Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (98/0/3); Ended Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:03:50 UTC

Kafziel (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Kafziel for adminship. Kafziel has been editing regularly for more than 18 months with a total of more than 11,000 edits widely spread throughout the namespaces, including contributions to featured articles and Wikipedia processes. He has been nominated for adminship twice before, most recently in November 2006. The comments/!votes on that nomination totalled 74/22/5 or more than 77% support and the RfA was closed as no consensus to promote using a fairly conservative reading of consensus (please note that this is my personal opinion, not the nominee's). The opposers generally cited certain remarks that raised civility issues at that time as their basis for concern. I believe the candidate's edits since then reflect that he has taken their observations to heart in the ensuing two months. During that time, he has also continued making contributions, including mainspace editing, categorizing/tagging, vandalism reversion and reporting, and policy discussion. Kafziel is committed to the project, fully qualified for adminship, and I am pleased to submit this nomination for him to become an administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate your confidence and accept. Kafziel ^Talk 13:16, 1 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I spend a lot of my time fighting vandalism, so I would naturally keep an eye on AIV. But it finally looks like we have a pretty good number of admins involved there, so things don't usually get as backed up as they used to. So the majority of my time would be spent helping out with requested moves, articles for deletion, speedy deletions, and categories for discussion. There's always a backlog at images and media for deletion and the "Did You Know?" updates, so I’d like to lend a hand there, too. My focus on Wikipedia will always be the articles, so the sysop chores directly related to article improvement, article protection, and article promotion will always be my priority.

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

A: I’m proud of a lot of my contributions, some because they're good and some just because they interest me. Lately I’ve been working on missing India and Sikh-related articles, like Kesh (Sikhism) and Bhai Taru Singh, as well as helping out with pov-challenged pages like Jaswant Singh Khalra. Since I'm not Sikh (or Indian, for that matter), contributing there takes a lot of research and careful writing, which I find relaxing. It’s always satisfying to take a disputed article covered with tags and a history of edit wars and turn it into a solid little page everyone can agree on. I've been happy with my work there so far.

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’ve seen my share, as those of you who were at my last two RfAs know. The most common conflicts are with persistent vandals and spammers (I’m in WikiProject Spam) but they rarely amount to anything more than vandalism of my user page. Sometimes it takes more effort, and when the talk pages aren't working I'm occasionally forced to use ugly stuff like AIV, 3RR, CheckUser, or RfC. In any case, I don’t think simply walking away is ever the proper course of action. If someone is adamant about pushing POV content, spam links, or other policy violations, I will see the situation through. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but I strongly believe that as long as conversation continues, progress is made. Sometimes all it takes to change a vandal into a good editor is a willingness to discuss the situation, rather than just posting generic warning templates and issuing blocks. I've worked hard to soften my tone while maintaining the firmness I think is important, and it seems to be working out pretty well.

Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

4. Most of the opposers in your previous RfA cite combativeness and civility concerns. What have you done to address these concerns since that RfA? Are there any examples of recent disputes with other editors in which you have kept your cool despite the stress of the situation?

A: I haven't really had any disputes the past few months. I've had a couple of fairly involved discussions, but nobody has directed any animosity at me lately. Perhaps that speaks for itself. I'd say the biggest dispute I've been involved in lately was not a dispute of my own, but a mediation between two others at Talk:Jaswant Singh Khalra. I think I kept my cool pretty well and the situation worked out for everyone.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs)

5. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?

A: The five pillars are a kind of general record of consensus; the foundation for our guidelines and policies. They establish the goals, content, licensing, restrictions and freedoms that make the site run. They’re important because no policy or guideline can conflict with them. When Neutrality codified the project that way in 2005 it gave me the impulse to crawl out of the depths of anonymous editing and get myself a username.

6. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?

A: I’m happy to say I’ve never been witness to a wheel war, although I’ve seen their effects in other areas after the fact. People taking sides, quitting the project… it’s no good. I think most casual readers and new users will likely be oblivious to it, or at least fail to understand what’s happening; the real damage comes because we lose good editors, both the ones in the dispute and the ones who sympathize with them. Wheel wars are the beginning of partisan politics, and that can’t do anything but hurt the process of writing an encyclopedia. The steps to avoiding it are as simple as avoiding edit warring between regular users. Thoughtfulness, discussion, and (if necessary) mediation.

7. Who has the authority to ban users?

A: Users can be banned by the arbcom, the Wikimedia foundation, and Jimbo Wales, though usually bans are approved by the community itself (usually through consensus on the Administrators noticeboard). If there was something more you're looking for there, please let me know.

Optional question from Spawn Man

8. Some may say this nomination is too close to your last failed RfA. How have you changed from the last RfA & more importantly, what have you learnt?

A: Do you think it's too soon? I don't know. It's been a couple of months, which I think is pretty standard when the previous one was so close. I didn't self-nominate, and in fact I turned down an offer between then and now. Anyway, as for the rest, I guess it's pretty much the same as questions 3 and 4: I've worked pretty hard to soften my tone, and I think it shows in my lack of conflicts in recent months. I certainly haven't shied away from contentious issues, but now they seem to be solved without bile.

General comments

• See Kafziel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• See previous RfAs: first, second.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support per my nomination. Newyorkbrad 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support per nomination. I trust Newyorkbrad to pick a good candidate. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support again. Kusma (討論) 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Here's hoping to a less controversial one than last time. ;) Bubba hotep 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support I have been waiting for this for a long time, since the last nomination. I most certainly trust Brad's judgment. ~ Arjun 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. (edit conflict) Support, appeas to be beyond any problems from the last RfA.--Wizardman 14:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. I supported last time and I support now — Lost^(talk) 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support good active user and nominated by a trusted admin. The Rambling Man 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Terence Ong 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support A highly experienced candidate. I am satisfied that civility concerns have been addressed both because of my inherent trust of the nominator and Kafziel's answer to my question (Q4). We need more admins and I believe he will use the tools well. WJBscribe 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support -- Agathoclea 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per previous RfA. --W.marsh 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per nom. – PeaceNT 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - didn't see much wrong last time, don't see much wrong now. Trustworthy candidate, trustworthy nominator. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, absolutely, especially per discussion at his 2nd RFA and his comments made at the time. -- nae'blis 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Ryulong +8 Support. I have read the drama at his previous RfA, and think the user conducted himself very well in the face of adversity. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per nom and answers to questions. Fram 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Supportper last RFA — I've been stalking this page on my watchlist! -- Renesis (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support as last time. Excellent editor; has earned trust by remaining dedicated. Xoloz 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. I voted support last time, and I'm back to support again. From what I've seen, Kafziel is a sane user who won't explode the Wiki with a bunch of extra buttons. He conducted himself with poise and restraint at his last RFA, and he even had a sense of humor about it. We could use more admins like him. ♠PMC♠ 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - good answers to the questions, this editor would be an asset to the admin team. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support per nom, history, and answers. I've more than once wondered why Kafziel didn't do an admin action themselves recently...and I appreciate Gwenneth Paltrow's dark side too. Syrthiss 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per answer to question six. I like this fellow. .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Crzrussian memorial support consistent with my previous support, for a reconsideration of which there should surely be no basis. Joe 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per above, looks like a good candidate. Trebor 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. The funny things MatthewFenton pointed out show that Kafziel has a sense of humor - definitely a plus to being an admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per nom and answers. :) Cbrown1023 talk 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. support Great experience. This canadate would be nothing but Excellent to Wikipedia. That's what I think.Wikipedier 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier[reply]
33. Support as per RyanGerbil & I was impressed by your conduct after the last RFA, even though I didn't vote then, I personally believe it should have passed. Quickly looking through your recent talk contributions I don't see any signs of condescension mentioned in your last RFA. Good luck. ^{Khukri -} 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per Brad's nom and Moreschi, PMC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support -- good candidate. Jkelly 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. You have made a great effort to improve on the civility concerns I and many others posed in your last RfA. I can confidently support your RfA, as I believe you have reformed your ways. Nishkid64 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Glad to see you back to earn your tools. =) – Lantoka (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Great contributor, seems like he'll use the tools appropriately. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I supported Rfa #2 and support this one as well. auburnpilot talk 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Definitely support. S.D. ¿п? § 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, I trust Kafziel. Mallanox 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, you seem to be a fine contributor. Now that I've said that, I strongly disagree with your first Wikipedia philosophy. -Amark moo! 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I think the point about civility in the last RFA has been heard and hopefully taken on board. --Richard 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I voted oppose last time for civility concerns. As far as I know, they seem to be resolved, and I have no other reason to oppose this nomination. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support should do well as an admin.-- danntm ^T _C 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong support civil but direct interactions with other users, and a great attitude toward adminship in particular and editing in general. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong support. This really should have happened the last time. What I said on the last RfA still applies, and also, per nom. Grandmasterka 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support unless you really screwed up since I supported you last. ~ trialsanderrors 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Yes--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Seems to be trustworthy. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support as a fellow deletionist. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)09:48, Friday, 2 February '07
53. Support, need more deletionist admins. Proto::► 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Kafziel in this RFA, but statements like "need more deletionist admins" are inflammatory and counterproductive. -- nae'blis 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is in response to MatthewFenton's neutral comments below. Don't worry, it's just satire. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

54. Support user will be greatly helpful with the tools. -- Anas ^Talk? 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. I've run across his contributions more than once, and am convinced he would make a positive contributrion as an admin. Coemgenus 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support No evidence that this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support -- a good editor who will be a good admin Bucketsofg 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Well, it is time to give him the mop finally. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support per nom (heh, heh). More seriously, support per my last support, but more so. It takes a lot to be able to withstand a very close, contentious, previous nomination, not explode, continue contributing constructively, and come back to face the slings and arrows again. Semper fi. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support... I think Kafziel is ready for the mop and bucket.--Isotope23 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Outstanding editor. A Train ^{take the} 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support No reason to not support this good candidate. Wooyi 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - Has changed a bit from last time his RfA came round & would make a good admin now. Good luck for the future... :) Spawn Man 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support It looks like we need to go and buy a mop… JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support sensible grasp of the wiki landscape, not scared to show a sense of humor ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support-Seems great. And how could you not trust a nom who had the 3rd most supported RFA ever :) --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 01:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Great contributor, will be a fantastic admin. Good luck. Ganfon 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support A good all-round editor; I particularly like the answer to Q.8, which I think shows genuine awareness of previous problems and, by extension, evidence of correction thereof.--Anthony.bradbury 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support: This guy hasn't been an admin yet? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Levelheaded. --Robth^Talk 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Ought to have been promoted the last time around. Very solid qualifications. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Strong support per answer to Q8. riana_dzasta 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support as I did in the previous RfA, which I was disappointed did not go through. Tyrenius 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - reasonable improvement since the last two RfAs. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Again and again -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. In my experience, a reasonable user. >Radiant< 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support --Mus Musculus 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong support --A. B. ^(talk) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support per nom. VegaDark 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Excellent user with need for the tools. Heimstern Läufer 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support will make a good admin. —mikedk9109^SIGN 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Per above, I believe the user would make a great addition to the custodial staff. Somitho 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Per all of the above and I have had nothing but good interactions with this edior. Well deserved promotion.--Looper5920 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support — a solid user, no issues here. — Deckiller 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Upstate home boy! Just kidding. The editor in question seems to be a good candidate for the mop and flamethrower; Good Luck! -- Avi 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support Let's try to make it 100/0!--Holdenhurst 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Outstanding contributor. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Good contributions, seems trustworthy.--Aldux 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Strong Support Good attitude, and expressed a concern regarding admin duties which should help prevent him from becoming an embittered, newbie-biting, incivil admin. Argyriou (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Insert tired "I thought he was already an admin cliche" cliche here. IronDuke 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support will not abuse tools --Robdurbar 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. dvdrw 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support per nomination. Sarah 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support as per nom' Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Moral oppose: I simply can't support someone who thinks that it's funny (the first paragraph of this) to make fun of people with disabilities. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's the "dirty lying" bit I find funny; it was as if it was vandalized by a childish, rival physicist. If it was the "cripple" part that I found funny, I could have easily found better ones than that. If you look at the page history, you'll see that I've spent a lot of time reverting vandalism to his article, which is how I found that one in the first place. Kafziel ^Talk 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, OK. I'll change it to a neutral because of an unwise comment. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. OpposeNeutral — I don't particularly like #6 of this, that gives me worries you will over zealously delete images, there is no need to make personal attacks. I can't trust you with the delete buttons as you are a deletionist. Also, I personally do not like you telling me what I can and can't do. I don't believe yu've improved enough yet to gain my support yet, I would however reconsider in around ~3-4 months. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   • Out of curiosity, does this mean that we should only give adminship to inclusionists? Because that seems to encourage a bias of its own. ♠PMC♠ 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to agree with PMC here. Just because a user is a deletionist doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good administrator. Nishkid64 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral→Changed to Support - Until my question is answered. If the nomination was a couple of months later, I would have no problem supporting, but because of its proximity to the last RfA, I need to know that the user has made efforts to change & learn... Spawn Man 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral:Changed from oppose as above. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I just said something similar at another RFA... do you understand fair use rationales? This image was recently uploaded without a fair use rationale. Admins should be careful to not contribute to the backlogs :) --- RockMFR 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship 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.