Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kakofonous: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Splash (talk | contribs)
33,425 edits
→‎Kakofonous: rm questions requiring nothing but policy regurgitation, and a long series which are non-specific to this candidate and are merely trial-by-ordeal
KojiDude (talk | contribs)
4,928 edits
if you're remving questions, you might as well finish the job
Line 34: Line 34:
: In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with [[Wikipedia:Adminstrators|adminship]], could you describe/summarise:
: In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with [[Wikipedia:Adminstrators|adminship]], could you describe/summarise:


:*'''8.''' How does one determine [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]? And how may it be determined differently on a [[WP:TALK|talk page]] discussion, an [[WP:XFD]] discussion, a [[WP:DRV]] discussion, and an [[WP:RM]] discussion.
:*'''5.''' How does one determine [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]? And how may it be determined differently on a [[WP:TALK|talk page]] discussion, an [[WP:XFD]] discussion, a [[WP:DRV]] discussion, and an [[WP:RM]] discussion.
::*'''A:''' Consensus is determined by thoughtful analysis of each comment made in a discussion, developing an interpretation of the general opinion on a particular issue, and acting accordingly. I see no fundamental difference between determining consensus in each variety of discussion, except the governing policies/guidelines for the area in question.
::*'''A:''' Consensus is determined by thoughtful analysis of each comment made in a discussion, developing an interpretation of the general opinion on a particular issue, and acting accordingly. I see no fundamental difference between determining consensus in each variety of discussion, except the governing policies/guidelines for the area in question.


:*'''9.''' User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
:*'''6.''' User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
::*'''A:''' First, read the page and its history, determining which piece(s) of information is/are disputed or favored between the two editors. I would then contact the editors involved, reminding them of 3RR and inviting them to discuss on the talk page (assuming they have not already) what is disputed and their reasons for asserting that their version is correct. If this method is not successful and the edit warring continues, I would either protect the page or block the editors for 3RR violation. After the blocks or protection end, I would continue to monitor the situation; if it does not improve, I would ask for a third opinion or move higher on the dispute resolution ladder.
::*'''A:''' First, read the page and its history, determining which piece(s) of information is/are disputed or favored between the two editors. I would then contact the editors involved, reminding them of 3RR and inviting them to discuss on the talk page (assuming they have not already) what is disputed and their reasons for asserting that their version is correct. If this method is not successful and the edit warring continues, I would either protect the page or block the editors for 3RR violation. After the blocks or protection end, I would continue to monitor the situation; if it does not improve, I would ask for a third opinion or move higher on the dispute resolution ladder.


Revision as of 00:44, 5 May 2008

Kakofonous

Voice your opinion (talk page) (48/3/0); Scheduled to end 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kakofonous (talk · contribs) - I have been observing Kakofonous' excellent work since some time around the start of this year, I think. It has been a while. I've seen him/her/it (let's just say "him") grow to be a thoroughly competent editor, who will only be better as an administrator.

Kakofonous has worked on a stack of articles, including some GAs and DYKs, as shown at User:Kakofonous/Contributions. The area where he and I have interacted most, though, has been around GAN, where he has done outstanding work in reviewing and generally helping out. He also partakes in project discussions, and demonstrates a good knowledge of our policies, guidelines, and unwritten laws.

In the spirit of no big deal, I ask the community to entrust the tools to someone who isn't going to smash 1000 vandals, delete 1000 nonsense pages, or protect 1000 pages. I ask them to give the tools to a trustworthy user who will use them, as he needs them, to improve the enyclopedia. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakofonous (talk • contribs)


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: As DHMO said above, not really a lot. Perhaps occasionally blocking a blatant vandal, however, I was a much more enthusiastic vandal fighter a couple months ago, but found it more interesting to write than revert. Other possible areas include RFPP and uncontroversial {{editprotected}} requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The best contribution so far is Gilberto Gil, currently a GA and at FAC. Ironically, the close second is Gosford Park, a project I began working on as an IP last month, when I had ended my editing by technical means.
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 involved with editing conflicts before, mostly related to my GA nominees. A messy situation on Daara J led to my "retirement". I soon realized that I enjoyed editing Wikipedia too much to give it up and discussed the issue, which turned out to be a massively overblown miscommunication, on my IP address's talk page with the other editor involved; we now edit productively in collaboration with each other. My responses to future issues will be more reasoned, having dealt with one before.
I am totally baffled by your characterization of the editing of the Daara J article as "messy". I have read the entire edit history, all the diffs, and the talk page. What was "messy"? What was so upsetting that you ostensibly retired? Please understand, I'm not doubting you, I'm just confused. What did I miss?Unschool (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "messy" situation was a mutual misunderstanding between me and Realist2, the editor reviewing the article's good article nomination. When we discussed the issue later, it became apparent that there had been this misunderstanding, which was eventually resolved. Specifically, Realist2 took offense at a comment I made about possibly getting a second opinion on the article's GA nom. He had done an extraordinary amount of work on it, and I wanted to get a different view from a third party; Realist2 interpreted this comment as "slapping him in the face". I became a bit exasperated trying to explain the issue, and decided to leave. Once we had taken a look at this situation later, we were able to put it behind us.--Kakofonous (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from MBisanz:

4. According to your edit history, you didn't edit during the month of April 2008. I will be supporting on the basis of your overall history, but was wondering if you could shed some light on this absence.
A: This was a technically-enforced wikibreak/retirement that I placed on my account to ensure that I didn't edit, in response to the situation above and a general "Wikipedia is taking over my life, need to slow down bit" feeling. (Of course, even that wasn't entirely successful…) --Kakofonous (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does say this on his userpage. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:
  • A: Consensus is determined by thoughtful analysis of each comment made in a discussion, developing an interpretation of the general opinion on a particular issue, and acting accordingly. I see no fundamental difference between determining consensus in each variety of discussion, except the governing policies/guidelines for the area in question.
  • 6. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First, read the page and its history, determining which piece(s) of information is/are disputed or favored between the two editors. I would then contact the editors involved, reminding them of 3RR and inviting them to discuss on the talk page (assuming they have not already) what is disputed and their reasons for asserting that their version is correct. If this method is not successful and the edit warring continues, I would either protect the page or block the editors for 3RR violation. After the blocks or protection end, I would continue to monitor the situation; if it does not improve, I would ask for a third opinion or move higher on the dispute resolution ladder.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Q4 seems a bit strange. It's almost as though RFA represents some sort of confirmation process, where a temp is being interviewed for a permanent position. Let us all remember that all of us here are volunteers, sparing our free time to help the project. Any time spared by an editor should be seen as a bonus, rather than an obligation. People have real life obligations such as family, work, and other interests. RFA should not be an interrogation, teasing out every minor facet of the candidate's personal life. Not that I am advocating promoting once-a-month editors at RFA. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to confuse, I don't care about Kako's personal life and would be satisfied with an answer of "I was busy", but it just looked odd so I decided to ask. I'll still be supporting even if he doesn't answer. MBisanz talk 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, and when do we arbitrarily move discussions? I totally disagree with this. ShoesssS Talk 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Nom. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Naerii 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support BoL (Talk) 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like the honest answer to question 1. Trust the candidate and the nominator. Acalamari 02:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Looks like a reasonable person. So why not! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I love the answer to Q1. The way that Q1 was answered makes me believe that this user won't abuse the tools and will only use them when needed. Kakofonous has done great work on GA's and writing articles in general. Good luck! Razorflame 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No problems here. Good article writer with the experience of anti-vandal work. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Support. Good editor, going to be an even better admin. No abuse, and this user gets along with almost everybody! Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sure - Tiptoety talk 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Trustworthy editor and giving me no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. No reason to think he'd abuse the tools in any way. Spinach Dip 03:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support We need more admins who work on articles. --SharkfaceT/C 04:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I trust Water's opinion and I appreciate the honest answer to Q1. I also really liked this editBalloonman (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Well the old Wisdom89 would say.."hey, this guys meets my balance criteria!" (And he does, there's versatility) However, per Sharkface, we need more article building administrators. I also trust, highly, DMHO. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should use the "balance" phrase in my noms from now on! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking through the contribs of a few sysops I admire this afternoon and was shocked to see that many of them who previously did almost entirely article building work now spent just about 100% of their time now to AFD, AIV, Admin's Noticeboard, RFA, etc. It's pretty sad, because this project desperately needs more article builders. That's how we got here in the first place. --SharkfaceT/C 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that (and I'm very glad to hear you saying that, come to think of it...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, saying that doesn't mean much. Doing that means a lot more. --SharkfaceT/C 04:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Looks good here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Everything checks out. I'm a big supporter of mainspace contribs, so even though this editor doesn't have a boatload of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, I'm going to green light this one. Useight (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I haven't had any experience with this editor before but his history looks excellent, nothing that would throw up any red flags for me. Also I trust DMHO as the nominator. Trusilver 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as a good article contributor with no blocks. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support He might not really need the tools, but we can certainly trust them. Five Years 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Unlikely to abuse tools in the rare occasion he actually uses them per q.1 Its not a big deal and its not one with me. Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Net Positive - Of course. Clearly trustable, policy and process knowledge demonstrated from contributions, clean talk and user page etc. If Kakofonous uses the tools but once a year then that saves another admin having to do it. Let's remember they don't rust and we have an infinite supply of them to hand out. Pedro :  Chat  08:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Why the hell not? asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 08:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Trust DHMO nom, otherwise excellent. Rudget (Help?) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - plenty evidence 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, you were nommed by DHMO for god's sake. And I see no reason to oppose, anyway :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support yep. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Yep, this one's dedicated enough. MBisanz talk 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - not one already? Sceptre (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support TimBuck2 (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. per nom seems to be unlikely to abuse the tools, delete the main page, etc. Dlohcierekim 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks trustworthy to me. --CapitalR (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: I can trust the user, therefore I have no reason not to support...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support only positive effects from this user, can trust we'll receive only positive effect as a sysop. Gnangarra 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I feel like that is focus on Wikipedia is to the point. I'd rather have an admin who actually contributes to articles instead of just refreshing his watchlist to try and catch vandals and wrongdoers. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good WP:GAN work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Wants to continue writing/editing; appears trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support-JodyB talk 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Good balance as others have pointed out, dedicated, and nothing to indicate abuse will occur. κaτaʟavenoTC 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, someone I feel can be trusted. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support trustworthy, and a great editor. SpencerT♦C 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- per Wisdom89, we need more article building admins...unlikely to abuse tools...Good luck!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Dug through candidates contributions, read opposition !votes, made a frown face and thought for a minute, and concluded that I trust this candidate. Tan | 39 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I could care less about your lack of admin-y related experiance and what Wikipedia needs is more of these types of admins. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: Shows an understanding of policy and would not abuse the tools. Paradoxsociety (review) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Fits my only criteria of adminship: would not abuse or seriously misuse (accident or otherwise) the tools. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per WP:TROUT. Candidate seems well-suited to the role of editor-admin. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I've gathered from your contribs (and answer to Q1) that aside from reporting the occasional vandal to WP:AIV (which is usually taken care of in anywhere from 10 seconds to five minutes), you don't really plan to do anything with the tools. You do good with GA and FA and what-not, but you don't really do anything... well... "admin-y", and aperently don't plan to. I just don't think adminship is the right way to go for you. In this case, it's given as a suped-up barnstar. Also, some of the support seem like WP:POINT to me, and not a comment on yourself. I might change my mind though, depending on how you answer the other questions.--KojiDude (Contributions) 06:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AAAD includes "doesn't need the tools" as a reason to NOT oppose an RFA. IMO, any person who becomes an Admin and doesn't abuse the tools is a net gain for Wikipedia. Even if Kakofonous only blocks one vandal, or protects one high-traffic page, isn't that a net GAIN for Wiki?
    Refusing to make this user an Admin does not create another, better Admin somewhere else on Wikipedia.
    Spinach Dip 06:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should make it a policy that we will desysop and ban people who have less than 2,000 edits to AIV... —Dark talk 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noooo, I only have 42! Useight (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Recall that this is an essay... not a guideline.Balloonman (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, WP:AAAD shouldn't be treated as policy. Even so, the argument raised in that essay (that "If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.") is still a valid argument. Without evaluating this particular candidate's contribs, having experience in admin-related work and processes certainly helps a new admin "do the right thing".--Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not needing the tools is no reason to oppose, as mentioned above. If you can trust the user, support. I am going to place a support !vote now...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose – I am in full agreement that the tools are no big deal. However, I do want to see someone with a little more that 4 months experience with Wikipedia as shown here [1]. If we start to use the standards that after four months; “…I trust the individual with the tools”. Why not give the administrative tools to all editors say after three months of no complaints by other editors. In addition, don’t we want the individuals applying for the administrative tools to have some experience in other areas? Like administrative? I do not see that with this candidate. Is this reflection of the candidate’s ability or knowledge to use the extra buttons? Of course not! Is this a question of the individual’s competency? Yes! Four months is to short a time to judge the individuals character. Sorry. ShoesssS Talk 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose With all due respect to DMHO, I can not support a candidate who has only four months experience as an editor. ArcAngel (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kakofonous&oldid=210220172"