Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WillC

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] WillC

Final (4/39/3) ended 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WillC (talk · contribs)

I am making my first attempt at adminship. Much of my editing has come in the form of sports, history, and politics, but I often find myself perusing recent changes and clicking the random article button to help and/or fix what I can.

NEW: I laugh at the fact that knowing when information is accurate or being willing to stand up for what is right are deemed negative traits by Wikipedians...the WIKI-agenda is exposed! Come on sheep, pile on some more! This has been quite a case study in human nature. Even in cyberspace, everybody wants to take the easy, popular side and not take a chance on a maverick. I'm not withdrawing...ONE MAN IN THE RIGHT IS A MAJORITY. WillC 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WillC 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:ACCEPTED

Support

First Support. Everything looks in order. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to Neutral until my question is answered WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. second support Why not. No big deal. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Problems listed below were almost a year ago; seems to have shown great growth since. Support. RadioKirk talk to me 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. support Ancient problems Bastique▼parler voir 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose. I'm sorry, but I must oppose. WillC has been blocked by four separate editors, last in March (block log). My personal experiences with him have been poor, primarily at The Dukes of Hazzard (film), where he broke 3RR removing sourced information; when I warned him, he said he'd report me for my "vendetta of vandalism and negativity", that I should "try some diplomacy", and etc. But perhaps most objectionable was his response to my explanation that 3RR is enforced regardless of the "rightness" or "goodness" of any certain edit [1], which was to say "One man in the right is a majority"; he further justified by arguing that he was reverting vandalism. He capped off our exchange about his behavior by telling me to stop "crapping" on his talk page. Another discouraging comment "Talk pages are a free for all." This occurred in February, and while I'll allow that experience may have made him a better and wiser editor, I'd want to see specific examples of recent good judgment; being blocked 48 hours on MayMarch 3 for personal attacks does not make me confident in any change of heart, but I'm willing to listen to his response (I am not a vandal, and certainly have not been blocked or banned.) · Katefan0 (scribble) 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    The last time I was blocked was in March...please read into the circumstances; also, I asked you for help multiple times....furthermore, the Dukes of Hazzard thing was very early on in my career here and should be at least somewhat discounted for that reason. I do, however, believe that administrators are not perfect and that some things are worth fighting for. It is not wrong to stand up for what you believe in. I stand by my comments. WillC 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    You're right, it was March; sorry about that (I've fixed my comments). If you stand by comments such as "stop crapping on my talk page," and even now defend your behaviors, then I have no choice but to remain opposed. · Katefan0 (scribble) 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    I stand by my otherwise objective comments and hope to display similar backbone as an administrator. WillC 23:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You cannot stand by "Stop crapping on my talk page", dude. And these blocks are relatively recent. Unless you completely cleaned up your act in the last 2 months, I need to oppose as well. --Woohookitty(meow) 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose His block log doesn't exactly reassure anybody that he won't wheel war or go off being uncivil. I have seen many comments made by WillC that lack the maturity that goes along with being and admin. DGX 23:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    I have never seen you before. Why haven't you ever commented on my edits before? WillC 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Because I didn't feel like commenting on them before. It wasn't my place too. But now it is my place, I feel placing you at a higher position would not help Wikipedia. And please, responding to your opposition is not helping you prove your point. DGX 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    I've already corrected several errors as stated by administrators on this page, so I think I should comment when appropriate. I will not respond to all or even most. WillC 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Tendency for personal attacks and he did play a role in escalating a conflict with User:Chadbryant. Rhobite 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Rhobite knows Chadbryant is a mischief maker and master of sockpuppets; please let the voters know how many times you've warned/blocked him and banned his sockpuppets; again I stand by my actions. All anyone has to do is look at the archives. WillC 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    It's true that I have blocked both of you before, and I've cautioned both of you due to personal attacks on each other. I see personal attacks you made on Chad in March.. I would require a much longer amount of time to pass before I considered supporting you. Sorry. Rhobite 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, for now. Not yet convinced that enough time has passed since these blocks, and standing by inflammatory comments isn't a good thing. This RfA was a little premature; would be glad to review things in another month or two. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Six blocks in seven months! Has made good edits tho, and if he comes back in six months time (with a clean sheet) I'll reconsider. Moriori 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion about future support after seeing his addition to candidacy statement. A vote for the sheep over the leopard. Moriori 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per User:Katefan0. Also, the candidate's reply to her vote appears to indicate that the candidate can't accept a bit of criticism ("backbone" is okay, but you were blocked more than one; surely you did something wrong). In addition, the editing focus seems quite narrow; it consists almost entirely of articles related to the southern U.S. (although I understand that you may have expertise in that field). Lastly, the candidate has very few project edits (although the encyclopedia is the main focus, admins need to be involved in more than just that) and very few edit summaries, which seems to indicate some lack of interest in conveying what edits mean. I'd like to see more user talk contributions too to better demonstrate community interaction, but I'm not too bothered by that point. Perhaps in a few months I'll support. Maybe August. joturner 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose Needs more project edits like Joturner said......Maybe if he returns in 6 months I'll support him. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  9. Oppose per above.—G.He 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Joturner. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose no need for buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-05-23)
  12. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per above. Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Katefan0. (And don't come to my user talk page to explain yourself or to ask me to reconsider; the evidence is pretty clear in this case.) --Elkman - (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for the same incident referred to by Katefan0 and for removing warnings from his talk page [2] -- MisterHand 04:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose as Joturner points out above, he rarely makes edit summaries, and when he does they aren't helpful, but are potentially inciteful. His "backbone" seems to lead him to continue fights, though thankfully, he doesn't seem to be starting them. I think we should also know why he wants admin powers and tools. It's not really indicated in the self-nom. --Chaser (T, C, e) 05:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I just read through all his edits to Talk:Maryland. He comes off as someone who knows the TRUTH. The arguments get passionate and seemingly quite POV: [3] [4]. Unfortunately, I think he lost his cool in that discussion. There is nothing more horrifying than an administrator who knows the truth. Ted 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Kate and per WillC's response that he stands by his comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Too soon since last block; low usertalk editcount shows little evidence of effective or frequent communication with other users (not necessarily good or bad communication -- there's just not enough evidence to show if it's at a sufficient level). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 09:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Katefan0. --Terence Ong 10:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. In principle, I don't like piling on oppose votes when an RfA is clearly going to fail. If it had just been Katefan0's concerns, I wouldn't have voted. My opposition is based on WillC's statement that he stands by his comments and hopes "to display similar backbone as an administrator." AnnH ♫ 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose so this nom gets removed asap. The Land 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, per my comment below and Ann's concerns. Your "one man on in the right is a majority" motto is extremely dangerous and against the very spirit of consensus, which is the non-negotiable ground on which Wikipedia is built. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    (Corrected Phaedriel's typo) :) Dlohcierekim 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    The saying is, and what I typed was, "one man IN the right is a majority". Big difference! WillC 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well, thank you for correcting my typo, dear Dlohcierekim; and thank you, WillC, for pointing it out. Now that the matter is clear, I hope we can all waste our time in more useful things. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per above and with regard to the block logs.--Jusjih 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, per Phaedriel. --Tone 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose with comment- I was not going to pile on. Then I read his NEW statement under his nom. Sincerely, I wish this had been withdrawn or closed early. However, I am convinced this user does not understand that Wikipeida is based on consensus and collaboration. Wikipedia is not just about who is RIGHT. It is also about working with others in a positive manner. It is about presenting one’s side in a way that is respectful of the feelings and opinions of others. One man who is RIGHT is not a majority if he only thinks he is right. And being RIGHT is not an excuse for incivility or edit warring. He has said “I stand by my otherwise objective comments and hope to display similar backbone as an administrator.” By acting in a manner clearly at odds with Wikipedia’s standards for civility and conflict resolution? Will wheel warring replace edit warring? Any user who has been blocked this many times and blocked so recently, and who so protests his RIGHTNESS, just plain lacks the understanding necessary for adminship. :) Dlohcierekim 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per Dlohcierekim. --Phronima 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, suggest withdraw per the new addition in the self nom and various concerns by editors above -- Tawker 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Would be very concerned at this user being able to block people so soon after having so many blocks himself. He needs to have a good period of solid editing to Wikipedia without any more blocks etc. to give his nomination more chance in the future. --Wisden17 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per above. --Mhking 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose mostly because of his above comments. Insulting wikipedia is not a good way to win our support. --Bachrach44 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose I arrived here incidently, and then was concerned at what I read. SilkTork 22:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strongly Oppose. "Stop crapping on my talk page"? Not cool. Dissing the opposers who are simply giving you the truth? Extremly uncool.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I thought there was no such thing as THE TRUTH on Wikipedia! WillC 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose - WillC's behaviour during this RfA, if not before, guarantee that he's not going to make admin for at least a couple of years. Stay as an editor, please. - Richardcavell 00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - I would have remained neutral, but the comment below the nomination demonstrates a disregard for process, other people's time, an overall attitude of beat-the-system and a desperation for adminship. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. Wouldn't have bothered voting in this landslide failure, but the comment he made in response to clear consensus against him becoming an admin made me annoyed enough to oppose. Otherwise, I cite all reasons above. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 @ 03:18 UTC
  38. Oppose Extremely confrontational... My run in with him is documented at User talk:Ccwaters#ECHL to AHL & Talk:ECHL...See also User talk:Ccwaters#WillC. ccwaters 11:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose per Werdna648. This is one of the very few users that I consider to be too incivil to receive adminship. The conduct of this user during this RfA (especially the part of the statement added at 10:49, 23 May 2006) is not acceptable for admins. Come back in 6 months time if you have changed your attitude. DarthVader 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'm not sure yet. Your edit summary usage is tiny (7% for major edits if I recall correctly) and you have barely any contributions outside the article space. I'll wait before making my mind up. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. per my question below. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm moving to oppose based on the comment below the nomination. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'd like to see some explanations of all these blocks first ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. DarthVader 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning to oppose too soon since the last block abakharev 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, until Lar's question is answered, and I expect a thorough explanation. Will move either side depending on what the nominee has to say. So all the explanation you're willing to provide regarding your blocks is merely to point at your reply to Katefan0's concerns? Fair enough. Moved to oppose. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    It was answered right above Lar's question down below. Furthermore, that "log" in question is linked as my history of moving pages to their propely spelled locations, not blocks. See what I mean about piling on? The people voting here are either too lazy to do their own research about my time here or doublecheck their own work. They just want to be counted in the majority for fear of reprisal from their fellow closed-minded peers. WillC 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm truly sorry that you think this way, Will. Your reasoning, however, fails to explain why I chose to go neutral at first, even at a time when the tendency at your RfA was clearly leaning towards a majority of oppose votes; or why I have voted against a clear majority at other RfAs for different reasons [5] [6]. I did check your block log, and the pages where your edits led to said measures against you; so worry not, for I did my homework before making a decision. Your explanation, unfortunately, did not satisfy me (I expected a deep explanation of the circumstances detailed by Katefan0, and maybe a minimum of self-criticism of your actions, yet you provided none of this) and the final element that made my mind was your new addendum on top, as I state above. So please, instead of accusing me or anyone else of sheep voting, I humbly suggest you to perform a deep analysis and self-criticism of the image of yourself that you've presented here, and guide your future actions accordingly. And if you nominate yourself again at some point in the future with a will to cooperate with the community, instead of rejecting the very concept of consensus, I'll be the first one to congratulate you and support your nomination. Until then, my very best wishes, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral This does not seem like a good time. Perhaps later would be better. #: Change to opposeSuggest withdrawal. :) Dlohcierekim 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username        WillC
Total edits     4640
Distinct pages edited   1947
Average edits/page      2.383
First edit      13:22, April 10, 2005
        
(main)  4180
Talk    110
User    25
User talk       192
Image   1
Template        10
Category        32
Category talk   1
Wikipedia       85
Wikipedia talk  4
 G.He 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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 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 have been vigilant in tagging nn-bio and nonsense articles; I have stressed NPOV and the use of citations in articles. I have fought the good fight in getting sockpuppets banned. I am looking forward to being able to help arbitrate disputes in good faith as I have seen several good editors leave due to content disputes that could have been solved peacefully. I go to the community portal often looking for topics or projects I can add to; I am a member of several wikiprojects and am looking forward to helping organize from the other side so to speak.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I enjoy working on the county/county seats pages and the U.S. roads pages. I think they benefit everyone and the info is sometimes hard to come by. I have been a main contributor in adding to the colume of minor league baseball, NCAA sports, and athletic venues. Probably 75 percent of my 4000+ edits are there. Also, any article where there is an argument over content that needs to be less biased is a challenge. I would offer that I have contributed much to Wikipedia's wrestling and auto racing content, but that may tarnish my image as an academic!
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:Editing conflicts happen every day on Wikipedia. I would not call my involvement in them to be edit wars. Any challenges I have made were in good faith and were largely civil to the extent that one could. Instead of vandalism, I asked for an administrator's advice when necessary. I feel that the end result gave the page in question increased legitimacy each time. Editing is not a competition but a quest for truth. I will continue to keep that in mind if I become an administrator and try to instill that mindset in others.

Question from Werdna648:

4. I've noticed a few interesting diffs on your user talk page, such as [7] [8] [9]; and that you've been blocked repeatedly for personal attacks, 3RR and other violations. It seems that you remove a number of user talk sections, which is widely viewed as uncivil. What is your response to these diffs?
A: I was the target of zealous vandals early in my Wikipedia career. Once I learned how to defend myself from them and not get trapped with things like 3RR, things went much more smoothly. If you read up on some of the incidents and who else was involved, noting their track record on Wikipedia, you'll see that they have been blocked or even banned. WillC 22:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
My primary concern is your removal of comments from your user talk page without response, particularly those that are critical of you. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Can you explain all these blocks ??? is that an excessive number do you think? ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See above comments. WillC 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"See above comments" at the bottom of the page, with no referent, is not a very specific answer. I'm sorry, I do not think you've answered the question I asked. If you think some particular comment addresses a particular block, feel free to provide specifics. I'm most interested in your more recent ones. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine then, see my answer to Question 4. WillC 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It may have been better not to answer at all, I guess as unsatisfactory answers are worse than no answers at all. I prefer somewhat more detailed answers (as you can see here). I will stay neutral but would oppose if it wasn't already a foregone conclusion how this was going to turn out. As Phaedriel says, "If you nominate yourself again at some point in the future with a will to cooperate with the community, instead of rejecting the very concept of consensus, I'll be the first one to congratulate you and support your nomination. Until then, my very best wishes."... which I think sums it up well. Best of luck in your future endeavours. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
6. from Richard Cavell : I feel that for you to be accepted as an admin, you would have to substantially reorganize your thinking and try a whole new approach to wikipedia. Do you think that you are prepared to do this?
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.