Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:44, 18 October 2006 editGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,657 edits WP:RPA← Previous edit Revision as of 18:47, 18 October 2006 edit undoSosomk (talk | contribs)2,558 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 175: Line 175:
#::::13.] knows ("Weak Support per his probation") #::::13.] knows ("Weak Support per his probation")
#::::14.] ("YES I KNOW ... His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book") #::::14.] ("YES I KNOW ... His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book")
#::::]
#:::::::So we're stuck with the rest 33. I suggest they re-edit their votes to signify acceptance, and then we notify the rest through talk. That's another 14 users who knew and obviously noted he didn't say so in Q3 before you, but were not as nit-picky to request repetition of poll! --Biased proKhoikhoian false-anon! 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) #:::::::So we're stuck with the rest 33. I suggest they re-edit their votes to signify acceptance, and then we notify the rest through talk. That's another 14 users who knew and obviously noted he didn't say so in Q3 before you, but were not as nit-picky to request repetition of poll! --Biased proKhoikhoian false-anon! 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
#::::::15.] Russian POV pusher. Oppresser of E European users, who discriminates users on national basis.] 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
#::::::16.] Another member of the ''posse''] 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
#::::::::Thank you. I think I was off by a day with my count, so your 47 might be more accurate. My point about the evasive answer to Q3 remains. I also propose you read ]. ~ ] 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC) #::::::::Thank you. I think I was off by a day with my count, so your 47 might be more accurate. My point about the evasive answer to Q3 remains. I also propose you read ]. ~ ] 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
#::::::::::Err, that's 33, and I am sorry you find "nit-picky" incivil. --Tendentious proKhoikhoian 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC) #::::::::::Err, that's 33, and I am sorry you find "nit-picky" incivil. --Tendentious proKhoikhoian 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:47, 18 October 2006

Khoikhoi

Voice your opinion (75/7/4) Ending 23:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) – I've known Khoikhoi on Misplaced Pages for a fairly long time, a year or more. In that time he has shown himself to be an impartial, reasonable and kind user. He had a request for adminship earlier (see here), but withdrew when it was going badly. The man edits contentious and controversial articles (well, someone has to!), and even in fairly fierce ethnic disputes manages to keep his cool. He has been blocked a few times for the 3RR, but not within the last seven monthsand has a heap load of edits (interested users can check for themselves). In conclusion there is really not much case to not promote him. Oh, and I know I should comment on some of his work that qualifies him for admin tools, he reverts a lot of vandalism, particularly by serial vandals, and while one doesn't need admin tools to do this it helps to be able to block these guys once in a while. Furthermore special protection can be a godsend when facing down what seems like unlimited amounts of IP reusing sockpuppets. In conclusion, VOTE SUPPORT, I AM! :) - Francis Tyers · 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. —Khoikhoi 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd be more than happy to do things such as WP:AIV, checking on the 3RR reports page, and WP:RPP. As I've been doing, I'll look for vandalism to revert, usually from pages on my watchlist, although I've also done some RC Patrol work as well. I've been involved in tracking down the banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, which has resulted in the blocking of their sockpuppets all the time. Tasks such as these usually require admin capabilities.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I guess I'm the most happy with my first featured article, which I contributed to along with Tombseye. Incidentally, it also happened to be Misplaced Pages's 1000th (see press release and article). In addition to this, I've worked hard to improve other articles: History of Azerbaijan, Western New Guinea to name a few. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I will continue my work here.
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: Yes, I've normally had conflicts over controversial articles. During the dispute, I've kept cool, not made any personal attacks (even when I was attacked), and tried to work things out and explain things to the user or users. Sometimes a dispute will be resolved immediately, sometimes they drag on much longer. However, I try to remain reasonable and attempt compromise (or agree to compromises put forth). In the future, I will continue to do this.
To add-on: I was placed on probation for edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. It was lifted early, on September 10, 2006 due to good behavior. What I've learned from this is that edit wars get nothing accomplished. Editing isn't meant to be a game of football—when things are discussed, disputes are always solved faster. I admit that since then I haven't strictly abided to the one-revert rule all the time, but I hardly ever revert three times, and when I make a revert, I'll leave an edit summary like "see talk page"—so I can direct things where they're supposed to be. That's how I think it's made me a better editor. —Khoikhoi 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)



100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.
4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Misplaced Pages? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Misplaced Pages administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?
To me, I try to follow both most of the time. Both policies and guidelines give us good points on how to follow things. Also, both admins and non-admins should follow them. I believe that just because someone is an admin, they don't get a free pass to out of WP:NPA or WP:3RR. We must remember that we're all Wikipedians, and admins especially have greater responsbility. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
5. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?
Hmmm, it appears to be a red link...am I missing something? —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I think WP:IAR has it's merits, but should be viewed at with extreme care. I also think it can be followed for small issues, but not large ones. For example, there was an issue on a certain article about whether we should wikify a word or not. One user argued that it violated WP:MOS to do so. I remembered seeing similar instances in other articles—where certain words were wikifed incorrectly. I thought that the issue at this certain article wasn't that big of a deal anyways, so this was when I applied WP:IAR. I don't normally follow it, however.
Regarding WP:SNOW: I'll have to get back to you on this one! —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
6. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Misplaced Pages? Anomo 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
(Will try to answer later) —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Khoikhoi's editcount summary stats as of 00:11, October 14 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)


Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.


Support

  1. Support I've seen Khokhoi around and (s)he is a very useful contributor indeed and would benefit from admin tools. Has obviously learned from past mistakes of edit warring.--Konst.able 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I offered to nominate him last week, so that's a definite yes. >Radiant< 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support just came across this user today. Looks great- good luck! --Alex (Talk) 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support I am very pleased to see you nominated here. You do a very nice job. Valentinian 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A name that I have seen so often around WP spaces that I thought they were already an admin. (aeropagitica) 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Merovingian ※ Talk 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Crazy 40,000 edits Support. Although this user has a questionable past, I have no worries or doubts about the user at this very moment. In fact, I have seen this user everywhere and I am impressed. Best of luck with the RfA. Nishkid64 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. A worthy user, and gets a definite yes from me for his sock-hunting alone. -- Grafikm 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong support. We need more admins on controversial topics, not less. I've never seen anything to make me doubt this user and I was surprised when I looked at the previous RfA (I found it while digging around months ago.) I still think the project would greatly benefit from giving Khoikhoi admin tools. YES I KNOW ABOUT THE ARBCOM/PROBATION THING. His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book. Grandmasterka 01:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. 2x edit conflict Unbelievably strong support. Give the man the mop, he can only do good things with it. I cannot believe the last one didn't work out. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Shoulda mentioned the arbitration case, but I'm still supporting you. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I voted oppose in his last RfA, and with good reason. I'm proud to say that my concerns are now dealt with. Over the past year, he has made a strong effort not only to be more concious of policies, but to find different ways to contribute, even when unable to edit in his primary area of interest. Khoikhoi would, and WILL, be a great admin. --InShaneee 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support without hesitation -- Samir धर्म 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support The added tools given to him would only benefit this project. A great user. --Siva1979 01:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support He always doing more valuable work, and being civil in every situation. Daniel5127 (Talk) 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Goddamn absolutely. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I've seen this user's (good) work countless times. Will make an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support I've seen khoikhoi in action in intense eastern-european-nationalism-conflicts, and he has always looked very poised, calm, and rational. We need firm but civil admins like him to defuse disputes. Borisblue 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Khoikhoi made some very good edits to a page on a former Russian Prime Minister. I've seen nothing but hard work from him so far. KazakhPol 04:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support no hesitation - a prolific editor. Rama's arrow 06:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support - long overdue abakharev 07:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Khoikhoi is a prolific, productive, and thoughtful editor. He's a fine writer (having do-authored the 1000th featured article, too ), pitches in with combating vandalism, and has been invluable in fighting problem banned users like Bonaparte and -Innana-. He's sensible and cool, and I think adminship is well deserved. I would have been pleased to nominate. Dmcdevit·t 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Khoikhoi is, thus far, the only editor to have been put on probation, to have continued to edit prolificly, not to have left Misplaced Pages, and to have had the probation removed after no restrictions had been applied. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support; needs block button asap. Please keep up the rc patrol of course!--Andeh 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, have seen you involved in process for a long time, and well deserves the mop. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, I have come across Khoikhoi a few times in my travels in wikipedia and I've only seen good reports although I am not sure he is a Khoikhoi. --Jcw69 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, not one yet? With the experience and the time span here, he will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support so he can stop flooding WP:RFPP and protect those disputed articles himself! ;-) --Srikeit 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong Support I was under the impression that Khoikhoi was already an admin, and apparently he isn't, so I'm certainly in favour of giving him the buttons so he can become one hoopydink 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support - Good user -- Lost 14:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Has taken a drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation, and become a productive and friendly editor. I can trust Khoikhoi, and I believe a change for the best has occured. Loyality exists greatly here. Yanksox 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Hell yes ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 16:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Trustworthy, friendly editor. Xoloz 16:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Suport Respected and good user. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Petition accepted late, but present. - Francis Tyers · 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Lot of respect for Khoikhoi's work whenever we've crossed paths. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. G.He 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I've seen him around a lot and think that he would make good use of the tools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. impressive attitude. ITAQALLAH 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. -Will Beback 19:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. For Khoikhoi, the tools would be well deserved and hard earned.-- danntm C 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Weak Support per his probation. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Has redeemed himself and is now a valuable asset to Misplaced Pages in almost any way one can imagine. --physicq (c) 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  46. El_C 23:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. --Ligulem 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support; what I've seen has been excellent indeed. Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Jaranda 02:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Yay!  Jorcoga  02:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Has made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, and I have no problem trusting him with the tools.--§hanel 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support - per this edit --T-rex 04:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. I remember and was briefly involved in the controversy that caused his probation. Even then, he struck me as one of the more civil and reasonable editors (though that wasn't saying much) within a vicious nationalist battle, and as has been noted he has only improved since. I've no doubts at all about supporting him. Chick Bowen 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. MaxSem 11:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Misplaced Pages needs hard workers. --Odysses (☜) 12:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support without any hesitation. We need more admins like Khoikhoi. - Darwinek 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  57. Weak Support convinced that he's grown and is a hard worker, but have to say he could contribute a bit more to AfD discussions he participates in. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Khoikhoi was one of the first people I encountered on Misplaced Pages, and I've seen many good things from him since. Khoikhoi will make a fine admin. DVD+ R/W 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - I thought this user was an admin already.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support -- He's ready now. Saravask 23:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  61. Strong support - always calm, rationale and plays it straight, and one of the few who are willing to go into nasty areas and stop POV pushing on nationalism related battles. Very few people have the courage to go in there to a mess and clean up. Khoikhoi is not one for parading about. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support - definitely. - Richardcavell 00:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Should have been promoted years ago. I hope this RfA will not be hijacked by trolls as the previous one was. --Ghirla 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  64. Strong support, no hesitations whatsoever. Khoikoi is a diligent and dedicated contributor, and one whom it is always a pleasure to deal with. I second Ghirla's sentiments about the previous RfA above, and note that Khoikhoi's willingness to combat and forestall the more egrarious examples of nationalistic POV-pushing (of all hues) is an asset to the project. It may give rise to the occasional conflict or yelp of complaint, but in my experience it's those with one-sided pro- or anti- views pushing their barrows oblivious to any other, not Khoikhoi. The vast range and scope of Khoikhoi's contributions provide many more reasons to support, and I've no doubt Khoikhoi will prove an able and responsible admin.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support I've found Khoikhoi to be a good user, and have no problems with supporting. Thε Halo 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Wha', he ain't one? Duja 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support in recognition of his diplomatic skills.--Kober 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support as per his hard work, dedication to NPOV and friendly attitude. Ldingley 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Ah, the inspirational tale of a revert warrior-turned-admin material. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support' For a while I actually assumed he's already an admin. He is extremely neutral when it comes to controversial issues, maybe even too neutral :)--Eupator 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  71. Strong Support - I believe Khoikhoi not to be simply a good editor, but one of the very best of wikipedia. His dedication in opposing pov-pushing and in countering nationalistic bias has been truly heroic, and has earned him an endless number of personal attacks. Without an editor like him, nationalistic bias and neglect of policy would be much major in controversial articles.--Aldux 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support - I thought he was an admin already as well. I've seen his edit history and it's something alright Fedayee 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support - Of course. Errabee 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support In hope that Onisilos bees will guide you as an admin Aristovoul0s 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose User:Khoikhoi has an organized group to purvey the NPOV on wiki and is discriminating the users on national basis. Sosomk 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Care to produce some evidence to back up your accusations? -- Grafikm 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    No, I don't care, because you belong to his posse. ] Sosomk 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    You don't get to make incivil accusations here either. Watch your tone. --InShaneee 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, since wiki is not a democracy. Sosomk 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I am going to ask for a diff in this case. It's a pretty strong claim and yet you have provided no proof -- Tawker 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, seeing as I had to delete a personal attack by Sosomk against Khoikhoi on his own userpage, which he reinstated here , I don' think there's much to say. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Can you explain why is that a personal attack? Don't you watch news? North Korea is celebrating its Communism by Kim Jong-il bolstering his authority with nuclear weapons. Communism is just a political ideology and if you think that it is a peronal attack that's your political POV. As far as dictatorship, I think it is fair to call someboby a dictator, who chooses authority over legitimacy. Talk:Sukhumi, Yours truly Sosomk 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for far too much nationalistic POV warring: see the RfAr case Thatcher cites. I don't see enough change since then. Jonathunder 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I would just like to point out that the remedy (probation) set by ArbCom was lifted unanimously several months after. I think it shows his will to reform more than enough... :) -- Grafikm 20:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, one of the arbitrators wished it was he who nominated Khoikhoi for adminship. See his vote above. --Ghirla 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, after reading your initial response to Q3 and the facts that came to light since then I can't support you for now. I also don't believe you that you "forgot" your arbitration case, which ended last month. I recommend you withdraw and reapply later with full disclosure. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I hope I'm not badgering you, but I think you misunderstood what I meant, which was that I didn't forget about the arbitration case I was involved in (which ended in May), I forgot to add the fact that I was on probation for #3. To be totally honest, probation played no factor in my daily life on Misplaced Pages. The arbitration especially–with Aucaman's disappearance–I hardly thought of it at all. So when it came to answer question 3, it just slipped my mind. That's the truth and there really isn't much more I have to say. —Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, your answer to Q3 raises none of the issues that came out here (and to a certain extent in your piror RFA), so it is already evasive to begin with. I'm inclined to believe the various testimonies that you haven't engaged in those activities in the recent past, and the probation lift speaks to that, but given the fact that you had a past of rather extensive edit warring one would expect of you to be more forthcoming about the facts and then make the case for yourself rather than just gloss it over and pretend nothing happened. That's why I recommend that you withdraw this candidacy and start over, since this RFA is essentially tainted by the fact that 60 editors voted for you before you came clean on that part of your past. I don't even see much need for a lengthy delay until your next candidacy, just start out with a frank answer to Q3 so that editors can assess you based on full information. ~ trialsanderrors 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thatcher131 brought it up on 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Khoikhoi's timestamp in declaring the ArbCom incident: 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Last unaware vote was #47 by Ligulem on 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Of these 47 users:
    1. User:Riana dzasta re-accepted
    2. User:Grafikm fr re-edited defending Khoikhoi
    3. User:Alex Bakharev re-edited defending Khoikhoi
    4. User:Francis Tyers obviously monitors, since he is the nominator
    5. User:Radiant! obviously knows since he "would nominate him last week"
    6. User:Dmcdevit re-edited defending Khoikhoi
    7. User:Physicq210 knows ("redeemed himself")
    8. User:Konstable knows ("learnt from past mistakes")
    9. User:Nishkid64 knows ("has a questionable past")
    10.User:InShaneee knows ("Over the past year, he has made a strong effort...")
    11.User:Fys knows ("...to have had the probation removed...")
    12.User:Yanksox knows ("...drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation...")
    13.User:Slgrandson knows ("Weak Support per his probation")
    14.User:Grandmasterka ("YES I KNOW ... His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book")
    So we're stuck with the rest 33. I suggest they re-edit their votes to signify acceptance, and then we notify the rest through talk. That's another 14 users who knew and obviously noted he didn't say so in Q3 before you, but were not as nit-picky to request repetition of poll! --Biased proKhoikhoian false-anon! 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    15.User:Ghirlandajo Russian POV pusher. Oppresser of E European users, who discriminates users on national basis.Sosomk 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    16.User:Aldux Another member of the posseSosomk 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. I think I was off by a day with my count, so your 47 might be more accurate. My point about the evasive answer to Q3 remains. I also propose you read WP:CIVIL. ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    Err, that's 33, and I am sorry you find "nit-picky" incivil. --Tendentious proKhoikhoian 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per concerns raised by Trialsanderrors, Thatcher131, Williamborg, history of editwarring, 3RR violations and lack of candour about history means I can't trust with tools just now. Pete.Hurd 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was monitoring many of these battles and I would dare say that in all cases I am aware of Khoikhoi's influence was strongly positive. He has a natural talent for moderating conflicts between nationalists POVs. Arabic-Iranians, Turkish-Iranians, Turkish-Greek, Turkish-Kurdish, Kurdish-Iranian, Iranian-Azeri, Georgian-Abkhazian-Russian, Greek-Macedonian, Romanian-Hungarian are not all of the hot editorial wars where he managed to steer conflicts over multitudes of articles into some neutral and even cooperative state. You know if we have a conflict between editors from country X and from country Y and nobody else care it is often degenerated to the state then all editors from a country supports their "patriotic" POV, trolls and socks from both sides indulge into awful nationalist attacks and no dispute resolutions appear to be feasible (only arbcom with banning virtually all editors from both sides). In many of such cases you have to act very fast - if there is a nationalist attack from a troll it should be reverted immediately, before the moderates from the other side responded in kind, destroying all the fragile peace. Admin then can protect the article, semiprotect it, block the troll, merge the histories of copypasted articles, speedy the attack pages, etc. A moderator that is not an admin under attacks from both sides can only revert inflammatory edits and wait for help from admins (that is quite often very late) and the 3 reverts at this situation are used very fast. I believe it was the reason for all these 3RR blocks on Khoikhoi's block list. Recently, I was trying to help Khoikhoi using my administrative tools and I am really impressed by the wisdom of his advice. It looks like I got an undeserved credits for Khoikhoi's good work, but you know, I sleep sometimes or do some other off-wiki activities. In short I do not think that Khoi's 3RR violations should be interpreted as him been a nationalist edit warrior, it is quite opposite he is a battered peacekeeper and moderator badly in need for the tools Alex Bakharev 08:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above.  Grue  08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose POV warrior - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I urge Bcrats to examine carefully votes of those opposers who fail to provide specific diffs. This comment, as well as Grue's change of vote, made me pause. I see that my energetic support of Crzrussian's RfA may have been premature. --Ghirla 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I'm a bit disappointed with Crzrussian as well... :( Crz run a RFA after a recall for reasons that were what they were, yet a lot of people (including me) gave him his support, because they were confident he learned from the incident that led to his recall. Yet now, he refuses to give his to a most excellent contributor who reformed a lot. Sad... :( -- Grafikm 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I withdraw my oppose in light of the time period that elapsed. However, Graf, RfA is certainly not a quid pro quo endeavor. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I never said it was one, Crzrussian, however it would seem to me these two situations are quite similar. Consequently, refusing your support to someone in a similar situation while you personally benefited from the community's support, who believes you won't commit the same things again, is not an ideal situation. Please believe it for Khoikhoi as well :) -- Grafikm 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Irksome bullying of oppose voters by supporters. -Lapinmies 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    And was it your intention to combat such "bullying" by coming up with the least reasonable oppose here? Khoikhoi made one rational comment to an opposer, so I have to assume you are talking about the other people responding to opposers? The reason you have given has absolutely no bearing on Khoikhoi's potential as an admin. Not to mention that none of those questioning opposers seem to be doing anything more than engaging in mild-mannered disagreement and discussion. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Never. Ever. Vandal, POV edit warrior, sock-puppeteer - as recent as Contributions/Blurb sock & Special:Contributions/Blurb-sock, it seems. Promote him, and I predict he'll eventually be in front of the WP:RFAr getting desysopped. -- Netoholic @ 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence at all for these personal attacks and wild accusations? Well, actually, you can't. But thanks for leading me off into a checkuser investigation that led to the discovery of several Bonaparte socks and open proxies. Dmcdevit·t 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. My first instinct is to support, but I am disappointed Khoikhoi didn't mention the arbitration case he was involved in in answer to question 3. (Khoikhoi was placed on probation for a year for edit warring, which was lifted 6 months early for good behavior.) Thatcher131 00:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral—Khoikhoi was found to have engaged in persistent edit warring with regard to Persia- or Iran-, Turkish-, and Kurdish-related articles , , . He was blocked for edit warring at Iranian peoples and for 3RR violation on four other occasions . His probation was lifted early; a good sign. But honesty & diplomatic candor are virtues in administrators. I agree with Thatcher131] that this should have been acknowledged & addressed more directly in the answer to question 3. Williamborg (Bill) 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral to oppose I don't like the fact that Khoikhoi did not mention the arbitration case. Yes Khoikhoi got the probation lifted early, but is there any reason for why Khoikhoi could not have mentioned it here on this page? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I really just forgot (honestly). I've now added it (see above). —Khoikhoi 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, I can go with that, though I am going to wait for a bit to see what happens —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Good editor I suppose, but the ultra-Iranianness points toward irrationality. AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)