Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 3

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.

Naconkantari

[edit]

final (98/13/10) ending 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari (talk · contribs) – Where do I begin. Naconkantari has been an active contributor to Wikipedia, with more than 15 thousand edits in a matter of three months. A diligent editor, demonstrating quality editing practices, Naconkantari has been a fixture of the counter-vandalism effort, demonstrating good traits of an admin. He declined his first nomination because it went through a too early - just after one month of editing. However, after gaining more time and experience at Wikipedia, I am certain he will serve the project well. For those reasons and more, I nominate Naconkantari for Adminship. As the old saying goes, his mop and bucket are long overdue. -- Jay(Reply) 18:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination, accepted Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support - Amazing contributer, glad to support such a great canidate! --lightdarkness (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Definitely. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Astonishingly good vandalwhacker. Flowerparty■ 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Jay(Reply) 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:35, 5 March 2006
  6. Support per Flowerparty. - Wezzo 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. Great contributor to the vandal-fighting effort. --Nlu (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support. Awesome vandal-whacker who warns, but little else. Seems intent on not damaging the project, and answer to #3 probably means we won't see this user in wheel warring. So, support, but I wish to see more from this user whether or not the RfA passes. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 23:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Excellent vandal fighter, but try to write some articles if this does not pass, --Jaranda wat's sup 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support There are lots of ways to contribute, and this user seems dedicated to helping the project. I wish I could spell this user's username from memory though :x — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - If he's going to be a vandal fighter, we should properly equip him for the task. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - strong dedicated vandal fighter abakharev 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. His interest is in vandal control and he is good at it and he can make good use of the tools. If this does not pass do more article editing, talk and user talk then try again in 3 months and you will pass.--Dakota ~ ° 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I agree with Dakota and Adrian. Naconkatari's strength is vandal control, and I think the mop will arm him better for the task. -- Samir ∙ TC 08:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support a very good user. Giving Naconkantari the block button will be helpful to Wikipedia. He won't have to go through the intermediary of a page like administrator intervention against vandalism anymore.--Alhutch 10:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. super duper support!Benon 11:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Terence Ong 11:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support RexNL 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I think he is capable and ready. NoSeptember talk 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. Meets all my RfA criteria. In addition I see absolutely no evidence to suggest this user will abuse admin tools, and responses to vandals suggest he can keep cool. Wikipedia is a big place, with a lot of users and admins. I have no problem at all with different admins focusing on different types of task, in this case being mainly (though not by any means exclusively) a vandal fighter. Whilst editing articles is of course extremely important for building an encyclopaedia, I ask the oppose voters: wouldn't it be a good this to give admin tools to Naconkantari to allow other editors to edit articles rather than revert them, to help protect other peoples work from abuse, to give that little bit extra chance that a random reader to this site sees a real article rather than nonsense? Petros471 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support wow this is the third "always thought this person was an admin" vote this week!! Will make a great admin! Mike (T C) 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems competent Celcius 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Computerjoe 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, has done very good job cleaning up so far, this would help him do it a bit faster. From what I've seen, he's been knowledgeable and helpful when needed (based on his talk page), and I trust that he wouldn't be rash in his actions in areas where he didn't have that much experience. - Bobet 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. Excellent vandal fighter, he is ready willing and able. No Guru 19:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I have seen a fair amount of community involvement from the nominee. I would also like to see some more article writing, but I still trust him with adminship. --TantalumTelluride 20:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support he is a good vandalism reverter ILovePlankton 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support, great vandal hunter. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Would make good use of administrator tools. — TheKMantalk 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also seems fairly active in new page patrol, with nearly 1200 deleted edits. — TheKMantalk 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong vandal thwacking support! for one of the best around. Please help make the vandals weep by voting for him.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Not "getting involved in issues" strikes me as a non-issue. The goal of this project is creation of an encyclopedia, and I fail to see why focussing on that and not involving oneself in the backstage hoo-hah and drama is somehow a negative. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Calton. --Khoikhoi 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Joe I 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. All he needed the last nomination was more time. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support We're supposed to be voting on whether or not a person can be trusted to use admin powers well. I think it's obvious he will -- in spades. --CTSWyneken 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Will be a potent vandal fighter. --tomf688{talk} 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Contributes not by creating good content, but by keeping the good content intact. Dogged vandal fighter that I have stumbled across a hundred times in the last few months. Kuru talk 03:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Assuming the deleted edits come from new page patrol/speedy nominations, they are impressive on their own. Kusma (討論) 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, we all would benefit by providing Naconkantari with admin tools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - excellent vandal fighter, but should get more involved with other aspects of Wikipedia. Being an administrator isn't just about fighting vandals. --Ixfd64 05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support; a very effective vandal fighter, and I believe he'll make a great admin. --Viridian {Talk} 08:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support; would trust with admin tools without a second thought ~ PseudoSudo 11:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. You don't need to be a good editor to be a good admin. Stifle 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support seems good.  Grue  16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, but candidate in the future must address the concerns of people who are opposing him, or staying neutral. Rama's Arrow 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support everyone contributes in different ways. This is an editor who (a) could benefit from admin tools and (b) has enough experience to earn my trust at least. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support he's a great vandal fighter. I don't mind giving him the tools that can make him even better. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, for his counter-vandalism activity. Aldux 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support as first nominator Sceptre (Talk) 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, I don't see the problem with him mainly clearing up vandalism. It suggests he likes the clerical work that adminship seems to entail. You also can't accrue that many edits without working out how this place works. |→ Spaully°τ 23:29, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
  53. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Will make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Fantastic contributer. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: As I said when I nominated him last time, he conducts himself well while reverting vandal after vandal and doesn't lose his cool. He deserves to have the ability to revert vandalism faster and block them so that he can revert more vandals in a given time. Yes, most of his edits are vandalism fighting, but he's good at it and fair in it. I have faith in him that he will not abuse his admin tools and he can learn along the way the various other going-ons in the community, if he chooses to later involve himself in areas other than vandalism. tv316 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support: I wanted to wait before voting, and today I see that it was a smart thing to do. ko.wikipedia had a massive vandal attack today, and while there were three of us working on it (Nacon, bookofjude, and myself), Naconkantari took charge, was granted temp sysop, and put an end to the problem. For that excellent work, I support Naconkantari as an admin. However, people like Naconkantari will soon put those of us who arn't admins out of business over on #wikipedia-en-vandalism. --ZsinjTalk 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Reverting vandalism in time is vital to keep Wikipedia and similar sites good.--Jusjih 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support of the "he isn't already one?" variety. --Rory096 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - the oppose votes have legitimate concerns, but I think that rejecting Naconkantari would send a very poor message as to WP's admin selection process. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - The right tools for the right job. Feezo (Talk) 05:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No problem. --Alf melmac 11:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support, oppose votes here are silly. I often keep the en-vandalism channel open, even if i'm not watching it, and the non-admins there furiously poke me because such-and-such username or IP needs a block. Nacon has shown good judgment in this area and is quite capable of dilligently performing this task himself. Who cares if he doesn't write articles? Neither do I, and I passed almost unanimously. Total number of reverts nonwithstanding, when it comes to admin privileges, I'd prefer a vandal-whacker over an edit warrior any day of the week, thank you. — Mar. 8, '06 [13:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  65. Support. Super vandal fighter. Let's give him the tools to do that faster and better. All else may come in time. --Fang Aili 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support looks good, and could be even better with admin tools. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. support, though noting the oppose concerns of Splash William M. Connolley 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per nominator's comments. Naconkantari's contributions show that he's a fantastic vandal fighter. So why not give him that mop and make him an even better one? If he made 10000 edits within 4 months equipped with just CDVF/godmode-lite then I predict he could even stand up to RexNL's m4d ski11z. Misza13 T C 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Did an extremely good job in cleaning up the WiC clone on the Korean Wikipedia, no reason why as good a job can't be done here. Jude(talk,contribs) 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. His style has a good fit for the powertools. I have a few tough words for anybody in their right mind who says this kid isn't legit cause he doesn't spend time uploading his PhD to the server. Sit there at one in the morning and rollback loads of "john is gay" and "penis" crap and you'll be begging for a block button to. Just saying it as it is, is all. --Rob from NY 01:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools, he did 15k reverts that someone else didn't have to do (or perhaps no one would have seen) --rogerd 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, as I don't have anything to make me believe that he would abuse admin tools. That said, after you're done with this RFA, go write an article, man! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support impressive anti-vandalism work and a calm manner. Gwernol 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support would make good use of tools. —Wayward Talk 05:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support to make Naconkantari's vandal fighting even more effective. Just zis Guy you know? 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support --Ugur Basak 11:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support user has shown great ability and the sheer volume of work in such a short time shows a dedicated person. TruthCrusader 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Belated I thought I'd already voted support. SoLando (Talk) 17:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong support! It gets annoying when, every time I attempt a rollback, I get a little message saying that someone else (almost always Naconkantari) has already edited the page or rolled it back. I'm not saying that's bad, though - contrarily, it's great! I'm suprised that Naconkantari isn't already an admin, considering the amount of reversions he has. --M@thwiz2020 17:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. He does good work and I am confident he will expand his activities now. pschemp | talk 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I'm unconvinced by the reasons given for the oppose votes. Admin tools make vandal-fighting an order of magnitude easier, so helping his prolific vandal bashing sounds like a good reason to give my vote. Leithp 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Guettarda 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support. An excellent vandal fighter, and this is enough. He would make good use of admin powers. Mushroom (Talk) 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support! Sango123 (e) 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Almost voted oppose, just reverts too much vandalism, needs to learn to share! :-). Excellent work. Prodego talk 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Where (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. 15 thousand edits in three months! It's unbelievable! I have also three months here, and only 400 edits. juan andrés 04:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong Support I thought he already was an admin...anyway, 15,000 edits in 3 months is astounding, even if it was mostly reverting vandalism; editing articles is important, but so is vandal-fighting, especially for admins. His excellent anti-vandalism record more than makes up for his otherwise lower level of experience. Yeltensic42 don't panic 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Strong support. Wikipedia would benefit greatly if there were more editors as active as Naconkantari. He'll make a good admin. JIP | Talk 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Does an excellent job, and adminship will only help . -- SonicAD (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - is an excellent vandal hunter, often beats my bot to reverts (don't ask me how). Naconkantari is usually on IRC and would be a great person to send multiple vandalism reports to -- Tawker 08:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - I am sure the encyclopedia will benefit from Naconkantari being given the tools. I don't need any criteria other than that. Raven4x4x 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. His dedication in the war on vandalism is impressive and with some extra tools he will be even better. David Sneek 11:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. He needs the tools. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. It can definitely be argued that contributing to articles is important too - and it is; I encourage him to do more of it - but he has reverted tons of vandalism, and I think he could benefit from the tools. In occasional RC patrol confined to watching vandalism of people's user pages, I have noticed his user page gets vandalized quite a lot, so he must be doing something that vandals don't like. :-) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose Hardly has any actual editing experience. It looks like he has 9743 article edits, but they are all reverting vandalism. Also, it looks like he has 6741 edits to talk pages, but if you look through the contribution tree it's mostly reverting talk pages of vandalism and warning vandals. I'm sorry Naconkantari, but if all your edits seem to be vandalism reverts I can't support. I am glad this user is around though, quick on vandalism reverts. If he interacts more with users and actually starts editing articles more, I will suppport a future nomination. Moe ε 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just recieved a message by Master Jay about my oppose vote. I guess since my vote had a lot of impact on this RFA, I thought I would respond. I am very sorry to Naconkantari, but I can't change to support/neutral based on the hard facts above. Like I said before, I think your a great editor and I will support you in the future. Never give up hope ;) Moe ε 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I need persuasion. This is still less than the fairly-bright line of 3 months and an editor who withdrew once because of being too soon should really be making sure that their renomination is clear of that kind of problem. Then I discovered, from last week, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 2 which the editor declined as being too soon. What changed in the last few days? Also, looking through the last 1500 edits I see almost no encyclopedia-writing. Racking up 15,000 edits isn't so hard when they're handed to you by the IRC bots, although reverting vandalism is obviously an important part of holding the Project in good shape. Being a vandal-whacker is not a qualification for adminship. The edits to Wikipedia: space are largely AfD and RfA with a few reverts, and I can't find much in places like AN or AN/I or debating zones to adequately judge things on. Some good examples would be nice. Given the preponderance of vandalism warnings, I'd also like to see two or three examples of good conversation engagement either on Talk: or User talk:. -Splashtalk 21:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I see very, very little communication between Naconkantari and other users (beyond vandalism warnings). It is very important that Administrators can express themselves in a meaningful and calm manner, and I have no idea how this user might react in a stressful situation. Secondly, he's been around for just four months. In my opinion, this is barely above the minimum amount of time to become familiar with the myriad areas on Wikipedia. There are just some things that take time (not thousands of edits) to discover, become familiar with, and actually apply. I believe it's important to have a grasp on the project as a whole, and to understand how different aspects of Wikipedia influence eachother, in order to make informed decisions on many of the issues admins deal with. No doubt, Naconkantari may prove to be admin material in coming months, but it is far too soon to tell. ~MDD4696 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak, pained Oppose per Splash. Naconkantari is so very good at what he does best, and vandal-fighting is a key function with a clear use for the mop. Still, the fact that user declined a second nomination only last week is discomforting. User needs a just little more time to mature as a Wikipedian, I think. Xoloz 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's wrong for him to decline when he wasn't sure? --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He might have left the first nomination open for a while, you know. In any event, having declined so recently, he should have realized that a rapid re-application invites criticism. I'm not saying it's a wiki-sin, or anything, but it doesn't indicate a thorough, deliberative temperment, and that does make me a tad uncomfortable. Xoloz 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has it ever occurred to you that the RfA nom from Tv316 was created without Naconkantari's consent in the first place? If you follow the histories, Naconkantari never listed the vote page from Tv316 on the main RfA log to open it for voting. On the other hand, he surely did such for this one, making this the only legitimate Naconkantari 2 RfA page. Using the unofficial, unendorsed RfA nom from Tv316 to say Naconkantari doesn't have "a thorough, deliberative temperment" is unwarranted. Naconkantari shouldn't be declined promotion based on nominations he did not create and did not endorse. Lastly, if you check the date, it was two weeks ago, not one. Don't pretend plenty hasn't happened in that time to better prepare him for this RfA. --Jay(Reply) 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Snapping irritatedly at the opposers won't work, you know. -Splashtalk 03:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay, your point hadn't "occurred to me" because it is irrelevant to my analysis. Irrespective of whether the candidate knew of the creation of the second nomination, he did know that he had declined it. Having so declined, a hasty return is an indication of some lack of forethought. The guidelines at the top give an indication that a month is the minimum between nominations; whether one lists an RfA or not, the act of declining is an act that matters, in my judgment, so I take the guideline to apply here. Xoloz 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. --Jay(Reply) 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rob Church (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to campaigning on my talk for a reason; see Sarah Ewart's below for an excellent summing-up. Rob Church (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose Naconkantari has done great work for fighting vandalism, but an admin needs to be involved in more issues. DaGizzaChat © 08:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: talk page has only March 2006. Thumbelina 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has two archives linked from the box at the top. - Bobet 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumbelina has changed vote. See support. --Jay(Reply) 20:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Moe and Splash. Needs content and talk experience, not just reversions. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose weak oppose, a little too soon and some experience outside anti-vandalism work would demonstrate a better working knowledge of wikipedia which is required by an admin. --pgk(talk) 09:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for same reasons as Sarah Ewart. More to this than vandal fighting--Looper5920 12:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Not enough experience of article editing. Dlyons493 Talk
  11. oppose per moe. ... aa:talk 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, would prefer to see more article contributions. JSIN 09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose this time as too new, but would likely support with longer experience and more additions to articles. Jonathunder 16:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, wishing to support. NaconK is perhaps the best vandal fighter I've ever seen, and in a few weeks, I would have nominated him myself if no one else had. Due to his massive effort against vandalism, I cannot and will not oppose, but I can't support anyone under the three-month threshold. Echoing the same issues commented by Splash and Moe, I'll stay neutral this time, and will surely support in a while with more involvement in policy discussion and interaction with the community. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral very much Phædriel's sentiments. Very impressive work to date - but a little more on the primary mission of article editing. Dlyons493 Talk 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. It is a forum by which consensus is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator rights." --Jay(Reply) 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral- moving my vote here, I'm not really sure the reasons are clear enough, but it seems it's a passing nomination anyway, so take the oppositions as constructive criticism :). Weak, tiny oppose While this user evidently has no problem handling the monotony of vandal fighting, I think some more involvement in articles and its surrounding community is due, the absence in community barely outweighs the tireless vandal fighting. A clear candidate if WP:RFR is passed, though. --Obli (Talk)? 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - per Phaedriel, et al. If we had a "vandal fighter's toolset" that didn't have other uses I'd support N for that wholeheartedly, but the admin tools can be used for other things too. Some evidence of wellroundedness, participation in policy, projects, article creation etc, would be good. That said, I'm not opposed and wish N all the best when this sails through, as I expect it will. Just consider dabbling in some other things too, that's all I'm saying. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Definetly a fantastic vandal fighter, but there is more to adminship IMO than that. Love to see this user back ASAP with some actual editing experience. Staxringold 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Normally, high edit counts are a plus for me. But I would rather see someone with a fifth of the edits this user has if that meant more went towards actual editing rather than reverting. joturner 00:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, seems good and could use rollback... but, I think it'd be good to see him in content disputes since admin will give him some leverage in that... or more on AfD and protection... I suppose this is good example of why I think some limited powers might be good. I feel kind of bad denying tools he could use. gren グレン 03:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral until more content contributions; already has rollback. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-09 08:36Z
    However, does not have the block button, which it would be helpful to give him.--Alhutch 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, Fellow vandal fighter and much respected for his commitment to fighting vandalism. Great potential to become a great admin, after he engages other editors in discussions about the project and learning the joys and pains of editing Wikipedia. Will certainly support in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I don't want to oppose, but I'm not yet ready to support either. Would probably support a later nomination. --Alan Au 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per Alan Au. Ukrained 14:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Naconkantari's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • While many of my edits are reverting vandalism, I also correct typos and update pages from WP:DPL. While it's true that I do not have many true article edits, not every edit is reverting vandalism. Also, in regards to the early acceptance, User:Master Jay reasons on my talk page convinced me to accept. Even though this is an encyclopedia first, there still needs to be some degree of professionalism to it, and I can help out by making Wikipedia a better, more professional encyclopedia. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where this is going, and to be honest, it alarms me. Naconkantari is a valuable asset in fighting the growing vandalism problem (don't pretend he hasn't reverted an attack on your userpage, Moe.) As the project grows, we'll need more editors like Naconkantari, equipped with the right tools to get the job done. For all of those voting oppose, are you voting oppose for the right reason? Why does vandal fighting make his importance to the project less? Sysop privilleges gives a user access to blocking vandals, deleting nonsense, and a legitimate rollback button. Are you telling me he does not deserve such privilleges? Does "involvement in articles and its surrounding community" have anything to do with blocking a persistent vandal? Does speedy deleting nonsense have anything to do with "debating zones to adequately judge things on"? The mop and bucket are tools for keeping Wikipedia in check, not an award for being a great writer. Please reconsider opposing. --Jay(Reply) 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order: yes, it doesn't, it's not a matter of deserving, it has a lot to do with admin work, you're putting things in contexts they were never in, no not until the kind of examples I asked for are demonstrated. -Splashtalk 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are a respected admin, who has been with the project since June, and has amassed 24,000 contributions. You are truly an asset to the community. I know we will never agree on what makes an admin, and what doesn't. Coming from an editor of your experience and influenece, I am fine with that. However, I am concerned that you are unwillingly to see the good work Naconkantari has done, and how sysop privilleges would fit him well; we all have our role at Wikipedia. Please reconsider your stance, for this RfA is in your hands. --Jay(Reply) 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been singled out as the cause of a failed RfA before (during my own RfA, no less); this is simply not the case for the other editors are not, unfortunately, under my control. Note that this RfA is currently succeeding, however. Along with Special:Readmind, Special:Controlmind is not yet implemented in Mediawiki, although those links are amusingly blue. I don't remember us having disagreed in terms on what makes an admin before, but perhaps I forget. I am not unwilling at all to acknowledge the good that Naconkantari has done and I do so explicitly in my comment. However, it is a short road indeed from pressing an admin button to a large target appearing on your rear (in the shape of a long, thin, orange rectangle) and understanding how this kind of thing is handled is crucial. Is the editor ok with the recent edit summary in the history of my userpage? We have editors who get very heated over that kind of thing. It is also a short road to AN and AN/I and having your actions reversed, overruled and criticised. Or, more dangerously, doing those things to another admin's actions. Having the ability creates the possibility to act and having some 'insurance policy' in mind when considering an admins reaction to something is important. Insurance policy, you ask? I mean that it is good to know that, in the past, the editor has taken a good approach to a problem situation and shown good judgement in their handling of...stuff...it bodes well for that decision they make that splits the difference between peace and war. It's knowing that they have applied the right glue when things broke before; pressing a godmode light button doesn't demonstrate that, important as it is. I can't locate examples of that in Naconkantari's contributions, although it may be there. I would urge Naconkantari to edit this RfA (I presume his silence is deliberate) with an example or three: the answer to Q3 is very vanilla in this regard and is largely the socially acceptable answer resulting in the aim for a position that, all too often, is unavailable. -Splashtalk 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Replying to your comment about the vandalism and personal attack on your user page, I get them all the time. Here are a few examples: [1], [2],[3], just to name a few. This kind of vandalism doesn't bother me, I just revert it and move along. There is no need to get in a heated argument with another editor. I try to keep my comments civil and never attack another person because they have attacked me. I hope that these are some of the examples that you are looking for. If not, I can try to find some more. Thanks Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On March 8, I was temporarily given sysop status on the Korean Wiki to combat a WiC attack. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:43, 8 March 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. The bulk of my editing comes from reverting vandalism and leaving messages on the editor's talk page. With that said, I do not want to be seen as one of those "vandal-fighting" admins where the only thing I do is warn and block. Wikipedia is more than that. I would help out with copyright problems, performing requested moves, new page patrol, and anything else that would be needed of me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most of my contributions outside of correcting vandalism are minor. I occasionally tag images, correct spelling and grammar mistakes, and update articles on WP:DPL.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have not been in any major conflicts with anyone. I try to stay out of the more controversial aspects of Wikipedia and contribute peacefully. Conflicts do happen, however, and if I am brought into one, I will try to resolve it to the satisfaction of both parties. If I am unable to resolve it satisfactory, I would ask for a third opinion or other kind of mediation.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Naconkantari_3&oldid=1089278373"