kungfuadam (
talk·contribs) – kungfuadam has been with us since August 2005 and has brought up a wide wide range of his expertise to our community including translations, RC patrol, spoken Wikipedia and more. With a large number of very well distributed edits (if you want to see, check the editcounts; editcountis can be fatal) I am honoured and thrilled to nominate kungfuadam for adminship
Tawker04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great vandalwhacker, would make an even better admin. Plus, I need a noob admin to stalk !admin in #vandalism-en-wp so i can endlessly annoy them; all the old admins have stopped stalking it :-/ --Rory09604:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Has been around for a while, done good article work, great work against vandals and vandalism, and has found the Golden Wiki Idol in the Temple of Jimbo. Meets all of my standards. --
InShaneee04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support I would prefer more detailed answers to the various questions, but everything else appears to be in order.
JoshuaZ05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A good vandal-whacker is not all that's necessary to be a good admin, actual editing of the
encyclopedia is needed too, and Kungfuadam passes that mark. I've been trying to work on
Io and he's done a good job in that article.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Kungfuadam is active in vandal fighting, but he has also done lots of good work in other areas of Wikipedia, which is always great. :D --
Shanel06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - vandal+editor=good administratorň - Aksi_gr
eat 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, fails my criteria, plus we're here to build an encyclopedia and your edits don't show that to me. Good vandal fighter not necessarily = good admin.NSLE(
T+
C) at 05:07
UTC (
2006-03-30)
I guess the point is that if no one removed vandalism there wouldn't be much of an encyclopaedia left, so removal is contribution towards building the encyclopaedia. I haven't looked into the contribs, but generally I agree it's good for admins to have a broad base and hence a better empathetic understanding of the editors they will likely have to deal with. --
pgk(
talk)07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I checked out the contributions and it looks to me like this candidate has done quite a bit in terms of writing and translating and seems to have the respect for that sort of work and for general editors that that you referred to. --
Mmounties (
Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
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:
A: As an administrator, I anticipate closing out
WP:AFD debates and taking the necessary actions. I would like to work on merge and split backlogs. I would like to keep up on the page protections to ensure a page isn't protected too long. Also, I feel my proactiveness to vandalism would be beneficial to the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have translated entire articles or major sections from Portuguese in the last few months. I am particularly please with my edits to
Io (moon), and now
Treaty of Asunción is a work in progress.
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:I recently was in a discussion with a user about
WP:3RR violations and POV pushing. I felt that I remained calm, but to settle the situation, I apologized. The history is here:
[1]
A: Many issues I have with editing of articles I have taken up with individual editors. Many of my Wikipedia contributions have been house keeping, formatting, and things of that nature.
2. Please discuss under what, if any, circumstances you would indefinitely block a user without direction from the ArbCom.
A:I would indefinitely block a user that has an offensive username, one that is similar to an existing user, and those that have user names that are sockpuppets of already ruled-upon users such as WoW.--
Adam(
talk)05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions from
NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).
1.You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
First I would properly warn the sockpuppets telling them their behavior is not accetable on wikipedia. Then I would block the for a time period, depending on the offense. Only if I can prove that these are sockpuppets of the established member, would I take any action against the established member. I would try to have a discussion with the member. I feel that the sockpuppets can only be blocked indefintely if they are proven to be sockpuppets AND if they are used to support the main account's position in votes. Also, it is a blockable offense of the sockpuppet if they are used to circumvent policy such as the
3 revert rule. Again, I must be certain that these accounts are indeed sockpuppets.
2.While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at
CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is
patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
I would contact that admin and let them know my thoughts on why this article should be kept. I would hope to come to a resolution that we can undelete the article, and ask him/her to list it on AFD. However, if this admin felt strongly about deleting after we talked, I would respect the decision. I do not believe in undoing the work of other admins without discussion.
3.You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
I think that blocking the user could be a conflict of interest, if this is the only activity that the user is doing to merit a block. I would perhaps post a notice on the Administrator's Notice Board asking the other admins to look into it. Also, I would warn the user for vandalism and the uncivil comments. I believe blocking the user on these grounds is a conflict of interest because it is in a sense a type of edit warring.
4.An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected
WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to
WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
I would remain in the discussion with the users, and discuss with the blocking admin that I believe that this conflict can be resolved and the RFAR is a last resort. I would respect the admin's decision, but I would continue to attempt to resolve the conflict. The users would remain blocked until the conflict is resolved, the block period is over, or the other admin unblocks them. I would state my position at the RFAR. If the case were rejected, I would try to mediate it through a third party.--
Adam(
talk)14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The above 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.
kungfuadam (
talk·contribs) – kungfuadam has been with us since August 2005 and has brought up a wide wide range of his expertise to our community including translations, RC patrol, spoken Wikipedia and more. With a large number of very well distributed edits (if you want to see, check the editcounts; editcountis can be fatal) I am honoured and thrilled to nominate kungfuadam for adminship
Tawker04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great vandalwhacker, would make an even better admin. Plus, I need a noob admin to stalk !admin in #vandalism-en-wp so i can endlessly annoy them; all the old admins have stopped stalking it :-/ --Rory09604:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Has been around for a while, done good article work, great work against vandals and vandalism, and has found the Golden Wiki Idol in the Temple of Jimbo. Meets all of my standards. --
InShaneee04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support I would prefer more detailed answers to the various questions, but everything else appears to be in order.
JoshuaZ05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A good vandal-whacker is not all that's necessary to be a good admin, actual editing of the
encyclopedia is needed too, and Kungfuadam passes that mark. I've been trying to work on
Io and he's done a good job in that article.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Kungfuadam is active in vandal fighting, but he has also done lots of good work in other areas of Wikipedia, which is always great. :D --
Shanel06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - vandal+editor=good administratorň - Aksi_gr
eat 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, fails my criteria, plus we're here to build an encyclopedia and your edits don't show that to me. Good vandal fighter not necessarily = good admin.NSLE(
T+
C) at 05:07
UTC (
2006-03-30)
I guess the point is that if no one removed vandalism there wouldn't be much of an encyclopaedia left, so removal is contribution towards building the encyclopaedia. I haven't looked into the contribs, but generally I agree it's good for admins to have a broad base and hence a better empathetic understanding of the editors they will likely have to deal with. --
pgk(
talk)07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I checked out the contributions and it looks to me like this candidate has done quite a bit in terms of writing and translating and seems to have the respect for that sort of work and for general editors that that you referred to. --
Mmounties (
Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
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:
A: As an administrator, I anticipate closing out
WP:AFD debates and taking the necessary actions. I would like to work on merge and split backlogs. I would like to keep up on the page protections to ensure a page isn't protected too long. Also, I feel my proactiveness to vandalism would be beneficial to the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have translated entire articles or major sections from Portuguese in the last few months. I am particularly please with my edits to
Io (moon), and now
Treaty of Asunción is a work in progress.
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:I recently was in a discussion with a user about
WP:3RR violations and POV pushing. I felt that I remained calm, but to settle the situation, I apologized. The history is here:
[1]
A: Many issues I have with editing of articles I have taken up with individual editors. Many of my Wikipedia contributions have been house keeping, formatting, and things of that nature.
2. Please discuss under what, if any, circumstances you would indefinitely block a user without direction from the ArbCom.
A:I would indefinitely block a user that has an offensive username, one that is similar to an existing user, and those that have user names that are sockpuppets of already ruled-upon users such as WoW.--
Adam(
talk)05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions from
NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).
1.You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
First I would properly warn the sockpuppets telling them their behavior is not accetable on wikipedia. Then I would block the for a time period, depending on the offense. Only if I can prove that these are sockpuppets of the established member, would I take any action against the established member. I would try to have a discussion with the member. I feel that the sockpuppets can only be blocked indefintely if they are proven to be sockpuppets AND if they are used to support the main account's position in votes. Also, it is a blockable offense of the sockpuppet if they are used to circumvent policy such as the
3 revert rule. Again, I must be certain that these accounts are indeed sockpuppets.
2.While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at
CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is
patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
I would contact that admin and let them know my thoughts on why this article should be kept. I would hope to come to a resolution that we can undelete the article, and ask him/her to list it on AFD. However, if this admin felt strongly about deleting after we talked, I would respect the decision. I do not believe in undoing the work of other admins without discussion.
3.You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
I think that blocking the user could be a conflict of interest, if this is the only activity that the user is doing to merit a block. I would perhaps post a notice on the Administrator's Notice Board asking the other admins to look into it. Also, I would warn the user for vandalism and the uncivil comments. I believe blocking the user on these grounds is a conflict of interest because it is in a sense a type of edit warring.
4.An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected
WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to
WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
I would remain in the discussion with the users, and discuss with the blocking admin that I believe that this conflict can be resolved and the RFAR is a last resort. I would respect the admin's decision, but I would continue to attempt to resolve the conflict. The users would remain blocked until the conflict is resolved, the block period is over, or the other admin unblocks them. I would state my position at the RFAR. If the case were rejected, I would try to mediate it through a third party.--
Adam(
talk)14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The above 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.