Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gkhan 2

Gkhan
Closed 23:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (14/11/6) 

- I have been around wikipedia for a while now, little over a year, but I have only really been active the last couple of months. I am no great scribe so I don't contribute articles much, but I go get involved with the community alot (see a horrible slanted edit count here). I do new pages patrol reguraly (remember the horrible scribe thing. Yeah, I can't spell either) and RC patrol less frequently. When I patrol I frequently welcome new users, making sure they know what I do to their articles (copyvios and such). I'd like to have the tools that adminship gives and I believe that I have proven myself trustworthy. (I have a previous RfA)--gkhan 22:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC) Support
 * 1) Support. I came across this vote not via RFA, but by checking out this user who has put some work into making VFD work well (in the particular case I was checking out, Votes for deletion/Fjact).  User has 1706 edits spread over different categories, and has been around since June 2004 (becoming regularly active in November 2004).  Most of the opposition to the RFA acknowledges Gkhan has been around since 2004, has 1300+ edits in non-article space, and has made a positive contribution to Wikipedia.  The main reason for opposition seems to be due to his focus on namespaces other than articles.  We have a division of labor in real life, and if someone is not the world's best article writer but does a great job on lots of thankless tasks around Wikipedia, and everything about them is admin-worthy except for what some might perceive as a lack of article name-space contributions, as far as myself, I consider them admin-worthy anyhow.  What I've seen of Gkhan has been positive, and if the only objection is lack of article namespace contributions, it's not enough of one to send me to neutral, or oppose.  My main concern is preventing "rogue admins" who will push POV, block people and protect pages willy-nilly causing many people to complain about them and the high bar set to de-admin someone.  I don't have this sort of fear with regards to Gkhan.  And that Gkhan's main contributions are outside of the article namespace is not enough of an objection to remove my support. Mr. Know-It-All 03:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've reviewed some of Gkhan's recent edits and it looks to me like he/she has made a positive contribution across the board. Polite and focused in interactions with other editors, and doing a lot of detailed work on janitorial tasks. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty of room for specialization. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. A good user who seems to be well experienced in how Wikipedia works. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support one doesn't need to contribute a lot to main namespace to be a good admin.  Grue   12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Agree with Grue.  --Kbdank71 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Non-namespace work gave me the impression Gkhan was already an admin. While making contributions is a great way of getting admin-related experience (e.g. settling content disputes) there are other ways of acquiring these skills. JFW | T@lk  14:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. You can be a good admin without being a good "scribe", and I think of at least a couple of existing admins who contribute very little to articles but lots to adminny things and help the 'pedia out just the same. -Splash 15:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I'm impressed with his edits to the talk spaces, which is where I think the admin role really comes into play. Communication with other users: very important for an admin.  The Literate Engineer 17:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support You don't necessarily need lots of article edits to be an admin - communication skills are much more important. Besides, newpage patrol is really, seriously, underrated, since edits on deleted pages don't show up in your editcount. - ulayiti (talk)  21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made 50 to 100 speedies or so, and a couple of vfds. I didn't think that would change anyones mind since it is not content contribution so I didn't mention it. gkhan 21:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Gkhan has shown himself to be both dedicated and trustworthy. Adding content to articles is important, but so is welcoming newcomers and going through the new articles. If Gkhan has recognised that editing articles is not his strong point, I fail to see how asking him to reach certain arbitrary edit counts helps Wikipedia when he could help by doing things which he is good at. Rje 01:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportRobert McClenon 11:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Jusjih 06:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - as Splash said, a large number of article contributions is not absolutely necessay. Gkhan now has almost 2000 total edits and has over 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. He is resonably mature and helps out around here, and is suitable for admin. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A great person and someone I think we would be able to trust with admin rights. More edits would make more people happy, but my personal interaction with him leads me to believe that he's fit for adminship. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Only 367 edits to article namespace. Ultimately, this work is the whole point of the encyclopedia. siafu 23:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, i feared many users would feel this way. However, I believe I do help the encyclopedia by patrolling new pages and welcoming users here. However, you are certainly entitled to your view, and I shouldn't critize. Over and out. gkhan 23:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Gkhan is clearly here in good faith, but I reckon is a little inexperienced as yet.--Knucmo2 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'd love to vote for you, but I don't think now's the time. --Chris 01:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Borderline but you could insert cats, sort stubs, fix bad articles lots of things that don't involve having talent as a writer. I agree with you about Ed Poor though, so your attitude is commendable. If you fail, come back in three months and drop me a note. Grace Note 01:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I have an edit standard that is nearly 3x higher than your current total. Also, I get the feeling you are fishing for compliments by basically trashing your own work in your nomination. A few more edits and a little more self-confidence is needed. Acetic Acid 05:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was an objection that I didn't quite excpect. Well, I'm not "fishing for compliments", nor do I have bad self-confidence. I was trying to be, you know, modest. I know many users value content contribution very high (you certainly seem to do by looking at your edit-count requirement). And I simply do not have that much of it. I don't consider it vital for adminship since adminship is largly a janitorial position. Personally, I think edit-counting is a poor way to measure a candidate, but that is just me gkhan 06:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't base voting solely on edits. But, come on, at least 500 mainspace edits would show that you contribute to articles and do some vandalism reversions. As for modesty, I just thought you were trying way too hard to look, well, bad. You talk about your poor edit count and how you can't spell. If you were being modest, you might describe yourself as an average user with not a lot of time on your hands, not a subpar user. Acetic Acid 18:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Man, you need more experience. If you don't have 2000+ edits, I wouldn't bother applying here. --Woohookitty 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Edits to article namespace are a must- the heart of this encyclopedia is its articles, and 367 edits don't meet my admin standards. Sorry. --Scimitar parley 14:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Will support at 1000 mainspace edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose Not having alot of edits in the articles isn't as big of a deal to as these things i've seen.
 * A large number of the edits were while playing wikichess.
 * He has difficulty spelling.
 * A previous self nomination for adminship, but he hasn't seemed to progress that much since then looking at the vote count.
 * I'd go to a straight oppose if he had a bad attitude, but he seems to be a good vandalism fighter and mediator, but that's not enough for adminship, alot of non-admins on here do that.Karmafist 14:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not nearly enough edits. freestylefrappe 04:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral - Seems like a level-headed and nice kind of guy but his lack of article space edits worries me slightly, not enough to oppose but enough not to support. I feel he needs a more varied approach to his activities here otherwise he is not getting the experience he needs to be an admin. He needs to find a topic that interests him, and if he finds it difficult to write well, then he could do the legwork so that other people just have to copy edit it. --Celestianpower hab 23:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I utterly respect the fact that we need many different things done, and perhaps an editor can contribute greatly to Wikipedia without ever touching an article - but 1700 edits over 13 months is a bit thin for an admin irrespective of how many of them were in what space. -- BD2412 talk 03:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) good user, but with the distribution of his edits (among namespaces), and as a self-nominator, he would need about twice as many edits for my support. Editors can do a lot of good without ever touching an article, but on my ideal Wikipedia, the admins are also active editors. dab (&#5839;) 09:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral: Active on village pump, VfD, RfC, RfA, Deletion reform, Reference desk, Arbitration policy, stub-sorting, and vandal fighting. I do not see that the low # of contributions is a reason not to vote for this candidate. Admin responsibilities are not in creating and adding content to articles. User has been here for over a year, and has been generally active for the last six months. I see no reason to not trust this user. My only reason to oppose is the average number of edits per day is low, at just over 4 per day. We need active admins, not passive ones. If you contributed a large amount of content to articles, then the average # of edits might be "artificially low", but your low number of article edits does not tend to support that assertion. With these factors in mind, I vote neutral. --Durin 16:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - I'd like to see a lot more article namespace edits; 1000 would be good. He seems like a great editor though; I've seen his work at Deletion reform and his RfC against Ed.  A non-admin filing an RfC against a senior admin must be pretty bold in his own right, and I think that given what that RfC was for, he did the right thing, and I think that's what really put him on the map here.  I'll support with more article edits; it looks like this nomination won't pass, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you're running again in a few months (ideally, nominated by another user, if possible; multiple self-noms don't usually go well). --Idont Havaname 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - It's hard to say since I haven't seen him around a lot... but, he might be a good user to do cleanup and newpages patrolling... and non-controversial-article related problems... but, I don't think admin is just for that. gren グレン 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
 * Also, has Gkhan any experience on WP:VfD or WP:CfD?--Knucmo2 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do have VfD-experience, whenever I see an article that needs a nomination, that's where it goes. Right now for instance, if you want a nomination on crack, see Votes for deletion/Fjact. I have never been involved with CfD and only rarely on TfD gkhan 06:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we shouldn't consider this a prerequisite for being an admin. There's a lot more to Wikipedia than deciding what should be included. Grace Note 01:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A chart showing this user's edits along with an average # of edits line is available here: Image:Gkhan-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 15:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was unable to access the graph, but copied the results from Kate's Tool and put it in a table on the side of these comments. Karmafist 18:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. As I have stated, patrolling mainly, but I also want to help out with VfD, that is hard to do un-adminned.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Ahh, yes, my contributions. Well, I don't write much, since I am not good at it, when I do it's usually some technical mumbo-jumbo that contains little language and horrible pictures (see Derivation of the cartesian formula for an ellipse for instance). However, I have always been of the opinion that the community takes care of the encyclopedia, and the admins take care of the community. My contributions are mainly janitorial ones and participation in discussions (I have a fair number of those). For full disclosure, I would also like to point out that a bunch of my edits are gameplaying, chess and go and wikifun (the chess championship saved me from a perhaps permanent wikibreak).
 * 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 can really only think of two right now. The first one was with the infamous "the newbie got bit, speedy overkill" guy. Rich Wannen I believe his name was. Anybody remember him? Anyway, he had contributed an article that got deleted, and he posted a (very rude) post on the village pump. I made the mistake of being rude back (I called him arrogant). I think that the discussion over him got very out of hand since he was not a nice guy at all, but even so, I was totally at fault. I have apologised, and I present no defense for it. I hope this minor transgression will not tarnish my reputation more than it has.


 * The other one was much more recent, I was the one who started the RfC against Ed Poor for the deletion of VfD. I felt that his transgression was sever and since nobody else had done it, I did. I started the RfC with intentions true to the name of it, I wanted to gauge the reactions of the community. I wanted comments. I wont relate the history of the deletions and undeletions of the RfC, that has been done sufficiently elsewhere, but my role got somehow diminished when undeletion/deletion wars started between two senior members of the community. Then an RfAr got going and I felt my role was superflous. I perhaps bowed out of that dispute way to early, but it kinda felt like I got bulldozerd, and other people took over my role. I would like to say that even though I think what Ed did was wrong, there is no ill will between us. Atleast not on my side. I felt that his response on the RfAr page was a good enough apology.


 * The morale of the Ed Poor story is this: I take adminship abuse very seriously. I think when you are entrusted with powers only a select few others has, you do not abuse your position. Ever. I make this promise to the community: If I ever do get too wild with my admin-powers, and somebody calls me on it, I will block myself for a reasonable amount of time. I think it is important to show that admins really do serve under the same rules that normal users do. After all, TINC.