Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kees08

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (25/3/0); Scheduled to end 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Additional question from Iffy

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

A:

• 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.

1. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. As co-nom, enthusiastically   Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Rschen7754 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
7. Per noms given his excellent work and ability to use the tools wisely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support for easily meeting my minimum criteria and nothing negative seen. Ifnord (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per TonyBallioni and Kevin clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10. A no-brainer. Should there be any opposes, I preemptively deem them unpersuasive. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
13. Support Not a jerk, has a clue. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14. I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools if given. SQL^{Query me!} 04:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15. Anyone Tony nominates is fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
17. Support per TonyBallioni Chetsford (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
21. Support likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
24. Support' Very worthy content contributor. Need more of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   @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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   Comment: Often RfAs are opposed due to a lack of content work (but frequent participation in bureaucratic processes). Here we have an editor with evidently strong content ability being opposed, and I don't really understand the rationale. We're here to build an encylopedia. All the admin stuff is incidental to that aim. There's no need for admins to be experts in every admin task, and without the bit, how can they demonstrate ability? Content work demonstrates a level head, ability to abide by content policies, collegiality with other editors, and thus is a good litmus test of a good admin. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 instill confidence. Alex Shih (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Alex and JBH. ∯WBG^converse 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]