happy to support you. ViridaeTalk 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    I almost instantly changed my mind having read Firsfron's support. He make a very strong case for you so I will be happy to support. ViridaeTalk 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Regrettably, I must concur. This is not the Wikipedia of five years ago, or even three years ago. Thousands of people - tens of thousands - edit not just every day, but every hour; as such, interacting with them has become of greater import. Kpjas is a kickass editor, but an admin also has to have the requisite people skills to deal with upset contributors - and with vandals, and well-meaning POV-pushers, and curious neophytes experimenting. I do not support at this time. DS 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is a case where an extremely poor nominating statement (by both the nominator and candidate) almost, or may yet, sink a good candidate. The original statement said nothing about Kpjas being an admin on the Polish wikipedia and having 30K+ edits there. Of the administrative tasks named by Kpjas, only CSD requires the sysop tools. Kpjas' complete lack of participation in deletion-related areas on en.wiki did not give me any assurance that he understands the guidelines, for example the fairly contentious difference between lack of assertion of notability (A7) and lack of notability (requires AfD). The most powerful admin tool, and the one that has the potential to cause the most harm if used carelessly, is the block button, and nothing in Kpjas' experience on en.wiki or his answers gives any assurance that he will know when, and when not, to use it. It is very likely that his admin experience on the Polish wiki has in fact provided him with experience in these two areas, but nothing in the nominating statement mentions any of this. I also have the impression, based on the sketchy nomination, that adminship is being sought as a reward for faithful service and not because KPjas intends to use it. Perhaps this is unfair of me. Based on his qualifications on pl.wiki I certainly can not stand behind my oppose statement any longer, but I am not willing to support at this time. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    That information was on his user page, right at the top. Kim Bruning 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I originally voted to oppose based on Thatcher's oppose statement, but due to new evidence I have decided to change my vote to neutral as did Thatcher. Dionyseus 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) changed vote to Support
    Evidence as new as 25 february 2002 should have been sufficient to lead you to further clues. Kim Bruning 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I share many of Thatcher's sentiments. I don't think he'd misuse admins tools, but I am concerned about the relatively light activity on en. Aren't I Obscure? 02:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, per above. I'm torn on this one, with your excellent long-term service on one hand but apparently limited contributions in important areas on the other. Sorry. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    The following was moved from my talk page: thought this should be on the record. RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted neutral based on his apparent lack of experience, ("I'm torn on this one, with your excellent long-term service on one hand but apparently limited contributions in important areas on the other. Sorry"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. You have voted neutral based on inexperience, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. Randy, you want an experienced editor for admin. Kpjas is clearly experienced. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'll reconsider when I have more time - I actually have to run to a debating grand final right now. Thanks for the message, but I'll take a look in a couple of hours. :) RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Support, of course. RandyWang (chat/patch) 10:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per the points brought up about his experience, I am changing my vote to neutral, still wary about activity on this project vs. pl. --WillMak050389 21:04, 23 August 2006 (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.