Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wilhelmina Will

Add links
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.


Wilhelmina Will[edit]

Final (4/22/5); Ended 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (closed per WP:NOTNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination[edit]

Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) – Greetings, everyone. I have chosen to nominate myself to become an administrator, because I feel I am ready to take my contributing to Wikipedia to the next level. I have edited here since mid-June, 2007, and in that time I have studied many aspects of Wikipedia's policies, and have found my own niches within the main project. Though I have made my share of mistakes in the past, I feel confident that I have made many good contributions, and I think I know a number of ways I can help with the development of the encyclopedia even more, as an admin. And, action! (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Mostly, I intend to partake as a reviewer of Did You Know nominations, and also in warning and blocking vandalistic users. I expect, however, that the majority of my post-admin contributions will be much as they are now; involved in the creating of new pages in a variety of categories.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions are in creating new articles, and particularly in reviewing and accepting articles from the AFC project. I haven't done the latter in over a year and a half, but I used to spend a lot of time, examing every nomination of every day that I could, and researching into the suggestions, and/or asking other users for their opinions. Often, if I was sure that a nomination was alright, I would just go boldly and accept it. If there was any reason for which a nomination was not acceptable, I would decline the suggestion, and give as detailed a reason as I could for declining. I did not think that the template-based reasons used in the project were usually sentient and explanatory enough, so I often overrode them with my own explanations. I did not stop checking over a certain day's revision until all of the suggestions had been closed and either accepted or declined.
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: It's happened once or twice. One of the worst scenarios was when a user accused me of sockpuppetry. I do not believe in doing this sort of thing, and I was outraged that anyone would think I practiced this sort of behaviour. At first I behaved very angrily and aggressively over the situation (I was fifteen at the time) but it didn't take me very long to realize that was not going to get me anywhere. I then decided to back out of the discussion altogether, and instead focus on making as many contributions as I could, to prove to Wikipedia that I was a good editor, and not worthy of being banished. That was what started me on mass article-creation.
The second scenario I am thinking of occured several months later, when another user began repeatedly harassing me, claiming that most of my work consisted of copyright violations, and subtle vandalisms. Again, I got very angry, and very stressed (I thought at some points that I was going to have a stroke, I was hyperventilating so often), but I again eventually decided that the best thing I could do was to opt out of the discussion/s, and just focus on building on my contributions. That user managed to rally a bunch of other users against me, and got me banned from DYK for a number of weeks, though I fortuately was able to win their hearts back later on.
I'm ashamed that I reacted so rashly the first time around, but I think I since have matured in my ability to respond to these sorts of situations. The best thing I think you can do in such tight binds is what I brought myself to do in the end: Calmly speak the truth, show the other Wikipedians all the good things you do, and let it go from there.
Additional optional question from Mkativerata
4. What do you mean by acting as a "reviewer of DYK nominations"? Any editor can review a DYK nom. Admins are only required (if I recall correctly) to add and pull noms from the queue. Have you reviewed any DYK noms in the past?
A: I have made comments on nominations, to assist in the discussions, but what I meant by what I said was deciding whether or not a certain nomination qualifies for DYK or not, and adding/pulling them from the queue, as you said. And, action! (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Dank
5. Can you point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline? If you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.
A: I would say a good example is in this disucssion: Talk:Iggy Arbuckle#Mooseknuckle. A user was continually pressing that the name of the town "Mooseknuckle" in the TV show Iggy Arbuckle was inspired by the term Mooseknuckle, even though no published verification for this exists, as far as anyone could find. Along with a few other users, I tried to reason with the IP, and explained as civilly as I could about the policies behind this. And, action! (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your username in that conversation; did you talk with them somewhere else? - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now, you signed as "I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale!" - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from RP459
6. Your account has been blocked 3 times in the past. Could you explain the circumstances surrounding each of the blocks?
A:Sure thing. The first block occurred because I did not understand the policies about personal attacks. Call me naive, but I didn't even understand what a personal attack was considered to be. I just behaved the way I felt at the time, and i got very 'passionate" about situations and often acted nastily to other users. I've cooled down and tried to clean up my act since then, and generally try to keep out of interactions altogether. The second time was because I wanted a fairuse image I had uploaded to remain, and a replacement with a different picture type that was said to be of better quality threatened it with deletion. I kept repeatedly trying to replace the other image with mine, and when that failed, I tried redirecting my image to that one. I was blocked for disruption that time, but I apologized for my behaviour, and was released soon after. The third time was a mistake; a user thought I had vandalized an article which I pointed out I hadn't even edited since months before the vandalism occurred, and when I pointed this out, he checked, and then released me. For being cool and polite about that incident, I actually received my first barnstar! That pretty much sums it up. And, action! (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Mike Cline
7. Wilhelmina, if Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one):
a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs.
b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals.
c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion.
d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP.
A: As I mentioned, I would choose to work in the vandalism prevention department, because it is the one I have most experience with as it is, and being an administrator in many wikis from Wikia, many of which have been vandalized from time to time, has given me good experience with blocking vandals. I know I'm only supposed to choose one of these, but I will point out that from what I've seen, the dispute resolution department and the vandalism department sometimes go hand-in-hand. And, action! (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Do you believe WP:Before is good practice in WP and should WP:Before be strengthened and/or adopted as a guideline in its own right?
A: I think it is an excellent practice; I believe in double-checking everything. Yes, I think it should be adopted as an official guideline. And, action! (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kraftlos
9. You were barely active most of the months in 2009 and late 2008, was there a particular reason for this? If you become an admin will you similarly have long periods of time with very little activity punctuated with very active months?
A: I was inactive during these times because I was feeling very uninspired, and also because I was indulged in my work on some of the wikis in Wikia. I've since formulated a schedule, to balance out all of these activities. And, action! (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Richwales
10. Can you tell us some more about why you want to be an administrator? What sorts of things do you frequently wish you could do now, which you cannot because you aren't an admin, and which you anticipate you would do reasonably often if you were an admin? I note that several people have been commenting negatively about your RfA because your answer to question #1 suggests that you don't really have any pressing reason or need for admin privileges.
A: Alright. I'd really like to be able to do all of the things that an administrator can do, but an ordinary user cannot; I'd like to be able to block and unblock disruptive users, protect and unprotect pages which may require it, settle disputes, and delete/restore pages if necessary. I also want to be looked up to be new users as a source of information on how to help out with Wikipedia, and they mostly go to the admins. My only problem is that I have so many things I do in a day, that I would not have much time for anything other than dealing with vandalism or helping out with DYK. And, action! (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from WackyWace
11. I've been taking a look at your edit counter, and was intruged to find you've made over 3500 edits to your user page. Considering this makes up almost 30% of all your edits on Wikipedia, would you care to explain why you have made such a large number of edits to your user page?

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Well intentioned user who will not in my opinion abuse the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You look good to me; I'm surprised at the lack of activity in this RfA so far, aside from the question section. But I've looked through your contribution history and though you definitely had some problems with stressful situations in the past, it looks like you've improved a lot since then and would be a net positive as an administrator. —Soap— 00:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, if the blocks were last week I could understand the concerns, but they were two years ago. I'm satisfied that the user has learnt and grown in that time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Support as she handled the uncalled for block in May 2008 quite well. 25 subsequent months of good contributions is enough to let go of the April 2008 block. I agree with Soap that she would be a benefit to the project as an admin. delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 07:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak oppose. I've no doubt your intentions are good, but your block log is somewhat concerning, though I note those blocks were 2 years ago. You're certainly trustworthy if you've been granted rollback and autoreviewer rights, but I'm afraid your nomination statement and the answer to Q1 seem to show a lack of understanding of what an administrator does and no real use for the toolset. Nothing personal, sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (ec) Sorry. I don't care about the blocks or the DYK topic ban. Those were 2 years ago and it seems a clean break has been made. However, there's not enough experience since then for me to be confident in your capabilities with the admin tools at this stage. Two examples: (1) for an active DYK admin I would like to see more experience reviewing and verifying DYK hooks; (2) for blocking vandals I would like to see more WP:AIV reports to demonstrate an understanding of our vandalism and blocking policies. All that would be needed for my clear support later is firm experience in those kinds of admin areas, or more all-round experience of a general basis. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Concerns about experience and temperament. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Essentially per Cirt - Concerns with experience and temperament. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose-Adminship is not the "Next level" of editing, the blocks don't really matter to me, experience is an issue.--SKATER Hmm? 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not sure you're approaching this with the right attitude, and Q1 leads me to think that you don't have that much of a need for the mop. —fetch·comms 02:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Fetchcomms above. I had the same idea even before coming to this section. —Tommy2010 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The candidate has made nearly 13,000 edits on Wikipedia, which shows that he/she is an active contributor. Despite this, there are a number of other factors preventing me from supporting the user's adminship request. The amount of blocks the candidate has received is a bit hard to overlook and, after reading Q1, it appears that the user doesn't plan to use administrative tools for much. Shannon ♫ (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose Not much experience in areas he has specified he would like to work in. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry, even though the blocks were two year ago, they are still worrying. Acather96 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I see a well meaning candidate, though I don't see much that gives me confidence - especially in terms of the candidate's knowledge and judgement. The blocks are a while ago, so are not a major issue, though they are a factor to be considered, especially when there's not much to offer in compensation. I see little to actively admire in the candidate's contributions - there's some friendly chit chat here and there, but no significant drive to build Wikipedia, and no evidence of sound knowledge of our policies. Indeed, I am concerned about the low overall activity over the past year and a half, and the comments here, while they are quite old, are still linked to from the candidate's userpage and a statement that admins should be "domineering over lesser users" makes me feel uncomfortable; no matter that it's from 2008, it's a mind set that I don't appreciate someone having. SilkTork *YES! 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, but with moral support for the future. I'm happy that the candidate's motivation is honourable, but I'm not convinced they're doing enough to justify the tools just now. Also, those blocks may be two years ago, but the candidate hasn't really done a lot since late 2008, and so there really isn't enough recent work on which to judge. I'd suggest do some more work in the admin areas of interest, get the recent edit count up, and perhaps try again in another six months? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what exactly an admin can and should do, from Q1.  f o x  12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, due to the answer to Q7 "[I] generally try to keep out of interactions altogether." Unfortunately, admins generally bear the brunt of abuse on WP, and need to be able to take that abuse without responding in-kind. Avoidance is not a good option, IMHO.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose as per LiberalFascist: I was about to write just that. Admins should be open to interacting with others and explaining why they did something — also accepting polite and civil criticism —. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I to have reservations as to Attitude Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose A Well Meaning Candidate and Even when Assuming Good Faith The first block is a bit hard to ignore. I would also wonder about the True Intentions of the use of the use of the Admin Tools (Reviewing DYK isn't a Really big need to Have the Admin. Floul1 | My Talkpage | Vandalise Here 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I only support mature and calm candidates. Unfortunately I can't support those who were blocked for harassment or personal attacks, even though that was two years ago. Minimac (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per the candidate's lack of a calm and mature temperament, answers to Q1 and Q7 (in which the candidate expresses a lack of knowledge of what an administrator does and the amount of stress put on admins), and multiple blocks for harassment and personal attacks. Laurinavicius (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose – per previous blocks, answer to Q1, and activity reasons. Also, an admin needs to be able to deal with stress, and unfortunately, your answers show that you cannot do so calmly or maturely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, for the first time ever. I don't think a "clean slate" is mandatory for an Admin, but I do expect the ability to support one's position with logic and facts instead of passion, and I do expect those who have erred in the past to clearly demonstrate having learned from their mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't see that here. --Alan (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose More time and experience will be needed to help clean early flaws. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Its a not sure for me. Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm also not sure if this user really needs the admin tools yet (per other comments) — though I don't see a strong enough reason to oppose the request. I would suggest, though, that she should strongly consider adopting a more conventional signature that includes her real account name — otherwise, people are likely to be confused and think that "And, action!" is her account name rather than a cutesy pseudo-sig. Richwales (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I see this as a variant of the "elaborate signatures" issue mentioned in WP:GRFA, and I personally would tend to recommend an unambiguous signature for all editors, but especially in the case of admins. Richwales (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eh. Per everybody voting oppose; I just don't know enough about the past to make a strong enough judgment for an oppose vote.Nekami (talk) ❤ 06:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A net benefit for the project. I remember dramatic times when she was making a huge collection of DYKs from the AFC material back in 2008 and then suddenly stopped when the anons created their own talk pages to start off articles. Also why does WW think that the image policy is unfair? What would an administrator do in this field? See [[1]] for the userbox collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning support – waiting for answer to Q11. Pepper∙piggle 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wilhelmina_Will&oldid=1138299704"