Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TehKewl1 2


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

TehKewl1
Final (10/31/12) Ended 09:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

– Well, this is my second attempt, maybe things will go better this time now that I crossed the 1000th edit bar and have an archived talk page, I started back in may or april as VandalKilla, and on IRC I was told it was too hostile, so this was all I could come up with, anyway lack of sysop capabilities gets frustrating, especially when I have to speedy a new article that is particularly obscene, I think it would be better for us all if I could just delete it. TehKewl1 07:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept TehKewl1 07:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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 voters:
 * 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: Deleting spam articles, blocking vandals and protecting pages, as well as fixing up other admins mistakes to fully protected pages.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: The only thing I really like to see is the screenshot I made for XChat, it's nice to bring up the page in different places and see that I actually made a difference.


 * 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: Yes, sadly I tried to fight fire with fire seeing as I go crazy when people make fun of Nintendo, I found it especially annoying when it's article was blanked and replaced with "NINTENDO IS POO!!!!!", so I went to his User page and noticed he had already been warned, and I stupidly put my two cents in. I'll never do that again, I'll just wait for the vandal to vandalise enough and then report him/her to WP:AIV or if I survive this, just block them.

Supplementary question from (aeropagitica):
 * 4. Can you provide ten difs where you have cited policies and guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc, in contributions to XfD discussions or reverting vandalism and warning vandals?

Optional Question from Qaanaaq
 * 5.Apart from vandalism, what is your biggest concern about Wikipedia?
 * A: My biggest concern other than vandalism is exploitation and legal threats, people like Daniel Brandt etc who continue to try and tell users not to use wikipedia is something I cannot stand, plus his logging of our IRC channel is something I despise. TehKewl1 10:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification I just realised how badly I had wrote that. I meant more what issues are facing WP than concerns. Qaanaaq

Question from Ginkgo100
 * 6. Under what circumstances would you speedy delete a spam article?
 * A: First I would check it's history, date and time of creation, then check it with the admins in #wikipedia-en-admins, and if they they agree, I would delete the article.
 * Clarification. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Under what circumstances do you consider a newly created article to be deletable as spam? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A:A new article that is insanely NPOV or lacks or is about a non notable person. TehKewl1 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from 
 * 7. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A:


 * 8. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
 * A:


 * 9. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
 * A:

Optional question from 
 * 10. What are your thoughts on sockpuppets or more correctly editors that do not acknowledge that they have multiple accounts?
 * A:


 * General comments


 * See TehKewl1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
 * TehKewl1 editcount summary stats as of 08:47, October 29 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 08:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/TehKewl1 previous adminship request.--Konst.ableTalk 10:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This editor has had an editor review found here. -- ReyBrujo 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)



Discussion Support
 * If you want to become more involved in admin-type activities, I suggest signing up for admin coaching, a program run by Esperanza. It will pair you with one or two current admins that will help you explore different areas of Wikipedia and help you start to perform "admin duties" (closing noncontroversial AfD's with consensus to keep the article, for example)  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak-ish Support, Wikipedia would benefit from this user getting the mop & bucket. Although the answers aren't as in-depth as most noms, I get the general picture, and feel TehKewl1 would do these jobs amicably. Edit summary % is good, and I don't have editcountis, so I'm not going to bother to oppose purely for it; that said, I'd like to see some more, but I think that this could be an exception. I have a very good impression of this user. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, unlikely to abuse the toolS, good vandal fighter (though a bit too brutal at times ;)) I've known TehKewl1 since he first showed up on Wikipedia, and from my experience he would be great candidate for clearing AIV, which I have found to be ever-filling lately. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Even though there have been a couple dubious edits like this, but, since I'm assured that that was just a one-off, I'm convinced there won't be any abuse of admin tools... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nippoo (talk • contribs).
 * 4) Uber Strong Supprot Good vandal fighter, and good channel-taker-over-er :) Will be a good addition to the team &mdash; D e on555talk Review 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. DarthVad e r 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak-ish support per Daniel Brandt (heh, pardon the pun); wish we could set TehKewlBot loose over Wikipedia. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) support just cause I like the dude. ~ crazytal es 56297  O rly? 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support from my previous positive experiences with TehKewl1, and I can see no particularly compelling reason to oppose. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) support keep up the good work Mjal 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) The nomination makes it seem that you've come here just because you've finally crossed 1000 edits. That's not what I want from an admin. Also, lack of proper article edits. Also lack of project experience. This ("Oh and btw.... j00 4r3 p00") was also fairly recent enough to concern me. – Chacor 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to strong oppose per updated Q6 answer. "Insanely NPOV" is not a CSD spam criteria. Neither is non-notability - that's CSD A7. – Chacor 07:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I used the wrong term, by "spam" I meant any article that would normally be speedied. TehKewl1 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The singular of "criteria" is "criterion", just for info... haz  (talk)  e  17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose AmiDaniel (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, well intentioned, but far too brash. Lack of real article contributions is a major concern. Sorry. —Pengo talk · contribs 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose sorry, but while I am not a supporter of the 1 FA requirement that some people have, I think at least some experience in actual article edits rather than janitorial work is necessary.--Konst.ableTalk 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Good vandal fighter, but only two users reported on WP:AIV. Four edits on main talk, 41 on project namespace and very little actual article contributions show lack of experience. Prolog 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Candidate has insufficient experience in every area, and doesn't appear to understand that adminship is just a mop, not a badge (or something for which to strive from one's first edit.) Nothing personal, but the candidate needs to be seasoned a bit more before his next nomination -- wait six months or so at least. Xoloz 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Weak answers, needs a lot more experience.-- Hús  ö  nd  13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Inexperience in vital aspects. Do some article-writing, perhaps work up a featured article, and get involved with internal processes say XfD. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, way short of required experience levels - see Prolog. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, lacks of experience, weak answers, try again soon and participate in admin activities. --Ter e nce Ong (T 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, sorry, fails many personal criteria, this includes edit count, ridiculous question answers and a recent warning. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Good intention? Yes. Suitable? No. If every user with 1000 edits are qualified to apply for adminship, that'll be chaotic. 40 Wikipedia Edits shows your lack of WP experience. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose needs more experience and weak answers.--Jersey Devil 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - as others have pointed out, little experience with policy ST47 Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Q3, and I don't even know what the answer to Q5 means. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak Oppose. Definitely well-intentioned, but the end of your answer to question 3 is a little worrying. Admins should be aware of conflicts of interest and should avoid using their tools in such cases. The mention of Daniel Brandt is a bit out of left field (but then I'm not sure what purpose question five serves--is it context specific to this RfA? could someone provide clarification?). More experience generally wouldn't hurt. Irongargoyle 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I wrote that question very badly, What i meant was, 'Apart from vanadalism, what would be some of the issues facing WP, which would show how well he generally understands whats happening. Apologies :) Qaanaaq 07:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. I'm sorry, but to me, desperation is a sign of volatility and weakness. May be you should try working on other stuff instead of vandal-fighting for some time. Sysopping is a holistic upward movement. You'll see a change in yourself then and look at Wikipedia in a broader perspective. Cheers. -- Ch e z  ( Discuss / Email ) &bull; 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Lack of experience, lack of variety in activities, inadequate answers. Very little in the edit history to demonstrate breadth of understanding/promotion of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and goals. Lack of involvement in what Wikipedia is ultimately trying to create. Sounds like the user wants admin tools for loaded weapons. Wryspy 07:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Wryspy. Nish kid  64  21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose due to insufficient experience --Steve 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. TehKewl's contribution history shows a general lack of variety in contribution. S/he does not demonstrate very much knowledge of policy.  I am disturbed by Chacor's diff - that type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable from any user, especially an admin.  The statement of "maybe things will go better this time now that I crossed the 1000th edit bar and have an archived talk page" reeks of editcountitis and ignorance of other issues raised on the first RfA.  1,000 edits plus archived talk page does not equal adminship.  TehKewl, please participate in XfDs and come back more civil (per that diff provided by Chacor, civility doesn't seem to be a strong point).  Srose   (talk)  01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose, I'm afraid per most of the comments above. Aside from what I see as perhaps a lack of maturity, there are some glaring deficiencies: only 4 article talk namespace edits, 1 wikipedia talk namespace edit, and 46 WP namespace edits. Jcam 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose, due to the fact that your questions seem very, very weak. Please come back once you have more namespace edits.--S e <font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue" size="4">adog
 * 24) Oppose per pretty much all of above. Weak answers, lack of familiarity with Wiki process. Come back in a few months with some more experience. And as a note: Spamming IRC for votes isn't a good idea either. - ^ demon [yell at me] <em style="font-size:10px;">08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose per lack of experience. Michael 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose due to experience, but please stick at it and don't be discouraged. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose per all other users. --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose per Q3 ("I go crazy when people make fun of Nintendo"), Q5 ("...people like Daniel Brandt") and generally weak answers to the rest of the questions. Optional questions are (obviously) optional, but they're a chance to show that you have understanding of policy and process. --Daniel Olsen 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Whilst it is, I think, likelier than not that TehKewl1 is possessed of sufficiently good judgment that he would neither abuse nor volitionally misuse the tools, I can't conclude with any degree of confidence that his temperament and knowledge of policy are such that he wouldn't avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) misuse the mop, etc., and so I think it far from clear that the net effect on the project of TehKewl1's becoming an admin would be positive (my RfA standard). The failure to respond to the optional questions, too, is a bit disconcerting; if  the candidate, upon his apprehending that the RfA might not succeed, was not further interested in partaking of questions&mdash;which would, I think, be quite fine&mdash;it might have been better had he said so explicitly.  Joe 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose It is a little early in the game.  I think more seasoning is needed.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, leaning support. It certainly appears you have all the right intentions, but it might be helpful to wait a while longer and become more well-rounded. (Most admin candidates have >3000 edits and, more importantly, a history of good article contributions on top of the admin-like stuff.) I echo Chacor's concern about coming here just because you have 1000 edits, but then again, you do seem to know what you're doing and have a good use for the tools. I'm very torn on this. Grand  master  ka  07:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Candidate needs a little more experience... not necessarily contributions to articles, though it would be nice to see some variety – Gurch 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral.  Appears to be a good, reliable vandal fighter, but admins should ideally contribute more to article creation/revision, AfD discussions, and the like.  One can easily be an effective vandal fighter without being an admin.--Caliga10 11:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral You mean well, but you need to get a better grasp of Wikipedia policy and custom.-- danntm T C 19:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Good user, but not enough experience. - Mike  |  Trick or Treat  20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I'm going to with a neutral on this one as I think that TehKewl1 could be a good admin but that the answers above don't demonstrate a level of competence that I associate with admins. The lack of answers to my supplementary question is also particularly telling, as an admin is required to be aware of policy and guidelines. (aeropagitica) 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. I see this user on IRC all the time, but until five minutes ago I was unaware that he edited. — freak([ talk])</tt> 07:46, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral to avoid pile-on, please withdraw, the answer for number three is one of the worst I have ever seen in my time here, number 2 tells that he has no experince in article writing whatsoever, isn't ready for a while. Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral till he answers completely <font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;"> Doctor Bruno  15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral for now. I think that you have good intentions and I would have kept the name VandalKilla. &mdash;MJCdetroit 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral. Is a truly great editor, but stick around for longer, seriously. haz  (talk)  e  17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Not sure, really. You're a good editor, but I think you need some more time. riana_dzasta 10:05, 3 November 2006 (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.