Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzollman

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] Kzollman

Final count (24/0/0) ended 17:21 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Kzollman (talk · contribs) – Kevin is a dedicated Wikipedian, who has accumulated 2297 since he first edited on 1 March 2005. He started the successful WikiProject Game theory which he clearly puts a lot of effort into. Judging from his contributions he would certainly make good use of the various admin capabilities. He is also very calm, polite, rational and easy to work with. Martin 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you very much, Martin! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Wholeheartedly Martin 18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes, he should be an admin. Banes 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, I think he would make a good admin. Private Butcher 19:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. An ambitious project; fine contributions. Marskell 20:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, nice contributions, I just spent 20 minutes browsing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Very active in AFD --JAranda | yeah 00:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian (t) (c) 01:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support plenty of edits. freestylefrappe 02:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, seems harmless. --Bjarki 02:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    In wikipedia 2.0 this will read "mostly harmless" :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. El_C 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support --Rogerd 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support CambridgeBayWeather 07:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support enough experience, great WikiProject, seems calm --Monkbel 10:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support beyond remarkable work on the game theory wikiproject, I've been struck by his patient and constructive dealings with people I'd have dismissed as vandals. Sharp, long fuse, has my vote. Pete.Hurd 04:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Always found his contributions civil and to the point. Dlyons493 Talk 01:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support have seen this editor about the place, I believe will used the mop wisely. Alf melmac 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support -- Francs2000 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Good, level-headed editor. Xoloz 15:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Have had great interaction with this editor and definitely helps with the necessary cleanup!! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support --MONGO 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Ran into Kevin a few times in his drive to add Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links to WP: struck me as a careful and disciplined editor, should be a good admin --- Charles Stewart 03:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. I second Pete Hurd's sentiments. encephalon 14:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Probably most often I would use the rollback button to correct tests and vandalism that I come across on my watchlist. I would also help close AfDs and help sort through the backlog of copyright tagged articles (in homage to Martin :). I like to find things that don't require real deep thought to do when I'm tired, and I think these two would satisfy that desire. I'm pretty game to help out wherever people need help, except RC patrol. If I do that for too many days in a row it starts to feed my misanthropic tenancies too much. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I just (yesterday) posted a substantially rewritten version of the Game theory article. Although, I was planning to work on it for another week, the Nobel committee inspired my haste. I'm really happy with how it turned out. I have also worked on a lot of game theory games. Of those, I'm probably most proud of Stag hunt and Centipede game (although, I'm happy with all of them; see my userpage for a list). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
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. As I said above, RC patrol freaked me out a bit. I don't think I really did anything inappropriate when I was regularly doing RC patrol, it just made me too anxious (especially for what is my hobby) Nowadays, I only deal with a few vandal/testers a day on my watch list. With respect to disputes, I try to deal with them in a couple different ways. First, I think often the prudent action is to ignore it. Obviously, one should not feed trolls, but also I try to stay out of conflicts when others are handling them well. Although I dealt with many of Dot Six's edits, I really didn't try to deal with him myself. Other users were doing a great job trying to reason with him, and I thought my jumping in would just cause more confusion and turmoil. When I need to deal with someone regarding content, I try to always both keep myself calm and take whatever action I think will help defuse the other user. After using an impolite edit summary [1], I think I handled a conflict with User:Wragge well here. Also, I think its always important to cite sources for one's arguments, this keeps egos from getting too involved (for example, see my discussion at Talk:Complete information). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.