Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kubek15

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] Kubek15

Closed per WP:SNOW at 2/10/1. 20:00 21 April 2008. Non Bureaucrat Closure. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kubek15 (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I would like to offer me up for adminship. I am editing in Wikipedia from 15 December 2007. I've done nearly 1,500 edits. My edits counter can be found here.

Article Work

Project Work

Housekeeping Items

  • Clean block log
  • Helping new users
  • Edit summary usage is spot on.
  • Un-offensive user page
  • Sensible Signature
  • E-mail enabled

[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 granted the tools, I plan on concentrating my administrator efforts initially in areas that I am comfortable with, and have sufficient experience in. I'm a Newpages and Recentchanges controller. I would delete vandalism pages if I'll have administrator rights. The following is a brief enumeration of those areas where I feel I can be an immediate asset:
  • WP:AFD: I think this area is excellent to use admin rights there. I'd be able to delete articles, because some articles are waiting more than two weeks to get the ending
  • WP:PNT: Cause I'm a professional translator, I work on WP:PNT. But there are many foreign language article that are vandalisms. If I'd have administrators rights, I'll delete them. Also, tones of foreign language article are deleted before listing them at WP:PNT, so I would restore them.
  • WP:RFPP: In addition to making numerous requests for both full and semi-protection, I have taken up a "clerking" role here, making notations/comments when and where I feel they are relevant/appropriate. This was done to aid administrators. Sometimes having two opinions (either conflicting or in concordance) can shed new light on a situation involving full scale edit warring or anon vandalism.
  • WP:CUV: I am stationing for deleting vandalism every day, and If I have administrator rights, I will have a possibility to delete vandalism articles.
  • WP:CP: I submitted many articles to WP:CP, If I'd have admnistrator rights, I'll delete them instead of submitting on WP:CP.
  • WP:AFD: I tend to gravitate to AFD because my mainspace participation has focused on article building/maintenance, and, after-all, this is an encyclopedia. I feel that my activity in this area demonstrates a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines. I strive to approach these discussions thoughtfully and eschew the infamous "per nom". Although, sometimes "per noms" are entirely correct.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, my best contributions are edits related to Poland (which is my homeland) and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (my hobby). My own articles are:

I've done many translations of articles, from WP:PNT and from other Wikipedias.

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: There were a few spats on the some articles in the past that I was involved in, along with other main editors of the page. We had to deal with some "international view breaking vandals" who vandalized the article about twenty times daily. Now they are blocked. If I'd be an administrator, I would block them in same situation.


4. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel.
A: IRC is a user-friendly way of communication that I have used in the past for various reasons. Now, I use IRC daily about half an hour helping users and talking about articles. I used IRC, I use it and I'll use it. I think #admins room is a good form of communication, cause administrators can easily talk to other administrators to eg. resolve a problem in article and delete it or not. I think inventing Wikipedia IRC was a very a good idea.


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kubek15 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - looks like a fabulous editor. Majorly (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support. I applaud on your translation effort, because you did twice the amount of work for each translation edit comparing to others (first time is for translating Belarus language into English, second time is typing it out). Unfortunately, edit count only shows numerical value, but doesn't show the time and effort spend on each edit. You need more experience (in terms of both time and editing), but you are definitely on the right track. Try improve your edit summary usage. If you don't mind, I can give you admin coaching because you're a sensible editor (really! getting a barnstar after 1 month of editing is a big accomplishment) OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. You're on the right track with your editing, but I'm afraid that this RfA will not pass due to a lack of experience. You may find this a useful read. I noticed this, which Dustihowe advised you to take down - it is best to avoid profanity, as administrators are expected to act "mannerly" at all times. (I did like the nomination, which was somewhat similar to Wisdom89's ;-) Best regards and happy editing, EJF (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per above, inexperience and this. Your translation efforts are appreciated greatly, however. Rudget 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose sorry, but I don't think you're quite ready yet. Despite advice, you still haven't been able to properly format your RfA (the ending date is not set). If you can't follow the RfA instructions, I don't have confidence that you can properly follow and apply policies and guidelines. Your experience is good so far, but I would like to see a little more, with a concentration on getting involved with vandal fighting and policy application, since that is a good way for us to judge that you understand and can properly apply policies. Make sure you continue your recent trend of using edit summaries. Best, Gwernol 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I have to agree with the above editors. The malformed RfA isn't exactly a problem, but your experience is sorely lacking. You are definitely on the right track though. I like your article work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Needs more experience. Per EJF's diff, I think this whole RfA was {{1}}. This application will not prejudice me against supporting in future; the candidate just needs more experience of working in policy-related areas. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - First let me say sorry for the oppose opinion. It was very reluctant! In all honesty, I like your work with the translations. We need more editors with this special skill. In addition, you gained almost pedestal status, at least with me, with your save of the Susana A. Herrera Quezada article from AFD. The only drawback I see is with experience, and this can be easily fixed. Give it another 4-6 months, with the same work ethic you have shown to this point, and I would not only be happy to support, I will nominate. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - good article work, and like Wisdom says: you are on the right track. I think that you just generally need to familiarize yourself with wikipedias policies a bit more, and gain some more admin related experience, maybe even try WP:ADMINCOACH. Best of luck, Tiptoety talk 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sigh, not this reason again... OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Folks, can we please stop attacking Kurt every time he says this? We may not agree, but he has a perfect right to say it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: On the right track... but your responses indicated a lack of experience overall. seicer | talk | contribs 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Good intent, but not nearly enough experience. Also per reasons above. WP:SNOW? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral per Shefield above. I think that you will be a good admin in the future, but you need more experience in projectspace. I also suggest that you spend time participating in RfA's and other related functions to get a better idea of how the administrative tasks work. Trusilver 18:44, 21 April 2008 (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.