Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 15 June 2008

Kerotan

Voice your opinion (talk page) (7/3/1); 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Spotlight project where he’s one of the coordinators. Kerotan is a very level-headed, reasonable user who is obviously knowledgeable of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages administrators, and am glad to support him with this. –JamieS93 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by...... Dendodge .. Talk: 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 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.--Kerotan- 15:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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[REDACTED] 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.

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

Support

1. Support as nominator.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator. –JamieS93 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 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 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 / )} 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 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 / )} 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 17:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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 / )} 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 / )} 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, a lot...... Dendodge .. Talk 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 / )} 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 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 17:30, 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)

2. 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 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. 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 sets off multiple alarm bells, 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[REDACTED] 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)
4. 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)

Neutral

1. 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)

   What's wrong with co-noms? It shows a large number of users want this user to become an admin...... Dendodge .. Talk 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 2008 (UTC)

   I know the rule, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it...... Dendodge .. Talk 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 / )} 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 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 / )} 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with Wisdom89. –JamieS93 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 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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