Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilyD

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 26 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

WilyD

Final: (40/4/1); ended 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WilyD (talk · contribs) - WilyD (talk · contribs) began editing here on Wikipedia September 2005. I first encountered WilyD on AfD and I quickly noticed that while he invariably had the opposite opinion I had, his opinions were always well reasoned and supported, which impressed me. Looking over WilyD's edit contributions, there is a good mix of vandal-fighting, article improvement (adding references, etc.), and talkpage discussions. WilyD understands the policies and guidelines here and I think he would use the mop and bucket responsibly to improve the project. In short, I think WilyD will be an asset as an administrator.Isotope23 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Merci Beaucoup - I accept. Always nice to know someone thinks you're a good editor. WilyD 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, closing WP:XfDs and dealing with requests at WP:RFPP. As with anything, I plan to start with the easiest and most straightforward stuff to test the water, and move up to harder stuff as I get more comfortable. The biggest reason I'd like the Mop & Pail is that I find myself from time to time with some free time I could spend editing, but not necessarily enough time to do the research I need to do to write. So being able to work on backlogs and requests would be nice, and valuable to the project. I would like access to Special:Unwatched Pages as a list of articles to pay attention to - as an editor, I know that's the best place to find likely vandalism or just articles in need of love. WilyD
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As an editor, I think my best skill is clearly my sourcing of articles. Scott Tremaine and Alar Toomre are two articles I've essentially written alone, and Peter Goldreich was unsourced when I found it for instance. Here I am adding citations to AU Mic Here I am sourcing Armenian Genocide and so on. This style of my editing has increased with time, but you can see it pretty early on too - the more recent examples are just clearer - in June 2006 I was already trying to solve editing dispute by looking for sources. In the end, I really believe the best dispute resolution isn't found at WP:RD, but at WP:V. It enhances the reputation of the project when everything is sourced and verifiable. It makes it more viable as a resource for schoolkids (though I will say when I mark assignments, I see a lot of sourcing from Wikipedia). And it makes it more useful as a starting place for research. Plus, I like the way it looks. WilyD
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 only ever recall a single incident that made me really stressed - I ended up taking about five days off from editing and abandoning the dispute and article in question. It wasn't really an editing dispute that stressed me but an admin threatening to use his tools inappropriate in a content dispute (as I recall - it was a long time ago, and I'm sure there was plenty of blame to go around). I get into edit conflicts fairly often as I let myself get into contraversial articles. But there's a threefold path to resolution in most cases. Always explain yourself clearly in a conflict. When someone disagrees with you, if they're forced to guess what you're up to, they're likely to guess wrong, and often in an unproductive direction. Always listen to other editors, and make it clear you're listening. Even if they're just hammering away on the same wrong points, or being disruptive or uncivil or whatever, people are much nicer when they feel they're being heard (and vice versa). Three: Source - as I've said above, sourcing is the easiest way to resolve disputes - it'll tell me if I'm off-base, and show other editors where they're off-base as well. The best illustration of this is probably my involvement in the dispute about using images in the Muhammad article, where my "four point" solution became more or less the consensus and remains so today. Even though I disagreed with ALM scientist about almost everything, his attitude towards me went from this to this because I listened to what he had to say and picked out one good point I thought he was making - in the end, what I concluded was very different from what he wanted, but he at least felt he was being heard and we were able to get along.
If I've learnt anything, it's that edit conflicts are unavoidable. Every article, from Bathtub to Jihad, from Coriolis force to Dirt is contraversial. The key is just to be civil, intellectually honest and source things - and if something gets to you too much, stay away or take a break. WilyD 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison
4. Lets say a user vandalizes a site as his first edit then experiments with talk pages by writing outrageous statements but then shows a small amount of intent to make good edits, how would you deal with that?
Okay, I'll admit I'm a little flummoxed by the vague nature of the question - there are lots of degress on vandalism and outrageousness. A user who's moved onto the talk page shows some willingness to be productive already. The short answer is: Engage - Ignore - Block. The best place to talk to new users about what is or isn't appropriate is their talk page. Beyond that, really inflamatory (or libelous or legal threats or what have you) on talk pages can always just be deleted. Best, I think, is to engage the user in dialogue on their talk. But ultimately being persistantly disruptive on a talk is no better than being persistantly disruptive on an article. The standards of behaviour are (obviously) higher on an article than on a talk page, though. WilyD 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
6. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever used a spoiler template while reading or writing an article - I don't ususally do much popular culture/literature type stuff. I've never inserted or removed a spoiler template, to the best of my recollection. I definitely appreciate the concern that it can make it hard to write articles, if you're always straightjacketed with a spoiler warning - and sometimes using spoilers and sometimes not is probably "worst of all for not spoiling". If people get used to having them there, they're a much ruder shock than if there's no such expectation. Ultimately they don't have much "encyclopaedic value", I guess. They're probably unnecessary and they may be a bad precendent with respect to one-click hiding images and other mild censorship. Personally, I'd rather do away with them a guess, but this is not really something I've been involved with, so I might be wrong. WilyD

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WilyD before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator.--Isotope23 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as I don't see anything within the user's contributions which might indicate a problem. Answers to the questions more than satisfactory. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Nice answers, plenty of experience, it would be nicer to see a higher edit sumamry usage but I'll not be picky. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per the nominator. I'd trust this user with the tools. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I like what I see here. Good answers, excellent article work, and a pretty civil and level-headed user. We need admins and this here is a good candidate. All the best, Anas talk? 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Good edit count, good usage of edit summaries. All contributions seem to be productive, and this editor seems trustworthy. My one concern however is that you are interested in closing AfD discussions, but after checking your contributions, I noticed that you are not currently active in participating in discussions. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - A very good Editor and experienced too and the answers to the questions..mind blowing :P...--Cometstyles 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - shows a good record of being able to get along with other editors, especially in some controversial areas, and has good answers to questions too. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - whilst i disagree very strongly with WilyD that consensus was ever reached in the Muhammad dispute, i find the nominator's comments quite accurate. from what i have seen, the user is thoughtful, sensible, considerate, and appears to be well-suited for the tools. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I tried to find something that I didn't like, and I couldn't. Given the fact that the nominee never went ballistic stayed calm and neutral in some fairly controversial articles, definitely a good candidate. Orangemarlin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: User has plenty of experience and seems to have quality edits and shows civility. Edit summary usage however is quite low, may I suggest changing it to forced in your preferences if you hadn't already?  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per good answers to questions and candidate's strong overall record. Please consider configuring the "prompt for edit summary" preference to bring your summary rate even higher. I have considered the opposer's rationale and find it completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I know that this is a cliche but already thought you were a admin --St.daniel Talk 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support this guy seems to know his stuff, I am impressed by his knowledge and handling of conflict, I'd like to have this guy as an admin--William Henry Harrison 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I was on the fence, however, I like the user's honesty about the stress leave. It is much harder to walk away from a stressful situation than it is to stay and engage in fruitless debate. I applaud that honesty, and feel that shows transparency. the_undertow talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A good person to have the tools. Captain panda 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good editor with no reason to oppose Lmc169 09:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Terence 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - meets all usual criteria for adminship, and the opposers' reasons (with respect) seem somewhat pedantic. WaltonAssistance! 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good mainspace contribs, seems he will be a mature administrator. daveh4h 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I think WilyD is fit to be an admin, and then some. The Transhumanist    21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support No offense to Giggy, but I liked his answer to Q3. He was being threatened, and instead of going into personal attacks, he dropped the issue. Of course, he could have gone through the RfC and related processes (which may end up getting him in trouble with the admin in question, but I'm rambling here), but what he did was way better than going through a violation of policy. I'd personally would like to have an admin walk away from a stressful issue than flying off the handle and blocking the other party (if those were the only two choices). Plus, even admins need a break now and then. God knows we definitely have enough (but there's always room for more). --Whsitchy 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: Works for me. --Random Say it here! 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I recently had a conversation where I intially disagreed with something he had stated, but he provided excellent reasoning and I ended up agreeing with his position. Should make a good admin. ChazBeckett 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, seen edits and conversations on talk pages, and seems to be very receptive and fair. --Hojimachongtalk 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Garion96 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support This editor has been swimming in some pretty rough waters. His work is among some of the most controversial articles we have. Emotions run high and yet he has been controlled and productive. I believe he will do just fine. I have seen not the first reason to reject. JodyB talk 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Makes informed choices and asks for information. Doesn't go off half cocked. jbolden1517Talk 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support this trustworthy person to become an administrator. Yamaguchi先生 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this in the wrong section? Charlie 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support - obvious error. - hahnchen 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Seems to know which end is up. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A very experienced user. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. My impression of WilyD is of one who speaks his mind, but he does so politely without any antagonism. Well experienced, and knowledgable in policy. Good fit for the admin ranks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I think you will make a fine admin. I am particularly impressed with your response to question 3 and how you've handled yourself at Talk:Muhammad and its archives. I just hope you'll not let janitorial tasks get in the way of your most noble endeavour ... sourcing. ;) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per above. Bucketsofg 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. I think you'll do fine. You seem to be pretty level-headed and, despite the oppose vote below, I think the fact that you took time off when you got your feathers ruffled shows immense maturity on your part. --132 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I actually find this user's approach to stressful situations to be one of the best I have seen, and find the opposition below strange. A look at WP:DR even suggests this candidate's approach (step away for a while). Support for being a good, level-headed, experienced and decidated user. Daniel 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per all of the positive comments above. Steveo2 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Changing from "Neutral to weak support" to oppose per this. Anyone who honestly sees admin tools as a promotion is not fit to be an admin and does not understand that it's no big deal.. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's negligible and it's just one's comprehension of the word. The candidate has more than proven they are up for the task. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like an argument over semantics. "Not a demotion" doesn't mean the same as "promotion", and "not a promotion" doesn't mean "demotion". I wasn't promoted at work today, but that doesn't mean I was demoted, either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument over semantics. The question is Is it a big deal? I personally think not and have come to the conclussion this editor thinks it is. We have too many admins who seem to think that they are a cut above we mere mortal editors, and we can well live without any more of that opinion - this retracted and recent RfA being a case in point. I'm not being nasty here, and I wish this editor every success, but I peronally can't support an editor questing for adminship for it's own sake. Sorry.Pedro |  Chat  20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you to certain extent. The RfA you mentioned really was a messy situation; I felt it should have succeeded. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, I'm hoping that I am mistaken here. Please tell me you did not just take a shot at the candidate in the RfA you mentioned. I'm quite sure your oppose could have been made without it. In fact, if that is true, it is really in poor taste, and precedence is not going to help with a consensus. the_undertow talk 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys please, calm down. Pedro is entitled to his opinion, and don't cut him down for it (though I shouldn't be talking, if you look at what I said). Personally, I think this issue is getting out of hand. --Whsitchy 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone was getting out of hand. RfA is about consensus. However, I feel this was a personal attack. I agree that Pedro is entitled to his opinions, and have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with taking a jab at a former candidate outside of his RfA. That is completely outside of the scope of consensus, as we are to be civil, and full-well having the knowledge that even if I am to assume good faith, that this opinion has no bearing on a consensus-building effort and belongs solely back at the aforementioned RfA. Precedent is never a reason to opine a !vote. I welcome all opinions, as I have demonstrated utmost civility my entire duration with the project. In this case, the oppose is simply offensive. the_undertow talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the delay in replying - busy in RL. I have replied to this on your talk page, copied to The Transhumanist. I reject your assertaions of incivility and personal attacks. I merely referenced a previous discussion, something we all do a lot here across RfA, Main Space, Talk etc etc. I find "taking a jab" to be a personal attack at me actually. I have a view and it's pretty straight forward. In what way are your allegations at me helping this RfA and the 'pedia as a whole?Pedro |  Chat  11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Q3 answer. An admin can't just take 5 days off because of a stressful incident. G1ggy! 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd much rather see an admin cool down than act when 'unsettled' for 5 days. What do you consider a reasonable amount of stress leave? the_undertow talk 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Put simply, that's a garbage reason to oppose. As said by undertow, it is much better to take a break than be dragging yourself around bitterly. 5 days is mild compared to the significant inactivity of numerous current administrators. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think it is a very good thing to do. Knowing you need a break from editing Wikipedia and actually taking it shows maturity to me. It's not like he took a break from commanding the Allies, after all. :-) daveh4h 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per WilyD's actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Up a White Kid Day and subsequent DRV and second AfD/ WilyD does not believe that an article needs reliable sources in order to stay on Wikipedia, but is willing to put up with arm waving and unsubstantiated claims. Corvus cornix 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I do consider the Miami Herald, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Times and the New Orleans Times Picayune reliable sources - if this means I'm out of touch, so be it. But I think it's unfair to judge me based off the DRV and second AfD as I didn't participate in either ... [1] [2]
    We have had this discussion before. The only link to the Miami Herald is to an opinion piece. There are no links to actual Plain Dealer, Times or Times Picayune articles, merely to the Wikipedia articles on the newspapers. And the Plain Dealer's online archives do not come up with any sources to verify the claims. Corvus cornix 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's your contention that sources need to be linked to rather than merely exist and be verifiable then you're right to say that we disagree about WP:V and WP:RS. I cite from books from time to time, as do many other editors. Myself and a few other editors found the articles in the Plain Dealer's online archives, and were able to confirm that the Plain Dealer's articles verified the claims - which is why the article ended up being kept in both AfDs. I certainly didn't result in them being kept on my own, especially in the second AfD I wasn't involved in - the article was kept because the claim that it wasn't reliably sourced was shown to be false. I really don't mind you opposing my RfA for legitimate reasons, spurious reasons or no reasons at all, for that matter, but I have to object to you opposing for demonstratably false reasons. WilyD 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that you and those others never made any of those links from the archives available during the AfD discussion. But there's no point in continuing this discussion. I have made my position clear. My reasoning is far from false. Corvus cornix 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - I just want to ask anyone who's considering judging me based on this to look at the AfD discussion, where several of those links to the archive are presented. WilyD 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I feel that taking five days off because of a stressful incident shows WilyD lacks dedication. I understand that knowing when you need a break could be a good thing, but if his main goal is to help eliminate backlog, this would be hard to accomplish if he needs time off to handle stress. Black Harry 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't make a habit of commenting other editors !votes and you are free to oppose for any reason you see fit, but it should be pointed out that nearly every admin takes wikibreaks. People have lives and it is better to take some cool down time than edit under stress.--Isotope23 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that people have lives and such. But being an admin who wants to close deletion debates, I think he'll run into more stress b/c of the decisions he'll have to make. And this stress could result in him taking more time off, and he wouldn't be able to accomplish his goal of fighting backlog. Black Harry 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral towards weak support Poor edit summary use (contrary to Nenyedi - I'm looking at a good 10% missing and given how easy it is that's not so hot) and some swearing in the edit summaries that do exist. However some good vandal fighting (although I also worry about the lack of associated warning). Excellent answers to the questions, but anyone can create good answers. RfA is more about past history that wowing us with intentions. There's nothing as such wrong in the past - I just can't really put a handle on this, but there's not a lot here that cries out for the tools and demotion. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I wonder a little about the (first) AfD for Beat Up a White Kid Day Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beat_Up_a_White_Kid_Day --after showing very effectively why it was notable, you asked the nom. to withdraw the nomination & then started arguing back and forth about it, which seems like overkill--and even perhaps looking for an unnecessary fight. DGG 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WilyD&oldid=1089910248"