Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kyriakos


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

Kyriakos
Final (45/18/8); Ended 13:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

- I've long been observing Kyriakos' activity here in wikipedia, that goes on since December 2005, and IMO his achievements are simply awesome. He has dedicated himself with great passion to both WikiProject Greece and WikiProject Military history, to both of which he participates assiduously, and has recently been elected a coordinator of the latter WikiProject; but his most outstanding edits are in Greek history. Of the many good articles he created, I will just mention here the two he has brought to featured status, Cretan War and Roman-Spartan War. Also important, Kyriakos is always friendly and polite, a quality I much appreciate in him. For all these reasons, I feel Kyriakos will make a great administrator, which would never abuse the tools.Aldux 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


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

I humbly accept Aldux's nomination.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I plan on helping on several tasks. One of them is AIV. Vandalism is plaguing Wikipedia and I want to help contain users who continously keep vandalising articles. I have currently only been able to report them. Another one of the task I want to help out on is AfD. If there are articles when the time for discussion has expired and a clear consenus for deletion is agreed I would help close it.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Of all the articles I have worked on I am most proud of the Cretan War and the Roman-Spartan War which have both achieved FA standard. I am also happy with is the Maniots article which I re-wrote and am planning of getting to GA and beyond.


 * 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: No, I am happy to say that I have never been in a major conflict. When I first started on Wikipedia, I made a stupid a stupid comment of which I am not proud of but since then I have not been in a major conflict. But if in the future I do become involved in a conflict, I will keep my cool and listen with respect to what others have to say and try to defuse the situation.


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Sorry about that everyone, I made a typo. I don't mean RfD I mean AFD. Kyriakos 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)



Support
 * 1) Support An excellent editor who has contributed much to WPMILHIST and deserves the tools.--Looper5920 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Given that the user has been trusted to be an MILHIST coordinator, could need the tools. --MoRsE 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support This is a fine editor and we need more admins who actually edit. It is easy to learn admin chores and I have no doubt he will be a fine admin.Rlevse 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as nom.--Aldux 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Awesome editing! General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support Seems as though he will make a fantastic Admin--St.daniel 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Kyriakos definitely would make a great admin. Artaxiad 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support with reservations - Very good participation on various projects, seems very active, and generally knowledgeable. My only concern is lack of AIV and RfD participation.  But, due to his general activity, I believe him when he says he will be more active in these areas in the future. L uis 1972   (Talk  •  My Contribs)  17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. No reason I wouldn't trust him witrh the tools.  Coemgenus 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Please do visit WP:CRIC some time! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I've beena member of that project for over a year. Kyriakos 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! We'd like frequent visits though! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. An enthusiastic, hard working editor who will be a good admin.   semper fictilis 04:31, 1 March 2007(UTC)
 * 2) Support. You don't need to need the tools, just be trusted not to mess up using them. Grace Note 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, excellent editor, however, more regular visit at XfD, WP:ANI, WP:AIV,.. will enrich your experience as an admin. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support. Strong Edit History and great Contributor. Keep up the good Work! §†SupaSoldier†§  20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Will use the tools wisely, methinks.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I like your answers and your edits seem well spread out-- 양 복  42 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Ruralendeed 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandal-only SPA. – Chacor 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Mr. Wikipedian 22 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * SPA; I'm leaving the validity of this one up to the 'crats to decide, but note that the account appears to have been created as a test of the username policy (violating WP:POINT; see their contribs). --ais523 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Likes editing Power Rangers-related articles and RfAs, just like other in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson &mdash;Dgiest c 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, no reason not to. Proto   ►  21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. What Proto said. Khoikhoi 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per criteria set forth on my user page. Edivorce 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, "no need for the tools" expresses a concern that the editor would use Wikipedia's mops incorrectly. However, I have no such worry with this careful and prolific editor. Even if he only shuts down an vandal once in a blue moon, he will do good with the tools. There is simply no reason to deny them here. Cool Hand Luke 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I feel less than logical on this support. I will dare criticism by saying I have a good feeling about this nom. A hunch, a gut instinct. I fail at applying strict standards in this case.  Pig manTalk to me 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Trusted user. Oldelpaso 11:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support My initial reasons for neutral are not enough. I will support now. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Dedicated, hardworking contributor. --RobthTalk 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The contributions of this user shows that he is an excellent asset for the Wikipedia community.  --alidoostzadeh 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I doubt he will abuse the tools, writing two FAs is hard work and the person much be knowledgeable in policy to write them. We also need more specialist admins as they know about the subject they are writing and they can revert some edits, like false info for example that a normal user doing RC patrol won't quickly notice. Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - don't see a problem with this one. Deb 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Well balanced editor, overall experience acceptable, very good article-writing capabilities, his increased duties as coordinator in WPMILHIST will definitely require the tools, I trust he will not abuse the tools in any way. NikoSilver 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, principally because all of the oppose votes annoyed me. To the oppose voters - so what are you looking for? Face glued to the screen all day, commenting on random AfDs and RfDs just to push up the editcount? Is that really a healthy direction to send Wikipedia in? Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support This is my first vote. It should be positive. Besides, he is a good editor, can be a good admin. too.cs 19:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Great editor, having created two FAs. Intensive project involvement, as he is now an assistant-coordinator in the Military history project. Also the creator of a great portal of the Military of Greece Portal. Calm, patient (much more than me!), and ready to assist whenever necessary. What else can I say?! Just one thing: he is definitely going to be a great administrator.--Yannismarou 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I've seen nothing but constructive edits from this user.--Domitius 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support This is a excellent editor. --Asteraki 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Quality user. SMBarnZy 10:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support There are more important qualities than experience. Miskin 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support per the-editor-formerly-known-as-Proto and Grace Note. XfD isn't the domain of rocket scientists, nor is handling WP:AIV requests. The oppose reasons run from the minor, into unreasonable, if predictable, and beyond into outright hypocrisy. One oppose voter, for example, was mopped almost exactly a year ago with around 2500 edits, and such AfD gems under their belt as "Insufficient notability", and "Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Until someone can answer this question satisfactorily: Why would giving this user the admin tools damage Wikipedia? I see no reason to oppose. If this user has made nearly 5,000 edits without any blocks, surely he knows enough not to unprotect the main page, delete AfD, block Jimbo, etc. I find all of the oppose reasons listed unconvincing. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Very Weak support. Concern of Dgies is serious but overall the candidate look good. I would definitely prefer more evidence that the candidate had experience in the areas the candidate intended to work on. JoshuaZ 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support An asset to Wikipedia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per many comments above and history. I believe this editor can be trusted with the tools. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support valuable editor. --Mardavich 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose You say you want to help with RfD, but I see zero edits on RfDs. You say you want to fight vandals, but I see only 4 edits to WP:AIV.  I don't see a need for the tools, nor experience in policies needed to apply them. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: 11 AfD edits is better than 0 RfDs, but still doesn't show much experience. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Dgies, with no current participation in RfD and limited contributions to AIV I would suggest there's no clear need for the tools. The Rambling Man 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that even though I am not very experienced in those areas I would like to help out in those areas. Kyriakos 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't think the nominee has enough experience with process to be confident that they won't make too many mistakes. You could try participating in these areas even without being an admin; if you want to close XfDs, for instance, try making well-reasoned !votes in them so that we can get an idea of how you'd interact with the process. Try discussing improvements to processes on their talk pages so you get a better idea of how they operate. Most of all, show what you'd do with the admin tools by asking admins to perform actions for you. If you plan to protect things, make suggestions about what should be protected at WP:RFPP; if you plan to block users, make requests at WP:AIV; and if you plan to delete things, nominate pages at the XfD pages, add prod tags, and/or place things in CAT:CSD. You should also consider using edit summaries more, as they make it easier for people to figure out what you've done in watchlists, article histories, and contribs pages (the last is only really relevant during RfA, normally, but the other two will also be useful). --ais523 11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have actually looked through your recent AfD and AIV contributions (see the random diffs I've generated on the talk page), and they concern me somewhat. One of your four recent AIV requests was denied, and all four were misformatted (you used the template for registered users on an IP), which makes me worry that you might make mistakes blocking users; many (but not all) of your AfD votes either don't give a reason, and some of the reasons you did give were somewhat dubious, so I'm not sure that you'd close XfDs correctly either. --ais523 12:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to concerns raised by ais523, especially those about the WP:AIV reports. Needs more experience of admin-related process. Very low edit summary use also a problem. WjBscribe 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Yuser31415 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per ais523. -- MECU ≈ talk 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I see alot of people saying that he "deserves" the tools or could be a good admin or "is a great article writer". None of these are criteria for adminship: it is not a trophy, he's hasn't proven he would be a good admin (or has even displayed a understanding of sysop responsibilities) and writing articles has nothing to do with being a good admin (though it helps). This user doesn't have near enough process participation and his answer to Q1 was weak and formulaic at best. NeoFreak 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He has displayed a character that is befitting to an administrator. You are right that editing articles is not sufficient as a stand-along criterion for adminship, but then again neither is process participation. Interest in wikipedia can be faked, character cannot. Miskin 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per ais523, and evidence of inexperience in wiki-process. Xoloz 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Based on minimal edits to WP:AIV, WP:AFD, inexperience in process, low activity in Wikipedia main space and your statement that you are not very experienced in the first two makes me feel that you are not quite ready for adminship.  You are a good editor, but answers to the questions don't show a need for the tools. The areas that you participate in do not require them. Not providing a rationale for your AFD contributions, low edit summary usage and the is disturbing.  Will support in three months if your edit history shows that you are ready.--– Dakota 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Serious Oppose: Low project involvement and lack of summary use. Give it another 4-6 months and a lot of boldness, and then you'll have that mop. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Little to no experience in Wikipedia:. --- RockMFR 05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose You are probarbly a good editor in Wiki, but you dont have much experience. try again later Smbarnzy 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing duplicate !vote, since this one was first, I assume that he has changed his opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. I'm concerned that you say "I admit that even though I am not very experienced in those areas I would like to help out in those areas"; you need experience before helping out. Trebor 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -Come back with the above recommended experience and you should do well. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Dakota. Michael 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose → mathobot's results → Low use of edit summary and only 21 minor edits. If you claim to do vandal fighting... Anyway, happy editing  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI  -  17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) OpposeNot ready yet, & doesn't need the tools Johnbod
 * 6) Oppose - Sorry, need more experience. — Mete oroid  »  03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per concerns raised by Dgies and ais523. Please work on improving these areas and then apply again. --After Midnight 0001 14:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Good editor and Wikipedian, but no real need for the tools is exhibited by your project-space contributions. -  A nas  <font size="-4"> Talk? 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Impressive editor, but you need more project-space experience.-- danntm T C 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Awesome to see a WP:MILHIST coordinator, but man I can't stand that edit summary usage. It's 5% for major edits and 48% for minor edits. Plus, this user has only made 21 minor edits in the mainspace. That really holds my vote here for now. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) changed to support
 * Unless you misspoke and meant to say "only 21 major edits", it's worth noting that minor edits aren't a good determination of a user's editing; I haven't used minor edits in at least a year and a half because I noticed that people were being yelled at for overusing minor edits, so I figured it was easier to never mark any edits as minor. Ral315 » 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to so "minor" in my statement and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a lack of minor edits indicated the equivilant of poor edit summary usage. Sorry if I posted incorrect points. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Great editing, but the points brought by Captain panda, ais523, and dgies are not very reassuring.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. An extremely solid contributor to articles and WikiProjects. Lacking experience in admin and policy areas though. This candidate could definitely use some more time to get involved in policy and process, although it wouldn't be the end of the world if this RfA passed. He seems like an intelligent and dedicated contributor. – Lantoka  (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per above. Probably would support in 2 months if you report a few more vandals to WP:AIV. Also, to be honest, not sure about your formatting - lack of wikilinks and overuse of bold text. Similarly, consider using more edit summaries. That said you are a very good editor. Agree that it wouldn't really be a disaster if you were given the buttons. Addhoc 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I am convinced by both the support arguments and the oppose arguments, therefore must be neutral. Reapply in a few months and I will probably support. Good luck. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!)  13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per supporters and opposers. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - I see a compleate and utter lack of edit summaries. I don't care about a 100%... but when 5% for non-automatic edits summaries over the last 100 edits?  And dont' everyone get all bent out of shape... I don't think 100% is a requirement for regular edits, but it does need to be near 100% for admin actions.  In addition I see very little activity in any of the administrative side of wikipedia.  Also, something thats mildy bothersom is the underuse of minor edits. None of that is enough to make me want to oppose the nomination, but it's enough to prevent me from supporting. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 5 March 2007 (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.