Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kwsn

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] Kwsn

Final (19/14/5); Ended Sun, 8 July 2007 15:02 UTC

Kwsn (talk · contribs) - Hello all, I'm Kwsn (if you haven't figured that one out). After a bit of frustration with waiting on certain admin tasks to be done after requesting them, I felt I should give it a try. Anyway, I'm more of a vandal fighter, new page patroller, and XfD participant. Despite only being here for four months, I feel I can handle the job. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Self nomination

Could someone please close this, I'm withdrawing. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Continuing on vandal patrol and keeping track of AIV would probably be my first task. My second would be looking at speedy deletion candidates and closing XfD's. Thirdly, I would regularly check WP:RPP to see if there's any open requests. And lastly, I'd look at WP:SSP regularly since that goes days without the requests getting completed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Anti-vandal work is my first thing. It's pretty much safe to say at least 100 new vandals pop up a day and it's a lot of work to deal with them all. My second thing would probably be just starting the article for Jimmy Launders. The guy did something no one else has done, and should have had a page sooner.
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've had a couple of them. My first one dealt with the Lloyd Youngblood article and the subsequent AfD that followed. The problem was he had worked on wrestlers, and I didn't know if he was an actual doctor or an actor (he's an actual doctor, I will admit that, and I've let that pass). My next big problem was with the "X by longevity" lists. I had made two separate AfD's, one dealing with Nobel prize winners, the other with politicians. The Nobel prize one was delete, the other was no consensus, which annoyed me. Now before anyone goes "you're going the tools to force debates your way", I promise to never take admin action in an AfD I !voted in. Third party admins should handle that.
4. Preemptive self question: Why was there an indefinite block in your block log?
A. A while back, I had made the Kwsn account, and had it hijacked. Thankfully the password was not changed so I changed it. A few months ago, I registered as whstchy, which was my high school initials plus a nickname of mine. I eventually had it switched to whsitchy because there was supposed to be an i there. Finally I asked Raul to see if I could usurp Kwsn, and he was able to do it for me. So no, I am obviously not indef blocked. And yes, I'll change my password again if this succeeds.
Optional question from Banana.
5. Are you using a strong password? Thanks and good luck. --Banana 22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A. At the moment, yes, but I can always attempt to make it stronger.
Optional question from Chris g .
6. Why do you consider your password to be strong (eg. It has no dictionary words, is a combination of letters and numbers, perhaps a few special characters, that sort of thing)
A. Funny, I should have seen these sort of questions coming. Well, it meets two of those three things you listed, which of those, I won't say publicly (sorry, I lost my account once, I don't really want to lose it again).
7. Response to Wizardman.
R. Usually I withdraw a nomination after new evidence has been presented, like links to news sources providing notability, or other reason some keeps have brought up. For example, this AfD, was heading delete until cab had posted a google news search with some sources that do show notability. I highly doubted that anyone would have gone delete after that. I don't plan on closing AfD's that I didn't start early if there's some conflict in them, those should run the normal 5 days. Also, just because someone says delete in an AfD does not mean it will be deleted in the end, it all depends on the strength of the arguments.
Add-on Also, the second source in that link is from the newspaper in my area, and to me, if it's something like a school in California that gets mentioned in a Milwaukee newspaper, then to me, it's notable.
Optional question from Wizardman
8. Just to clarify, lets say you come across an AfD that's been up for 3 days. 6 keep !votes, 4 delete !votes, and the nominator decides to withdraw his vote, as he is now satisfied. When and how would you close this? Wizardman 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A. Usually if a nom wants his withdrawn, it'll be done already, but obviously you want to know if it hasn't been closed. First I would look at the arguments presented by first the nom, and then the deletes (reason is because the nom's argument is first and defaults to delete since they're the ones that want it deleted in the first place). If any are "per nom", "per someone else", or WP:JUSTAPOLICY (or similar reasons found in WP:ATA), I'd mark them as weak in my mind. Then I would look at the reasons for keeping and do the same. After comparing the strength of the two, I would either A. keep it open for the remaining days if it's at no consensus (both arguments are around equal strength) or delete (delete arguments are stronger), or B. close it immediately as nomination withdrawn if it would be a keep (keep arguments are stronger). Oh and yes, I do know WP:ATA is an essay, but a lot of delete/keep reasons mentioned there are weak.
9. Responses to Miranda user Matthew
R. First off, Miranda, I'm human, I make mistakes. As such, those two edits to those cases were in my mind, justified. The first one I had seen a second case involving the exact same user, and came back as nothing there, or so it appeared. I "delisted" it to completed since it was done already. The second case I did not list it at all in the outstanding requests section (you can check the logs on that), I just made a comment there saying Meta's CU policy says people can requests checks on themselves, nothing more, nothing less. That, and I had been a checkuser clerk for less than three days at that time.
Secondly, Matthew, I acknowledge the fact I am lacking in my mainspace contribs, I do not deny that. Now, about those two CSD's. The one with Michael Anisfeld was removed by DGG with this comment "asserts important clients & publications, so not an A7; spammy, but not a clear G11, COI is not a reason for deletion". I had tagged it "Reads like an ad (G11), guy isn't notable (A7), and is a COI". For the second one, Sara Blakely, I had second thoughts about that (honest), but decided to let an admin see it. Obviously, if I wanted the article deleted, I would have gone down that path, but I haven't.
Add-on It appears Michael Anisfeld was deleted anyway.
I speedied it b/c it was a copyvio. Miranda 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kwsn before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support - He has been really active in the last few months and he has been very active in wikipedia related articles such as WP:AFC, WP:AIV and WP:RPP even though his overall mainspace edits is low..I believe he will handle the tools well ..--Cometstyles 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Definate support, active user, and I strongly disagree with oppose #1 Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    There isn't an oppose number 1, it was indented even before you commented. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oops, didn't notice that. Oh well, my other reasons still stand Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Hmmm, after fully checking your contribution, it seems I've got you mixed up with someone else on the CharlotteWebb RFArb workshop page. I actually like what I see from you overall - you appear in a hell of a lot of places and you look like you're doing a good job. Do I trust you not to abuse the tools? Yes - support Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 01:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support A trustworthy editor, willing to help out whereever is needed. I believe this user will gain experience rapidly, and therefore can be an asset in dealing with admin tasks that are otherwise neglected.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support There is sufficient reason to support this candidate. Captain panda 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support Edit count is a bit low (especially in mainspace) but that shouldn't prevent a user from becoming an admin. --Hdt83 Chat 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - good answer to Q1, enough experience, clearly understands the tools. Not being a prolific article-writer doesn't especially worry me, as maintenance tasks are more relevant to adminship, and this candidate has plenty of experience in that respect. Waltontalk 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak Support I was leaning on neutral on this one, as I believe any admin should have contributed to this encyclopedia, because that's what Wikipedia is about, eh? But since you seem to know your way around, have enough experience and have a clean record, I'll support. Good luck! —Anas talk? 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I've seen him around a lot recently and he has plenty of experience in admin areas and a strong desire to clear backlogs! Looks good to me. Will (aka Wimt) 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support the above. Acalamari 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Very impressive for a relatively new user, bust out a mop. Ganfon 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Amazing how a whole bunch of people have editcountitis at the moment. This person is a civil, experienced (in my opinion) user, and could do wonders with Admin tools. GrooveDog (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Always clear-minded when I speak to him. Sean William @ 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - I have had good interactions with this user. Henrik 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good editor!Politics rule 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support a very valued contributor, everything looks fine. A lot of projectspace edits. SalaSkan 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for currently trying to get Jayjg shot for releasing information about CharlotteWebb using tor proxies[1][2] - We're supposed to be a community, beating everyone that makes a mistake (although I disagree that it was even a mistake) isn't how communities work - I don't like the idea of an administrator looking to sanction everyone he see's. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how those diffs support that claim. Proposing something in a RFAr workshop doesn't mean you actually support it, people are often just putting all the obvious options on the table so they can be discussed. Kswn seemed to even specifically say this. --W.marsh 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, why propose that someone loses there checkuser access then? If you don't think it should happen, let someone that thinks it should happen propose it. We don't AfD articles because someone else might want to AfD it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well actually we do... but at any rate RFAr isn't AFD. I was under the impression that this was just a standard practice at RFAr... he shouldn't be held at fault for doing something that's considered acceptable in a given department. --W.marsh 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Indented for now, I'll think it through. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Candidate hasn't written much. Admins should have at least minimal experience writing, researching and referencing articles. Whether your RfA passes or fails, please make some substantial constributions to a few articles. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Just not enough overall experience. I think you are on the right track however. Jmlk17 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose pending explanation: You seem to have a habit of closing your AFDs as "nomination withdrawn" when there are other delete votes. That's something you definitely can't be doing if you're an admin. Okay, The answer has satisfied me enough, I'll withdraw the oppose and reconsider. Wizardman 00:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Majoreditor. Experience in mainspace is crucial as administrators often get sucked into dealing with disputes around it. Look forward to a nomination in a couple more months if this one doesn't pass, though. Daniel 06:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - please see rationale below. Miranda 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — We discuss and come to consensus, we don't vote (or "!vote", simply prefixing an exclamation mark doesn't change the word's meaning). Is it so hard to say "discussion"? Your mainspace contributions are quite appalling and you do not appear to understand the CSD. Matthew 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. This user states an intention to handle CSD candidates and close XfD's. We all make mistakes and if it were the only thing, I could forgive the problems in the links stated by Matthew. However I've seen this user perform non-admin closures on a number of AfD's that I felt were done hastily or with poor discretion, such as [3] , or being "bold" and applying speedy keep "snowball" closures [4] [5] and while it's not explicitly stated, it's fairly well understood that SNOW is a touchy guideline and generally should be avoided in its use by non-admin closures. I'm also uncomfortable with edits like this [6] - while ultimately proving acceptable by the user, altering someone's userpage like that without approval because one finds a redlinked name "annoying" is just not good in my book. This user seems to act too rashly to trust with the sysop bit. I'm not concerned with the "low" mainspace editcount - 800ish doesn't seem "low" to me - but many of the signs I see point to someone who is anxious for adminship. Sorry, but this user seems too eager, could use some polishing as far as some policies are concerned, and needs to learn to act with more discretion. I'm not comfortable giving more buttons to someone who seems likely too quick to click them. Arkyan • (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - the Jimmy Launders article is unsourced. Addhoc 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Has not had much experience actually writing articles. Strikes me as sometimes being a bit quick to nominate AfD Jack1956 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose General lack of experience, especially with encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The article on Jimmy Launders which is cited as a 'best contribution' was a three sentence stub. 95% of the text and all the references have been provided by another user. I absolutely agree it was an article that needed writing (I do a lot of work on WWII subs as well at the moment) but unfortunately you really need to have done more article writing before I could be certain of voting support. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Insufficient contributions to building the encyclopedia (too few mainspace edits). User:Argyriou (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for now. Seems to have not enough experience editing and seems to need more polish and maturity in an administrative like thing he did that I saw. I don't want to drag out accusations, but it wasn't a fatal error. Maybe in a few months. Fineday 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, I see no reason to support. --Agamemnon2 11:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Too quick off the mark to put in a mop request. Eusebeus 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Really just active for a bit over 2 months. Also, I'm a bit weary of candidates who've never created a substantial new article or added substantial prose and referencing to an existing one. While anti-vandal work is important, we don't promote admins just to block vandals... I think proper use of admin responsibility ultimately does require a robust understanding of how articles are written. I have noticed the candidate closing some AFDs and doing a good job, should this RFA not pass I think it might just be a matter of needing a bit more time. --W.marsh 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral pending answer to question. --Chris g 01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think I'll stay Neutral(leaning towards oppose). --Chris g 12:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral for now Changed to oppose - Low mainspace contributions as well as infamiliarity with policy. Please see this case in which he clerked as well as this. In addition, I feel that the candidate needs to have more experience. Administrative duties aren't always about RVing vandalism. Miranda 04:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I agree, editing experience is important for an admin. Deb 11:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Too new. And not a lot of editing experience. But certainly nothing to truly oppose. Orangemarlin 21:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral: I haven't seen anything I dislike ... so far. Unfortunately, while my kneejerk prejudices are far fewer on RfA than some, experience is one, and as long as there are hundreds of amply qualified veterans waiting for the accolade, I can't see my way clear to supporting someone here just a few months.  RGTraynor  00:05, 8 July 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.