Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bkwillwm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Bkwillwm

final (8/5/10) ending 06:12 December 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bkwillwm (talk · contribs) – I have been a wikipedian since January, 2005. Since joining, I have contributed 1233 edits according to Kate's Tool plus another 100+ on Wikimedia Commons. Mainly, I have focused on expanding and adding articles and finding relevant images. I think my record shows I am a solid contributor who is trustworthy. I would like to become an administrator in order to perform faster reversions and to help take care of some of the backlog in deleting unlicensed images.Bkwillwm 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (self-nom)

Support

  1. Support: not an especially voluminous record of contributions, but appears unlikely to abuse admin tools based on his established committment to the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support per Christopher Parham. I see no reason to deprive this user of the tools. He (or she) has been here almost a year and has been averaging over 250 mostly substantial edits per month since September. This is obviously someone who has been devoting substantial time to Wikipedia and has not made a notable misstep. Let's give him the tools to do the job better. -- DS1953 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. After having a good look through his contributions, he seems a very decent editor and most worthy of being an admin. I certainly see no reason not to trust him with admin priviliges. Dan100 (Talk) 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. I get the impression that most of the neutral and opposing comments ultimately go back to various forms of edit-counting. Evaluating the quality of contributions, on the other hand, shows that this editor eminently understands Wikipedia's aims and can be trusted to advance them. --Michael Snow 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. The key is he won't abuse his powers. Croat Canuck 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support no reason to vote oppose has been presented. freestylefrappe 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support We need more admins (see that backlog?) and nothing indicates that this candidate would abuse the tools. Come back soon if you don't make it this time :) - Haukur 13:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. While I agree with the comments of the opposers and the neutrals, I think Bkwillwm can do a lot of productive work as an admin in the areas with which he is familiar. I don't see him chasing sockpuppets or closing AfDs in the near future, but there are other people to do that. Not every admin has to be a jack-of-all-trades, and I don't see any risk of him abusing his power as an admin. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. You do make good edits, but appear to be lacking in areas of the project, notably: Interaction with other users, projects, and policies. Making use of User_talk is an essential part of dealing with vandals. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Xaosflux (who has excellent taste in names!) While I respect your fine record thus far, I need more project interaction before I am comfortable seeing you as an admin. Xoloz 17:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. No problem with any edits I see, but I echo the need for more involvement in the project namespace and more discussion on user pages, especally if you are reverting vandalism (Look at the {{test}} messages, for example). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Less than 50 wikiname space edits --Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, lack of experience with process, as remarked above. Radiant_>|< 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. You seem to be a very good contributor, with good use of edit summaries, but with less than 50 edits in the project namespace I'm not sure you're quite experienced in the administrative side of Wikipedia. «LordViD» 07:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Good use of edit summaries as lordVid has mentioned, but I'd also like to see more RC and new pages patrol. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning towards support Good contributor, has enough time under his belt but what worries me is the low edit count. Even though I have seen admins with lower edit counts, it would be better off having more. — Moe ε 16:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per LordViD and Xaosflux. I think you would do well to participate more on the Wikipedia: side of things. Also, if you are reverting vandalism, you should always try to warn the user in question to leave a paper trail for dealing with future vandalism. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral great editor, but I'm not sure you'd be a great admin at the moment. Gflores Talk 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. εγκυκλοπαίδεια(talk) 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) I'd like to see him attain a few more edits, but I see no reason to oppose him.
  7. Neutral. Won't oppose, but more user interaction would be good. Will support next time if user participates more in project namespace. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Almost! --King of All the Franks 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutral More experience needed to be ready to become an admin. Will most likely vote next time. Gflores Talk 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. If you come back in a month after you learn to use some of the template messages and get more experience, I'll definitely support your bid. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am most interested in dealing with copyvio images and and reverting vandalism. I often come across images with no-license templates that seem to have sat undeleted for a long period of time. I also keep a close eye on my watchlist and revert vandalism frequently.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. There are several I am proud of. Of those I have started: Jack Jouett, Economics of the Iroquois, and Prehistoric Spain. All of these involved careful research and became very good articles, in my opinion. I am also pleased with my work on History of Virginia and Lollardy. I have added significant contributions to these articles and improved their quality greatly. I also enjoyed translating Spanish transition to democracy, which took a some time, but improved my Spanish and added to Wikipedia's coverage of Spanish history.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have not come into too much conflict. I had one extended debate with another user on Economic inequality. But I feel both of us behaved well, and I was very happy with the result (see Talk:Economic inequality#Economic value is not social value).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.