Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Koavf


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

Koavf
Final (1/5/2); ended 22:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate John F. Lewis (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 

Nomination
– He has made more than one million edits that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

JohnSmith... is a new user who asked me about my history and if I were willing to be demoted after his own unsuccessful WP:NOTNOW self-nomination. I've thought about running before but the time was never right and I had a history of blocks and bans. Those are years in the past, so I feel like I have enough good will in general and trustworthy history that it's not unreasonable for me to be an admin. We'll see what the community thinks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I am active across several language editions and WMF projects with some user rights in some of those as well. (The last time I got a user right expansion was on Wikidata a few days ago). I am also an admin on other projects (several on Wikia, Wikitravel, WikiIndex, Freedom Defined), so I am familiar with how being an admin works on a technical level as well as the community norms here and on other wikis. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This all went south quickly: I don't really understand why nor do I understand the content of everyone's complaints below. I might as well request it be closed. There's no point in taking up anyone else's time. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I've done non-admin work at WP:CFD/WP:TFD/WP:FFD and for awhile, I did a lot of new page patrolling (although I've fallen out of the habit with the latter). Additionally, I've done vandalism fighting (sometimes with WP:ROLLBACK or WP:HUGGLE) and it would be easier for me to immediately block someone rather than run to WP:AIV.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The best things I've added to the community are helping new editors and creating featured content. I've made several pieces of featured and good content (e.g. George Orwell bibliography and Everything That Happens Will Happen Today) and while I'm proud of that work, I am most proud of helping users on a one-on-one basis. I've been a campus ambassador for a couple of years and that was great fun. Connecting with actual human beings is the most rewarding part of the work on here. I've also tried to foster community between WMF projects and amongst other free/open Internet communities—that is my next big goal here.


 * 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: Certainly. I had a number of issues related to POV editing regarding Western Sahara—that's why I got started here. Generally speaking, conflict gets defused over time and with more eyes on an issue. If one person is clearly in the wrong, then getting others involved will root that out. If both parties are generally making good points but need some outside perspective, having someone mediate between their interests will help. Usually, the process works.


 * Additional question from Mkdw
 * 4. You mentioned to your talk page that you had "a long block/ban history". Briefly looking at your block log there's a considerable amount of action between 2005 and 2010. Could you please explain to us the details of the more serious block(s) and ban(s) from your own point of view? What has changed since 2010?
 * A: Strictly speaking, the block in 2010 was simply due to a mistake: I was on a one-revert restriction and simply didn't notice that an edit had been made to an article which I had recently edited, so I thought I was re-saving the edit I intended to make. Initially, I joined Wikipedia with a goal of improving/promoting content related to Western Sahara, so I ran into conflicts with editors who supported Moroccan claims to the territory. Rather than edit-war with users now, I don't fight about it and simply refer to sources: that defrays 90% of the conflict. If you can find sources which support a claim, then make the claim. If not, then don't. One thing that also helps is that there simply hasn't been as much activity on my end or other users' ends on Western Sahara topics. Other than that, I've just gotten more mature and calm as I've aged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from JohnSmith5000100
 * 5. What are your opinions on quantity vs quality?
 * A: Sometimes, what I want to do here is more-or-less repetitive and small and so I do a lot of it. Sometimes, what I want to do is more involved and requires finding sources, writing copy, etc. This is my primary hobby so what I feel like doing and the amount of time I have to dedicate dictate how much I do. I've done lots of little maintenance things which took up a lot of successive edits and I've done lots of labor- and time-intensive writing which required good research and proper use of English (but not a lot of individual edits). The two are complimentary and either one can interest me at a given time. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Irondome
 * 6. Candidate, I do need to ask this. Are you 100% serious that you want the tools? Irondome (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A: Of course. I don't understand why you doubt my sincerity: I've used the tools elsewhere on and off of WMF projects, I've used other tools here on en.wp, and I've run into several scenarios where having some of these tools would have been useful (e.g. immediately blocking vandalism-only accounts rather than going to the AIV and IRC to get someone else to do it for me). Plus, I've been active on plenty of discussions that have backlogs and I can help clear out some of them. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me then. I was not doubting your sincerity, but the initial tone of the nomination rather threw me, and I think a couple of others also. Peace Irondome (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Mz7
 * 7. Thank you for stepping up to the plate. How would you explain the difference, if any, between "vandalism" and "disruptive editing"?
 * A: Vandalism has as its aim trolling, disruption, bothering someone, etc. The goal of vandalism is to make things worse. Disruptive editing can be obnoxious or opposed to a community standard but isn't intended to make for a worse encyclopedia. Two edits can be identical in their content (although vandalism will generally be clearly in the wrong) but differ by the intention of the editor. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from TheQ Editor
 * 8. Can you tell me about the complaints other wikipedians had about your editing in your Talk Page Archives?
 * A:

General comments

 * I would suggest that this RfA be withdrawn for a period. The community clearly has no confidence in the experience of the Nom. I fear that this will have a negative impact on this RfA. This is no reflection on the integrity or GF of anyone. Irondome (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Links for Koavf:
 * Edit summary usage for Koavf can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Strong support With over one million edits and no recent blocks or bans, thumbs up!--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above editor is the nominator. He's been here 6 months, has 290 edits, and his own RfA was just closed as "Not now".  UNfortunately, this nomination looks like a prank more than anything else. BMK (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless Koavf seems to be a viable candidate, he has accepted and seems serious about it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really meant as a prank. I change it to Support.--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Koavf does indeed have a lot of edits, but that is not an attribute we should be looking for in an admin.  His block log is extensive, and his talk page archives are full of complaints about his editing.  At times he seems more interested in quantity than in quality. BMK (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BMK covers a good chunk of the reasoning.  Note to Koavf and anyone else ever planning to run for RFA: as already suggested by someone else, the quality of your nominator(s) is also very important in this process.  After all, it's hard to trust a nominator who's supposed to vouch for your stellar background and candidacy when they have such a poor knowledge of the site, its policies, and what it actually takes to be trusted on Wikipedia  the panda ₯’  21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Although I appreciate the amount of effort the candidate has put into improving Wikipedia, I lack confidence that he can properly navigate content disputes, or the nuanced issues that arise in disputes about user conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose.Same as BNK, although I believe Koavf will stay out of trouble in the block log, his talk page archives are filled with complaints. The tone of his voice is also worrying me.   TheQ Editor     (Talk) 22:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Changed from support. I am sure the candidate fully understands the concept of Adminship, and all that goes with it. I am removing WP:NOTNOW which on advice, is inappropriate. I just do not think the candidate is fully rounded as of this point. The blocks are a worry to me. Irondome (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I am slightly concerned that this editor was able to stay out of trouble for two years between 2008 and 2010 but then received another block for edit warring. To their credit, it's now been 4 years since the last block so I'm curious to know how this editor feels they've improved in terms of interacting with others since then. Mkdw talk 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Waiting for the candidate answer to question #6. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Just when I was typing the last message, he answered the question I was waiting for. I need sometime to dig up candidate's contribution history and involvement at admin related areas.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:32, 15 May 2014 (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.