Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Iced Kola


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

Iced Kola
Final: (1/4/2); Ended 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

– Ever since joining Wikipedia almost a year ago (¾ of a year ago, but I edited as an anon for a while before that), I accumulated over 2,500 edits and I have a 100% edit summary usuage. I’m mainly active in vandal fighting and cleanup, but you’ll pretty much find me doing everything. I already know how to use the administrator tools, and I am familiar with all of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, I even created one of my own, WP:GAMES, which is still in discussion. In my time here, I assisted users and contributed at WP:SOCK, I participated in many WP:AFD discussions, I created many templates, I had many users blocked for vandalism and other policy violations, I helped out newcomers, and I never got blocked or even warned. I’m positive nobody (except the vandals and sockpuppets) will be dissapointed if I am given the mop.// I c e d K o l a  22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination. // I c e d K o l a  - I withdraw my nomination per below, and because of unexpected personal reasons.

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: Since vandal fighting is one of the things I am currently very active in, I intend on remaining active in vandal fighting if I become an administrator. I anticipate using my administrator powers while on recent changes and new page patrol, blocking users at WP:AIV, blocking users/handling cases at WP:SOCK, patrolling the different deletion debates for pages I could just speedy delete, handling all aspects of CSD, and protecting pages/anwsering requests at WP:RFPP. You’ll also find me doing some things outside of anti-vandalism such as updating the main page and handling unblock requests.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I try not to look at any of my contributions as better than the other, but I must say that I am most pleased with my work on WP:GAMES and my work in vandal fighting. I am pleased with my work on WP:GAMES because it demostrates how friendly Wikipedians can be too each other. I deeply considered the suggestions given to me, I had no problem with any user changing it in any way, and some users really got involved trying to improve it. I am pleased with my work in vandal fighting just because of the nature of it. It requires you to remain civil, it requires you too be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it requires you too be ready for all different situations.


 * 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: Actually, I was not in any disputes in the past, and I did not encounter any users who caused me stress. The most I got were personal attacks from vandals in which I warned and later reported them (after they did it again), and I got a user accusing me of getting involved in a dispute, in which I calmy explained to the user I didn’t know what he/she was talking about. Though, if I do find myself in a dispute in the future, I’ll try to work it out with the user alone (being as civil as possible), trying not to bring in any outside parties. However, if it does reach the point where we just can’t work it out alone due to our disagreement with each other, I’ll move onto to the later stages of the dispute resolution process by going to the mediation cabal or by opening up an RFC or RFM. I’ll try to stay away from ArbCom, unless everything else totally fails.
 * 4. Additional Question from M a rtinp23 : What does the term "sockpuppetry" mean to you, and under what circumstances would you block a user with a sockpuppetry rationale?
 * A: To me, the term "sockpuppetry" means when an account is secretly created by an already existing user, normally created with the intent of conducting malicious activities. Moving onto the second part of your question, if it is merely an alternate account, or an account created because their last account violated our username policy, I would not block the account. However, I would block the account and the sock puppeteer if the sockpuppet account is being used to violate any of our policies.


 * General comments


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



Discussion
 * You might want to minorly revise your answer to question 3 - most people aren't looking for admins who will work out disputes "defiantly." Picaroon 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Moral Support per all the oppose votes but you have been a good vandalfighter. But sadly this is not enough to grant you the tools right now. Consider contributing more to the project space. I would suggest a withdrawl now. &mdash; SeadogTalk 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose 3½ months of contributions is generally not enough. Would be happy to consider supporting down the line tho. - crz crztalk 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose No where near enough edits and experience. Why does kola need admin powers?  Culv  e  rin  ?   Talk  23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Withdraw this RfA and keep up the good work referenced in the answer to Q1. Reapply around Easter time with that edit history and your case will be very strong.  Minor point - your answer to Q3 doesn't include any diffs.  It is so much easier to assess RfAs when the links to discussions-in-question are provided. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per aeropagitica. --t e h tennis man  01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Being generous, you've only been actively editing for four months, and I'm not seeing these "many WP:AFD discussions". You have 100 AFD edits at most, and that isn't really "many" for four months. -Amarkov blahedits 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You seem to be doing a good job, but you might need some more experience before being given access to admin tools. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months time.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:16, 19 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.