Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ksy92003

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.

Contents

[edit] Ksy92003

Final (5/17/1); Originally scheduled to end 05:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) - I find Ksy92003 to be a pleasant, knowledgeable and enthusiastic editor who would be well served by having the admin tools. Ksy92003 does great work on baseball related articles, is a budding vandalism fighter, and he writes articles, over a hundred in a three month period lately. They weren't just bad articles either, some were DYK's. He's a civil user; if he gets in a dispute, he doesn't use personal attacks and insulting tones. I think he'd do well as an administrator, and I think we need more admins. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Ksy92003(talk) 05:30, 26 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: If I am granted adminship, my primary areas of focus would be at WP:AN/3RR, which I'd like to help out with because I've seen some major backlog there when browsing occasionally, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:AFD/TFD. I also do have familiarity with the admin tools, as I am an admin/bureaucrat at the Basketball Wikia, so I know how to use the admin tools already.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From July 25–August 24, I created articles for 103 baseball players. I took two of them (Ramón Peña and Félix Torres), as well as another article which I greatly expanded (Héctor López), to DYK and all were successful. I have collaborated with TonyTheTiger in greatly improving Chris Young (pitcher), a good article which was also a featured article nominee. I also was the first to begin creating articles for individual MLB baseball seasons for all teams, although there were some for other sports, and now many other people work together on all the baseball articles. I substantially expanded 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season until I stopped midway through the season to take up other projects, specifically the creation of the 103 baseball players' articles. I also worked greatly on the other 2007 season articles; if you look at my edit count, you'll see that of the 15 mainspace articles I've edited the most, 9 of them are the 2007 articles. Additionally, all of my top 15 template edits have been related to the 2007 articles.
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: In the past, I have been in several disputes with several disruptive users. Usually, these conflicts have been the result of other users not completely understanding policies, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and violating them/misquoting them to try to get their way. In these cases, the users whom I was engaged in these conflicts with were blocked as a result of their actions. In the future, I plan to try to implement the steps of dispute resolution as best as possible to resolve conflicts while trying to behave as professionally as possible to prevent the opposing parties from resorting to personal attacks and incivility. Additionally, in the many conflicts that I've been involved with, I've never once made any personal attacks to any other user. Any remark that could possibly be viewed as incivil would've been made in response to an incivil remark made towards me. I'd also like to add that in all the conflicts that I've been in with other users, I have resolved all of them, although not in the way that I had hoped. Through Editor review, I have also stated that I would do everything in my human capability to prevent disputes from starting.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ksy92003 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Nom support Wholehearted support per nom statement. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sure. Maser (Talk!) 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - Ksy, I said in your editor review I would support you should you run for Rfa. I'm going to stick to my word.   jj137 (Talk) 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Really, this has to do more with being a friend of yours. I like your work, but you should wait a while. I don't feel good about this passing. Sorry SoxrockTalk/Edits 22:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support He is a great editor, and deserves it--Yankees10 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose A good editor but with far too many civilty issues in edit summaries such as [1][2] and in blunt to the point of rudeness comments [3]. I'm afraid that destroys any form of colaborative atmosphere and concerns me deeply how you'd deal with contention. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm a little concerned with past actions, for example, the ones quoted by Pedro. Mercury 10:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I've seen far too many edit & comment wars between him and other editors (mostly w/ Chrisjnelson) over the past couple of weeks and months to support his adminship. He has shown a lack of ability to disengage with editors he's battling with. As recently as a couple of days ago, Ksy92003 even admitted that he shouldn't have a successfull RFA based on the conflicts and bad habits that he's been showing recently. [4]. Bjewiki 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose - I'm not sure about this one. You've a high edit count, but you're evidential civility concerns worry me, see [5]&[6]. Rudget Contributions 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: Per Q3. Was in a dispute with Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) that got to him so bad, there was a Nelson note on his talk page for most of the last two months [7][8] and he mentioned Nelson in the second sentence of his editor review [9]. Yet here he doesn't mention anything about that dispute or how he will handle similar disputes in the future - and doesn't even mention that it took place! (BTW, Nelson finally broke the cycle on the dispute, not Ksy.) He also doesn't mention the block from a couple months ago for harassing an admin. Instead, the answer to Q3 blames everyone else for not knowing policy. His original intention was to wait until January and he should've stuck with that plan. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is interesting... Chris broke the cycle on the dispute because you told me not to talk to him. Otherwise, I was going to talk to him about this as soon as his block expired, but you told me not to. Ksy92003(talk) 16:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, some very recent incivility suggests user's temperament is not suited to cope with the extra hassle at this time. Neil ☎ 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I'm going to oppose. Civility is very important for administrators and when admins are not civil then it brings in to doubt the legitimacy of Wikipedia itself, when admins are bullies. This is not acceptable for administrators. Also you need to work on improving your ability to deal with problems on Wikipedia without getting upset or angry. This is also very important. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Although Ksy and I have compromised on our biggest issue and have interacted amicably, I still do not feel he is ready for adminship. While I probably wouldn't leave Wikipedia as I had originally intended to if he became an admin, I would have severe reservations. I feel like he needs more experience, and in some ways, maturity. I also worry about the fact that he doesn't like things roll off his back easily, which leads me to believe he might become an extremely "block-happy" admin. Also, before a few days ago I was tremendously worried that Ksy as an admin would make it a goal to follow me around and punish me for the slightest transgression, no matter how trivial or if it was unintentional. Hopefully one day I'll feel comfortable with it, but a few days of solid interaction isn't enough to quell my worries. Sorry Ksy.►Chris NelsonHolla! 12:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per everyone's civility issues. Wizardman 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I am sorry but the civility issues being presented here is a major concern. Try to be cool and calm from now now, respect ALL users and you may have my support in a couple of months time. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose The civility issue simply needs to be cleaned up before we can trust you with the mop. Fix this, and you will have my support in the future. Hiberniantears 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I don't normally like to pile-on, but civility is very important to me. If the issues were several months ago, I'd be fine with that, but using incivility and nearly personal attacks in edit summaries from three weeks ago seals the deal for me. However, your other work looks great. Useight 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I was, although not fully acquainted with the candidate and his history, immediately inclined to oppose in view of his occasional civility lapses, his having failed to address in question three what I thought to be a rather significant dispute, and his having, as Bjewiki observes, recently expressed that he might not, at present, make a particularly strong admin, but I held off in order that I might take a more thorough look, frankly because, notwithstanding that I have found myself increasingly in opposition to his positions over the past few months, I think the nominator to be possessed of a good sense of judgment and I figured that I must have missed something significantly redeeming or mitigating here; I don't, on further reflection, find that I did. Joe 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Weak oppose per this. However, the oppose is weak because I've seen this user as a good user otherwise who participates in other RfAs. NHRHS2010 talk 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Recent civility issues tarnish the contributions of an otherwise great user. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. No thanks -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Civility concerns. You should probably withdraw, since you'll need around 45 consecutive supports to enter the discretionary range. east.718 at 00:40, 10/27/2007
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - I don't want to pile on, but I was surprised to see your name here. I thought I was mistaking you for another user at first, but after reading the comments above, I see that I'm not. Jauerback 19:16, 26 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.