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

Kelapstick[edit]

Final (98/3/0); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 04:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Scheduled to end 02:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination from Drmies[edit]

Kelapstick (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to propose my old friend Kelapstick for consideration as admin. K-stick has been here forever (actually, since 2007) and has written a great number of articles. His article writing reflects his quirky and pretty unique background and expertise, ranging from Square milk jug to Chocolate-covered bacon. I've had great fun writing DYK articles with him; some of you may recall such pop culture gems as Moose A. Moose and Go the Fuck to Sleep (a book our kids read to us every night). And Desert Storm trading cards. And did you know that Lego is the largest tire manufacturer in the world? His professional interest is mining, and he's contributed greatly to our coverage of the mining industry--witness such articles as North Mara Gold Mine and Copper mining in Mongolia (he has spent a lot of time in Mongolia, and he has contributed a number of photos to Commons).

K-stick is a joy to work with. He's cheerful and positive, and I don't think a single person has ever said anything bad about him. I have no doubt that being an admin won't change this, and I think that a friendly and cooperative admin with six years of writing experience would be a welcome addition.

One more note. His first RfA tanked because of concerns over copyright/close paraphrasing. That's four years ago, and I think that's really in the past now. Recognizing plagiarism/copyvios/too-close paraphrasing is of great administrative concern, and I know that Kelapstick has sufficiently honed his skills since then. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination from LadyofShalott[edit]

I am happy to be a co-nominator of Kelapstick for administrator. He's been an active editor here for plenty long enough to "have a clue", and he does. I believe he has learned from prior mistakes (alluded to by Drmies in his statement) and thus can be a good role model for other editors making similar mistakes and needing to fix them. K. has always seemed to me to be a very reasonable person, and I think he will give all sides due consideration before making an administrative decision, and will discuss as appropriate when questions arise (as questions always do). In short, I think K. will continue to work well with others as he takes on new roles in Wikipedia, and the project will benefit. LadyofShalott 21:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words Doctor and Lady, I appreciate and accept your nominations. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I think a better question is "what do you want me to do?" While I don't have a transition plan from editor to administrator, should this pass I am certain I will be able to help out in a variety of areas. My experience on Wikipedia is mainly creating articles (and sending them to DYK), vandalism reversion as it comes up (usually on my watchlist or as I am reading an article), and occasionally working new page patrol. My primary reason for becoming an administrator is to give me something to work on while I am between article ideas. If I am successful I intend to cruise the CSD and PROD nomination categories, familiarize myself more with RFPP, and keep an eye on AIV. I also intend to frequently bother Drmies, LadyofShalott, and Dennis Brown asking them to suggest where they think I should be spending my time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As far as individual articles, I would say my sole GA Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. Apart from that I am pleased with the additional mining-related articles I have brought to Wikipedia. Most of them tend to be about individual mines, so they are pretty low on the importance scale in the grand scheme of things but are interesting for me none the less. I was happy to get Mongolian presidential election, 2013 up in the In the News section of the main page, and with the rewrite I did of 2008 riot in Mongolia.
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: In general I don't let Wikipedia stress me out, I have the philosophy of "it's only a website", and if my hobby stresses me out perhaps it would be time to find a different hobby. Of the more frustrating things I have have had been involved with (as mentioned in my last RfA) was the wholesale creation of multiple minor league baseball players under the assumption of presumed notability (which can be a hot topic within WP:BASEBALL), more than four years later I still find myself cleaning up. Much thanks to all those involved in tidying up and organizing that list. The MMA debacle of 2012 (I believe was also mentioned at another recent RfA) was a rather trying discussion to take part in, even spilling over into the AfDing of some professional wrestling event articles (which I ended up closing as speedy keeps as bad faith nominations). I don't get worked up about these sorts of things (although may perform the occasional facepalm). I just explain my point to the user(s), ask for further input as required, and follow consensus should it not fall in my direction.
Additional question from Drmies
4. Kelapstick, could you explain what you learned from the "paraphrasing" issue the last time around? And, given that it can be a matter of judgment whether something is a close paraphrase or a case of plagiarism, where would you as an admin draw the line, and how would you explain that to an angry editor that you'd have to set straight?
A: Aside from text obviously copied verbatim, indeed there is judgment required to determine what constitutes plagiarism (as that was what was brought up at the time I will use that term here for consistency). An example provided in my previous RfA was "3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted", but it is more complicated than that. On reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism four forms of plagiarism are given. While they are excellent examples they do not include bright-line rule as to what constitutes plagiarism (such as noted the prior noted "three-word example"). The ambiguity (in my opinion) in the guideline is what makes it subject to editor interpretation as you mention. I will address examples two and three in the guideline as examples one and two have additional verifiability issues and as such are also covered elsewhere in policy.
  • The second example: Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source somewhere in the article, but not directly after the sentence or passage that was copied.
The question becomes "what does very few changes mean?" Is it the aforementioned three-word rule? If so, what does an "uncommon phrase" mean? As I mentioned in my last RfA the three-word rule is a good rule of thumb to use to identify cases that require further review. In this case the guideline suggests that placing a citation immediately after the passage would be sufficient attribution to not run foul of the guideline.
  • The third example: Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.
Again that brings the what does it all mean question to the front. It also suggests that if you name the person you are citing in the text you are not required to have a citation immediately after the text.
So that's all fine and good from a guideline perspective. We give a guideline as to what we can do to provide sufficient attribution not be considered plagiarists, and leave the interpretation of very few changes to the editors-at-large. Personally (since my last RfA) what I try to do is avoid the need for a judgement call by changing the wording. If I can accurately get the same message across without using the exact terms, excellent. If I cannot get the point across and I am required to use the same wording I use quotation marks even when attributing the speaker in the text (although I try to avoid that as I feel it makes the article look somewhat messy).
Now that I have given my opinion on the guideline, I suppose I should get back to actually answering your question. What I would do with your angry editor is point them in the direction of the policies and guidelines in question (verifiability, copyvio, or plagiarism for example) and explain precisely where the issues are and (if required) provide a link to the duplication detector report that shows it. Once a case with evidence has been made, there is really no recourse for the editor to take other than to understand and fix the problem. If they still refuse to listen then the first option is to fix the issue myself (either by rewording or removal), and monitor the editors contributions in the future. If the editor improves the quality of editing and attribution in the future, than there is no issue. If they continue to add unattributed copyright material after multiple warnings they can be blocked for it. If it is just poorly attributed material (i.e. examples two and three from the guideline) I would bring it to AN/I to seek further input from other admins and editors, as I think that unilaterally blocking someone for not being good at rewording something would be bad form on my part, in particular when it is subject to my interpretation of "very few changes".
Having said all this, should someone find any of my previous (recent or otherwise) that they think is suspect, please leave me a note on my talk page. I am quite a reasonable person [citation needed] and am more than willing to address any concerns that come up, they truly would be honest mistakes.
Additional note: Above is for cases where an editor has not just copied/pasted from somewhere to Wikipedia, and therefore covered under Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Additional questions from Dusti
5. Here recently, there's been a lot of conflict among users and admins for what's allegedly perceived as a we versus them attitude. What's your take on the admin role?
A: As I generally stick to the tasks listed in Q1 and interact with more or less the same group of editors, I haven't been following any discussions that involve us and them mentality. I don't know anyone in particular that is on an "anti-admin bandwagon" (or vise versa I suppose). Sure there are editors who don't like other editors (some of which happen to be administrators), and there is a lot of talk about how desysoping is a near impossible process (which I am sure compounds any issues). I am not really sure how else to address the first statement, or what you are looking for out of it. As for my take on the admin role, aside from the duties of a regular editor, administrators given the additional tools for a number of reasons, including (but not limited to):
  • Deleting (for various reasons) and restoring pages.
  • Protecting and unprotecting pages.
  • Blocking users to prevent disruption to the project.
  • Providing advanced rights to users (Rollback, etc.)
  • Hiding revisions and edit summaries.
Administrators are not "superusers" who have authority over non-administrators, their opinions are of equal weight. There is a reason they are called janitors (and are gifted ceremonial mops), they are here to clean up messes that regular editors don't have the toolset for. That is my take on the role of an administrator. They are here to perform tasks that regular editors are not able to.
6. There's also been conflict regarding WP:INVOLVED. What's your take on that policy?
A: In short:
  • Don't block users you are in conflict with (article content or otherwise).
  • Don't block users you have a history of conflict with.
  • Don't protect pages if you are in a content dispute with someone (or edit through protection on similar pages).
  • The Exception is anything that will be seen as an action that would clearly be done by any other admin (i.e. if one is having a content disagreement with an auto-confirmed user, the admin may semi-protect the page if it were subject to blatant vandalism by third-party anonymous editors).
The policy is in place because of the non-superuser point in Q5. If administrators were allowed to use their toolset to get the upper hand in disagreements their opinions would not be equal to those of regular editors.
7. Are you still afraid of clowns? :)
A: Absolutely.
Additional question from Buffbills7701
8. As becoming an administrator, you are allowed to block editors. Which of these names are reasonable, and which should be switched?
  • Jack Roberts
  • AGreatAdmin
  • Captioneers4lyfe
  • I'm Better Than You
  • TheOnlyBot
A:
  • John Roberts - The name could imply that the user is one of the people at the John Roberts DAB page. It is however a common name. If it were the user's real name there he would certainly be permitted to use it provided he made clear on his user page that he is not one of the people on the list. There are also implications of users editing under their real names of which he should be made aware. See also WP:REALNAME.
  • AGreatAdmin - Inappropriate per WP:U, they give the impression that they are an administrator. Should be blocked with ((Uw-adminublock)) left on their talk page.
  • Captioneers4lyfe - I don't see any major issue with it, although I have no idea what a captioneer is (perhaps a misspelling of captioner). There is a subtle hint (with the pluralization) that it may be shared, so I would question that on the user's talk page and assess as necessary. That would be the only issue I would see, unless I am missing some slang term that the kids today are using. Shakes fist and gives today's kids the frowning of a lifetime
  • I'm Better Than You - Falls under disruptive, while not entirely offensive. It isn't conducive to a collaborative environment I would say as much to the user in question and ask them to request a rename.
  • TheOnlyBot - Inappropriate per WP:U, implies the user is a bot. There are some exceptions for this such as this longstanding editor, or someone using their real name who's surname ends in bot. This case would not be an exception. Should be blocked with ((uw-botublock)) left on their talk page.
With the exception of the Admin and the Bot example (which are blatant violations), problem usernames are best handled by asking the user to request a rename instead of blocking them outright. If one of your first experiences at Wikipedia is being blocked because you thought I'm Better Than you might be a funny name, it may turn you off further editing. As they say, you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar (provided you were interested in catching flies).
Additional question from Brambleberry of RiverClan
9. What would you say is your biggest regret on Wikipedia?
A: That I didn't get Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council up to FA when I nominated it. (Any WP:SCOTUS editors in the house, nudge nudge, wink wink.)
Additional question from TeeTylerToe
10 Why do you feel that square milk jug, chocolate bacon, and the lego tire deserve their own articles rather than being folded into their respective articles?
A: Because they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and are therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone on Wikipedia. Or in other words, they meet the general notability guideline.
11 When asked in this RFA about an us v them attitude between admins and editors, your response seems reflexively defensive of admins, and accusatory of editors. You postulate about some imagined subversive group you call the "anti-admin bandwagon". Do you see this as a one sided issue? Do you see it as a problem users have with unimpeachable admins? Not naming names, or using specific examples, can you talk about things you've seen in admins, their attitudes, or actions that you see as things to avoid? I haven't been paying that much attention to RFA, but CSD seems to basically be the "safe ground" for most applicants, it's an area where if things aren't very clean cut, black and white, then they shouldn't be a speedy delete, so it's a very clean, safe area with very little room for personal judgement, or controversy, but looking at all deletions, personal judgments have to be made and there has to be controversy. What are some specific examples of deletion controversies, and where do you fall on them? How would you help a controversial deletion not become adversarial? How would you help bring about consensus when there is intractable disagreement?TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
A: I don't feel my answer was defensive of administrators. But to be clear, there are some administrators who don't like some regular editors, and some regular editors who don't like some administrators. There are some administrators who don't like some other administrators, and there are some regular editors who don't like some other regular editors. It's see real life being reflected in Wikipedia. Sometimes people don't get along. CSD isn't "safe ground" for RfA candidates, and things are not always clear cut or black and white. For example there are differences of opinion on what an indication of importance is. CSD is for articles that can be deleted without controversy. If someone tags an article for speedy deletion, and another editor thinks that there is an indication of importance the tag is removed. In such a case the speedy deletion would not be without controversy, and as such it is not deleted via that process. CSD reviewing admins should err on the side of keep if there is a hint of notability in the article.
12 As an admin, how would you interpret consensus? What are some textbook examples of arriving at consensus? What are some less than textbook examples? For instance, say there was a mining project. Would a print encyclopedia share the biases of the pro mining groups? The anti-mining groups? Would wikipedia? Say the wikipedia mining project started making changes to the page on fracking. What if some people were arguing that the mining projects edits to the fracking page were "pro mining"? Let's say, like most projects, the project editors could easily outnumber anyone trying to argue any bias the mining project might have, and that the mining project certainly showed clear "groupthink". How would you resolve it?
A: Consensus is a function of the strength of the argument (based on policies and guidelines) presented and the number of people supporting such arguments. For example, in a deletion discussion editors saying I don't like this article carries little to no weight against one editor saying it meets the general notability guidelines. Wikipedia should be publishing facts on subjects as reported by independent, reliable, secondary sources, not biased opinions.
Additional questions from Signalizing
13. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A:
14. During a vandalism investigation, you find evidence that a well-known and respected admin has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, ask (via email) the CheckUser Team or the Arbitration Committee what to do.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
15. In my experience one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia is deletions (permanent removal of content – as opposed to mere reverting). Even after years of editing I still do not understand all the different deletion processes. For example can you please tell me when and why a wp:PROD is used, how it can be contested, what can be the subject of a PROD, is there a limit on the number of times a wikipedia page can be nominated for deletion, how can I find all articles proposed for deletion via PROD, are there overall statistics that show how many articles that have been PRODed have been successfully contested vs how many have been deleted, and anything else you care to mention in this respect. Thanks in advance,
A: There are a lot of questions within this question so I will answer them in bullet form (note this is just an explanation of the standard PROD, not BLPPROD):
  • PROD is used where an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, but is uncontroversial enough to not require a discussion about.
  • Anyone can contest a PROD by removing the template from the page. This includes (unlike CSD) the article creator. A rationale for contesting it is not required but is encouraged.
  • Any article, list or DAB page can be PRODed provided:
  • It has not been PRODed before (note it can be PRODed if it had been BLPPRODED before)
  • Has not been undeleted
  • Is not at AfD or has not survived AfD in the past
  • There is no limit on the number of times an article can be nominated at AfD, however an article can only be proposed via PROD for deletion once (with the BLPPROD exception).
  • You can find all articles proposed for deletion at Category:All articles proposed for deletion
  • I am unaware of statistics showing how many articles have been PRODed, contested, or deleted.
  • Additional comments:
  • When using PROD you must provide a valid rationale (not, for example Poorly written)
  • Another editor can endorse the PROD by adding ((Prod-2))
I think that about covers it.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. Yes, and per Drmies Lady. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha, I need to try using that rationale at AfD... "Keep, passes GNG and per Carrite." Carrite (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  2. SupportI see no issues. Well rounded edits, plenty of participation in admin and back areas. Trustworthy user :) Jguy TalkDone 03:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I particularly like their willingness to get involved in a wide range of areas on the project; and from experience, the philosophy of "it's only a website" - actually works, to avoid disputes! love their DYK work on Go the Fuck to Sleep (great book!) from 2011. Good luck, Kelapstick! —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obviously. :) (a little late... missed transclusion time) LadyofShalott 04:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lady is excused: she has an actual job, unlike most of us bums. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Someone who spends their time doing excellent content work? Whatever next? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I haven't done any heavy editing work with Kelapstick (although he has cleaned up after me a few times), but I've seen them around to have a good idea about their demeanor and clue level. In the end, I trust Kelapstick to use the tools properly and to be a calm, rational voice when dealing with fellow editors. I appreciate the fact that he takes our goals seriously, but not himself, and doesn't get bogged down in drama. He has more than enough experience (with almost half of that in article space), has learned from past mistakes, and is unquestionably here to make Wikipedia a better quality encyclopedia. The tools will help him to help others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Am happy with this Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seen him around and not seen any problems. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Stephen 10:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Seems like he/she'd be a good admin. WT101 (Chat • Count) 10:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.  davidiad { t } 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Per Dr. Mies Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Sufficient tenure and edits; nice mix of mainspace work to "other stuff." Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Close paraphrase is one of the most difficult copyright concepts to grasp it seems like it has been. No big concerns. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support my friend from IRC! You are a good helper! Prabash.Akmeemana 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support....no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - no concerns, seems to have improved since last AFD and I'm sure will be an asset. GiantSnowman 19:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD? Rfa I think you mean. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he seems much more likely to survive deletion this time around. ;-) Kurtis (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EFD is that way Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seems ideal. I note the early withdrawal of the last RfA and clearly the candidate has learnt from the (very valid) concerns presented then. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support — Because obviously Kelapstick wasn't already an administrator. Everyone knew that, right? Kurtis (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Couldn't find an issue. Did research by looking at user page and GA and some contribs and couldn't find anything. I think Wiki is off in people (who are not experts in either law or academic definitions or journalism practices) labeling small phrases (that are cited) as "plagiarism". But the guy seems to have weathered the kerfuffle fine.TCO (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. A good candidate. I am further encouraged to support after seeing their response to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's oppose. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Seems like a level-headed lad. - MrX 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per Carrite. Candidate has improved since last RfA, and is conducting themselves well in this one. Miniapolis 02:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Secret account 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Obviously has a clue based on the response to the paraphrasing question from Drmies. I'm happy with their response on usernames (even though it is not their intention to work in this area). I'm also struck that my username was even a consideration in their response to Buffbills's question and goes to show how much legwork Kelapstick did in preparing for this RfA. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Productive editor who is full of clue, good will, and actually contributes significant content (gasp). First Light (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I took a look through the contribs and read the answers above, and he's smart. RfA is about if he can be trusted with the bits, and he's gained my confidence. Dusti*poke* 04:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Long history of fine contributions, well rounded participation in project, and appears to have the appropriate level headed approach and serious demeanor which are needed for a good administrator. Donner60 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support All seems good. Widr (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Why not? --Katarighe (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – Amiable, level-headed (particularly in disputes), writes lots of content ... what's not to like? Graham87 08:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, looks good. Really gives the impression of a thoughtful user that will admin with a cool head, and do the necessary reading to ensure he's doing the right thing when waving the admin tools around. Great candidate. ~ mazca talk 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportSeems like a perfectly competent user. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - I've interacted with kelapstick a number of times in the past as he is a fellow helper on the IRC help channels, and I've always found him to be very level headed. His answers to the various questions there also look pretty good, and I think he'd make a good, and fun admin on Wikipedia. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Kelapstick answered my questions perfectly, and even added some stuff I wasn't expecting. buffbills7701 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - helpful user. Legoktm (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - no concerns. Tolly4bolly 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No concerns. — ΛΧΣ21 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I can't see any problems. -- Marek.69 talk 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yup Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I went back and looked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelapstick (the previous RfA), to see what the paraphrase issues had been. (By the way, there should be a link to that RfA in this RfA, at #General comments.) Anyway, considering the answer to Q4, the amount of time that has passed without problems since the previous RfA, and the trustworthiness of the two nominators, I think that there are no remaining issues now, and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support after a review of articles we've almost, but apparently never quite, crossed paths at, I see a lot of sensible work from this editor, and I'd expect no less were this editor granted the mop. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The total number of edits clearly demonstrates dedication to Wikipedia, and there is not a month without an edit in nearly 7 years. My own edit count history at the time of my RfA, for example, didn't look much better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Encountered him in mining, where despite his industry background he was OK with some critical discussion of the environmental issues. It's too bad about the close paraphrasing in the past (which I didn't reviewed closely), but having been accused of plagiarism for fidelity to a cited source, I'm inclined to be sympathetic. See #5 in MastCell's WP:CGTW: "if your edit sticks close to the original source, you will be accused of plagiarism. If your edit is paraphrased to avoid plagiarism, you will be accused of straying from the original source". II | (t - c) 03:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support the copyright issues would have been a concern but I trust Drmies on this one. --Rschen7754 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I like the well thought out answers you've posted so far for all of your questions. Looking through your contributions, I see a very productive and courteous editor (kudos on Mongolian presidential election, 2013!) who's well-versed in policy/procedure. I think you'll benefit from the addition of a few extra buttons. Well done so far, and good luck on your RfA! Signalizing (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, specifically for the answer to question 5. — Scott • talk 11:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I've had little direct interaction with Kelapstick, but what I have had has been positive. He seems to be a level-headed, bright fellow with a sense of humor. Temperamentally, he seems well-suited to become an admin. And despite his unusual background (the two Ms), his interests at Wikipedia appear to be eclectic. The only negative is Drmies's support, but it would be unfair of me to hold that against the candidate.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Positive interactions with other editors. Superior contributions to main space. Past concerns regarding plagarism dealt with, to the point of perhaps becoming a mentor for others. I have sympathy for Kiefer's oppose position, but I don't sense that admin work will become Kelapstick's over-riding passion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I've had nothing but wonderful interactions with Kelapstick. He has made great contributions. With Lady and Drmies, one couldn't have better recommendations. Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support No concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support The opposes aren't convincing, especially Kelapstick having light contributions in April. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia (hopefully) and sometimes they take precedent. AniMate 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Kelapstick is an example of a fine content contributor. No concerns. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 02:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Can be trusted. Found no edit which could be a matter of concern. - Jayadevp13 07:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A prolific editor, and deserves my support despite the fact that his userpage is a bit of a mess. Minima© (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Past issues with close paraphrasing have been dealt with, so I see no reason not to support now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Any problem?!!! Where?! I don't see any?! Then what's the reason to oppose this user. So I support...... Cheers.!--Pratyya (Hello!) 11:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Good contributions. Not the most convincing reasons but good enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I've always had good interaction with Kelapstick. Very straightforward, kind, smart, and sane. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support per Ched. Yes - I've known/known of K for years. Why didn't you ping me when this went live K? — Ched :  ?  14:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support We need reasonable, working admins. People who can pull out, who have balance & perspective, who are self-depracating, and who haven't built themselves a pedestal and need a adminship ladder. EBY (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A net positive contributor, I have found no substantial concerns. TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Appears to be experienced, reasonable, and competent. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: After a short discussion about attribution on the user's talk page, I am convinced he is ready and able to get the admin toolset. Also, he seems level-headed and knowledgeable and is a good candidate for those reasons. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Seems capable for admin decisions, understands "no big deal" and has long history of user-talk. Re Opposes, I think Kelapstick's edit history shows an ability to reduce/expand WP activity as needed for various tasks, such as support of crucial content editing, or to seek a wikibreak when burnout seems likely. I favor admins who take breaks, versus 24/7 grindstone, and Kelapstick has the advantage of camping in a copper mine with no satellite-computer connections (just kidding about the mine!). -Wikid77 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I can't add anything that hasn't already been stated, but I can add my support to this request. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Editor appears to have learned a fair amount since their first Rfa. I hope the recent surge in drama at the various Admin noticeboards does not put the candidate off too much. Seems to have a level head and knows the ropes. Consensus is clearly firming up, and I extend my thanks and best wishes for the candidate's further Wiki-career. Jusdafax 01:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Candidate seems level-headed and conversant in policy, not concerned about past issues at this point. Zad68 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Good content contributions, good interactions, no apparent issues that concern me, and seems equipped with common sense. That easily adds up to net positive, so I support. Begoon talk 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. We need more Canadian admins ;) -- œ™ 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Plenty of clue, seems a sound enough candidate. Past concerns appear to be dealt with. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. support. seems harmless enough. ... aa:talk 09:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Here we have a long-standing editor with good sense, good policy knowledge and very good content contributions. I see many advantages to making him an admin, and I can't see any disadvantages. An easy decision for me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I've seen him around, haven't always agreed with him, but he seems to have the required clue. [NB I recuse from closing this RfA] --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - I don't see anything negative and I don't remember ever interacting with this user (positive or negative) so no reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - A lot of good reasons to support. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Looks even better four years down the road! --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support No concerns from me.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --Apteva (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per noms. INeverCry 19:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per my usual reasons. We need more sysops who don't take themselves too seriously. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. No qualms. No, really. Thanks for throwing your hat in the ring. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Great contributor, plenty of evident maturity, learned from past experience. No serious concerns. -- Scray (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Even though Kelapstick is now a runaway shoo-in for the mop, I'm adding my note of support anyway because I just found out about it. Had I known sooner, I wouldn't be so far down the list of acclaimers. Cheers! Geoff Who, me? 16:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Just piling on at this point since approval is certain. K has demonstrated that he deserves the community's trust, the most important qualification for sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Kelapstick is an excellent contributor to this wonderful encyclopedia, and I have no hesitation granting this editor a shiny new mop and bucket. I am confident that you will be cheerful in cleaning up the messes, Kelapstick. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support No concerns here; the candidate is trustworthy and has clue. SpencerT♦C 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Really just piling on at this point.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  03:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
1. Oppose (withdrawn) The clemency requested by Judge Drmies, who has taken The Long Walk, is hereby granted. Oppose. I don't want to see another productive-editor degenerating into a dumbed-down gorilla, more concerned about silver backs than articles. See the discussion at User_talk:Kelapstick#So.... 20:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments moved to talk page--v/r - TP 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kiefer. First I would like to thank you for the compliment, and let you know I understand your concern (although I probably would have worded it differently). From what I understand there are two schools of thought (probably more) on productive content contributors becoming administrators. The first school is that it is a good thing as they understand the ins and outs of article writing as it lets them make informed decisions when taking administrative actions regarding article content. The second is that making a content contributor an administrator will take them away from editing and creating articles (why we are all here). As I mentioned in Q1, my primary reason for this RfA is to give me something to work on between article ideas. I have no intention of devolving (literally or metaphorically) into a gorilla. I plan to continue to be just as productive in article contributions as I have been in the past, while completing other tasks that I am currently unable to do as a regular editor. I don't expect that my words here will change your mind and I am unfamiliar with any topic bans that are mentioned on the talk page. If you have any specific concerns regarding potential reduction in my content contributions should I be successful in this RfA, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions for the month of April and they seemed too slight. I looked around some more and was still not convinced. Warden (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely possible that Kelapstick was in a mine, or in Mongolia, or in Legoland that month. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I built a model of Gandalf in Lego myself recently. That was fun but doesn't seem relevant to admin status. Let's consider a more relevant example for the period that I selected: 12 April. This was a repeat of a reversion made twice before: 26 February; 8 December 2012. There's no related discussion on the talk page for the article or the image but there was some discussion on user talk pages in which the topical insult "ass hole" is thrown around. Now we were already using this image as fair use elsewhere so using it in the article Denholm Elliott too just seemed to be a formality and the candidate seemed to understand this. For him to repeatedly revert and argue about the matter rather than just adding another FUR seems too officious and unpleasant, contrary to WP:BURO and WP:IAR. I prefer admin candidates who are more constructive and helpful. Warden (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits, along with the edit summary, and the talk page comment seem perfectly appropriate to me. Also, I don't think edit warring is applicable for removing copyright-protected stuff. And the word "asshole" was used for self-deprecating humor, not for abusing the other editor. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAR states, "What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." In other words, edit-warring over this is not cool. Warden (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be looking at overall contributions. A month's worth of editing is nothing compared to an overall spectrum. Dusti*poke* 01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I browse edits in blocks of 500 and I looked at two or three iirc. The candidate only made 40 edits in April so I looked at the longer period covered by those blocks too. As indicated, I didn't see anything in those other months to change my impression. Warden (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Warden, you are absolutely correct, rather than simply removing it I should have created a fair use rationale for use in the article. As he is dead it is acceptable to use under the fair use rationale. Something I am going to do now. The ass hole comment was in reference to an edit summary in which the IP referred to me as an ass hole (I was calling myself the ass hole that removed the image). If you don't find my other edits impressive then I don't see me convincing you otherwise. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I see you have already added the FUR. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I disagree with the Editor that any subject in an article that contains more than one subject that meets notability should have it's own article. Editor doesn't seem to have the best grasp of CSD, or deletion process in general, Hasn't read two sentences into wikipedia consensus policy. While the editor was willing to acknowledge that some admins dislike editors and even other admins, when asked, said nothing about any possible imperfection of admins... unfortunately, while god has given us the square milk jug, god has not yet given us the perfect human. Seems to be a productive editor, a nice person, but doesn't seem to have put much thought into the burdens of being an admin, and doesn't seem to understand basic wikipedia policy. Wouldn't name any behavior to avoid as an admin. Wouldn't say how he would try to build consensus. Also, I may have misread, but his answer on close paraphrase basically seems to boil down to, your paraphrase is too close if an admin blocks or threatens to block you for it. Also in general his answers to the other questions haven't been particularly encouraging, at times, almost patronizingly dumbed down.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, last time I checked, not saying that admins are imperfect does not mean that Kelapstick believes all admins are perfect, and your question didn't particularly demand such a response. I think the response re: consensus also neatly addresses the 6-7 questions in #12 where establishing consensus is done by both gauging policy- and guideline-based arguments and the extent to which they are supported. This applies no matter who is making the arguments. There are many such policies and guidelines on which to gauge consensus, but without a more specific example, Kelapstick offered one and discussed in the context of WP:ILIKEIT. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Q)"Not naming names, or using specific examples, can you talk about things you've seen in admins, their attitudes, or actions that you see as things to avoid?" He didn't answer at all. Plus, WRT Q5, when asked about an us v them mentality the nominee answered as if it didn't apply to admins, and continued that attitude when I asked him to clarify his position, only saying that some admins don't like other people. When asked twice, the nominee refused to acknowledge any imperfection of admins, and couldn't give examples of behavior admins should avoid. Let me put it this way. What if it was the other way around. What if he had been asked once about the us v them question, and he said "Oh, those crazy admins". Then someone asked him if editors had any role in it, and said "some editors don't like other people". "Consensus is a function of the strength of the argument (based on policies and guidelines) presented and the number of people supporting such arguments." "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." The first two sentences of the three sentence opening 'graph that is wikipedia's policy on consensus. Yea. WP:ILIKEIT. That's one of the almost condescending answers I mentioned. When the nominee isn't faceplanting, he's bland for milquetoast.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not giving examples or using names perhaps not only makes it difficult to answer your question about admins, there are perfectly good reasons not to answer it at all. You can choose to interpret that as ineptitude, if you want. I don't think it's an appropriate question for this forum. We disagree that his response about "us vs. them" reflects a belief that admins have no imperfections. I think what it does reflect is that Klapstick tries not to engage or participate in "us vs. them" kind of discussions because it's a mentality to avoid here, and generally sees the tension between them as largely interpersonal and contextual, rather than admins being clearly in the right and editors clearly in the wrong. There's also nothing incompatible with Klapstick's response on consensus and the first few sentences on the front page of WP:CONSENSUS. I don't think his example is particularly imaginative, but if perhaps you wanted a better answer, you should have considered crafting a more detailed situation in your query rather than machine gunning questions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I said no *SPECIFIC* examples, and no names so he doesn't say "admin john smith was a very naughty boy yes he was". It's a simple concept. Asking him to name "bad" admins would be inappropriate... which is why I said no specific examples or names. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to ask a nominee what they think bad behavior for an admin is. He was asked once about us v. them, and he postulated about some imagined anti admin group and didn't make any mention of how admins contribute, or how they should handle it. I pointedly asked him if admins are perfect. If us v. them is one sided. How admins play a role in it. His response was that some admins don't like some editors, and some admins don't like other admins. I don't see him answering the most basic yes or no questions, and obviously not showing any understanding of the issue. You're saying that Klapstick making up an imagined anti-admin editor group is evidence of him not involving himself so as to not participate in any way in us v them discussions? I directly asked him if it's a matter of admins being clearly in the right and editors clearly in the wrong. He didn't answer. Klapstick said that consensus has two parts, one of them being a vote. The consensus policy clearly says that consensus is not decided by a vote. And yes. Evidently I expected much too much of Klapstick. He obviously did not meet basic requirements, and so I oppose his bid.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Fairly reasonable and likable looking guy. I know we want admins like that. Looking into [1], [2], I find that the candidate has a total of 22 contributions at ANI and makes 12 appearances in admin noticeboard threads. None of these threads can be described as having "extensive" contributions from the candidate and they certainly do not feel the "heat" in any of them. I feel, putting someone like that into the minefield of adminship is likely to be counterproductive. The candidate does not look like a "natural" for adminning and putting them in that position could result in a burn-out before-we-know it. We could end up losing a good ed. Hence my oppose. It is likely that this RFA will be a success despite my oppose. I am OK if the candidacy is a success and will be happiest to have my apprehensions eventually proven wrong. Thanks & regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

# I have to park here, pending the answer to my two real questions, and pending some more input. First glance shows me an awesome Wikipedian would most likely wouldn't delete the Main Page, however, the last RfA does raise concerns, of which it appears have been resolved since then. I'm not sure, hence my neutrality. Dusti*poke* 06:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Moving to support Dusti*poke* 04:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Category