Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilliamKF

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] WilliamKF

Final (6/9/4); Ended Sat, 03 Mar 2007 10:46:50 (UTC)

WilliamKF (talk · contribs) - My contributions are mainly focused on astronomy and history. I tend to pick an object in astronomy that I would like to learn more about and search the literature using the Harvard Abstract Service for published papers that I read and use to expand the articles and then cite them as references which can be verified. For history, I tend to listen to books on tape on history while driving and then expand articles based upon what I learn while listening, and again am able to cite a source. WilliamKF 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept my self-nomination.

I feel I would be a responsible administrator as demonstrated by my contributions to Wikipedia to date. If I am not familiar with a policy, I would read the page that outlines it before acting.

Please note that I have edited this RfA several times (so I won't list each diff) since opening it in an attempt to address some of the issues raised. I have also added some comments in the discussion section.
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: Duties I expect to help out with are Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Requested moves, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I do a fair amount of vandalism fixing and being able to stop a flagrant vandal myself would be somewhat more efficient. Ditto for sock puppets, although I've come across fewer of these. My work as an admin would tend to center around the areas where I already contribute the most, which is mainly astronomy.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like my contrubution to protoplanetary nebula which made it to DYK. In general, I am pleased with the fact that I have been able to include citations for most of my contributions. I believe that by providing links to my sources via the Harvard Abstract Service, I make it easy for anyone to verify the content I have added.
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 don't recall any conflicts other than with a vandal once who edited my user page. It wasn't a big deal, I just reverted it. I tend to be a very even keel kind of person. In a conflict, I try to understand the perspective of any with whom I may disagree and help them to feel that they have been heard by acknowledging their perspective. In general, I try not to hold my own ideas above others, but treat all ideas equally, mine and others, in arriving at the one I choose to follow, perhaps melding mine own with anothers to make a new idea.

Optional question from Eli Falk

4. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
A: As an administrator, my opinion, in a matter such as when to semi-protect a page, is irrelevant. The job of an administrator is to follow the official policy. As I understand it, the default is not to semi-protect a page which has been vandalized, (which, since you asked, in my opinion makes sense.) Per the official policy, one would semi-protect a page in response to vandalism by multiple anonymous accounts and/or new accounts in the case where individual blocks on the accounts is not a solution. Additionally, semi-protection can be used to halt users who are banned or blocked from using multiple IP addresses and/or accounts from editing an article. Recently, I came across a situation where semi-protecting a page would have been appropriate. A user was using multiple IP addresses and creating multiple accounts to vandalize NGC 7538 (and other articles as well). These appeared to be IP addresses: user:67.160.129.206, user:13.8.137.11, and user:13.8.137.10 and new accounts: user:TheCharminBear, user:FlippingPenguin, user:LeanordSink, user:TacoBellEater, and user:RonaldMcDizzle. This case may be an example of where the use of semi-protection was appropriate. In this case, the user in question was using 2 Xerox IP addresses which are shared by many reputable users, so blocking these IP addresses may adversely impact good intentioned users. In fact, my reading of policy suggests that the one month block imposed by an administrator was probably not appropriate, and instead a soft block or shorter time period block might have been more appropriate while additionally attempting to contact Xerox to let them know about the network abuse. Please let me know if you have any further questions, thanks. WilliamKF 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • Maybe I can clarify the 'tools' issue. I asked the question, 'what do you mean by no need for tools?' because I found it ambiguous in my sense of the English language. I thought they might have meant no more need for Administrators, where tool is slang for a person that operates technical processes, especially in the realm of computers. But that didn't make any sense, so I asked for clarification. Now I understand that they meant that I had no need for the tools, where tools means the additional functionality which is exposed to administrators. Hopefully you can now see how I could have read it that way and don't think I am completely ignorant about what I am asking for here, administrator privileges on wikipedia. WilliamKF 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On the minor edits thing, I have turned off mark all edits as minor in my preferences to avoid that issue in the future. I should have done so a long time ago, since there have been many occassions where I made that error, having spent a long time focusing on the content of my edit and forgeting that checkbox. Thanks for pushing me to correct that long standing fault of mine. WilliamKF 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Trustworthy user who will use the buttons well, methinks.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, I also think he's a trustworthy user and has serious awareness of admin tools. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per criteria set out on my userpage, plus favorable impression to Eli Falk question. Edivorce 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I would trust this editor with the tools. Use of the tools evolves once you are given them. He has a substantial number of contributions, uses edit summaries, is involved with the project.--Golden Wattle talk 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Has been a good editor on Wikipedia for a long time and can be trusted with the tools.--Cometstyles 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, because of very little policy discussion. Coupled with all those AWB edits. -Amarkov moo! 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Clarification on AWB: It's fine to use AWB every once in a while, to do repetitive things that you nonetheless want done. The issue comes when you use it so much that it makes up half your edits. I feel that contributes to a mindset of "quick quick get dem edits done", which is not a good thing for an admin to have. Of course, that is entirely impossible to truly evidence, so it won't cause me to oppose by itself, but combined with a lack of policy discussion, it will. -Amarkov moo! 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per weak self-nom and weak answers to q2 and q3. Sorry, no real need for tools. – Chacor 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - selfnom and answers were expanded here. – Chacor 02:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Additional: I find slightly disconcerting the fact that the candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for. – Chacor 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Nearly all edits are in mainspace. While this is good for an editor, it is not as good for a potential administrator. Answers to questions were unusual and somewhat confusing as to see the reasons in them to support this user. Nomination seemed to lack purpose in the RfA. I must oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I'd like to see more interaction with other editors, and more understanding of WP policies. There's no real clear reason for the tools, sorry. The Rambling Man 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Good editor, but no real need for the tools. John Reaves (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, not ready yet, lacks of edits in other namespaces. Doesn't seem to need the tools currently. Maybe next time. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per not knowing what the tools are, per Chacor above. --MECU≈talk 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: Seems to be a good editor to Wikipedia, but I can't see a sure-fire reason that you would need the tools. You don't need an adminship to revert vandalism or detect sockpuppets. As a side note, some of the questions (esp. question 2) are vague. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Inexperience in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - needs more experience. Please see WP:MINOR - I think far too many of your edits are marked minor. Asking a question on someone's talk page [1], for example, never should be. The same would be the case of making comments on a request page [2]. Minor edits are for things like reverting vandalism, formatting, spelling corrections, etc - if you are typing more than one word, it's not a minor edit. Also, I'm slightly discouraged that you had to ask what the tools are. Still, though, I have a general rule against opposing good faith users, and thus, I !vote neutral. --BigDT 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per oppose votes, nothing compelling to support. You'll need more participation in the project space. - Anas Talk? 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral An editor with good potential but needs more participation in the policy and user Talk spaces to demonstrate familiarity with policy and ease of discussion of all matters Wiki. Slightly less emphasis on AWB for edits would also be good - a spread of usages for edits would be a good idea. Getting involved with more admin-related tasks would be a good thing. (aeropagitica) 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Great potential, but need to see more policy experience.-- danntm T C 04:41, 28 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.