Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kizzle


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

Kizzle
Final (0/8/1); Ended 2:28, December 14 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 2 years and never bothered to become an administrator until recent events. During this time, I have generally frequented the political pages and been involved in a number of contentious disputes. If I could summarize my participation on Wikipedia, it is that I thrive on reasoned and civil conflict. During the election of 2004, I frequented many political articles (including George W. Bush as well as other politically controversial articles such as Ann Coulter). I like to be in the middle of conflict while trying to keep a cool head. In my vast experience in controversial articles, I know that policy rules all. While "Wiki-lawyering" and "IAR" are valid concepts that are applicable in a limited range of situations, IMHO they never trump WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, as well as WP:AGF WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

While this answer may seem like I simply want to become a user who wants the "block user" button available in a dispute, I feel that I have already been acting as a moderator who believes that given a heated dispute between parties, strict application of policy trumps all other matters (including article precedence). Part of the reason I want to become an administrator is the common violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA I see in disputes. Just recently, (without mentioning names) an editor who suggested replacing a fair-use image with a free image that looked worse who was entirely backed by policy was labeled "disruptive", a "one-trick pony", and was responded to with "Quit wiki-lawyering, it's only the internet." Clear cut violations of WP:AGF like this are very dangerous IMHO because they discourage good users from making legitimate suggestions to controversial articles if they are simply going to be accused of being "disruptive". I don't intend to use any of my administrative powers (should I be elected) to help me gain an advantage in a dispute, and I only foresee blocking someone (besides vandalism of course) in cases of egregious and repetitive violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA. My goal in becoming an administrator is to take a more official capacity in helping resolve disputes on contentious pages by using my intimate knowledge of relevant policy to help direct a heated dispute to a peaceful resolution.

Finally, I have done a lot of good and some bad here in my 2 years. I'd like to think that despite generally sticking to controversial articles, I have kept a cool head and tried to settle the matter civilly through reasoned arguments and appeal to policies. Of course, given my involvement in these articles, I have no doubt that editors that I have disagreed with in the past will deem me unfit to become an administrator. As a result, I have pre-emptively added several editors (if you disagree and actually do support my bid, then feel free to change) who I believe would not like me as an administrator.

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: My primary goal as an administrator is to help enforce 3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF violations on controversial pages. I will also heavily be using WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS to help guide discussions on these pages to a peaceful solution.  As for sysop chores, I anticipate on becoming heavily involved with AfD debates, AN/I, sorting through edit disputes resulting in full protection and how best to come to a resolution, searching for and evaluating copyvios, and finally, instructing and mentoring new users that I encounter with any questions or suggestions as how to become a better editor.

Instead of answering the next boilerplate questions, let me put it down as the good, bad, and ugly (disputes)

The Good


 * I reported on Slashdot and helped formulate and develop semi-protection.
 * Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner - heavily participated in the creation and development, saving it from deletion, getting it to featured status as well as  on the front page.  The discussion behind the shaping of the article from its inception to its current form was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've had on Wikipedia.

The Bad


 * I've vandalized Wikipedia once in my life, and it was to get blocked in a "creative" way so that I could overcome my Wiki-addiction in order to finish up a project for school. The details behind the incident can be found here.  Of course, that was a year and a half ago and will never happen again.
 * I've also been blocked without warning for violating WP:SPAM, which I still think is wrong (the without warning part), though I do understand WP:SPAM now, and that it applies to situations besides vote-stacking. You can view the the details here.

The Ugly (Disputes)


 * I have been involved in several arbcom cases, all of which (to my knowledge) did not directly involve me as a defendent. They were:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4 and involved in varying extents the first 3 arbcom cases against Rex.
 * In these cases, dispute resolution was used as a last resort. Despite having a generally unpleasant history with Rex stemming from 2 years of disputes, I actually argued that he should be able to remain, as I did not see a reason why he needed to be banned for a year.  I expressed this to him in an IRC conversation that he posted (with my permission) on his userpage, pleading for him not to leave.  In the case of BigDaddy777, I asked him several times to stop personally attacking other users, I then took it to an RfC, and even offered to suspend the entire dispute resolution if he would simply even comment on the RfC page or say something along the lines of "I'm sorry" (phrased however he wanted to).  However, he was unable to do any such thing, and unfortunately it led to him being banned.

Add subsequent questions below:


 * General comments


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



Discussion


 * I admit it wasn't that clever to re-arrange questions 2 and 3 as well as add what I saw as mistakes in my past as a movie title, but I didn't realize that alone would disqualify me from adminship. Also, I added those 4 editors below because I just figured they would have wanted to vote that way; I want to become an admin taking into consideration those I have disagreed with in the past, so I just put them up automatically (and notified one of them on their talk page).  Once again, however, I am dismayed that this one minute piece of criteria outweighs my contributions here to render me unfit for adminship according to some, but that remains my opinion. Finally, I was under the impression that I could leave a one-line message on my talk page that I am running for adminship, but I have since taken that down. --kizzle 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't made up my mind on how to vote yet, as I am still researching, but I'm a bit surprised at a couple of these oppose votes. Selmo's in particular is distressing to me. A project that encourages users to ignore all rules when necessary and to be bold whenever possible should not frown upon a sysop candidate taking a creative approach to the questions. A Train take the 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'd like to say much more but I'll keep my tongue in check. --kizzle 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Frak no oppose — I wasn't going to oppose on the vandalism, but then I saw this. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's generally accepted, I thought, though not all nominees do it. Why's it bug you Matt?--Kchase T 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose There was enough in my review of this candidate to cause me to be concerned that the tools would be used properly, but the fact that the state of the nomination when I came across it had four "oppose" !votes, all added by the nominee himself, certainly gives me further cause for concern. Agent 86 00:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I suggest that the candidate withdraw speedily and seek an editor review instead. The answer to question one reveals no understanding of the roles and responsibilities of administrators or a requirement for the admin tools. You can also get some admin coaching too, when you have received feedback from the review.  This way, you will be able to have a structured journey towards the position of being ready for another RfA, perhaps in about six months' time. (aeropagitica) 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for vandalism. Also for not anwsering questions the normal way-- Selmo  (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose Adding comments in the name of another Wikipedian is forgery, however well-intentioned, and is neither a bright nor a wiki-friendly thing to do. That mistake is absolutely fatal to an RfA's chances, in my opinion, especially when it occurs on the RfA itself (as opposed to some incident in a discussion many months ago.)  Suggest immediate withdrawl. Xoloz 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) *I didn't put comments in the oppose, as you can see from the lack of timestamps, I was just trying to be honest with myself as to what level of support I had. In addition to it not being forgery, it doesn't even help me as I added it to the oppose section rather than the support. --kizzle 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) **Signatures without timestamps, generated with three tildes, are still signatures, and your adding of the names was, at the least, deceptive and and in defiance of RfA practice. I realize you were not attempting to seek advantage, but you did something totally unprecedented, likely to confuse everybody, and something that, quite frankly I cannot understand at all.  For one thing, give your previous "enemies" from a discussion the chance to show good grace and forgive.  To assume they'll oppose violates WP:AGF; to apply their names violates WP:POINT, among other things.  To even attempt to defend your action shows gravely bad judgment -- simply accept it was a big goof, apologize, withdrawl, and wait for a while.  I find it hard to imagine anyone with any familiarity with RfA doing what you did.  I'm sorry for length and somewhat distressed tone I employ, but I am amazed that you would try to rationalize such a clear mistake. Xoloz 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) ***I didn't use tilde's, I used:, which I thought substantially different enough from using three tildes along with my explanation above, but I guess that was my mistake. I definetely did not intend to forge their names. --kizzle 01:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Oppose per the above concerns. Dionyseus 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Putting other's names on the RFA, plus the answer to Q1, seriously indicates you should withdraw and work on learning the community norms.-- danntm T C 02:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose The user may be well-intentioned but his answer to the questions and his very bizarre addition of comments to the oppose section make me think that he doesn't really understand Wikipedia policies at this time. TSO1D 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Kizzle is a good editor, and it's a shame that the RfA submission was botched with what I can only construe as a truly unfortunate lapse of judgment. I hope that Kizzle comes back next year and tries it again. A Train take the 02:37, 14 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.