Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Williamborg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 12 October 2008 (Script-assisted categorization). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Williamborg

Final (8/15/4) Ended 07:21, 2006-07-23 (UTC)

Williamborg (talk · contribs) – The first time i came across Bill's edits i thought he was already an admin. We than collaborated in a few articles related to geography and was amazed by this user's NPOV, civilty, academic approach among other "wiki virtues". I decided than to ask him if he was interested in moving forward to become an admin. He had to "avoid" the proposal thurough an analysis and under the pretext he is an inclusionist. That was the only time i wasn't in agreement w/ this Scandinavian user that did too much to make Scandinavia-related articles look excellent. Simply, someone being here since March 2005 deserves to be an admin. Szvest 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored that Szvest thought well enough of my work to nominate me. If the consensus, after you've read my self-analysis below (Questions for the candidate) and consider my work, is that you want me to serve, I’ll do my best to be rational, fair and work for a quality Wikipedia. Williamborg 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw my nomination for administrator status with Wikipedia. Some thoughts follow:
  • I appreciate the Szvest's honoring me by nominating me and apologize for not being the viable candidate he judged I was.
  • And I thank those who offered support. I do believe that the supportive comments were on target and appreciate those people's willingness to provide me the opportunity.
  • I also appreciate the thought that various Wiki-participants have given to their consideration of my nomination—including those who opposed, but did so thoughtfully.
  • Further, I appreciate the thoughtful individuals who email'd me advice on how to enhance my response to the nomination to improve my probability of approval. From this I infer good will, which is appreciated.
  • You are collectively correct; I have shown little past interest in admin tasks.
  • I'll ponder these comments and decide whether I am truly interested in taking on the roles & responsibilities of an administrator.
  • If I conclude I truly in interested in an admin role, I'll work to correct my deficiencies and be back later.
  • Thank you one and all—Williamborg 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support
  1. Strong support as nom. -- Szvest 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Edit summaries can be raised to 100% in just a couple of hundred edits. This Fire Burns Always 18:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Well-read, helpful, diplomatic, versatile, patient and dedicated. The kind of administrator a person could turn to with a problem and feel confident that it would be resolved in a fair and balanced way. Also unassuming, no big ego getting in the way. With more administrators with these characteristics, Wikipedia would be running a lot smoother. Pia 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Williamborg obviously wants to tools for a reason, otherwise he wouldn't have acepted the nom. He has enough edits to show that he's levelheaded and a good wikipedian, and I think he'd grow well into the tool. If he wants them, I won't stop him. Thε Halo Θ 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support We need more speciallist admins Jaranda wat's sup 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Merovingian - Talk 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Go Yankees 05:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Froggy 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Pending Answer to Question The primary reason for opposition is your response to standard question one (regarding sysop chores). You don't give a reason you need admin capabilities; you essentially say you aren't going to do certain tasks (taking care of vandalism, speedy deleting articles, etc), but you don't actually say what you will do. You may be a wonderful editor (I'm not doubting that), but you can be a wonderful editor without being an admin. I find it a bit strange too that you said you wouldn't delete articles tagged for speedy deletion because you're an inclusionist. That's really not the proper approach to articles tagged for speedy deletion, especially since most of them should be deleted for reasons even a standard inclusionist would have to agree with. I'm also a bit perplexed about the comment about the Diablo Test; it may just be a mistake, but you said, "now that I see that it is a prerequisite for Adminship". It's not; even User:Mailer diablo stopped using it awhile ago. On a side note, your edit summary rates are very low and your e-mail address isn't activated (but I'm not opposing on those grounds). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many speedy tagged articles have been restored after checking if they fall under that cat. Also, many experienced admins do not care about RC Patrolling but instead assist other areas of this vast ocean! Another important point is that being an inclusionist doesn't bother this project. We have hundrends of differents admin backgrounds over here and that's why we vote at Afd's and Cfd's. -- Szvest 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to imply that all articles tagged for speedy deletion should be deleted (that's what I meant when I said "most of them should be deleted"; there are many that are tagged for speedy deletion that are clearly worthy). I also didn't mean to imply that admins have to do everything. It's just that Williamborg didn't seem to indicate what he would do with the tools. I also don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with inclusionists; I simply got the impression that he wouldn't want to delete speedied articles, even if they should be deleted. Again, he doesn't have to work in that arena, but I'm not sure what admin-related arena he would be working on. But, I'll see how the candidate responds to the four questions - three of which are from Gwernol - below. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose very low WP-space edits. They may not be neccisary to be a good editor, but policy and project discussion is a primary feature of admin work. Also with the strange comments about not wanting to delete CSD. The explanation above helps a bit, but I don't think even most inclusionists would agree that everything should be kept, as you make it sound. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose sorry, but not enough project space edits and no evidence that he will make good use of the tools. Keep being an excellent editor and making good contributions, but adminship is not necessary. Eluchil404 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Answer to sysop chores question suggests there is no need for admin tools for this user, additionally nominators "... deserves to be an admin", adminship is not a promotion there is no deserve/not deserve in it. Let good (or great) editors be just that, no need to side track them into the drudgery of many of the admin chores. --pgk(talk) 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Please don't take this too personally, but you're reasons for requesting admin don't seem to jive with your contributions. Specifically, you say that you plan on closing AfD's with an inclusionist perspective. That's great, but you've only ever been involved in one AfD debate, and it was directly related to Norway. Please come back in a couple of months when you have a little more WP space experience. (by the way, your other contributions are great!) Alphachimp talk 21:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. You are doing a great job, but you don't have enough experience in the project-side of things. I appreciate your committment to increase your edit summary usage, but I need to see more evidence of it and other project involvement. Try again in 3 months and I will gladly support if you have worked on those things. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Pgk. 1ne 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Pgk. Draicone (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Fails my criteria with regard to activity in the Wikipedia project space. --Wisden17 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, fine editor, will make a great admin in future. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 02:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose by the outline below of why the user wants the mop in the "SYSOP CHORES" section. The response to activity in AIV is a copy and paste expression of disinterest from the RC Patrolling question. The responses to CSD and AfD are irrelevant; a user's personal feelings are not the same as their actions as admins should be. If consensus is to delete, the admin has the responsibility of respecting the communities opinion. In fact, the only real qualification I see is passing Diablo's test, and that's not even a primary part of what an administrator does. Teke 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Obvious Oppose per above.Voice-of-All 03:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - While this user would probably be well suited to adminship, they don't seem interested in admin tasks. I would support a future nomination, but for now I think that theres not really a reason for it. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - not much experience. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. You look like a good contributor, but you don't meet my Wikipedia: namespace activity criteria, and also the answer to what you would do with the tools lists a number of things you don't want to do, but doesn't seem to say what you would do with them. Would probably consider supporting with an additional month or two of experience in the project side of Wikipedia. BryanG(talk) 05:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
Neutral Pending Answer to Question Your edit summary rates are very low: 63% for major edits and 39% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you please activate your e-mail address? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Early on I discovered several edit summaries that misrepresented the actual edit. As a result, I got in the habit of reading all changes on my watchlist and neglecting to provide good summaries since I assumed others did the same. However I recently (very recently since asked if I'd serve as an Admin when I became aware of it) activitated the reminder to complete the edit summary. Regardless of whether selected to serve as an Admin or not, I'll do better in the future. Williamborg 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turned on email. Hadn't seen much need for it as Wiki discussions I've been invovled in in the past have been completely open, but I can understand that an Admin needs the capability. Williamborg 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Virtually No wikispace edits, but He has been around since last year and I get the sense that he's knowledgeable...still pending. AdamBiswanger1 19:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Loved your answers, but not enough Wikispace edits. Roy A.A. 19:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I would love to support, but just not enough wikipedia namespace edits. DarthVader 00:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Yours is one of the better recent noms, but between your low edit summary usage and the concerns raised by others above, I'm really not sure how to vote. Sorry. :( RandyWang (raves/rants) 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • See Williamborg's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
    • 63% for major edits and 39% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace
Username	Williamborg
Total edits	5543
Distinct pages edited	1370
Average edits/page	4.046
First edit	20:56, 27 March 2005
	
(main)	4092
Talk	297
User	330
User talk	513
Image	42
Template	18
Category	155
Category talk	4
Wikipedia	69
Wikipedia talk	23

Taken from Interiot's Edit Count Tool. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

Response in the form of the message chain from the intial invitation

Hi Bill. I was thinking about presenting you to Wikipedia:Request for adminship. You've been here for a relatively long time and think that you deserve to become an admin. Please let me know about your opinion so i can prepare that for you. Cheers -- Szvest 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Hi Szvest.
I do appreciate your kind thoughts. It is an honor to have you think well enough of my work to take the trouble to ask if I'd consider nomination. The activities that Administrators perform are certainly important to the quality and well-being of Wikipedia. So I sat down to measure my potential as an Administrator and this is what I found:
1. OVERVIEW OF INTERESTS
I am just a student, but "writing crystallizes thought," so I record things which interest me here in the Wikipedia and interact with the others who do so. The beauty and strength of the Wikipedia is that there is so much which is of interest and so many willing to do their bit. Wikipedia is a true intellectual community.
The intellectual community that is Wikipedia is an important home for long tail information. Unlike EB, which is constrained by physical size and number of editors to a limited number of broad articles and must focus on big topics, Wikipedia can cover both the big topics and the niches, helping people find their way to that relatively obscure material that they are actually interested in. Wikipedia is, in spite of those who suggest otherwise, a relational database which can link diverse topics in ways that EB and kin can not. There an awful lot of dross in minor articles, but there are diamonds too, and among those diamonds, the future waits. Wikipedia overthrows the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare. I belive we must overthrow the tyranny of lowest-common-denominator fare; that is, we must Keep Wikipedia Weird.
Such views have logical consequences; I am a devout inclusionist. I strongly believe in the value of fixing and extending articles rather than pruning them. I strongly believe in the value of the less-popular topics. The obscure should be encouraged, nurutred and linked.
I also hold with Halldór Laxness's magnificent novel, Kristnihald undir Jökli or Christianity under the Glacier (published in English as Under the Glacier), where he states that, "The difference between a novelist and a historian is this: that the former tells lies deliberately and for the fun of it; the historian tells lies in his simplicity and imagines he is telling the truth." We Wikipedians must ever be open to the possibility that what one has previously read and what one "knows to be true" is simply wrong. We must be open and intellectually honest. We must attempt to use the Wikipedia, not as a pulpit for our world-view, but as a method to develop a more rational and less jingoistic world view.
2. SYSOP CHORES What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
  • RC Patrolling: I have little interest in the Recent Changes Patrol. I do wander through occasionally to see what's going on, but RC patrolling just isn't of interest...
  • Diablo test: I pass the Diablo test of having worked on a featured article. And now that I see that it is a prerequisite for Adminship, I understand why people crowd on the edit a nominee for featured article. But I believe that an administrator's merit is not measured by participation in editng a featured article. In fact I wonder if the Diablo test is a valid test.
  • AIV: Someone has to revert vandalism and warn the offenders appropriately. I revert vandalism when I come across vandalism, but I don't patrol for vandalism. Don’t intend to patrol for vandalism either.
  • AFD closing/re-listing: I hold strong inclusionist views and have little interest in deletion patrols (unless the article is truly bogus). Most articles can be saved by expanding and adding context.
  • Mergers: I dislike mergers. I strongly dislike mergers. Good short articles are frequently concatenated into long, turgid, ponderous, confusing, unreadable things of limited value. Articles should be expanded, not merged (you saw my reaction on the Atlas mountains merger recommendation).
  • CSD: Candidates for speedy deletion should be deleted if they meet the criteria. But I have no desire to delete them. I'm an inclusionist.
  • Helping newcomers: When a newby does work worth recognition, I'm happy to acknowledge it, but only if I come across their edits in the course of routine work. Not particularly interested in seeking them out.
  • Other sysop chores: Requests for Page Protection, 3RR Noticeboard, the Administrator Noticeboard and Incidents are all useful and I'm glad someone does these. But I’m most interested in adding new material.
2. CONTRIBUTIONS Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
3.CONFLICT RESOLUTION 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?
  • I’ve had one conflict and am not too proud of it. Handled it by sulking in a terribly immature fashion and going off to do other things for a while (at the time I felt most of us have a life outside of Wikipedia and shouldn't have to put up with what feels like manipulative abuse). After a couple of months away I returned, made peace, and have tried to be more mature in my own behavior. Basically that boils down to working in good faith and assuming that other Wikipedians are acting in good faith, even though your gut leads you to suspect otherwise. Turns out to work pretty well; Wikipedians are fundamentally good people; most folks on Wikipedia are trying to do good and useful things.
SUMMARY So you see, I’m probably not an ideal candidate for an Administrator on Wikipedia. My interests are not in line with the classical Admin interests. And I work for a living (including periodic out-of-country travel) so am available only intermittently. But if you think the above would survive a nomination vote and still want to ask me to serve, I’ll do my best to be fair and work for a quality Wikipedia.
Regardless, thanks for the kind thought - Williamborg 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bill! I read your analysis w/ concentration and don't find a big reason not to. Pia is also supporting fully my suggestion. Maybe after finishing the hoard of unwashed urchins you can get back to the board for another task over here. I mean a one minute lasting task. -- Szvest 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Questions
1 Question from -- tariqabjotu (joturner): What is the conflict you allude to in Question Three?
2 You say when discussing closing AfD, that you have strong inclusionist tendencies. Can you expand on that? Does that mean you will err on the side of not deleting articles up for AfD? How will you reconcile consensus, policy and your strongly held personal beliefs? Gwernol 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 As you are "mostly interested in adding new material" and won't be taking part in CSD, page protection, 3RR, RC patroling and other tasks, why do you need the admin tools? Why do you want them? Gwernol 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4 Is Wikipedia an online encyclopedia or the sum of all human knowledge? Please explain your understanding of the difference (if any) between these views and how your answer will be reflected in your use of the admin tools. Gwernol 18:50, 22 July 2006 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Williamborg&oldid=244853140"