Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keith D


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

Keith D
Final (33/7/4); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

- Keith D has been editing Wikipedia since September 2006, during which time he has made over 17,000 edits, including 10,000 to mainspace. He is mainly involved in WikiGnome activities, tidying articles within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, but has also been a main contributer to the Good Article, KC Stadium. He has participated in numerous XfD discussions, and has made over 20 reports to WP:AIV. Keith D is an experienced, polite user who would make good use of the tools to protect articles within his areas of interest. Epbr123 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Keith D 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am honoured to be nominated in this way and hope that if I am elected will be able to serve the community and repay the trust put in me.

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 would continue to be active in the area of fighting vandalism that is a constant attack on the good work of many of us. I think that the tools offered would allow me to provide a quicker and more efficient response to acts of vandalism. I would probably also help out with backlogs in such areas as renaming which often build up waiting for an admin to attend to.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Probably the work with Doonhamer on the KC Stadium article, mentioned in the nomination, bringing it up to GA status. Hopefully Kingston upon Hull will follow once we have tracked down sources. Another significant achievement is to get article stubs, with infoboxes, for all of the East Riding of Yorkshire locations. The absence of these articles being one of the main reasons I got started on Wikipedia and hope that they will be a significant resource when expanded.


 * 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 think that conflict is inevitable especially when dealing with persistent vandalism. Though conflict with established users is something I try to avoid, if possible, though run ins with the currently banned user Andy Mabbett are probably the most stressful I have had to deal with. As to dealing with the situation I would hope that I would step back after a while and let other more experienced editors deal with the problem, but as an admin I may not have that luxury.


 * Optional question from
 * 4 Do you plan to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall?
 * A. I can see no problem with adding myself to the list there, though there seems to be few who have.


 * Question from Pedro
 * 5 Just prior to accepting this nomination you stated on your user page that you don't think you know enough about "the policies" . At this stage of your RfA there is concern about your lack of experience in project space. What policies do you feel you don't know enough about, and how (or indeed do) you attend to address this concern if this RfA is succesful? Pedro : Chat  10:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A. In writing the comment I was thinking of the knowledge that I would need to be able to perform admin roles. As examples; blocking users - how do you determin how long to block for; page protections - how do you determine what level of protection to apply and areas like that which presumably would come with experience. Since being nominated I have been having a look around and noticed that there is an admin school and various articles on what to do and when it is appropriate to take such actions, so these will be my first port of call should by admin by successful.


 * I have noticed the concern at lack of project space edits, my guess is this is because of my low participation in things like deletion debates which I have tended to avoid unless I have edited the article in question. Probably this is because I find them so depressing, especially those articles that keep getting re-nominated or get nominated becasue they fall in to the same category as another article that has been deleted, a recent case of mass deletion being the UK B-road articles. I would rather be looking at improving what is there than trying to get rid of what looks like a reasonable article and is currently borderline for inclusion. Thus I stated in answer to the first question that I would be most active in fighting vandalism and looking at helping with backlogs at renaming of articles. Though deletion will have to be tackled and I would probably look to participate in the speedy deletion area of the newly created junk that we get on a daily basis. Keith D (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Keith D:

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

Support

 * 1) Keith has been a tireless background worker for my school's article, which is unfortunate enough to be repeatedly vandalised. I have thanked him alot for this, but I am sure he would do a greater job for the rest of Wikipedia by becoming an administrator Mrjingjing 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. An excellent editor who can be trusted with the mop. Master of Puppets Care to share?  00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A hard working man from the Broad Acres is good enough for me. Nick mallory (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good edit count.  Good luck.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support  Red rocket  boy  03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I feel quite comfortable concluding that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good edit count. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Has the qualifications. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support He looks like a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools Dustihowe (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support A hardworking, patient and courtous editor who would make an excellent admin. Kaly99 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Looks good.  Can be trusted with the mop. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support NHRHS2010  talk  22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Keepscases (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support - as a fellow Yorkshireman, I have several Yorkshire pages on my watchlist. He pops up from time to time and all of his edits have been useful. However, more metaspace contributions would be nice. Will (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Very trustworthy editor  Alex ' fus ' co5  01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Looking through his contribs, this user seems to be a good vandal fighter that makes good reports to AIV. While I do not think the number of Wikipedia edits is proportionate to his overall edits, so long as he only uses the tools for vandal fighting as stated I see no reason to not support. SorryGuy 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I'm not bothered by the low amounts of edits to project space. It seems unlikely to me that if entrusted with the extra buttons he will suddenly become interested in areas which he has never shown much interest before and make a big mess of things. He's been around a long time, I trust him to use his judgment and stick to what he knows. In my opinion every editor who has demonstrated that they are competent and trustworthy ought to be given the tools. faithless   (speak)  08:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, no reason to think he wouldn't be able to cope with the awesome responsibility. Neil   ☎  12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Good response to my question. I think / trust you'll take it slow and ask if unsure, and coupled with an excellent background in encyclopedia building I have no issues here. There will be plenty of support around if you need it upon getting the tools, so use it. Very Best. Pedro : Chat  13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Agree the project space edits are low. But the vandalism reversions are very frequent and usually spot on. I imagine that initially he will use the tools in areas he is familiar with and perhaps naturally move more into project space: at any rate, there is certainly no reason to think he'll suddenly go mad with all the extra buttons! (PS: notifying of COI as I'm from Hessle!) Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. What Neil said. Keith comes across as a decent bloke, helpful, civil, and communicative. That's what counts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Seems like the right stuff. So, he will get admin-experience when he is an admin. Greswik (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Admins can do a lot of good that's not in the Wikipedia space. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 22:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support--Duk 07:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support good, experienced user --MoRsE (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Do not believe will abuse the tools, agreeing that you should take it gradually in using the tools. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Finding deletion debates depressing is very understandable. Haukur (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Never seen a bad edit, lack of edits in the project space doesn't mean that the skills wont be picked up in time. King of the  North  East  04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Consistent strong contributor to the encyclopedia. There could of course be more meta-level discussion and interaction with other contributors, but from what I've seen, Keith is consistently courteous and polite, has never shown a serious lapse in policy understanding, and I see nothing to suggest that he would go rogue with the admin tools. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - I don't see any red flags to 'pedia building here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - The user has substantial experience and seems to have avoided disputes with other editors. He's not the least bit disruptive, and doesn't go around stirring up trouble. Please be careful in how you use the tools, and ask for help if you have any questions. - Jehochman  Talk 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Lack of wikipedia edits or procedural involvement.--Dacium (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The nomination says he has '17,000 edits, including 10,000 to mainspace', how many do you want exactly? Nick mallory (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He does have only 117 project space edits, and I don't know that it's unreasonable to submit (even as I would not) that the record of project space contribution does not provide a basis sufficient from which to draw firm conclusions about the candidate's familiarity with policy. Joe 05:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if that's what Dacium meant. Nick mallory (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 118 edits in the project space shows a lack of experience in admin-related areas. Jmlk  1  7  23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, not enought edits in the wikipedia-namespace provides possiblitity that this user does not have much experience in admin-related areas.--Sunny910910 (talk 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough experience in admin-related areas. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Jmlk17. Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Jmlk17. A minimal level of wiki-space participation is a necessity for any admin candidate. Xoloz (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per basic lack of familiarity with adminship prior to transcluding. He says 'if elected' in his acceptance, and notes that he read the policies after being nominated. Its true that there is an admin school, but its generally for people who are not admins already and it itself isn't commonly seen as leading to adminship.  Avruch Talk 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, actually, the new admin school is for new admins. People who are not admins yet would not be able to take part in the blocking and deleting exercises. GlassCobra 07:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Avruch Talk 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral the number of project space contributions does not provide a basis sufficient from which to draw firm conclusions about the candidate's familiarity with policy (thanks Joe) ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find familiarity with policy in areas other than project space. 82.19.1.211 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I can't gauge his familiarity because of his lack of WP namespace edits. Remember, I'm not saying he shouldn't be an admin because of this, but I'm saying I can't support without a sufficient number of edits to the WP namespace (and their talk pages).  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - as above and I'm a little troubled by the lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace, where most admins do their work. &mdash; Rudget contributions 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant Neutral I really appreciate the work that this user has done in their area, and I know we've got lots of specialized admins, but WP-space edit count is just too low. I'm sorry. GlassCobra 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm usually one to criticise candidates for not being involved enough in mainspace because it is such an important part of an administrators' role (issues surrounding content disputes), but I also like to see a little bit more experience in the Wikipedia-space than what this candidate offers. A solid neutral, with positive sentiment :)  Daniel  05:35, 9 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.