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

Kylu

Final(111/29/9) Ending 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kylu (talk • contribs)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm thankful for the chance to help more, I accept. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Suport of course. pschemp | talk 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support as nominator. -- Where 05:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto Will make an awesome admin ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. /me thinks this was already overdue - go for it, Kylu! :) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 05:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Cincinnatus is a good metaphor, and I can relate, having resisted nomination myself. I think Kylu will be an excellent administrator. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support of course Jaranda wat's sup 05:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support, congratulations to the nominators for making her accept. Long overdue, as her work in mediation shows that she was qualified for the job at least several months ago. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ballistic Support Kylu kindly reverted vandalism on my userpage in a snap, before I could even notice. Besides, Adminship needs a woman's touch. This Fire Burns.....Always 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Merovingian {T C @} 05:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tenth support - yep. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support She appears to have thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies judging from her answers and her actions. I like the fact that she appears to be a very positive person. --Chris S. 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. EXTREME ASEXUAL SUPPORT despite my full participation in the not-ready-for-rfa campaign. When it comes down to it, RfA is an art, not a science, and it doesn't really matter whether one is fully prepared for the RfA, the adminship is what matters, and Kylu's definitely ready for that—well, as ready as she'll ever be. :] --Keitei (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    <Andy123> :] --Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as no reason not to, really. —Xyrael / 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Double edit conflict support Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Proxy support. See this diff. User:TheProject is away from the wiki and thought likely to be during the entire course of this RfA. TheProject asked that this support be entered and the diff given. The 'crats will have to decide whether to count this or not, or just deem it moral support. ++Lar: t/c 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC) TheProject[reply]
    Wonder of wonders -- the one time I get Internet and VPN access is right when this RfA reaches its deadline, so I'll make it easier for the bureaucrats and confirm this support myself. I do find it very unlikely that Kylu could have done anything within the few weeks that I was gone that would have seriously forced me to consider changing my support. Back to Wikibreak for me. theProject 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I have worked with Kylu in the Mediation Cabal and found her invariably helpful and kind. --Ideogram 06:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Why didn't anyone tell me this was live, damn it! I would've been the first to support. Jude (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A delicious support Kylu is awesome. Friendly, nice, helpful, NOT EVIL, and above all, a gnome. I give boat loads of festering approval. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 07:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Absolutely. Friendly, helpful and sufficiently well-traveled for me. Grandmasterka 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By absolutely, I mean STRONG SUPPORT. While a little shorter on WP-space edits than I normally recommend, she more than makes up for it in helpfulness and friendliness. After having used the tools myself for 66 hours, I think she will handle them quite well. Grandmasterka 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. WHY ISN'T THIS USER AN ADMIN(Support)?Crazynas t 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support - Glen 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Can he breathe? CHECK. Is he a good user? CHECK. Does he act like a dick? NOT CHECK. Sounds good to me =D --mboverload@ 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "He" is a she. 86.134.91.73 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Will you beat me up if I oppose you?. Of course, support!--Tdxiang 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. DarthVader 10:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Joe I 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Her answers to my questions and the seemingly unending praise on her talk page lead me to believe that she is more than qualified. Alphachimp talk 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, gladly. She is newer than most I would support, but has the right sort of personality needed: kind, intelligent, cool-headed, diligent, courteous, and now she's blushing I'm sure. (Oh, right, musicabal, too.) Another one I offered to nominate who got snapped up by someone else instead. (Now, why didn't those someones ping me when it went up, huh?)  :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong, strong support! Her tremendous expertise and friendliness will be put to good use as an admin. - Tangotango 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, she has done a lot of good work in her brief time with us. I cannot fathom why she should have to wait based purely on arbitrary periods of time; she will quite clearly use the admin tools for the furtherment of Wikipedia. Rje 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support On the contrary, this page does not indicate that she is too eager to be an admin. Looking at the page, I get the impression Kylu was explaining why she wasn't an admin and saying that she wanted to wait. It was only after Where, Lar, and TangoTango insisted that waiting was not really going to do much (and that she could always try again) that she decided to accept a nomination. And what eagerness can be discerned from the page is certainly reasonable; we want admins who take their job seriously and want to serve the community (that's a whole lot different from being power-hungry). This user clearly has the stuff admins are made of and I don't see any reason why a time issue should keep her from promotion. So, while Kylu fails with grace some of my standards (particularly regarding tenure), I must note that I have different standards on different days. joturner 13:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – not too soon at all, if anything adminship for this user is overdue – Gurch 13:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Cleared I have no doubt she'll do a phenominal job and will treat the tools with care. --Pilotguy (roger that) 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Has got her heart in the right place. Adminship is no big deal --Nearly Headless Nick 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per all.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Absolutely. Go gettem. Deizio talk 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - You need the tools. Mário 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Seems pretty good to me. Political Mind 17:05, July 11, 2006 (UTC).
  38. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Voting for another vandal-fighter admin on board. Kedi the tramp 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support after going through the rfa discussion subpage on her userpage -- Lost 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Big Support A kind hard working user, Wikipedia could do with many more Kylu's!! Thε Halo Θ 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support She's done well; that RfA page pretty much helped decide my vote. She will continue to do well. Thistheman 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. per above Highway Batman! 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Just barely meets my time on Wikipedia requirements, but based on your contributions and your RfA userpage, I might've ignored that anyway. You'll make a great admin. BryanG(talk) 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Very Strong SupportI thought she was an admin! Sergeant Snopake 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Kind of Weak Support The editors that oppose have a valid opinion, however, I believe that a use for tools is stressed for particular purposes. It also appears that this editor has garnered trust within the community. It appears that a good admin will emerge from this RfA. Yanksox 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually feel confident the tools won't be abused, and I'm still somewhat uneasy as are other people, I can imagine, but I see no reason why not to give tools. I will trust her, and hope she eases her way into it. Yanksox 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Great user, needs the tools and won't abuse them. Opposing based on her time here seems wrong. Seems to know policy better then some who've been here longer.--Joe Jklin (T C) 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Think Pink Support per noms and co-noms. Agent 86 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support with a herring slap to the head. No justification necessary. Given the multitude of disagreement, I must digress from my earlier "no justification" argument. If Kylu is the type of person we don't want as an admin, then we should seriously re-think the RfA process and I'll commit Wiki-suicide. She makes plenty of effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, whether working actively on RC patrol, cleaning up and working in MedCab, or being a gnome. I don't care what the edit count says, I don't care about the contribution quality over the last 500 edits, blah blah blah. Kylu would make a great administrator. CQJ 01:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Lots-o-support! See "reason" above. :) Steve-o 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong bovine support - moo Not enough article contributions? I completely disagree about that - and the most important thing here is two questions: will a RFA candidate abuse the tools, and will they abuse the tools? There's plenty of evidence that Kylu is more than civil enough and sensible enough to learn how the sysop tools work. Kylu is civil and has good edits spread across numerous namespaces. If you are afraid that Kylu may make a mistake for being here not as long as Jimbo has, remember that sysops are not perfect beings - they can make mistakes too. In fact, it's expected that in the beginning a good or two may pop up, but Kylu is more than responsible enough to address any mistakes that may pop up. Adminship is no big deal, really. Our standards seem to be increasing as our number of editors increases, which means our percentage of administrators is dropping by the day. Cowman109Talk 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01010011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 01110011 (it's binary)-- Tawker 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    01010100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100001 ! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there are lots of binary to text convertors out there but if you really want to know what is said you'll have to Google search for one yourself. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of use can still speak binary ;-) Plus there's a redundant ! - or was that intentional 00111111 ? Stephen B Streater 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support without reservation. An excellent, civil, and intelligible contributor. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A username I've come to trust, every time I see it. Smart, trustworthy, civil. Luna Santin 07:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Three months is enough. Eluchil404 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Light Red Support - The only other person brave enough to have a light red sig, how flattering. --Cyde↔Weys 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --SB | T 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: consistent positive attitude unlikely to change so I don't require more time before supporting this nomination. Lot's of mopping already evident too, and 100% Mathbot score suggests dedication to the job. Stephen B Streater 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Excellant job, sure to make a good editor. ViridaeTalk 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I see no convincing reasons to oppose. Kylu has been editing long enough for us to see what kind of admin she'd be, and everything being said is positive. This standard of 6-12 months experience is new and, in my humble opinion, excessive. I would be tremendously disappointed if the kind of knee jerk "looks like a great candidate, but she should wait longer on principle" arguments below won out. There needs to be a reason that to ask RfA candidates to wait. -- SCZenz 20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Naconkantari 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Looks good to me. True, he has been here for a shorter period of time but that means nothing. Tenure not a very logical reason to base anything on, because an eager participant at 3-4 months can easily overshadow the knowledge and experience of an average user over two years. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. strong support Having seen Kylu's great work and having worked with them I get the impression they will make a great admin, Some of the oppose rationales below don't swing me at all, Kylu is one of those Wikipedians who we should embrace as an admin, because they've shown dedication to Wikipedia and are obviously not about to go nuts with the admin buttons. Benon 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Eh? No one told me Kylu was up already! Kylu has this message on her user page going "No, I am not an admin!". Everyone kept telling her: "Just you wait, you'll have to take it down before long!" <snicker> Kim Bruning 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Pepsidrinka strongly supports. There is no worry that this user will misuse the tools so why not give them to her. 00:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be sarcastic, but does anyone want to address the points made by the "oppose" side? AdamBiswanger1 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of the opposes seem to be for lack of experience. There have been other editors who have been sysop'ed with less than 3 months experience (I can think of atleast one on the top of my head). Pepsidrinka 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my comment; it is not merely having been a user for less than three months. —Centrx→talk • 03:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Good candidate --rogerd 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Helped me with useful links to create my own awards for the Kindness Campaign; and sent me a cookie which made me smile! JamieJones talk 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Newness does not imply unreadiness. And hey, you can always learn on the job; it's the wiki way. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Claims of "too soon" are silly, you're a valuable contributer, and deserve the support. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I approve^h^h^h^h^h^h^hSupport. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per nom. Kylu's reasoning is the closest I've found to my own. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per nom. I've read through all the support, neutral and oppose posted so far and believe Kylu will be a fine admin. Yes, time here is short but there is ample evidence of her maturity, civility and dedication. I see no evidence to suggest she'd abuse admin capabilities. Brian 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  77. SupportGeo. 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support _dk 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Big time support per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support--Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Seems well qualified. --AaronS 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Great in every way. --JJay 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switch to oppose. --JJay 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Kylu has served as an exemplar mediator, and she has an exceptional capability for both dispute resolution and communicating with parties, in my experience. Not only is she exceptionally friendly and helpful, but also useful, which - in my opinion - is really what one should be looking for in an administrator. It is with not the slightest doubt that I recommend this fine user is given administrator privileges, as I am certain she shall use them well. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong Support Kylu was nothing but helpful in welcoming me to Wikipedia whenm I started my account. I asked her a question and she answered it as best she could. She is a person who in my view is well on the way to becoming a good, well rounded admin.--Chili14(Talk to me!|What I Do?) 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Kylu has been around for easily long enough to show that she's trustworthy enough to get some basic tools. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Why wait, this is inevitable and a very good user. NoSeptember 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  86. Strong support. She deserves no less. --Rathne 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per above, answers, and the impression I got from seeing this user's edits in the past (namely, thinking she already was an admin before I checked, that seems like a good indicator of a well-suited person to me). Time here is short, but other work makes up for it. I also don't see making many minor edits as a negative - if no one corrected things like spelling mistakes, this place would be a mess. That may not be something that counts towards admin-readyness (as anyone can do it), but it certainly shouldn't count against it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 09:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Been here long enough to show we can trust her with the mop, with no evidence of harm to the encyclopedia or incivility. moink 12:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support She seems to be a good person. Also, I liked her answer to the question of whether the glass is half empty or half full. Her answer shows to me that she focuses on what she still has, rather than what she has lost. Dionyseus 18:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Absolutely. Great, helpful user. --Zoz (t) 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support 172 | Talk 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I have been attempting to have some code changes incorporated into monobook.js, and Kylu has been the only user (developer or otherwise) testing them or providing me any feedback. Despite concerns about experience, in this case I would trust her to use the tools well. Gimmetrow 22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Helpful friendly user. I don't accept arguments discounting this user on "too soon" without reviewing her work - I see no inexperience in this user.--Konstable 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. It looks to me that Kylu's definitely cut out to be an admin, and can make some of her strongest contributions in that area. Wanting to be an admin is not a bad thing. Sheesh. She seems quite knowledgeable about a lot of nooks and crannies of the 'pedia that I sure don't know about. I actually have the feeling that she'll be great. Herostratus 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Her interaction with others as I've seen it here and elsewhere indicates she's mature and knowledgable enough for the job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Axiomm 10:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support moved to support, because even though the user is newish they seem very determined to be admin according to their answers and their RfA page in their user space.--Andeh 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Per nom.  :) the_ed17 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support does not matter to me if it is early in your WikiCareer. You are a good editor, and as Where says, this adminship is overdue. Abcdefghijklm 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Centurian Support. Quality over quantity, I always say :D  Killfest2  08:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - I've worried before about adminship coming too soon, but this editor shows involvement with the thankless maintenance tasks, strong contribution history, and a sense of pleasure in Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Missed WP:100 Support. G.He 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support with the force of twenty rocket boosters. Kylu may have spent a short time on Wikipedia, but xe made amazing use of that time. Xe may have added little information to articles, but xe has worked dilligently with other tasks. I commend this user! --Gray Porpoise 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, after all. So many of us tend to forget that, from time to time... either way, Kylu looks plenty trustworthy to me... Good Luck! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support User is very tolerant of newcomers, and actively involved in both the encyclopedia and the community. The amount of time a user spends before coming an admin becomes irrelevent after the first month.......her actions should speak for her, and her evidence of experience.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Clearly a mature and balanced individual whose contributions to the project will increase with access to the admins tools. Bucketsofg✐ 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Tech Support. "Hello, have I reached Wikipedia tech support? I need a good, calm, and respectful admin." "We've got one in stock: The name's Kylu." - Kookykman|(t)e 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Obvious Support. Even though Kylu is relatively new, she has a great understanding of how Wikipedia works and has made significant contributions in her time here. Personally, I don`t see why the distribution or quantity of her edits should matter so much. Kylu is a candidate who is more than qualified (certainly more than I), and would be an excellent admin.--§hanel 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Seems like she knows what she is doing. LaBelleDamesansMerci | talk 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has 15 edits, and five of them were to their userpage and only three were mainspace.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Weak Support -- I was "neutral" leaning towards support -- great candidate, could use more experience. Since it looks like this vote will be close, it's time to drop my neutrality -- support.--A. B. 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose at least temporarily. The answer to my second question seems rather unusual in that Kylu didn't explain what unusual circumstances would justify such an early nom after basically only two months here(only 34 mainspace edits in April) - the answer basically said it was a win-win punt but didn't explain why one should support such an unusual case.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Under normal circumstances, I'd quite agree, though in this situation I'm a bit biased. :) Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, though I understand that many editors feel otherwise. I simply think that I can do more good with the sysop bit than without, though certainly not having it isn't going to cause me to stop contributing! I do thank you for your honest input though, Blnguyen. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think she meant "Adminship is no big deal," so there are really no "unusual circumstances"; or any need for "justification." This Fire Burns.....Always 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I inivte people to try and lobby me out of it. I really think that there should be more real debate on RfAs, rather than just two groups of people voting. I'm prepared to take as good as I give, see my actions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then. The way I see it is, what is the time really measuring... it's not a hurdle (or shouldn't be) it is a proxy for "how experienced is this user, how well do they know the Wiki way, and have they picked up enough of the culture to be effective?"... at least it is for me. What those concerned about short time for that reason need to do is take the word of the noms that Kylu is well versed in the wiki way already, or do a bit more research on their own... that research will demonstrate it. She's been around online communities before, you can tell, and she knows our ways well, look at the stuff she's involved in already and how effective she is at it. And she knows her limits and is not afraid to ask for help when she needs it. That's why so many folk were chivvying her to be an admin. As many of you know I'm not a fan of that sort of chivvying and on her User:Kylu/rfa page you'll see that I was, at least at one level, arguing that she ought to wait till SHE wanted it, not let people pressure her into it too soon. But she's decided she is ready internally, and willing to let the community decide if she's ready from the community's perspective. So... I think this oppose is well intentioned but misses the real point of whether she's ready or not. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose sorry but 2-3 months just isn't long enough for me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose yeah, too soon, too eager. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too soon for me. SushiGeek 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to ask you about this on IRC, but sadly haven't seen you on there in quite some time. TTYL? ~Kylu (u|t) 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's too soon. 1ne 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I've seen the candidate around and she seems to be a good editor and very nice person, however I feel that her RfA is a bit too soon. I'd be happy to support at a later date with more experience. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at her contributions, experience with MedCab, and willingness to help users however she can I can no longer oppose per my notion of what constitutes a lack of experience. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose Just too early, sorry. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per lack of significant article contributions, the most important aspect of this encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kylu mainly focuses on maintenence work. There is nothing wrong with this. Because of the dynamic nature of Wikipedia, it would not survive for a day without people like her. Now adminship does not have anything to do with significant article contributions; adminship should not change the way people edit articles. I hope you are not implying that this is the case. Rather, all adminship powers are related to maintenance work. The only other thing that I think you might be implying is that you think adminship should be a reward for good contributions; however, adminship is not a trophy. Your thoughts please? Am I misinterpreting you? -- Where 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship does appear to be a trophy.....in that many people think it is a popularity contest. As for the article contributions, this can give evidence of adhering to NPOV and likely means that the user has been in a dispute so we can see how they handled it. Of course, I think all admins should contribute to the mainspace as that is the point of the encylopedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with part of this. I think anyone that has voted more than a few times in some of the WP:XFDs has a good chance of being in a dispute at some point in time. I also agree with Where, that maintenance is a big part of WP and therfore she should not be punished for contributing like that. There are plenty of people who write copious amounts of fantastic articles but don't deserve or need admin tools just as there are plenty of people like Kylu who focus on maintencace who would benefit from them. ViridaeTalk 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Voting" in XfDs doesn't cause arguments - most people just "vote" and leave - and any interesting debates are usually avoided by most people. Even in the most controversial ones like the GWB impeachment debate and the Phil Sandifer debate, everyone bar half a dozen just said a comment and left. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that XfD arguments are much different from more complex articlespace arguments. However, I've never been in an argument about an article, or content-related disputes, but I sure as hell have experience with them. With the Mediation Cabal, it's all about the arguments, and all about resolving the conflicts. I couldn't speak to how many 'cases' Kylu has read, but I think she's fairly familiar with the arguments that are bigger and more complex than XfD. I think that it is a good thing if users are able to stay out of a dispute, and mediation certainly gives me at least an idea of what to do and what not to do if I were to get into one. I suppose there is no proof to present, no diffs to give or edits that particularly stand out, but the community is not a court and this isn't a trial. :] --Keitei (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Blnguyen -- Samir धर्म 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked by e-mail to elaborate more. Kylu seems like a genuinely very nice person, but I'd like to see more article contributions to be satisfied that she understands the nuances that stem from contributions to the mainspace. Administrative actions often stem from such nuances -- Samir धर्म 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Great editor, but two months just is not enough time for me to be comfortable. ×Meegs 06:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    April 2nd... May, June, July... Actually, more than three months, to be fair. Grandmasterka 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have been more clear; as Blnguyen pointed out, she had just a few dozen article edits prior to May. ×Meegs 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Too soon. Jorcoga 09:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose Sorry, but it's too soon, for one, which doesn't assure me that she can continue editing so ferociously for a long period of time, and won't just get bored with Wikipedia one day. Also, after reviewing her last 500 article namespace edits, I haven't seen more than a 5 real edits--mainly just spelling corrections, stub templates, and vandalism reversion (clicking a button). Seriously, take a look. Also, we have this, which is discussed here. In addition, I have found many votes for "Speedy delete" in AfD's, using A7 as a catch-all phrase, though most of the time it does apply. In a few months with some meatier contributions, I'd be happy to support. AdamBiswanger1 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If A7 does apply, what is the problem? Also, if she does decide to leave one day, what difference does it make. If there is no reason to believe that she will abuse the tools, it doesn't matter if she leaves Wikipedia. Taking a look at my contributions over the past two months, one would say that I have considerably declined in my editing. Would you say that I should be desysop'ed because I no longer edit at the same pace I did when I was sysopped (mind you, with only three months experience). Pepsidrinka 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Pepsidrinka on this one. Even if a person is not consistent in editing, or if s/he leaves after doing some good for wikipedia, where's the harm? AFAIK, lots of backlog could use admin help -- Lost 10:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose Kylu feels like she has all of the markings of a good administrator, but I would really prefer to see her wait until she's been around for at least 6 months and then vote her in. --Vengeful Cynic 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as per AdamBiswanger1 (particlularly thisdiscussed here) and as per Cntrix below. Pete.Hurd 02:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Has not been here long enough to rule out the possibility of an ulterior motive. Nookdog 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what you mean by that? AdamBiswanger1 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Her motives could be different then she projects them to be. See the question I asked at the bottom of the page. Nookdog 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I may personally disagree with the basis of opposing due to her time as an editor, I utterly respect it as the reasoning of those who have chosen not to support. Yet, I must say I am rather surprised at the lack of Good faith assumption that appears to stem from this particular idea, and the impossibility to dismiss it with something other than her acts as an editor, which speak for themselves imho... Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, vote Support ;-) Nookdog 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did, long ago, dear Nookdog ;) And it's not my opinion that's needs some clarification here, but yours, I'm afraid. Out of sheer curiosity, what would you consider indisputable proof that she has no "ulterior motives", if I may ask? Cheers, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There will never be "indisputable proof." However, after six months to a year, most bad faith admin wannabees, will have givin' up. I hope :) Nookdog 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question is answered. If you'd like to discuss specifics, perhaps it'd be better to do so on your talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. This user is too new, and most of the user's edits are insubstantial and meaningless for the purposes of RfA. A very surprising vast majority of the user's contributions to AfD are "me-too" votes, some "Delete per nom" after a unanimous dozen of Deletes (e.g.: [1], [2], [3], [4]). I looked through 90% of this user's AfD contributions—which constitute maybe a third of WP namespace edits, and 9 out of 10 are like this; only a couple are not in unanimous AfDs, a couple have helpful reasoning. These are not evidence of understanding inclusion policies and guidelines, and are pointless besides: they had no effect on the outcome of the AfD. (Validity of propensity for "Speedy delete" for non-notability, in view of CSD, should be verified by viewing deleted text.)Centrx
    While it is good that the user does some technical maintenance on the Mediation Cabal, there are still few substantial edits either in the Wikipedia namespace or the main namespace, and while welcoming new users is admirable, all this neither requires, nor indicates suitable knowledge for, administrator tools. I also looked through all RfA votes, and found only one example of a question of a candidate ([5]), let alone a "very astute question" per Lar in the co-nom. More common were empty votes ([6], [7], [8]). Also, there are very few Wikipedia_talk edits, the majority of which are WikiProject Anime and manga.
    In the main namespace, we have numerous spelling corrections and other sorts of minor edits, and vandalism reverts. For vandalism reverts, we have a handful of recent ones in the past few days, a handful around June 13, none in between, and many in May. This would be irrelevant for a candidate that is a long-standing user, but in this case, it means that, of the 2-3 months this user has been on, only one appears to have any major vandalism fighting, and that more than a month ago. Many of the User talk namespace edits are Welcomes and vandalism warnings. Why are there so few (and non-incident-related) posts on ANI, and only one (in April) on AIV for a user whose most appropriate admin activity is vandalism fighting?(reason found amongst various discussions: uses IRC to communicate with admins —Centrx→talk • 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    In sum, this user has been active for two and a half months, and I would put substantial main namespace edits at less than 100, perhaps 50, perhaps 0, and substantial edits overall at less than 400, perhaps less than 200. I cannot find any substantial evidence of the admin-like activities mentioned in the nominations, in AfDs or vandalism fighting. This user also seems to express having little use for these tools. Now, not knowing this user, I do not doubt the trustworthiness to which the supporters seem to attest, but an administrator must demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia policy and administrator tools, and role. AfD is not merely counting votes, CSD is not merely deleting all tagged articles or weak articles in general, and vandalism fighting is more than just 'go revert and block'. I find no evidence that the user knows this and knows it well. Compounded with the briefness of membership and the paucity of substantial edits, I am compelled to strongly oppose this nomination. —Centrx→talk • 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She actually wrote something of an essay on her views on policy and adminship, which shows off her ability in a different way. I've also observed her for a while. For me those are also good ways of figuring out if someone has the requisite skill. I'll agree Kylu is a bit of a wikignome though. Kim Bruning 01:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is being a wikignome a bad thing? Cowman109Talk 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is for an RfA candidate. While I value WikiGnomes as editors and friends, it shows an preoccupation with the insignificant and certainly does not show a willingness to undertake major tasks. See:That essay I can't find right now. Diablo test? 1 featured article? something like that AdamBiswanger1 02:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I think a list of Tango singers is insignificant, yet you are preoccupied with that. Still, I wouldn't be so silly as to hold that against you on an RFA. pschemp | talk 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Pschemp, without sounding self-righteous, what I am doing is interpreting policy (WP:N, WP:CLS), and arguing extensively for the very existence of an article. What a wikignome does is add stub templates and change "percieve" to "perceive". I know what you're trying to say, but there is a definite difference, and I don't want to divert attention to myself in Kylu's RfA. AdamBiswanger1 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a 1 FA requirement is a relevant criterion for selecting administrators, but in this case I did not find a single significant article edit in the last 500 main namespace edits (back to June 13). And by significant I mean anything beyond stub sorting or wikilinking. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no I certainly don't either, but the rationale for that essay is the same as mine. AdamBiswanger1 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how being a gnome or not is relevant, but I don't think she is a gnome. She has plenty of barnstars, especially in light of the comments made by Centrx. For an example of a Gnome, see User:Snottygobble/Contributions (he only has two barnstars) and see how much chore-work User:Kimchi.sg and User:Enochlau have done. (They only have one, which I gave to them).Blnguyen | rant-line 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean User:Kylu/rfa, it contains an assertion that "I think I'm familiar with all the major policies and such...", and the statement that, in resolving disputes, users might call on him more even though "admins are "just another editor"", but he would be happy to help in a reasonable way. All this is quite fine, but this is not much of an "essay", and most of the page is: reasons why I do not need or have not yet applied for adminship; personal criteria for accepting nomination, which are not yet met and are not the reason for the nomination; things I will do if nomination is successful, half of which is about his user page, the rest about closing AfDs (I explain above, weak), vandalism reversion (not much, no evidence), page moves (reading talk page, good but obvious), etc. This is all okay, but it does not make much difference. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Just too new, and the frequency, or lack thereof, of editing in some of the namespaces disturbs me in looking at someone for adminship. -Mask 03:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above. Proto::type 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Not enought experience in terms of length of time on Wikipedia as of yet, in my opinion. However, would happily support in a few more months. --Wisden17 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose without any bias at all toward the user. My feeling is that time and activity are most important in laying out the sort of tracks that we need to see how the user will respond under stress and duress. Time without edits is meaningless, as are edits without time (sort of like faith and deeds, I guess). Becaue demotion from the ranks is a big deal, promotion to the ranks requires more caution than I would like. I look forward to future support. Geogre 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose with similar concerns to many of above comments, 2-3 months of active editing is much to short for me to establish a good, contestant, over all picture of the user.--blue520 10:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose Sorry. You haven't been around long enough. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 13:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    About that, I'll just have to quote one of the editors I respect the most: It has long seemed to me that one fundamental quality that makes a good administrator (as opposed to an adequate one) is the very quality that qualifies him or her for bureaucratship. The folks who have it, UC-like, are ready for bureacratship considerably before the arbritrary 365 days; the folks who don't won't be suitable in 365 weeks.[9]. I believe that is also true for adminship in this case: the same qualities that make Kylu a good editor qualify her to be a good administrator, so in my opinion there is no reason to hold the keys away from someone who has proved, at least in my eyes, that knows how to use them, and wants to do so, just to pass an arbitrary time threshold. There's editors to which I would gladly give the extra tools in 36.5 days, and some who I wouldn't give them to even after 36.5 years. Titoxd(?!?) 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: not ready yet. Thumbelina 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind explaining why you think that is the case? -- Where 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose This was a tough one, she has many traits that would make her desireable as an admin. However, 3 months of on and off editing is simply not enough, six months to a year is needed to create a valid picture of yourself. Additionally, the on and off editing characteristics worry me, I personally wouldn't want an "on and off" admin. I understand that there is more to life than Wiki, but taking on a sysop roll is a large responsibility that requires accountability and frequent response. Knowing Is Half The Battle 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Centrx. This is way premature. Maybe after a year and some substantial article edits. --JJay 16:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - like Phr, I was weirded out by User:Kylu/rfa. I don't see any reason to create such a page - in my opinion, it gives the impression that an adminship is a customary reward to a few months of frequent editing. However, Kylu seems enthusiastic and helpful, so I would gladly support her in a few months if she keeps up her good work. Fabricationary 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be weirded out by that page, it's really no reason to oppose. It is my view that Kylu created it because of all the people chivvying her to be an admin. She gave reasons why she felt she was not ready at the time and things to look for and so forth. It is in no way a sign that she's "overeager", just that she's willing to give the matter a great deal of thought, as she does so many other things. Which is precisely why I think she's a great candidate. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification--I'm weirded out by the page not because it makes her look "overeager" but that it shows she's making IMO questionable choices of how to expend her intellectual and writing energy. She's an excellent writer, so why is she so devoting so many words to such m:metapedian navel gazing, and almost none on actual encyclopedia articles? I've been leaning towards switching to "oppose" per centrx, but continue to mull it over. Phr (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She wrote it because people kept asking her to be an admin. I really don't think it should count against her. --Ideogram 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People were really banging the door down trying to get her to become an admin, even though she's only been here for 3 months? No one has done that with me!! : ) Did she have a press secretary announce she was running? How many press conferences did she call? AdamBiswanger1 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's because they see the value in her being one. pschemp | talk 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Adam, I have utmost respect for you, and tho I may personally not share your reasons to oppose Kylu, I utterly defend your right to do so and I praise your well-elaborated vote. But please, I hate to see someone obviously as bright as you fall into this kind of ironic comments - keep in mind you're dealing with a person here, with feelings and concerns. I can attest that Kylu had been repeatedly asked to go for adminship (not by me tho), and 98 people so far have expressed themselves favorably in that sense. There is no need to be sarcastic and hurt someone over this... please? Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I don't see how that can possibly be construed as some sort of sarcastic attack at Kylu. It was a light-hearted, self-effacing comment about my lack of fame around here. But maybe you're right, it could've come off as a bit incivil, but this page confused me a bit because it makes us look like we're hanging on the edge of our seats, waiting for her decision. In any event, I didn't want to make a big deal about the comment or cause any fuss, and I don't want to distract away from the discussion at hand. Thanks for your civil objection (not being sarcastic) AdamBiswanger1 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I didn't keep track, but I'd guess I received 3-5 requests on wikipedia and maybe around 30-35 on IRC before writing that page. I'm not sure how many were after I wrote that page, since I just shrugged the requests off by saying "Go visit User:Kylu/rfa first please." It wasn't an attempt at self-aggrandizement, it was an initial reaction to a constant question. It's easier to think up good reasons to wait and post it once than have to do it over and over again. When I was told "Guess what, you're going to RfA, the page is ready, now go sign it." it rather decided it. I know I'm not everyone's ideal candidate, but I figure the more important question when regarding an RfA candidate is is giving the +sysop flag to this user going to do more good or harm to the project? I'd be rather dissapointed if anyone thinks I'd do the project harm, really. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must most respectfully disagree. I think that handing the mop to simply anyone who would not misuse it would result in a dramatic dilution "admin" status. While I agree with your premise that "adminship is no big deal", and I don't think that admins should be semi-gods of Wikipedia who are above the rules, I think they should command respect and on some level be above the average editor. Excepting this RfA, I think most users would agree with me. I lost my train of thought watching TV, so I'll just leave it there. AdamBiswanger1 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if I thought Kylu was just "simply anyone who would not misuse it" I would have not co-nominated her. I'm wondering if you, and some of the other opposing folk, have actually read the noms and understood the reasons we nominated her. She's not "simply anyone", she's very special. She would bring to adminship several things that it needs more of, because she's not just another vandal fighter, she's a kind and thoughtful editor who has done a lot to make this a better place already, and with the additional tools, will do more. I just really don't get these opposes, frankly. It's not editicountitis or time that matters, it is what the user has demonstrated they bring. This user has demonstrated they bring a lot. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Lar, that reply was made in reference to Kylu's reasoning that her net benefit she would bring to Wikipedia is the (one of the) main reasons she should be given the mop. That exchange took place in the lines above your comment. "...I figure the more important question when regarding an RfA candidate is is giving the +sysop flag to this user going to do more good or harm to the project?" AdamBiswanger1 05:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, handing the mop to anyone who wouldn't abuse it would be great. Apparently we haven't always managed to attain even that criterion. :-P (And, in fact, edit counts and such can often obscure precicely that criterion.) Kim Bruning 09:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam, I'm afraid I no longer follow what argument you're making here, if I ever did. I'll reassert that I don't see the validity of the "too soon" or "not enough edits" arguments, and assert that no one has shown in their opposes that there is any danger in making Kylu an admin, or even refuted the assertion that it would be of great benefit. (at most people pointed out single things that might have been done better...) An assertion like "Editor simply needs more time before mophood", without anything to support it, is just patently false in this case, as far as I am concerned, and a sign of too much rigidity in thinking. (let's review... Mindspillage wanted to nominate her!) ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that handing the mop to simply anyone who would not misuse it would result in a dramatic dilution "admin" status. -- Actually, handing the mop to any one who wouldn't misuse it would destroy the apparent heirarchy that seems to currently exists. And it would be extremely useful and clearing out the admin backlogs that we currently have. Diluting admin status would be a good thing. Pepsidrinka 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just strange, because I have seen dozens and dozens of other RfA candidates be denied on the mere basis of experience, and all that seems to have gone out the window. And we've all seen people get denied for a low number of Wiki-space edits. I have always, and will always argue experience is crucial in adminship, but the vast sea-change that has occured has left me confused, standing huddled with a few others as the extremists. I would love to argue some more about the dilution of adminship, the alleged "hierarchy", etc., but at this point I feel it is a lost cause, and I don't want to alienate myself or make enemies by holding to this viewpoint. AdamBiswanger1 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd say I have seen lots of editors get opposition for low edits, low time, or low article edits... and certainly someone who has otherwise demonstrated no understanding of how things are done and turns on RfA up a week after joining the project gets roundly opposed. But I've seen lots of editors that got opposition nevertheless pass. I am not going to say there is no value in looking at counts and times. I am just saying in this case that it is not the only thing to look at and that further, this candidate (who was chivvied into running early and if she fails, won't run again for quite some time) brings a lot of experience from elsewhere, and has demonstrated in other ways than raw time or raw edits, that she's got the Wiki thing, shouldn't be evaluated on raw data this way. No sea-change, no things out the window, just a special case that deserves special scrutiny. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Editor simply needs more time before mophood. Xoloz 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose...for a few more months. Will likely make a very good admin, but a bit more longevity would be nice. It will allow the rest to make sure this person's attitude towards the project is stable over time. I know my own views have changed over the months and if anyone looks at themselves at three months, six months, nine months, or a year into their involvement they will likely see changes. --StuffOfInterest 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose purely on edit count + time, but I will support next time BigDT 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per my standards. 2 months isn't enough. Cynical 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Far too soon for me. Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I'm weirded out by this page. The candidate has been thinking about adminship a little bit too hard. You may have to turn off javascript to view it (it apparently has an accidental javascript loop). Phr (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded on your talkpage: There is no arbitrary javascript on that page, but seeing as the only script you use is Popups, I'm at a loss to explain why you'd have errors. (I'm fairly sure they disallowed arbitrary javascript by design.) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually impressed by the page you cite. It's why I am opposing this nominee now, but will very strongly support his/her RfA when they feel more ready.--A. B. 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Everything's in place, I even like reluctant admins... but the RfA is too soon. I think my minimum would be 6 months at the least, and 1 year is perfect. Will support RfA in October. Themindset 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Good editor, but too new. Roy A.A. 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per the points brought up above. --WillMak050389 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, lack of experience in main and Wikipedia namespaces fall slightly short of my RFA standards so I feel I can't support. I wish you all the best though. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral citing lack of experience and this [10] specific edit you made which was an attempt to help enforce copyvio policy but left the article looking lousy and the anon user possibly mystified as to what he had done wrong. Painstaking care and excellent communication are vital in this role. Sorry. --Guinnog 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I only read this, and this after casting my vote, and I'll refrain from changing it now, especially as I'm sure (as in the example I did find) she was only trying to help. This speaks of a user keen to help but lacking in experience. I would also note though that there is no evidence that she has learned anything from this interaction, no apology or anything close to one. So count me as "neutral", verging towards "oppose", for now.--Guinnog 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She has now done this. Back to just neutral, for slight lack of experience. Please come back in a while; you're obviously a great editor with a great attitude to the project. --Guinnog 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral -- Now "Support" - I was going to oppose" on the grounds of experience while noting this opposition was partially mitigated by all the thought Kylu has given re: what makes a good admin. Her standards in this department appear very high. I decided to vote "neutral" for now since this editor appears to be someone who would be cautious about taking on unfamiliar tasks without being sure to know what she's doing (see Lar's response to Blnguyen's opposition above.)--A. B. 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question about the RfA process -- are neutral votes counted against a candidate when determining whether they meet the 75% positive support goal?--A. B. 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Clarifying what is meant by 75% regarding this. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, no. Only Support/Support+Oppose is counted for the goal in general terms, although Neutrals which lean toweard one or the other can be examined in situations where the margin is close (generally, that 75-80% region_. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. If I must lean in a direction, it would be "lean for".--A. B. 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, as I am not so much worried about the user's intentions as her experience. All WikiGnomeLove aside, less than three months is just not long enough to "get" the policies and procedures here, in my view. Good luck to her if she makes it, but I am leaning against at present. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While I'm quite impressed with the answers that this user has given, I cannot find enough evidence (in edits as opposed to here) to support them. I'd have liked to see some substantial interactions on policy pages, or deeper demonstration of nuanced views on deletion. Some shoulder-to-shoulder work on a difficult topic with me, or lending a hand with a tough negotiation and I'll support next time. - brenneman {L} 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral leaning towards oppose, simply because I think more experience is needed. Lectonar 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Kylu has the makings of a very useful user. She's getting a lot of help from people (and listens to them!) , so she's very likely to learn anything she may have missed. Will probably make it to bureaucrat quite quickly as well. Kim Bruning 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


Username Kylu
Total edits 3904
Distinct pages edited 2804
Average edits/page 1.392
First edit 23:18, 2 April 2006
 
(main) 1402
Talk 275
User 308
User talk 1316
Image 22
Image talk 6
MediaWiki talk 12
Template 20
Template talk 4
Help 2
Category 30
Category talk 28
Wikipedia 408
Wikipedia talk 67
Portal 1
Portal talk 3
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 already do anti-vandalism work and was entrusted to be Senior Staff for the IRC antivandalism channel (though technically that's not Wikipedia) and having admin revert and block would be helpful. CAT:CSD always needs help, as do the various xfD's, and I'm already somewhat active in those, but only as far as voting is concerned. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Honestly, I'm very much a wikignome and make minor contributions all over the place and I don't "stay with" articles for very long, preferring to trust the Wiki process to improve them when they need to be improved. If I were to pick specifics, though, I'd probably say the contribution I'm most proud of, though, is the effort that I and the other mediators have put into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal though. Much of mediation and assisting other mediators takes place in email and on chat, however, but happily Mediation Cabal has made a significant number of positive changes that happen to coincide with my arrival. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:56, 11 July 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've been in conflicts regarding edits, but none which have caused much stress. From my experience so far, it's best to take a step back and do something else for a while if I'm to the point where I'm getting upset about something. Editing while upset never helps anyone and often just exacerbate an already tense situation. If I'm to the point where I absolutely have to vent, I tug on a friend on IRC and let off steam for a bit. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional AOL questions from Alphachimp (stolen from Hort Graz) (I'm interested to hear your opinion.Alphachimp talk 05:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  1. Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he returen before you start to do longer blocks?
    A: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Expiry times and application states 15 minutes at first. Personally, I feel that since the purpose of blocks is to attempt to reduce vandalism, it's purposeless to set large blocks: You're blocking potentially useful edits from the next user who ended up with that IP address while the vandal just moves on. I'd personally top out at an hour and simply ask on WP:AN/I and on the countervandalism channels that other admins keep an eye on it and renew as needed, but only when needed. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question may have been mooted for now (as of 12 July, 2006); see Wikipedia:Dealing with AOL vandals#Breaking news--A. B. 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? What would you do for other users in this situation?
    A: Actually, yes. I use (on a limited basis) Google Web Accelerator and was once autoblocked because all of the GWA clients use a small set of proxy IPs. In response, I added some information to Wikipedia talk:Autoblock that apparently has helped at least one other user. On the project page (Wikipedia:Autoblock) it explains how to check the IP blocklist and when to unblock autoblocks. I take such good advice to heart. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is the glass half empty or half full?
    A: It's half full, of course! I'm more interested in what liquid is in the glass. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Blnguyen

  1. In response to your use of the word voting in your answer to question 1 with respect to the deletion process, What is your take on the Afd process, particularly the administrator goals and responsibilities of closing Afds, with particular regards to numerical standards and otherwise, which you will be doing if this Rfa succeeds?
    A: AfD is a discussion and you have to weigh the arguments stated against eachother, however you can't simply discount the numbers. If you have a number of people (for example) "voting" instead of discussing, they're either stating that they'd like the content removed or alternatively that they simply haven't put in words the objections they have to the content. The catch is that the admin has to take all these factors into account when closing an AfD and determining consensus. I've noticed that many admins have differing threshholds of determining what consensus is, but generally it's a combination of numbers and the arguments behind those numbers. Personally, and this is a cautious statement, while I feel that a solidly written and insightful comment might outweigh a couple "Me too" votes, I would be sorely pressed to find a situation where that same comment would outweigh fifty respected editors who simply voted the opposite. If I'm not comfortable with closing the AfD, I won't. We have nearly a thousand admins, I imagine one of them is willing to do so. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You made 319 edits in April. All other edits have been made since then, so that 90%+ of your work has been done in 2 1/3 months. What reason do you have that would justify your unusually early nomination at this stage of your wiki-career?
    A: It's more a matter of winning against attrition. I can't recall precisely the first time someone asked me, "Are you going to RfA yet?" but I'm sure it was within the first month and a half of editing somewhere. I have, I think, a fairly simple philosophy about this process: If the request passes, my account gets set +sysop, parties ensue, and I no longer have to answer requests. If it doesn't pass, same thing except for I'll be eligable in a few months again and will have to start answering the question all over. Can I make use of the +sysop bit and do some good on here? Yes, I think I can, but my time here has shown me there are far more things I can work on if it doesn't pass: This just gives me an opportunity to spend time on a wider variety of work on here. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Yanksox

  1. Could you explain this page? Thanks, Yanksox 11:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Oh, sure! It's actually part of the answer to the last question, I suppose: After the first, oh, ten or so offers to be nominated for adminship on here and IRC, I decided that it'd be easiest to open a page so that I could air my concerns and let those people who asked me about them could discuss them with me. I don't have any problems with accepting the job, but I know there are those who have high standards for adminship and some of them (my friend SushiGeek for instance) have hard-set tenure requirements as well, and I was hoping to not let them feel stubbed. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Nookdog

  1. You have been here for a VERY short time. How can one be convinced that you have NO ulterior motives? Nookdog 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing her. Simply, asking her to convince me that she is in good faith. If AGF were to be applied to everything, voting would be unnecessary :) Nookdog 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your right to say that we don't have enough info on whether she'll be a good admin, although I think the information available is ample. But the way you put this really makes me nervous; you do realize that your wording directly contradicts "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary"...? AGF most certainly applies here, and you should not demand proof of good faith; but, as I said, you can say you don't think there's enough info yet. -- SCZenz 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If she feels uncomfortable answering the question, she dosen't have to, it is "Optional" Nookdog 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not have an AGF witch hunt. It's a fair question, although I cannot say that I fully understand what he is getting at. Miss Kyulu has not answered it yet...perhaps someone can alert her. AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A I don't feel "uncomfortable" answering the question, I just feel it's a gross violation of WP:AGF and some of the comments are bordering on incivil, so I was planning on not answering it. Simply put, I've been trusting this community, and now ask for it's trust in return. One of the best things about it is that I've made friends on here, many of them admins, I know that if I did something wrong, I'd find out quickly. If I started abusing admin tools, I'm sure I'd be blocked quite quickly also, as friends tend to keep an even closer eye on one than enemies do. :) Nookdog, if you're still upset about having your edits reverted back on March 13 under your IP, I'd appreciate it if you'd just say so, but I don't think it belongs here. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Phr

Have you participated in Wikipedia editing (under IP's or other accounts) before enrolling your User:Kylu account? In what ways? (It's not necessarily bad if you did; I've done it a lot myself on exopedian grounds ([11])). Also, have you been involved in adminning other wikis (non-Wikimedia projects), especially using the MediaWiki software? Phr (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A I currently have two IPs I edit from on occasion, User:206.246.160.221 (Static, home, 24 edits back through 6 June 2005) and User:207.145.133.34 (Static, work, 71 edits back through 5 January 2006). I had another named account a couple years back, but forgot the password. Ahwell. I am currently set +sysop and +bureaucrat on countervandalism, the MediaWiki-based Wiki which is used to administer the countervandalism channels for Wikipedia on Freenode where I'm Senior Staff. I also have accounts (in Wikimedia-space) on Meta, Commons, Test, Sinhala (si.), and Wiktionary which are not +sysop. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from AaronS

6. You block an editor for disruptive editing, because you think that she was engaged in a revert war. The editor explains to you that she was reverting the edits of a banned user or sock puppet. Do you unblock the editor?
A WP:3RR#Detail: 3RR does not apply to reverting the edits of banned, blocked, but says nothing about sockpuppets. If you mean a sockpuppet of a banned user, then I'd agree better with the question. Sorry to be picky, but details matter. If they can show me immediate proof of this, then I'd unblock immediately, otherwise see the answer to the next question. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. A number of editors have asked you to reconsider your decision to block or ban a user. You feel that your decision was absolutely correct. Suppose, however, that their objections are at least reasonable. Regardless, you know you are right. What do you do?
A There's a problem in the question, since it involves me assuming that I feel I'm absolutely correct! Last I checked, +sysop didn't confer infallability, nor do I consider it to do so. It gives you new buttons. Assuming that I blocked a user and other editors have asked me to reconsider, I'd rely on my trust network (the editors I'm already friends with and know well) to give me advice, and if I'm not clearly in the wrong with them, I'd ask on the Admin Noticeboard. If either AN or my trust network beleive I'm in the wrong, I'd unblock. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Do you believe that it is inevitable for longtime users and administrators to eventually lose patience with regard to dealing with complaints and the questioning of their actions? Is this reasonable and at least somewhat acceptable?
A Reasonable, yes, we're all human. Acceptable? Depends on your response. Go away for a bit, take deep breaths, get a soda, and think about things logically. I have a..."variant view" of WP:CHILL where I firmly beleive that with 1.78 million accounts and 959 admins (see Special:Statistics), it's never a requirement for you to have to do anything except answer for your own actions. If you can't do so, let someone else take over. There's no shame in trying to stay stress-free or stress-reduced. Except in RfA, where the questions really do have to be answered by you of course. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 14 July 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