Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willking1979

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

Willking1979

Final:38/33/15 Closed at:11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Willking1979 (talk · contribs) – Back in 2007, I began roaming around Wikipedia as a reader looking up info on topics of interest to me such as Christianity, Kentucky, Appalachia and television. In March 2008, a tornado hit the small town of Big Stone Gap, Virginia, just across the border from Kentucky. After the tornado, when I saw it mentioned in the town's article, I felt to correct the grammar. I signed up for an account. I corrected the grammar from Appalachian English to American English. You can find the diff here.

Since then, I learned a lot from great editors and admins such as Jennavecia and Acdixon. I took on vandal fighting and made significant edits to Alice Lloyd College, my alma mater, as well as Kentucky-related topics. My recent work included creating accounts and categorizing BLPs. The BLP problem is the biggest issue facing Wikipedia. I have at times had to revert subtle vandalism on BLPs. In addition, I have requested several BLPs and other highly-visible articles for protection.

I have felt stressed at times by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. I have thought about semi-retirement and even retirement. But I love Wikipedia and its editors and admins too much to leave.

With that, I, Willking1979, announce my nomination for adminship. Willking1979 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Blocking of repeat and flagrant vandals and semi-protecting articles (especially BLPs).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Creating the June Buchanan and June Buchanan School articles. Miss June's impact on Eastern Kentucky and Appalachia are very huge. In addition, the improvements I made to the Alice Lloyd College article were much-needed.

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: The biggest dispute was on New Year's Day, when a user (Teledildonix314) was peeved at the fact that I issued a POV warning regarding Rick Warren. The warning was issued during a Huggle session. I was not aware of the edit war that had been going on. The article is still fully-protected as of the time of this RfA. Since the incident, I learned a lot and tried to avoid edit wars when possible.

Additional optional questions from Yintan

4. Dlocierekim's support rationale has made me doubt my 'reluctant oppose'. However, that still leaves me with your "wiki stress". You've mentioned it in the neutral section but I don't find your answers satisfactory. You say you've been stressed (up to the point of considering retirement) by vandals, yet in Q1 you say you want to mainly work in that area. I expect that will cause a lot more stress than the "5% of your time" you mentioned below. Am I underestimating your strenght? Misunderstanding your explanation? Can you explain how you are going to deal with working in an environment that, as you said, does cause you stress?

A: There will be days that my stress will be high. However, I will listen and consider the pros and cons of deletion and blocking. The comments from people like you will drown out the stress. Willking1979 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

5. Your user page contains opinions such as the belief that the current Reid/Pelosi Congress is the worst in history--why exactly do you think this? Holding such views, how do you avoid pushing your personal point of view in articles?

A: First of all, I did not create the userbox. Users can post their personal views on their userspace. Secondly, My opinions on politics do not reflect my mainspace edits. POV-pushing is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Willking1979 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from MickMacNee

6. You come across a piece of obvious defamatory vandalism in a BLP article about a minor politician, committed by an IP user. It was his second only edit, his first being a similar edit to another article the previous day. The vandalism was committed two days ago, and was reverted by a second IP user within 5 minutes, which is so far that IP's only edit to the pedia. The first article in question has received no other non-trivial edits in the last three months. What administrative actions, if any, would you take in this situation? MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A: The vandalism would be reverted and the IP user given a level one vandalism warning. In addition, I check the article's sources for verification of information in the article. If the info doesn't match, then I tag the article with a BLPrefimprove tag. If the BLP has no refs or if the primary sources simply quote the subject on a topic like abortion or taxes instead of discussing the subject in general, then I will nominate the article for deletion. Willking1979 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from xeno

7. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined here and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: It all depends on how sincere he/she is with the unblock request. Based on the sample, though, I would decline the unblock.

Optional questions from Rosiestep

8a. To gain a better understanding of your experience with content creation, besides the articles mentioned in your 2A answer, could you provide a list of articles you've created?

A: Those two articles mentioned above are the only two I created thus far.

8b. To gain a better understanding of your experience with content review, could you enumerate which articles, if any, that you created or heavily edited have gone through a content review process such as DYK, GA, FA, or AfD?

A: June Buchanan was mentioned on DYK on January 4, 2009.

8c. To gain a better understanding of your experience with reviewing content created by others, could you describe your participation in content review areas such as DYK, GA, FA, or AfD?

A: Besides the June Buchanan DYK, I nominated Wanda Cornelius for deletion. The consensus for that deletion was delete.

Additional optional questions from Oldlaptop321

8. I have always thought that a user with access levels beyond a normal user should have a good, secure, password. Please do not give away any info that could get you cracked, but do you have a reasonably good password?

A: Of course.

Optional questions from Robofish (adapted from Jennavecia's questions here)

9. What are your views on biographies of living persons, and how they should be treated? Specifically: (i) do you support the increased use of protection, or the introduction of WP:Flagged revisions, on BLPs? (ii) Do you think there should be a presumption to delete BLPs if there is no consensus at WP:Articles for deletion? (iii) Should the opinion of the subject of a BLP carry additional weight in considering whether it should be protected/deleted?

A As I mentioned in the intro above, the BLP problem is the biggest issue facing the English Wikipedia. I strongly support flagged revs for all BLPs. However, if flagged revs are not approved by the community, then I would support liberal or universal semi-protection for all BLPs. If there is no consensus regarding BLPs at AFD, then I would at least put a refimprove tag on the article and then re-tag for deletion if no reliable primary third-party refs are not added after a period of time. I believe that opinions do carry at least some weight in deletion and protection discussions.

Optional questions from Oren0

10. Many administrative functions require that the administrator be "uninvolved". Why is this important? Under what (if any) circumstances might an administrator be too involved to perform a certain action? Are there certain pages and/or users (you don't have to name them if you don't like) that you would not perform admin actions on due to your own involvement?

A: If I have edited a certain article a significantly (like Alice Lloyd College or Kentucky), I will not perform admin actions except in certain cases (deletion of death threats or personally-identifiable info like phone numbers). Admin actions on users will be handled and evaluated individually.

11. How do you reconcile the idea of flagged revisions or semi-protecting all BLPs with the basic premise of Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

A: While I believe in Wikipedia's pillars and premises, there is a need for protecting the reputation of well-known figures. Users who still want to get involved in BLPs can discuss issues on talk pages, the BLP noticeboard, and the reference desk.

Optional question from Ottawa4ever (talk)

12. My question concerns stress. A user I encountered in the past had very disruptive behaviour and i would like to ask how you as an admin would respond to him. The scenario is this: He used multiple accounts on a computer system which had a rotating 'dynamic' IP . He had been clearly socking with multiple accounts and IP addresses. He displays subsequent disruptive edit diffs on his user page(s) (After one account is blocked he basically creates another). Subsequently he taunts admins that they cant catch him. My big question here is how would you react to a user like this (especially if he targets you to taunt)? and what would be your course of action? This question may not be worded best so if you need me to clarify anything id be happy to.

A: My course of action: I would obviously indef-block the registered accounts. On the IP socking, I would strongly prefer a range block over individual IP blocks. I would also contact law enforcement if there are legit threats of violence. I would also contact the user's ISP and notify them of the abuse. In addition, I work at the ACC tool. I would prefer that the user's IP addresses be put on the ACC blacklist as well.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

13. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I believe that Wikipedians have rights such as the right to freely post information that is not damaging to one's reputation or character or is not deceptive. However, Wikipedians are expected to follow all policies enacted by community consensus. I will uphold the rights of Wikipedians while enforcing policies. But I also believe in WP:IGNOREALLRULES.

Optional question from Joe9320 (talk)

14. On the SCREW UNCYCLOPEDIA consensus, will you revive Wikipedia:BJAODN if you were admin? Or will you leave it to rot and left it in oblivion because of Uncyclopedia?

A: I will not revive it during my time as admin, nor will it rot. The page and page history are still there as historical references. While I have no problem with wiki-humor, there has to be a balance between wiki-fun and wiki-business. I enjoy every minute of what I do here and it has been and will continue to be a fun ride.

General comments

• Links for Willking1979: Willking1979 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Willking1979 can be found here.
• For those who can not see the deleted contribs, there are 436 of them. That's the unsifted total. Would it be helpful for me to paste the list to the talk page? Dlohcierekim 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. Willking1979 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• The stress issue: I understand why some of you are concerned about my stress. However, as I mentioned below, the stress only occurs about five percent of the time. One particular incident, as I mentioned under the "disputes" question, was the Rick Warren incident. The user's criticism of me brought me to the brink. However, instead of retirement or even semi-retirement, I stayed away from edit warring while maintaining my position in the CVU (Counter-Vandalism Unit). I am extremely happy and grateful to be a part of Wikipedia. I will use the tools effectively and with considerable thought and input from others.Willking1979 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• On NPOV: I realize that some of you are concerned about NPOV and my userboxes. NPOV--and every Wikipedia policy--is very important to us as a community. I want to make this clear right here and right now: I will 100% abstain from any admin action--except in very limited circumstances--that could be even remotely related to my political or religious views. The very limited exceptions are reversions of pure vandalism and removal of death threats. Willking1979 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Willking1979 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Strong vandalfighter (50% of 20k+ edits are with Huggle), I've had positive interactions. Suggest you spend some time in non-vandalfighting areas- for instance, your edits to Wikipedia talk is pretty slim. However, your response to Q1 indicates this isn't where you tend to spend your time, so I won't hold it against you! tedder (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support . along with the stated huggle edits, this users efforts have been outstanding, I can see that its in his blood already to help us out. All thumbs up from this end :D James'ööders 12:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Obvious experience fighting vandalism. Short answers bug me (the whole frustrated applicant thing), but the candidate's more recent contributions indicate that he has given the position thought before submitting an rfa. ZabMilenko 12:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support has required knowledge and experience. The mistakes are more anomalous then telling, not reflective of all the times candidate has been correct. We all make mistakes; it's how we handle our mistakes that is important. Frankly, there is flood of unchecked vandalism and pages that need to be CSD'd that we are missing due to a lack of editors to check them. Any tool that helps with that process should be used. It's not the automation of the edits but decision making processes involved. Candidate has shown a lack of perfection, not a lack of understanding of when to block/protect/delete. It doesn't take an article builder to know when to revert "poo" from the encyclopedia or tho delete pages like, "My boyfriend is awesome." I don't mind laconic answers- say what you gotta say w/o a lot of unneeded verbage. I know some participants here want to see more article building. At this point, we don't need more article builders. We need more janitors to get the "poo" out of the 'pedia, and show those who vandalize our work to the door, and to protect that work from vandalism. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   I reviewed the user talk page and saw evidence that user can handle without evident stress situations I would find stressful. Able to explain decisions w/o losing composure. Able to apologize. I don't think this user likely to fly of the handle or anything like that. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Support. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support very helpful on ACC fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Slightly worried about the stress problems, but overall I'd say the evidence seems that he won't abuse the tools & won't go mad! Full understanding of every single guideline shouldn't be needed & I think & hope that when meeting vandals etc. he can take a step back. More vandal fighters can't be wrong! Good luck dottydotdot (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, Willking 1979 appears to be a dedicated user who could make good and productive use of the tools. Overall - excellent contributions in the form of BLP patrolling and counter-vandalism work, and nothing particularly concerning from any of his edits that I reviewed. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having never been blocked, but by having User:Willking1979#Awards.2C_Badges.2C_Barnstars_and_Milestones. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support We all get stressed at times, no reservations here.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - No reservations here, would make a great admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Great, dedicated user. This is probably not going to pass, but don't be discouraged and keep up all the good work. -download ׀ sign! 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Excellent vandalism work, excellent work as a little man, has never been blocked(as far as I can see), and the stress thing is really not that big of a deal.--(NGG) 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - opposers raise some valid concerns, however, in all honesty, I don't believe the candidate will get into trouble performing the functions outlined in his response to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Weak support Seems like a stellar editor, will not abuse tools, the wikistress issue concerns me, but not enought to get me in neutral or oppose. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Support The acknowledgment of "wikistress" is the acknowledgment of an honest individual who is not putting on an act -- stress is part of the human condition and we all have to deal with it, especially in these rough times. However, I don't see that as an admission of weakness -- it is actually an admission of strength, and the candor is commendable. Mr. King's contributions to Wikipedia are admirable, and I am glad to support him. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
17. AGF Support. Willking doesn't have a great deal of experience in certain admin areas (like AFD and CSD), but I appreciate his skill at reverting vandalism, his concern for BLPs and his general civility. As for the 'wikistress' issue, we all suffer from it from time to time, but I don't see any evidence that Willking has actually made any bad edits as a result. The worst that could be said of him is that he can be slightly hasty with protection, which isn't that great a flaw; my only advice to him would be that if an article is only being vandalised by one IP, it's more appropriate to temporarily block that IP than to semi-protect the article. Apart from that, I think he'd be an effective vandal-fighting admin. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I see nothing which leads me to believe this editor would abuse the tools, and I see a lot of willingness to learn and help out. I doubt there is any admin (or any editor other than a brand new one) that hasn't misunderstood something and perhaps jumped the gun on something. That he is willing to admit he did so, and is willing to learn from his mistakes goes a long way, IMO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support A great vandal fighter and a great editor as well. I believe that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I have no problems with this user being granted admin status. --T'Shael MindMeld 06:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. I see no reason why the candidate would abuse the tools. A very dedicated editor, in my opinion. Jozal ^(talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. This looks like a trustworthy long-term editor, and I see no great threat of him abusing adminship. Anonymous the Editor (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)— Anonymous the Editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
23. Support.Strong support here, Answer to number 12 is thought out and good. (The question was based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The cheapo/Archive). My support for admin is defineatly here. Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Does good work. I have confidence this editor will make a good Admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support I don't see any reason to think that Willking1979 would abuse the tools.--Res2216firestar 14:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Opposes are unconvincing - they do not convince that candidate would abuse the tools, nor do they convince that candidate is unfamiliar with the specific uses of admin powers that he proposes to undertake. Ray^Talk 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support, I don't consider extensive article work to be a requirement of adminship - user is fine. Wizardman 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, I'm not convinced by the opposes either. No evidence candidate would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC).
29. No evidence that candidate will abuse tools. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
30. To cancel out some of the curious oppose !votes. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Anyone who opposes it is completely incivil. Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Uncyclopedian Embassy 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support User doesn't have much experience in writing articles for the encyclopedia (which is why Wikipedia exists), but he appears to have clue, and I do not believe he'll abuse the tools. hmwithτ 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Great job vandal fighting.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - I've read the oppose !votes, but remember WP:BELLY. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support -- I need to check the "unreliable liberal source" assertion, then I'll either remove the "tentative" or move to oppose. Generally good answers to Qs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

    Struck the "tentative" - despite the worrisome description, it was a good edit, and last approx. month of contribs look good. After all, why should all admins be flaming liberals like me? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

37. Support Per the comments above. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Good vandal fighter. Seivad (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - While I appreciate your anti-vandalism work, I'm concerned about your pre-emptive protections requests. I think you will push the protect button too early.

   1. reqhist -there were only two vandal edits on 7th April made by a single IP.
   2. req hist I don't see any sign of heavy vandalism there on that date.
   3. reqhist Only one IP 89.101.93.246 was vandalizing and getting reverted very quickly. Pre-emptive protection is not supported by the policy, specially when blocks are enough to stop the disruption. Protecting pages when its not needed or for some reason like "no reason for non-admins to edit this page" (that I often see) are always a bad thing for a wiki.

   Another thing:I see very little AfD edits and no CSD notifications to talk pages at all (maybe the edits are buried somewhere under the pile of huggle reverts, let me know if this is the case, I'll take a closer look). The AfD votes I saw were mostly "Keep per John" or "Delete per Doe". In my opinion you need more experience in deletion. Although you didn't say you will work in the speedy deletion area in answer to Q1, you know, its impossible to stop an admin from speedily deleting pages out of policy once they pass their RfA. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Regarding page protections and deletions: At times, I may have jumped the gun too early on those. My estimate is that 90-95% of the protection requests were approved by admins. On the deletion issue: On Huggle and Twinkle, as well as manually, I have made CSD notifications. If that user is blocked after a CSD notification due to vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc., the user's talk page is deleted by an admin after a period of time. Therefore, some notifications may have been deleted and only viewable by admins. I will delete articles marked as "speedy" per policy. I will consider the views of admins and editors before deletion, though. AFDs (Articles for deletion) will be deleted by consensus. Willking1979 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I can't see your deleted contribs so you may have done CSD taggings; but I browsed through your contribs and did some counting:you have edited less than 7 AfD pages in your whole wiki-career (and most comments that I see are "..per X"). That's not enough for me to be confident that you know the deletion policies really well and will be able to gauge consensus appropriately when you're closing AfDs yourself. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Reluctant oppose. Discussions on Talkpages give me the impression the candidate is not as familiar with WP policies as I expect an admin to be. Nobody can know every single WP:WHATEVERGUIDELINE of course, but I see too many "I'm not sure" remarks in important areas like CSD[1], formatting[2], or copyvios[3]. Sure, there's nothing wrong with being careful but these remarks make me doubtful, sorry. Yintaɳ  13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   While I am familiar with the policies, the situations linked above were unique situations that I have never handled before. I am willing to learn during my adminship. Willking1979 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   I don't doubt that you're willing to learn and I'm sure you will. However, I think a candidate should be more familiar with these matters before the mop is received. Yintaɳ  14:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to neutral Yintaɳ  15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per weburiedoursecretsinthegarden. If you can't handle stress without the tools, I don't know how you would react under stress with the tools. Nakon 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Wholly unsatisfactory answer to my question. Users who present such extreme views should expect to be challenged on them and on their ability to stay NPOV. Keepscases (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   As I mentioned in the lead, I was criticized by a user for giving him a POV warning on Rick Warren. The user later criticized my views on faith and politics. Again, I was not aware of the edit war because I was doing RC patrol at the time. I gave the user the warning because the sources in the article were not reliable sources--in this case a liberal point of view. My views did not play a role in the warnings. I was simply doing my job as recent changes patroller, which involves issuing various types of warnings.Willking1979 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think the point is that your answer "I did not create the userbox" sounds like a weak excuse. You did put it on your page, didn't you? I don't have a problem with that box as such, but I can see why your answer can be considered very unsatisfactory. That the box is within WP policies is irrelevant to the question. Yintaɳ  23:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Willking1979 edits primarily with automated tools, which gives me little opportunity to judge him as a potential admin (his understanding of policies, etc.). Additionally, if he's facing stress issues as a vandal fighter, he's going to face a lot more when/if he becomes an admin and I doubt he can handle it. AvN 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Nakon and Keepscases, I don't think you'd make a good admin. I will probably oppose in a few months time as well unless I see some serious changes.--Patton^t/c 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose, echo concerns by Nakon (talk · contribs), Antivenin (talk · contribs), and others, about temperament. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Antivenin, Cirt, and concerns expressed in the neutral section. You do great anti-vandal work but the concerns brought up by others are causes for alarm. I would be happy to support in a few months and more experience. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per answers related to content creation and content review (questions 8a, 8b, and 8c). I'd like to see more experience in new article creation, more participation at peer review of others' content, and more content review by others of your new or heavily-edited articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose: Insufficient content creation experience. Nick (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please can you explain why you feel Willking1979's experience creating content bears relevance to this discussion of whether he will or will not properly use administrative tools? Stifle (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'm rather surprised at this question. Content creation is a pretty common criterion among RfA standards. AvN 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Content creation is a common criteria and I find the skills, knowledge and experience editors pick up as they create content are important, learning about plagiarism and copyright is important, being able to determine what is and isn't a reliable source is important (vital if you look at even one BLP) and knowing how people interact when it comes to writing content is necessary before you start trying to administer the creation of the encyclopedia side of the project; these are all things that can only come from a moderate amount of content creation, from sitting down and writing material, from speaking to other users, from reaching compromises with other users and from finding references for your content. Nick (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose: Lacks content creation and mostly automated tool use. And to head Stifle off at the pass, I think content creation should be primary responsibility here with Admin duties as one of those "if you happen to come along and encounter it" type things. A large section of the admin corps at this time seems to do more of the adminning than content creation. spryde | talk 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

    That'll be because there's so much to do that the (comparatively) few active admins we have are caught up doing it. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose - I don't think candidates need to write featured articles to become admins, but some article writing is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose for now, per answers to Rosiestep's questions. This is a judgment call, and I'm sympathetic to the positions of the supporters, but there are things that happen along the wiki-journey that tell us things that we need to know before handing over the mop, and I need to see more writing and/or copyediting and/or reviewing before I'm comfortable making a call. Give it a try, and then do WP:ER in 3 months, I might be willing to support at RFA then. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I'm sorry, I can no longer support admins without well-developed content skills. It's clear we have allowed a profound problem to develop in our community by not placing enough emphasis on this. --JayHenry (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Quite shocked by 8A to be honest. You can't have the mop if you've never pissed on the floor yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose The reason Wikipedia exists is to make, well, articles. You don't unfortunately have enough I feel article/content experience yet, to be able to properly fulfil the role of an Administrator. You're definitely on the right track--but just not quite there yet. Have you considered trying to do a few GAs (FAs are hard, and hardly any of us actually pull that off)? Spend more time on AFD? rootology/equality 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose You seem like a good guy, and I certainly don't think you'll go crazy upon getting the tools, but I don't think you have the experience I look for when supporting candidates. As many have said above, we're here to write and improve articles, and I think that experience is needed in that area before you can become an administrator.  iMatthew :  Chat  18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose not enough work in XFD and related areas. Also, the answers to the questions do not strike me as well thought out. Communication skills are important for admins. While perfect grammar and diction is certainly not a requirement for adminship (or we'd only have a handful), your answers leave me feeling the same as after reading someone's resume with typos in it. This latter point may be petty, but it certainly didn't indicate to me that you were putting forth full effort to obtain the bit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Not enough experience in both Xfd's and content creation. Admins should be familiar with these aspects of the Wiki since all admin tools basically revolve around it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak oppose I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 08:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose Per lack of knowledge in protection Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Note that Arma virumque cano has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

21. No Support — While I don't outright oppose your adminship (your heart is in the right place, and you have some good experience), I can't support it either. I don't think content creation is as critical as some people seem to, but I understand the comments that mention the experience you gain during the process of content creation. You come across more as a tired vandal fighter looking to relieve a little stress by using some additional tools. I prefer someone who comes across as a seasoned Wikipedian, well versed and experienced in a variety of areas or else someone who is an expert in a field and looking to take on more responsibility there. I don't sense either of those in you. Sorry. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    Willscrlt, you don't support, yet you "don't outright oppose"? Perhaps you are neutral? [Clarifying either "weak oppose" or "neutral" would be helpful.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose. Lack of content creation. Mediocre answers. The answer to question 5 is especially worrying. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Per PirateSmackK. Also creating less than 1 new article per 10,000 edits seems a little odd, how do you manage that? — CharlotteWebb 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    While there is no consensus among the Wikipedia community upon the specific requirements to be an admin, I realize the concern of the opposers. Vandal-fighting is indeed something I enjoy. The two articles I created are part of an ongoing project--to build a database of knowledge. It takes all of us to make Wikipedia work. There are many things I want to do on-wiki, including creating more articles. I hope that all of you--supporters, opposers, and neutrals--would give me suggestions on new and expanded articles.Willking1979 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

    That's because there are no "specific requirements". It's basically a popularity contest, but maybe you knew that already. — CharlotteWebb 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose Per answer to number 10, and user boxes, I would have liked to see user distances themselves from admin actions on all articles they are ideologically attached to. Since did not immediately do so, user does not have my trust. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    On Userboxes on talk pages: According to Wikipedia:User page, the following is part of the guidelines on user pages:

    Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth.

    I also realize that "[e]xtensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." are also prohibited. While I believe that the userboxes on my talk page are not "extensive personal opinions," I will remove them if asked by an admin if it is a violation of policy. However, other Wikipedians do have political userboxes on their pages. The policy obviously can be interpreted in several ways. Willking1979 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    That is all wonderful, but does not even come close to addressing the reasoning I raised. Why would I fault you for userboxes when I am using many of my own? My oppose !vote is based on you not immediately distancing/recusing yourself from admin action involving areas where you have personal opinions unrelated to wikipedia. Your choice of userboxes shows that you do have such viewpoints. Having opinions is great, but using admin tools on issues related those opinions can cloud judgements, for anyone. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose. The superficial answer to question number five and the complete misunderstanding of WP:NPOV concerns expressed by me and several other editors have persuaded me to move from neutral to oppose. Aramgar (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. As edits are primarily automated, I cannot with certainty sort out contributions made otherwise. Also the defensiveness in response to query 5 is questionable. It was meant to be a question the was slightly provocative and you missed the chance to shine there in my opinion. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose – needs some more experience in the deletion field, which can be obtained my patrolling Special:NewPages, checking articles at CAT:PROD, and participating in XFDs and DRV. Also per concerns the others raised above about content building. While I'm not huge myself into creating new articles from scratch (and I would not oppose any RFAs solely for lack thereof, unlike the others above), there are also plenty of Stubs that can also be expanded. Try and get some articles up to GA or FA, and also work on DYK, which coincidentally complements article creation and stub expansion. MuZemike 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose. I question the candidate's ability withstand an excess amount of stress. If vandals can push you into thinking about semi-retirement or full retirement without having the tools, I can't begin to imagine the stress you'll face as an admin, let alone your thoughts and actions. — Σxplicit 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per unacceptable answer to question 5. Artichoker^[talk] 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You are opposing because of his political views? Antivenin 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Need more manual edits. >50% edits as automated doesn't really show the experience an admin needs. MC10 | Sign here! 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose Candidate doesn't yet have the necessary breadth and depth of experience, activity and contributions; answers to Qs on content creation are somewhat iffy; grammar is somewhat slopppy. Also NPOV concerns as summarized per Keepscases, especially in view of the candidate's response to TharsHammer's oppose re their belief that their userboxen are not "extensive personal opinions" - unless an admin says otherwise....Plutonium27 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose In my view user needs to show more work without tools. Likeminas (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose Needs more work with XFDs, tools ect. A good article editor, but not suitable for Adminship just yet. There is room for improvement. Sorry Ijanderson (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Good work but this killed it for me: "I have felt stressed at times by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. I have thought about semi-retirement and even retirement." You'll have a lot more than that pressuring you as an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with Garden. I feel uncomfortable supporting someone who gets easily stressed by such people because adminship means having to deal with them much more often than he has to now. And if the candidate thinks about retiring as a user because of them, it might mean he will retire quite soon as an admin or, in the worst case (not that I assume this will happen!), misuse his tools when handling those problematic users. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   To those who are concerned about my wiki-stress: I have only been stressed about 5% of the time I've been on here. Most of those situations, as I mentioned in the lead, are related to vandals and POV-pushers. After I give warnings to those users, most of them do not vandalize my user or talk pages. Based on what I said, I am very willing and able to take on the role of administrator. Willking1979 (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   But how stressed will you be dealing with Gwp or death threats? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   I will immediately report death threats to the proper authorities and WP:AN/I. Gwp has vandalized my userspace (user and talk) once. I will immediately block the socks at the first sign of a suspicious Gwp-style attack or edit. Willking1979 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Moved from 'reluctant oppose' because of Dlohcierekim's support rationale and Willking's answer to my Q4. I still can't support, though. Yintaɳ  15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral per above, leaning towards a weak oppose. One two three... 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I don't mind the stress thing or the lack of extensive experience in article creation (the two articles you created seem to demonstrate good knowledge). Looked over approx. 100 recent reversions and only found one mistake[4]; 1% mistake rate probably doesn't translate to potential sloppiness when blocking (alleged) vandals. Currently neutral solely due to answer to Q6: one should at least do a cursory search for references before AfD nomming an article for lack of references. Not a big deal, but it concerns me that an admin wouldn't at least make a minor effort to see if references exist in such a situation. -kotra (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Temporary neutral - I don't like your lack of serious content editing in BLP related areas, which causes me concern. I also can't seem to place how I know your name. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Probably one of these :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ha. But no, the actual user name seems oddly familiar. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm guessing here. – iridescent 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   I doubt it. Probably one of the others. Looking at some of the cross pages provides some stuff that is much below par, but no use opposing with the obvious failure of this request. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral Per Garden. As you get more responsibility comes greater risk and if your response to stress is retiring or semi-retiring, why do you need the tools? Renaissancee (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

   Per Renaisscancee. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Changed to support.

   Temporary Neutral I am concerned on this stress issue. But.....The vandal fighting and track record is dedicated. I am not so worried over reitirement issues, Batman begins did say we fall to pick ourselves up :) . Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to supportOttawa4ever (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral. I don't doubt he'd do a good job with the tools but, as far as I can tell, there's just not enough of the constructive content building kind of editing going on. Not that that, for one second, should discourage the vandalism patrols, but between Huggle, Twinkle and Rollback, there's not a huge amount he'd be doing that he doesn't do already. HJMitchell You rang? 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral > I'm not a big article-writer myself, but I've created a fair few, and done heavy maintenence on a few more. You, on the other hand, seem to have practically no mainspace contributions other than dealing with vandalism and, while that's important, so is some experience in dealing with content and the content policies. Could I suggest finding and joining a WikiProject covering a subject of interest to you? It's a great way to get practice and ideas. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the input. I already am a member of several WikiProjects (see my user page for userboxes), but the biggest ones I am involved with are Christianity, Kentucky, and Appalachia. I have placed WikiProject tags on many articles related to those projects. Willking1979 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually getting involved in writing articles is even more useful than adding tags, of course... Just a hint :-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. The aggressively POV userboxes on your userpage, along with the other content not strictly related to encyclopedia building, gives me pause. WP:USERPAGE may permit such content, but it does not necessarily belong on the page of someone seeking a leadership role in the community. An administrator's commitment to the core policy of NPOV must be above reproach. User:Keepscases has voiced similar concerns, and I too find your answer to question 5 superficial. On an unrelated note, I must add that as a native speaker of Appalachian English, I appreciate the diff you have provided at the beginning of your nomination. Aramgar (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose.

10. I am going to echo Garden's concerns about the statement, "I have felt stressed at times by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. I have thought about semi-retirement and even retirement." While I understand the feel to become less active, I do not think that having such a "weak stomach" for vandalism is a good quality for an administrator because you will see a lot of vandalism in your time. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral per not enough to oppose, but concerns for the candidate compel me to not support: While I trust your judgment, and I would truly prefer to support, I must offer this reasoning for my !vote. Having seen how the destructive forces can work at Wikipedia, and it is an area in which you wish to work - I believe that any excessive elements of stress, which administrators often must endure, could be a determent to your wiki-career. I would rather keep you as an editor, than loose you as an administrator. I would offer you a possible suggestion: continue as you are, but at the very first indication of stress, relocate your efforts to another area of WP such as NPP, copy-editing, sorting, etc. until you feel refreshed enough to return to your first preference of vandal fighting. Then return to RfA in a few months time, continue to be honest and show the integrity you have here, and I will gladly support you. I wish you all the best. — Ched :  ?  04:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral I don't know. Awesome edits, but 10K with huggle? I have no problem with huggle, but, when 50% of your edits are from huggle...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Not at all worried about the userbox as someone who has had one of his userboxes completely misunderstood in the past. Userboxes do not indicate bias; mainspace edits do, and I have been given no evidence to believe you have a conservative bias in your editing. I am concerned about your statements about stress. Perhaps you should reevaluate your reasons for wanting to be an admin and come back in a few months time. Redfarmer (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral - The answers to questions aren't overwhelmingly good, but I don't see as many problems as some others seem to. One userbox is no issue; I don't generally feel that should be a litmus test. Having said all that, though, candidate has stated (and re-stated) an estimate of 5% stress level, without having admin tools. The bit is, on the one hand, tiny. On the other hand, it is surrounded by big red and white circles which change the equation in a big way, and I don't think that a starting point of 5% is appropriate for an admin. I'm certain I'm not the only current admin who has received threatening emails directly from vandals and wannabe-vandals, including one this very morning...it happens frequently and we need admins who aren't stressed out.  Frank  |  talk  14:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Neutral. Not satisfied with the given reasons why xe wants this position. The Huggle tool and/or the Rollback tool is enough to fight vandalism. ax (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2009 (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.