IceKarma

Final (27/1/1) ended 03:55 24 September 2005 (UTC)

IceKarma ( talk · contribs) – IceKarma is an experienced editor who has demonstrated that he understands Wikipedia policy. He's been doing lots of miscellaneous cleanup, and his multilingual skills will continue to come in handy, I'm quite certain. I'm certain he'll be an excellent administrator. Kelly Martin 01:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I accept the nomination, and would like to thank Kelly for nominating me. IceKarma ॐ 02:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Of course, as nominator. Kelly Martin 01:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
2. I haven't interacted much with IceKarma, however, he has been around for quite a while, and has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Great guy!! R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Yes, please. Lupin| talk| popups 02:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Why not? Ral 315 02:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Looks like a good contributor (who speaks alot of languages) that could help wp out immensely by being an admin. - GregAsche (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Good enough for me. A friend of Red's is a friend of mine. -[[ User:Mys e kurity| Mysekurity]] ^{[[ additions | e-mail]]} _{03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)} reply
8. Support. Sane, reasonable, and interested in janitorial work. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
9. support JonasWarding 10:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support, what's not to like? Rje 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
11. Martin 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

12. Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

13. Support. Thunderbrand 19:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
14. Support. El_C 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support. An excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support. I have met this user on IRC, and can vouch that this user is a pleasant and polite individual to converse with. In addition, the edit contributions of this user are good, and it has been demonstrated that this user has a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and procedures. Consequently, I have no doubt in offering this user my support. -- NicholasTurnbull 17:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support good track record, should make good admin. Alf ^melmac 22:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support Forgive me if I sound more subdued (sp) then the rest here, but I can't but help think about the lack of major edits (number-wise), and the large gaps in editing history (props to durin yet again for the chart). Anyway, you appear to be a good wikignome.... so I imagine you'll make a decent wikiadministrator :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support because that death penalty map is a thing-o'beauty. --  BD2412 ^talk 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
20. I'll throw in my support. Andre ( talk) 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
21. As will I. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 22:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support. utcursch | talk 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support. - Essjay · Talk 02:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
24. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
25. Support - I see no reason against this candidate.-- Jusjih 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
26. The cabal threatened to break my legs if I didn't support. -- fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 11:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. -- Boothy443 | comhrá 05:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
   • Boothy, I see you never explain your reasons for opposing someone. May I suggest that you start explaining your reasons? You keep doing what your doing your oppinions may not count any longer. -- Admiral Roo 17:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
     • Technically an editor may oppose for any reason, but if you're concerned, Archive 6 of Acetic Acid's Talk page contains a brief explanation of Boothy443's criteria for adminship. -- Alan Au 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
       • I was expecting "At least 50,000 edits, six years active editing, and they have to give me a pony" or something like that. -- Aquillion 07:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
         • Opposing without any written reason may still validate the vote, though I do not consider it courteous.-- Jusjih 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. Almost support. I have some concerns about how active this nominee would be as an admin. 47% of this nominee's edits happened over just 10 days of contributions. 7 of the top 10 days happened in April. If you average this user's contributions per day from May 1st forward, it's 3.3 edits per day average. I personally like to see 10 or more per day average for an admin nominee. 90% of the user's edits are over the last six months, which is encouraging in showing potential dedication to the project, but there's also a disturbing almost complete absence of edits from mid-June to mid-August of this year. Why the absence of editing? Can we expect the nominee will disappear for months when they are an admin? I don't find anything else glaringly wrong; edit distribution is good, uses edit summaries, responses to questions are reasonable, seems focused on performing good work, etc. I just don't like the average edits and major gap over two months. -- Durin 16:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
   • The nominee has answered my concern about the two month gap on my talk page to my satisfaction. I'm still concerned about the average # of edits per day even with the gap removed, as it is still too low in my opinion. I still believe the nominee is otherwise a strong candidate. -- Durin 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
   • Forgive me for asking - this is intended as a geniune question to satisfy my curiousity and not as a confrontational jibe - but how would a low number of edits per day be problematic for an administrator? Lupin| talk| popups 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
     • No confrontation inferred or taken :) A low number of average edits indicates an uninvolved nominee. An admin needs to be active in order to remain party to debates on various topics related to their work. Further, we often do not vote for admin nominees if their edit counts in admin appropriate areas are too low. Similarly, I personally do not want to vote for an admin nominee if they are not editing frequently enough. -- Durin 04:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• I would like to point out that the two-month gap in my edit count was due to circumstances beyond my control relating to my living arrangements. IceKarma ॐ 22:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: Editcountitis can be fatal -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Supported by the IRC Cabal. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: Image:IceKarma-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. -- Durin 16:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • About the 2 month gap, I don't see why is it a big problem. People have life outside wikipedia, and midjune-midugust is a very common period for summer holidays in some countries. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 22:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • (offtopic) I'm very curios about how did you make that graph (is there a program?) I'd like to make mine. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 23:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC) (/offtopic) reply
    • Please see User:Durin/Admin nominee charts. Thanks. -- Durin 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply

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. I look forward to being able to expand my "janitorial duties" to areas such as Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.

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

A. Death Penalty World Map: The original colour choices unfortunately were indistinguishable for some colour blind viewers, so after convincing User:Evil Monkey there was an issue, I designed a four-colour palette that works equally well for all viewers except true monochromats.

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. Having done mostly janitorial editing for most of my time on Wikipedia, it's only in the last 4-5 months since I began to contribute more substantially to articles that I've begun to experience Wikiconflict. In cases involving factual disputes I've tried to settle them where possible by researching the question more fully, more to confirm or correct the Wiki as opposed to settling a score. In other cases I've attempted to resolve disputes by communicating with the other party/ies via Talk: pages, reserving for the case of irreconcilable differences the option of simply letting it go.

IceKarma ॐ 03:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply