Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William S. Saturn

William S. Saturn

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (6/21/0); Scheduled to end 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) –
Hello Wikipedians. Let me introduce myself,

I am William S. Saturn, a longtime wikipedia editor, and vandal fighter. I am nominating myself not because I want to be an administrator but because I feel obligated, given how the project has improved my skills, and due to concerns that there are not enough active administrators.

I initially began editing as Southern Texas (now User:William Saturn) in June 2007. In my three years of editing, I have written numerous articles including 42 DYKs, 23 GAs and one FA.

I will admit that I have made mistakes here, including edit warring, however, I have learned from these mistakes, and they will only help me in becoming a wise administrator.

Thank you for your time,
--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I would be an active administrator on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, help with the backlog on WP:DYK, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, look over unblock requests, and would keep a close watch on all admin noticeboards.

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

A: I feel that the Featured Article Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 is my greatest contribution to the project, as well as the 23 GAs I have largely written.

I am also proud of WP:WikiProject United States presidential elections, which I began in 2007. It has been beneficial in bringing organization to high interest articles about Presidential elections in the United States.

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: Yes. I have been in conflicts, and I made some mistakes during them, but I believe I have learned from these mistakes, and can now handle conflict effectively by remaining calm and observing the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. No other wikipedian has caused me stress, I am generally thick-skinned.

Additional optional question from Aiken drum

4. I see you were incorrectly blocked as a sockpuppet of Uga Man (talk · contribs). Tell us what/how/why that happened and how you handled being falsely accused.

A: Here is the explanation of everything that happened. Because my page was locked I created a new account (I was, at the time, unaware of the "email this user" function) and continued editing. I was then blocked as a sockpuppet of Southern Texas, and unblocked after completing a "second chance" template. The whole episode gave me great insight into how the unblock process works.

Additional optional question from Noloop

5. Should admins who engage in personal attacks be blocked more readily than average, on the grounds that they should be held to a higher standard? Or, should they be given extra leeway, because they are have established social credit in the community? Noloop (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A::I would say it depends on the content of the personal attack. Admins should be held to a higher standard, but petty stuff is best overlooked.

Additional optional question from Diego Grez

6. I remember you from Wikinews, but you haven't edited for months since your RfA there. Are you intending to work on the "In the news" section of the Main Page?

A:

General comments

• Links for William S. Saturn: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for William S. Saturn can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• I'd appreciate it if you would enable X!'s edit counter by making a page here with any content you want. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Edit stats posted to talk page. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Last block was nearly 9 months ago... I believe he's learned from any mistakes he's made. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong support as "suggester" - see [1]. He fully meets my standards: in particular - in for over 3 years, very-high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, Barnstars, etc. He is a good and long-time editor, who "gets it"; he has worked on many FAs and GAs, and created many new articles. I note that his blocks were short-term and erroneous. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. He's also a reviewer and a rollbacker, and FWIW, has over 6,000 edits to his credit. He can be trusted with "the mop". Bearian (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support—competent and trustworthy editor. Airplaneman ✈ 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Pro forma support, to cancel out one of the most ridiculous opposes I've seen for a long time. – iridescent 17:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Seems like it's aimed at me. Why is a lack of experience in admin areas a bad reason for opposing? Paralympiakos (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Because you've picked two particularly specialist admin areas, which even most active admins never touch. (My number of posts at WP:UAA, as an editor and admin, remains a big round zero.) – iridescent 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Read the answer to q.1. My edit count on UAA is a single edit. That isn't my criteria, but the user wants to work there (and AIV). Paralympiakos (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   It is not difficult to determine if an editor is vandalizing pages or if a username is not appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Not as simple as that though, is it? If that was everyone's rationale, we'd have millions of admins. Experience is key. Some can be trigger happy (or too lenient) with blocks at AIV or misinterpret names at UAA. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   It doesn't take edits to AIV and UAA to understand policy. It takes real experience (actually editing an article) and good judgement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Editing experience has nothing to do with vandalism and inappropriate usernames. They're different fields entirely. I applaud your success in editing, but frankly, you don't meet the experience requirements for the admin tools. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Of course it does. When one edits, they encounter everything, especially on high interest political pages. I will admit that I did not spend hours on recent changes seeking out vandalism prior to this request, just to make myself look good. Anyone could do that, I ask that you judge me on my commitment to wikipedia and the understanding of policy that I have gained in the past three years. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   But you've showed no understanding of policy in AIV or UAA, as evidenced by your lack of edits to these fields. Content creation, to me, is separate from reporting vandals (not just reversing their actions) and reporting offensive/troublesome user names. From my perspective, you SAY you understand the policy, but where is the proof? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   The proof is in the edits. Look for yourself.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Content editing requires an understanding of all policies. I have done so for over three years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Again, I disagree. I don't profess to know every bit of the MoS, yet I've still contributed positively in creating several dozen articles, all to decent standard. Content and backstage stuff are two different things with some overlap. Simply put, your content is unlikely to impact on AIV or UAA as you want to work in. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Every wikipedian with articles on their watchlist can see vandalism and violations of the username policy. I've seen it for over three years, this is not difficult stuff.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Support Looks good to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support support self.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you can't support yourself. Diego Grez (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Restoring comment removed in this revision Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

   Please do not remove votes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm sorry, but I simply can't support an editor with 4 legitimate blocks. Also, could you enable the dit counter? It will be very helpful during the RfA. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Also, based on the edit summary usage tool, you've only used edit summaries in 23% of your last 150 major edits to the mainspace. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 17:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely you will see that each was undone almost immediately, and the sockpuppetry block was mistaken, as is noted in the block log.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Refactoring, moving to neutral

1. Oppose - 9 edits to UAA and no edits to AIV in the last month. I'm unconvinced that you have the experience needed to avoid costly mistakes. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hell no. This candidate's temperament is just not good enough to become an administrator. I've had discrepancies with him on a sister project before, and I'm glad I'm not running an RfA here now, because he would oppose with a reason something like "Your inflammatory comment crossed a line in my book." Diego Grez (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose The latest block for edit warring was legitimate, regardless of how quickly it was lifted. Further issues of poor judgement evidenced by this statement (which in fairness was later retracted), other diffs disclosed at User talk:William Saturn/2010#List of terrorist incidents, 2009 continued, and a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright versus trademark, see here and here. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   My comments on copyright were generally agreed with by Mike Godwin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Could you point me to where he a) agreed with you that there was a copyright problem with those images and b) called something a copyvio because it resembled a trademark? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   You are correct, it was a trademark issue not copyright, however I stand by my opposition to it. See [2]. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

4. (edit conflict) Oppose – Although you state that you would work in UAA and AIV, you have less than 15 edits to both of them, according to X!'s tool. Also, not to be picky about edit count, but I would expect more than 6k edits out of a vandalism reverter. Sorry, but I just cannot support right now. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   If you add the User:William Saturn account, I have well over 10,000.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Not enough experience in the areas that he would like to work, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Odd statements in self-nom (part of which I fundamentally disagree with), allergy to using edit summaries does not speak well to cooperative spirit, insufficiently-explained series of user names raises additional caution. I can't tell whether or not the candidate would use the tools to the community's benefit. Townlake (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Which part do you disagree with? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose Overturned or not, the fact that there are multiple blocks indicate a pattern behavior that is significantly beyond what I would expect of and admin or a candidate. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   The last block was 9 months ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   The latest block was indeed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose - One day this candidate will probably be a fine administrator; however, at this point in time, the profound lack of experience compels me to vote thumbs down--Hokeman (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
9. I'm returning to the Oppose section because the candidate is arguing with nearly all of the opposers, which is something I don't like in an RfA candidate. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   If the reasons are not legitimate, I'm going to defend myself.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose Concerns with experience in administrative areas and fairly recent block. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
11. I cannot support someone blocked for sockpuppetry. There are legitimate concerns regarding experience in the administrative areas. Tommy! [message] 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    William was erroneously blocked as a sockpuppet of Uga Man; the blocking admin notes this in the block log. Did you really mean to imply that a mistaken block is grounds to forbid an editor from becoming an administrator? Skomorokh 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    My sincerest apologies. Tommy! [message] 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I think you have too little experience in the ares you'd like to work in and, personally, I don't think you're right for adminship at the moment, especially considering your block log. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose partly par Paralympiakos and the related discussion in the support secion, and partly par the (fairly) recent blocks. According to Wikickecker the amount of edits you made on AIV and UAA (The area's you intend to work in) are less then 50 a piece, which slightly worries me since i prefer to see at least some basic user experience before someone starts using administrative tools.

    I am, however, more concerned with the comment that username an vandalism patrol "is not difficult stuff". Watchlist based patrol tends to show vandalism that is obvious, and therefor quite easy and shallow to deal with. However, the reports an admin handles may often be borderline or completely incorrect if studied in some more detail. In other case it is possible that edits are merely newbie mistakes which should result in explanation and not blocks, but it is equally possible that a set of sockpuppets are attempting to stir up trouble trough fake reports; Or perhaps a report was made by a sock of someone involved in an edit war, in an attempt to take out an opponent. As i often mention - during my own first RFA i thought i was a very decent vandalism patrol, until people pointed out the errors i made during that RFA. While most of my reverts were correct, at least part of them were to questionable, which would have led to some rather bad blocks in case i had administrative powers back then. In other words, there is a constant balance between - "Catching all vandalism" and "Not being overzealous / incorrect". As of such i would second Paralympiakos statement that Article editing and vandalism patrol are two separate area's - experience in one area doesn't grant the required experience in another, and theoretical knowledge of the rules in an area doesn't automatically mean you can apply them correctly.

    Regardless, i don't think you are a bad contributer at all, so this entire statement isn't a "Never", but rather a "not now". Personally i would like to to see:

    • More user experience in the area's you wish to work in as an administrator (so i can see if your reverts are sound enough to allow you to block.)
    • An indication that you will be working in those area's every now and then.

    I don't believe that "Expert admin only" or "Frequent involvement only" are criteria for adminship, but i do expect that admins spend at least some of their editing time doing administrative tasks, because they wouldn't need the admin bit in the first place otherwise, and the best way to demonstrate it, is to edit there as a user every now and then. Even so i would point out that not having the admin bit shouldn't matter one little er... bit - An excellent article writer such as yourself is in no way "less" then an admin. Hence, make an AIV report and see how all the admins start run for you :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Addendum - I would second Access Denied's point on "arguing with nearly all of the opposer". Generally "Badgering" the opposition is not appreciated, but i find the "If the reasons are not legitimate" statement worrisome, partially because this seems to imply that the candidate deems 6 out of 13 current vote reasons illegitimate. Even if this is incorrect i find the "core" of the message troubling; I believe that anyone may have its own opinions which may be argued about, but i disagree that man should be labeling or judging any comment as "not legitimate" because they don't agree. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I've bolded a good point (Generally "Badgering" the opposition is not appreciated). There's a difference between enthusiasm and this. I'm sorry William. As I've said, you appear to be an excellent contributor, but FOR NOW, the admin role doesn't seem suited. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose - Too many recent problems with this editor. Edit warring and POV issues, more POV issues, and bogus vandalism warnings are among some of the problems found in a quick perusal of the archives at WP:ANI. The last problem was less than 6 months ago. I don't believe this editor has the temperament nor the experience to be an administrator. -- Atama頭 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose. User does not seem to be clueful enough of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Sorry, but the (now retracted) stated desire to work in AIV and UAA with little no no experience in those areas, as well as what seems to be a borderline combative tone in some of your responses, doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have the right temperment for an admin, or are approaching it for the right reasons. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Sorry but my oppose is largely per Atama and Throwaway. Give it a few months to fix your issues that have been brought up and try again. There are simply too many red flags that I'm seeing here. I'm sorry :(--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per Atama et al. The general temperament does not seem appropriate at times, and the tone used in this RfA is a little off-putting. Not sure how to explain it, but he's had to strike several items and almost seems argumentative at points. —fetch·comms 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose The need to work collegially with others is doubly important for an admin. The attitude to edit summaries, temperament displayed here and elsewhere in my review, and history of behavioural problems does not encourage me in that area. Throw in the lack of experience in professed preferred areas, and the other concerns raised by editors above, and there is far too much concern for me to support, sorry.  Begoon^talk 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I assume you did not take note of my revised answers to question one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose because as soon as I read the opening statement, I was discouraged. I feel very tentative supporting a user who says that he is only nominating himself because he beels "obligated" to. It is your own choice if you want to run or not. Sorry. "Pepper" (T∙C) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Oh dear. Plus per the substandard answers and apparent dodgy history with edit warring and so on. Aiken ♫ 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

The blocks were undone very quickly, but I can't support an editor with such low edit summary usage. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the past edits I made were consecutive. An edit summary would not be beneficial.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse a 23% edit summary usage rate. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Every edit should have an edit summary describing what changes you made. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Moving back to oppose