User:Kim Bruning/rfatest

Kim Bruning
[ Come and participate]

- I am a great candidate! :-P --Kim Bruning 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

No, I absolutely decline, but this is a test, so pretend I said yes. :-)

I'm running a test. Please ask me questions in the discuss section, where you'd normally oppose.

Since a discuss is less of a big deal than an oppose, you should feel less worried about starting a discussion first.

My objective is to try and get you to archive the discussion and let me pass. Your objective is to do so only once you are convinced I'd be a decent admin.

If you really really think I am a paragorn of sainthood, and really don't have the slightest issue with me, you can also pass me right away, but I wouldn't reccomend it. :-P

This user was instrumental in protecting Wikipedia from the attacks of those that would attack it, and by doing actions worthy of trust for handling the tools, Kim has shown that she can handle the tools, especially against those that would attack Wikipedia. Grace notes T &#167; 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Co-nomination by Gracenotes

Pass (3 passes)

 * 1) I've been bribed I support Kim because of the reasons expressed in my nom; meets my critera.  Grace notes T  &#167; 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) habj 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) objection met satisfactory
 * 3) Yay HOW HE NOT ALREADY ADMIN? Answered my question too. -- Wizardman  02:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss (2 discussions pending)
The section previously known as oppose

Candidate: you must address and pass the majority of the requests to discuss, before a bureaucrat will give you the admin flag. ''Users making requests to discuss: please keep criticism constructive and polite. Once you have decided to pass, please /archive your discussion, and leave your signature under the pass heading above.''

request for response by geni

 * Please outline where you think fair use is justifiable and why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs).
 * Seeing the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Fair use, I think I'm going to plead the 5th on this one. ;-) --Kim Bruning 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the systax on the whitelist and what it does?Geni
 * Took me a second of headscratching. Each line is a sequence of regular expression fragments, using '/' as a separator. If all fragments on one line match, then links to that site are permitted on wikipedia. --Kim Bruning 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

request for response by AnonEMouse

 * So: What makes you qualified to be an Admin? Why do you want to be an Admin? And what would you do with the Ole Mop N Flamethower (pat pending)? Oh, and while I'm at it, what do you think of WP:1FA? -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been an admin before and did a good job back then, with few complaints, and most complaints that there were were contested by others. I don't want to be an admin, because being an admin is hard work, depressing, and there's no reward. You only get yelled at for making mistakes. But that said, many people will specifically promote those who don't want the job. Life sucks that way :-P
 * I occaisionally used the mop to tidy up pages or help with backlogs. The flamethrower is used by proximity, as in you would be amazed how polite people get when they are in the proximity of a flamethrower. Consequently you almost never actually need to use it for the purpose advertised in the glossy brochure. Instead, you can just prop it up against the wall as a kind of magical "politeness field generator", and as such, it's great for mediating between parties in a dispute. [1]
 * I have contributed to featured articles, but haven't written any on my own (too many disputing parties dragging me into mediatons, is my excuse in this case :-P ). Not many people have, in fact. So I'm sort of torn on that one. --Kim Bruning 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * [1] In fact, it turns out that "politeness field generators" will still work if people only think you have one. Mine was just gathering dust, so I turned mine in one fine day, and, somewhat surprisingly, no one even noticed the difference!


 * I find PFG to be generated more by politeness on my part, rather than implied threats, actually. :-(. Who do you consider got more politeness (when they were both editing) - Phaedriel or Kelly Martin? Anyway, specifics as to what you did or plan to do? Especially since you claim the Phantom PFG is equally effective? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, politeness is the means that will actually get the job done. It isn't called a politeness field generator for nothing. PFG is a means to achieve another means, not an end unto itself. :-) At any rate, I shan't be needing it much, since generally just being polite myself works just fine, 95% of the time. (but you did ask what I used ye olde flamethrower for, besides gathering dust ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now we're just drifting. Anyway, can you tell me what of the many areas of adminship desperately needing your firm but gentle hand shall be fortunate enough to be graced with it first? What do you plan to do as an admin, eh? If you say "the same things I did before" can you provide a few links, prithee? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one of the few question which I can't actually give a straight answer to in this case, because of course in reality I don't actually aim to be an admin anymore :-). Imagine I inserted lots of text here about risking RSI by doing hundreds of deletions from AFD and CSD every day, and politely answering the many DRVs and RFCs per day that that causes. I'd also banninate every single vandal and spammer singlehandedly, as well as revert at least 500 vandalisms per day using Henna's VandalFighter. :-P --Kim Bruning 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

request for response by Carcharoth

 * How long are you prepared to wait for this RfA to end? And have you been doing productive work on the encyclopedia while waiting? :-) Carcharoth 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular RFA doesn't have a set ending time. Normally you'd want a person to meet an 80% questions-passed threshold. That's one of the nice properties: it seamlessly blends editor review into requests for adminship. :-)
 * Have I been working? Hmmm, I guess so --Kim Bruning 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)