Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khaosworks

Khaosworks

Vote here (14/2/1) ending 03:15 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Khaosworks has been an impressively devoted contributor to various Doctor Who-related pages, and has gone a long way towards improving that particular corner of the 'pedia. He also spearheaded the creation of a Doctor Who Wikiproject. He engages in discussion with other uses on potentially controversial matters, and has racked up an impressive 7671 edits as of the time of this writing. He's shown the sort of devotion a good admin should show, and this nomination is overdue, IMO. – Seancdaug 03:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept. --khaosworks 03:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Seancdaug 03:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian (t) (c) 03:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. Cool. 7,000 edits is good enough for me. JuntungWu 16:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Surely, not all 400 current admins know how to clean up VfD - why is it suddenly a requirement for future admins? ugen64 20:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Support.-gadfium 00:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. ✏ OvenFresh² 21:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, does not meet my opposing criteria. --Bjarki 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Meets my admin criterion, jguk 07:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Strongest possible support. Absolutely cool, level-headed, & scrupulously neutral. Adept at brokering compromises. One of the finest wikipedians I have encountered. Wolfman 23:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. JYolkowski // talk 23:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Very much support. I'm disturbed to see voters opposing the elevation of editors because they don't edit in the Wikipedia namespace. Why are we asking to punish editors who spend their time constructing an encyclopaedia instead of politicking?Grace Note 04:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I don't view opposing an adminship nomination as a "punishment", bans, blocks and de-adminship are punishments. I just think that plenty of experience in the Wikipedia namespace is important for an administrator. Adminship is not supposed to be a "reward" for making good articles. Sjakkalle 07:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It's supposed to be "no big deal". If a contributor can be trusted, what does it actually matter that they haven't been involved in the politics of the place? Grace Note 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12. Support — need more like him. --Chammy Koala 14:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Lst27 (talk) 23:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Kingturtle 17:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Even though a number of people disagreed with me in a previous RFA vote, I will basically repeat what I said here: Khaosworks does not have enough experience on the janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an integral part at being an admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Clearly an excellent user and a valuable contributor, but according to Korath's summary of edits, he has only 73 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and that is a bit thin for an administrator. If he logs more good edits with those pages, I will switch from oppose to clear support. Sjakkalle 14:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Quite a many edits do not have summaries. Non-SF contributions are hard to locate so I feel uneasy to form an opinion. Perhaps Khaosworks should describe his non-SF edits in more detail. Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am realizing that many of my minor edits don't have edit summaries - I had it in my head that minor grammatical fixes were self evident, and as long as there is no substantial change, it was okay. However, I will endeavor to be better in my documentation in future. My user page lists the articles I feel I have contributed a great deal to. --khaosworks 04:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I see edit w/o edit summary, I always suspect vandal. This takes a lot of time. Pavel Vozenilek 18:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough - but I find that edit summaries are no guarantee of legitimate edits, either. There are vandals who are smart enough to hide their edits behind fake summaries, or sneak in edits among legitimate ones. The only reliable check is to physically examine the edits and check with their other contributions. Not that summaries are not useful, just that I don't place much stock in them. I trust people, not edit summaries. --khaosworks 18:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I amassed over 1000 of pages on my watchlist (not the most active ones, though). I cannot check everything in detail but usually look over edits w/o comment. For every false positive I could do something better. But lets stop on this. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Khaosworks currently has 7673 total edits: 6491/444 to articles/talk, 269/3 to Image/talk, 188/77 to User/talk, 73/40 to Wikipedia/talk, 68/1 to Category/talk, and 19 to Template. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Apr 20, 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. In all probability, most like what I do now - check on vandalism, do reverts where necessary, fixing redirects and general style alterations as I come across them. If I had the admin abilities, I'd deal with carrying out the results for VfDs, CfDs, and general moving around duties that require admin access. I'd also be happy to help with arbitration where necessary.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. The Doctor Who pages. When I first came across the pages last April or so, the pages were about 3 years old, and were pretty disorganized. With massive amounts of edits which somehow encouraged people to come over and join in the clean-up, we managed to get it up to feature article status in about six months. And we're still going, with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who now up.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Generally, most things with Doctor Who are non-contentious, but I was involved in a few edit wars over the John Kerry military service controversy and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pages, especially during the run-up to the election. This mostly had to do with a user called Rex and I was also involved in giving evidence during the arbitration process. I deal with conflicts by trying to come to a consensus - not just between myself and the opposing editor, but with others as well. When it does become contentious, I just refuse to take the bait and continue to try rational discourse. Most of the time, it seems to work - failing that, there's always arbcom.