Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kane5187

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

Kane5187

Final (39/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kane5187 (talk · contribs) - (self-nomination): I've been around for about two and a half years and done a whole lot of editing. In addition to my current focus, Dartmouth College-related articles (I recently set up WikiProject Dartmouth College), I also float around and do general cleanup editing on new articles, like formatting, instituting <ref> and {{cite}} tags, adding categories, etc. on pages that I stumble across. I feel like I've got plenty of experience, have demonstrated that I'm not going to abuse admin privileges, and that granting me them would allow me to contribute to the project in a broader way.

I wasn't aware that edit summary usage was taken into account at RfA before coming around here, and you'll notice that mine is rather spotty. I've activated the Preferences reminder about adding them if I forget. Kane5187 05:53, 20 October 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I see myself mostly closing XfD debates and clearing CAT:CSD. I've been involved with deletion nominations (speedy and otherwise) for quite a while (mostly in on/off spates) and I feel that I am well-prepared to contribute in that area. I've dealt with vandalism when it's crossed my path, but as a long-term task, it doesn't particularly interest me at this point. I would imagine that upon being granted administrator access, I may become interested in expanding into other areas, but that remains to be seen.

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

A: In December 2006, I began my first real concerted effort at a particular page at List of Dartmouth College alumni, eventually getting it to FL status. Since then, I've gotten List of Dartmouth College faculty to an FL as well. My most recent nomination process was getting Dartmouth College in September to FA status. It took a great deal of work and energy (see the mammoth nomination page), not to mention two weeks of endless revisions. Finally seeing that bronze star up in the corner really means a lot to me, and I would say marks the most trying sustained effort I've ever put in here.

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: Definitely. I've always been a contributor in good faith to Wikipedia (that is to say, I was never a vandal). However, there is definitely a learning curve to understanding policy, and I sort of gradually came to understand WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:N, and copyright policy, but not before violating them all. In my early days, a wrote a few articles on not-notable topics (they were notable to me!) that subsequently got deleted. Obviously, I didn't understand policy at all, and it was frustrating for me to see my work deleted or removed. However, rather than storming off the site in a huff, I (eventually) accepted the advice of those who knew better than I and went to learn the ground rules for the community. I'm glad to have chosen that course.

In terms of conflict, I remember a rather misguided argument of mine at Little Ivies early on in my Wikipedia career. I tried to convince a more experienced editor that the inclusion of "little" in the name "little ivies" meant that a citation for the schools being small was unnecessary, WP:V be damned (or, more accurately, unread). The editor was very patient with me, repeatedly telling me to read the policy page, and I wound up getting a much better feel for the constraints on content inclusion at Wikipedia.

I was very frustrated at Democrat Party (phrase) in November 2006 when I was outnumbered by one anon and another editor who were consistently injecting POV, OR, or misleadingly authoritative statments without references into the article. I discussed it on the anon's talk page and the article's talk page extensively, trying to explain my rationale for edits and being as willing to compromise and as civil as possible. The anon in particular was tough to deal with, because s/he was making unconstructive edits that blurred the line between inexperience and vandalism; I couldn't tell if s/he was acting in good faith. I wound up feeling that even thought I was correct with regards to policy, I couldn't win this fight without breaking the 3RR or just generally being a dick and putting my foot down, saying "This is right and you are wrong." I tried to recruit help (not really knowing where to look) without success. In the end, it became too stressful for me to deal with, and I walked away from it. Obviously, it was not the kind of outcome I had hoped for. I really felt as though I had no other recourse (of course, now I'm aware of WP:AN/I and formal mediation). Since I know firsthand from this sort of experience how important it is to have seasoned editors available when newcomers need them, I've since tried to reach out to new editors I encounter and offer myself as someone to talk to or ask questions of ([1], [2], [3], etc.) so that they have someone to go to in similar situation.

All of my conflicts/heated debates that I can think of have been content-oriented; I don't think I've ever had any really serious personal conflict (such as giving or receiving personal attacks or maintaining genuinely hostile relations with another editor). I'm generally not a very excitable person, so I tend to stick to citing policy and encouraging a user to read up if they don't quite grasp it. In my experience, others' inexperience with policy has been the driving factor behind a lot of disagreements and problems.

Optional question by Chris.B

4. A cursory glance at your talk page reveals a number of image copyright notices, particularly a lack of fair use rationales. Wikipedia takes image copyright very seriously; how confident are you with your knowledge in the sphere of the non-free content policy, and what can you say about it? -- Chris B • talk 11:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Right now, very confident. As I mentioned farther up, I didn't entirely understand policy when I first came by here. Those images are leftover from 2005/early-mid 2006 when all I would do is upload it with a boilerplate non-free template and leave it at that, no fair use rationale. If you check my more recent image uploads ([4] [5] [6] [7]), this is no longer a problem of mine.

Optional Questions from Nat

5. What is the difference between indefinite blocking and banning?

A: I would imagine that a lot of vandals on Wikipedia are not your Willy on Wheels persistent-and-spirited vandals who make a career out of it; many are just bored trying to kill an afternoon. Indefinite blocks would be used when a user is knowingly being detrimental to the project, but isn't demonstrating such severely inappropriate or repeated offenses as to merit a ban. I would think that in most cases, a block would end the situation there -- user realizes they've been blocked with no expiry (maybe after a few temporary ones), gets bored, and wanders away. Banning I understand to be a formal action that states that a user is not welcome on the site (i.e. the ban itself is a decision rather than a technical implementation, though they're generally enforced through blocks). Rather than an indefinite block, which is more of a convenience so that we don't have to clean up an individual's continued vandalism, a ban recognizes longer-term, more serious abuse, and more by a person behind a keyboard than an account or IP address. Because if their seriousness, bans are not carried out unilaterally.

6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?

A: The first criterion is "no free equivalent"; I consider it reasonable that there are enough Wikipedians out there with cameras to snap one themselves (I've taken to doing this myself when possible, and I'm beginning to notice that a lot of articles are successfully illustrating their subjects in this way).

7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: Absolutely. Administrators are an important part of this community and should therefore be responsible to it for their actions. I hope to never be recalled, obviously, but I don't believe adminship means being given free reign to do as one pleases.

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?

A: I've always understood IAR to be a failsafe -- it's there because it has to be, because Wikipedia policy is constantly evolving and there are bound to be holes and inconsistencies in it. It's also there because this is a flexible place and it's a reminder that despite all the policy pages, guidelines, etc. etc., we are not a bureaucracy and that we should seek to follow the spirit if it differs from the letter of the law. That said, I can't think of a time when I've found policy to be so inefficient or lacking as to consciously apply this rule. I've known Wikipedia policy to be in general pretty clear and pretty reasonable, and so I would expect a convincing reason as to why a well-agreed-upon rule should be ignored.

Optional question by Kim Bruning

9. What is the policy trifecta. Why did the author pick those policies? Do you agree with them?

A: I hadn't seen this before your linking to it, so I'm not familiar with the history behind its creation (i.e. I wasn't party to the picking of policies, as it were). It's an interesting page, I guess, but all it really is is a particular way of organizing existing policies. In this respect, it doesn't really add much new. I'm familiar with the policies it discusses and lists, but I don't see how it's possible to "agree with" (or disagree with) what amounts to simply a certain ordering/organization of them.

Ok, let me help a bit. Some people claim that these are the only three rules you really need to know, and the rest can be derived from them. This is somewhat controversial, and you needn't agree. What's your own opinion? --Kim Bruning 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's much clearer, thanks. In a certain way, I would agree. WP:IAR? says that you aren't required to learn the canon of rules before editing, which is certainly what I did -- I picked them up as I went along. In that respect, I can agree with the trifecta in that if all you're able to keep in mind is those three conditions for your contributions (all of intuitive, I think, for an online encyclopedia), and if you're editing in good faith, it will enable you to consistently contribute helpfully and also set you on the path for a more nuanced understanding of policy. That said, I would expect a new user to actively follow that path. I don't agree that those three elements are all you ever need to learn, nor that all other policies are logically deducible from them. (It lists the Manual of Style as a corollary of NPOV; how would someone ever conclude from NPOV how to format a blockquote?)

10. An old real world situation: A well known "trolling organisation" has an article on wikipedia. There is now an Articles For Deletion request for this article. It is the fourth such request, where all previous requests have ended in huge debates with >100 participants each and little consensus. Also, there is a misc. for deletion request for the articles for deletion request. This has been speedy closed but someone has opened a deletion review on the misc for deletion request, which strictly procedurally should end as a relist. At the same time there is a proposed policy page called "Kick the ass of anyone who nominates troll articles for deletion", which has supermajority support at this point in time (though not necessarily consensus). However, the proposed policy is also listed on Misc for deletion by what appears to be a new user. There appears to be a consensus to delete on that. Troll involvement in at least some of these discussions seems likely. How do you proceed?

A: That's a very convoluted scenario, and there's so much here that would depend on the context that I'm afraid I'm not able to offer a very helpful answer. Who made the policy page? Are they established editors acting in good faith (hopefully not, given the title) or just trolls? If only trolls, it sounds like a pretty clear violation of WP:POINT. All the mentions of "consensus" need clarification regarding whether the debates are populated by votestacking trolls or good-faith editors who simply disagree. Finally, "How do you proceed?" is unclear -- with regards to what? I don't really know what you're asking me about. What am I approaching here? Closing out the debate? We're talking about five pages here (AfD, MfD, DRV, proposed policy, and another MfD). Why would I be unilaterally dealing with concluding all of them? At the very least, this sounds like such a huge situation that admins should be swarming it to try to sort it all out together. It's definitely not the sort of thing I would try to tackle alone.

In general, my response would be that I don't know. If this happens next week, well, I will try to watch and learn from more experienced admins. I'm sure that after gaining experience as an admin, I'll be able to deal with complex situations like this, but I wouldn't dare presume that I know exactly what to do in this sort of mess if it was my first day as an admin. I intend to start out in areas in which I am experienced and believe that I pretty much know the ropes, asking for advice when I'm on unsure ground. From there, I'll to slowly branch out from there as my skills and experience improve.]

Ok, granted, it's a tricky real-world scenario. FYI, the "Kick the ass" article was actually written by a tenured wikipedian who had already made fame elsewhere on the internet. En.wikipedia's admins are not divided equally around the globe. At the time there were few (if any) admins available for assistance. Not responding would cause the mess to spiral out of control. This isn't a trick question, and there is no "correct" answer. Try your best to figure something out. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) The situation only looks complex. It can be much simplified by judicious application of "Ignore All Rules" (question #8 here today), there's several ways. After that, it's easy! :-)

Well, at this point, I'm going to decline to answer. I've tried composing responses several times, but I can't get more than a sentence without needing to know an overwhelming number of contextual details about the situation that would determine my response. I can't just tell you "what I would do" without fully understanding the background, the people involved, the content to be deleted, why the debate is occurring, where the unrest lies, why no consensus is being reached, and the content of and rationale for the various MfDs and DRVs that popped up as a result. Even if I did know those things, I don't think it's very reasonable to ask me now to demonstrate the admin skills that I hope to develop in the future by resolving what sounds like a tremendously tense and complex issue -- and in hypothetical terms, no less. I've never been an admin. My request for adminship is not an implication that I already know how to be an admin; it's a request for the opportunity to learn. If I came across this situation, I would rely on my experience and past as a syspop to determine the best course of action; right now, I have no such experience.

As I understand it, adminship is not granted because a nominee has a silver bullet to end every debate, it's granted because s/he is an experienced, trusted editor that has strong potential to become a good admin. I don't see how a good or bad response to this question can help anyone determine my suitability for adminship as laid out by those criteria at WP:ADMIN. Feel free to oppose if my reluctance to answer makes you think I would not make a good one.

Actually, I think it's a great answer. :-) I like the fact that you would want to gather more information first, and your willingness to learn is also pretty good. You'll do fine, and you'll probably be one of our better admins. Just don't be to shy to act too, when it's needed! :-) --Kim Bruning 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

11. Do you promise to apply WP:WOTTA in future?

A: Well, that's just an essay. I agree with and practice its basic principle of trying not be confusing (if I'm talking to a new user, I'll usually pipe a link like our verifiability policy). I don't think it's meant (or should be meant) as a hard-and-fast rule of never abbreviate; it depends. It's not as as important in a place like this, an RfA where everyone involved is or should be familiar with the basic abbreviations like WP:V, WP:OR, etc. It depends on context and balancing clarity with brevity. I hadn't stumbled across this essay prior to your linking to it, but it seems more like a common-sense principle of interaction that many people practice daily without having read the page, myself included.

I'm asking everyone who uses a lot of Three Letter Acronyms on requests for adminship. It would be nice if new users can understand what you are saying, so they can take you as an example, when you're an admin. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I try to tailor my use of acronyms towards the audience it's intended for; if it's a new user, I don't use them as much. However, learning the lingo of Wikipedia is part of the learning experience, and all it takes is clicking a link to find out what a user means if a newbie doesn't know. In fact, now that I think about it, I would actually encourage that as opposed to just citing policy: saying "This isn't neutral point of view" is just a statement of fact, whereas linking in "This isn't NPOV" permits the user to read and find out about the entire policy, probably enhancing their understanding much more than in the former example.

Optional question from User:Piotrus

12: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Nat already asked this up above (#7). The answer is yes. Kane5187 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Kane5187's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Kane5187: Kane5187 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kane5187 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Seems to have learn a great deal from his mistakes, and despite not being the best outcome with the dispute with other editors, it shows that this user can keep cool under pressure. As long as the issue of edit summerys is addressed (and it appears that it will be) I am happy to show my support, Tiddly-Tom 10:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - good number of edits distributed evenly throughout. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

   Is your support based on anything but edit count? How does "distributing edits evenly" indicate that someone will make a good admin? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

   No my Support isn't just based on that. As said by me on another RfA recently, the large amount of edits that has been distributed has undoubtedly helped Wikipedia succeed with it's goal to provide a free encyclopedia, that's readable and has a wide-range of bases. Dylan's (I think?) edits have been a testament to the efforts that some editors put in, and adminship is the best way to assist that individual in furthering Wikipedia's greatness. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Support - featured article work and sufficient experience of AfD to close discussions. Addhoc 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support A good number of edits. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support very good user--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support CO 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Just about there. Focus on Wikipedia-space. Don't neglect the edit summary. Then you'll be even better! Good luck ;-) Lradrama 16:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support John254 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support seems to be an experienced editor. -Icewedge 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support meets my criteria. Good luck! Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Yes NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support As per track over 8000 mainspace edits.No concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

    Is your support based on anything besides edit count? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

14. Support Opposition because of edit summary lapse only encourages incompetant editors who know how to do edit summaries to become administrators. We all learn. Spevw 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Correct answer to #5. Pretty much knows the process. Miranda 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Demonstrates key attribute required of all good admins - humility. Ronnotel 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Although the image notices are troubling, I feel you are sufficienly knowledgable to do a great job! Phgao 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. The candidate had made good contributions to some articles. No obvious concerns. Majoreditor 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Conditional Support. I had you on my list of people I was thinking of nomming, so you're certainly worthy. One thing though, promise me you'll try not to use inflammatory edit summaries? (I only caught a couple, but there's never a need for them) Wizardman 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

    Can you show me what you mean? I don't know what you're referring to. Kane5187 05:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

    Basically this. It's probably nothing hence why I kept my support, just wondering what that was about. Wizardman 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, I see. That was on my userpage from a few days ago -- I added the wikilink for WikiProject Dartmouth College with the intention to later create it; that was my summary from deciding against creating it, and removing the link. It was my own page and wasn't directed at anyone else, so I didn't think it was anything more than a rhetorical comment for myself. At the same time, I can see why even under those circumstances it's questionable, so, yes, I can promise you that in the future I'll refrain from that sort of comment. Probably best for the professionalism of an admin, at the very least. Kane5187 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

    Alright, just making sure. Got my full support now. Wizardman 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

20. Support. Looks like a very well-qualified candidate. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support– I like the answer to Question #3. A good user needs to know to stop. By this, I mean when you work on something and somebody contests it (such as nominating your article for speedy deletion) a good user needs to learn to understand why it was nominated, assumed the nominator is acting in good faith and learns to improve it. Based on that answer, I feel Kane5187 demonstrated all of that and more. Ksy92003(talk) 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. Excellent answers to questions! --Kim Bruning 01:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support good number of edits, if a bit obsessive about Dartmouth, good answers. Bearian 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support User has given no reason to oppose. Dustihowe 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Great answers and otherwise well-qualified. Jauerback 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - Support. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
28. I approve as well. Acalamari 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support per TiddlyTom, though I'm always uneasy about self-nominees. I slightly mind the absence of edit summaries, but that would be hypocritical. Temperal^xy 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - It's clear you thought hard about the questions about answering them, and they show you would be a good admin. You've got lots of experience, so I am entirely for giving you the tools. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - should use tools well. Carlossuarez46 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - Qualified. --Sharkface217 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Don't see any reason to oppose. As mentioned previously, don't forget your edit summaries. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Great contributor with good understanding of policy. Good answers too. -- Chris B • talk 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support per many above fine reasons and meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support as you appear a first-rate editor, and I hope your FA contributions will not suffer as you take on administrative work. PeaceNT 09:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support experienced user, we need your help on CSD. Carlosguitar 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Per all above. Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.