Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KFP


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

KFP
[ Final] (45/0/0); Ended Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:15:05 (UTC)

- Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, KFP! I believe KFP can be a vital addition to the administrator crew. KFP has a good knowledge of policy, and in my interactions with him, he has always been kind and civil.

This user has been around since 14:14, 23 April 2005, and in that time has gained 6428 edits, with 2748 in mainspace and 1899 in Wikipedia space.

So, please join me in giving KFP the mop! --Deskana (talk)  00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Co-nomination Please allow me to co-nominate KFP, a friendly face and a helpful Wikipedian. This user has been active for a while, and makes the most edits in main space, which is where we should devote our time anyway. He has worked on articles like Finland and Beer - that should be reason enough to give him the mop, not to mention his familiarity with Wikipedia processes and sysop responsibilities. So let's do it. Xiner (talk, email) 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to the nominators. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I would try to help in many different areas where assistance is required, ranging from the more prominent areas such as Administrators' noticeboard pages, Administrator intervention against vandalism and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to the not-as-high-profile backlogs like Category:Rescaled fairuse images and Category:Replaceable fair use images.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Most of my work with Wikipedia's articles has been copy editing, fact correction, maintenance and other gnomish editing over a wide range of articles and topics. Outside the mainspace I am, among other things, helping to run the Featured pictures and Featured picture candidates processes. Recently I have also gotten more into assisting other Wikipedians who are looking for help via Category:Wikipedians looking for help and other means.


 * 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: No, I don't remember having been in any real conflicts with other editors, nor have they caused me stress. I believe that in cases of disagreement, assuming good faith and discussing the issues will usually lead to the best results.


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. --Deskana (talk)  00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Enthusiastic Support as co-nominator. Xiner (talk, email) 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support It is good to see candidates with many Wiki-space edits and that is why I support. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Kill Foolish Predators! Support. YechielMan 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Captain Panda. :) Acalamari 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Seems good-- $U IT  01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Props to the wikignomes!--Xnuala (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Go for it. Yank sox  03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Answers are fine, nominators are trusted, I can't find anything in your edit history that I take issue with; good candidate. --After Midnight 0001 03:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - I've seen plenty of constructive things from this user; trustworthy.--ragesoss 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Booksworm Talk to me! 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. While the various talk page edits are not as high as I would like (given that admin work requires a lot of communication), I beleive KFP will use the tools effectively and correctly, and will not abuse them. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support wish you would have considered this sooner. Anynobody 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support good, sustained, constructive contributor. Good luck!  The Rambling Man 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, of course. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Definitely. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I only see good things. - An as  talk? 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - no reasons to oppose. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I've seen you closing WP:FPC cases for months, and I thought you were the "admin" that kept that place running! 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndonicO (talk • contribs).
 * 21) Support per above. Lakers 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done. I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.Dereks1x 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Pile-on Support. Wield the mop! Ab e g92 contribs 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak Support Seems reliable but does not have many edits for the time that he has been here.--James, La gloria è a dio 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Michael 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per good answers and sufficient experience. Addhoc 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - KFP should have gotten the mop a while ago. Greeves (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Nothing to keep KFP from the mop. -- Jreferee 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support reduce the intake.--The Joke 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Diligent, industrious, smiles all 'round. My favor bestowed freely and earnestly. Pig man 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:13Z 
 * 36) Support A good user with relevant experience, in terms of time and work here, who will surely do well as an admin – but beware, conflicts do happen, so remember to keep cool if you are ever in one ;) Good luck.  Majorly  (o rly?) 10:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Very experienced and shows willingness to fix unattended admin backlog. Wooyi 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen)talk 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support, the unanimity so far proves he's ready.-- Wizardman 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Strong Support After reviewing this user, I have decided that his many excellent contributions to wikipeida make it difficult for anyone to oppose him. I see absolutely no reason not to give KFP the mop, and so far there has been nearly unanimous consensus to support this. Ninja! 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support, seems like a pretty great gnome-y candidate. --Dariusk 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) WP:FPC cabal support. MER-C 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank god for the FPC cabal, or I would never have gotten the mop. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * HighInBC should be condemned for this edit summary. Xiner (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cleared for Adminship Always displays a helpful attitude, and is willing to help work with others. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff  13:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support sounds good. – Riana ऋ 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 04:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * Neutral for now I am a little disappointed that you did not use Q3 to show off your experience with conflict resolution. As an admin you will get into conflicts and I like to see how a user has dealt with this in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some editors never do get into conflicts, HighInBC. They're a rare breed and need be preserved. Xiner (talk, email) 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An admin that does not get into conflicts is an admin that does not log in. Simply enforcing policy guarantees people are going to be upset with you. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now we are talking cross purposes. I am talking about disputes in general, not simply editing disputes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Admin actions such as blocking, page protection or deletion should be supported by policy. In cases of disputes over these actions an admin should be able to explain why action was taken and how policy was interpreted or admit that the action was a mistake. If doing so does not solve the dispute, it may be appropriate to seek more opinions on the issue at a venue such as WP:ANI. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So in all your time on Wikipedia you do you have any examples of you handling a disagreement in such a manner? Surely you can provide examples of how you have handled people disagreeing with you? While your answer is what I wanted to hear, I would like to see a demonstration that you have done this in the past. You don't need to be an admin to enforce policy, so I assume this is already something you have done at one point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the late reply: There have certainly been situations where other contributors have disagreed with my actions and have asked me to explain them, but so far such cases have been sorted out quickly and nothing has escalated into anything really serious. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:33, 3 April 2007 (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.