Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKeen

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

[edit] AKeen

(35/2/0); Ended 17:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AKeen (talk · contribs) - I am nominating myself for adminship. I have edited Wikipedia consistently since June of 2005, and have over 9,000 edits to my name. I have really enjoyed editing and contributing over the years. By becoming an administrator I hope to help out more with the maintenance of Wikipedia, a task I see as essential to upholding the caliber of Wikipedia as it continues to grow. AKeen (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nom : This user has contributed helpfully to many WikiProjects, has contributed heavily to many articles, and created images for many of them. I believe that this user has done so much for this project that the admin tools can only help this user to contribute more. Dreamafter ^\*/ 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the co-nom, Dreamafter, it is greatly appreciated! I had no idea self-noms caused such a stir! :) - AKeen (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Since joining Wikipedia back in June of 2005, I have always been very active in disambiguation of pages and vandal-fighting. Through these activities there have been many times admin tools would have aided me, and I hope to contribute to the Wikipedia community more effectively by participating in administrative tasks related to these projects. In regards to disambiguation, I intend to help in the cut and paste repair holding pen Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Related to this I would like to assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and also help in issues of renaming and redirecting articles. In terms of fighting vandalism, I hope to monitor requests for administrator intervention in blocking at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

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

A: My best contributions have been of two types. The first is in creating interesting (hopefully) and well-referenced articles such as: Little Italy, Chicago, University Hall (Northwestern University), Old College (Northwestern University) and Shakespeare and Company (bookshop). I am happy with these articles because I tried to help create complete NPOV articles (pictures and all), and to reference what I wrote. The other type has been spearheading the re-writing of important, more general articles such as Culture of Brazil and Cuisine of Italy. Both had to be restarted from scratch, and I am proud of how they turned out and are evolving. I’m also very involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily, and have been working to maintain related articles, helping to add infoboxes and categories to all existing articles on Sicilian municipalities. I have also been a significant contributor to several "Good-level" articles related to Chicago, such as Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago.

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 have not had many conflicts over the years, and consider my editing style to be pretty low-key and consensus-driven. However, I had an edit conflict with another user over whether Northwestern University buildings should be all on one page, or each with a separate page (I was the advocate for multiple pages). After the separate building pages I had created were blanked various times, we discussed with each other why we had made the edits, and eventually agreed to keep a page for each building (such as Deering Library), and also a larger article that listed all of the buildings, List of Northwestern University buildings.

In the end, the problem was resolved through discussion and the pages have been stable since. In general, I’m an advocate of discussing before major changes are undertaken, and I feel most conflicts of this nature can be solved by waiting a while after the initial edits, trying to talk to the other editor, and if necessary, getting others involved, through arbitration, etc. Usually cooler heads prevail in the end.

Two questions from - ~VNinja~

4 What would you do, if anything, if a new user came to you for help? What about an experienced user?

I would definitely help a user, new or old, if they asked me, or if I thought I could help them in general. We were all new once, and not everything is intuitive on Wikipedia. Recently, I helped a new user who had been pasting Wikiproject templates onto the main pages of articles instead of the talk pages. They were clearly just trying to help out, so I pointed them to the policies of the Wikiproject and they quickly mended their error. Regardless of if the user was new or experienced, if I could not personally help myself with a direct reply to their question, I would try my best to point them to correct information/policies, or an editor who might have better answers.

5 Would you help articles that are nominated for featured or good article status by scanning their grammer and spelling. If so, how many articles and how regularly?

While I have not personally participated in vetting featured and good articles, I would certainly give it a go if asked. Spelling and grammar are obviously an important facet of any Wikipedia article, and peer review is a good way to make sure good and featured articles adhere to these standards. I could probably help edit 5 or 10 articles for spelling and grammar per week, but if there was a backlog, I'd be happy to take on more.

Optional question by Corvus cornix

6. What is your opinion concerning the "this admin is open to recall" controversy? Would you offer yourself up for recall if you are an admin whose actions have been questioned?

A. I am all for checks and balances. With additional responsibilities, as admins have, comes additional accountability. It seems fair that admins are able to be reviewed by their peers if their editing is questionable. If I become an admin, I would certainly want to be held to the same level of accountability as others.

{added 15:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)} I would like to add, by way of explanation, that I do not feel I know enough about the admin recall controversy to speak in a fully-informed manner on it (though I have read through the literature), which is why my answer above does not address it directly. To someone who is not an admin, the "nutshell" description seems relatively inocuous, however, upon looking deeper, the policy does seem to be contentious and controversial, and I do not feel qualified to throw my opinion in the ring without following the process. However, since the question was optional I wanted to add in the space above that I am for checks and balances, explicitly those policies that have withstood the scrutiny of the body of admins, such as Wikipedia:ARB in the very rare cases where de-adminship is called for. - AKeen (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

• Links for AKeen: AKeen (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. Support - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being bold. EJF (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - I can't find anything to oppose with, good contributor. Will weild mope wisely. Rt. 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - In looking through their edit history I can find no reason to oppose. Looks like they would do a good job. -Djsasso (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
4. + Keegan^talk 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. No reason not too, good luck. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
6. support As with EJF, I view self-noms as being bold and power hunger. Good job, and good luck! Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
7. No reason not to. Solid contribs, experienced, etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Lankiveil (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
9. Support Good edit history. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support A solid editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Great editor with great contributions. Good luck! Chiwara (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Support: After reviewing edits outside of the WP namespace and per comments left below, I feel that this editor will make a worthwhile administrator. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, looks like a quality editor who will do a good job with the mop & bucket. --Stormie (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Whole Hearted Support I see lots of great things being done with the mop! Mr Senseless (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Great editor, would do good with the tools no reason not to! Good luck! Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Obvious Support as I have co-nommed. Dreamafter ^\*/ 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent contributions. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Looks good from here. --Sharkface217 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Yes, of course. east.718 at 23:48, December 28, 2007
20. Support Just to help cancel out Kurt. Prodego ^talk 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Support,seems a solid editor, good contribs, no reason to oppose. BLACKKITE 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Support nice broad base of contributions. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - hahnchen 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Support John254 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• (Happy new year!) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Support NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Per the answer to Corvus Cornix' question. I dorfbaer I talk I 11:19, December 31, 2007
29. Support - trustworthy editor. Opposes appear to be generic, nobody has raised any meaningful concerns. Addhoc (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Suppport' Dlohcierekim 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support per Corvus cornix. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - great candidate who will be fine with a couple of extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support as meeting all my standards, especially the edit count, wide variety of contributions, and recent perfect edit summary use. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Support   jj137 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
   • How does volunteering oneself show that the person is seeking power rather than just wanting to help out?
   • The "edit this page" tab is a tool. Do you see volunteering on Wikipedia, that is editing, as prima facie evidence of power hunger? Why?
   • Do you see volunteering to join the army as prima facie evidence of power hunger? Why?
   • Do you see applying for a job as a janitor in an office building as prima facie evidence of power hunger? Why?
   • Do you see applying to work in the produce section of a grocery store, where you will be trusted to handle raw foods that thousands of other people will eat, as prima facie evidence of power hunger? Why?
   • What about a volunteer position at a local food bank where you will be trusted to do the same thing for no pay? Is that prima facie evidence of power hunger? Why?
   • Why are you opposing on the basis of power hunger? What is it you think these "power hungry" self-nominators will do? Why do you think that?
   • Do you have any evidence that admins who nominated themselves at their RfAs are less reliable than those who were nominated by somebody else? What evidence?
   • How is your ruining the otherwise perfect approval rating of some self-nominated admin candidate not prima facie evidence of power hunger?
   • How do you reconcile your assumption that self-nominators are power hungry with Wikipedia's guideline "Assume good faith"? The Transhumanist 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   #Oh just ignore Kurt Weber and his cut and paste opposes the 'crat closing this RFA wil take this into account. Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   Assume good faith, man! Yes, there are admins who go on power-trips, and even some who abuse the mop, but just because a worthy candidate offers his or her time, energy, and experience as an admin on his or her own without a nomination doesn't mean they'll abuse the tools.Mr Senseless (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Mr Senseless, my earlier comment my not be appropriate, but look you could say that just editing Wikipedia, without admin powers, is a sign of power hunger because if you think about it your editing one of the largest and most read source of knowledge on this planet, what you write on Wikipedia could affect the whole world. Also can't you look at a self nom the other way? It could be taken as not indicative of power hunger, as you are volunteering to help clean up after those who have wrecked articles. You yourself may have 'y' more power on Wikipedia, but as far as affecting the knowledge of the world your power is actually '-x' where 'x' is a greater number than 'y' as you will have less time to edit, and so less influence on the world. Harland1 (^t/_c) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

   I have added a co-nom to this, so I hope that this is better now. Dreamafter ^\*/ 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answer to my question. Corvus cornix_talk 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   His answer to your question seems fine. I thought it was well written and well said. What do you think is wrong with it? Timmeh^contribs 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   As far as I know, Corvus cornix is against the whole admins for recall process. He believes it perpetuates 'a system which is rife with drama and does no good'. Not a bad argument, I suppose. EJF (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Will add himslef to CAT:AOR. We don't need more drama, but the category only cause it. A lot of it, and more conflict to boot. Maxim_(talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   I haven't thought this one out properly. Although I don't agree with AOR, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Really misguided thinking by me. Apologize. Maxim_(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Neutral: While you are a solid editor at Wikipedia, I'm unsure at the moment that you really need administrator tools, given that you have few Wikipedia namespace edits that are truly relevant to administrators. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Through my editing of disambiguation pages especially, there have been countless times when being able to fix cut and paste moves, redirects, bad name changes and conduct rollbacks would have been amazing. I would help out in these areas that are often backlogged, and gladly close discussions and execute moves. Over the years I have also been involved in reporting untagged images, copyvios and duplicate images. Instead of only being able to report these problems, I would like to actually DO something about them, which is the essential reason I would like to be an admin. Regular editors have no recourse but to ask administrators for help in these situations. I am committed to improving Wikipedia, and I assure you I would use every tool available to me to aid in making Wikipedia easier to navigate. - AKeen (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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.