Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kubigula


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

Kubigula
Final: (39/0/0); ended 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

- I would like to present Kubigula for your consideration. He is a conscientious and deliberate editor whose input can be seen throughout the community. He first came to my attention within the User Warnings project, with some very insightful commentary and ideas becoming an asset to that project. Starting in June 2006 Kubigula has accrued some 10,000 edits, working in the background on many janitorial tasks such as, RCP with regular and more importantly correct reports to AIV, XfD, disambiguation, notability and various other areas. But in all this behind the scenes work he has not forgotten that we are here to create an encyclopedia, and has been implicit in Constitution of Virginia article reaching GA status, with alot of work trying to get WikiProject Virginia off the ground. Please take a good look at this editor and I believe you also will find him more than suitable for the tools. Khu kri  21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with thanks to Khukri, for whom I have the greatest respect-- Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: If entrusted with the tools, I would be willing to help out wherever there is a need. At present, I would be comfortable helping with anti-vandalism efforts, via Administrator intervention against vandalism or directly during recent changes patrol, Deletion process, and Requests for page protection.  Beyond that, I enjoy exploring and learning new areas of Wikipedia, so I would be happy to work on other backlogs as needed - though I would need to further educate myself on the intricacies of the specific issues first.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I’m most proud of my work on Constitution of Virginia. It’s the first article that motivated me to go to the library and actually check out some books and to start learning the image policy.  As Khukri notes, it just passed the good article review, and I hope to get it to featured class before too long.  I’ve also enjoyed doing some legwork to help save a few deserving articles at AfD - for example Ila Loetscher.


 * In terms of Wikipedia namespace, I have been most involved with WikiProject user warnings and Notability. I’m a not one of the tech wizards at the UW project, but I’ve helped out with wording tweaks and feedback.  I also helped broker a resolution at WP:N to end the long-running dispute there.  The deal may not hold, but at least we’ve had almost a month without a dispute tag on that page.
 * Q. With respect to user warnings, what if any changes do you think should be made in our present templates and procedures? Have you accomplished all you think necessary there? DGG 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Overall, I think the user warning process is working quite well. The WP:UW project, thanks to those who have done the heavy lifting there, has made great strides in organizing, standardizing and generally making the warning template system more useful.  While great progress has been made, there is more that needs doing.  For example, there are still miscellaneous warning templates that have not been integrated into the project, redundant templates that ought to be addressed and gaps that need to be filled.


 * WikiProject user warnings/Overview is addressing the integration and resolution of the non-UW templates, and I would like to devote a block of time to go there and help out. Progress there should help clarify what gaps remain.  Beyond that, I would like to take another pass at copyediting the common templates.  They are generally solid, though there are a few that could be improved.  For example, I think the sentence structure of uw-v1 is still a little awkward.  I had previously made some suggestions about rewriting V1 and V2, and I would like to revisit those now that I have had more experience.-- Kubigula (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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’ve been involved in a few heated situations, but nothing that has really risen to the level of causing me stress. My philosophy is to avoid getting emotionally involved and to focus on resolving the issue(s),  and I have had very positive experiences in resolving differences with committed Wikipedians.  For example, User:Khoikhoi and I exchanged reverts and comments on a small but controversial point regarding Shamil Basayev, before coming to a positive resolution.


 * Dealing with those who have more dubious agendas is not as pleasant. For instance, there was a person (or persons) with constantly changing IP addresses who was subtly adding incorrect and copyrighted information to McMaster University and deleting talk page comments that pointed out the issues.  I addressed the situation, but it was my first real exposure to personal attacks and abuse.  However, I was also very gratified to find other Wikipedians notice what was happening and help out.

Optional question by AldeBaer
 * 4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
 * A: A thought provoking question. At this point, the notability guidelines, especially WP:N, are very intriguing to me.  They are a fascinating attempt to capture the almost unquantifiable concept of notability.  I have enjoyed reading and participating in the philosophical discussions there, and what I like most about these pages is that they have really made me think and reconsider my assumptions.


 * In the main space, two articles that immediately come to mind are Rhodes blood libel and Nat Turner's slave rebellion . These articles are memorable in that they grabbed my interest and exposed me to moments in history that I had been largely unaware of.   Both were interesting enough that I ended up clicking wikilinks to read more until my vision was blurry.-- Kubigula (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Kubigula:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kubigula before commenting.''

Discussion


Support Oppose
 * 1) Support - First one is for free. Good luck. Khu  kri  07:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Seems like a good editor, with many an edit I might say. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Seems definitely to be ready. --Tikiwont 08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Civil and helpfull attitude as evidenced by many comments on your talk page. Active across the 'pedia as evidenced by the tools above. Review of last 1,500 edits shows usefull and informative edit summaries. Vandalism warnings also seem to WP:AGF and not leap for the jugular each time. Oh - and a great user page with a couple of very funny diffs highlighted!! Guess that does it for me. Best of Luck. Pedro | Chat  08:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This editor is well qualified for adminship.--James, La gloria è a dio 10:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Has an excellent range of experience across all aspects of the project, and an edit count high enough to satisfy even the most demanding editor. Come join the club!--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, ready for the challenge :-) --Tone 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support- He is a very good vandal fighter and his contributions until now has been excellent..Will make a fine Janitor..-- Cometstyles 12:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Demonstrates a need for the tools, and nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools. PGWG 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Level headed and thoughtful. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. This user does meet the criteria and is a very hard worker.--Edtropolis 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Ready for the mop. Stwalkerster  talk 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. My personal interactions with the candidate have always been positive and I am impressed with his insightful and civil contributions to policy discussions, particularly in trying to devise solutions that strike a compromise between conflicting positions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) I confidently Support this fine user. — An as  talk? 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support-Good ( short for once, but still good :)) answers, good contributions, and good interactions at WP:UW. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠  Tom @  s  Bat  22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Sound answers to questions, seems cool headed and willing to learn, good candidate. - Zeibura Talk 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Thought he was one. Acalamari 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - I feel he will use the tools properly. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( ταlκ )  02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support no reasonable objections.  BH  (T|C) 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (lets Go Red Sox)
 * 21) Support per TomasBat. --wpktsfs (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Seems like a good editor, plenty of experience, answers demonstrate good understanding of the tools. Plus, adminship is no big deal. Waltonalternate account 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support good all-rounder, nice bloke, has my trust. Riana ⁂  11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Terence 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Someone with 10k edits is clearly more dedicated to the project than is healthy. Ergo, I suggest we make use of such enthusiasm. :-) --Agamemnon2 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Support-With 10,000+ edits, he is ready! Politics rule 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support – no doubt a great editor, and will succeed in areas across Wikipedia and especially in completing admin tasks. Good luck! – Se  bi  ~ 09:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Yeah...seems like a good idea. I'd trust them with the tools.  Jmlk  1  7  09:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Yes Well qualified, good mainspace work - nice editor.-- VS talk 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support A well qualified candidate. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support for strong edit history, good use for admin tools. Doczilla 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Appears to be a competent editor with strong qualities of patience and dedication. Appreciate the work at the warning project too.  Jody B   talk 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Should make an excellent admin. Davewild 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Good user to become an admin. Captain   panda  03:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Peacent 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support, what else? :) -- lucasbfr talk  09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support —AldeBaer 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - Well rounded editor ready for the mop. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.