Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kotra

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

Kotra

Voice your opinion (talk page) (69/10/4); Scheduled to end 20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

kotra (talk · contribs) – Hello. I'll keep this brief. I believe I should have administrator tools because of the care and respect I would use whenever admin actions are needed. Additionally, because I have never let my ego get in the way during my stay here (I'm so incredibly modest), and I feel we need more admins who can honestly make that claim. I'm a moderately active editor, with a fairly broad range of experience on English Wikipedia. I've been around since late 2005 and have 6,800 or so edits. I'm certainly not one of the most active editors, and would probably get burned out if I became one. If you find it relevant, I have rollback rights here and admin rights at a small local wiki. I believe I have a sound understanding of policy, but that's up to you to decide from my contributions and answers to your questions. Thank you for considering me. -kotra (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Conomination

Kotra will be the kind of administrator we need. Kotra exchanged views civilly with me at the height of the adoption fiasco and emerges well[1] from that test. He is consistently even handed in discussion, he can be seen working well with other editors [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and kotra is never reluctant to discuss his reasoning for what he does. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I don't intend to take part in any administrative work until I fully understand the related policies, guidelines, and etiquette. To me this means lurking for a while, reading the documentation, and, if still in doubt, asking for the advice of more knowledgeable editors. Once that's done, I would like to help at WP:RM and WP:RFCN. In the latter area I can be somewhat outspoken, but I would be sure to not close discussions where I have actively participated unless it would be an uncontroversial close. Addendum: I think there has been some confusion on this answer; I am not implying that my policy knowledge is lacking. See my full explanation here.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As a gnomish lad, probably a good half of my edits over the years have been minor copy editing, tidying, and formatting fixes. I tend to spend a short time on one article and move on. However, I'm proud of my efforts to find references, which I believe are the backbone of all articles. Most recent examples: [16],[17],[18]. I am also proud of my work at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors when it was forming ([19]), and more recently, an article I just started, Äynu people.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: It's impossible to completely escape conflict in Wikipedia. I probably experienced the most stress as the adopter of an editor whose behavior had resulted in several ANI reports, a topic ban, and more than one block. I took this editor on as an adoptee in an attempt to help him avoid such problems. However, the problems, though reduced, still continued; and every time my adoptee got in a conflict, I felt it was my responsibility to try to resolve it. When I eventually realized I was having only a marginal effect, we (mutually) discontinued the arrangement. In the future, I will not attempt another adoption unless I can be certain I will actually be able to help. This is increasingly my approach to conflicts: when I am uncertain if I am helping, I will respectfully recuse myself. A great strength of Wikipedia is that other editors can take your place whenever you are uncertain.

Optional question from Bookkeeperoftheoccult

4. Given the response from question 3, explain how you would view your role as an admin when disciplining problem editors (or when you are asked to discipline problem editors) and elaborate at what point you would enact topic bans, blocks and indefinite blocks.

A: Since blocks and bans are intended to be preventative measures, not punishment, I wouldn't mete them out as discipline per se. I would only block (or enforce topic bans or other bans) as a means to prevent future harm and disruption to Wikipedia. I would also only do this when I fully understood the situation and what the community's consensus for action is. Even in the absence of community discussion on the specific situation, (for example, a logged-in user going on a vandalism rampage across many articles in an obscure topic area where other editors haven't yet noticed) my actions would match policy, common sense, and how I'd assume the community would feel (in this example, I would probably temporarily block the user).

So in short, I would follow the community's will (as parsed by both policy and direct input from editors) when determining when I enact topic bans and blocks. I would, however, hold off on acting if I felt the community was missing a crucial detail that had not yet been noticed; in such a case I would discuss it as any normal editor would.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: "Rights" is a tricky word, so I won't use it in my answer, but my meaning is probably the same. I believe that all Wikipedians should be treated respectfully and civilly, and be allowed to help contribute to the encyclopedia, as long as they are not unambiguously harming the project consistently and with no apparent intention to change. I would uphold this conviction by conducting my interactions with others respectfully, and when I encounter a Wikipedia who is harming the project, assuming good faith and attempting to work the issue out with civil discussion. If administrative tools are finally needed to stop disruption, I would use them clinically (for example, without snarky/insulting summaries). Blocked users can come away from the experience with either bitterness and grudges against Wikipedia, or soul-searching and reform... so it's in our best interest to extend civility and respect even to those who have been blocked out of necessity to protect the project.

Question from Stifle

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. My first instinct is to say "none", but there might be some exceptions. For example, if the person is very reclusive and impractical to photograph... even then, I would be extremely wary and would have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Certainly I have never come across such a situation. (see #7 below for further explanation and more exceptions)

Additional optional questions from Becksguy

7. Expanding on Stifle's question above (#6), what about fair use images per WP:FAIR, WP:NFCC, and WP:IUP for deceased or living people?

A: A key requirement for non-free images is non-replaceability. WP:NFCC says there must be "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.", but a more relevant quote is from WP:FAIR, which specifically disallows "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." Since living people are (usually) able to be photographed, and photographed with good quality, a free equivalent (nearly) always could be created. However, on considering the issue further, I realize I was assuming the purpose of the photo would be only to illustrate the person photographed. However, if a non-free photograph of a living person is notable in and of itself (for example, Afghan Girl (photo)) or illustrates an historic event (for example, Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy), it can be used for that purpose. Thanks for the question; I nearly missed that!

8. Considering the strong policy prohibitions against WP:BLP violations, do you think there can be community consensus in borderline cases, or in cases with content open to interpretation, whether that specific content does, or does not violate BLP, and should that consensus guide admin enforcement?

A: I think rough consensus can be achieved even in the most borderline cases, given some creativity and patience. Before using admin tools I would try to find consensus by finding sources, proposing a wording that does not imply a POV (or, if not possible, specifically represents that POV as a POV), or discussing the issue myself. If someone tendentiously adds content that is still under discussion and may reasonably constitute a BLP violation, I believe page protection is sometimes in order. So in that sense, I would not necessarily wait for consensus to be reached before using an admin tool. At least starting out, though, I would hesitate to use administrator tools in such a situation. I intend to make only uncontroversial actions until I get a better feel for the tools and their underlying policies.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: This reminds me of an incident a couple months ago. In that thread, I expressed that "It would have hurt absolutely nothing if a possibly non-notable band article were allowed to exist for half an hour or so before tagging for deletion." Your question is slightly different, though. A link to a website is probably not enough to give context. {{underconstruction}} is also not intended for new articles, as noted in its documentation. However, I still fail to see any harm such an article would create by existing for a short time. Therefore, I would probably wait at least an hour or two before deleting it; that is more than enough time to provide context and assertion of notability.

It must be said, though, that I don't intend to participate at CAT:SPEEDY. The area is already patrolled frequently enough.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Yes. I can think of no valid reason to create an article with absolutely no content, and coupled with the misuse of the underconstruction template, I would delete it on sight, and explain to the article creator how to use sandboxes. I would also probably encourage them to try again using the sandbox method, offering my assistance, unless the topic is obviously not fit for Wikipedia.

9c. Given a choice, should Wikipedia(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?

A: Both newbies and long-term editors are crucial to Wikipedia's health, especially nowadays when editor retention is becoming harder. I don't think anyone really has to make a choice between the two in day-to-day editing. Wikipedia should reward constructive work and positive collaboration, no matter who it comes from.

I have given barnstars, encouraged great work, and assumed good faith for newbies and long-term editors alike, and am unlikely to change there.

9d. In closing an AFD, allare the comments and analyses of regular AFD participants and long time editors more weighty than those of newbies and anons?

A: I do not plan on closing any AfDs, but I think this question would apply to closure of other !voting areas as well. The answer is complicated. Newbies and anons may be sockpuppets and meatpuppets (long-time editors may also be, but the probability is lower), so they should be treated with some skepticism, particularly if canvassing seems likely. !Votes by confirmed socks should of course be discarded, and a user's edits (or lack thereof) may, when taken with other evidence, be an indication of sockpuppetry. However, when it comes down to it, AfD is still open to new editors and anons, and their opinions should not be discounted solely for their (perceived) inexperience.

9e. If an athlete biography is nominated for deletion and the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE but fails WP:BIO, which governs? Is your answer the same if the athlete passes WP:BIO but fails WP:ATHLETE - assuming no other notability except sport?

A: I do not intend to close AfDs. However, to answer your question, WP:ATHLETE is merely a more specific application of WP:BIO (and in fact, is part of it), so if it meets WP:ATHLETE, it probably also meets WP:BIO (but may be better merged into another article, as per Wikipedia:BIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria). This conclusion is reached from the following quote, which precedes the specific applications ("Additional criteria"): "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." "Generally" is a crucial word, but in most cases if an athlete bio meets WP:ATHLETE, it also meets notability guidelines. However, it should be noted that our notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. Notability might be there if none of the WP:BIO criteria are met, or might not be there even if some (or all, theoretically) of the WP:BIO criteria are met.

Optional question from S Marshall

10. Please show an example of an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made none, please tell us about an edit you think should be made to a policy or guideline. If you think policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.

A: Here is one from 9 months ago; another editor modified it in the next edit, but the more important part I introduced remains.

Here is a more recent addition (not technically a policy, but effectively one). It still exists as I worded it (has been de-sectionized, though).

Optional question from Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox}

11. If this RfA passes, and you are sysopped, do you plan on arming yourself with the AbuseFilter userright?

A: No. I have no interest in editing abuse filters, and that's unlikely to change unless a dire shortage of AbuseFilter editors occurs (which seems very improbable at this point).

General comments

• Links for kotra: Kotra (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for kotra can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/kotra before commenting.

Discussion

• The candidate has 6,802 total edits (including deleted edits). AGK 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. If this is a general indicator of your calm and thoughtful approach I'm in. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support One of the most civil and neutral editors on wikipedia. Kotra has my undying love and support. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Consistent contributor and isn't afraid to be bold and find consensus on difficult articles. tedder (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Good communication skills; competent enough for the low-complexity, small workload he plans to take on; excellent mainspace contributor. No reason to not grant the tools to the candidate. Support. AGK 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support He is very civil and has good editing experience. He won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Per Pedro and rest.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. My brief personal observations of kotra on the project left me with no hesitation as to his ability to quickly evaluate an issue and respond reasonably. I don't doubt that he will use the tools responsibly and competently.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - I see Kotra at RFCN all the time. I trust him completely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I've seen kotra around and trust their judgement. AniMate^draw 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I really like all the diffs and his userpage. Seems committed to neutrality. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I like the initiative on the help desk to learn new information on how wikipedia works. Fairly consistent edits. Id support for now Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support — Jake Wartenberg 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Per Pedro and the answer to Q1. Cheers and good luck, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Certainly. Good editor, good natured, and I see no reason not to. — neuro^(talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Unqualified support primarily based my interactions with Kotra and his comments and judgments in those areas. As well as on his answers here, all the comments here so far, and my quick viewing of his edit history. RfA is more about trust and temperament than knowledge, as that can be learned on the job. In fact, we all grow into our jobs. I have found Kotra to be very even tempered, fair, neutral, reasonable, and helpful. I highly trust him with the tools and believe he has the temperament in spades. Edit counts don't impress me much, past a few thousand or so. Length of experience is more important IMO. I would rather see civil and constructive interactions with others, ability to read policy and interpret it in the spirit it was intended, participation in more than one area of WP, and other evidence of the ability to be a good admin. If I had come to this RfA early enough, I would have co-nominated him, as Kotra acts like an admin already. — Becksguy (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in a WP:AGF mold, i.e. not an editor I am that familiar with, but we don't seem to have had any glaring negative interactions and as canidate has never been blocked, I am willing to give the candidate a chance. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Pedro brought out a great example of civility. Law _{type! snype?} 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak support. I would prefer a higher knowledge of key policies, but as far as I can tell you are an intelligent editor who will learn quickly. Make sure you look at WP:ARL. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    I already have looked at WP:ARL (when I was made an admin at a different wiki), but I will give it a more thorough read. -kotra (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Support. Willing to work though tough situations and work toward the bigger goals of improving the project. Admin need to respect not just the letter but the spirit of policies and I see this candidiate doing that. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support – No problems here. :D American Eagle (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
23. I appreciate the confident and straightforward tone established by Kotra's nomination statement — what I initially perceived as slight hypocrisy in him referring to himself as being "incredibly modest", I believe that this claim is entirely warranted in considering the attitude he usually bears toward his fellow editors. Kotra will not abuse the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    The "I'm so incredibly modest" was intended to be a sort of joke (in that anyone who thinks they're so incredibly anything probably isn't modest). Probably not a very good joke though. -kotra (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    If it's any consolation, I chuckled when I read it. I assumed you were being playful. Law _{type! snype?} 03:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    I actually did suspect that it was intended hypocrisy, but I wasn't 100% sure. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

24. Support per above. One (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
25. I am concerned by the inexperience in article writing and deletion, and would normally oppose on those grounds. Out of a suspicion that attitude is more important than experience, I support instead.  Skomorokh  06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support a good contributor and knows what they're going. Arctic ^Fox 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support having reviewed Kotra's contributions I would put the policy knowledge comment down to modesty - from what I've seen the candidate works in a number of areas of the pedia and demonstrates good policy knowledge by their actions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. this seems to me to be the kind of civil and courteous behaviour we need on wikipedia, especially in a volatile discussion that could quite easily have gone sour. I'd like to see more activity in AfD, for example, but that shouldn't stand in the way! Good luck. HJMitchell You rang? 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support per arguments already presented Is requesting the tools for a limited area, apart from the traditional "big three", in which user has the experience and temperament needed. Experience and temperament make up for overall lack of experience in the "big three" areas. Answers to questions show reasonableness and understanding in areas not concerned with user's request. Certainly a higher activity level would be desirable, and DGG makes a very good point. Even in light of such of the well reasoned opposes presented, I believe user will be a Net Positive. Dlohcierekim 14:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong Support Highly active since 2005. Pedro gives a great example of civility.--Res2216firestar 15:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Per above. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I don't think you'd abuse the tools, and your civility does you credit. AvN 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Per above ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support — answer to Q1 seems fine to me: s/he's just saying s/he will tread cautiously. Admins don't know everything on day 1 of their adminship, the candidate's recognition of this is admirable in my opinion. –xeno ^talk 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong Support I've had the pleasure of meeting Kotra in real life through WikiWednesdays and WikiProject Oregon (as he mentioned, he's a sysop on the wiki for this meetup), and he's clearly trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong support, opposes not convincing. Wizardman 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Great editor. -download ׀ sign! 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Balance of pros and cons is in favour. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support this good candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I have interacted with kotra a number of times, both on-wiki and in person. He is a dedicated volunteer and values community. I have not yet read through the nomination materials -- and I will -- but the strong impression I have of kotra and his role in this community is unlikely to change. Excellent admin material. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support See my neutral vote discussion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak support - While your answer to Q1 is still a bit troubling even with the addendum, I feel that you could be trusted with the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support thoughtful answers to questions, unlikely to abuse tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - We certainly had our fair share of conflicts, but the opposition thus far is entirely unconvincingly. Kotra is a kind, warm and welcoming editor. He/she has the patience of a saint and a brilliant temperament. Will Kotra might not be the most experienced editor we have, he/she will ask before acting hastily. I trust Kotra with the tools and am sure this Wikipedian has good judgment. Good luck. — R² 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Enough experience, no danger signs, and a good temperament, which is more important than anything else. Looie496 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support bueno. wadester16 | Talk→ 06:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, opposes so far are weak, and I don't see any reason not to trust this user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
51. Support. Ottre 17:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Rami R 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support However, this editor should definitely reconsider her support for citation templates. Free form is much better. Citation templates are evil.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Where did the candidate mention citation templates? FlyingToaster 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    I believe it was during a discussion a month and a half ago. -kotra (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yup.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Someone at my talk page has requested that I modify my "support" to indicate that Kotra is actually male rather than female. I did not know Kotra's gender on 14 May, and so I think it was fine to randomly choose the word "her" instead of "him". Now that I do know Kotra's gender, I'm more than happy to mention it here as requested at my talk page, even though I wouldn't otherwise think it would be necessary or advisable to do so.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

55. Support Your epic civility won me over, coupled with an ability to confidently make tough decisions. FlyingToaster 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Ab.So.Lu.Te.Ly. Looks good to me. Very good, even. Calm, reasonable, trustworthy. Go mop. Yintaɳ  22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I've seen you participating in a few discussions, and together with the ones people have linked to above they portray you as someone who'll look before you leap, admit when you've made a mistake, and generally work on writing an encyclopedia instead of perpetuating arguments. Best of luck! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support As per track and user has been around since 2005 and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support As per track record. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support, some aspects of policy knowledge seem a little dubious; but there's every reason to believe Kotra is aware of this; and won't go wading into areas without reading up on them. Overall, contributions and question answers suggest a user who is sensible, dedicated and trustworthy. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 15:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. I'm in too. I especially like the answer to the question 1. Kotra shows a lot of maturity and seems extremly civil. I'm sure he will be make a very fair admin. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
63. Support. The candidate is not clueless of policy; Kotra will start off slow and try his best to avoid mistakes (that come along when one misunderstands policy, but unpreventable of course), and I don't see a problem with that. — Σしぐまxplicit 23:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
64. The only interaction I can remember having with Kotra was here, and I found him to be very polite and knowledgeable. In addition, since Steven Walling and Peteforsyth have met Kotra in person and know that he's a good guy from their face-to-face encounters, then that only adds to my support. Acalamari 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - seems civil, and is prepared to admit that he has gaps in his knowledge, and won't use the tools in areas he isn't familiar with. I respect that attitude. Robofish (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Plus one. Reasonable, thoughtful editors generally make reasonable, thoughtful admins. No reason to doubt that in this instance. Keeper | 76 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support- OtisJimmyOne 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
70. support - looks OK to me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Last-minute support. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I don't see issues, and I'm not convinced by the opposes. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Little in the way of audited content work, and per my belief you should understand what being an admin entails and all the rules and regs before you get the sysop status. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I would prefer that someone "understand the related policies, guidelines, and etiquette" before being given the mop. Nakon 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Would you perhaps be more specific? No worries if you'd rather not, I just want to know where my knowledge is lacking, for the future. -kotra (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose on the basis of inexperience in writing articles and lack of demonstrated knowledge of administrative functions (as admitted in Q1). It is advisable to learn at least something beforehand, and show it by participation in policy related areas. An extremely valuable editor, but not adequately prepared. The way to become prepared tis to participate in deletion discussions, or policy discussions, or administrative boards, so we can see the way you think about the application of policy. DGG (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have to agree, I wish he had done more of this. I'm getting soft in my old age. (Plus, the need for hard-working admins is higher. Plus ... and this is not a defense of any particular ArbCom decision ... ArbCom does seem to be willing to lower the boom lately on people, admins or not, "famous" or not. I think the argument that "we have absolutely no room for error at RfA, otherwise we're stuck them forever", if it was valid before, isn't valid now. Just explaining why I'm not such a hard-ass these days.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   "deletion discussions, or policy discussions, or administrative boards" I have participated in all these places; I am willing to hunt down diffs if you like. -kotra (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   That looks more like a well-reasoned Neutral vote to me! WP:RFA policy allows every user to ask to be considered to become an administrator. If you think that opportunity should be restricted to ensure an ideal number of admins then please raise that idea for a policy change. This page is for collecting opinions about Kotra's RfA. To boycott that process is not the best way get policy changed, and it has the disadvantage that we don't get to hear your opinion of Kotra as an admin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose I agree with Nakon.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 07:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. While adminship is no big deal, I expect at least a basic understanding of the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures (even if the understanding requires referencing them regularly). Based on the various answers given above, I do not believe kotra has this understanding right now, and I would suggest spending some time learning those policies, guidelines, and procedures for a few months and then coming back at that point. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Nihonjoe, can you give diffs showing actions by the candidate that demonstrate a less than basic understanding of "the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures"? My trawl through the candidates contributions gave me completely the opposite impression of the candidate, and I'd be interested to see if you found something that I missed. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   In his answer to Q1, he states, "I don't...fully understand the related policies, guidelines, and etiquette" (modified, but that's basically what he's saying). The answer to Q6-7 also demonstrates only the most minor understanding of image use policy and guidelines. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   You may wish to read my explanation of A1 if you have not already. -kotra (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I read that, and am still of the same opinion. Admins do not change usernames, for one. Bureaucrats do that. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for basing your opinion on a good understanding of my meaning. As for changing usernames, I was referring more to WP:UAA and username blocks in general, when account creation is allowed and autoblocking is disallowed. But you're right, admins don't technically change usernames themselves. I've struck that bit now, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. -kotra (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's important to remember that the fact that a user is an experienced and established editor is indicative of their "basic understanding" of how the site operates. Indeed, unless that fact is counterbalanced by instances of poor judgement, it would be wrong to suggest that the candidate has no basic understanding. AGK 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   You apparently didn't read the same answers to questions that I did. See above. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I read the question answers and yes that left me wondering if the candidate was modest, underqualified, overspecialised or just cautious about new tools. As it says above "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/kotra before commenting." I've had little interaction with this candidate so I reviewed their contributions and came to the conclusion that in the answers above Kotra has shown a commendable mixture of modesty and caution. However if in your review of Special:Contributions/kotra you have spotted things that I've missed please give me some diffs that indicate that the candidate lacks "a basic understanding of the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures". ϢereSpielChequers 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm of the same opinion as Hobit, below. I would likely support in the future given more obvious interaction in the areas where admins generally work. Please stop harassing me as I've provided more than ample explanation for my opinion here. ···日本にっぽん穣みのる^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose per DGG and answer to Stifle's BLP picture of living people question. Largely got the question right, but I'd expect an admin to be able to hunt down the relevant policies and cite them the first time around. It's a minor point, but part-and-parcel with what DGG commented on. Suspect I'd support in the future with a bit more policy/guideline experience. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't ask a question about BLPs... Stifle (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   It was my question. And I'm satisfied with his answer. — Becksguy (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually I did mean Stifle's question about pictures of living people. Sorry BLP is obviously not what I wanted... Hobit (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per answer to question 1. An admin needs to have a thorough understanding of a good deal of policy. Its one thing to be unfamiliar with certain areas, and no one can know everything; nevertheless an admin needs to have experience with policy and guidelines, this isn't something you learn after getting the tools. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Opppose per question 1.A. My advice is not to buy a pig in a poke and find out what being an administrator entails prior to requesting to be one. I would give the same advice and opinion of oppose to anyone who answered the question that way, neither is not a criticism of you as an individual. Drawn Some (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Opppose - little evidence of content work. We should not be we rewarding 'vandal-reversion', we should be working towards a proper registration policy. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    comment Just asking: Is it appropriate for retired users to be voting on current RfAs (support or oppose) if they are no longer active members of the community? I honestly do not know which is why I raise the question. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Nevermind. I reread Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA. Any user with an account may do so. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Also, the fact it says on my user page that I am a retired user, does not mean I am a retired user. Peter Damian (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    So although you comment says oppose it does not actually mean oppose - or did I miss a bit.... ? Pedro :  Chat  20:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Adminship isn't a "reward" for anything. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral for now; needs more experience. -download ׀ sign! 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) switched to support

1. Neutral leaning toward oppose Sorry I don't want "inactive with low experience do want admins who can spend more time for Wikipedia with more experience. Your edit count "6800" is pretty low in "my expectation" given that your activity began in 2005. I don't see any "strong needs" as to why you should have to tools.clarified, satisfied?-Caspian blue 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion in collapsible box moved to talk page — using that box will wipe out the li value. — neuro^(talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Contributions are okay, but would beneft from more content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I, too, would like to see more in the way of content (be it creation or merely working upon what already exists). I'm not asking for GAs, or FAs, or even DYKs, I would just like to see a lot more work being done to articles. After all, that is what we're here for. If you can prove evidence of this, I will gladly switch to support, and if you work on it after this nomination (assuming it doesn't pass, which it actually might), I will support next time. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have been more active in cleaning up and sourcing existing content, not in content creation. However, Äynu people, Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis#Spartel_Bank (formerly at Spartel Bank), and Allura Red AC ([20],[21],[22]) are a few examples of small content additions I've made. If a requirement for you is extensive content creation though, I don't meet that. -kotra (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Good enough for me, switched to support. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I'm okay with answers to most of the questions but can't shake the answer to Q1, which I interpret to mean he doesn't have a full understanding of policy/etiquette. I was going to oppose but the answer to Q1 demonstrates a willingness to learn, which is good. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral Candidate seems civil and thoughtful, but I would expect that s/he would have a clearer demonstrated understanding of policy before asking for the mop. I do want to say I laughed at the "modest" joke. I suspect this will pass, so good luck to you. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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.