Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gilliam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Gilliam

Final (54/13/11); Ended Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:13:50 UTC

Gilliam (talk · contribs) - Hello everyone, you may have known me since October 2005 as User:Gilliam and formerly as GilliamJF. In my time here, I have produced 30,000+ edits in a variety of areas. Like my userpage states, I am involved counter-vandalism as well as implementing translation and other resources to improve articles. I also have amassed thousands of edits on the German and Dutch Wikipedias as well. I would use the tools at discretion foremost to combat vandalism. This is my very first time seeking adminship, although it seems like a natural step for me at this time.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would continue to revert vandalism, albeit more effectively. I keep an eye on the Administrator's intervention against vandalism board, the New pages, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names discussion, and the User creation log. I will continue to perform Wikipedia maintenance tasks, such as repairing uncategorized and linkless articles, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am pleased with the overall project's growth, and the sheer amount of work I have contributed, especially to the mainspace. I work closely with Wikipedias in other languages, such as the German featured articles. In this way, I can improve wording and add new facts, making our articles more enjoyable to read. I have worked extensively on coats of arms articles and created lion (heraldry).
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: I have never been involved in an edit-war, and most grief I've suffered from other editors has been in the form of vandalism directed at me.

Optional questions from User:BigDT

4. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A: I am generally patient but firm with inappropriate contributions, and deal with such a situation one step at a time. I am familiar with the various speedy deletion templates, and if a situation arose where one didn't fit, then I would either nominate the page at AfD, or perhaps propose new policy at discussion. - Gilliam 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
5. For what cause(s) may a user be blocked? What are some examples of times when it is appropriate or inappropriate for an administrator to block a user? --BigDT 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A: The most common reasons a block should be applied are violation of 3RR, blatant incivility, obscene username, or vandalism past appropriate warning. It is inappropriate for an administrator to block a user for vindictive reasons, or if the administrator does not fully understand the situation at hand. - Gilliam 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Quick question. According to the edit count on the talk page, you have over 12,000 edits to categories (nearly 50% of you edits). Can you explain that? And can you explain why with all those edits you have only 23 to the category talk page?--Docg 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A: When I started Wikipedia, most of the categories lacked interlanguage links. I added German and Dutch language links as needed. - Gilliam 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? Moreschi Deletion! 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A: I would block an established user for 3RR, harrassment, impersonating an administrator, legal threats, or repeated vandalism. - Gilliam 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
8.And have you written any quality articles - either WP:GA or WP:FA? Moreschi Deletion! 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
A: I have not personally started any articles that meet that standard, but have done quite a lot in the article namespace to improve the prose of many articles. - Gilliam 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
8.B You have by far the most edits of any candidate I have reviewed. I am a bit unsure what to make of your response in the sense that I am unsure how to assess your understanding of the pursuit of excellence as it pertains to editting articles. Can you point me to the example that would best exemplify your understanding of refining articles towards the highest standards.TonyTheTiger 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A to 8.B: I stand by the edits I have made to the articles, and the articles I have pointed out already are my favorites. However, I do not limit my contributions to any area; I have taken up task on the Afrikaans Wikipedia [1], where I have added a category to over 1000 articles lacking a category. - Gilliam 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
9. You have made 66 edits to your own talk page since Jan 06. Do you consider this a surprising statistic? Why does your talk page archive not include the full history? --Dweller 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Because I regularly welcome many anonymous contributors adding interlanguage links, I get thank-yous on my talk page, to which I respond. I have archived pertinent discussions since I chose to simplify my username to Gilliam, and will continue to do so. - Gilliam 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Weakish Support high edit count, however low wikipedia space edits. I think that you should become more involved in the wikispace particularly "XFD's". However looking over everthing else, I think you will be a fine admin. ~ Arjun 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Impressive main space contribution count over a nice period of time. Whether it is from anti vandalism or contributions, they cannot be overlooked. Also good work with categories. This editor is an asset to wikipedia and I am convinced that they could put the tools to good use. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    I would also like to note, a brief perusing of this users contribs shows pretty good involvedment in articles for deletion, categories for deletion, and other wikipedia areas. I am specifically impressed with several afds that they were involved with that an originial Keep per nom was replaced with some sort of decent reationalization. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Good user, been here long enough, high edit count; but I feel that (a) Gilliam doesn't exactly know what areas she wants to focus in, and (b) that her edits are a little overbalanced - only just over 200 WP-space edits, but over 10,000 to categories. Weighing several factors up I think I will weakly support her nomination at this time. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support: Considerable, strong contributions to the project. Dedication is obvious. Patient and professional. He was blocked by User:Mikkalai [2] on December 16, 2006 for reasons unknown. I queried Gilliam about this, and he has no idea what it is about, especially since Mikkalai never said anything to him about it (see Gilliam's talk page history for evidence of lack of communication to him about it). Addendum: while writing this, Mikkalai posted to Gilliam's talk page acknowledging a mistake had been made. Nothing else to suggest in any respect that this user can not be trusted with the tools. He's an asset to the community, has done hundreds of vandalism reverts and deserves the mop. Answers to questions and editing history demonstrate that privilege to use tools is needed and will be used. It's time. --Durin 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support The only valid question in an RfA is: 'can we be confident this user will not abuse the tools'. A longstanding contributor who hasn't caused any problems in the past is highly unlikely to do so. As for areas that this contributor may not be overly familiar with, his/her cautious attitude convinces me that we can expect no trouble.--Docg 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per Doc. Rettetast
  7. Support Doc couldn't have said it better! Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Excellent candidate, well over a year, way too many contribs for your own good. ST47Talk 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Vandal fighters make good admins. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I think this user would be trusted with the tools, and unlikely to misuse them (not malicious misuse but through inexperience/misunderstanding). James086Talk 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I think being here for more than a year, a lot of anti-vandal fighting, lack of conflicts, and a lot of edits are sufficient ground to think that Gilliam is experienced enough and won't abuse the admin tools. As to the project space edits, there'll be time to add to them later. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Over experienced Won't abuse the tools Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support as I believe Gilliam will not abuse the tools, and a review of her edit history indicates a decent knowledge of how the site works. I think any shortcomings will be fixed through experience. I recommend always asking if you aren't sure what to do, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support strong contributor who has good judgment. I don't think she would make speculative admin actions which would cause trouble. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support per Doc. Strong contributor with good head. Won't abuse the extra buttons and can probably make good use of them. (For those who say vandal fighting doesn't need the tools—well, you're right, but rollback, blocking, and protected can be darned handy.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support Your anti-vandalism record makes up for your shortcomings. However, I hope you expand to other areas and diversify your knowledge base in the future. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I don't care where the user does and does not contribute - they are clearly dedicated, competent and trustworthy. Proto::► 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support - only 11 entries at WP:AIV, some, but not much XfD experience, however, I think more anti-vandal admins who are willing to help out with WP:AIV are needed... Addhoc 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Not getting involved in XfD and the like is a plus not a minus. We don't actually need all admins to close deletions. I would tend to oppose candidates who feel that they are "contributing" by mostly posturing in project space. This kind of opposition will lead to editors who would not usually feel the need to contribute to project space, however good their understanding of policy is, wasting their time making contribs to that space that are not actually helpful. Grace Note 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Terence Ong 12:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Weak Support Obviously an excellent, diligent, and trustworthy Wikipedian. I weakly support you because you have very, very few (comparing with 30,000 edits) participation in the projectspace. ← ANAS Talk? 12:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Weak Support Wikipedia space edits is a little concerning, but does do a good job in other areas RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  24. Weak Support per Arjun's support. --Eva bd 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, strong candidate, no significant concerns raised. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support good contributor, good answers. Participates to AfDs, CfDs, AIV, fighting vandals, wikignoming and article writing. Has no major conflicts. Oppose reasons are unconvincing. feydey 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per Doc Glasgow, Proto. For newer editors, wikispace contribs might be an issue, but not really in this case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  28. Weak Support not as well balanced as I would like but an excellent editor none the less. - Patman2648 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  29. Firm Support With that number of edits Gilliam, I can truthfully tell that you would not abuse admin tools. Imageboy1 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. This user has acted in a friendly and civil way in all interactions I looked at. She seems very unlikely to cause any problems. She's very active in reaching out to new users in a friendly way, which I think is important. I don't think edit summary usage is important enough to deny someone adminship based on: how is having the tools going to make that any more of a problem? I also don't see why a user's edits should be balanced across namespaces. Edit count is not a reliable indicator of experience. She's made a big contribution and has a level head; this is a very strong candidate. delldot | talk 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Seems, like a good candidate, but I'd like to see more detail in your answers. Ganfon 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support per above comments. S.D. ¿п? § 13:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Doc, Proto, and Blnguyen have all put it well. Picaroon 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per Doc. That many edits, plus caution, equals very very low probability of tool abuse. Ergo the benefits outweigh the potential costs by a considerable margin. -- SCZenz 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Looks like a very good editor, and there is NOTHING in the oppose votes to suggest that this editor might misuse administrator priviledges. BlankVerse 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Slade (TheJoker) 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Dedicated good-faith editor and no evidence presented to contradict that. --W.marsh 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Hs contributions to this project shows that he is a very dedicated user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support This user clearly understands policy, why not hand them over for his efforts? VD64992 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Gilliam appears to have a good understanding of policy and I do not think that he would wreak havoc were he to be given the tools. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Opposing neutral with tendency to reluctant support. Per nom. Kncyu38 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Seems likely to make constructive use of the tools. Seems unlikely to make bad use of the tools. Most of the opposition seems to amount to "not a contentious metapedian" -- don't we have enough of those already? (It's easier to get incoming talk page traffic with one dodgy edit than with 100 good ones, let's face it.) Alai 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support NoSeptember 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support John254 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support: Admins shouldn't all be clones, and this editor excels in his own areas. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support He spend so much time here! He is dedicated, competent and trustworthy! - Tomas417 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support per editcountitis below. -- Heligoland 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support per Doc. Kusma (討論) 08:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. — CharlotteWebb 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  52. Aye. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Has shown an understanding of policy. Nishkid64 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support I waited a while on this one because I wasn't certain the appropriate disposition seemed plain to me, but I have come to conclude, per, inter al., BlankVerse and Nihonjoe, that the net effect on the project of Gilliam's becoming a sysop should be altogether positive. Joe 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Insufficient projectspace contribution. Answer to Q1 reveals no particular need for admin tools. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not enough projectspace participation, and, per BigDT, infamiliarity with technical projectspace stuff. Adminship is really a technical projectspace involved position. Vandal fighting alone is not a qualification. -Amark moo! 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    How sad I feel that we have taken the step from "adminship is no big deal" to "adminship is really a technical position". No, it isn't! It's not supposed to be a "position", a promotion or any such thing. You're just supposed to get the bit if we have some notion that you won't stuff things up if you have it. I urge you to stop opposing candidacies in these terms. Grace Note 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Agree with Grace. I've been an active admin for months, with next to no incidents, and I am technically clueless. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 12:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, technical was the wrong word there. Now, Grace. First off, where did you read "promotion" into that? Calling something a position doesn't imply that it's a promotion, at least not the way I use it. And my issue is that I have no notion whether or not the candidate will stuff things up, because there are next to no substantial contributions to admin-related tasks not called vandal whacking. -Amark moo! 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose : insufficient participation in XfD and in projectspace/wikispace. Vandal slaying is very important, but I don't see enough here to convince me the tools are needed. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per above, I believe Gilliam is insufficiently experienced with policy and process. >Radiant< 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per lack of Wikipedia edits, only 11 edits to WP:AIV, 2 edits to WP:ANI, no edit to WP:AN, edit summary usage at 85% for major edits isn't very good, user needs more involvement in XfD. High edit count is impressive, but adminship requires more than that. – PeaceNT 12:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    I have less than 11 edits to WP:AIV, and I've been an admin for 9 months. Does this mean I shouldn't have been adminned? Proto::► 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please read the whole sentence before you comment. User lacks contribs not only to AIV. Involvement in all areas isn't required of course, but I would like to see frequent participation in at least one of the key fields AIV/ANI/AN/AfD/MfD etc; which, unfortunately, s/he doesn't have. – PeaceNT 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: please increase use of edit summaries and apply in future. Jonathunder 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Very low, and amazingly disproportionate, edit level in Wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with process. Xoloz 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose While the nominee appears trustworthy, the candidate's history provides no indication that there is a need for the tools or sufficient knowledge of or experience with the various policies that are relevant to exercising admin duties. Will likely support once the nominee demonstrates a need, including edits that demonstrate knowledge of the policies and guidelines. Agent 86 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Low wiki-space edit count per above. Diez2 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, not satisfactory answers to judge. Shyam (T/C) 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Regretful oppose (changed from neutral, below) Just 66 edits to own talk page strengthens my suspicions that this editor does not particularly interact with others, as detected through the comments about the category talk page and the interaction on Wikipages. (To clarify, there are thousands of edits to other peoples' user pages. The fact that comparitively, virtually none have posted back to his, tells a story to me.) To my mind, adminship involves much discussion, explanation and interaction and Gilliam's desert-like talk page doesn't inspire confidence in this area. If I have misjudged, I am happy to revert to neutral; but the answer to my question above, leads me to suspect that Gilliam considers his 66 edits to be many. --Dweller 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I'm just not comfortable with WP-space participation, as above. Sarah 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Unable to support based on answer to my question 8B above. TonyTheTiger 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral 30,000 edits is a lot, but could you do something besides anti-vandalism? Plenty of admins are covering that. Also, can you list any specific articles that you have worked on that are your favorites? Diez2 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose... Diez2 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment- one of my favorite articles that I worked on is James Franco. See also lip, which I created from scratch. - Gilliam 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment on comment - Aren't all articles created from scratch? Kamope · talk · contributions 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
comment on comment on comment' - well what he is implying is that he basically revamped it, rather than a creation. ~ Arjun 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral - if you had to ask why your RFA wasn't being transcluded in the main RFA page [3], then I am kinda scratching my head wondering if you could use a little more experience with certain processes before being given the bit. Also, under 250 Wikipedia-space edits in 1.5 years is kinda light. Still, though, you do an unbelievable amount of anti-vandalism work ... it's just absolutely TREMENDOUS ... and thus I can't bring myself to oppose. If this RFA isn't successful, please consider gaining more experience with the various deletion processes. The purpose of it isn't to participate just to say that you have done it and make a check mark on your resume, but, rather, to demonstrate that you know when to hit the delete button. --BigDT 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Your lack of wiki-space edits is a concern for me as well. You have made superb contributions to the encyclopedia, yes, but very little of what you plan on doing requires a mop; for instance, there's nothing to prevent you from commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names right now (the only thing you can't do is follow-thru with consensus, but there's never any backlog on that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral but regretfully. Firstly, I'm not sure you actually need any of the tools. Your contributions thus far have been excellent and getting the mop would only diminish from what you do. Your answer to Q1 really makes me think it's a case of "why not?" rather than "why?" so perhaps you should just continue to be one of WP's greatest ever non-admin contributors? As above, the lack of Wiki-space edits (a recurring theme) ought to show lack of policy understanding. What it really means is that it's difficult for people voting in RFA's to see that you demonstrate understanding of policy at their convenience. Your 30k+ edits and ~250 wikispace edits is usually a failure criterion for a number of RFA 'voters'. I think you make a massively positive contribution to WP but my biggest fear is that you'd get sucked into things that diminish your contributions. Forget the mop, keep doing what you do best. The Rambling Man 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I'm a little nervous about the candidate. He has good experience contributing to Wikipedia, but he has not convinced me that he will use the administrative tools effectively. YechielMan 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral clearly an outstanding contributor but I'm a bit nervous about the very very low Wikipedia-space edit count. Pascal.Tesson 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning to oppose mainly per worries about Wikispace contributions. --Dweller 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, leaning to oppose - mainly based on looking at the two articles you picked as your favourites that you've worked on. Fine as far as they go, but as your edit summaries correctly say, your contibutions are mostly translations from German Wiki. You really need more general editing experience, then try again. Johnbod 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral since there is a lot that looks good about your candidacy, but ~200 WP space edits don't demonstrate enough familiarity with the key policies that admin tools will allow you carry out. TewfikTalk 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, leaning towards oppose - relatively unimpressed with the low WP space edits. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Just ran into this person today on this article. They had put a speedy tag on it. I removed the speedy tag and cleaned the article up. I am concerned that, had they been an admin, they would have deleted the article on sight. They also failed to say anything to the original contributor about it (admittedly, I don't always warn the original contributor when I tag for speedy myself). I don't think we need admins who would delete potentially useful articles on sight. On the other hand this shows a willingness to learn from mistakes, and makes me think that this won't be a problem if Gilliam is given the tools. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral leaning support. Seems trustworthy. Although I agree with the issues on lack of project space edits, my main issue keeping me from supporting is the amazingly low talk page totals. Admins need to be good communicators, should understand policy pretty well, and well, I just don't see enough here to support an obviously fine Wikipedian. —Doug Bell talk 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. I just can't support you, yet I just can't oppose you. Leaning towards support solely on the grounds of adminship not being a big deal, but we'll see. Strong Neutral :P--Wizardman 05:17, 4 February 2007 (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.