Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 2


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

ktr101
Final: (1/9/4); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Useight at 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't really think of a good opening sentence that doesn't make me sound like a narcissist, so I'll just try my best in this statement. As an administrator, I would continue to hold myself to the high regard that I currently do now. I would help to downgrade Wikipedia's reputation of being unreliable and plagiarized. I know that I have done the latter before and I now truly regret it. I know that some people will question my talk page and I will tell them that if you go to the person I talked to about it, some of those templates were placed by accident. I would like to say though that those incidents have helped give me greater insight over things such as citations and the like because I know how to do them correctly as well as how not to do them. An administrator has a position of power which they should never abuse and I never intend on doing that.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Work that I would do as an administrator would include page cleanup, counselling other users who have made the mistakes that I have made, page protection, new page work, and making sure recent changes are not vandalism. I would also continue the regular routine that I currently do now, which includes all of the above as well as creating pages. I know that I previously was blocked to plagiarizing pages. I was young and naive then. In hindsight, I know now that it wasn't probably the best thing to do at the time. I have since learned how to do citations etc. That is where the counseling part comes from.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia involve the edits that I have made to military pages, those pages being my best subject area. I enjoy creating pages useful to those who might not have knowledge that a particular thing ever existed. If I had to name page topics, they would probably include those on Camp Edwards, the 102nd Fighter Wing, train stations on Cape Cod, and the List of United States Air National Guard Squadrons. If I really am interested in a topic, I am more likely to contribute to it, hence the multitude of pages. In the end though, everything is a good edit to Wikipedia, because there is always something to add to things.


 * 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: I have been in edit conflicts before. Usually these involve things that are current events, such as space shuttle flights where everyone is rushing to be the first to contribute an important fact to a page. Some are simple conflicts caused by two different sections being edited at once. Usually I know that I am not editing what someone else is editing so I just refresh the page and edit what I intended on editing. When people are changing correct information that I put in, I usually change it and put a reference from a respectable site onto it so that another editor who might change it knows that I haven't pulled the fact right out of the blue. People have caused me stress before and I usually just take a deep breath, remind myself that the edits are hopefully in good faith, and correct the information with the right information. I have had one instance where I was insulted on a page. I just reverted the edit and warned the user. I know that insults to the people like that are really immature since they are usually IP addresses registered to my school.


 * Additional question from Rudget
 * 4: Your last RfA was only a few months ago; do you feel that you have had time to reflect and possibly make yourself a better candidate in that period? What have you done in that time to present yourself as a better nominee? Rudget   ( logs ) 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A: I think that in the past few months I diversified myself a lot more. When I originally nominated myself, I was only creating ANG pages, which really held back what I could do. Since that time, I have been able to diversify my skills by doing things such as tagging government pictures with their right licenses, participating in more AFD's, merging and splitting pages, as well as other things which I cannot currently think of. I also learned from my mistakes which people told me about in my last nomination and I learned to not do them again if I wanted to re-nominate myself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Gears of War
 * 5 A simple question really. I havent got to search to much through your contribs, but how active are you with reverting vandalism and AFDs? King Rock (Gears of War) 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A: When it comes to reverting vandalism, I've tried to use Twinkie but to no avail. I try to patrol the new pages when I find the time and I focus more on the articles that slipped through the cracks early on. In respect to the AFDs, i've tried not to repeat others' responses because I feel like i'm snowballing and I dislike that. When it comes to being at the end of the discussions, I try not to be but sometimes that is the case.

General comments

 * Links for ktr101:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ktr101 before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Support for same reason I gave last time. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) It's been less than a month and a half since your last RFA and as far as I can see, you haven't addressed the concerns that were raised there. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it looks like you're making solid gains in your contributions and I hope you continue, but you need to demonstrate that you would know what to do if you were given the extra buttons. None of the areas of focus you've mentioned in your answers require adminship. I would suggest waiting a minimum of 3 months before your next RFA and ensure you've made substantial contributions to adminly areas like AfD, speedy deletion, AIV, and such. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I've looked to see what you have changed since your last RfA that was snow closed. You were told that work in admin-areas was neccesary, specifically the project space, but just about all of the edits you have made there are automated template types to wiki projects (technically in the project space). It looks like in one instance you went through a handful of AfDs, the last to !vote on all of them, essentially reiterating what everyone else had already said. Since your last RfA, it looks like you simply tried to get your wikipedia space count up without making any other changes. You haven't even changed your answers to the RfA questions since last time. Finally, both your nom statement and answer to Q1 show you don't likely understand the point of becoming an admin; virtually everything you have written has nothing to do with adminship. It's been about 7 weeks since your last RfA, I reccommend a quick withdrawal and starting up an editor review if you want to gain constructive feedback. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Gwynand. --Kbdank71 18:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per Xenocidic. King Rock (Gears of War) 19:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above Antonio Lopez  (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I would like to request a NOTNOW close due to the close proximity of this self-nom to the last. No need to make this a pile-on bloodbath. Thank you.--Finalnight (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - recommend a withdraw or a WP:SNOW close. You're still a good editor, but I'm extremely concerned by the lack of improvement from the last RfA, which wasn't that long ago to begin with. I need to see some growth. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per xenocidic. Recommend withdraw. Little Mountain 5  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) While you do help the encyclopedia, there really is no major contributions, making me go neutral.-- LAA Fan  18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I must admit I can see this editor as an administrator one day, but poorly constructed arguments at AfD (the only real measure I can view, in the absence of others) and some non-participation in vital areas puts me firmly neutral. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - I see lots of dedicated effort in military articles in areas that seem like few others wish to be involved in. I appreciate the effort and the desire to do more for the encyclopedia. However, I see some troubling signs from the point of view of adminship. For example, in actual article building, I see a small tendency toward original research (but small enough that I won't paste any diffs). I see stub templates being added to articles seemingly only to identify categories for the articles. As a purely personal preference, I am not thrilled with three spelling errors in your nominating statement. (Note: spelling errors were fixed quickly.) These are individually mostly minor things but add up to a collective opinion of not now, but you're on the right track. Frank  |  talk  19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Not going to pile on here. Perhaps a SNOW close is in order? S. Dean Jameson 19:27, 10 July 2008 (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.