Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kerotan

Kerotan

Voice your opinion (talk page) (7/7/0); Scheduled to end 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kerotan (talk · contribs) - Where to start? Asking Kerotan to adopt me was on of the smartest things I have done in my time on the Wiki. He has answered any questions I have had (See our talk pages). He has also been a great friend and question-answerer on IRC. He has been a long time helper and lurker on #wikipedia-en-help on the freenode network. He is an account creator. He is a coordinator of Spotlight. Many people may say that he isn't an article builder, but his work in Spotlight shows the contrary. If you are someone who follows the "Why the Hell not?" line of thinking for RfAs, I must ask you, Why the Hell not? He fights vandals, welcomes new users, and edits images. He is a great overall editor who will make a great administrator.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Soxred93: For a long time, I have seen Kerotan around Wikipedia. Until a few days ago, I even thought he was an admin. I've worked with him on the Spotlight, Request an account, WP:ADOPT, and many other places. I believe he has the real knowhow to be an admin. Soxred 93 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by JamieS93: Kerotan has been a Wikipedia user since August 2006, though more actively editing since early 2008, and I’m pleased to co-nominate him for administratorship. After having a recent conversation with him about admin tasks over the IRC freenode network, I’m confident that he has the responsibility and knowledge to be an admin with the areas that he plans to work in. Kerotan has had much experience with his quality WP:AIV reports, as well as WP:ACC, assisting new users, and the Wikipedia Spotlight project where he’s one of the coordinators. Kerotan is a very level-headed, reasonable user who is obviously knowledgeable of Wikipedia's policies. He said he plans to work with helping users and resolving problems at WP:ANI, which he seems prepared to do. I believe that Kerotan would make a good addition to the community of Wikipedia administrators, and am glad to support him with this. –Jamie^☆S93 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help: Kerotan's been amazingly active and useful with the Spotlight and can certainly be trusted with the mop. This user would not misuse the tools, whether on purpose or by accident, and would, I'm sure, use them in a way that would benefit the encyclopedia greatly. I don't think there's anything more I can say, except wish Kerotan good look and make my support vote below...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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: I aim to partake in many fields, but mainly (but not exclusively), AIV, UAA, ANI, 3R,AFD/XFD,CSD and perhaps ACC so in general pages that regularly get backlogged, and especially in the case of AIV, I believe that these areas need to be backlog free because it makes constructive users that submit AIV reports feel like something is done about the vandal reported and that they are not getting ignored.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: While I have written and helped write a few articles, I think my greatest contribution and the one that I am most proud of, is the help I have provided to other wikipedians, through the helpdesk, the {{Helpme}} tag, and the adopt-a-user program, which I must add was one of the wisest one of the wisest decisions I have ever made.

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 believe that there is a lot of potential stress in helping people at the helpdesk, since at times people seem to ask silly questions and do not seem to be reading the help already provided. However I think its important to remember that we all were new once, and what seem like stupid questions to us are in fact perfectly bona fida questions. To deal with stress I like to listen to music when I edit, also I find that eating regularly, and drinking water regularly helps to improve my mood, and safeguards me from snapping out at others users.

Additionally I think its important for all users to remember that editing wikipedia should be fun and interesting, and that is why I spend most of my time when I edit on IRC with users talking to people while they edit, and I find that this part of wikipedias community is essential because it keeps users happy.

'Additional questions from Haemo:

Since a number of people are opposing you on the basis that you are more concerned about the bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia, and don't have the editorial experience necessary to effectively administrate. You state, in your nomination, that you look forward to participating in closing deletion discussions, speedy deleting items, and monitoring the three revert rule boards; thus, I think some questions are appropriate.

1: Fair use and the use of non-free content on Wikipedia is a contentious part of the encyclopedia. As an admin working in CSD areas you will quickly find that enormous backlogs quickly develop here (esp. in images), and that there is a crisis of conscience for many admins when they look at the candidates. Our non-free content policies are tremendously complicated, and many experienced users (to say nothing of new users) have a very hard time uploading images and media in a manner which complies with our policies. Many times, you will come across material that substantially meets our requirements for non-free content, but has been tagged for failing in one particular respect. For example, an image may have a rationale, be used in only one article, but no article name is present in the rationale — or the article name is not the literal string that the Wikipedia article is. (Point in case, it might say "Fair use in the article about the painter Vincent Gogh" whereas the article is Vincent van Gogh.") As another example, an image might be fully compliant, but not have a clear source — but a Google Image search quickly finds a source for the same image. Bearing in mind that these images were uploaded in good faith, what degree of responsibility to admins have to fix it before summarily deleting an image? What is your opinion about the role of non-free content on Wikipedia in general?

2: Working at the helpdesk is laudable, but there is very little serious emotional involvement with the editors there; most of them are newcomers, unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and it is difficult to get tied up in emotions when dealing with them. You propose, however, to work with WP:AN3, and deal with people who are breaking the three-revert rule. What do you feel drives people to edit war to the degree that they would be reported here? Do you have any experience with the kind of emotional situations on Wikipedia they must face to do such a thing — especially after being warned, or previously blocked? Many times on this board, you will be confronted with a situation in which two users (reporter and reportee) have violated 3RR — or one of them has, and the other one has had, say 3 in 24 hours and 4 in 48 hours. What would be your response in cases like this? What if one side is making edits which pose a serious encyclopedic problem (for example, adding fringe theories or unsourced and dubious material to an article) and those reverting them have violated three reverts? What if there is a real, outstanding issue that one "side" of a discussion is using tag-teaming to get "their" view in the article, despite the requests for discussion and objections of other editors? What would be your approach?

3: As an admin, and someone who uses IRC frequently, what is your opinion about the role of IRC on Wikipedia? I take it as a given that you will apply for en.admins access if you are given adminship — what do you feel is the appropriate role of this channel? Do you think a private channel for admins is appropriate? Would you use it to "chat" to other admins? At what point does this violate the open spirit of Wikipedia, and make adminship a social club — or worse, an editorial cabal?

4: A second question related to IRC, and meatpuppetry — as an admin active in areas like WP:AFD, WP:ANI, and WP:3RR you will invariably come across accusations of sockpuppetry. Many times on IRC, people will gripe to what they believe is a sympathetic audience about their editorial problems on Wikipedia. Does this amount to canvassing? What kind of role in an open collaborative project does a private discussion group have — and is it reasonable to be hold that people with similar positions on a subject can be sockpuppets? What is sockpuppetry to you, and is it harmful?

5: The "block-ban" question is a tired chestnut, so let's put it to rest. Many times on Wikipedia, users will be banned for one reason or another — however, they many return, secretly and be entirely productive contributors. Hundreds of good edits may amass while the evade their ban — until they slip up. Very few people are banned without a good reason, and basically all of those banned have injured people on Wikipedia (rightly or wrongly, let's not get into that) — invariably, they will request that we revert the contributions of these users. Does this help the encyclopedia? Where do you stand on this? What is the role for good faith and second chances here? Third chances?

6: One last question. As an admin, you may be the target of real-world harassment for no reason other than your status of the admin. Are you comfortable with this? Many users are not, and in the course of their editorial work on Wikipedia, they attract unwanted attention — you have not had this kind of experience, but the importing of off-Wiki disputes and harassment onto Wikipedia is a common problem, and one which you (as a commentator at WP:ANI and WP:AIV) may have occasion to deal with. To what extent do admins have a responsibility to intervene in off-Wiki disputes which spill onto here? Do admins have a responsibility to protect the privacy of users on Wikipedia — even when they have revealed that information previously? What is your opinion of anonymity and privacy on Wikipedia?

General comments

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

• Links for Kerotan: Kerotan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

May I ask why collaborations on Talk Pages aren't as good as collaboration via IRC?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer WP:SPOT because it's faster...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator. –Jamie^☆S93 15:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support as co-nom. Soxred 93 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support: As co-nom...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, no reason to believe user would misuse or abuse the tools. Those opposes are absolutely absurd; too many co-noms? What does that have to do with anything? Program-assisted edits still help the encyclopedia, and the user still has thousands upon thousands of non-assisted edits. --Rory096 16:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Note I am in the neutral section, not oppose. Rudget (logs) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   There aren't any opposes based on the co-nom thing, only Rudget's neutral.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Opposes per Rudget imply that they concur with his arguments. --Rory096 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I said "per Rudget. However, this is weak oppose"...then gave my reasoning for it. I would have been neutral. My oppose is not based on the number of co-nominations. It's based on the the relative inexperience in the project space beyond using huggle for WP:AIV, yet in the answer to question 1, the user wishes to participate in other areas where there is little to know experience. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Support -- Seen the user around. Always up to good. --Cameron (T|C) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support because this user looks like a good candidate, and because the opposes (as usual) are baseless and absurd. Al Tally ^talk 17:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Hey, what a surprise, Majorly weakens his argument by making a barbed comment about the opposition. Word of advice. Keep it to yourself and go back to just signing your name every once in a while in the support section. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Enough. This is quick becoming an argument; I will be withdrawing my participation if this is to continue. Rudget (logs) 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, Wisdom89, please try to remain civil. Like Rudget said, we don't need Personal Attacks or yelling matches here.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wisdom89, stop making crappy opposes and I'll stop making barbed comments about them. Cheers, Al Tally ^talk 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

:Weak Oppose - Per Rudget. However, this is a weak oppose because the candidate needs to broaden the project space activity beyond just using huggle. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does not have any edits using Huggle: "Edits using Huggle: 0"  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the user's special contributions, there are Huggle edits. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

HUH? I don't use Huggle and I don't use Twinkle. Am I now expected to give up my admin bit? You'd actually oppose if someone doesn't use Huggle? These artifcial requirements for adminship totally miss what it takes to be a sound admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading. I'm opposing because the user's only project space experience is coming from AIV reports made by huggle and little else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Dendoge, who does seem to be willing to oppose due to not using Huggle. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... dude, Dendodge is co-noming.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support or oppose based on Huggle, I was simply commenting that Kerotan has a large number of Huggle edits neutrally...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My sole criterion is that the user can be trusted...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I misread that a bit ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was looking at the SQL stats on the talk page.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose Mainspace edits are too spread out, and Wiki-space has alot of automated edits. Being able to revert/report with automated scripts doesn't make you trustworthy or any more deserving of the tools.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose KojiDude has is just about right - your history seems to be largely human-bot hybrid mechanical tasks, with no significant article space work that I can see. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA (I've never once worked on one), I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. Your boasts (and those of your nominators) about the amount you do on IRC also makes me very uneasy, as I firmly believe that, aside from a few special cases such as urgent discussion of a possible libel, IRC goes against the principles of openness and collaboration we allegedly stand for. The combination of Spotlight, AAU and most of all the statement that "I think its important for all users to remember that editing wikipedia should be fun and interesting, and that is why I spend most of my time when I edit on IRC with users talking to people while they edit, and I find that this part of wikipedias community is essential because it keeps users happy" sets off too many alarm bells that this is a user who's here to recreate Esperanza, not to build an encyclopedia. – iridescent 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Upon reviewing the entirety of Kerotan's contributions, I found that he has never made an edit in the mainspace that was not either minor and/or with an automated tool. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Upon actually looking at the contribs, it seems that most of them are in fact not minor, but the user seems to have an odd habit of marking all of their mainspace edits as minor. --Rory096 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   My claim stands. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Having done this check for myself as I didn't believe it either, Demonhog appears to be (almost) right; on a skim, this appears to be the only mainspace contribution that wasn't rollback in the past month, other than attempting to post Goatse. – iridescent 19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose I have to pretty much agree with Iridescent. I'm not opposing due to use of or lack of use of automated tools, nor editcountitis, nor too many co-noms (all weak reasons IMHO); but due lack of broad enough experience in collaborative encyclopedia building. The noms seem to think IRC activity = wiki adminship, no, nom him for IRC channel op instead. As for wiki adminship, get more encyclopedic experience and come back later please. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Wikipedia isn't a social club; I want to see administrators with some real experience of article building. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Per iridescent & Malleus. Naerii - Talk 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - concerned about high proportion of quick-fire automated edits - particulary recently and there is scant evidence of mainspace work beyond reversions. I was prepared to be swayed by the Spotlight co-ordination until I saw that as recently as 26th May this position appeared to be a matter of dispute with one of the noms[1] and then followed the most extraordinary "election". Can't put my finger on it but something makes me uncomfortable. nancy ^(talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   That was a simple mistake by me. I was not on IRC on the night when it restarted. I thought that Kerotan, along with other members, didn't deserve to be a coordinator because he had no role in restarting it. I, however, was wrong. That was my fault, not his.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   The election was well publicised, but noone else chose to vote. I ought to have relisted it, but everyone on IRC agreed he was deserving...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you both for helping me to put my finger on it - it's IRC. nancy ^(talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment On the above opposes, yes I do have an odd habit of ticking the minor edit box, I take iridescent's points into consideration, and yes I seriously regret posting goatsee but I am most certain not here to build a social club, I just to reiterate what I said, I just think its important that users are happy, because unhappy users don't edit well if at all, and admin is completely unrelated to this, but generally the importance of being nice and talking to people on wikipedia is one I take highly. So thanks for all the comments and then advice, I will bear well in mind while I edit and of course when I post my next RFA, but for now, to stop this becoming a jump on the bandwagon fest, I will withdraw my application, because if even by some miracle I passed with these opposes, I would not be happy with such a large group of people unhappy with my nomination.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Too many assisted edits (33% of overall amount), little participation elsewhere than AIV, too many co-nominations. Rudget (logs) 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing from RfA. Rudget (logs) 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with co-noms? It shows a large number of users want this user to become an admin...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the co-nominators were familiar with 'unwritten rules', so to speak, they would know that three is usually the maximum RfA participators wish to see. Rudget (logs) 16:19, 15 June 008 (UTC)

I know the rule, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You're not supporting and others are opposing because of some unwritten rule that doesn't make any sense? How about we just ignore stupid "rules" that don't help the wiki and certainly don't help decide whether or not the candidate would provide a net benefit if they get admin tools. This goes for that rule about nominators below, too. --Rory096 16:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And look at someone like SteveCrossin. I believe that he's expected to have about 8 nominators.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's roughly the amount of people that have offered, that however, doesn't mean that I will be accepting them all. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice, benign of course. Are you familiar with the "unwritten" rule about nominators continuously badgering those who do not support? Not saying you're doing that, but it can be viewed that way by other users if you respond to every comment. Better to just warn about that early on. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to look like that, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. I just don't want to see frivolous oppose comments based on that. You're not badgering, nobody is. Just telling you to be mindful that some can view it that way. : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom89. –Jamie^☆S93 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, opposing someone for the mere number of co-nominations is unfair to the candidate themself, albeit they can ask them to be removed, it still strikes me as somewhat unfair. Qst (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Rudget didn't oppose, and that wasn't their sole reason for going neutral...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dendodge. Rudget (logs) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)