Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krm500

Add links
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.


Krm500

[edit]

Final (48/21/6); Closed by Bibliomaniac15 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Krm500 (talk · contribs) - I would like to introduce to you Krm500. Krm's first edit was in May of 2006 and he has been editing quite steadily ever since. He is a very large contributer to WP:HOCKEY and can often be found in consensus building discussions, and not once have I seen him lose his cool, despite his participation in highly volatile ones such as the use or non-use of diacritics that often runs rampant through our project. His reaction to these situations have shown me that he has a very cool head and his ability to compromise with people who have completely opposite positions as him, as well as to concede when consensus is against him, shows me that he has the right stuff to be an admin.

His contributions find him mainly working on hockey articles but he also works on many Swedish related pages, can be found creating or helping to push pages and pictures to featured level. He does gnomish type work as well with vandal reverts and other things that help our project keep going. I can't see any reason, why he can't be trusted with the tools and that they will help in his desire to build a better wikipedia. Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank Djsasso, I'm honoured and I accept this nomination. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: To be honest I can't say that I know what I will end up doing if I'm granted the administrative tools. For starters I will participate in processed that I'm familiar with (AIV, IfD) but I will try to get involved in as much as possible so I can gain more experience and find my niche, where I'm most effective and needed. Along with doing what I have been doing so far at Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud over having been continuously active since joining Wikipedia, and with my work at WP:HOCKEY, but I find it hard to think of a single entry that stands out as my best contribution — Hopefully it is yet to come! (I have several projects in the making that I want to get realised)
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: Of course — but I think that I always have tried to resolved disputes with other editors through constructive discussions. The only stress I've experienced has BetacommandBot caused me, which ultimately led to a mental breakdown during an IfD.
Additional question from Malinaccier
4. Do you feel that your lack of experience in the projectspace will disadvantage you as an administrator? What would you do to offset this lack of experience when you become an administrator? (Would you consider post-RfA admin coaching or some other medium to help compensate?)
A. I admit that I haven't actively been partaking in such discussions much, but I feel familiar with all processes and I do not think that it will be to my disadvantage, on the contrary it might be beneficial since I will be damn sure to double check every action I take so that they follow policy and guidelines. To gain experience I would, as previously stated, try to participate in as much work as possible. Also I accepted this nomination knowing that I had several experienced admins that I could ask for guidance.
Additional question from Darkspots
5. I noticed that you've recently warned three IP users for editing the sandbox; none of the IP edits that led to your warnings referred to any real people by name. If you were an admin, under what circumstances would you block users for editing the sandbox?
A. These are the only two incidents I can find ([1] and [2]). The incident in the first link was preceded by two mainspace edits of similar nature which I had observed at recent changes, I decided to warn him for this edit too hoping he would get the message. I wouldn't block anyone for edits only to the sandbox (under normal circumstances). The other case was a simple level one warning since he had made an offensive edit, I also left a welcome message to him.
Followup No, before those there was this sandbox "vandalism" which led to this level 4 final warning from you, three weeks ago. The IP's previous warnings for vandalism had been seven and eight days earlier, and were based on two removals of a maintenance tag. The IP then vandalized an article—simple graffiti—and was blocked for three months.
A. The IP also blanked the article after his gibberish edit. And I consider blanking the Sandbox as vandalism, other users who intend to use it for good purpouse may not be able to edit it since the explanation is removed. Given the history of such edits, the fact that the IP had two warnings that month I left him a level 4 warning, hoping it would stop. Unfortunately it didn't, two following disruptive edits. Even if I had left a level 3 warning the IP would have made enough to get blocked.
Additional questions from Nsk92
6. Suppose you come across an IP address that had engaged in serious vandalism for months and had been warned and blocked several times before, with blocks ranging from 24 hours to two weeks, and with no constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Suppose you see this IP vandalising again. What would you, as an admin, do and what kind of block, if any, would you issue?
A: I would issue a level 3 or level 4 warning, depending on amount of vandalism at the time, given the history of disruptive edits and several blocks. If disruptive edits continued after a final warning I would have no problems with blocking the IP.
Follow-up question: For roughly how long would you block the IP?
A:Depending on the current amount of vandalism, previous blocks, between 24 hours and a week.
7. Please describe, in your own words, the meaning of an indef block. Also, please describe some circumstances when an indef block would be appropriate.
A: A block without a preset end day, used after consensus among admins. Only to be used in extreme cases, for example when someone has managed to harm Wikipedia, with malice.
Optional questions from LAAFan
8: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
A: I would start with asking him why he is doing it.
9:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
A: If only one IP vandalized the same page over and over again I would warn him, and if he continue to vandalize after an eventual final warning I would give him a 24 hour block. No need to protect an article if only one user is involved in the vandalism.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Krm500 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • General comment concerning "lack of experience" at AIV: Really, for a new admin, the rule for WP:AIV is: "If they’ve had a recent level-4 warning, and they vandalized after it recently, block ‘em. If not, leave it for a more experienced admin. After a short while hanging around watching others, you’ll figure it out, and can start using your judgment little by little." For a new admin, that’s it, that’s AIV. The escalation process really takes almost no time to figure out; my concern would be someone who didn’t know, or care, that there was one. If I had reason to think Krm500 was going to wade into the battle guns blazing and taking no prisoners, I’d understand your concern; a clueless cowboy admin at AIV could do a lot of damage. But Krm doesn’t appear to be clueless, and he doesn’t appear to be a cowboy, so I’d be perfectly satisfied to have someone with only 14 AIV reports (as long as they were good reports) help out at AIV. --barneca (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nom. -Djsasso (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Looks like a solid long-time contributor. Although, I recommend being cautious in areas you have little to no experience in if granted the bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tentatively, to keep this from being closed early due to dubious opposes. — CharlotteWebb 10:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Wisdom and Charlotte. naerii 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support candidate has been here for years, loads of civil and clueful dialogue on their talk page, and having read the Opposes I think modesty becomes a nominated candidate - I would worry about a self nom who wasn't sure what they would do with the tools, but this is someone we are persuading to take on some duties that will help the community. ϢereSpielChequers 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per ϢereSpielChequers. Although I certainly wouldn't have minded reading some more detailed question answers. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Communication on talk page is civil and encouraging (though you might want to consider archiving some of the old stuff, ha). Freely admits that he doesn't have vast policy experience at this point, but I think the candidate would be a solid administrative contributor to the areas he concentrates in - he's demonstrated a firm commitment to the HOCKEY area, and I can't see the candidate being anything but responsible with the tools given the amount of time he devotes to that area and his past history of civility and positive collaboration. So the candidate hasn't been admin coached; I don't see that as a negative. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per longtime positive contributions and lack of posts to AN/I. RMHED (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support - need to see more AfD and mediation-type experiences , but I don't think they'll misuse the tools. I'd like to see more ANI work too, but you have time to improve.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Have worked alongside him for several years now, and seen him to be one of the most calm editers I've come across. Without making a big deal of himself, he has continued to improve the project, and time and time again has shown the skill that is necessary as an admin. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. per Charlotte. I'll review contribs and confirm later, but this has the gut feeling of a good one we're letting get away for not necessarily critical reasons. --barneca (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirming my initial instict. Calm, sensible, knows what he's doing, unlikely to get in over his head. --barneca (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. So far, the opposes have been pretty bad IMHO. This is a long time editor with good intentions. Mistakes can be fixed. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Candidate and I've disagreed on a number of points, but he is a thoughtful, able editor who is willing to listen to all viewpoints. From what I can see of the Opposes, they're largely of the fuzzy kind that's poisoned RfA for a long while: what the pluperfect hell does experience in (or achieving) a DYK have to do with whether someone will make a fit admin, and what about it makes having done so a prerequisite without which no one can be fit for the job?  RGTraynor  17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Opposes are either not worrying or cause to support. Good user. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - The opposes don't really worry me, looks like Krm500 would be a net gain to Wikipedia if promoted. — neuro(talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: No hesitation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Why not? II MusLiM HyBRiD II 00:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Good, stable sport-related and article contributions. A benefit to the project --Flewis(talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - The mainly Hockey experience doesn't bother me as most niche interests need a couple administrators anyway. He seems able to be trusted with the tools, especially after his edits and seeing his initial reply to Djsasso's query of nomination. He can learn anything he doesn't already know, the important thing is trust and willingness to learn. --Banime (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems reliable, I have no concerns that tools would be misused. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Rami R 15:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Obviously acting in good faith to improve the project. If that one IfD is the most he's "lost it" in all that time, he'll make a fine admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Is honest. -- how do you turn this on 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I certainly used the wrong approach in disagreeing with some oppose below, but I'm most likely will limit my participation here with a statement, that over knowing Krm500 for quite some time, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin and I trust him to do a great job. Maxim(talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support seems sensible and knows his way around. A net benefit if he gets more tools to use with little probability of abuse. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Candidate is civil and seems reliable. I trust he will not abuse the tools. – Skyezxmessage 06:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Per TimVickers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support see nothing that makes me think they can not be trusted. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per the honest answer to Q1; I have no problems with a prospective admin not knowing what area he will be best suited for. I trust this user's judgment enough in any of the admin areas, and to ask for help whenever he needs it. Does fine work around the project. GlassCobra 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support appears sensible and reliable, not likely to abuse the tools and a solid content-based editor. Not everyone knows exactly what they'll do when they hit the ground - unlike content development, adminship tends to be reactive (responding to a situation) rather than proactive. Orderinchaos 06:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: User knows what an mdash is (see answers), obviously someone how knows that will go far ;) Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - just take your time with stuff you're not familiar with. No reason to presume granting the mop will instantaneously reduce him from a sensible chap to a burbling dolt. fish&karate 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Per my efforts to encourage slightly unusual but trustworthy candidates to step forward for RfA. We need more admins. At its basis, RfA is about "do you trust this user?" I do. And if you are reading this and you are interested in becoming an admin, read the link at the start of this support and drop me a line at my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I note that the candidate has undertaken to resolve the edit summary issue, which was my only concern. The basis on allowing a candidate access to the tools is trust, and there is nothing I can find in this candidates statistics that makes me think they would abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  38. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Per Theoneintraining's idea. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Trustworthy. Five Years 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Giggy (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: A bit limited in scope, but no worries, and he's demonstrated plenty of common sense. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Generally trustworthy, and will avoid areas with which he's not familiar. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Seems trustworthy, and the hockey wikiproject needs him. --Smashvilletalk 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I trust him, he won't abuse the tools, and given the feedback, I'm sure he'll educate himself more about being an admin. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I've mulled over this one for a while. In general, I respect the claims made by opposers below that the candidate might not have enough experience for us to judge his use of the tools. I don't agree with the arguments surrounding AIV counting (really, no offense to RCP or vandal blockers, but AIV is not the hardest part of having the tools)--I think that dealing with obvious vandalism is a slightly mechanical task that a candidate with some discretion can accomplish without error. I do not expect this candidate to use the block button in a case of reported vandalism without first checking to see if it was really vandalism and ensuring that some warnings were given. We have bright-lines at AIV and 3RR to make this very easy but even in the case of determining borderline cases I trust this candidate to make the right choice. In re: the sandbox issue. Just because it isn't a reader facing space doesn't make typing "fuck you" in the sandbox an ok action. I'm not interested in jumping into the somewhat beardy discussion of whether or not an invective without a target is a personal attack. That's academic. It is right to revert it and it is right to warn the user about inserting content and contextless profanity into a space designed for new editors. I'm also not convinced by the "you don't need the tools" arguments. Not every candidate will be likeJPG-GR, where they have already undertaken a job that would be made considerably easier with the tools. Most administrators are just article writers who happen to protect pages or block users. This candidate wants to be just that. We really come back to the basic question of "do we trust this candidate to make the right decisions and ask the right questions". I haven't worked with this candidate personally so I can't judge from direct experience. I can, however, make a guess from looking at the answers to questions and a few of his contributions. I think we can trust this candidate. That is what matters (to me). So I'll support. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Thank you for answering my question. Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support; been mulling it over for a couple days and will be a net positive. RockManQ (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose. This is reluctant. Krm500 is clearly a conscientious editor who has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. However, a dig through the contributions reveals a few things. First, experience is a bit one-sided - I know he's interested in hockey, and that's fine - but that's all there is. Save a few random contribs, virtually every edit is to a hockey article. The candidate is lacking experience in many areas (he admits so here), and I prefer a more well-rounded candidate. Secondly, the candidate's adherence to fundamental Wikipedia policy isn't always apparent, as in his creation of this article without any references. Combined with an edit summary problem and other minor yet apparent issues, I feel this candidate isn't quite ready. I always hate the "come back in three months" statements; most of the time it's arbitrary. In this case, one or two months of concentrated policy-arena experience will show me if he possesses the qualities an administrator needs. Tan | 39 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Candidate openly admits lack of policy, which is a great part to administration. I'd like to see Krm500 become knowledgeable in this area. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think admitting to a lack of knowledge is different from admitting to a lack of experience, which is what I believe he was saying. -Djsasso (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm aware of that. He lacks knowledge of policy. Pretty big concern if he's trying to become admin. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok maybe its just interpretation for me, I don't take that as meaning he lacks the knowledge of the policy, but that he lacks the experience working with it, since he said he lacks experience, not lacks knowledge. Anyways its all good. -Djsasso (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I lack experience working with it, but I know how the processes work and I'd say that I understand Wikipedia's policies and guideline quite well. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reluctant Oppose, see my neutral comment. Ironholds 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose per candidate's user page. Candidate appears to consider improving their userpage more important than writing a featured article. There are too many social networkers on here to take the risk of supporting one for adminship, sorry George The Dragon (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    KRM's user-page is far from elaborate and has only 38 revisions in 2½ years, accounting for less than 0.6% of the total edit count. There isn't much information but it does indicate that he has written a featured list. I don't see any indication that it is used for social networking and the majority of his 6,374 edits are contributions to articles, not chatting it up with other users, so I don't quite understand your oppose. — CharlotteWebb 10:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny you should say that George - you supported my RfA and my user page had several hundred revisions at the time. And it was pretty too. naerii 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was pretty! But it is the fact that improving the user page is, according to the lists on it, given undue weight George The Dragon (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also noticed he added "Make better user page" to his to-do list nine months ago, so I'm inclined to believe it was sarcasm rather than a major priority. — CharlotteWebb 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my user page is of low priority, I rather spend my time improving other areas of Wikipedia then something as useless as my user page. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this oppose absolutely baseless; 51% of Krm500's edits are to the mainspace, while 16% are to his Sandbox, where he builds up new articles. Hardly Myspacer stats. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, lack of policy knowledge evidenced by low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose As per this comment: "To be honest I can't say that I know what I will end up doing if I'm granted the administrative tools." Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so but I'd worry more about those who appear to have a pre-set agenda. — CharlotteWebb 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But is there really such a thing as a “pre-set agenda”? If you consider the notion of cosmic inevitability, could one argue that we are all bundling along the space-time continuum on a predetermined odyssey where our input is little more than rubber stamping that which has already been set long before we emerged from the protective safety of the amniotic fluid ? Though, of course, that leads to new questions of whether this “pre-set agenda” was, indeed, pre-set either by a deity or deities beyond our comprehension or whether this is the handiwork of bored extra-terrestrials who build the pyramids some thousands of years ago, as theorized by Erich Von Daniken (not to be confused with Kerry Von Erich – who, as far I know, never postulated on subjects relating to the space-time continuum). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be lying if I said what I would end up doing with the administrative rights, but I would do my best to get to know them better and see where most work is needed. I think I would be able to put a lot of work into it as well, since it would be a big responsibility I would work hard to prove that I was deserving of them. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lack of work with DYK, GA or FA, little evidence of dispute resolution skills. — Realist2 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has created a Featured List and has helped to push an image to Featured Image status. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, none of those cover DYK, GA or FA though. — Realist2 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just didn't know if you were aware, to me FA = FL and FI. Not sure why those wouldn't be as good but to each their own. No worries. -Djsasso (talk)
    I don't ask for GA's or FA's solely for article writing purposes. I was aware of his FL since I've studied his contributions. Lists don't incorporate the policies I like to see an admin understand via previous application. — Realist2 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely reasonable. :) -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Q1. We don't need admins who don't know what they want to do. America69 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the reality is, we need more admins outright. If Krm500 deletes a fair use image he uploaded that he decided not to use, or made a history merge, that sames time from another admin who wishes to clear backlogs. Even having new article autopatrol decreases administrative backlog. Please consider this. Maxim(talk) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose If you don't know what you'll do with the tools, how can you be prepared to use them? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose without prejudice. Not quite ready yet...I would think a candidate should at least be able to imagine himself using the tools if he were truly ready. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    @ #9 & #10; I intend to use them if this rfa is successful, but I honestly can not say right now exactly what I will be doing, I'll see where the most work is required and start form there. Regards. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understood your reply, you said you would start off with antivandal work, and see what else needed doing as you gained experience. That sounds a very sensible approach to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per Tan's diff (the article creation) and the incident I mentioned in Q#5. I'm not going to support giving the block button to someone who issues a final warning to an IP who edited an article responsibly, then removed a maintenance tag from an article twice, was warned for it three times, and then (a week later) said "fuck you" to the sandbox. I agree with Naerii, who commented in the neutral section, AIV blocking is simple, but it has to be done with attention, and it's one of the two areas of interest indicated in Q#1. And as Ironholds points out, there's not a lot of vandalism fighting here—some earlier stuff (widely dispersed), then less than a hundred user talk warnings using Twinkle, all in the last three weeks—and three of that set of warnings were for "vandalizing" the sandbox. Darkspots (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. So it's now okay to vandalize the sandbox with "fuck you" (willfully disrupting those using it for legitimate test edits)... as long as you don't violate "BLP"?! I guess the policy treadmill never sleeps. — CharlotteWebb 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to say wow as well. A "fuck you" to the sandbox is disruptive editing. That was a legit warning. I doubt there are many admins who would not warn for that. -Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three things:
    • When an editor indicates that he wants the tools because he thinks he could help out at AIV, I am entitled to come up with an idea of what his blocking philosophy is, and base my recommendation on that. My oppose is based on a demonstrated lack of policy knowledge and a gut feeling that this editor has a blocking philosophy that I find unacceptable. I also saw a ton of level 3 warnings as the first warning an IP received, before Krm500 started using Twinkle. Opposing based on blocking philosophy is legitimate. Full stop.
    • Here's an admin who could not disagree with you more: [3]. So there's at least one admin who feels that the sandbox is designed to be a space where people are allowed to do pretty much whatever they feel like. Wonder if there are other people besides Nat and me who feel that our stated policy about the sandbox is reasonable, since that's what it says? BTW, I believe the blocking admin in my link thought the user was actually trying to disrupt the sandbox, repeated edits over time. Not a Level 4 for the first edit in a week (to the sandbox), folks. And the admin in my example was still told not to block for sandbox edits.
    • Common sense. We tell vandals to go "experiment" in the sandbox. Then we tell them we don't like the way they're "experimenting", here's your level 3 or level 4 warning. That's exactly what Krm500 did here. We're not trying to mold young minds here, or ask for good behavior where it's not necessary for the good of the encyclopedia. Blocking is primarily a tool to keep the main articles of the encyclopedia clear of libel and vandalism, and secondarily (and much more arguably) to create a good environment for editors to work in. Not to keep the sandbox clear of obscene remarks, not in my opinion.
    I approached this with an open mind; I want more admins; I regret having to oppose. I don't see an editor here that I trust with the block button. Darkspots (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are more than able to oppose for any reason you see fit, If you took my remarks to mean you couldn't I do appologize, but at the same time we are more than able to call you out for those oppose reasons. There actually was a conversation just the other day at AIV about how long to consider the warnings for IP accounts and general concensus seemed to be about 3 weeks. So the fact he escalated the warning to a level 4 after a week doesn't seem out of wack with what people think. Experiment and attack in the sandbox are two different things, an edit attacking someone is not valuable whether its in the sandbox or not. I think one of the biggest jobs of an admin is to stop wikipedia from becoming a poisoned work environment, and I would say warning people not to attack in the sandbox helps with that. Note, I never said block. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, when you use the term "legit" it makes it seem like my oppose is "not legit". And you're dead wrong from a policy point of view. Those warnings were not "legit" because they directly contradict policy: Wikipedia:About the sandbox. Not one of these three warnings was for any sort of "attack". None of the reverted edits had any obvious target whatsoever; although they were highly offensive, admins need to block with a cool head. Look, RfA opposes that rely on an analysis of contributions use analogy. We look at a CSD admin nominee based on {{db}} use. AIV is the same way, we make the assumption that bad warnings = bad blocks if we promote. We might be wrong, but what else can we judge by? I very quickly found three warnings I disagreed with out of approximately a hundred. I asked the editor about them in a question, because I don't want to rush into anything. The editor didn't say any one of a number of things I would have been happy to hear—one of those being any understanding of sandbox policy and custom.that's unfair. still didn't like the answer though And the editor was unaware that he had issued a final warning for a sandbox edit that led immediately to a three-month block, about three weeks before. Darkspots (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree then. "fuck you" in my books is an attack. And we can't really fault him for someone later being blocked by a different admin. If anything an admin later blocking seems to be support of their warnings as admin should be checking the users edits before blocking. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An attack on whom, in this particular case? Free-floating anger isn't covered by WP:NPA. And I follow up when I give level 3 and 4 warnings, don't you? Darkspots (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose for inconsistent use of Edit Summary and answer to Q1. No need to wait three months--come back next week with a good idea of what admin work you plan to do and a solid use of Edit Summaries, and I'll gladly support. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence to your opinion, but I would suggest the candidate does not come back next week. A lot of people will oppose based on that alone next time (I wouldn't personally, but just letting you know). I think at least a couple of months will satisfy most people. -- how do you turn this on 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right--many would oppose for just that reason, which is why I pointed out that I, like you, wouldn't oppose. The two issues I mentioned can be fixed by the candidate quickly, and once fixed he'll have my support regardless of the delay till next nomination. Owen× ☎ 16:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Concerned that the candidate does not have sufficient experience in areas that they feel most experienced in and which they intend to target. Specifically AIV where the candidate has only posted 14 times, which does not give sufficient exposure to the escalation process for me to be confident in their knowledge. TigerShark (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Not experienced enough for me to trust with the tools. Certainly no prejudice for future attempts (after a bit of work in areas that demonstrate a good understanding of policy). Steven Walling (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In consideration of some of the other oppose rationales based on experience, I'd like to clarify what I mean. I do not mean that I am opposing because the candidate has not yet created content that is recognized as DYK, GA, or FA. I mean that the candidate has not yet edited enough in areas related to the application of policy (the job of an administrator) for me to feel comfortable trusting them to do so. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Not ready yet. As our warning templates ask editors to conduct further testing in the WP:SANDBOX, it is both counter productive and confusing to vandal warn them for doing so. (While my struck comment is generally true, the vandal in question was more long term, with an established pattern of returning to vandalize after each set of warnings. It was reasonable to assume this was the same person who had already seen multi warnings.) (Unstruck earlier strike out per Darkspots) Also, it's usually best to start with a a level one warning and work up. I do urge the candidate to gain more experience all the way around. I don't see FA's, GA's and DYK's as essential to adminship, though. They do not anymore guarantee readiness for adminship than anything else. And the candidate should please wait at least 3 months before trying again. The community usually needs that much time for a new assessment. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Not enough experience yet shown by actions elicited by sandbox question/response. I think you'll be ready in a couple of months. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose; sorry, not enough demonstrated understanding of the policies, yet, and a few incidents which make me think his judgment needs refining (the sandbox warnings stand especially out). — Coren (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose per unclear admin intentions. Try to find some work at WP:XFD, WP:AIV etc. and come back in a few months. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose. As a rule I am not opposed to prospective admins who don't have much of an admin plan in Q1. I guess I don't see why candidates looking to be admins should be required to state that they mostly only want to partake in admin work. Qualified users who pitch in and use the tools only infrequently must surely be better than qualified users denied the tools who won't ever use them, no? But this user's unacceptably low frequency of edit summary, coupled with their shallow breadth of experience in the namespace and in subjects alien to hockey ... branch out a bit and come back in a few months. Ford MF (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Oppose I have an over all general positive feeling for the candidate, but would like to see more policy knowledge and proof of expertise. While I like to see niche candidates, I prefer to see niche characters in back of the house areas, not in the article space. Krm will be a fine admin, after gaining some experience elsewhere... He's a candidate that would benefit from some coaching---definite clue, just needs help rounding the edges ---and if he's interested, I'm available.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm sorry, but I genuinely believe that another couple of months will help. I'm of the opinion that at the moment you are likely to be more harm than help with admin buttons, but also of the opinion that you can quickly demonstrate a new understanding and prove it through your edits. Not at the moment, but please prove the opposers wrong in the next few weeks. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - While I do not wish to pile on, I must agree with what has been said above. Try again in a few months! :) Tiptoety talk 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  • Neutral, switched to oppose: I've verging on support, but little things like an iffy edit summary usage and short answers to the questions are staying my hand a bit. I'll probably reconsider and come out with support later on unless anything major comes up. Ironholds 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I can be sloppy with edit summary, I will work on improving that irrespective of how this rfa turns out. Regarding the questions, please ask additional questions if there is anything in particular you (or anyone else) want to know, I'll be happy to answer them. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. Per the opposes I'll be staying still for the moment, but I like to keep my eye on RfA's I've participated in, so we'll see if something changes my mind. Ironholds 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belay that order, captain, i'm switching to oppose, i'm afraid. As well as the smaller iffy stuff and the diffs tan provided you're going to contribute to areas you're experienced in, like AIV, where you have.. 14 reports? In two and a half years? Ironholds 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though - reporting to AIV isn't a difficult task that requires judgement, and blocking vandals that are posted there is about as difficult as ... oh I dunno, something really easy, like eating biscuits or .. drawing pictures of stick men. I'd expect my eight year old niece to be able to block vandals. Is a high edit count at AIV really correlated to some kind of enhanced judgement regarding vandals? Is enhanced judgement really needed to know when to block someone who keeps replacing pages with 'i like techno'? naerii 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has their own reasons for opposing so I am not trying to convince you to switch, but it kind of amuses me as I have been here since 2004 and have less AIV reports than him (though for most of the last year I have been an admin so I don't need to report, I can just do). I think lack of AIV reports indicates more that he gets to vandals at the 1st warning more often than the 4th warning. Atleast that was the case with me. -Djsasso (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. Not compelling answers. I would also like to see evidence of a good understanding of policies & guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could ask him a difficult question about policy? (please not what's the difference between a block vs ban though, that's getting pretty old) :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Seems like a good contributor, but the lack of admin work concerns me.--LAAFansign review 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - good editor, but not well-rounded enough to be an admin. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
  4. Neutral - Sensible, but so-so question answers and what seems to be a questionable understanding and experience in admin work raise concerns. Still, I doubt he would misuse the tools. It's mostly the apparent lack of total and complete understanding. Also, I wouldn't count an edit to the sandbox vandalism, even if it did appear to be bad faith. Better the sandbox than an article. IceUnshattered [ t ] 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Per this discussion on the user's talk page - I am a little concerned with the user's approach to WP:BLP and I believe that it merits consideration. Not opposing because I feel that it would be biased, but I do feel that it's important for people to know and come to their own interpretations/conclusions. Cheers, CP 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 'Neutral no major reason to oppose, but not enough experience to support. iMatthew (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Krm500&oldid=1148680734"