Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keeper76

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

Keeper76

Final (44/1/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to nominate Keeper76 as an Administrator at the Wikipedia. I have been observing him for a couple of months and have been privileged to serve as his mentor as he prepared to become a sysop. He registered his account in early August and has accumulated a broad range of experience while here. As so many of us, he was an avid reader and user of Wikipedia long before he began editing. He has over 3300 total edits with about 70% to the mainspace. He has worked often in AfD discussions as well as doing much of the grunt work that makes Wikipedia look good and operate smoothly. He has associated himself with various WikiProjects and is constantly working to improve the encyclopedia. In preparation for this RfA, Keeper76 has been working through the Administrators reading list and becoming more and more knowledgeable of our policies and guidelines. I have been impressed by his cool head and high degree of civility. I am convinced that Keeper76 will be an asset to us and am even more convinced that he will neither abuse or misuse the tools. I ask for your support of this fine editor. JodyB _talk 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom by Wizardman: Transcluded already? Heh, no problem, the sooner Keeper's an admin the better. Anyway, in just a few months Keeper has proven that he has what it takes to be great admin material. He's primarily a gnome, which is good to have as an admin. He participates in AfD a lot, so be obviously understands the processes behind that, and we definitely need more help over there with Mailer Diablo leaving. He's quite simply a very solid editor, and I can definitely second what Jody has said above. Heck, I originally found him at the College Football Wikiproject. His demeanor and knowledge there made me think he was a regular there, yet those were his first talk edits there, to my surprise. No need to wait to make him an admin,let's just give him the tools now. Wizardman 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks JodyB for your kind words. Keeper | 76 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you too for the co-nom Wizardman! Nice confidence booster!:) Keeper | 76 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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 have been active in the AfD process from the beginning and I really enjoy the discourse that happens. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I don't see myself leaving that arena. I plan to take a big part in closing debates (that I'm not involved in of course) and working on the ever-present backlog of admin actions that are needed there. This would come very slowly as I learn the process, but I intend to be an expert closer. I've done new page patrol/marking, I've done vandalism reverting, I've done some username reporting. I will certainly be open to requests for other areas that need attention, I love learning about this place and how it functions. For example, I've never done much with images and copyrights and realize there is a large backlog there too. Again, the admin side would be taken slowly by me until the process can become second-nature in order to focus on the product. The reading list mentioned above is priceless. WP:AN is a good flare too. Happy to learn, quick to get help. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it was most certainly not built by one dude. Somebody had to hold the ladder.

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

A: My most enjoyable contributions are seriously gnomish. My userpage very meekly claims I've started 6 articles; my greatest joy comes from quietly fixing others' contributions. I have been an active part of the disambiguation pages with links project for a couple of months, and more recently begun to work in the League of copyeditor circle. My first attempt (just in the last couple of days) at copyediting was this article I've never heard of, which garnered this praise. When I'm not gnoming around in the underbelly or going through the AfD log, I take part in the Minnesota project, (I have "over 30 years RL experience" in the area) including the Vikings and Twins subprojects.

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: Conflicts? Sure. Stress? Nah, never. Life's too short, the pay here sucks, and this is too fun a place. I really mean that. There's this little "X" in the upper right corner of my screen. Usually does the trick. AfD brings out all kinds of opinions though, don't it? I've had some "back and forth" with other users. I'm not a deletionist, although I've been called one. I'm not an inclusionist either, I'm a citation-ist. There are over 2MIL articles here. I know the subject matter of about .01% of them. But without reliable, verifiable, independent sources, (or at least the feasability of them existing) the article has to go. No exceptions. That has caused trouble for some users but I think I've been able to work with them appropriately. I'll find diffs/usernames if need be, let me know.

Optional Questions from CIreland

4. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." What does "free" mean in this context?

A: Free means lots of things in this context. You don't have to pay to contribute here; you don't have to pay to read anything here. You are free to add anything you like to the project, and others are free to remove it or change it to anything they like, and then are free to stop you from adding disputed/disruptive/unsubstantiated content through the appropriate (free) channels.

5. Is notability a necessary condition for the inclusion of an article in the encyclopedia? Is it a sufficient condition?

A: The short answer is yes, but the short answer doesn't answer, does it? If a subject wasn't "notable" to someone, in the most basic meaning of the word, it wouldn't have an editor "freely" trying to add it. So a notable (Add article here) gets added. Thisbasic idea includes the high school student in study hall typing a one-liner about the notable (to him) pretty girl at the next monitor. For example, a New Article: Ashley is SOOO HOT!!!!! As I stated in question 3 above, I'm a citation-ist when it comes to notability. Independent, verifiable, reliable sources need to exist that explain, in a fact-checked, neutral manner, that Ashley is indeed documented to be extremely attractive. Maybe Ashley was the latest winner of Miss Teen USA? Or maybe she's just cute-as-a-button and needs to have her article removed. Citations make for inclusion.

Thanks CIreland, for the questions. Please ask a follow-up if I missed what you were asking! Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from D.M.N.

6. Which of the following are inappropriate Keep and Delete reasons in AFD's, and why:

Keep - I watched this earlier, in my opinion it is notable.

Delete - This is total crap; why does it deserve to be in an encyclopedia?

Keep - This is notable according to the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC.

Delete - WP:HOAX

Keep - Hey; its me - keep this please!

Delete - I feel this article, although it meets the notability criteria, will not expand beyond its current length and should go.

D.M.N. (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A: I really don't like any of them. They're too short and I'm too verbose. I'm sure I've said something along those lines for certain AfDs though; If several editors have arrived before me, have said what I've independently arrived at, there's no need to take up server space to copy/paste others' comments. Horse down=stop kicking. I haven't dug into my own past, so maybe I'm guilty of some of these, maybe not. Hopefully not recently.

In order: 1)Sounds too much like an I like it argument. 2)Besides being a titch uncivil, it's too vague. 3)I'm sure I've quoted WP:MUSIC myself in AfDs, I try to point out which parts of WP:MUSIC it meets/doesn't meet. A recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storyhill and my diff. My next edit backs up my claim of notability with references. I won't say I've always been great at AfDs, but I feel like I've got a good grasp on what's helpful and what's not helpful. 4). A non-controversial (and uncontested) HOAX article is a good candidate for WP:CSD#G3. 5.)Brings up some interesting WP:BLP (as well as WP:COI AND WP:NPOV) issues and my first visit would be to the talkpage of whoever is claiming that the article is about xer. 6) I would respond to whoever said this that There is no deadline and offer to help fix the article. AfD is not cleanup, but cleanup is quite often a side-effect of an AfD (partly because of the backlog at ).

Thanks, D.M.N. Please ask any follow-ups if need be. Cheers, Keeper | 76 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, good answers! Just one other thing: Would you close specific topic AFD's, say for instance AFD's that fall under WP:SPORTS range. Would you also avoid controversional AFD's, for instance this, and why? D.M.N. (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry D.M.N! I just noticed your follow-up here! It must've popped in at the same time as Rudget's question below. My answer: Yes, I would close specific topc AfDs, but I believe they (to use sports for example, even though the WP:SPORTS link you added is a rejected proposal), would have a better consensus if someone from a relevant WikiProject has been notified with that little tag that says this "has been listed as a _____-related deletion" or some such. If I really don't know the article's subject matter, that wouldn't stop me from learning about it/him/her/them/those. That's the fun of Wikipedia. The key though, is if I'm unable to learn about the subject through independent, reliable sources outside of the WP article up for deletion. If I can't, that's a decent REDFLAG that the article's title should be a REDLINK. As for the AfD you mentioned, I've looked through it. Definitely a hot button right now, I think there's something going on at the Village Pump in regards to "recent murders" for slow news days. (or was, either way, can't remember the outcome). Really, here's what it is. Subject A (Collins in this case) has no article, presumably because Subject A is not notable. (Also up for debate in the AfD - was she notable before she died or because she died?). Subject A dies under unusual circumstances at the alleged hands of Subject B, a notable person (had article here since May 06) and therefore the newspaper prints it. See Ronald Goldman. Right now, the Keeps outnumber the Deletes about 2:1. As such, AfD is not a vote, and many of the keeps are considerably weaker than the deletes, so in my mind consensus right now is a dead-heat. Split down the middle 1:1. That becomes Closed as No Consensus. If I was taking part in the debate, which I haven't and won't, I would type this: Delete, or if kept, a rename to Death of Natasha Collins with Natasha Collins as a redirect to that. The article isn't about her, it's about her unfortunate death. The sources (and there are good sources), aren't about her. They are about her boyfriend, and about her death. Keeper | 76 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Rudget

7. - I know this may be asked at quite a few RFAs, but I'd like to ask it nevertheless. :] What is your thoughts on Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, would you add yourself, why or why not? Rudget. 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A: Inevitable question, I suppose. Truthfully, I'm undecided on this one. I've been watching what User:Lar has been developing recently, and like the concrete-y-ness of it. I would likely subscribe to his criteria. On the other hand, I know that a lot of the recent "stuff" (for example) has struck other user's as wiki-legalism and "off-topic" (read:doesn't help build the encyclopedia) as well. So I'm undecided. I foresee a more flushed out pro/con talk page developing in the near future where "recall", as it is, is either abolished or made mandatory. I would, of course, follow whatever decision was made if that were to ever happen. Whichever way it goes is moo (a cow's opinion) at the moment because it is voluntary. Currently, it also seems to be Gasoline on the proverbial Fire. Not being on the list does not mean that the admin powers are permanent and couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't go away through other avenues, as some seem to believe. I also understand the arguments relating to transparency and a perception of hierarchy ("you can block me, but I can't stop you?"). So being on "the list" is a gesture towards clearing up that perception I suppose. There are very good admins on the list. There are very good admins off the list. It really doesn't mean much. (yet). So, short answer? Not right away. Again, I do see Lar's solution as the best stab yet at making some regularity out of the process (and the requirements) for recall.

8. "On the other hand, I know that a lot of the recent "stuff" (for example) has struck other user's as wiki-legalism and "off-topic" (read:doesn't help build the encyclopedia) as well." — Do you agree with these "other users" you allude to? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A:No, not necessarily. As I stated in my answer to Q7, I'm undecided on the whole recall issue. It can easily lead to unnecessary drama that distracts from the job at hand, which is building an encyclopedia that is the best in the world (I know that sounds really cheesy, but I firmly believe Wikipedia is the best in the world). However, discussion needs to happen, and I think the recall was a good faith recall and I give a lot of credit to the example editor for following through on her commitment to the process that she volunteered to be part of. I'm perfectly understanding of "other users" using their time to hammer out a recall (whether it was "supposed" to be there or not is irrelevant; it's there). Of course, nobody is required to comment on any RfA, so if someone says "Neutral - this is a waste of time", really they are ironically only wasting their own time because nobody forced them to comment at all. For the record, I voted in support of the user I used as an example. And all THAT being said, I'm undecided as to putting myself in The Category. If I hit people over the head with a mop, it really won't matter if I'm in a category or not, my tools will go away through other established avenues. But I get the gesture. Thanks for your question!

General comments

• See Keeper76's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Keeper76: Keeper76 (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/Keeper76 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Nominator's support. I think we have an excellent candidate here who will continue working to improve Wikipedia. -JodyB _talk 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support -- judicious, pleasant editor. I went over his talk archives and looked at all the AfDs he initiated. Keeper76's track record on AfDs is good and in the very few cases where he's been wrong, he's been quick to change his position -- an important trait in an admin. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - Excellent candidate. Seen him around, always been impressed. Good nomination statements aswell. :P Rudget. 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support I trust JodyB's judgement. The Transhumanist 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Good man. He was wrong for picking the Bucs over the Giants, but still good. --EndlessDan 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support per A. B. Spencer^TC 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Great answers to questions. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Little worried by ans to Q4 but tilted by ans to Q6 and overall attitude. A good candidate, IMO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - will make a good admin.   jj137 ^♠ 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - excellent, clued-in user. Great admin candidate. Best, Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. (Specially because of the answer to Q3.) Callmederek (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Answer to my question is good enough for me. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Excellent, thoughtful editor. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Seems to be an excellent editor. -Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Hasn't edited for a long time, but he edits a lot in the few months he's edited, so forget that. Good answers to questions lead me to my decision. Redbull47 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Jmlk17 04:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support I like what I have seen. docboat (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support: Answered questions rather elaborately and put some effort into the RfA. Past contribs. have been wonderful. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Has a clue... and that alone means a lot. I also am extremely impressed with his answer to question 6. Trusilver (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I think the answer to question 6 makes it all clear; this user should be an admin. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Uber support - for mainly dealing with this little thing and per above. miranda 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support strong answers to questions. D.M.N. (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support This may not be worth much compared to the weighty (& abstract) issues discussed above, but the nom took the time to welcome me (a complete n00b) and gave me some good pointers on how to proceed. Maybe WP needs more admins who take the time to do the little things really well? RexxS (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Okay. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Another good Wizardman nom. I'm very pleased seeing someone adjust and adapt so well to the community in as little time as this candidate has. :) GlassCobra 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support: Finally :-) . - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Suport - WP:DEAL and answers seem to indicate someone with Clue. Gromlakh (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - mainly for the AFD work - will help for that domain for sure.--JForget 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, solid editor, no reason to believe that they'll misuse the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
35. Support. Impressive contribution history which raises no red flags for me, and I like the attitude. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Seems like a friendly and informed editor, who has done a lot of good work here. --Kateshortforbob 16:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Fine contributions: no reason to oppose. Acalamari 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Support good editor with good use for the tools. AfD backlog really needs this admin. Doczilla (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I liked your answers. Good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Already demonstrated he knows how to clean up with his bare hands. Let him have the mop, he will use it well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. No reason to think this user will abuse the tools. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Support Callmederek (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Indented duplicate !vote. ^Avruchtalk 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    What, you mean that xe isn't allowed to like me twice as much? Ha! (I didn't even notice it - thanks for the fix Avruch) Keeper | 76 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

42. Sensible and straight-talking. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong Support I'm proud to add my name to the supporting list... --Mhking (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support As per track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The answer to Q5 doesn’t address the sufficiency part of the question. The present answer centers on “independent, verifiable, reliable sources.” Actually, there are many facts with such sources that don’t belong in an encyclopedia, or in a particular article of an encyclopedia. Without going into an essay about what's encyclopedic or not, my impression of the present A5 is that the nom fails on an comprehensive understanding of what an encyclopedia is, or should be. Changes in A5 may change my impression. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I think Keeper is right. The presence of multiple independent, verifiable, reliable mainstream sources is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for keeping an article. If such sources don't exist, then clearly we can't write a worthwhile and verifiable article; if there are enough published, third-party mainstream sources to write a decent article, then ipso facto the topic is notable. That's always been my understanding of the root of the notability guidelines; although there are subject-specific rules (e.g. fully-professional sports leagues), it all ultimately comes back to availability of sources. Walton^One 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - He has a sufficent edit count, does not completely ignore edit summaries, great job so far at WP:AFD, cool user page. I'm not 100 % sure about someone who's only been editing actively for about 4 months. But I won't oppose just for that. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - lots of wiki-gnome stuff is promising, but I would have liked to have seen more consolidated article building, a GA at least, given the short length of time you've been here. I am also bemused at the name given I've seen more 'delete' votes than 'keep' at AfD. Given some of the issues at AfD in recent months I feel a bit wary at the moment - I feel really working on an article gives an appreciation of what goes into it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Casliber. For an explanation of my username, please see my userpage section on the matter. I've been called Keeper for as long as I can remember (I'm talking pre-Internet). I had no idea what an "AfD" was when I opened my account. Are there any specific issues you have from "AfD in recent months", or is it just a general concern? Keeper | 76 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your page on the origins of your name. It's cool. The issue at AfD is a much bigger one currently with several editors pushing for the deletion of large amounts of material. Yes much is poorly sourced and for alot of the time procedure has been followed but there have been several fairly heated debates and pushing limits going on. As you can probably guess I have been dismayed by much of what has gone on in recent months. The behaviour of several people involved has been called into question with resultant bans in the year past so some of us get a little cautious recently WRT this whole issue. Given all this, I am looking for a little more before I trust (i.e. support) people in these RfAs. Anyway, you'll probably get over the line here. If you want to write GAs or FAs come and ask. Incidentally the first NFL game I ever watched was the Oakalnd Raiders v Minnesota Vikings Superbowl in 76 or thereabouts...(sad day that was I guess) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (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.