Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chrislk02


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Chrislk02
Final (15/17/16) Ended 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

– I would like to nominate Chrislk02 because he is a phenomenal Wikipedian and vandal patroller. He is courteous and helpful (his user page just exudes helpfulness) and seems to handle all situations admirably. He lives on here (member since April, 2006) and seems to know policy very well indeed. He is a member of many projects and is very knowledgeable in many areas, to boot. On top of this, two of the articles he created made their way to the "Did You Know?" section of the main page.

I am playing down his VP and NP duties, but just check his contribs and you will find he follows policy to the letter and would benefit from the extra tools to get the job done quick. Also contributes to AfDs, and is not averse to reforming opinion given new information or upon further reflection – debating the facts along the way.

This may be my first nomination, but they won't get any better than this one. Bubba hotep 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nominated by User:Gdk411

All I would like to say is that he has fought vandalism more than anyone that I know on Wikipedia. He has helped me and many other Wikipedians. He deserves Adminship more than anyone.Grayson d. k. 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination.

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I would anticipate being the most help with WP:AIV. I am often on in the early mornings to late afternoons and very often run into WP:AIV backlog because there appears to be few administrators watching the page.  I believe that I could be an asset to Wikipedia by being on Vandal patrol during these time.  But, I think it is important to note that watching WP:AIV does not mean blocking everybody that is reported.  When on anti-vandal patrol, I always make a point to always give an appropriate number of warnings, and sometimes extra if I feel that the edits are not malicious.  When on anti-vandal patrol, I mostly patrol anon edits.  I ,having my degree in Information Science, understand that IP address can very often repressent a large group of people and extra criteria should be taken into effect when blocking edits from anons.  However, I would not limit my tasks to vandal patrol.  I, also partake in new page patrol and marking pages for speedy deletion and so I would also assist with CAT:CSD.  In all honesty, my strong points are anti vandalism and new page patrol.  However, I am an overachiever and find fufillment in being a well rounded individual.  Other areas that I have started dabbling in are WP:DYK and recently I ran into WP:AN3 which appears to have a backlog that could use some assistance.  I belive that I could be fair in evaluating administrator notices for violations of the WP:3RR and imposing appropriate blocks. All of that being said, I would anticipate any tasks that I may or may not be currently aware of that could enhance overall enhance Wikipedia.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: The articles that I am most pleased with are Joint Expedition Against Franklin, and my additions to the article on Franklin, Virginia. For these articles I actually went to the library, checked out books, read them, did the research and then put them in an article.  Other articles that I am particulary proud of are USS Hunchback and Cessna 165  Now, Everywhere I see a book, or a magazine, I see it as a source for a Wikipedia article.  I have recently started in the template space, especially associated with WP:AIRCRAFT.  On the note of WP:AIRCRAFT, I have started working on that projects project pages, with categories and templates, trying to make the sections more informative and usefull.  With a strong background in programming, I am enjoying creating templates and working on improving my template creating skills.  However, I think that fun is important too so ,on a Slightly more humorous note, I think I have added some excellent questions to WP:HOLICTEST, not to give myself a better score (considering I am outside of the top 20) but because I thought that the behaviours exhibited were the behavior of somebody dedicated to Wikipedia (Yes, My girlfriend has asked if Wikipedia meant more to me than her.).


 * 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: I think edit conflicts are kind of silly. I am always very appreciative of other editors edits to articles that I have created or contributed significant amounts of content too. I understand that there are 2 sides to every story and that it takes 2 people to have an editing conflict.  I try to look at things through other peoples eyes and understand where they are coming from.    That being said, the biggest conflict I have been in was really another user making a personal attack on me for creating the article on the USS Hunchback.  I believe that I handled the situation humorously and appropriatley.  I actually have the conversation at the top of my Talk Page just because I personally thought it was well handled.  When it comes to stress, well, I dont believe that it serves that great a purpose.  I am a firm believer that there is somebody greater than me out there and who is in control of my life.  I just live my life to the best of my abilities.  I believe that stress from anything, including Wikipedia, will not enhance my life and is really serves no purpose, especially for stuff that is out of my control.


 * General comments


 * See Chrislk02's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Discussion



Support Oppose
 * 1) Support as nominator, of course. Bubba hotep 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support great vandal fighter. Good luck. -- Majorly 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Supportas co-nominator.Grayson d. k. 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This RfA might have been a little bit premature, but I've witnessed this user's good work far too many times to refrain from supporting just because of a temporal sine qua non. Good answers, denote knowledge of Wikipedia's areas where he's willing to collaborate with the admin tools. I don't really expect him to run amok if promoted. If this RfA fails, I hope that Chris will not be discouraged and may continue with such excellent work in order try again in a couple of months.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Helps to beat back the ever rising tide of vandalism. Avoids edit conflicts. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I count at leats 5,000 edits this month alone, I don't really care how few months he has spent on wikipedia, he has obviously spent many hours on here. I have many months in wikipedia, and have done knowhere near as much for wikipedia. Dolive21 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Chrislk02 is a good editor and diligent vandal fighter. His activity might only have reached the current hights in the last two months, but evenso I believe (and have the gut feeling) that he would make a great administrator. Charon X /talk 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC8)
 * 8) Strong Support: If I read one more comment about "He'll make a great candidate in another couple of months" I'll scream. Wikipedia needs admins outside America that can deal with vandalism while most of our present admins are either sleeping or at work. Just because someone has been here for 2 or 3 months doesn't always read that they haven't studied policies and guidelines too. There are also admins that have been promoted with less experience and less time on the project. For this reason I see no reason at all to refuse. Kind Regards -  Heligoland   |   Talk  |   Contribs  16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The combination of a dedicated vandal-fighter and a contributor of meaningful content in mainspace is always good to see and I have no qualms that the candidate would misuse the tools. The concerns expressed below about needing a bit more experience are reasonable and frankly this RfA probably will not be successful, but if that is the case I hope the candidate can build on his good record in the future and return here in due course. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support. An absolutely fantastic Wikipedian who has already done a lot of great things for our encyclopedia, despite only being here for two months. I personally loved his responses to the questions; they were honest and well thought out. Objections raised below seem weak as well. I would be doing him an injustice if I did not vote support, even if he could benefit from a couple months more experience. —Lantoka ( talk 06:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, seems to know his way around vandal fighting, and doesn't seem to be a sullen killjoy. Would make a good admin, I think.  Lankiveil 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 12) Support Is new but could use a mop well. Sharkface217 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) While you are a relatively new user your hard work is very much appreciated and your mainspace makes up for it. If this adminship run fails please do not lose hope, you are a very good user and deserve this honor.__ Seadog ♪ 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems completely trustworthy to me. --  P.B. Pilh e  t  /  Talk  04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose WAY too new and per Image:Cessna 165.jpg. Candidate has less than tow months active participation. - crz crztalk 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Woh! Seven minutes! A snap decision! ;) Bubba hotep 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And did you really need to do this so quickly? Bubba hotep 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses Bubba. That first comment was neither nice nor useful and I fail to see what's wrong with that diff. Charon X /talk 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I will bite my lip. Just asking for due consideration that's all. Bubba hotep 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is ok! Thanks for the defence bubba! When it comes down to it I believed the image to be fair use. I have disputed it om the image talk page. I know the policy regarding fair use WP:FU and took that into account before uploading the image. If it is still believed that it is not fair use, I have no problem removing the image! Thank you for bringing it to my attention! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I don't mean to be un-nice and useless... I am just a little blunt. What I mean to say is, Chris is fails my time requirements by a lot (active participation since Oct. 10) and the image shows that he is not up to date on changes in fair use policy. Image use and deletion policy is on the reading list for admin candidates, and IMO he clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of replaceable fair use. - crz crztalk 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is ok, stuff like that, for somebody with an RFA, you should be un-nice! It def does not fall under WP:BITE and i did not take it as uncivil.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT -- Time spent should not alone be a reason to oppose. Check his merit in terms of how good his edits are, how good he is with the community, how well he seems to know the rules, etc. 170.215.83.4 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And why can't time spent be a reason to oppose? Sometimes, the amount of time spent is simply not enough to show someone will be a good admin candidate. -Amarkov blahedits 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Seems like a great candidate for adminship in 2-3 months. However, since he's only been active since last month, I have to oppose at this time. Keep up the good work, though. It looks like you're on the right track! SuperMachine 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This is not vandalism. It may very well be wrong, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it such is a slap in the face to the person who added it. 4 WP talk edits is bad, too. -Amarkov blahedits 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the |history of the article in question and it seems that User:207.54.102.45 has already blatantly vandalized that article earlier that day, then proceeded to add dubious and unsourced content. Charon X /talk 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If he has that rationale, it's even worse. People who vandalize once don't automatically cause subsequent edits to be vandalism. A user who thinks that is bad enough, without having the power to actually block. -Amarkov blahedits 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose- Too new, not enough Wikipedia discussions and edits (in my opinion, though you have way more than me.), and for other reasons stated above. Keep up the editing, though.-- SU IT  05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per short active editing time, and not particlarly strong answers to questions (they don't really tell me much). Seems like a pleasant user and should be ready in a couple months, as others have said. -- Renesis (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose — per CrazyRussian. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose — per CrazyRussian. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose - Your edit count is good, but if you maybe waited a couple of months (try late January or February) at this edit rate, you would most likely be accepted, since all of the oppose votes are on your 2 month active period. Diez2 18:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose sorry, but I am uncomfortable with the way you are using test warnings. Take a look at User_talk:206.123.212.67. You issue a at 19:44, then a minute later you add another test1 (why not a test2?). A few minutes later User:Elkman adds a test3, then  ten minutes after that you add yet another test1, when test4 would have been appropriate. If this was an isolated case I wouldn't worry, but the same pattern is happening a lot: User talk:165.155.128.134; User talk:64.213.196.4; User talk:81.187.253.225. I'm all for WP:AGF but  its also important to ensure that warnings are given appropriately. I love the enthusiasm and hard work you are volunteering to the project, I just think you need some more time and sometimes you need to be a little more careful. I look forward to being able to support you in the future. Best, Gwernol 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to rebute a comment on my own RFA, I want to let it play out and not make it a mater of, "politics", or a test of my ability to cover my own ass. However, this is a topic I feel strongly on.  Yes, I may be lenient on vandals.  I, however, believe it is waranted, and my leniancy is dictated by my interpretation of Wikipedia policy.  The first think I look at when warning a vandal is when were they last warned? when were they last blocked?  I am very concious of what there last warning was the first think I look at is what the last warning was, what level it was and often what article it was.  If I was the last person to warn somebody, and I feel that the edits, although vandalism, were made in good faith, I prefer to stronly err on the side of WP:AGF and give the user a second test1.  I often very rapid at reverting vandalism, perhaps they did not see the changes, and they wanted to try again?  I do not know.  I generally only do this in cases of simple, non blatant vandalism.  If any of the above cited sources were of blatant vandalism, then I am in the wrong.  I will not claim that I am perfect and am always open for improvement.  So, thank you for bringint this to my attention.  I will take it into account, however, when appropriate I will contine to assume good faith per WP:AGF - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris raises a very valid point here, does an IP vandal with a t3 warning 2 weeks ago get a t4 warning if they vandalise today, or do we go back to a t1, do we assume it's the same user or a different user who has been assigned the IP address, I've hunted high and low looking for a definitive answer for this predicament, but the best policy does seem to be WP:AGF here. Kind Regards -  Heligoland   |   Talk  |   Contribs  03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in my comment and the specific examples I gave, these are not cases where an IP had a test3 2 weeks before. Look at User_talk:206.123.212.67: the IP had a vandal warning a few minutes before and Chris went back to a test1, three times. The IP has a long history of vandalism and was vandalising the the same articles, pushing the same WP:POV. I agree that if there has been a significant gap, you WP:AGF and start the sequence again, but that's not what happened here. Always assume good faith but if a user clearly demonstrates they are not acting in good faith, take action to protect the articles they are attacking. By the way Chris, good faith edits are never considered vandalism, see WP:VAN. Gwernol 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.  I will work on that in the future!  I am human, I make mistakes! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Looks like he could well be a good admin, but would like to see more. Perhaps late winter/early spring. IronDuke  04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, future support probable. Lack of experience, and it looks like when you got popups you stop writing articles. ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Gwernol. John254 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Crzrussian. You need more time here. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Holy shit, your nominator attempted to demonstrate how worthy you were by attacking crz? On top of that, too new, too belligerent. Find another nominator, and branch out to putting good work into articles, rather than inducing churn. I'd be much more inclined to support then. ... aa:talk 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate when you call be, "belligerent"? It is not meant offensivley, however, I have made every point to respong tactfully to criticism and have had no problem admitting when I am wrong.  If there is any particular behaviour that you particulary consider belligerent, I would kindly accept the criticism and work to improve myself.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Just a little too new. About another month, month and a half is needed (for experience reasons). I would surely support then. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Crazy and Gwernol. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with your edit stats. I don't think there's enough talk:mainspace edits and the vast majority seem to be project tagging. We need to be able to see how you interact in content disputes and other article issues with people in groups, not just one-on-one on user talk pages. And as others have said, a month or two just isn't enough time to get a solid grasp on policy etc or for us or you to know if your editing is sustainable. I know some people will support after 3-4 months, but I don't think 6 months is too much to ask for and will rarely support anyone under that. Sarah Ewart 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I must add that I'm not at all impressed by the answers, especially to question one. Sarah Ewart 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Insufficient amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--MONGO 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Weak Neutral. I was originally going for Weak Oppose, but this is a good candidate so I decided to just stay neutral. This user have really only been active for two months (97% of the edits), and it seems to me that he's rather inexperienced in many fields (image, category, template). The one that strikes me the most is a total 4 Wikipedia talk, which is not good. Good user, don't think he's ready though. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I agree with AQu01rius, I think that this user is a great candidate but hasn't been contributing long enough. Chris has recently spiked in edits from virtually none. I would definitely support in a few months. His personal anti-vandalism templates are good though :) James086Talk 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Although you're a fantastic contributor to Wikipedia thus far, I unfortunately have to go neutral on your RfA. There's no problem in what you're doing, but more of a concern regarding your experience on Wikipedia. I think if you re-apply in 2-3 months, you'll definitely get the support of almost everybody.  Nish kid 64  00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, leaning towards support. Plenty of edits racked up from reverting vandalism. However, I would like to see a few more months of activity, and more experience in other areas. -- Gray  Porpoise Your wish is my command! 00:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Superb vandal-bopper who continuously beats me to reverts, but this is slightly premature. I'd happily support in a few months' time. riana_dzasta 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, good vandal fighter, but needs more time and experience in the admin proccess. It's not only vandal fighting that is in admin work, lots of administrative participation, xFDs etc, handling conflict (Mediation etc.) Ter e nce Ong 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. You're a great vandal fighter, but I need to see you participate in XfDs (WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:CFD, etc), and conflict resolution (WP:3O, etc).  I don't DIStrust you, and therefore this is not an oppose, but you give me nothing to base trust on.  Srose   (talk)  12:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral There is obviously nothing worth an oppose vote, which is why my vote is neutral. Your contributions and vandal fighting are very valuable, but you only need more time around and participation in XfDs. ← A NAS  Talk? 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral Excellent vandal fight, but just not enough experience. Give it a for more months, and some Project Space contribution and you'll have my support.  Canadian - Bacon  20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral. Hasn't been a lot of time since his editor review and this RfA. I suggest more time and experience on Wikipedia, this includes getting at least one article featured or at least a couple articles good status.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral A good vandal fighter but the lack of experience is a concern here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral. I'd recommend that you withdraw because you aren't going to get it on this occasion. Esteffect 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Pile on Neutral&mdash; There is virtue in exploring enough to understand Wikipedia well before becoming an admin. And many editors pass through like burning stars; admins need to demonstrate some dedication. See you back when you have a few more months with Wikipedia; with the number of edits you've accumulated, it should be easy - Williamborg (Bill) 15:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Neutral He is an excellent contributor so I cannot vote against him, but I think he is a little too inexperienced. TSO1D 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Neutral good contributions against vandals, yet I also think that time within in the community is a valuable as ones edit count. Gnangarra 10:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Neutral - hoping to support in future. Chris is very helpful with setting up in the DYK process. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.