Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Kappa: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:03, 2 June 2005 editLinuxbeak (talk | contribs)7,320 editsm →[]: Updated vote count (22/1/0)← Previous edit Revision as of 20:35, 2 June 2005 edit undoRickK (talk | contribs)36,836 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 33: Line 33:
'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''
# Sorry, I don't see enough substantial contributions to articles to merit adminship yet, and the two articles cited as examples of his contributions are not much better than stubs. Willing to support in the future should this change. ] 15:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) # Sorry, I don't see enough substantial contributions to articles to merit adminship yet, and the two articles cited as examples of his contributions are not much better than stubs. Willing to support in the future should this change. ] 15:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Extreme inclusionist. ]] 20:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''

Revision as of 20:35, 2 June 2005

Kappa

Vote here (22/1/0) ending 07:05 7 June 2005 (UTC) I've had an account since October 2004, and have over 8,000 edits. Although I have different opinions from many wikipedians I believe I always remain civil, and when I have an edit conflict I generally find a compromise or walk away.

I watch New Pages and especially candidates for speedy deletion a lot, (looking for things that can be fixed), so it would be helpful to be able to delete real junk. If I delete something that looks like it was a speedy candidate but a good faith effort, I would be able to communicate the reason for that deletion. Also I would like to be able to view previously speedied articles, to see if there was content worth recreating. Kappa 07:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination Kappa 07:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support.-gadfium
  2. Support. Kappa was the user who finally convinced me to register here. Excellent janitorial work, and has done the often neglected task of salvaging countless articles form the Speedy deletin category. Excellent work throughout! Sjakkalle 09:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, although I rarely agree with Kappa it's been a pleasure working with him. Radiant_* 11:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. —Xezbeth 15:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. support Kingturtle 18:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. support  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Based on my experience with this person on Bemani articles (btw, ever considered bring Dance Dance Revolution to a featured article?) SYSS Mouse 19:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. As per Radiant. I trust him to use his powers only for consensus, never for evil. Meelar (talk) 19:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Disturbingly good with a mob and bucket. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, a good contributor who can definitely be trusted with speedy deletion. JYolkowski // talk 20:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support. I often find myself having an opposing viewpoint to Kappa on VfD, but the user's civility has been noteworthy, and the user is anything but trigger-happy with deletions.--Scimitar 21:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mgm| 22:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. We disagree on many things, but Kappa should certainly be allowed to wield the mop and bucket. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support from me, too. One of the more rational voices on vfd. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 02:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. →Iñgōlemo←  02:41, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  17. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Sure thing With Kappa, all articles are safe.Klonimus 05:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Great user, trustworthy, and very helpful. As long as you're not a mischeivious water imp. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Keep up the good work!--Jondel 08:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support --BaronLarf 11:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. In general I don't like self-nominations, but Kappa is a good exception to a general rule. --Unfocused 16:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sorry, I don't see enough substantial contributions to articles to merit adminship yet, and the two articles cited as examples of his contributions are not much better than stubs. Willing to support in the future should this change. Gamaliel 15:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Extreme inclusionist. RickK 20:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • You did set the "UserName" entry wrong in the vote here section - which some users consider evidence of a lack of understanding of the machinery of Misplaced Pages. --JuntungWu 15:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing it, I'll try and be more careful next time. Kappa 16:46, 1 Jun 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. As mentioned, speedy deletions, and sending {{test}} messages. Also I'd enjoy deleting copyvios. I'm quite likely to un-block things when there seems to be no further need.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Jam and Lewis and Ganta Hospital, mainly because they help balance coverage of underrepresented areas. Also I took part in efforts to reach a compromise over the school issue.
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. If I am in a conflict over editing, I generally look for a compromise, or other opinions, or I walk away. I've never wanted to use admin powers, except one case where someone was persistedly adding copyvio to an article (that eventually resolved itself however).