Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ck lostsword

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

Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC) at (40/2/1); Scheduled end time 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ck lostsword (talk · contribs) - It seems to me exceptionally rude and egocentric to advertise myself as a potential administrator, and so would rather take the lesser of two evils and directly nominate myself for adminship than the lateral approach of asking someone else to put me up or posting a 'This user ain't an admin...yet' on my Userpage. Here goes anyway - I have been editing Wikipedia since (very) late 2005 and have in that time amassed one or two edits (the actual number is, of course, inconsequential). I am particularly proud of my contributions to Age of Empires III, which I have helped to guide to GA standard, as well as my efforts on Black Holes and Revelations, which will eventually (I hope) also reach GA standard (no matter how much more work this takes). I am also rather pleased with my vandal-fighting contributions over the past few months.

You may well be concerned by my low edit count recently, but I prefer to see this as a mark of my dedication. Over the past few weeks, I have taken a large number of (reasonably) important exams, and the last couple of months' dip in my editing has been matched by my edits to various revision documents :). My edit count will, of course, shoot up again as we move into the excessively long summer holiday.

I feel that my edits display the knowledge of policy necessary to successfully make use of the admin tools, but am humble enough to recognise that I don't know everything. I would gladly read through the policy documentation before participating in a major discussion, and feel that even the most experienced of admins would benefit from refreshing their memories of policy from time to time.

Long though this statement is, I encourage any and all voters to read through my contributions, and feel that even if you haven't read any of this, they should speak for themselves. Thanks very much.

-- ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nominated myself ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: For a start, the most important use of tools would be in Recent Changes or New Pages patrol. Rollback is clearly an extremely useful feature. However, the use of AIV seems slightly too convoluted for me, but I would definitely take part in blocking those vandals who deserved it from that page. I also think that tagging articles for speedy deletion is a waste of time when articles which clearly break policy could be deleted immediately. Furthermore, the ability to see deleted pages would make assessing a vandal's history far simpler.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are of course to Age of Empires III, which I helped to get to GA class. Within that article, and in Black Holes and Revelations, I am especially pleased with my additions of references, virtually single-handedly. I believe that the use of verifiable references is crucial to the Project's value as a recognised encyclopedia, and these edits helped to familiarise me with WP:CITE and the application of WP:FOOT.

The key point in Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia is the veracity of its content. To maintain this high standard, we must of course reduce the amount of vandalism - partly with editors monitoring Recent Changes to quickly revert the vandalism. I am particularly proud of my work in reverting vandalism and feel that it is highly important, even critical, to the quality of the encyclopedia to continue with this whether an admin or not.

Wikipedia may well make no guarantee of validity, but we can do our utmost to make such a guarantee personal.

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 am rarely involved in conflicts with other editors. However, one such conflict was over my first GA review (of Haunting the Chapel), the various stages of which can be found here. The other user's response led me to clarify some of the points I made and therefore improved my understanding of the review process. This discussion was highly beneficial to my editing as it helped me to understand the need for specifics in the Project. I would apply a similar technique to any problems in my adminship. Whilst there will inevitably be conflicts for any admin, I hope to turn them into a positive experience that I can learn from, as I did with this situation.

Optional question by AldeBaer

4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: I tend not to edit articles that I have really enjoyed, mostly because I feel that to rewrite or edit part of the article would ruin part of its beauty - just as analysis of novels or music can ruin their real meaning and beauty. I have used Wikipedia as a resource for several years, and the first article that I remember seeing featured on the Main Page remains special to me: Infinite Monkey Theorem. Not only do I find the topic fascinating, but I feel that the mathematical details in the article, as well as the beautifully phrased history of the idea, are exceptionally written. I feel that really effective articles should be entertaining, and the Real Monkeys section in this provides some entertaining relief. The article also shows that Wikipedia is not a paper-based encyclopedia: I find it incredible to be part of a project where people are prepared to write some its best content about what is, in effect, a mathematical joke.

Following this vein of good humour, I particularly like the essay Don't Panic (scarily, there seems to be some sort of Douglas Adams theme running through here!). I feel that a lot of the problems and crises of the Project could easily be avoided if people simply listened to this essay and didn't overreact, and the gently cynical tone of the page makes it particularly interesting to read.

By contrast, the article that has had most effect on my actual life is probably Windows Vista editions and pricing. A very random choice, I know, but to find all of the information about the various editions in one place - and that place being a place I trust to be neutral - was extremely useful in making my decision to purchase a new operating system. The article was a good read because, being a 'minor-details-nutter', I found it both useful and appropriately detailed. Again, this article embodies WP:PAPER.

Finally, no list of great pages on Wikipedia is complete without reference to the ultimate policy. This is perhaps the most subtle policy, and definitely one of the shortest. I find the development of the page from its humble beginnings in 2002 to the latest (Jimbo-endorsed) policy extremely interesting: there has been so much development from one short sentence to another short sentence. I have seen WP:IAR employed by everyone from beaurocrats to vandals and trolls, and find that the subtleties of the article - that it is not necessary to know the rules and policies to edit; that the development of the encyclopedia is more important than a series of policies; that the principles behind the policies exceed their letter-for-letter interpretation and that, above all, common sense should prevail - all make the page an exceptionally interesting read and paradox. It is certainly a thinking point! ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Ck lostsword's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Ck lostsword: Ck lostsword (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ck lostsword before commenting.

Support

1. Support -- seems like a good contributor with a fair edit count who wants to tackle vandalism and patrol the new pages. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Usually I'd like to see a bit more activity in the project namespace, but I think the Ck's solid mainspace contributions could be augmented nicely by a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak support - I agree with EVula but I feel the user will still make a good admin. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. No reason to oppose, especially as we need more admins. Walton^Assistance! 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Good Answers, Good Contributions and Good Editor...--Cometstyles 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support This is a good user who I am sure will make a good admin.--James, La gloria è a dio 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Because the contributions are good, the edit summary is good, there's a real need for the tools, the user looks trustworthy, civilty seems A1 and to balance Kurt Weber's oppose that, IMHO, benefits nothing but his editcount. Pedro |  Chat  20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Good user = Good admin and good use for tools. I don't mind about the dip, I know what GCSEs are like (I'm doing them now too!) Stwalkerster talk 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support your contributions do speak for themselves. And to add my 2 cents to this discussion, Kurt Webber is entitled to his opinion on this issue, regardless of whether or not you agree with him. BH (T|C) 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't disagree, he's more than entitled to his opinion and oppose. Just as I'm entitled to think it's not a very good reason. I do appreciate, however, that mentioning it goes against the idea that RfA is not a vote, for which I'm sorry. Pedro |  Chat  20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Support for lack of reasons to oppose. —AldeBaer 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (changing my vote)

10. Strong support for good and thoughtful answers. Following regular support for his solid contributions and general civility. Btw: Struck supports look awful, don't they? Please forgive my little practical joke, I'm just trying to apply a bit of systematic desensitization therapy. —AldeBaer 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Terence 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes please! - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support --Tone 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, no reason not to. I am actually inclined to favour self-nominations, as they show gumption. Neil ╦ 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Editor has demonstrated a use for the tools, and nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse the tools. PGWG 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support A trustworthy user who's far more civil than me, with good contributions and a need for the tools. Elmo 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Edits to the project namespace are a bit thin but a review of them looks good. ~200 edits may not seem like much to those suffering editcountitis but is sufficient to demonstrate the user has a good grip on policy. Mainspace contribs are excellent as well, so I see no reason not to support. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Let's see, good editor, no blocks, no huge controversies. Hmm? JodyB _talk 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I´ve always seen this user as a very experienced editor, plus totally trustworthy and civil. The tools would be good in his hands. ♠Tom@sBat 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support No major concerns. —Anas ^talk? 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Good editor, adequate experience, good answers, will be a valuable admin. What more can I say? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I don't see why not. Sufficient answers. --wpktsfs 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No major reasons to oppose. Captain panda 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Per reasons already stated --IvanKnight69 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I'm satisfied with everything I've seen, the contribs, the answers to the questions above, and the answers to my questinos below in the Neutral section. Leebo ^T/C 11:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support No forseeable issues! .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Per all supports; this user looks like he/she is ready to be an admin. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a he, by the way :). ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Moderate support, I like contributions but not a perfect admin. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Handled questions well, and I have confidence that he'll do good work.DGG 00:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support now where did I put my sword? Think I'll just sit down and think about it... OW!~ Infrangible 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support He has 2100+ edits, and a good bit of experience, and I think he's ready.Politics rule 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support for many reasons stated above and not one good reason given to oppose. Doczilla 07:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, I'm familiar with his work and I'm confident he'll do a very good job. Love, Phaedriel - 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support, contributions look solid, no indicate that the candidate will run amok. --Spike Wilbury 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per thoughtful answers and wonderful work on building the encyclopedia. Peacent 09:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per PeaceNT. Riana ⁂ 10:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. The very confident answers to the questions makes me very confident to support this user. Don't feel guilty on the self-nom bit either. Sr13 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It should be noted that Kurt Weber has left this message on all recent self noms and does not seem to have reviewed the contributions of them. My recommendation to Kurt would be to try to change the self nom guideline on the talk page rather than continue to oppose users for something they are allowed to do. Leebo ^T/C 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I second Leebo's comments. If you are not even going to take the time to review any contributions from an editor or do any sort of critical assessment, its hard to take your opinion seriously. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I must third Leebo... a nom should be judged by his contribs and not necessarily if he self-nommed or not. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That self-noms are permitted does not mean I am obligated to approve of them. It is my position that, if a user self-nominates himself, whatever else he does is irrelevant. If you don't agree that's fine; if you want to ignore me, that's fine; but I stand by my position. I am quite aware that there are several good administrators who nominated themselves--but, in my judgment, it's not worth the risk. If your judgment differs, that is your prerogative.

   At any rate, I really don't see the need for this hostile posturing. Kurt Weber 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The fact that self-noms are permitted does not oblige you to oppose them either.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering the perceived need for more good administrators, any hostility towards your persistent opposition to otherwise perfectly good candidates is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. There is a discussion about this happening at WT:RfA#Self Nomination; additional comments should probably go there, rather than spilling over onto this RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Very well; this is the last thing I'll say on this here.

   A hostile tone is never acceptable simply because you disagree with another user. That is a basic tenet of Wikipedia. Further, while I agree that probably more administrators are needed, that does not mean I am willing to endorse any means towards that goal. In my judgment, promoting self-noms is not worth it, and so I act accordingly. Kurt Weber 19:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Couldn't agree more - but then, I view labeling someone "power-hungry" based on a self-nom as hostile. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with MastCell here, and it is fair enough to make a point, but without the explaination that Kurt just offered, the original statement did seem a bit hostile. Secondly, it does say above: Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Stwalkerster talk 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Per edits such as incorrect reference formats and editing others comments. Most edits made with VP and AWB and not a lot of edits in Wikipedia. Only made 27 edits in May. I see no need for the tools. ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not using {{cite}} may be testimony of short time or maybe even laziness, but it's not mandatory to use it (although it looks a lot more professional, if that is what you mean to express). The second diff however is clearly mischaracterised as being "editing others comments". My wild guess is that Ck lostsword simply renamed the talk page section for easier future reference. In any case, he did not at all edit another user's comment and acted well within the boundaries of Talk page guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages if you want to learn more. —AldeBaer 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

   I have never used {{cite}} in my life, and neither have a lot of sysops. Are you going to auto oppose me, and request a recall from them? Also, as mentioned by AldeBaer, please read this. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't until... um last week :P I just used the plain tags... anyway, I think you should consider that was nearly 6 months ago. Majorly (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Not because I don't support, but I'm just not in a "voting" mood today. Experience is more than enough, and you'll have no trouble learning on the job. I'm a little baffled by your answer to Q1. I revert a lot of vandalism, and I've found that it's usually a simple matter to identify a repeat vandal with or without access to deleted edits. It's equally evident in most cases when to block for reports on AIV, though there may be room for discretion. We don't want any rouge admins, but I think you will be more effective if you're not so squeamish about using admin tools once you have them. YechielMan 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your comment. I was not referring, in this instance, to simple cases of vandalism. In the past, I am sure that there have been example of users creating personal attack pages and so forth (which have been deleted), before contributing to other articles which have not been deleted, but where they have made similar edits. If the admin was able to see the deleted edits, it would be useful in providing the evidence necessary for a block. Oh, and I am certain that Be Bold! applies just as much to admin actions as anything else. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Ck lostsword, could you explain what you mean by I also think that tagging articles for speedy deletion is a waste of time when articles which clearly break policy could be deleted immediately. Non-admins can't delete articles, and thus the only way they can alert administrators to ones that meet the criteria is to tag them. Special:Newpages isn't the only place WP:CSD is utilized. Leebo ^T/C 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Certainly. I was referring in this case not to 'in general' but 'in my experience'. Whilst tagging for speedy deletion is a useful process for non-admins to alert admins to articles that ought to be speedy deleted, I am often frustrated by the lack of an option to simply delete a nonsense or attack article. Speedy deletion tagging is an extremely useful process for non-admins, but it can appear to be frustratingly slow for the reporter to need a middle man. Meanwhile, I am sure that for some admins it can be equally frustrating to need to be that middle man - although deleting speedy candidates is something I would be glad to take part in, I am sure that some admins must be of the opinion that it would be quicker simply to get the user who found the article to delete it. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have problems with your answer here. As a new admin I find checking of tagged speedies a demanding part of the job, because of having to individually make the final decision. I know I have made mistakes in tagging that others have corrected and told me so I could learn --and I am still learning--, and I correct others likewise--even those with great experience sometimes slip. Yes, I take the responsibility of single-handedly deleting a junior high school autobio, but where I think something nonsense or obvious spam, I find it better to have someone else agree--and I see even the most experienced doing the same.DGG 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   In a perfect world, we could trust non-admins to speedily delete articles that clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Of course, since it's a perfect world, no one would be creating those articles in the first place. I almost get the feeling that you're trying to say that we shouldn't have admins, and that users can be trusted to handle administrative tasks without the community's support and trust... which is, well, odd considering your request for adminship. Correct me if I'm getting the wrong impression. How would we trust users to not delete featured articles and whatnot? Leebo ^T/C 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   DGG makes a very interesting point that I had not previously considered (as such). Whereas I was always intending to communicate with other admins, and am well aware that the speedy deletion process is both demanding and challenging, I had also taken on board the suggestion by YechielMan above to be confident in the use of admin tools. I now recognise that admin actions take at least as much consideration and discussion as standard edits and will certainly be more than happy to discuss my work with other, more experienced admins. This had, in fact, always been my intention: I was not planning on being a Lone Ranger or vigilante admin going round speedying everything in sight. The border between adminship and rouge adminship or vigilante-ism is presumably, to paraphrase "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," as narrow as the Berlin Wall.

   In response to Leebo, I would like to clarify what I was saying. Having read though my response, I can see how you reached this interpretation but I can assure you that 'we should have no admins and everyone should do everything' is not exactly my opinion. I am well aware that to allow all users sysop access would result in at best a lack of reliabilty and at worst chaos. In fact, on consideration, it would simply result in chaos! The point of my response was just that my own countervandalism or new page patrol would be rendered more efficient by access to the 'delete' function, a view that I am certain is shared by many admin candidates. I also hope to reduce the load on admins for deleting pages listed at CAT:CSD. It is the reduced time taken for my countervandalism and for admins to delete the content that I have tagged that I was talking about; not the process in general. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That makes sense. I have one last question. Is there a reason you mark just about every edit you make as minor? In my mind, minor edits are solely for changes to formatting that don't relate to content, as well as vandalism reverts. I notice that you often mark comments on talk pages and deletion discussions as minor. Changing an image is not a minor edit, nor is adding significant content, or an entire section. Leebo ^T/C 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, yes. I coud sit here for 10 minutes and write a clever and/or witty response, but I'm certain that, as always, honesty is the best policy (and/or essay). I generally forget that I have 'auto-mark edits as minor' switched on and either laziness or forgetfulness mean that I usually do not switch it off. I will take note of this, and pay more attention in future. I do, however, believe that the combination of the quality of the edit and the detailed or at least useful(ish) edit summary is far more important than whether a little, bold m appears next to it :). (PS - this edit isn't minor, and nor will talk page comments or substantials be in the future - point taken). ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for an honest answer. The thing about minor edits is that some people have their watchlists ignore them so they don't see every grammar change and vandalism revert. I'm confident you'll keep it in mind though. Changing to support. Leebo ^T/C 11:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ditto,DGG 00:28, 14 June 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.