Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kuru

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] Kuru

Final (79/1/0); Ended Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:51:09 (UTC)

Kuru (talk · contribs) – Kuru has been an editor on Wikipedia for just over a year and, in that time, has amassed over 19,000 edits. The fact that these edits are evenly spread across the past 12 months, demonstrates his consistently high levels of commitment to the project. Although he is a very active vandal fighter, regularly needing to post requests at AIAV, that is far from being the only way that he contributes. He has actively involved himself in Wikiprojects such as Wikiproject Spam and Wikiproject Rivers, helps out at Articles for creation and has significant experience of xFD discussions. Along with the above, Kuru still somehow finds time to create and actively contribute to articles. Two of the most important attributes for an admin are the ability to work well with others (including newcomers who may not "know the ropes") and the ability to defuse potential problems - both of which require a calm, mature and civil approach. In this respect Kuru also shines as a incredibly level headed editor, who always goes that little bit further to be pleasant to others and take into account their viewpoints. I have no doubt that he would make be an extremely reliable and valuable admin, and that the mop would enable him to add even more value than he does now. It is my pleasure to recommend Kuru for your approval. TigerShark 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. Kuru talk 01:23, 18 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My primary area of interest is simply in helping out at WP:AIV. There can never be too many eyes on the queue there; especially when someone starts up a spree. My plan would be to take it slow with introducing myself to the other tools. While I would be able to assist by reacting to patent nonsense article creations coming across on the recent changes feed, I realize (from painful experience) that even the most blatant looking cases can sometimes require careful attention. Acting as a "second set of eyes", such as assisting with WP:SD, would be a likely scenario, as would a gradual introduction into the closing of AFDs resulting in deletion. Administrative tools are in no way a necessary part of the activities I typically participate in, but they would certainly be beneficial, and would allow me to expand my participation.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My contributions are varied; but obviously my primary donation to the project is simply "keeping other valuable editor's work intact" through recent change review. I view this as a janitorial task, nothing glorious or spirited, and trivial compared to the actual creation of content - yet still critical to the project. I'm afraid my edit counts are radically skewed from this activity and apologize in advance for this occlusion of my other contributions.
I'm most proud of my work with Texas rivers and waterways; I've created several maps that were very entertaining to construct, and I've created or fleshed out articles on many hyrdology-themed geographical features. I'm also a Texas history buff, and I try to watch 500 or so articles along that theme to assist with references or clarification. I've also filled in gaps in historical articles at times, most recently at Spanish Governor's Palace - a local landmark that I was surprised to find missing when it was pointed out by a recent visitor to the country. I've also participated in around 400 different AFD discussions and any of them from the last ten months or so should display research, care, and impartiality. I try not to get locked into a specific point of view and I am always open to having my mind changed.
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: I'm afraid that my wiki-conflict experience is limited to one off spats that accrue from watching recent changes on IRC:WP-V. I tend to draw more dialog from external link or spam discussions; and the vast majority of the conversations I have with those editors are cordial and resolve well. A quick review of my talk page archive should bear numerous examples of these sorts of interactions. The only actual discussion that caused me to raise an eyebrow was a rather terse discussion with User:ClairSamoht over historical citations. I reverted a random, unsummarized deletion by a one-edit IP on the Texas article[1], which prompted this missive: [2]. I would like to think the resulting conversation, which carried over onto the article's talk page, was productive and slightly altered my own views on general citations vs. specific footnotes.

Optional Questions from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. Would you ever speedily close something per WP:SNOW and if so, under what circumstances?
A: Quite frankly, no. In the context of AFDs, the only examples that I would support as candidates for early close with a contesting opinion (including the nomination itself) would be ones that involved disruptive nonsensical nominations such as Basketball or Bill Gates; or clear cases of bad-faith nominations. These examples are more comprehensively covered under the Speedy Keep guidelines, rather than the Snowball clause, however. I'm afraid I can't think of anything outside of the early close exceptions for WP:SD or WP:SK, so I cannot foresee a situation where I would invoke a reference to WP:SNOW.
5. How do you determine whether a subject is notable or not?
A: Great question. I could spend pages on the topic, and this is certainly something that has changed over time for me. The absolute bare minimum, of course, is verifiability from preferably multiple reliable sources - skipping the debate over what reliable means. From there I start with the applicable guidelines and use them as second measure - if it clearly meets an established guideline (WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc) then my opening opinion will usually be similar. If I'm not happy with the guideline itself, then I take my problems and the discussion there. This is just a start, however - the guidelines seldom cover everything and I've seen many creative extensions of notability that make perfect sense in the context of that particular AFD. I will also look beyond the existing article to help establish notability and to add citations where needed. This extends to my participation in WP:AFC - if something just needs some sources or a touch up to meet the bare minimums, then it makes sense to improve the article on the spot. If I can't find anything, anywhere, then the problem compounds, but there may be reasons for that. Foreign corporations are a good example of this - I simply can't search outside of English and Spanish sources. The company could still be notable, but I need to depend on the original content and sources or rely on the opinion of others in that region if they're in the conversation. I hope this helps as an outline of a thought process - if there is a more specific follow up, I would welcome it.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support A fine candidate, will make great use of the tools. --Majorly 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support. An excellent candidate, definitely capable of admin tools. P.S. Did you know...that Majorly (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) blocked Kuru (talk · contribs) for a period of 31 hours after a case of mistakenvandalismblockuseritis? Nishkid64 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    And Kuru's response to that silly mistake by that n00b user was civil and understanding, which I found most appropriate =) --Majorly 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - experience with this editor has been uniformly positive for me; I've seen editor often at the WP:AFC (a very WP:GNOMEish job, if I do say so myself), and Kuru is always polite, doesn't bite newbies (as some editors there are unsurprisingly prone to do), and works in civil manner. Would absolutely not abuse the tools, and would be very useful to have them. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per nomination, answers, and a candidate's overall fine contributions. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Good contribution history, keen eye, thoughtful, shows a need for the buttons and has proven trustworthiness. Agent 86 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, I was impressed by the conservative attitude toward using the tools expressed in the answer to Q1 and by the answers in general. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support.--Húsönd 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support might be a great help with the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Fine cantidate. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support An excellent user. I'm particularly pleased with mainspace, Wikipedia, and User talks. I know Kuru will make a fine administrator. --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Will make a fine admin! Cbrown1023 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support You seem like a fantastic user. Clearly you're a great editor, and know what you want to help out with as an admin. I ran into you a number of times, and personally...I just figured you were already an admin. Great work, keep it up. Ganfon 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - would use the tools wisely. Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - It's always great when a new face comes along to help at WP:AIV. (What? No Category Talk edits? :D) Cheers, PTO 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support; Wikipedia will benefit from Kuru's becoming an admin. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Looks like a good candidate for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Weak Support -- per nom --T-rex 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support a strong well-balanced editor. The Rambling Man 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. {{subst:Cliche}} JorcogaYell! 08:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Nominator was asleep when the RFA was accepted support TigerShark 08:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong support I have utter faith in this experienced and mild-mannered editor. --Dweller 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Terence Ong 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - plenty of experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - good edits (nice maps!), good activity in the War on Vandals (no, not this one, and a good attitude. Coemgenus 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per nom. Lots of good contributions. Dedicated to the project and will make good use of mop.--Eva bd 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Proto::► 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Great edits, fabolous users. Carpet9 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Kuru does an excellent job editing accurately and with a neutral voice. TheNudge 15:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) — TheNudge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  31. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Provisory neutral After sifting through the last 1,000 edits without finding an editorial contribution, I'd like to hear more about Q2. Vandalfighters don't have to be FA writers, but negligible encyclopedia writing is usually a reason to oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Responded on editor's talk page. [3]. Kuru talk 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to Support esp because of this three-edit article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per above :). Yuser31415 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. dvdrw 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support, though it would be good to see more substantial contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Cleanup work is fine, and very necessary, but we need more people making significant contributions. I think you'll do a fine job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, just like everyone else. No problems at all.--Wizardman 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong support. Your edits are both well-developed and numerous, your anti-vandal work has been tireless, and your Texas river maps have been a high-quality addition to Wikipedia. From "vandal watching" your pages, I've seen that you also treat others with respect, even when their words and actions would make it easy to do otherwise. You'll be a great addition to the admin team. --JFreeman (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support per very good responses to questions (and per numerous points made above). Trebor 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Obviously qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Fabulous users, and knows lots about using tools, and goodwork on vandal-revertings. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  43. support I have always noticed this user making good edits when they show up on my watchlist, no evidence has been presented that Koru'd missuse the tools. --W.marsh 15:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Bucketsofg 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Drat, I am late for the party :). But seriously great user that can benefit from the tools. Arjun 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Candidate looks good to me. IronDuke 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Looks good to me, good luck to you. Gryffindor 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support See him alot, needs admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Good, sound editor. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Is a great vandal fighter who could use the tools. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support No problems here. A fine editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support His need for the admin tools seems justifiable enough and he seems like a good editor.--Dycedarg ж 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support Good editor that would make good use of the tools. Hello32020 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support WPTALK edits are low but I'm not one to complain about edit count except in extreme cases. Go for it. James086Talk 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  58. Completely unnecessary support. Sandstein 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support The man. The myth. The Kuru. Dar-Ape 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  60. Strong Support - excellent nomination, and 60 editors have turned up nothing sinister. Seems trustworthy and competent, and best of all, helpful. Milto LOL pia 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. With such a strong history of contributions, this nom should have come sooner. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  63. Strong Support. I thought Kuru was an admin (seriously). --A. B. (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  64. Hell yes, question 1 ST47Talk 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong Support Kuru's unusual name brought him to my attention some time ago, because Kuru as I know it (being a student of virology as I was then) is a disease associated with canablistic natives in PnG! Since then his contributions have stood out as being of high quality. I think he will make a great admin. ViridaeTalk 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Contributions are good, should have no problems. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  68. Chimps support those who fight vandalism. alphachimp 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support competent user.--cj | talk 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support A fine and conscientious editor.--Brownlee 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support per nom. Kyriakos 05:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support per above – PeaceNT 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  73. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support: Hmm.. Looks good, 11868 in Mainspace. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support JoshuaZ 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support - Good editor who will use the tools effectively. Matthuxtable 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support fine and trustworthy contributor. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  79. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I find Kuru's contributions rather one-sided, although a good gnome is always appreciated. >Radiant< 17:08, 18 January 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.