Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Koavf 2


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

koavf
'''Final (15/14/3); ended 03:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. Mkdw talk 03:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– It is my pleasure to nominate koavf for adminship. He is an alumnus of Indiana University with a Bachelor of Arts degree for Philosophy and Political science and has been editing Wikipedia for 10 years. He has almost 1,500,000 edits (which is a record for a non-bot user), and he is active on various wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation, in which he is also an admin of certain wikis by Wikia. He also has been the subject of some news articles, such as this one, which tells that he was the first Wikipedian to have 1 million edits, a true achievement. You can see some of his mentions on the news on Koavf's userpage. He also has been an autopatrolled user, a rollbacker, Twinkle, HotCat and Huggle user, a pending changes reviewer, account creator, file mover, and template editor.

Im relatively not sure about AFD noms since the edit cou8nt crashed due to his vast amount of edits, but my "magic 8 ball" says that he voted for many AFD's without a doubt.

While admittedly he has been blocked 30 times, mainly for edit warring and the 3RR according to his block log, he would still be an excellent candidate for an admin thanks to his contributions. Snowager -Talk to Me!  03:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. I discussed this with the nominator on my talk and referred him to my earlier nomination which went over like a lead balloon. In the meantime, I have been given the admin tools on various MediaWiki wikis such as WikiIndex, Wikitravel, Wikilivres, Freedom Defined, and Rodovid, so I have familiarity with how they work from a purely technical perspective. When it comes to WMF wikis, I was a temporary admin at Wikidata and have been an admin at Outreach for a couple of years. I've been happy to work on Wikipedia for several years in several capacities and would be happy to do these maintenance tasks as well. One of the reasons why my nomination was declined before (although not the only one) was due to the nominator seeming spurious: the current nominator has been active on this project for a few years. I have reproduced my answers from the first RfA below and will happily expound upon them if necessary. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I read the comment below by User: Opabinia regalis ("The answer to Q6 is a perfectly reasonable man-on-the-street response but...") and that caused me to reassess how this process is supposed to go in the first place. I didn't realize that it was expected that answers which are colloquially reasonable or common sense need to explicitly refer to policy or guidelines. I'm simply not that familiar with the RfA process. I'll participate in a few over the course of the next few months and then maybe nominate myself when I can give answers that reference policy and I've seen how nominations go in general--this is simply something that I've never taken note of until strangers came along and nominated me. To be honest, I don't know what in principle some of the nos want when they refer to my block log... One block in the past seven years surely passes any rational statute of limitations, right? Thanks for your time to everyone who responded. I'll do some reading on documentation and continue working on the encyclopedia in all of the various ways that I have before. (User:Ritchie333, I hope you don't mind me passing over your questions for the time being--I'll answer them if I get nominated again.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal

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 questions from Kikichugirl
 * 4. You come across a promotional article. It is promotional enough that you consider G11. You are an admin. How do you decide between using the advert tag, tagging it for deletion for another admin, and immediately deleting it yourself?
 * A: The quickest measure would probably be to use a search engine and see if I can find references to this phenomenon from the common sources (record reviews from Rolling Stone or Pitchfork Media, businesses mentioned in The Wall Street Journal, etc.) If the tone of the article is off but the article is salvageable, I don't see the value in outright deletion. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 5. How would you explain WP:3RR and its exceptions to a confused new user currently involved in an edit war?
 * A: First off, I would say that edit warring is simply not worth the time it takes. The more important thing to ask is why are the two of us reverting back and forth? Is there some dispute over content which can find a middle ground or some style issue which is usually more straight-forward and can be resolved by appealing to relevant documentation? Am I just getting worked up over a personal dispute and using this as a proxy? Etc. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 6. You state that it would be easier for you to immediately block someone. What are the grounds for immediately blocking someone, versus assuming good faith and allowing the warnings to escalate first?
 * A: The only reasons to immediately block someone are vandalism (which are edits that can't possibly be construed as constructive) or what is apparently aggressive editing. I've been rather surprised at how infrequently I've seen a short block (e.g. of two hours) to simply let disputes fizzle and allow for cooler heads to prevail. In my experience, vandalism mostly comes from trolls who only ever perform vandalism, so long or indefinite blocks are a go-to but getting pissed off and writing something rude is something that can happen to anyone and using a tool to make someone take a break for a night is a good idea. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Ritchie333
 * 7. A brand new user creates an article. Its entire content, without any references, is "waterworks corner is on the A406 near woodford". What do you do?
 * A:
 * 8. Assume is directed to you and an article you created. How might you respond?
 * A:
 * 9. Can you explain to me a situation where using a three letter shortcut is desirable, and one where it is not?
 * A:
 * 10. Have you ever had problems with people finding your talk page based on your signature?
 * A:
 * 11. In this revert on Long Live the King (EP) made recently, you wrote "edit-warring over Track listing is not allowed". Could you briefly summarise who was edit warring and why, and what alternative actions could have been taken by all parties?
 * A:

General comments

 * His last block was from almost 5 years ago according to his log. Snowager -Talk to Me!  04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the AFD edits count tool (not the X Tools edit count, but the AFD Stats tool), so I know that he edited 2752 unique AFD pages. The Snowager -is sleeping  22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Links for koavf:
 * Edit summary usage for koavf can be found here.
 * Previous RFA is here.  Mini  apolis  13:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) Extremely Cautious Support: I'm going to express my admittedly careful support here. The block log is definitely something to worry about, and I get what other users are saying and will continue to say about how an incredibly impressive edit count does not an admin make, but despite this I will offer my support on a few prerequisites. Firstly, you must take care with your editing, especially your automated edits as said before. An admin cannot afford to make mistakes of this nature, and this is emphasised when the template button is next to the delete button. Secondly, you must be neutral when determining consensus as an admin, since upholding an NPOV doesn't seem to be your forté. And finally, on a slightly more positive note, always be civil to other users. I see you have been improving on this recently, and that's great, but you have to keep it up when you are thrown into tougher situations as an admin, keeping a level head at all times. If you promise to keep to this, I will turn a blind eye to your contributions and trust you with these tools. I understand that this RFA might not be so successful due to more experienced voters that have seen your mistakes in action, but nevertheless I will give support. Good luck, amigo. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support You weren't ready for this. And to be honest, your naive acceptance of this RFA and the last one makes me more hesitant than any of the concerns brought up by the opposers so far.  To Iron and Mesquito, I don't think just one bad revert out of >10000 edits really qualifies as abuse of rollback.  I dont think the AWB edits are abuse of AWB since you cleaned them up immediately.  That shows that you check your work as you go.  If you really desire to become an admin, you should first wait a long time and submit an Editor Review so that you can see what your weaknesses are before you run.  Then come in with a strong nomination and show how you've changed.  — Soap — 05:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just in case you didn't know, Editor Review is inactive and marked as historical. MJ94 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral support I think what Soapy said hits the nail on the dot. I believe you take your RfAs seriously, but you should approach an experienced administrator and ask them for advice, and whether they are willing to nominate you or not. Also, try to stay out of drama and trouble during this period. Perhaps try again in 6 months to a year. Jianhui67T ★ C 05:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support Mainly because I disagree with the rationale used by the oppose comments (block log? The most recent block was almost half a decade ago, and automated editing mistakes were either corrected immediately or quickly accepted as mistakes). All that aside, the talk page history does show several warnings and notices that a user that has been around for as long as you shouldn't be getting. However nothing to suggest, adminship for you would end badly, so you have my support. —Frosty ☃ 06:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Why not? Blocks five years ago are not a reason to oppose today. The deletion or merger of categories and other pages created by a user is not in of itself a grounds to oppose. The number of template messages on a users' talk page is not in of itself a grounds to oppose. Automated editing mistakes that were either corrected immediately or quickly accepted as mistakes are not a grounds to oppose. James500 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Brilliant editor, very vocal and does get into disputes as you can see via his block log history but honestly, in this day and age of the wiki, an editor with his block log is far more trustworthy than those that have never been blocked, not to mention one of the best content creators we have ever had...Pathetic nomination by Snowager should not be a valid reason to oppose a good candidate. I personally refuse to support users who avoid confrontation and getting into the thick of things.....A decade on the wiki and around 1.5m edits...why the eff not?..atleast we all know he isn't going anywhere once he gets the tools..-- Stemoc 10:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask what the logic is behind the idea that a block log makes a user more trustworthy to correctly interpret and apply policy? Chillum 16:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, but a user who has been around for a decade surely would not have a clean block log and i would be more worried if he did. Most opposes are based on him being confrontational which is actually a good thing to have as an admin and his blocks were for similar reasons and since he hasn't really been blocked in nearly 5 years, its safe to say he has improved his attitude and probably knows a lot more about the policies than you give him credit for..-- Stemoc 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support I reviewed him and I agree with pretty much what everyone else said anyway good luck! <mark style="background:White"> Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Koavf is our most active editor, and he has been here for a longtime. Some of the opposers have commented on his block log - I would point out that it is clean since 2010. I work on the assumption that a block in the last year needs a very good explanation, one in the previous year it would help if there was an explanation, but five years ago? As far as i'm concerned that is as good as clean. Having a number of talkpage threads that are warnings would be troubling, but to describe the recent threads as warnings is stretching a point. Most of the threads are positive, and some of the negative ones are not his fault for example He was "warned" of the deletion of List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy But the warning itself was a mistake, Koavf's edit to that deleted article was simply to rename it in 2010 "05:26, 28 January 2010 . . Koavf (Talk | contribs | block) m (18,486 bytes) (moved List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy to List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy: ndash)" someone else started the article in 2006. Though in 2015 I would hope we would not be worrying about whether the candidate was ready to run in 2010 let alone 2006.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Blocks are fairly old, and I don't really see a reason to oppose. However, you should really get a current admin to mentor you per Soap and Jianhui. It would serve you well. Reapply in a year, and you'd make a great administrator. Good luck Justin! --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 18:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I suspect Koavf would work out as an admin. &rarr; <b style="color:green">Stani</b><b style="color:blue">Stani</b> 18:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Koavf seems very dedicated to Wikipedia, and I feel that his level of commitment would make him a great Administrator. Teddy5288 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Koavf is at least as familiar with policy as most of the current administrators (and more so than many), and his block log hasn't had an entry in years (indicating a maturing of his Wikipedia interactions) so is irrelevant. He is far more likely to actually do administrator tasks, given his activity on the site, than most of the administrators currently keeping a mop in their closet.  We need active administrators for keeping things tidy around here, and the backlogs grow all the time. The overwhelming majority of current administrators were not perfect when they were granted admin bit, and that is not the standard at which we expect administrators to operate. I'd suggest to Koavf, as I do to any new administrator, to avoid contentious discussions anywhere and on AN/ANI noticeboards particularly, in the early going, and if he has a strong urge to try out the block button, AIV is the place to start, not experienced users. Risker (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Risker and WereSpielChequers express my thoughts very well. Blocks in prehistoric times, long track record, willing and able to chip in and do stuff, and generally sound on policy. No worries at all! --regentspark (comment) 01:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Despite questioning the sanity of someone with that many edits, I trust the candidate, and I trust the nominator. This user is qualified for the mop and I believe they do in fact understand our policies and will hold themselves to the standard expected of an administrator.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Moral Support Iselilja (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Koavf's last RfA, as he notes, went over "Like a lead balloon", with the oppose reason for a lot of voters being that his talkpage was filled with warnings. his talkpage is still filled with warnings. I see being told off for not getting a flood flag (and not understanding why he needs one), categories/ pages that he created being deleted or merged, and misusing rollback...since January. To me the acceptance of nomination is, itself, demonstrative. Koavf, you should consider waiting a few more than two months after last misusing rollback before you ask for the tools again. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Category:Republic of Adygea was recently deleted. But Koavf created it in September 2010. Why is it relevant to this RFA?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's almost like non-admins can't see deleted content and have to off the nomination date! Thank for catching it; struck. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The 30 blocks are a problem to me, even though it has been a bit since he got blocked, but seeing how he misused rollback 2 months ago and the amount of warnings still on his talk page push me over the edge. Edit count alone is also not enough for someone to be admin, they need show that they can be neutral, and this users past shows that he has a problem with that. TheMesquito  buzz  04:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) No. I've had direct experience of the candidate's inappropriate category edits in the past, but that was a couple of years ago, so I decided to hope things had changed and I took a fresh look. Unfortunately the last 24 hours alone finds tens of sloppy automation errors. I'm afraid of this user's use of normal tools, let alone admin tools. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's relevant that I myself caught these errors and immediately reverted myself without anyone else's input? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixing it yourself is a good thing, but the implication that you are using AWB as a tool for 'normal' edits is a bit bothersome IMO.  Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 06:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You caught some of them. Yet timestamps show that you didn't revert the first example until after it was mentioned here. But beyond all of that, my larger point is that recent edits don't show a pattern of due care and trustworthiness. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctant oppose - A great editor and a real benefit to Wikipedia. However I feel understanding of policy is lacking given their talk page history. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 06:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - The talkpage complaints, the rollback misuse and your block log doesn't fill me with much confidence, I appreciate we all screw up and lose our heads here at times but still doesn't really excuse the amount of blocks you've received, Anyway whatever the outcome here I wish you all the best with the RFA. – Davey 2010 Talk 06:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - identifying and fixing your own editing errors is commendable, but I really do not want someone who might make blocking or deletion errors. I get the impression everything is done in a hurry, with little time taken to read up on policies, to double check things are being done correctly, which in a hostile edit war or BLP incident could result in the wrong administrative action being taken to the detriment of the project. Nick (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Chillum sums it up nicely. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Amazingly high edit count and very active, yes, but that's not an automatic mop-giver. The misuse of rollback recently and the talk page warnings that other opposers have expressed concern me over you having the mop. Not complaining about the block log as it hasn't received a new entry for five years. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. K'girl's Qs. Glrx (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. While Koavf may be the editor with the highest number of edits and content creations, he still does not understand policy as fully as may be expected of admin candidates, as seen in his talk page. I am also not concerned about the block log, though I am concerned about rollback usage. Epic Genius (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Chillum and Ironholds... highly suggest withdrawing this RFA and reapplying a year from now, when there is (hopefully) no recent history of tool misuse. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Chillum. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) "While admittedly he has been blocked 30 times" ... --Rschen7754 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that initial comment was a bit harsh, but I don't feel that they have the necessary judgment yet for the role. Being an admin is not a reward for making contributions. --Rschen7754 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - While this user certainly has a lot to add to the encyclopedia, his extensive block log (although ancient) and his talk page demonstrates impulsiveness and some immaturity. My concern is that he lacks the proper judgement and maturity to all of his tools wisely, and admins do have access to some very sensitive information that requires maturity and proper judgement. I'm not seeing that with this candidate.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) On the fence. --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 10:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Also on the fence. On the one hand, it seems unfair to oppose over talk page notices for dablinks and broken brackets. The block log is troubling, but most of it is ancient history. The candidate contributes a lot to the encyclopedia, but having the most edits isn't a qualification for adminship. I'm just not at ease with supporting here and I'm not convinced that there is any demonstration that this candidate would be a suitable admin. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. OK, you're hardworking, dedicated, and receptive to criticism - all positive admin qualities. You're focused on productive contributions and therefore visibly unsophisticated in wiki-politics - also arguably positive, but you still have to know how to navigate the difference between policy and practice. Both of your nominations were clearly offered and accepted in good faith, but suggest that both nominator(s) and nominee are not very experienced with the RfA process. The answer to Q6 is a perfectly reasonable man-on-the-street response but is evidently unaware of touching the WP:COOLDOWN third rail. IMO you'd be a perfectly good admin candidate with a little more awareness of how policy is actually practiced (note, that includes the question of whether you should have a separate bot account) and with a nomination by someone with more depth of experience in evaluating admin candidates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2015 (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.