Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kerotan

: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 / ^C)} 16:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have any edits using Huggle: "Edits using Huggle: 0"  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the user's special contributions, there are Huggle edits. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a lot...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 / ^C)} 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Um... dude, Dendodge is co-noming.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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^Help 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sole criterion is that the user can be trusted...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I misread that a bit ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I was looking at the SQL stats on the talk page.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  16:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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 ^(C) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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
   iridescent 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. 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)[reply]

   Upon actually looking at the contribs, it seems that most of them are in fact not minor, but the user seems to have an odd habit of marking all of their mainspace edits as minor. --Rory096 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My claim stands. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Having done this check for myself as I didn't believe it either, Demonhog appears to be (almost) right; on a skim, this appears to be the only mainspace contribution that wasn't rollback in the past month, other than attempting to post Goatse. – 

   iridescent 19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Oppose I have to pretty much agree with Iridescent. I'm not opposing due to use of or lack of use of automated tools, nor editcountitis, nor too many co-noms (all weak reasons IMHO); but due lack of broad enough experience in collaborative encyclopedia building. The noms seem to think IRC activity = wiki adminship, no, nom him for IRC channel op instead. As for wiki adminship, get more encyclopedic experience and come back later please. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Wikipedia isn't a social club; I want to see administrators with some real experience of article building. --
   talk) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Per iridescent & Malleus. Naerii - Talk 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - concerned about high proportion of quick-fire automated edits - particulary recently and there is scant evidence of mainspace work beyond reversions. I was prepared to be swayed by the Spotlight co-ordination until I saw that as recently as 26th May this position appeared to be a matter of dispute with one of the noms[1] and then followed the most extraordinary "election". Can't put my finger on it but something makes me uncomfortable. nancy ^(talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That was a simple mistake by me. I was not on IRC on the night when it restarted. I thought that Kerotan, along with other members, didn't deserve to be a coordinator because he had no role in restarting it. I, however, was wrong. That was my fault, not his.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The election was well publicised, but noone else chose to vote. I ought to have relisted it, but everyone on IRC agreed he was deserving...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you both for helping me to put my finger on it - it's IRC. nancy ^(talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the above opposes, yes I do have an odd habit of ticking the minor edit box, I take iridescent's points into consideration, and yes I seriously regret posting goatsee but I am most certain not here to build a social club, I just to reiterate what I said, I just think its important that users are happy, because unhappy users don't edit well if at all, and admin is completely unrelated to this, but generally the importance of being nice and talking to people on wikipedia is one I take highly. So thanks for all the comments and then advice, I will bear well in mind while I edit and of course when I post my next RFA, but for now, to stop this becoming a jump on the bandwagon fest, I will withdraw my application, because if even by some miracle I passed with these opposes, I would not be happy with such a large group of people unhappy with my nomination.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 19:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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) Withdrawing from RfA. Rudget (logs) 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with co-noms? It shows a large number of users want this user to become an admin...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 008 (UTC)

I know the rule, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's roughly the amount of people that have offered, that however, doesn't mean that I will be accepting them all.

(talk)(email) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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 / ^C)} 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to look like that, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 / ^C)} 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wisdom89. –Jamie^☆S93 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Technically, Rudget didn't oppose, and that wasn't their sole reason for going neutral...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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