Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kwamikagami


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

Kwamikagami
 Final  (36/9/5) ended 22:47 5 October, 2005 (UTC)

– Kwami has been working hard on Wikipedia for over a year. He is extremely well-versed in linguistics and has used his knowledge on some extremely useful projects; for example, he's produced fully referenced guides to the pronunciation of the names of astronomical bodies. More importantly, he's a thoroughly decent and very amenable chap. The Singing Badger 20:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. kwami 23:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) The Singing Badger 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC), as nominator.
 * 2) Support Astrotrain 21:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, enough edits, and has been here for a long time. Private Butcher 21:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Kwamikagami is a great editor, and thoroughly deserves adminship. &mdash; [[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) support - good phonetics, phonology, extra. – ishwar   (speak)  23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutralitytalk 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I find the lack of wikipedia-space edits refreshing. --Tony Sidaway Talk  00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 00:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support better 4 sensible edits than 40 just for the sake of an edit count. CambridgeBayWeather 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Wile E. Heresiarch 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Concur with Tony Sidaway. With regards to the statement Hoary pointed out, I trust you understand that, as an admin, you can't delete the Khoisan language article simply because you want to. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 06:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. In this case I doubt there would be more than a couple people who would vote, so I would contact the original author and anyone who had ever edited the article. kwami 07:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support. Curiously few Wikipedia namespace edits. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 10:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - concur with Tony. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. I'm not sure about the « lack of Wikipedia namespace edits »; by that argument I would probably not have obtained my own adminship. I get the feeling his heart and mind are in the right places, though. Urhixidur 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) support, what the hell, opposers, here is somebody who is into assuring that there is something to protect on Wikipedia, and doesn't spend all his time bitching on WP: pages, writes great articles without stirring up one dispute that would force him to WP: space, what more do you want? You can get a million WP: edits by adding useless comments to every entry on WP:AN or WP:VP, what's the merit in that? Baad 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm dab in a surreal mood, sue me)
 * 5) support, Kwami's contributions are notedly diligent and conscientious, and in my experience he has many times demonstrated an innate respect for consensus and fairness, and an ability to get on with other editors- all needed qualities for an admin. That these qualities have come through without recourse to WP namespace edits, is actually a plus as far as I'm concerned.--cjllw | TALK  01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Sure. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - has done excellent and much-needed work. - Mustafaa 20:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but more Wikipedia edits needed. Fir  e  Fox  T  C 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) support: adminship is not useful exclusively for the Wikipedia namespace. 24ip | lolol 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. A long history of good edits and helpful participation on talk pages says far more about ability to be an admin than a few hundred one-line grunts on AfD. Even if a lack of experience with Wikipedia-space pages proves to be a problem, any mistakes made can easily be fixed with the right attitude; and Kwamikagami definitely has that. --Aquillion 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Remember folks, even those that don't waste time in the WP: namespace can make effective use of adminship. Pcb21| Pete 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, for our constructive collaboration on IPA-related articles. Denelson83 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (insert comment here) Ryan Norton T 21:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, and damn the editcountitis. Just because a user may not utilize the AFD pages, etc. doesn't mean that he doesn't need the rollback tool.   Ral  315   WS  23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Merovingian (t) (c) 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. He has contributed a lot to language articles and he seems to know his stuff. :-) --Chris S. 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Could probably use the extra buttons. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 06:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Seems clear to me that he would be a good admin - just hope we don't lose an excellent editor in the process. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   12:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I don't think a lack of edits in the Wikipedia-namespace disqualifies; to the contrary, I think it is refreshing to have admins who focus on contributing quality stuff (we shouldn't forget that that is one of the best ways to resolve disputes and dissolve vandalism). I'm sure Kwami will put his powers to good use. &mdash; mark ✎ 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I couldn't care less that he doesn't have many WP edits, he's a solid, good editor, and will be of help to Wikipedia. WP edits are dead, God save articlespace. --Blackcap | talk 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I have seen plenty of activity on various talkpages, so I don't think lack of experience in interacting with others in the Wikipedia namespace is a big problem. Has done plenty of excellent work, so I support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, from Kawamikagami's talk page edits we see a greatever involvement than article gnoming. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --Gmaxwell 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Cool. JuntungWu 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose, While this user is not a bad user. Actually a very good editor, there just aren't enough Wikipedia space edits. Only 5.  Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * UGH My reason for oppose is not based on editcountitis. It's based on with only 5 WP space edits you can only have so much experience from that. I mean its about is he familiar with policy etc. Also i vote oppose as a benefit for Kwami becasue with Sysop powers he might be distracted from writing great articles. I would not want to lower the quality of his writing just so he could have poweres that might not even be needed. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 02:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Its only 4 if you minus the acception on this page. Type O Spud 00:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Actually, it was 5 before I edited this page. Not that that makes a lot of difference. kwami 00:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose without prejudice - Lack of wiki namespace edits makes me question this editors familiarity with policy and procedure — I will be happy to reconsider later. Fawcett5 01:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) * Oppose till user sets an email id. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. I checked the protection box when I first set up my account a year ago (I thought I was just keeping my address hidden) and never gave it another thought. kwami 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, I'm not much for editcountitis but his presence in Wikispace is practically nil. But keep up the good work! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for the reasons given above. Jonathunder 17:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC
 * 3) Per Jobe6. CryptoDerk 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - As per above. Do some work on AfDs, join some WP discussions. Show us that you care not only for good articles (as you certainly do) but for WP as a project as well, and I will support. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - needs to participate in Wikipedia namespace (Unsigned vote by User:Rogerd)
 * 6) *Regarding the few WP namespace edits: I'd like to point to Namespace shift and this conversation. --Blackcap | talk 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose for reasons already stated. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral &mdash; Consistently good editor, but only 5 Wikipedia namespace edits. →Jo urna list   >>talk<<  21:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Great editor but almost no involvement in wikipedia namespace. Get involved in AfDs, RC patrol and the Village Pump and then I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I keep seeing his great edits all over wikipedia but 5 edits in wikipedia namespace is very little. --JAranda'' | yeah 00:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I agree. I'm always happy to see his contributions to language and linguistics articles, but a lot more experience in the Wikipedia space (voting on what to delete and what to keep, giving opinions on policy matters, etc.) is really necessary before one can become an admin. (oops, I forgot to sign! --Angr/undefined 06:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC))
 * 5) Neutral per lack of edits in WP namespace. I find it curious that some people seem to think that the things that make a good editor are the same things that make a good admin.  I don't see at all that this is true.  Someone could be a brilliant writer who makes great articles, but this doesn't tell us anything about what kind of admin they'd made.  Friday (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *I feel the same; but in the same vein, I don't think voting in an RFA brings out admin qualities. IMO judment, neutrality and civility comes before all. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) *I disagree. Sure, there are lots of rules and policies to learn, but as long as a potental admin has a basic familarity with Wikipedia itself, they can easily pick them up as they go along.  The important thing is to ensure that they're capable of admitting their own mistakes, talking things through, and won't go off the handle as soon as someone tells them they're wrong. If an admin candidate has those qualities, then any initial problems they cause while learning the ropes can easily be smoothed over. --Aquillion 15:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral for now, sorry. I appreciate the answers to my tiresome questions below, Kwamigami is clearly a fine editor and probably fine "admin material" and his low percentage of WP-namespace edits may indeed be a sign of a healthy set of priorities (as well as being necessary to let him do good work in articles), but the very low number of these edits is worrisome. I'd like him to spend a little more time where tempers flare and participants aren't all as mature as readers and cowriters of linguistics articles are likely to be, and to see how he does there. I don't want to oppose, as I've a hunch he'd do well, but I can't (yet) support, either. -- Hoary 03:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * You write below: I've revamped the Khoisan language articles, which were in a pretty bad state; as admin I would delete several of them. I don't wish to argue about the quality of the articles, but find this puzzling. Could you elaborate on the last part, please? For example, do you mean that despite your efforts some of these articles are still poor and show little or no promise of ever improving, and that you'll delete them once you're given the ability to do so? -- Hoary 06:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, the wording was rather vague. A separate article had been created for every Khoisan language listed in Ethnologue 14. Problem is, a couple of these "languages" don't exist. (Even Ethnologue pulled some of them for the 15th edition.) Others are alternate or regional names, or dialects without any information available other than a name and location, which could be listed under 'dialects' in the main language articles. They were like having an article named 'Nemetskiy language' (nemetskiy is the Russian word for 'German'), with the sole content being 'An Indo-European language of Europe'. Not even worth keeping as a redirect, since it could always be found with a text search. kwami 06:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely there is some (perhaps small) case for arguing that every article about a language listed (even erroneously) in a recent edition of a well- (perhaps overly-) respected source should live on at least as a redirect, if only because some people might conceivably want to look it up and some others might re-create it if it were deleted. But all right -- let's imagine something less controversial: that some well-meaning thirteen-year-old creates Swiss language in order to put forward his essay on A Unified Swiss Language -- on how Switzerland would benefit if all its citizens agreed "simply" (!) to use the single language of English (or Latin, or Romansch, or whatever). I think you and I would agree that this is not encyclopedic (to put it mildly). If you as an administrator came across such an article, what would you do with it? (Sorry to be a bit of a bore, but I think this is important.) -- Hoary 09:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if the author wanted to keep Vasekela Bushman language as a redirect, after I pointed out that entering 'Vasekela' in the 'Go' box would turn up both articles but go directly to neither, I wouldn't argue about it.

As for the essay, it would make a good redirect to 'Swiss German'. But let's suppose the title weren't useful for a redirect. It doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. (I assume it doesn't give a name, date, assignment number, and homeroom teacher!) I would need to verify that it is not an edit, say, of an article on Swiss German or some such that could be restored, and didn't have contributions from other people. I would then tag it for deletion with for 5 days or so. I would contact the author, even if there's only an IP address. In practice, this article could be on a subject I know nothing about, and since it's unlikely to have links from other articles, I would add a notice on the talk pages of, say, Switzerland, Swiss German, etc. if I wasn't getting any votes. If the only response I got was from the 13-year-old kid, who insisted that his article was a valuable contribution, then I'd ask another admin to mediate so that it wouldn't look like I was picking on him. I'd have to ask around, but I think it would be proper protocol for me to ask another admin to actually delete, since I'm the one who nominated the article in the first place. kwami 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm, while I'm reluctant to turn this into a quibble about linguistic nomenclature, I think that a redirect from "Swiss language" to "Swiss German" would not be a good idea, because (among other reasons) Romansh is as Swiss as Swiss German is. But I'm happy with what you say you'd do if you thought "Swiss language" was superfluous even as a redirect. Thank you. Hoary 03:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a bit POV, but I would assume that someone who enters 'Swiss language' is looking for Swiss German. A disambig page is probably better. kwami 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I hear you're a good editor. Could I have a look at your best article? I would like to know if you know how you present your work, if it up to WP standards. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm such a good editor, compared to a lot of the people out there, so it's hard to decide on a "best article". People seemed to like Middle Bronze Age alphabets; one editor said he should give me an award for it. (But then I think he forgot!) Another on a similar subject is Alphabet. A lot of my edits are factual corrections or updates without much prose, like List of Khoisan languages. I like the Esperanto articles mentioned below, but they're a bit heavy on the jargon right now. I did, however, revise the main Esperanto article substantially, and edited it again for jargon after someone complained that it was inaccessible. That edit seemed to satisfy them ('Thank-you Kwami. The entry now reads much better; It is more "user-friendly", and so clear and simple that even I can understand it :-). Chris R, UK'). I've made some substantial edits to Chu shogi that I think make it read much better. I've pretty much taken over List of the most spoken native languages. That's been a lot of busy work, mostly. It's still unreliable, since we simply don't have good sources to go on, but it now agrees with Ethnologue 15, except for revisions documented on the Talk page, sometimes with considerable debate (like Persian). (I had tried defining the languages according to mutual intelligibility, and got a lot of flac for it - rightly, I now believe, so we've reverted to going by speaker identification, which brings in its own problems.) A fun article is Inclusive we, and I also like Gari Ledyard's theory on the origins of Hangul, which someone moved to Gari Ledyard. &mdash; kwami 22:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty good, I'd suggest you work those articles up to WP:FAC, WP:FLC standards. I'd prefer to abstain from voting though. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. Primarily reverting (vandalism, obvious POV - a revert button would be really nice there!) and dispute resolution (where I am qualified). I would be hesitant to block anyone, at least at first.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. What's pleased me most is when I've come to a page in the middle of an edit or POV war, rewritten the problematic section (or sometimes the whole article), and had it accepted by both sides without comment, with no further edits except for links or spelling corrections. I also pretty much wrote the Esperanto grammar, phonology, orthography, and vocabulary articles. That was a lot of work, and although I think they still need to be edited for accessibility (technical jargon), I'm pleased with them and how well they've been accepted. I've revamped the Khoisan language articles, which were in a pretty bad state; as admin I would delete several of them.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Of course. As for stress, that was mostly limited to early on when I wasn't sure of myself, or who these people were that I was debating with. I've generally tried to be civil, though sometimes when I was tired I've slipped up. Calling in a third party or putting disputes up for vote works pretty well when we really can't agree, but often just waiting till the next day clears things up. Either tempers cool, or sleeping on it allows me to see compromises I hadn't seen before. One of the things that stressed me early on was debating an admin, so as an admin I'd be careful not to be intimidating to newbies.
 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.