Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Kils

final (8/14/3) ending 21:44 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Uwe Kils is a long-time contributor and former admin. The time has come to once again lay the mantle of admin upon him so that he can better serve the Wikipedia community! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:44, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Note: last RfA ran from January 18, 2004 to January 26, 2004. Lupo 09:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I accept - thank you all for your time - I never expected to get 8 supports and 3 neutral after the campaigns of some new sysops - that was much better than last time - I was never an easy person, was never polite on all price - "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

John F. Kennedy, 1963 [1]
will stick to editing and spend the rest of my days for the Virtual University proposals - uwe kils 68.46.71.104 22:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    Allow me to explain a bit. I do not believe that Kils will do anything like he did previously, so there is no danger (in my mind) that he will abuse his admin powers. Secondly, there is a lot of confusion about the identities of a few Users who some seem to think are sockpuppets of Kils. I say we take him at his word that they are accounts started by groups of students or colleagues of his. I see no evidence to the contrary. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. El_C 22:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) — I'm a concrned with his responses, and I note some of the comments bellow. Therefore, I'm withdrawing my support vote, which I may or may not reinstate. El_C 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) — With some pressing items having been clarified to my satisfaction (and also with the hopes that Kils will continue contributing to WP), I am restoring my support vote. El_C 04:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. SUPPORT. after much deliberation, i believe that Kils did not make sock puppet oceanographer, and i feel that Kils deserves another chance. Kingturtle 22:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I really had to do quite a lot of research on this one, but I feel quite confident in my decision. The problem from 2003 is serious indeed, but it is ancient history by wikipedia standards, and the intervening two years without sysop status has been punishment enough. As far as the recent business with Oceanographer, only Oceanographer knows for sure what's going on, but I feel we should give Kils the benefit of the doubt. A student writing a vanity page for their professor is not unlikely... in fact it happens all the time! I'm inclined to believe Kils about that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tentatively support. This one, like what Starblind said, was a tough choice. I looked through all the old records, read Uwe Kil's response at my user talk page, and looked at his edit history. Though his count is overinflated because of his responses to users, he does have over 1500 edits. Looking at his article edits, he has contributed a lot of quality substance, including multiple pictures, graphs, and data. Also, I believe that he has learned from the past- regardless of who is to be blamed. Note that the old logs claimed it was "temporary" de-sysop-ing (is that a word?); one year seems to be more than enough for a "temporary" period. Also, we must give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the sock puppets... I'm sure there are kids out there who will do that. And the blanking of user pages? I'm sure that was a rash action that he won't repeat again. If he does, though, we can always de-sysop him again. One year seems plenty of time for a Wikipedian to regret his actions (presuming that he is responsible for those alleged actions). For now, though, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and re-admin him. However, this is only a tentative support- no one opposing him has responded to my comment or has given a clear, concise (one paragraph or less) view of why he should not be re-admin-ed (again, is that a word? lol). If someone does (which would make it a lot easier rather than trying to piece together tons of different sources with different views on what happened) I will reconsider my vote and make another educated decision. Thanks! (Whew, what a long support vote!) Flcelloguy 18:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, good Wikipedian. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Weak support. I'm concerned that if given sysop privileges again Kils will again use his position to remove articles that he deems offensive, that being said I think that he should be given another chance. Jtkiefer 08:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Weak support. I'm afraid I wasn't here when this first controversy happened, but I am willing to accept his statement that he will not abuse his powers. Furthermore, having been involved in the Vfd (minorly), I really don't think those users are sock-puppets of himself. My support is only weak because I don't have first-hand knowledge of the previous controversy. --Scimitar 14:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Tentatively oppose. The timing is peculiar at best in light of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils. While sockpuppets are not forbidden, the fact that it played a role in his desysoping makes continuing use of multiple accounts worrisome. Also, if Kils is returning to a greater level of activity and proposing to resume adminship, I am concerned about his familiarity with present community norms. I'm not sure the answer to the third question below can be considered sufficient, and I think we need Kils to elaborate a little more. --Michael Snow 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    I do not like the allegations about me - I am not user:oceanographer, I made them Uwe Kils 23:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The sockpuppet allegation is not good, but I am also worried about this user's poor spelling and English (see his comments about his de-sysop and how he answers the Admin questions). Harro5 23:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    You just believe everything you read? Uwe Kils 23:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Regrettably Oppose. Unilaterally "cleaning" wikipedia and removing the discussion it generates did not and does not inspire confidence for suitability as an admin. But don't take it too hard, all the interesting stuff on wikipedia can be done by non-admins; The flip side of adminship is no big deal is that not being an admin isn't that big a deal either. --W(t) 00:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I am afraid. This user appears to take criticism too personally, this makes me question whether he has the right mindset for adminship. Also I find his answer to question 3, if not dishonest, is at least circumventing the truth, I cannot support a candidate who does not operate with complete transparency. Rje 00:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I do not like these tones - I am not user:oceanographer - I made them and tried to get them into wikipedia - and I was not user:viking - I made them - It's not much fun these days with coworkers like you - I have so many students I could ask to program for me, but I did not - I had enough publicity in my life Uwe Kils 00:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I do not wish to pick a fight with you, I was merely expressing my honest opinion. Personally I did not consider the sockpuppet issue, it cannot be proved one way or the other. But I will say that I believe that my suggestion that you cannot take criticism has just been affirmed. Rje 00:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    I just hate being accused falsely - especially in a project where I put much work and many images and videos into over years voluntarily, and in over 1000 edits touching dirt only once - the fisting article we changed had even an advertisement for a cream in it and was like a handbook, and nobody cared - but that is not the first time in my life paying a price for taking a stand - I do not want to erase any pages, just thought it would be time to get out of the "temporary" punishment (which was done without a vote!) - at that time I erased only the talk page of the by us created user:viking account because I did not want my children linked to fisting discussions Uwe Kils 02:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Something's fishy here (pun fully intended). Neutralitytalk 03:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose. RickK 05:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. There's nothing specific I can point to, but I don't have a good feeling about this person as an admin. --Carnildo 06:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Prof. Kils is very welcome to step up his contributions to this encyclopedia again, but he doesn't need to be an admin to do that. I count exactly 83 contributions from Nov 1, 2004 to May 22, 2005, and basically no involvement with housekeeping tasks. I am kinda sorry that the old de-adminning story keeps haunting him, but he'll have to earn our (or, at least, my) trust again first. Lupo 09:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. User:Lupo has already worded my feelings perfectly. 131.211.210.14 10:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    (Oops, forgot to login, that was my vote - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC))
  10. Oppose. I agree with Lupo. The current lack of involvement for the past few months does not convince me that there is a need to be promoted again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  11. Vague oppose. I also had to do a lot of research on this (as I thought about supporting him), but feel that the benefit of the doubt should not be given. If anything goes wrong it will be difficult to de-sysop him again (for good). JuntungWu 13:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    I don't understand your assertion that it would be difficult to de-admin him if anything goes wrong. If anything, his "prior record" would seem to make it even easier. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    In the sense that it is difficult to de-admin anyone. JuntungWu 13:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I'm a little worried about his English, and more worried by his rather snappish responses to criticism. Reading through his replies, I'm unable to work out what he means sometimes (e.g., "I am not user:oceanographer - I made them"), and if he can't keep his temper here, when one would have expected him to be on his best behaviour, then there are definite concerns more widely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I would have remained neutral on this issue, but this users contradictory responses, their comments on vfd/Uwe_Kils, and their replies to issues raised here, all give me concerns as to their interpersonal skills and suitability for adminship. Anilocra - (hi!) 15:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Responses on this page make me uncomfortable. Andre (talk) 19:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. I remembered the events that lead Kils to be unsysoped. It was necessary to do so, and if he is made a sysop again, I would caution him to be extremely careful in his actions. He could possibly be given another chance though ? What worries me here however, is that he seems to take the comments of editors remembering of such events quite strongly. And that does not seem to preclude good things imho. Anthere
  2. I fully endorse Antheres words, and would add that although it has been made clear to Uwe that his desysöpping was not in the nature of a punishment, and that his legitimate contributions are highly regarded by most all, he appears constitutionally unable to not raise his hackles at the slightest crosswise word. This is not an impediment to sysophood in itself, there are plenty of prickly roses among the adminhood; most likely pricklier than he was at the time of his desysopping. He should take the constructive advice he has been given to heart. Also, I would say as a side comment that his denigration of editors who have not chosen to edit with their real names is a bit rich, considering that he has spurred the creation of two highly pseudonymous (even communal) usernames, which to say Vikings and Oceanographer. If he wishes to condemn those users, he can easily do so, privately, off-wikipedia. Personally I don't see anything wrong with psaudonymous editing, as long they don't borach best practises. -- Cimon 00:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I will change my vote to support if Kils can present us with a statement that proves that he is of the mindset that is suitable to become an admin again. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
thank you, Alex. I will never erase anything in Wikipedia again, work only together with the ideagiver Prof Dr. Dr. h.c. Gotthilf Hempel for the vision of a free cyber university, like our proposals in Wikiversity. We are so many coworkers and students and family that we could have opened hundred wiki accounts, all voting for us, but such was never our style - we are used to work in groups (schooling) -
and in a group every member can make an additional wiki account before one can call it sock - user:viking was my family, user:vikings were friends from Scandinavia, user:oceanographer are scientists and friends working for the idea of proposing a cyber university - I got mad when oceanographer showed me this and asked Dante when the ban would be over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADante_Alighieri&diff=14214269&oldid=14214194 - we did not expect the reaction and multi-campaign of Michael Snow, the lawyer - it would be nice if you could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils and make a vote - it would be good to have as ref point for teacher of wikiversity, that is much more important for us than adminship - I would like to have the punishment ended after so much time - (PS I am retired, do not need extra web space or documentation for my carrier)

keep up with your fine work 68.46.71.104 14:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC) that was from Uwe Kils 14:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • What do you mean, former? Why former? Everyking 21:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, Kils' de-adminship from 2003 predates my editing period. Can someone who is familiar with the situation specifics summarize for us newbies why he was de-sysopped in the first place? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a mailing list conversation relating to this, from late May 2003 to early June. For what it's worth, I *was* here, supported his de-adminning at the time (as a temporary measure) and feel that it's appropriate to re-admin him at this time. The mailing list archives are here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • This post in particular seems to give the reasons for his temporary desysopping. — Dan | Talk 22:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I changed with my children this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fisting&oldid=975276 and did it not anonoumesly. I appologized and Jimbo accepted http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004082.html Uwe Kils 22:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was responsible for removing Kils' sysop status back in 2003; see Dante's mailing list post above. I am still cautious because Uwe held some very strong views about "decency" on Wikipedia back then and wanted us to remove articles that deal with particular sexual practices, for example. I certainly think that one mistake (the sock puppetry and deletions) shouldn't be held against him forever, but I would also like him to pledge to respect the deletion policy, and not to delete articles or images without community consensus.--Eloquence* 00:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Guten Tag Herr Eloquence Das nennt Ihr Demokratie? You kicked me out without any vote, wrote to your colleagues it would be "temporarily". The fisting article which we changed was a handbook, the clitoris article (at that time the most visited page of young Wikipedia) had a stolen and rotten popup image. And nobody of the admins cared, it was at least a copyright problem. I deleted only the talk page of the by us created group user page viking, after it filled rapidly with ugly fisting discussions of overeagerly -mostly anonymous- admins. After the new and false accusations of the lawyer Michael Snow and his many actions against us I am not so shure if I even want to be part of a sysop group of which most are not even willing to give their name to the project. In the German Wikipedia my krill page had counts at least close to the Klitoris page. Lawyers like Michael Snow or Ziegenbein are the reason that the once exponential developments of human knowledge in the universities and Wikipedia are declining in the recent years and are slower than possible, and many of the contributers who started the wiki don't understand why some of the new admins are so eager to erase valid content, often without taking the time to verify. Space is there enough on the many new harddrives bought with our donations. Many of the people voting agains the end of the ban have not donated one image or one dollar to the project. I am retired and do not need any more documentation, what we did was to make information more credible and transparent. I have since the first days of the web my own scientific web server http://www.ecoscope.com where I can put anything I like. Michael Snow cut even the sentence "worked in Antarctica on krill" and claimed in the discussion he could not verify it. He needed only to read Science Magazin or Nature Magazin or search on google for krill and kils or look on the krill page for the copyright of the images (krill lives only in the Antarctica). But he was only on his erase trip. Now the page, which was a group exercise with my students (together you are strong!), makes no sense. The page was intended as reference for some of our results we wanted to donate free to wikipedia in lay terms, but the fun is gone. The reaction of the young sysops is what I expected. It's the reason the growth curves don't abend up as they used to do, and the reason so few professionals are willing to give their name and material to wikipedia - it will still grow amazingly, but not as good as possible - I am at least very satisfied with the counts of the pages I started and the communication from them - I could do more but if you don't want it, OK - my students Michael Snow scared away - UK 66.208.213.26 15:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Uwe, but you clearly still don't realize that what you did was wrong (you vandalized an article, see WP:POINT), and you misrepresent the facts (there was no pop-up, you deleted your own talk page as well as Viking's). Like all others here, I welcome your contributions to the Wiki, and I hope you will continue sharing them with us. I do not support sysopship at the present time.--Eloquence* 17:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I am also sorry, Eric. On the German and other servers the clitoris image was behind a warning, which we educators found much better and suggested, and it did not pop up with the spreading fingers in the face of the (often young)visitor. If you all think the erasing of my own pages reasons yearlong exclusions - so I live with it, I rather go windssurfing after my retirement. I will stop now the communication in this matter (all is stored and distributed and I am getting sick of being confronted with old discussions on the web and within wikipedia) and return to science and education. Apparently three price granter and the immigration office and faculty were all wrong - Thank you, Dante, Viel Glueck UK 66.208.213.26 18:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, English is clearly not User:Kils' first language, and there may be some confusion about terms. I think it may be premature to call it misrepresentation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC) Also, in El's defense, even though the removal was supposed to be temporary, Kils' apology (linked above) indicated that he no longer wished (at that time) to be an admin, making the temporary removal a de facto permanent one. This incident should not be characterized as El unilaterally permanently removing admin status from Kils without due process. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am a bit inclear here. Was it actually determined or not that user:oceanographer was a sockpuppet of Kils? Kingturtle 02:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's been determined concretely, although the evidence pretty clearly suggests communication between the two accounts outside of Wikipedia at a minimum. However, I'm puzzled about what Kils means by "I made them and tried to get them into wikipedia" under these circumstances. --Michael Snow 02:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think he means that they're his children and he "made" them, as in he begat them... which is... weird. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I meant I made oceanographers out of them, that is my profession Uwe Kils 03:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • What you mean then, is that they were your students, and you helped them become oceanographers, that the they created user:oceanography. is that correct? Kingturtle 03:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a plausible theory. However, it's interesting to note that Oceanographer, a new account, left this comment on User talk:NoPuzzleStranger, before any of this came up. The comment mentions Uwe in the third person, but also talks about "wikipedia (which we helped starting many years ago)", a reference that sounds like an unconscious admission of the user's real identity. --Michael Snow 16:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        • One of my fine students also started http://www.fishbase.org many many years ago with 28 000 fishes and 11 million visitors per month, another OBIS with 5.253.721 sites - we do not know what Michael Snow wants with his multipage actions - such a climate is new in wikipedia - UK 68.46.71.104 22:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment: Could both sides give their story in a brief explanation please? That would make this voting a lot easier... Flcelloguy 19:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

-Kils has responded on my talk page. Will someone from the "other" side give a clear and concise reason for opposition? That would be really helpful in deciding, thanks! Flcelloguy 22:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks Lupo!

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I will continue to develop wikipedia into a teaching tool, I am a professor, donated over 100 images to wikipedia, since April 1993 - I would like the punishment beeing ended, it said "temporarily revoked"
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. krill and atlantic herring and oxygen depletion because they cover the fascinating marine systems. My icefish image was picture of the day and featured image Uwe Kils 23:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. no, I like friendship and cooperation - internationally
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Kils_ea89.html"