Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ktr101

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] ktr101

Withdrawn by admin Tiptoety talk per WP:SNOW - Final (1/6/0); Ended 19:21, 26 May 2008

Anything that you say will help me become a better editor. Criticism is thus appreciated.

[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: Work that I would do as an administrator would include page cleanup, counselling other users who have made the mistakes that I have made, page protection, new page work, and making sure recent changes are not vandalism. I would also continue the regular routine that I currently do now, which includes all of the above as well as creating pages. I know that I previously was blocked to plagiarizing pages. I was young and naive then. In hindsight, I know now that it wasn't probably the best thing to do at the time. I have since learned how to do citations etc. That is where the counseling part comes from.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia involve the edits that I have made to military pages, those pages being my best subject area. I enjoy creating pages useful to those who might not have knowledge that a particular thing ever existed. If I had to name page topics, they would probably include those on Camp Edwards, the 102nd Fighter Wing, train stations on Cape Cod, and the List of United States Air National Guard Squadrons. If I really am interested in a topic, I am more likely to contribute to it, hence the multitude of pages.
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 have been in edit conflicts before. Usually these involve things that are current events, such as space shuttle flights where everyone is rushing to be the first to contribute an important fact to a page. Some are simple conflicts caused by two different sections being edited at once. Usually I know that I am not editing what someone else is editing so I just refresh the page and edit what I intended on editing. When people are changing correct information that I put in, I usually change it and put a reference from a respectable site onto it so that another editor who might change it knows that I haven't pulled the fact right out of the blue. People have caused me stress before and I usually just take a deep breath, remind myself that the edits are usually in good faith, and correct the information with the right information. I have had one instance where I was insulted on a page. I just reverted the edit and warned the user. I know that insults to the people like that are really immature since they are usually IP addresses registered to my school.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ktr101 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • It looks like the editor is looking for editor review. (Per the nom statement). Tiptoety talk 19:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I just messaged an on-line 'crat about this, just so there would be less drama if this were to be closed quickly. I've of course already voted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support as he seems committed to building an encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - A potential administrator needs at least some experience in admin-related areas. 24 edits to the wikipedia name space just doesn't cut it. This likely indicates lack of policy knowledge and overall experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. With participation in only 2 AfD's, and no other admin related areas, I feel this is a bit premature. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for two reasons. One, as Wisdom89 said, only 25 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, 0 to the Wikipedia talkspace, and also 100 edits to the User Talkspace, which is much below my standards. With a lack of those edits, I can't be sure you know about policy. Also, I'm a little nervous about you nominating the redirect Westover Air Reserve Base for speedy deletion, with the edit summary: "Name change of page makes this irrevanent". Normally, I would be neutral about that, but with the multiple links to the redirect, it should not be deleted. Most of your other edits are great, though, keep up the good work! Soxred93 (u t) 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose first per Wis. No real activity in admin related areas. However, the entirety of your talk page history showed serious problems. Even though it was last year, getting blocked for copyright vios, then doing it again and getting a much longer block shows serious judgment issues. You were also warned again this year for copyright vios, and frankly I'm not sure where there are other issues regarding this, this is just what I see from your talk page. The rest of your talk page is just templates regarding various things you created that are eligible for speedy deletion, or deletion otherwise. This spans several months, so it looks like you simply don't have an understanding of policy regarding what we have in wikipedia. One last thing... RfA should NOT be used as primarily as a forum for feedback. Your brief nom statement doesn't talk about becoming an admin, just about gaining criticism. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, per Gwynand in particular. Rudget (Help?) 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. I am wondering if this is supposed to be an Editor Review? LegoKontribsTalkM 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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.