Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kane5187

Kane5187

Voice your opinion (talk page) (4/0/0); Scheduled to end 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kane5187 (talk · contribs) - (self-nomination): I've been around for about two and a half years and done a whole lot of editing. In addition to my current focus, Dartmouth College-related articles (I recently set up WikiProject Dartmouth College), I also float around and do general cleanup editing on new articles, like formatting, instituting <ref> and {{cite}} tags, adding categories, etc. on pages that I stumble across. I feel like I've got plenty of experience, have demonstrated that I'm not going to abuse admin privileges, and that granting me them would allow me to contribute to the project in a broader way.

I wasn't aware that edit summary usage was taken into account at RfA before coming around here, and you'll notice that mine is rather spotty. I've activated the Preferences reminder about adding them if I forget. Dylan 05:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I see myself mostly closing XfD debates and clearing CAT:CSD. I've been involved with deletion nominations (speedy and otherwise) for quite a while (mostly in on/off spates) and I feel that I am well-prepared to contribute in that area. I've dealt with vandalism when it's crossed my path, but as a long-term task, it doesn't particularly interest me at this point. I would imagine that upon being granted administrator access, I may become interested in expanding into other areas, but that remains to be seen.

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

A: In December 2006, I began my first real concerted effort at a particular page at List of Dartmouth College alumni, eventually getting it to FL status. Since then, I've gotten List of Dartmouth College faculty to an FL as well. My most recent nomination process was getting Dartmouth College in September to FA status. It took a great deal of work and energy (see the mammoth nomination page), not to mention two weeks of endless revisions. Finally seeing that bronze star up in the corner really means a lot to me, and I would say marks the most trying sustained effort I've ever put in here.

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: Definitely. I've always been a contributor in good faith to Wikipedia (that is to say, I was never a vandal). However, there is definitely a learning curve to understanding policy, and I sort of gradually came to understand WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:N, and copyright policy, but not before violating them all. In my early days, a wrote a few articles on not-notable topics (they were notable to me!) that subsequently got deleted. Obviously, I didn't understand policy at all, and it was frustrating for me to see my work deleted or removed. However, rather than storming off the site in a huff, I (eventually) accepted the advice of those who knew better than I and went to learn the ground rules for the community. I'm glad to have chosen that course.

In terms of conflict, I remember a rather misguided argument of mine at Little Ivies early on in my Wikipedia career. I tried to convince a more experienced editor that the inclusion of "little" in the name "little ivies" meant that a citation for the schools being small was unnecessary, WP:V be damned (or, more accurately, unread). The editor was very patient with me, repeatedly telling me to read the policy page, and I wound up getting a much better feel for the constraints on content inclusion at Wikipedia.

I was very frustrated at Democrat Party (phrase) in November 2006 when I was outnumbered by one anon and another editor who were consistently injecting POV, OR, or misleadingly authoritative statments without references into the article. I discussed it on the anon's talk page and the article's talk page extensively, trying to explain my rationale for edits and being as willing to compromise and as civil as possible. The anon in particular was tough to deal with, because s/he was making unconstructive edits that blurred the line between inexperience and vandalism; I couldn't tell if s/he was acting in good faith. I wound up feeling that even thought I was correct with regards to policy, I couldn't win this fight without breaking the 3RR or just generally being a dick and putting my foot down, saying "This is right and you are wrong." I tried to recruit help (not really knowing where to look) without success. In the end, it became too stressful for me to deal with, and I walked away from it. Obviously, it was not the kind of outcome I had hoped for. I really felt as though I had no other recourse (of course, now I'm aware of WP:AN/I and formal mediation). Since I know firsthand from this sort of experience how important it is to have seasoned editors available when newcomers need them, I've since tried to reach out to new editors I encounter and offer myself as someone to talk to or ask questions of ([1], [2], [3], etc.) so that they have someone to go to in similar situation.

All of my conflicts/heated debates that I can think of have been content-oriented; I don't think I've ever had any really serious personal conflict (such as giving or receiving personal attacks or maintaining genuinely hostile relations with another editor). I'm generally not a very excitable person, so I tend to stick to citing policy and encouraging a user to read up if they don't quite grasp it. In my experience, others' inexperience with policy has been the driving factor behind a lot of disagreements and problems.

Optional question by Chris.B

4. A cursory glance at your talk page reveals a number of image copyright notices, particularly a lack of fair use rationales. Wikipedia takes image copyright very seriously; how confident are you with your knowledge in the sphere of the non-free content policy, and what can you say about it? -- Chris B • talk 11:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:

Optional Questions from Nat

5. What is the difference between indefinite blocking and banning?

A:

6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?

A:

7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A:

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?

A:

General comments

See Kane5187's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Kane5187: Kane5187 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kane5187 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support Seems to have learn a great deal from his mistakes, and despite not being the best outcome with the dispute with other editors, it shows that this user can keep cool under pressure. As long as the issue of edit summerys is addressed (and it appears that it will be) I am happy to show my support, Tiddly-Tom 10:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good number of edits distributed evenly throughout. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - featured article work and sufficient experience of AfD to close discussions. Addhoc 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good number of edits. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good user--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]