Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/kku2

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.

[edit] kku

Final (1/17/2) ended 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

kku (talk · contribs) – I have tried to prove my point that essence and hyperlinks are worth more than sheer number of lemmata in several articles related to knowledge management, databases, classification, web services, various aspects of logic, information theory, biology, bioinformatics, etc.. I hope that people now consider me worthier than before. Kku 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: YES

Support

  1. Support But suggest withdrawal. The RfA climate here can be harsh. Given the authors experience on the German wikipedia, we know he isn't going to abuse tools, as long as he makes sure to keep inline with English policy on his admin behavior here, he'll be fine. JoshuaZ 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose, very few edits per month, only like 10 edits to Wikipedia: space, just 1400 edits total. Answer to 1 makes me think he doesn't need it and the tiny answers to the rest make me think he doesn't want it. I suggest withdrawal; try again in a few more active months. --Rory096(block) 16:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - almost NO talk page edits & question 1 does not show a need for sysop tasks, while this editor does make great contribs to articles, a much broader look at the community, and discussion is needed for adminship, keep up the great editing though! -- Tawker 17:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose per above two votes. I suggest withdrawal as this will potentially get ugly. joturner 17:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Odd nomination, as no reason for requesting adminship is stated. In any case, editor's almost total lack of project space experience suggests he/she is unprepared for the mop at this time. Xoloz 17:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose. Weak simply because kku wouldn't really be abuseful, but just that he doesn't seem to be too involved with en:wiki. --tomf688{talk} 18:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose per Joturner. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not enough interaction with other users TigerShark 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, not enough interaction with other users. Ich habe dein Benutzerkonto auf dem Deutschen Wikipedia mich gar nicht angeschaut, aber es ist nicht nötig, weil bei jeden Wikipedia muß ein Benutzer sich prüfen nur mit den Hilfe von seinen Kontributions zu diesen Wikipedia. O mann, was für ein langes Satz. Ich verstehe, warum Deutsch ein langes und vielwörtiger Sprache zunennt ist. =) JIP | Talk 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose and remove nomination Per reasons above and his answer to the questions do not convince me that he needs to be an administrator. Moe ε 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Nomination reveals little understanding of what adminship on enwiki is about. (And is adminship on dewiki really earnt with a nomination of this nature?) -Splashtalk 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Indeed, this is not a question of experience, since the user is an Admin on the German wp. It's that his level of activity on this wiki does not demonstrate a need for sysop status here. Redux 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per above.—G.He(Talk!) 21:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, I don't even know what this user is asking for, i.e. admin status or is he just trying to make a WP:POINT?. And this is of course quite subjective, but any time I hear anyone say "I believe in facts and reason" I become quite troubled. --Deville (Talk) 21:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose nomination doesn't state why this user would be a good admin. Cynical 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Keep learning and contributing to other namespaces. Afonso Silva 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm not 100% sure what kku is requesting sysop access for, Q1 does not like like sysop tasks -- Tawker 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (mv to oppose after edit count reported, see reason there)
  1. Neutral. I wanted to support you per Howcheng's comment on your first RfA, but your logs show a total of 4 blocks and 4 protect actions in over a year as admin at German wiki. You would do no harm, I am sure, but do you have any need to be an admin here? NoSeptember talk 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning to sup. The candidate has enough experience to be an admin on the German wiki, but has almost no non-article space edits here, and it isn't clear to me that the candidate would need/benefit from adminship here. If the candidate participated a bit in other spaces, I would be support in about a month or so. JoshuaZ 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Changing to support.
  3. Neutral - because the user does not appear to need the admin tools to do anything that he's currently trying to do. I like his edits. - Richardcavell 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Removing redundancy and furthering the small-world network aspects of WP by sensible hyperlinking
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
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: No real conflicts so far. If there were any: I believe in facts and reason.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.