Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilyD

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,

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: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.

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

• See WilyD's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for WilyD: WilyD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Okay, since I've received a lot of complaints, I've switched my preferences to Prompt if edit summary blank. WilyD 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 —
   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.
    ^Assistance! 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). --
    itchy 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. --Hojimachong^talk 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. jbolden1517^Talk 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. -

    n 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]