Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kaisershatner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Kaisershatner[edit]

Final (46/13/3) ended 15:02, 17 April, 2006 (UTC)

Kaisershatner (talk · contribs) – Hello, I've decided to stand for administrator, after hanging around for almost two years. I appreciate your consideration. [In reply to a suggestion that I should provide better details, I would add that I generally troll WP:PR and WP:FAC to make helpful suggestions or changes, and if find a subject I like, I follow it up with a few dozen/hundred edits. Also, I am a RC patroller, as will be evidenced by my contribution history and contribs to vandals talk pages. I just don't note this on my user page.] Kaisershatner 15:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept! (self-nom)

Support

  1. Support. In my experience with Kaisershatner, I've found this user to be able to work on contentious articles civilly, and to play a positive role in informally mediating questions of Wikipedia etiquette, demonstrating familiarity with Wikipedia policy.—thames 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - looks good and, in my opinion, is unlikely to abuse AdminPowers™. --Celestianpower háblame 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support significant experience. Clearly has been around for a while, and knows what he's doing. KI 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support But I would have liked more of a description than "I've been hanging around". Hopefully that won't effect this RFA. Moe ε 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Pithy. Haukur 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Edit conflicted Support However, I agree with Moe and the editor appears not to be an RC or NP patroller (but that's not a problem) and also, there's a lack of edits to Wikipedia talk, but once again, that doesn't matter. Computerjoe's talk 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Fine record, longtime editor, stupendous-beyond-belief username! :) Xoloz 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support--Jusjih 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, looks good. JIP | Talk 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, i was looking for flaws, but i didnt find any. Vulcanstar6 18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. More like this candidate, please™ Support!. A few more edits in wikipedia talk might be nice though, good admins help shape policy as well as enforce it. But that's picayune in relevance. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, good user. --Tone 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I've disagreed with Kaisershatner on almost everything. But, from what I've seen, I believe he can be trusted with this responsibility. Derex 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Saw someone else support you, checked your contribs then would up here. Full Support. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Two thumbs up. (^'-')^ Covington 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I am tendentious to support based on his frequent improvements to wikipedia. - Richardcavell 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support good editor --Deville (Talk) 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Joe I 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A little more varied edits into talk pages and Wikipedia space would be nice but I still think this user would make a fine admin. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Some of his edits, I dislike. But I also don't like peas. Doesn't mean it's not good for you. This promotion is good for the wiki, peas or no peas. Merecat 06:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Terence Ong 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Good editor. DarthVader 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --Rob from NY 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support no reason to suspect he'd misuse admin tools or otherwise cause problems. --W.marsh 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support very experienced.  Grue  18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 11 April 2006]
  30. Support good editor--rogerd 04:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A fine wikipedian that there's no reason to restrict from having admin tools. Shanes 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Worked with this editor in the past and see no reason to oppose based on edits then or since.--MONGO 06:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. No explanation required, he's more than ready for the mop, and will do fine. Plus his name is awesome. Wait, that sort of was an explanation. Damn it! Proto||type 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support; He's done good work on difficult pages without antagonizing people. Tom Harrison Talk 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, good candidate. --StabiloBoss 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support – very good. ×Meegs 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support MatriX 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Wait, seriously, I haven't supported yet? Apparently not. Great ediotr, strong contributor to articles, and it's doubtful that he'll abuse the tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Seems thoughtful and careful. A little more use of the show preview button may be indicated, but that is pretty minor. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I was a bit concerned that this editor has over 200 edits to Ayn Rand, but I reviewed those edits and found no reason for concern, and I see no evidence of article ownership. Nor do I share in my fellow editor's concerns regarding "lack of deletion votes"; it might be nice for once to have an admin who hasn't been ruined by the toxic environment of AfD. I am tempted to oppose so that he will spend more time on the cleanup backlog (which largely does not require administrative rights) than fighting vandalism, as the former is far more important to the quality of the encyclopedia in the long term, but I can hope that he will not discard his intent to do cleanup merely because he gets the keys to the mop cabinet. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. "File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg" per above. —Khoikhoi 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support a good editor. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No good reason I can see not to give him the mop. Vsmith 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Alf melmac 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I really hate to be the first oppose vote on the list. But that will not influence my vote here. JaredW! [[User talk:Steveo2|Respond]] 18:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how hard it can be to oppose sometimes. May I ask your reason for opposing, please? Xoloz 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose due to very low Wikipedia and User talk edits. I would like to see a little bit more experience in the actual policies of Wikipedia even if you want to be an admin primarily to deal with vandalism. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 22:52 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose, few edits outside of the article space.--Adam (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose per Cuivienen. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose per others. SushiGeek 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Cuivienen. Royboycrashfan 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I would like to see more wikipedia namespace experince with self-noms, sry, maybe in another month --Jaranda wat's sup 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weakest of Opposes Some more namespace experience, some more interaction with other editors, and I'll gladly vote support. _-M o P-_ 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I am not completely convinced that Kaisershatner has made a compelling case for needing the tools. Vandalism fighting is mentioned but the user has only made two edits to WP:AIAV (see here) and has relatively few User Talk edits (for a vandal fighter). I'm not opposed to admins who are primarily vandal fighters, but if that is what Kaisershatner intends his main focus to be - I'd like to see a bit more experience. TigerShark 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Candidate has low involvement in the project namespace. Exactly two edits any deletion-related discussions. Also has 203 edits to Ayn Rand, which I find discomforting in itself. His five favorite article comprise more than 10% of his edits! I can't knowingly support a possible article WP:OWNer for adminship, I'm sorry. Between that issue and the lack of evidence that he's familiar with administrative tasks and processes, I must sternly oppose. — Apr. 16, '06 [06:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  12. Oppose. Not enough evidence of familiarity with policies, nor for a need for admin tools. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as per freakofnurture. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. An excellent editor but seems inexperienced when it comes to the messy policy and discussion part of Wikipedia.
  2. Neutral, good editor, though I would like to see some more project and talk edits --TBC??? ??? ??? 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral -- I would really like to support but this editor does not have enough experience on talk. I worry that we may ruin a good editor by making him an admin out of his depth. John Reid 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • See Kaisershatner's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Assuming there is a United Federation of Planets in the first place, I don't think it is possible to be German without being a citizen of the United Federation of Planets. JIP | Talk 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good observation, although editor says he isn't German either. The point is that it is questionable how one could be Terran and not a UFP citizen. :) Xoloz 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your nomination statement, you said that I generally troll WP:PR and WP:FAC... you're quite aware of the term internet troll, right? Alphax τεχ 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I am. I think the internet usage of troll is derived from the same usage I'm employing here - dragging a line behind your boat to catch things. Kaisershatner 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, 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: One of the "admin tasks" that I have generally enjoyed is working on the cleanup backlog, although I have not really applied myself there recently, and I don't really see it as an "admin task," it's more of a community job. One of the primary reasons I have opted to seek Adminship is to be more effective in countering vandalism. Too often I've followed an anon ip after six or eight obscene edits and planting the various "test" templates on their talk page, only to be left toothless when the Admins who are around haven't had a moment to put a short block up. This just creates more work for everyone.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: For certain Gettysburg Address, which I collaborated on with User:BartBenjamin, is one of my favorites. My user page lists a few others. I recently did a major overhaul of United States Bill of Rights.
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: Fortunately, not for a long time. Possibly the biggest conflict I had was a while back, with User:Zen-master. Ironically, although it might have been my own worst experience with inter-user conflict, I see that there have been others who have had a rougher time of it. In the end, he and I worked out our editing conflicts pretty reasonably, I think.[1] (For the curious, see: Killian documents) - it's a contentious subject but by adhering to WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV I think we ultimately achieved a reasonable result.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kaisershatner&oldid=1146615671"