Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Kku

Bureaucrat removal at 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC) by Cecropia with (7,15,5). Original end time 13:27 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kku (talk • contribs) – Kku who has been contributing for almost 4 years now and already has had admin status on de: for more than two years. Kku 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: yes (obviously)

Support

1. Support Juppiter 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Obviously is capable of doing the job. Consider real life, people are often hired in executive positions, since they have the experience at other companies. There are ways to prove yourself outside of having 200+ edits per month on this wikipedia.
2. Support [[User:Mjal 22:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]] This appears to be a trustworthy person and we urgently need more administrators!!!
3. Support! Been around for 4 years and already has admin status on German Wikipedia. That's friggin' huge!--Mb1000 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support see rational--Edivorce 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Rbarreira 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Despite not being too active on the en wikipedia, I believe there's no doubt that (s)he will do a good job as an administrator here. His(er) answer to the first question seems to suggest that only good can come from granting adminship.
6. Support Adminship on DE means that we can trust Kku to apply policy correctly; it's just a matter of learning what policy on EN is. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I couldn't possibly care any less about edit counts; Opposition seems to have editcountitis. Plenty of experience. All meaningful edits. It's no big deal, right? -- Krash (Talk) 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. No offense to you personally, but with only about 20 edits to this wikipedia per month, only 1% of edits in the Wikipedia: space, and < 3% of your total edits here going to Talk spaces, I don't see much in the way of justification to support granting this request. Dragons flight 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose not enough edits for 4 years. Try again later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above, too inactive here, being an admin on de is good, but since en policy is likely different... Edit summary usage is on the low side (extremely low side for minors), very brief candidacy statement and terse answers to questions give little more to go on.--pgk^(talk) 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose needs some more activity. Kusonaga 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per pgk. German Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It certainly is a resume enhancement that kku is an admin on de, but it can't be the only meaningful experience on the entire resume. --Aaron 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. --tomf688^{talk} 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Barely any discussion or project edits, zero edits in areas such as categories/templates, simply not experience across the namespaces. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not enough experience right now, but try again later. KI 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose: not enough activity. If s/he does not do much on the English Wikipedia now, why should we expect him/her to do so after s/he has admin powers? Where (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose only 949 edits with only 9 to the project space? Sorry, but a strong oppose. --M@thwiz2020 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose as not active enough. Also, too few edits. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose for now. Nothing personal, but despite the long time, lack of activity seems worrying regarding knowledge of English Wikipedia procedures and policies. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose due to lack of activity. Bahn Mi 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, seems otherwise OK, but isn't active enough on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, obviously knows his stuff, but a bad precedent to set - some more experience of en.wikipedia would be very important. Proto t c 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, I agree on all of Proto's points. More en experience would be better. ComputerJoe 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - while it is clear that you can do the job, I can't see how en sysop rights would help you (or en wikipedia, for that matter), as you aren't really very active here. Stick to administrating de wikipedia, I'm sure you will do a great job there. Auf Wiedersehen... haz (user talk) 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Although I would love for you to be admin many of my views mirror the oppose/neutral comments. Therefore I will be neutral. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 71% for major edits and 27% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Kku's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. vandalism reverts, vandalism deletions, general arbitration. Internationalization. Semantic mediation... ;)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Receiver operating characteristic, germish

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. no conflicts so far

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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.