Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willmcw[edit]

final (54/4/3) ending 10:16 28 June 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw has been with us for eight months, and has accumulated 10,400 edits, with a good balance of edits to the main namespace and to talk pages. He's an excellent editor with a firm grasp of the NPOV policy, and a keen sense of how to achieve it in the most intractable of subjects. He has managed to gain the respect of some of the most difficult editors by avoiding entrenched positions and remaining civil and reasonable, and he's one of the best editors I know when it comes to being able and willing to track down information and good sources. Being an admin will make him even more of an asset to Wikipedia. It's my privilege to nominate him. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I'm honored by the nomination and accept. -Willmcw 18:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
PS I was welcomed by Sam Spade on July 13, 2004, so I can claim 11 months. -Willmcw 09:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. A pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. YES! El_C 10:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. It's that old cliche "I thought he already was one," comes to my mind. Nine months, 10,400+ edits, and having a reasonable and civil behavior makes this user highly qualified. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. He has, together with User:Zappaz and others, done an impressive work on List of purported cults, managing to find a consensus which turned an unavoidably POV article (a list of everything at least one editor thought could be called a cult) in a well-sourced NPOV article (with clear rules for inclusion). --cesarb 10:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Excellent candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Cool. JuntungWu 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support - great choice for an admin. Guettarda 12:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. An obvious choice. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Anyone who can keep me in line while I am editing a Lyndon LaRouche page (I am a critic) deserves an adminiship. Fair, calm, reasonable, constructive.--Cberlet 13:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. We're getting a lot of good names up here lately... keep...er...support Grutness...wha? 14:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Of course — another case of "but I thought he was...". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Obvious choice for admin. Unfailingly polite and thoughtful, excellent grasp of policy, and an eminently sensible editor. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support FeloniousMonk 17:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. CDThieme 19:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong support has made very sensible edits and de-escalating comments on the talk page on extremely controversial and sensitive subjects such as list of purported cults, guru, cult checklist. (I made major contributions to the latter two articles.) Andries 20:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strongly support; an excellent choice indeed. Funny I was just about to nominate him myself. Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Michael Snow 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support very happily. Grace Note 22:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. support: Happy to endorse Willmcw for adminship, this time with one of those familiar refrains: ya mean he wasn't already? However, as an aside, in keeping with the spirit of the Brown Act, is there yet a running tally of just how many admins there are? Wikipedia is rife with many excellent and more than competent editors to fill the bureaucratic ranks, like Willmcw, but someone needs to keep an eye on the balance between the number of admins and the number of posts/editors, lest the bureaucracy become topheavy and vulnerable to collective administrative incompetence, groupthink, or worse. Hope Willmcw will support such notions. Ombudsman 00:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I believe you can just count them at the list of administrators. --cesarb 11:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Admins aren't supposed to be a bureaucracy - they are simply users who the community trusts with extra tools. Ideally every established user would have admin tools. Guettarda 12:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support: That way he can fix my stupid page moves, in addition to the all the other corrections he makes to my contributions. Having Will around is like having my own personal copy-editor! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, Over 10,000 high quality edits, and a reasonable collaborator. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Cyberjunkie TALK 04:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Very level headed (very southern-Californian) ;-) HKT 05:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. --Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. RadicalSubversiv E 07:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Ghakko 09:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support wholeheartedly. Unfailingly calm and polite, equally dedicated to Wikipedia's policies and vision. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support; somewhat of a zealot but excellent technical knowhow. Nobs01 16:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support Dan100 (Talk) 16:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. All of my interactions with him have been quite pleasant, and he has often shown more patience in the face of POV pushers than I have myself been able to do. All in all I think he's a pretty reliable editor. --Fastfission 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support ~~~~ 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33. Ingoolemo talk 20:05, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  34. Strong support. Willmcw, in my experience, has been a good and conscientious contributor. -- BD2412 talk 23:05, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  35. Support--Duk 01:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support- JCarriker 02:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. The allegation below of cliquishness is obscure. That of "stalking" is at least lucid, but I followed the links, examined some of the claimed examples, and saw nothing to worry about. -- Hoary 03:49, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  38. Support. 172 17:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Denis Diderot 21:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support --Bletch 22:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support, I regularly check out the contributions of editors who I fear may be making bad edits, that's not stalking, that's diligence. --W(t) 22:25, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  42. Support. Besides our obvious differences, and after reading his response to my concern, I have no doubt that Willmcw will be a great admin, therefore my support is hereby stated. --Zappaz 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. -- Viajero | Talk 17:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Excellent editor. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Bishonen | talk 03:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. I see no evidence of stalking; rather, it looks like someone doing RC patrol or newpages patrol. --Carnildo 04:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support, and highly honored to do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. Seems like he'd make a very good admin. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support, looks a great diplomat. Shem(talk) 20:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  50. Conditional support, while I didn't neccesarily agree with him on all of the issues relating to CARM and Matt Slick he was patient with all of the annons, and new users and discussed every issue brought up. He seems to be a good user. However I would like to see a response to the stalking accusations. Falphin 20:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    After consideration and users reply I change my vote to Support regardless.
  51. Support. I'm surprised he isn't one yet. I've found him great to work with and quite resourceful. --Idont Havaname 20:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support Of course. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 21:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. — Ford 23:58, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose - this user has engaged in personal harassment and wiki-stalking of me over the course of several months. (evidence is documented here [1] and includes over 50 separate articles and 28 distinct cases of stalking from February to June 2005) I have been informed by other editors that he behaves similarly elsewhere, and believe that this behavior in general constantly violate's wikipedia's injunction to assume good faith, which he often does not. His political beliefs are too strongly exhibited in his editing practices to fulfill the neutrality demanded of an administrator.Rangerdude 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - changing my vote based on apparant stalking behaviour outlined at the above RFC ~~~~ 18:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for now. I think I'd like to see the RFC dealt with before promoting this user. --Xcali 06:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Great work in several areas including Spoken Wikipedia, but I am concerned about this person's clique membership. — Chameleon 12:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - lean oppose but will vote neutral for now. While overall he is a prolific editor and seems to be making a good faith attempt at level-headed neutrality on difficult subjects (such as the Lyndon LaRouche topics) I have severe questions about his ability to remain NPOV on topics related to immigration, overpopulation, and the Sierra Club. Kaibabsquirrel 05:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Same reasons as Kaibabsquirrel. --Merovingian (t) (c) June 28, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Comments

  • Additional comment - I am also troubled that when given the opportunity to disclose his past editing conflicts below, he made virtually no mention of several recent editing disputes including the one linked above, and notably Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Mediation. The Houston Chronicle mediation cases is also notable as User:Willmcw attempted repeatedly to give himself unauthorized access to a closed section of the mediation page in which myself and another user were the only authorized participants according to the stated terms of the mediation. This included inserting himself into those terms of mediation without permission [2] and attempting to reinsert himself a second time after I restored the original rule and formatting. [3] Rangerdude 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Concern. I have been at the opposite end of Willmcw on the dispute on List of purported cults, and whoever followed that dispute, may have noted that it took a considerable effort from my part to create an environment in which the article could be developed within consensus. My concern is that Willmcw has a strong bias agains new religious movements and he will need to show a high degree of restrain not to misuse admin powers once vested as an admin. Once Willmcw responds to my concern and publicly states to fellow editors his intentions when editing articles related to new religions and purported cults, I will be delighted to add my support, as I do not doubt his abilities as an editor. --Zappaz 11:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I'm not exactly sure I know what you are asking. A general rule is that admins should avoid using the major tools (page protection, editor blocking) in content matters where they are involved. If I follow that rule then becoming an admin should not have much effect on my editing in the field of new religious movements. Naturally, I expect to use the minor admin tools (rollback, page move) when they are helpful. (Though I'm ambivalent about the rollback button. I like to explain the reverts that I feel are necessary, except in the cases of clearest mischief.) I'd be very honored (and a bit surprised) if you give your support, and I will continue to consider you a valuable contributor and collaborator whether you do so or not. List of purported cults was not easily arrived at, but I think that it is now an article of which we can all be proud. And not just the outcome - the discussion, though contentious at times, was always polite and to the point. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    You know, one of the best bits of advice on fiction-writing I ever got was to avoid trying to sum up one's characters on introduction -- you may be intending to make your hero's sidekick a screamingly funny guy, but you shouldn't tell the reader how screamingly funny he is, because either they'll find him screamingly funny, and your announcement that he is will be redundant, or they won't, and they'll find it jarring and unpleasant. I feel the same way about the "declarations of bias" people put up, which are too often just self-serving excuses to claim "well, I am on the side of freedom and justice and humanity and you must treat me in a manner consistent with that claim rather than with my actions"; I find it a little appalling that you are actually proposing to withhold support until Willmcw makes a declaration of that nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You need to relax a bit, Antaeus. The concern was valid and I am happy I made it public (this, after all is the purpose of the adminship process) and I am satisfied with Will's response. --Zappaz 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I try to do my share of vandal patrolling. My watchlist has nearly two thousand articles on it, including frequent vandalism targets like Howard Hughes, Jim Morrison, San Diego, California, Ku Klux Klan, Human penis size, etc. Administrative tools such as the rollback button, user block, and page protection would make that work easier and faster. I also anticipate helping to reduce the backlog, including processing VfDs and other deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am pleased with what could be called "solo" contributions to new or existing articles: Wickliffe Draper, LaRouche Movement, Mount Wilson Observatory, Synanon, Attack on Pearl Harbor, History of Santa Monica, California, Topanga, California. Other "solo" contributions include speaking more than a dozen Wikipedia articles, a very time consuming task. I am also proud of my contributions that employ Wikipedia's breadth, such as Robert Graham (sculptor) (creating that article involved adding to 20 articles because his monumental civic artworks each have subjects and locations). However I am most pleased with the collaborations that I've been involved in which resolve issues are disputed between two or more editors, myself included. For example, the Lyndon LaRouche series, Immigration reduction, Neo-confederate, Kevin B. MacDonald, New Zealand National Front, Stormfront, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and List of purported cults.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. See above for a partial list of editing collaborations that have caused me some stress. Established dispute resolution procedures start with simple solutions: using the talk page, avoiding personal remarks, and assuming good faith. The mere passage of time has cooled many disputes. I deal with stress by not focussing exclusively on any one article or topic at a time. Turning off the computer and getting outside is one of the best cures for stress, in my opinion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Willmcw&oldid=1213768533"