Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kees08

Kees08

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/4/4); Scheduled to end 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Kees08 (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to present Kees08 to the community for consideration for adminship. Kees08 is one of the most prolific content contributors on our project, focusing mainly on space flight and the Olympics. He currently has six featured articles, one A class article, and (by my count) 49 good articles to his name. His work on the Apollo Missions for the anniversary of the moon landing was some of the most impressive the project has seen, and gives him an understanding of preparing content for the main page that few other administrators would have.

From a temperament perspective, Kees08 is easy going, and always willing to provide help. His commentary at FAC is fair and never rude, and anyone who has interacted with him can tell you that he is a model of what we would look for in behaviour from an administrator.

In terms of need for the tools: I strongly believe that giving editors focused on content access to the tools is a major positive for the encyclopedia. It has a direct impact on our readership. Kees08 has already proven himself able and willing to produce quality main page content, and having him assist there would be a major asset to Wikipedia. Giving him the tools to fix things in articles he runs across would also help the project. This is much more than a net positive, and I hope you will join me in supporting this RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination

It goes without saying that Kees08's content creation record over his three years of editing has been impeccable. His articles are engaging and well-organized, and his contributions to credited GAs/FAs have been truly extensive. What will make him a terrific administrator, beyond all of that, is his even-tempered, generous, and collaborative spirit. I haven't ever met anyone who's spoken poorly of Kees08, and he has shown time after time that he interacts and collaborates well with others in GA reviews, FA reviews, A-class assessments, and most of all in everyday editing. He volunteers much of his time on Wikipedia helping other editors, and his broad experience is the backbone of a record that demonstrates a robust understanding of Wikipedia policy, both as written and as applied. Giving Kees08 the tools is a no-brainer, and it is an honor to co-nominate him to be an administrator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you both for the kind words and nomination, I accept. I have never edited for pay. Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 7 October 2019 (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 have experience getting content to the main page, and often read talk pages related to it. There is a need for more admins at DYK, as can be seen by the most recent talk page section. Even straightforward recent death promotions at WP:ITN can linger for a few hours before promotion at times. I would also like to work at WP:ERRORS and I would use the tools when vandals are editing content I come across in my normal editing, protecting pages and blocking when appropriate.

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

A: In spaceflight, bringing John Glenn (with the help of others) to featured article status. It is a highly trafficked article, and he had extensive careers in multiple fields, which was a big challenge to research. I also enjoy editing articles that may not normally get much attention, like when I brought Birds-1 to good topic status. I collaborated with other editors to bring a set of Apollo 11-related articles to featured article status, and another set of articles for the did you know section on that day.

I also spend time working on Olympic articles. I tend to edit under-represented and poorly developed articles, best illustrated by the before and after of Regine Tugade, an athlete I wrote about while creating the Guam at the 2016 Summer Olympics good topic.

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: I do not get into conflicts often, I try to handle the situation before it escalates, like in the case of what I thought were suspicious edits to an article (discussion).

One example of a conflict is when I reached out to another editor over some reverted edits. She preferred listing awards in a bulleted list, contrary to my preference of writing prose for that section. I learned to take into account other’s past experience, as it may be different than your own. Looking back, I should have clarified my path forward, as I left it ambiguous. Before I edit sections in areas I am not as familiar with, I will discuss it on the talk page first to see if there are any objections.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Utopes

4. Hello Kees08, it is very clear to me that you write high-quality articles here on Wikipedia. While you say that you will use your administrative tools to help in managing the mainpage (error reports, DYK hook promotion) and handling vandalism, do you plan on helping around other areas of Wikipedia using your tools as an administrator? This also includes general help that doesn't require the use of the permission.

A: I enjoy the areas that I work in and do not plan on expanding into other areas. Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Alex Shih

5. You have expressed interest in working more with DYK, but it appears that your experience with DYK is rather limited (other than a series of submissions related to Space this July [1]), and you have not participated in much discussions ([2]), although this is fine because you did say you often read discussions instead. Could you identify the problems that DYK faces, and potential challenges for DYK admins? Thanks.

A: Often, the preps (which do not require admin privileges to assemble) are full, and admins are unavailable to check the set and then move them into the queue, resulting in a full prep area and an empty queue. Admins that frequent the DYK process can face criticism if the queues are almost empty and if the sets they move contain errors. The challenge is to make sure there are enough queues available that you do not feel rushed during the review process. I would rather promote a set late than promote it with errors, but the more time you give yourself to review the better. With that said, I will not rush into any controversial decisions, since DYK is so active and I can receive prompt feedback if it is needed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Iffy

6. How would being an administrator assist you with your content creation work?

A: I do not think I have needed the tools for creating content. After content is created, some articles receive vandalism over time. Specific pages that I watch where I notice this frequently are biographies on minorities and biographies on athletes (especially after a missed field goal). As I mentioned in my answer to Q1, I would then protect pages and block, as appropriate. I consider this 'content maintenance' and not content creation, but I am including it in the answer in case our definitions of content creation are different. With that said, fighting vandals will not be my focus. Also, to be clear, I would not use the admin tools to try to push my vision of what a page should look like, even featured articles have room for improvement, and I enjoy collaborating to improve them even after FA promotion. Kees08 (Talk) 16:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Jbhunley

7. Your answer to Q 6 above, because the question referred to your content work, gives me pause. Please detail your understanding of when an administrator may be considered involved with a topic, article or editor and therefore may neither act as an administrator nor use their tools. Also, is there ever a time where an administrator may act as an administrator in such a situation? If so how would you manage that in practice? Thank you.

A: I could quote the policy, but I think giving it in my own words with examples is better. During a content dispute, it is not appropriate to use the administrative tools to resolve it. If I am discussing a topic with another editor and I feel the level of civility exhibited by the other party is low, I do not have the right to act against them, I would have to report it to the appropriate board. Even if I am considered involved, however, if any reasonable admin would confidently perform the same action, that is allowed. The toolset can be used in clear cases of vandalism, such as adding crude humor or jibberish to the article. Kees08 (Talk) 05:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Levivich

8. If this RfA is successful, will you be open to non-binding WP:RECALL by adding yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If so, under what criteria? If not, why not? Thanks in advance for your answer.

A: The process is non-binding, so administrators can choose whether to accept the result of the process or not. It is important to hold admins accountable, but the recall process has not worked effectively in the past, and I do not think adding myself to the category will change that. While I will not add myself to the list, if I thought I lost the trust of the community I would resign. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

9. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: I have worked on a couple of lists and haven't gotten any to featured yet, among the types of content that is probably my weakest. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lightburst

10. I see that you have started a few articles. Can you tell me what other contributions you have made to Wikipedia that give you the most pride?

A: Of course. I try to work on high-profile astronaut articles, but I also try to write about lesser-known astronauts that died while at NASA (Elliot See and Charles Bassett, for example). At some point I plan to make Fallen Astronaut into a featured topic, which will be challenging. Kees08 (Talk) 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lightburst

11. Your ivotes only matched the result 60% of the time at AfD. Can you explain why?

A: I was working on the Djibouti at the Olympics good topic, and decided to branch over to Djibouti at the Paralympics as well. They only have one Paralympian, so I expanded his article and nominated it for GA. It was nominated for deletion and closed as merge. I decided nominate three Paralympian articles in the same situation up at AfD, with the intent to merge them into other articles. At the time I did not realize AfD was not the right process for merging articles. I thought it could be contentious and that further discussion was needed, so that was the way I went. It was wrong, but since my first experience with a contentious merge was at the aforementioned AfD, I thought that was the way to go. I know now that an AfD is not required for a merger and that there are other venues for discussing contentious merges. Since I do not have much participation at AfD (I typically only comment on other AfDs if I nominate something for AfD, to pay it forward), those articles skew the percentage lower. With that said, AfD is not an area I intend to focus on at this time. Kees08 (Talk) 06:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Robert McClenon

12. What experience do you have in the areas of dispute resolution, either of content disputes or of conduct disputes? And what role as an administrator do you think that you can usefully fill in dispute resolution?

A: There was edit warring occurring across multiple spaceflight articles over using the term manned or crewed, in the context of human spaceflight (a manned launch vehicle, a crewed launch vehicle). Since it was spread across several articles and had different users engaged in edit wars on each of the articles, I thought the best way to resolve the conflict would be to form an RfC. I created one which resulted in consensus, and the edit wars died down as a result. I come from a technical background which could be useful during content disputes (although not disputes where I am involved). Kees08 (Talk) 06:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Kees08: Kees08 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kees08 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
2. As co-nom, enthusiastically Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
4. All my interactions with Kees08, mainly on Milhist-related articles and reviews, have been excellent. Great content creation and seems to have a calm temperament. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
5. Rschen7754 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
6. Kees08 is demonstrably a net-positive to the project, and I only see the sysop bit improving substantially on that. Waggie (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
7. Per noms given his excellent work and ability to use the tools wisely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
8. Support for easily meeting my minimum criteria and nothing negative seen. Ifnord (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
9. Support per TonyBallioni and Kevin clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
10. A no-brainer. Should there be any opposes, I preemptively deem them unpersuasive. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
11. Support When I see an RfA and think, "I thought they were an admin already," well, I consider that a very strong endorsement. Good luck with the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 03:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
12. Support this is reasonably convincing if one is looking for commitment and sustained contributions. Looks trustworthy and level-headed as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
13. Support Not a jerk, has a clue. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
14. I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools if given. SQL^{Query me!} 04:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
15. Anyone Tony nominates is fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose #2 isn't unreasonable. But in my opinion, participation in FAC, as nominator and reviewer, is a significantly more difficult application of the same skill sets that main-page editing involves. So the candidate will do just fine on the main-page. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
17. Support per TonyBallioni Chetsford (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
18. Support – Kees08 is an outstanding content contributor, understands what this project is all about, and will use the tools wisely. – bradv🍁 05:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
19. Support. Anyone who regularly edits and consistently produces this kind of quality content already knows all there is to know about policies and guidelines whether they have done a stint in the trenches or not. So as much as I usually agree with JBH on most things, there’s no indication he’d not be a good administrator. In fact Kees08 doesn't need to be a 'good' admin, just being an admin will do because I certainly trust him to respect our policies and guidelines, be polite and helpful, and not abuse the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
20. Support per the above. I am happy to support Kees08's nomination and wish them the best! . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
21. Support likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
22. Support Absolutely valid rationale for RfA. Not all admins need to be mad about vandalism blocking or page deletions. If only we'd have more DYK oriented RfAs, the spirit of No Big Deal would probably be understood better within the community. Support per the noms. Lourdes 07:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
23. Support Kees08 is an exceptional content contributor who completely understands the purpose of the project. I'm also highly impressed by the courtesy and collegiality they've shown in dealing with routine, recurring content issues in the space exploration field. They calmly discuss issues (as can be evidenced by looking through almost any talk page discussion involving them) and prevent disagreements escalating to the point where they become editing disputes, key skills which will be of considerable benefit as an administrator. I would also add, given the increasing difficulty there can be in getting good quality content through FAC, the level of patience and dedication they show is also going to stand them in good stead. I'm unconvinced by the oppose rationales below and desperately saddened by their 'at-a-glance, edit counting' review of an exceptional candidate. We all know it's tediously easy to game the system, running up huge numbers of pointless edits doing vandalism patrol, reporting small grammatical errors and the like, just because you can show 'good numbers' doesn't mean you'll make a good administrator, whereas with Kees08, we have actual deep, detailed evidence of their abilities; in writing content, in compromising with others, in patiently working to improve the project. Nick (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
24. Support' Very worthy content contributor. Need more of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
25. Support - Content creation speaks volumes to me. It's a WP:NOBIGDEAL Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
26. Suppport Good candidate. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
27. Support per noms. Haukur (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
28. Support precious moonlanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
29. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
30. Support An even temperament, especially when criticized or disagreed with, knowledge of content review/policy, and willingness to help are much appreciated at DYK. The candidate is correct that most often the holdup is the move from prep to queue and that's where the help is most needed, so it isn't a huge concern that they don't have experience setting preps. An extra point for realizing DYK was short on admin help before they started setting preps, actually; I didn't glom that until I'd started setting preps myself. I'd suggest setting some preps so they can learn what a set should be, as it's an art form and to be appreciated, and it's a good idea to understand what the rest of your team is dealing with, but an admin doesn't have to be an expert at that to be competent to do the move. --valereee (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
31. Per noms. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
32. Support per supporters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
33. Support. Great temperment and deep knowledge of WP; that is all I need. I am sure that they will approach the new toolkit with the same care and skill level that they have shown on their other Wikipedia work. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
34. Support I agree with the nominator that giving Kees08 the tools is clearly a net positive. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
35. Support only weakly though. I don't feel they have lots of experience in different areas, but there is still enough to satisfy me. I'm sure they'll use the tools well. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
36. Support Article creation? 3 GAs. Significant and real editing of BLPs. Not a lot of AfD records, but reasonable, certainly. Ergo, Support. Collect (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
37. Support I have come across this editor frequently, and found them to be sans peur et sans reproche. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
38. Support per others. Mostly for tireless editing, even temperament, and dedication to helping better the site ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
39. Support, NBD. Fish+Karate 14:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
40. Support see no reason why not. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
41. Strong Support - His dedication, civility and experience are proven. Give him the mop. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
42. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
43. Strong support Kees is an awesome Wikimedian with a ton of content experience, a level head and won't break things. And if he does, he can probably fix it. Praxidicae (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
44. Support, impressive contributions. GAB^gab 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
45. Support per L235. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
46. Support Nothing bad to say here. A lack of AfD experience doesn't bother me since deletion area isn't a part of Wikipedia the candidate wants to participate in. Great content record, so even if in case that the candidate doesn't get active in admin areas, he deserves the status as a reward for his work. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
47. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
48. Support - Kees has proven to be friendly and knowledgeable in all of our interactions. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
49. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
50. Support - absolutely! A multitude of reasons beginning with the endorsement of 2 admins I trust and respect, leading right up to the excellent work they've done as an editor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
51. Support In order to take the easy way out, I'll simply say that Lourdes and Nick seem to have captured my thoughts quite well in their support posts. — Ched (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
52. Support per nominations. Mkdw ^talk 18:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
53. Support, I want to vote "no" (no, a thousand times no) so Kees won't take any time away from his outstanding work on space articles to attend to scrabbles and admin tasks and weekends at the admin club. But, alas, he must further spread his wings. A very good editor who will be a great administrator. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
54. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
55. —Kusma (t·c) 19:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
56. Support I have no issues with this candidate. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
57. Support No worries. Confident that his sysopping would be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
58. Strong support for giving a highly clueful editor access to the admin toolkit. If Kees08 finds no reason to use admin tools, then we are in no worse shape than before. If he does find somewhere to help out, all the better for us. Thank you for volunteering for administrative work. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
59. Support I like the content based admin editor. He is one of us and knows that we have to keep improving and adding articles. It takes a level head to get an article to good status. Well done!--Akrasia25 (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
60. Support. I was wondering where I've seen his username around. Turns out it was at FAC/GAN. Aside from that, his activity and answers to the above questions show that he is more than competent to be an admin. epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
61. Support: a trusted contributor; content creation experience would be valuable in the role. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
62. Support Nothing but good interactions with Kees08, and his body of work speaks well for his dedication to quality content. SounderBruce 01:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
63. Support I'm previously unfamiliar with him, but everything seem OK. What he doesn't know yet about admin functions, he'll learn. The only real way to learn is by doing them as an admin. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent editor and trustable person. Kees is a big help at helping me try and pass Deep Space Homer as a FA nomination. Great content and a pleasure to work with. You choose them well Tony. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
65. Per noms and my interactions with Kees08. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
66. Support - Would do great with the tools. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
67. Support Great experiences with him. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
69. Support Outstanding editor and contributor, fantastic candidate. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
70. Support because I would like content creators to have an easier time out here. Also I find the opposes, at the time of writing, unconvincing. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
71. Support Excellent content work. I trust them with the tools. This could be the year we return to NOBIGDEAL. --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
72. Support per TonyBallioni & Oshwah.--Nahal^(T) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
73. Support Worked with him on Talk:Regent Street/GA1 without any concerns and no other red flags from a quick search around, and we need more people who've got the time and inclination to get into the bearpit that is the DYK queues. The AfD stats are a bit slapdash but as long as he doesn't want to work there I don't see that being a deal breaker. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
74. Support - nothing here that gives me any real cause for concern. Hug^syrup 10:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
76. Support - upon review, nothing of great concern that would lead to oppose. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
77. Support per nom, as we can always use good eggs. bd2412 T 13:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
78. Support Can't see why not. Deb (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
79. Support No problems noted. Vadder (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
80. Support. Being a good content creator does not necessarily equate to being a good admin (or vice versa) but I can see nothing to suggest that Kees08 will be a bad administrator. I don't find the arguments in opposition persuasive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
81. Support - excellent contributor who always shows good judgement and thoughtful engagement. --Laser brain (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
82. Support Have collaborated with the candidate on both spaceflight and Olympics articles and have a high opinion of him. Its true that being a good content creator does not necessarily equate to being a good admin, or that being a bad one makes a bad administrator. Good rule of thumb though, for reasons that others have highlighted above: dedication, temperament, understanding of policies and willingness to learn and contribute. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
83. Support I've known Kees for a while and I have no doubt that they would make a great admin here. They know what it is like to work "in the trenches" that many people like to see at RfA and their temperament is well suited to the admin role. Tony's nomination statement encapsulates my thoughts exactly. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
84. Support. History of content work demonstrates that they know their way around policies and guidelines. And by all reports, the right kind of temperament. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
85. Support. Good candidate for admin. JohnThorne (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
86. Support with pleasure. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
87. Support- No concerns from me.   Aloha27  talk  01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
88. Support per Thryduulf - making great editors into admins should be a good thing to do. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
89. Support – I'm of the camp that doesn't see RfA as a job interview. I'm not looking to see if a candidate is qualified to perform special tasks, because I'm not expecting a candidate to take on any new responsibilities if they pass their RfA. It's not a job, it's volunteer work. I'm of the camp that it's just about giving a candidate access to functions that can be disruptive when misused. So the question isn't, "will they be good at this admin task, or that admin task", because I don't care if they do the admin tasks at all, nor do I expect them to. And the question isn't whether they "need" the tools, because nobody needs them. The question is, "if they decide to use the tools, when they decide to use the tools, is there an unacceptable risk that they'll misuse them?" With this candidate, I'm comfortable the answer is no, they are not likely to misuse the tools, essentially for the reasons explained by Nick and valereee in their support !votes. – Levivich 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
90. Support I thought that Kees already was an admin. Time to fix that! Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
91. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 06:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
92. Support - My limited contact with Kees08 has been positive, I see nothing in the "oppose" camp that I find concerning and I expect he will be of benefit to the project when given the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
93. Knows what they want to do and knows what they don't. And is not afraid to say it bluntly. I like that. I hope you do expand into a bit more of a conflict resolution role if/when you get the bit as having admins who understand what it takes to create good content giving their opinion on contracted disputes is a good thing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
94. Support I think the candidate will be a fine administrator. I appreciate the answers to the questions and I appreciate that there is some experience in starting articles. Lightburst (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
95. Support even though you do not need my support... I have reviewed your answers and your contributions and all I can say is keep it up. Thank you for considering the job and endeavoring to improve this encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
96. Support net positive based on the amount of votes vouching for their temperament. Their track record at AfD gives me pause, but given that they haven't expressed any interest in being involved there, I don't think this is a dealbreaker. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
97. Somewhat hesitant support. I'm not convinced that Kees08 has all of the necessary experience in the areas they are planning to work in; but their temperament and background with content suggest they can acquire the necessary experience without deleting the main page. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
98. Support Why not. Believe the candidate will use the tools responsibly. Conlinp (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
99. Support: I've had very positive experiences with Kees in their content creation role and believe that they have the competence required to become a good admin. I note the concerns raised about a lack of experience in some areas, but believe that Kees has the maturity to take these concerns on board and ease into these areas after reading up and asking others for advice before acting. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
100. Support - can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
101. Support. Not the most compelling reasons for adminship, but Kees08 is likely to use the tools correctly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
102. Support. No concerns; seems sure to be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
103. Support. No major issues here after review. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There is no question that the candidate is a wonderful content creator, I simply do not subscribe to the much held belief that a good content creator will necessarily make a good admin. Participation in processes which relate to an admin's duties are, in my strong opinion, the meter for measure.
   • While avoiding conflict is admirable, admins are supposed to deescalate, manage or resolve conflict not simply avoid it. An admin who does not have some track record beyond the two exchange talk page conversation the candidate provided as a an example of how the handle conflict [3] simply has not demonstrated an aptitude I consider essential for an admin.
   • In the case of AfD I see little participation, a 60%/65% match rate and only one of seven nominations resulted in a delete. Of the rest the outcomes the bulk were redirects or merges (WP:JUSTDOIT, no need for AfD]]) with one keep.

     Beyond the raw stats I do not see solid, policy based, rationale in nominations or !votes.

   • Of their 6 requests at RfPP only two resulted in page protection. They have only two reports at AIV. This does not demonstrate to me a solid understanding or interest in these areas. They have not indicated an interest in these areas but these are fundamental administrative functions which have explicit 'tools' in the admin kit.
   • The candidate expresses a desire to work at DYK because "DYK needs more admins" but as Alex Shih points out, their experience there is limited and there is no indication they have tried to address issues that can be addressed without tools.

   In summary there is every indication that the candidate is a great editor but there is nothing that shows they would be a good admin. Jbh ^Talk 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   So, there’s no indication he’d be a bad administrator is what you’re saying? If you actually look at the AfD contributions instead of quote the Wikipediocracy headline on them, you’ll see that he is not active at AfD, and he usually only participates around the times when he nominates articles for deletion. He comments on the AfDs that generally have either been relisted or have debate, and all of his comments there are reasonable. For some reason unknown to me the AfD stats tool counts “merge” as a miss when it’s functionally the same as redirect. Proposing borderline articles for deletion via discussion shows someone who prefers consensus rather than rash action, which is something I think is a good quality in an administrator.

   On the disputes issue: I don’t think we ask people to list every possible dispute they have had. We ask them to show interactions that have been tense. Listing a content dispute where an editor creates a userbox criticizing you as a prose Nazi and keeping your cool is the exact type of temperament we want as an administrator. Taking articles through FAC requires giving and receiving feedback and is the heart of that question: he’s done this six times, I don’t think anyone can argue he doesn’t know how to calmly respond to that.

   Finally, on the DYK point, I don’t think that is a fair argument at all. There are users who regularly request that any administrator help out in that area. We don’t require them to go through some special course. What we require is competence and ability to understand quality content: Kees08 has more than shown that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: ...but, what I am looking for is evidence they will be a good administrator. The whole 'no big deal' thing is BS and has been for a long time now. The canard of "no reason to think they will not abuse the tools" is, in my very... very... very strong opinion, simply not a reason to support.

   As to the WO thread it is quoting me!! -- the original, as I remember was a bare <link> or maybe with a one-liner about poor AfD, now it is quoting stats from my !vote. I understand you nominated this editor but I am a bit miffed about the accusation of proxying for WO -- I posted my reasoning along with the stats I looked up cf my 300 word !vote vs the (now) 20 word WO post by someone called ShinkawaGirl as opposed to Jbhunley. Unless you mean to say I am acting as a proxy for myself under a fake username? Nah... that'd be both a self-referential loop and silly.

   Regardless, I stand by my !vote, my reasoning and my personal requirement that an RfA candidate must show some indication they will be a good admin not simply not a bad admin. Jbh ^Talk 06:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I wasn’t accusing you of proxying, just that it looked like taking a bare link headline on an off-wiki forum and not looking into the details, which aren’t exactly what the number suggests. I respect you and your views, so apologies if it came off that way. My response here was not trying to discount your right to hold them, solely pointing out to anyone who might read the substantial comment you made that there’s significantly more behind the things you are citing than i think you give credit. You’re free to disagree with that, but I think it’s important to have as part of this discussion. As to no evidence of being a good administrator: that all comes down to temperament, and I think Kees08 has enough of a record for me to make a judgement on that. Anyway, thanks for the ping, and again apologies if my comment came off as implying things not intended TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   I took a closer look at some of the AfD nominations; For instance AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3 were very short Paralympic athletes. Since he knew the notability guidelines well enough to know they had no presumed" notability, presumably failed a BEFORE but, as competitors were likely search terms a BOLD redirect would have been, in my opinion, more proper. The 'Keep' !vote in the identically situated AfD 4 is disturbing -- yes, there are numerically more sources but the situation and coverage is essentially the same as the other three. Even though the AfD resulted in a 'Merge' it was turned into a 'Redirect' [4] the same as the others. None of this is terrible or even bad and, if they had more AfDs to examine it could be ignored but they do not. So, regardless of content creation this makes me worry about their ability to judge other's creations. That the one 'Keep' was an article they had added material to while the others were not is a bit concerning when considered in conjunction.

   I point this out because it is the kind of thing, helped contribute to my uneasiness in this RfA - not enough information on how the candidate performs outside of content creation.

   Admins judge consensus; manage disputes; deal with vandals; deal with violations of behavioral guidelines and suppress "bad" edits. For this they have some extra buttons. They also get status/informal positional authority when dealing with disputes where they are UNINVOLVED -- a very different psychological place to work from as opposed to dealing with one's own content creation and the disputes related to it. This fundamental difference is why I do not see an ability to work with others in an INVOLVED situation as serving as a proxy for an ability to interact and act appropriately while being UNINVOLVED. I can write many, many words on that difference but I will spare you and the readers of this RfA from my further pontificating. (Yeah... I know... a bit late for that ) Jbh ^Talk 06:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Remainder of discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2. The candidate intends to work closely with the Main Page, but I have found their presence minimal, to put mildly, in both WP:ITN/C ([5]) and WT:DYK ([6]), in addition to 0 edit to WP:ERRORS. Working with the Main Page can be incredibly intricate and requires demonstrated clear understanding over process and procedures, and being an excellent content creator is simply not sufficient. The distinctive lack of records in active participation over discussions relating to the Main Page from this candidate is concerning and does not instil confidence. Alex Shih (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
3. Per Alex and JBH. ∯WBG^converse 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Among created deletion discussions, once the draft ones have been removed from the list, only one out of eleven where deleted. That ratio should IMO be higher than the chance of an coin toss. Also, only one request filed at Administrators noticeboard (this one), suggesting the nominee does not have much need for the administrative right.--Snaevar (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, but it's not as if the remaining 10 were kept - in fact, only four of the 11 AfDs nominated were directly kept. One of these was poorly attended, another had what I would consider an odd result], another Kees08 withdrew. The only miss was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths by motorcycle crash, and there's nothing wrong with the occasional miss IMO. The others were redirected or merged, which is not a bad outcome for content which shouldn't be in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I rarely participate in these discussions but I have to speak up here. Regarding point #1 at the top: "While avoiding conflict is admirable..." That is quite an incorrect and misleading premise. Kees08 does not "avoid conflict", but enters the discussion to diffuse it by addressing the core issues objectively and with notable civility, and he consistently directs it efficiently towards resolution. Kees08 choses to deal complex subjects and issues that he understands and motivate him. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose, regretfully because the nominee clearly is someone it's a pleasure to interact with. But the issues @Jbh has highlighted weigh too heavily. To put it simply, I will need to see more experience in admin areas to give my backing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per my RFA criteria. This RFA looks like it's going to pass easily, but while my Q6 was answered correctly, Alex Shih's oppose (and the other opposers more generally) bring up points that mean I can't support, and also why I don't pay any attention to how good a content creator someone is at RFAs. Iffy★Chat -- 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral While I think giving content creators the tools, and agree that Kees is a great creator, JBH's oppose gives me pause. When we give someone the tools, we don't just give them the mop, we give them the entire janitors closet. While Kees may not intend to be involved with AfD, they will have the power to delete pages. They also say they won't be involved in countervandalism, but they'll still have the power to block folks and protect pages. I want to see from Kees that they understand their lack of experience and know their strengths and weaknesses. If not, then this may be a case of WP:NOTNOW. I'm still torn. A nom by Tony and lots of content creation is a strong positive, but the lack of experience in classic admin areas is troubling. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Comment If you look at the bottom of the not now essay, you'll see it's reserved for newcomers: not experienced Wikipedians. See also WP:NOTNOTNOW. This is not intended as a criticism of your neutral !!vote, just an fyi. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

3. Neutral candidate is a fine wikipedian. Some folks think content creators need the tools the most. I'm of the opinion the gnomes need it moreso, and that things like AfD hit ratios and number of created articles will not give anyone the sign of a good admin. I consider any work at AfD a good thing as that's something casual editors tend to avoid, but there's just not enough of it for me to land one way or another. People who participate at AfD, ANI, Village Pump, RfAs, and talk pages are preferred candidates, IMO.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
4. The candidate lacks experience in areas he would like to work in, as pointed out by Jbh and Alex. However, he is also unlikely to cause much harm to the wiki if he gains adminship, so I'm putting myself here. feminist (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)