Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2

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

Khoikhoi

Final (136/17/7) Ended 01:25,

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. —Khoikhoi 23:12, 13 October 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:

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'd be more than happy to do things such as

WP:RPP. As I've been doing, I'll look for vandalism to revert, usually from pages on my watchlist, although I've also done some RC Patrol work as well. I've been involved in tracking down the banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-

, which has resulted in the blocking of their sockpuppets all the time. Tasks such as these usually require admin capabilities.

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

A: I guess I'm the most happy with my first featured article, which I contributed to along with Tombseye. Incidentally, it also happened to be Wikipedia's 1000th (see press release and article). In addition to this, I've worked hard to improve other articles: History of Azerbaijan, Western New Guinea to name a few. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I will continue my work here.

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: Yes, I've normally had conflicts over controversial articles. During the dispute, I've kept cool, not made any personal attacks (even when I was attacked), and tried to work things out and explain things to the user or users. Sometimes a dispute will be resolved immediately, sometimes they drag on much longer. However, I try to remain reasonable and attempt compromise (or agree to compromises put forth). In the future, I will continue to do this.

To add-on: I was placed on probation for edit warring at

one-revert rule all the time, but I hardly ever revert three times, and when I make a revert, I'll leave an edit summary like "see talk page"—so I can direct things where they're supposed to be. That's how I think it's made me a better editor. —Khoikhoi 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.

4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?

To me, I try to follow both most of the time. Both policies and guidelines give us good points on how to follow things. Also, both admins and non-admins should follow them. I believe that just because someone is an admin, they don't get a free pass to out of

WP:3RR. We must remember that we're all Wikipedians, and admins especially have greater responsbility. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

5. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?

Hmmm, it appears to be a red link...am I missing something? —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from

Regarding

WP:SNOW: I'll have to get back to you on this one! —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

6. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Will try to answer later) —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Centrx

7. What do you mean, in your answer to question 3, "I hardly ever revert three times"?

I meant that when when I make a revert—if the user reverts again, I'll just say "see talk page", and that will be the end of it until we've come to a compromise. I was just comparing to how I was months ago, when I discussed less. —Khoikhoi 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Khoikhoi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

• Khoikhoi was found to have edit warred and was placed on probation at
  Thatcher131 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've had good experiences with this user. Contribs seem fine, and past issues seem to have been learned from.
  Voice-of-All 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

---

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Support

1. Support I've seen Khokhoi around and (s)he is a very useful contributor indeed and would benefit from admin tools. Has obviously learned from past mistakes of edit warring.--
   Konst.able 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. I offered to nominate him last week, so that's a definite yes. >Radiant< 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support just came across this user today. Looks great- good luck! --Alex (Talk) 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I am very pleased to see you nominated here. You do a very nice job. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A name that I have seen so often around WP spaces that I thought they were already an admin. (aeropagitica) 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Merovingian ※ Talk 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Crazy 40,000 edits Support. Although this user has a questionable past, I have no worries or doubts about the user at this very moment. In fact, I have seen this user everywhere and I am impressed. Best of luck with the RfA. Nishkid64 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. A worthy user, and gets a definite yes from me for his sock-hunting alone. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support. We need more admins on controversial topics, not less. I've never seen anything to make me doubt this user and I was surprised when I looked at the previous RfA (I found it while digging around months ago.) I still think the project would greatly benefit from giving Khoikhoi admin tools. YES I KNOW ABOUT THE ARBCOM/PROBATION THING. His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book.
   masterka 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. 2x edit conflict Unbelievably strong support. Give the man the mop, he can only do good things with it. I cannot believe the last one didn't work out. —
    wreak havoc|damage report 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support I voted oppose in his last RfA, and with good reason. I'm proud to say that my concerns are now dealt with. Over the past year, he has made a strong effort not only to be more concious of policies, but to find different ways to contribute, even when unable to edit in his primary area of interest. Khoikhoi would, and WILL, be a great admin. --InShaneee 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support without hesitation -- Samir धर्म 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support The added tools given to him would only benefit this project. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support He always doing more valuable work, and being civil in every situation. Daniel5127 (Talk) 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Goddamn absolutely. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I've seen this user's (good) work countless times. Will make an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I've seen khoikhoi in action in intense eastern-european-nationalism-conflicts, and he has always looked very poised, calm, and rational. We need firm but civil admins like him to defuse disputes. Borisblue 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Khoikhoi made some very good edits to a page on a former Russian Prime Minister. I've seen nothing but hard work from him so far. KazakhPol 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong Support no hesitation - a prolific editor. Rama's arrow 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support - long overdue abakharev 07:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Khoikhoi is a prolific, productive, and thoughtful editor. He's a fine writer (having do-authored the 1000th featured article, too [1]), pitches in with combating vandalism, and has been invluable in fighting problem banned users like Bonaparte and -Innana-. He's sensible and cool, and I think adminship is well deserved. I would have been pleased to nominate.
    t 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support.
    probation, to have continued to edit prolificly, not to have left Wikipedia, and to have had the probation removed after no restrictions had been applied. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support; needs block button asap. Please keep up the rc patrol of course!--Andeh 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, have seen you involved in process for a long time, and well deserves the mop. -
    iablo 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support, I have come across Khoikhoi a few times in my travels in wikipedia and I've only seen good reports although I am not sure he is a
    Khoikhoi. --Jcw69 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Support, not one yet? With the experience and the time span here, he will make a good admin. --
    T | C) 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Strong Support so he can stop flooding
    WP:RFPP and protect those disputed articles himself! ;-) --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Strong Support I was under the impression that Khoikhoi was already an admin, and apparently he isn't, so I'm certainly in favour of giving him the buttons so he can become one hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Good user --
    ^(talk) 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Support Has taken a drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation, and become a productive and friendly editor. I can trust Khoikhoi, and I believe a change for the best has occured. Loyality exists greatly here. Yanksox 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Hell yes ~
    56297 O rly? Ya rly! 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support Trustworthy, friendly editor. Xoloz 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Suport Respected and good user. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Petition accepted late, but present. -
    · 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support Lot of respect for Khoikhoi's work whenever we've crossed paths. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. G.He 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I've seen him around a lot and think that he would make good use of the tools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. impressive attitude.
    ITAQALLAH 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support. -Will Beback 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. For Khoikhoi, the tools would be well deserved and hard earned.-- danntm ^T _C 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Weak Support per his probation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Has redeemed himself and is now a valuable asset to Wikipedia in almost any way one can imagine. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. El_C 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. --
    Ligulem 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
48. Support; what I've seen has been excellent indeed. Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. Yay!  Jorcoga  02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Has made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, and I have no problem trusting him with the tools.--§hanel 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - per this edit --T-rex 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. I remember and was briefly involved in the controversy that caused his probation. Even then, he struck me as one of the more civil and reasonable editors (though that wasn't saying much) within a vicious nationalist battle, and as has been noted he has only improved since. I've no doubts at all about supporting him.
    Chick Bowen 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. MaxSem 11:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Wikipedia needs hard workers. --Odysses (☜) 12:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support without any hesitation. We need more admins like Khoikhoi. - Darwinek 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Weak Support convinced that he's grown and is a hard worker, but have to say he could contribute a bit more to AfD discussions he participates in. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Khoikhoi was one of the first people I encountered on Wikipedia, and I've seen many good things from him since. Khoikhoi will make a fine admin.
    DVD+ R/W 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support - I thought this user was an admin already.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support -- He's ready now. Saravask 23:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Strong support - always calm, rationale and plays it straight, and one of the few who are willing to go into nasty areas and stop POV pushing on nationalism related battles. Very few people have the courage to go in there to a mess and clean up. Khoikhoi is not one for parading about. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - definitely. - Richardcavell 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Should have been promoted years ago. I hope this RfA will not be hijacked by trolls as the previous one was. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support, no hesitations whatsoever. Khoikoi is a diligent and dedicated contributor, and one whom it is always a pleasure to deal with. I second Ghirla's sentiments about the previous RfA above, and note that Khoikhoi's willingness to combat and forestall the more egrarious examples of nationalistic POV-pushing (of all hues) is an asset to the project. It may give rise to the occasional conflict or yelp of complaint, but in my experience it's those with one-sided pro- or anti- views pushing their barrows oblivious to any other, not Khoikhoi. The vast range and scope of Khoikhoi's contributions provide many more reasons to support, and I've no doubt Khoikhoi will prove an able and responsible admin.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I've found Khoikhoi to be a good user, and have no problems with supporting. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Wha', he ain't one? Duja 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support in recognition of his diplomatic skills.--Kober 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support as per his hard work, dedication to NPOV and friendly attitude. Ldingley 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Ah, the inspirational tale of a revert warrior-turned-admin material. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support' For a while I actually assumed he's already an admin. He is extremely neutral when it comes to controversial issues, maybe even too neutral :)--Eupator 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Strong Support - I believe Khoikhoi not to be simply a good editor, but one of the very best of wikipedia. His dedication in opposing pov-pushing and in countering nationalistic bias has been truly heroic, and has earned him an endless number of personal attacks. Without an editor like him, nationalistic bias and neglect of policy would be much major in controversial articles.--Aldux 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - I thought he was an admin already as well. I've seen his edit history and it's something alright Fedayee 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Of course.
    Errabee 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Support In hope that Onisilos bees will guide you as an admin Aristovoul0s 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Dedicated to the project, obviously able to learn from mistakes, respectful of community procedures, per Fys. I suspect that, in reality, the oppose voters would have a very hard time finding recent diffs showing Khoikhoi's contributions being part of the problem instead of part of the solution. No reason this user shouldn't have admin tools. Jkelly 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support I came to know about this nomination after an edit in Allah article saying go and vote against this JEW named PUTNAM from California USA. I do NOT know him personally or his religion. I have gone through some of his awards and edits. For me having his Jew is not a problem and I will love to support him. ---
    ابراهيم 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
78. Support Jews named Putnam from California are Cool. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, good user despite the earlier probation, and he definitely seems to have learned from his mistakes. <cliche>I thought he was already an admin.</cliche> --
    at 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Support, seen around and with seems good... Another drawn here by the vandalism... Thanks/wangi 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support -- I'm a fan since long. --Pjacobi 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Failure to mention the arbitration case is not a big issue, as he is no longer subject to any restrictions stemming from said case. —freak(talk) 20:29, Oct. 18, 2006 (UTC)
83. Support-- Because of his *kind* correspondance with me way back over my little involvement in the Persian people dispute. --Aminz 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support-- I see him around
    WP:ANI very often, and he's almost always filling out 3RR reports. Admin tools given to him would be in good, trustful, and useful hands.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
85. Support -- I think user will not abuse tools and will contribute well as an sysop. Learning from past mistakes is always a plus by me. -- Avi 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Notwithstanding Borat's [stirling argument skills. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support --- keep running into the guy. Agathoclea 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support --- A good administrator does not shy away from controversial topics. Level-headed and civil. Past is past, Khokhoi will make a great admin. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Not the best, but better than the rest. Miskin 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. An Excellent wikipedian. Hectorian 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. Judging from my not so numerous encounters in articles and talks, I noticed that he is a reasonable person. I came to vote here after noticing an ugly edit summary in my watch list. I suggest the account who made this edit investigated and blocked permanently: [2] Mukadderat 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support The user has helped settle many disputes in wikipedia in an amicable manner. --alidoostzadeh 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support no concerns here, good editor. Anger22 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Judging from the above and his contributions, I have to support. Periklis* 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Big Support - he deserves it, and will certainly be good at it (believe me: Khoikhoi and I go way back).--
    Tekleni 08:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
96. Support No reasons to vote otherwise. Beit Or 08:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support if only on the basis of the quality of the oppose votes: I might be suffering from a bout of contrariness, but the impression is of someone who has managed to do good works and is receiving a bucket-load of slurry in payment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. May the wisdom of
    Nasreddin Hodja, and the humour of Karagiozis be with you and all those you administer. Politis 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
99. Support. Based on his contributions. And encouraged by the silly "posse" accusation of the opposers.--
    Pan Gerwazy 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. in the dead of night) 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
101. Pile-on Support. I second Coredesat's cliché: I thought you already were an admin. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. A devoted Wikipedian who has shown his commitment to neutrality and who has produced some truly impressive articles. Will certainly make a great admin! Todor→Bozhinov 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. A fantastic candidate. He should be an admin.--GrWikiMan 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. I'm dizzy counting stars!--Yannismarou 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Strong support. A true NPOV-champion. With so many gangs of editors engaged in petty nationalistic turf-wars, it's always nice to see someone who knows the difference between a tourist brochure and an encyclopaedia. This user has had so much mud thrown at him from just about every ethnic group out there (just have a look at some of the "oppose" comments...), it's amazing he's still going strong. We need more admins like this, who are prepared to get their hands dirty in order to save articles, not bland RC-patrol daleks. My hats off to you, sir. yandman 14:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support I have nothing but respect for this user. Englishrose 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Someone keeps vandalizing pages encouraging us to vote against 'this JEW from California' so I have to vote for him. I judge a man by his enemies.
     Czolgolz 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
108. Strong Support In all my dealings with this user he has been nothing but professional, courteous, level-headed, and very knowledgeable. As mentioned in the nomination, he edits a lot of controversial articles, especially those dealing with ethnic and nationalist topics. A big part of editing those articles is removing POV. Consequently, there are those who strongly dislike him and have waged a very unfair and undeserved smear and vote-spamming campaign against him and he still continues to rescue various articles from propoganda. He will make a great admin.--WilliamThweatt 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support a review of this user's contribution shows he will make a good admin. The opposition below is in large part shameful and biased and the racist spamming from anonymous IPs will not be tolerated. Gwernol 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support: I believe this editor will put his past experiences to good use for the benefit of the articles. I have been impressed with his recent contributions. Aquilina 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support: anti-Californian bigotry must not be rewarded. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support: he should be admin--Kalogeropoulos 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support: One of the all-present Wikipedia names. --   Avg    17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Per nomination.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support as per Konstable. Olessi 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support A good candidate for adminship. --A.Garnet 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Strong Support When I first came to Wiki I thought that he was an admin for a long time actually :)) I know that many people said this already, but it's true.. As for the edit wars that have been mentioned et al. Frankly, I think that he is doing a good job trying to keep the concensus (whether we agree or not with "the concensus" is a different matter :)), he does great maintenance even in articles in the farthest corners of Wiki, which I find extremely impressive. Even if people think he has deficiencies, as far as humans go, I would say he is pretty high up at the top :)) Nobody is perfect u know! Good luck Khoi :)Baristarim 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) - Just for the record.. Unfortunately I had been away from Wiki for a week coz of heavy real life stuff, so it is the first time I am running into this "Jew from Cali" BullS... What the hell on earth is going on?? Gees.. Anti-semitism & et al is a disease, but worse, it is just a lame excuse brought up when people don't like u 4 something else.. 'oh, him? he is a Jew, that's why..' - real low, that is. u got a POV, argue it scientifically, that's all I gotta to say.. don't give up Khoi :) Baristarim 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support I beleive will be a value to the wiki as an admin. HighInBC 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support meets the currently unpublished WatchingYouLikeAHawk's standards. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Khoikhoi would make a perfect admin. Grandmaster 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Great User SOADLuver 06:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support xvvx 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. WP:200 is still far, so I Support now that "JEW named PUTNAM from California". •NikoSilver• 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
124. Support A huge amount of (balanced) edits. The fact that he is editing controversial topics should not stop the adminship --Splette ^Talk 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support per the fact that so many people changed from opposing since the block and last RfA. (I also tried to dig through his contributions to see if I could find incidents of recent POV warring, but couldn't, among the huge quantity of good work. The man is an editing machine.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support every time I've seen him, I've liked what he's said or done. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. _└ 
     talk ^┐ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
127. Support Good editor, good contributions, good evidence that (s)he has learned from past mistakes. No reason to think Khoikhoi cannot be trusted to use the tools well. --
     Guinnog 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
128. Support, prolific editor and I have no reason to oppose. —Xezbeth 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. Fair and open-minded, good use of discussion pages in disputes. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support! ran (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. Absolutely. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support. A good and prolific editor. --
     ManiF 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
134. gogogogogogo - ¡Kribbeh!^Speak!\_Contribs 22:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Strong Support. Have come acros the editor on several occasions, and am impressed by their patience, balanced views and insight in various fields. Bertilvidet 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. Strong Support. Committed and level-headed willing to be an admin would make an excellent one. --Irpen 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]