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

Kimchi.sg[edit]

Final (107/4/9) ended 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs) – I have been contributing to Wikipedia for about 1 year - my first edit was on 13 June 2005, but I did not really edit much until about February this year. Following the concise list style of Petros471, here are my contributions according to several criteria:

Project space-wise, I have been involved mostly in RfA and AfD, with an occasional voice in DRV, MfD and other deletion discussions. For articles, I edit a varied choice of articles, starting off with the Singapore-related ones, but also doing cleanup and wikifying. Although I'm not a prolific vandal fighter, I do revert vandalism, especially to watchlisted pages. The community can hereby decide whether I am suitable for the janitor's mop. Kimchi.sg 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As Blnguyen has mentioned, I initially requested Durin to nominate me; my reasons for doing a self-nomination in the end can be found on the talk page. Kimchi.sg 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination for adminship. Kimchi.sg 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support The user has 3xxx edits. Very impressive. His edit count per day is impressive as well. He has been around for 1 year in this community, and I've seen his talk page where he arbitrates problems in peaceful manner. (Wikimachine 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  2. First Support user has a good balance of edits; many edits to Wikipedia space imply knowledge of system. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support a civil and productive Wikipedian who keeps a level head and gives wise advice. Will make a fine admin and gets my support. Gwernol 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support meets my criteria —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Users who maintain a high level of civility is most suitable for adminship. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beat the nominator up Kimchi support. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That incivility is no big deal. Besides, if we beat the nominator, as I suggested, he'll learn his lesson. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Edit conflict Support As does he mine. Passes *FA with * FAs.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per nom :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support.  Grue  21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Very good editor with a nice contribution history. Afonso Silva 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Supporting per nom and all preceding votes -- Tawker 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tenth Support --Xyrael T 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. It was about time to see this name on the list. One of the most sensible and reasonable voices to be heard at AfD and RfA. Civility ensured. Quality contribs. What else can we ask for? Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Chocolate. He doesn't give out chocolate. -Splash - tk 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support #13 —Misza13 T C 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Supporting per all above. Good user. G.He 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per all above and my different standards. I've seen nothing but wonderful contributions from Kimchi.sg. joturner 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support User has shown exactly the kind of behavior that I want to see in an admin candidate. Polite and friendly as well as demonstrated willingness to undertake housekeeping jobs. (plus I love Kimchi ;-) Eluchil404 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support appears experienced in tackling vandalism and has been here for a while, I'm bought.--Andeh 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. --Rory096 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Regardless of the raw data presented in this nomination, I legitimately thought s/he was an admin already, and a good one.--SB | T 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. (Edit conflict) Strong Support. I run into this user on AfD constantly. Very civil and helpful, good edit distribution, nothing wrong here. Grandmasterka 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support seems good to me. —Khoikhoi 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - I thought you had an appointment with Durin, but you appear to have taken the plunge anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support has worked well in many areas of Wikipedia. Civil & productive as Gwernol says. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jaranda wat's sup 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Kimchi typically has sound judgment at WP:MfD, and he has plenty of experience in the main namespace. --TantalumTelluride 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, I have a good, reliable impression of this user. Splash - tk 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support As it happens, I had inquired recently about nominating editor myself. He exhibits exceptional judgment, great calmness, and true dedication to the routine tasks that are tailor-made for the mop. His adminship will be a boon to Wikipedia. Xoloz 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. "#1" Support Werdna (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Pepsidrinka supports. 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support no glaring reason to oppose that I can see. Batman2005 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I see you being helpful all over the place, and I thought you were an admin already. Kevin 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Always had a good impression of this user, civil, substantial editor, helpful and respectful. Besides, I like kimchi. :D Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Merovingian {T C @} 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I don't think the link that NLSE provided is an example of incivility, but prehaps improper terminology. Aside, from that extremly minute comment, I see no issues. Yanksox (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Appears to be a good editor with a consistent record as well as good overall communication with other users (important for an administrator, in my opinion). - Kukini 04:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per Yanksox. --Shizane 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. User supports my standards; Will make a great admin. ―Linux|erist 05:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, looks like ideal admin material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyWang (talk • contribs)
  40. Support. DarthVader 08:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Kimchi is a conscientious worker, a good communicator, and will do a great job. ×Meegs 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support, well-balanced non-egotist with a kind and supportive manner to newbies, yet strong when appropriate. Would be an excellent admin. --Dweller 08:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. An experienced, committed user. Zaxem 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - well deserved. --Looper5920 10:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Anonymous__Anonymous 11:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good stuff. A slightly snarky edit summary doesn't count in my book, and user's good contributions are umm good. Did I say good enough in that last sentence? Good good good good. Syrthiss 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. So he was incivil once. Is there a pattern? Not as far as I can tell. Give him a good spanking with the mop and bucket we're about to hand him. Kimchi is one of our most mature Singaporean editors (if not among the whole editing population); I'm frankly surprised he isn't an admin already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support great dude! Computerjoe's talk 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Joe I 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Good editor, I don't buy the incivility argument, and I certainly don't buy that he fails the 1FA test (which... well let's not get started on why that's not a test I'd use myself), and GREAT answer to Petros471's question. Support ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I see no reasons why not. AdamBiswanger1 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Dear lord, you consider over 4000 not a lot of edits? I think I had around 500 when I got adminned. --Delirium 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pssh, 4000 is nothing. --Rory096 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - W00t. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I thought I did this last night. Polite, civil, reverts vandalism, seems knowledgable about wiki protocol, what's not to like? -- Avi 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Seems to be fairly experienced, helpful, and has a satisfactory record. However, as noted, he has a case of incivility, but its quite minor, so I'll still give my vote. Advanced 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support (was Neutral) Satisfied with question. :) -- Миборовский 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support --kingboyk 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Even though after 2 years in Korea I still hated kimchi (that's vegetables fermented in chili and vinegar, folks). Incivility microscope is on super-high magnification below. Deizio talk 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. "Incivility" below seems like an isolated incident. Otherwise, a great contributor and potential administrator. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Because I know he will make a good admin. --eivindt@c 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Sounds like a good choice for admin InvictaHOG 03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Editorial contributions, project participation and communication are all exceptional. -- Samir धर्म 07:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support based upon contributions and answers to questions below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Civil and busy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Worthwhile contirbutions to *fD, Deletion Review, decent vandal fighting. This demonstrates interest in and understanding of the day to day tasks of an admin. Nscheffey(T/C) 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Good user. --Tone 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I've run into Kimchi.sg more than a few times and always felt the user was of strong calibre. At the moment, my RfA supports are mostly based on a combination of minimal edits/time, attitude while editing, and a strong dose of intuition. All three are telling me to Support kimchi.sg. Good luck! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support person is trustworthy and will become a good admin. Yamaguchi先生 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, one possible laps in civility (per NSLE below) is not enough for me to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Fine contributor and worthy admin candidate. Extra bonus points for answering SO MANY questions. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support As per Cactusman, Kimchi is a good contributor and would make a good admin. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support for usual cliched reasons about being surprised he's not already, blah, blah. Metamagician3000 10:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. A very good user, indeed. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - trustworthy and handled himself well despite the minor incivility issue that User:NSLE has brought up as of late. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, great user --Deville (Talk) 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I thought I already said this, but closer examination reveals that I didn't, I just commented on the ongoing discussion. I don't share the incivility concerns, and I don't see any problems with the guy mopping up a floor or two. -- Captain Disdain 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak(ish) support As per this entire page. MichaelBillington 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support blue520 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Mmmmm...support...*drool*. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support seen this person around a little, good user.--Alhutch 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 06:53Z
  83. Support: I would support rather than find fault. --Bhadani 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  84. Support Good editor and I think will make a good admin. Jordy 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I am confident he will do wellsumal sumal 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I am convinced that Kimchi.sg will make a good admin. - Tangotango 15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Friendly, great user, good answers to questions. --Fang Aili talk 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    stong Support I love this user149.151.192.145 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, overdue nomination IMO. --Mhking 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Candidate looks good. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support — The King of Kings 20:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - [1] is the worst edit you could find: I'm thoroughly impressed. —Celestianpower háblame 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support with no hesitation at all. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Looks alright. Not too concerned about possible incivility cited by NSLE. Nephron  T|C 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Definitely an editor who knows policy and will use the mop responsibly - Glen 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, and best wishes. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Has a good balance of edits. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate support. - Taxman Talk 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support very Helpful User, User:Necrowarrio0
  99. Support. I thought he was an admin already, actually. And I'm the 99th vote! ~Chris Don't be evil. 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Excellent user. Joelito (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support per above. Nevermind2 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Damn. I wanted to have the 100th support. oh well.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Wow! Kimchi.sg sure is getting a lot of questions. Maybe we have a prototype admin exam in our hands here? ;). In any case, he answered my two questions thoughtfully on my talk page [2]. I like Kimchi.sg's answers, I even learned a little :-) . So I'll Support. Kim Bruning 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. You mean you aren't an admin already? BryanG(talk) 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Joe I 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Note : Duplicate vote --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per comment number 5. Picaroon9288 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. support great editor, will be an asset as admin. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support. As of late, I've been more concerned about users who will set a good example, and less about janitors. As Wikipedia grows, people look up to the administrators for both janitorial duties and overall contribution advice, and I think this user displays an ability to do both by the sheer amount of Wikipedia space edits and a somewhat acceptable about of talkpage edits. — Deckiller 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, possible incivility - diff (edit summary): [3]. NSLE 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Self nomination. Myrtone12:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is blatantly violating WP:POINT. NSLE 12:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing for self nomination? Should this opposition be discounted?--Jusjih 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken this vote out as the user has been blocked for repeated disruption on RfAs, which I think this falls under. —Cuiviénen 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Sorry, but some answers just aren't what I'm expecting, and I have reservations about incivility. -- 9cds(talk) 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. It seems to me, that Kimchi.sg has difficulties to discuss respectfully with editors, who have a different POV. [4] Raphael1 11:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. One minor incident of possible incivility, as cited by NSLE, is not enough to make me oppose, but it is a cause for concern. —Cuiviénen 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral; minor incivility case; doesn't seem to have worked on getting an article/list/portal to featured status--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, good editor but possible incivility per NSLE. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Does not seem to pass Mailer test (PBUH) but work on hanging is commendable. I would support if happy with answers from my question below. ;) -- Миборовский 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, he's at peace, I think, away from Wiki-politics mumbo-jumbo... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Totally neutral. I can't decide...-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 和 CCD 維基和平 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 06:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak neutral. Low edit count, otherwise seems like a nice editor. Read my comment below in regard to edit counts. MichaelBillington 10:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral due to incivility concerns. Roy A.A. 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Royboycrashfan. SushiGeek 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sagar (see my question below) seems to be an isolated incident so I'm not opposing, however it has various aspects that concern me. I don't think it was a good idea to first prod and then AfD the article - a university is clearly notable, so the response should be to fix the article. Another minor matter, the link given in response to my question is to disambig rather than deletion, as intended - I wouldn't mention this except that I noticed in the candidate's edit history a number of oops comments (suggesting a tendency to act first and think later) - but then don't we all, betimes! Dlyons493 Talk 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per incivility and seeming misunderstanding of policy on deletion which came before this. --Guinnog 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral -- was intially opposed, but after reading answers, decided that a neutral vote would be more appropriate --T-rex 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. I think that one needs a high edit count for this. A high edit count means yoou have contact with more users. The more users you talk to the better. When you revert vandalism, there is always a vandal who will defend his edits, so it is a good idea to gain some serious experience here. This experience comes with edits. Otherwise, I think you'd make a great mop & bucketer. I say neutral (as above), someone throw me some evidence and i'll be swayed either way. MichaelBillington 10:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Michael, I hope you don't mind my opinion, but I believe you're not entirely right. While I agree that a significant number of edits is desirable, I think that Kimchi (with over 4,000 of them) is well above the minimum bar. You're right to point out that "the more users you talk to, the better", but... don't you think that 842 User talk edits prove he interacts properly with the community? I've taken the time to look at some of the latest successful RfAs, and there are many with a similar and even lower number of edits. If it's all in a minimum number of edits you've decided to set as standard for supporting, then I guess I understand (despite I'd believe it to be too high); but I surely don't think the amount currently exhibited by Kimchi to be insufficient to gain enough knowledge of the process. Warm regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing my opinion to "weak support" in light of that. Thanks MichaelBillington 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's contributions.Voice-of-All 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Kimchi.sg (over the 4155 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 337 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 15, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 13, June, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.38%
Average edits per day: 40.35 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 215 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.2%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4155 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.51% (21)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.6% (191)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 15.14% (629)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 77.88%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1890 | Average edits per page: 2.2 | Edits on top: 12.88%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 50.54% (2100 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 29.31% (1218 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 15.6% (648 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 2.14% (89 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 34.46% (1432) | Article talk: 3.75% (156)
User: 6.74% (280) | User talk: 20.26% (842)
Wikipedia: 29.96% (1245) | Wikipedia talk: 2.77% (115)
Image: 0.63% (26)
Template: 0.24% (10)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.18% (49)
Username Kimchi.sg
Total edits 4149
Distinct pages edited 1963
Average edits/page 2.114
First edit 2005-06-13 12:41:26
 
(main) 1432
Talk 154
User 264
User talk 842
Image 26
Image talk 2
Template 10
Template talk 47
Wikipedia 1257
Wikipedia talk 115
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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate helping with the occasional backlog at C:CSD, closing AfDs (and revive WikiProject Deletion sorting along the way), updating Did You Know? on the Main Page if the entries grow stale (there have been recent occasions when the section wasn't updated for a whole day!), responding to page protection requests, and tacking the backlog at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Kimchi.sg 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm most pleased with my changes to hanging, because my re-organisation of the article (together with edits by Karada and Arwel Parry) effectively ended a 4-month long revert war. Between 6 December 2005 and 27 April 2006, the article did not last more than 3 days unprotected without the same POV paragraph being pushed in (typical example). I added in a summarised and sourced version of the Singapore paragraph, and the vandalism ceased after that. I also seem to have a soft spot for company articles, having rewritten ProgressSoft from scratch (which survived DRV and a 3rd AfD), adding references to RightNow Technologies [5], and rewriting KLG Systel from a copyvio into an encyclopedic stub. [6] Of the 6 articles I have written which made it to DYK, the most difficult to write was Escape from Paradise, as I do not have a copy of the book and had to work with the authors' website, which contains strong anti-Singapore government POV, and extract material from there NPOV enough for the 'pedia. Kimchi.sg 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: I have previously been stressed over the repeated insertion of unsourced POV statements into the hanging article by anon editor(s). As I knew the statements had to be documented somewhere, I went to Google for sources once I had the time, and inserted a shorter version with references. (See answer to question 2 for details.) The same has been true for The Straits Times; for this article, I have made a couple of reverts and refrained from further edits to the article, because I have my bias towards these claims. I believe that over time, we can still work the claims into the article in a verifiable, NPOV manner. I will deal with future stress by 1. stepping back (including the use of Wikibreaks) and thinking about peaceful ways to end the conflict, and 2. discussing changes or actions with others before deciding what to do. Kimchi.sg 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

4. What is your view on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in particular, and importance or otherwise of process in general? Petros471 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: "Ignoring all rules" is a close friend of "be bold". It is a great guidance and encouragement to newbies, who may not know where, or have the time, to read all the rules before editing. (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines can only list so many "rules", and does not include article style guidelines, for example.) However, I believe editors who ignore all rules should do so with common sense, discuss all changes which may be controversial, and lastly, IAR should not be used as a justification to make changes against consensus - the "wiki" part of Wikipedia implies collaboration, after all, and having a large number of people collaborating will mean that not everyone gets to make the changes they want.
The importance of process follows from my previous sentence. We need process so that people know how to do things in a efficient way. However, process is defined by the community, so it may evolve and change as the community demands it. Kimchi.sg 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox Question (optional)

5. Do you believe the Wikipedia community on a whole would benefit from you becoming an admin? Why? Yanksox (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I believe the community will benefit if I am given the mop. I will not make changes or actions which do not have community approval; if I make any action that has not been discussed before, it will be quickly taken to the Administrators' Noticeboard or WP:AN/I for review. Kimchi.sg 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen perhaps trivial question

6. I always thought you were female. Or am I wrong. Maybe it's only in Vietnamese that Kim Chi is a female name?? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope no one minds me commenting here, but see kimchi. NSLE 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm a male. But my experience on Wikipedia tells me that gender doesn't really matter. :-) As for the reason for my username, it is a mispronunciation of my real name; when I was in National Service, a clerk in my unit kept saying my name this way, but instead of being annoyed, I found it "cute" and have used it as my Internet identification ever since. Kimchi.sg 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am mistaken then, I apologise. NSLE 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miborovsky's question (I think I'm gonna ask every RfA hopeful this question from now on...)

7. In your own words, what is the fundamental difference between an admin and a non-admin, registered contributor?
A: The difference between an administrator and a registered user is that an admin has extra buttons available for him to help with the "hard work" in running the 'pedia: delete, protect, and block. I have heard others say that there is also a political difference, but I do not see it that way. The sysop-user dichotomy should not exist. Kimchi.sg 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Xiang's question

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: I first thought of becoming a sysop when I saw the backlogs at CAT:ABL. That was in April, and I decided I still had more to learn about Wikipedia process and policies. Now that I've learnt more, I'm putting forth this nomination, because administrative backlogs are just as voluminous as editorial backlogs (e.g. CAT:WIKIFY), yet they can only be done by people with the extra buttons. I believe that having one more admin can make these admin backlogs easier to clear for everyone. Kimchi.sg 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dlyons493 question

9. Why did you propose a university for deletion?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sagar Dlyons493 Talk 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He gave the reason in his AfD nom, in case you didn't see. Anyway, he's right, it's a copyvio of an ad for the university. --Rory096 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, and it had nothing to do with the copyvio which you've just slapped on in response to my question (which incidentally was to the candidate). Dlyons493 Talk 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it was a copyvio of an ad, Kimchi was correct in that it was a complete advertisement for the university and was probably best off starting over fresh. Incidentally, this is a wiki that anybody can edit. This is a debate, and there is nothing saying I can't make a comment on your question. --Rory096 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: The version of the article that Jsx1200 had created [7] sounded to me like an advertisement for the university. As the deletion policy does not distinguish between advertisements from companies and those from other types of organisations, I believed that even though universities are notable, it would be best to have the article deleted while it remained in this form, and have someone write about the university from scratch. Hence the reason for my prod and the AfD when Jsx1200 contested the prod. Kimchi.sg 01:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Terence Ong:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

10. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A: The fact that (s)he is well-known and liked is no excuse to use sockpuppets abusively. Per the sockpuppetry guideline and blocking policy, all the socks used have to be blocked indefinitely upon discovery. As for the sockpuppeteer, the treatment would vary depending on whether he has used socks abusively before. If he is a first-time violater, I would place a 24-hour block for this offence, because abusive use of sockpuppets implies the editor has some knowledge of policy, and is covertly trying to flout it. Subsequent violations would result in longer blocks. Kimchi.sg 07:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A: I would take it to deletion review, and present there my opinion on why the article should be undeleted. If I and the other users who thought the article should be kept were indeed in the wrong, DRV would be the best place for the deleting sysop to tell us why. It will also allow other editors to join in the discussion, and having more opinions in the discussion is always a good thing. Kimchi.sg 07:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A: I would not regard blocking them as a "conflict of interest", for the blocking policy strictly disallows only the blocking of editors "to gain an advantage in a content dispute". However, I would first try to get them to discuss their reasons for having the article, either on my talk page or at deletion review. I would block only as a last resort - if they refuse to discuss, and blindly continue their behaviour. Kimchi.sg 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A: I would accept the other sysop's decision to refer the editors to Arbcom, and submit my opinions and experience with the editors as an statement for the Arbcom's consideration. If the Arbcom rejects the case, I would keep a close eye on the editors and advise them on how best to cooperate with each other. If they continue to misbehave and I end up blocking them in order to impose a "cooling off" period, I would ask other sysops to review my actions on WP:AN/I. Kimchi.sg 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?
A: I would relist the discussion so that more opinions can be expressed to generate a consensus. If relisting the discussion for another 5 days does not result in any new opinions, I'd close the discussion as a "no consensus". Kimchi.sg 07:30, 17 June 2006 (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.
Category