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

Kbthompson[edit]

Final (45/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kbthompson (talk · contribs) - Kbthompson has been a helpful, interactive and informative user since i first met him discussing Hackney. He has generally helped on many projects such as WP:LONDON and remains civil. He has demonstrated to be trustworthy. He also has much experience and has been here for over a year and a half. Simply south (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am very grateful to Simply south for the nomination (and formally accept). Kbthompson (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never felt that it should be an ambition to be an administrator, but I do feel it is a responsibility that should be taken on for the good of the project. I have always considered vandalism patrol a part of the creation and maintenance of articles, and feel that the ceremonial 'mop and bucket' would be useful in early resolution of such issues.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 shall continue to monitor the 5,000 odd (principally London related) pages I have edited for vandalism and spam (I also check a vandal's other contributions to ensure that they have been corrected, if necessary). I shall add WP:ANI and WP:AIV to my regular patrol. As a potential neophyte administrator, I believe that it is best to observe and learn before defining any additional roles that I might expand into.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: (With others) expanding East End of London from a start article to a featured article. I should like to see many other London related articles go the same route. I have also contributed (again in collaboration) to expanding the coverage of London theatre articles to provide the coverage the subject deserves. Contributing to the creation of a ((infobox theatre)), the ((infobox UK place)) conversion and creating navigation templates for ((Theatres in London)) and London Boroughs (this work helps with meta-organisation of wikipedia, and makes related subjects accessible).
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: In June 2007 I expressed concern that a user had added potentially libellous material to the London Borough of Camden article. This resulted in multiple personal attacks upon me - some indication of which can be seen from the talk archive - the worst were removed by an admin. If such a case arose in the future, then I should resort to WP:ANI at an early stage for uninvolved input.

Additional question(s) from Malinaccier (talk):

4. When blocking a user, when should prevent account creation be implemented?
A: ... it should be enabled when blocking malicious names (for example, clear attacks on other users) (from: WP:INDEF, Setting Block Options).

Optional question from Simply south (talk · contribs)

5. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Simply south (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Now that is a toughy. I admit to mistakes, but I normally stumble into some version of the truth in the end, and I often revisit old work to see if my view has changed as I've acquired more knowledge about the subject - which is often the case. So, I tend to be proud about my writing - even my wobbly prose. I like collaboration, it definitely improves the work and I'm always grateful for help.
It's hard to be proud of the mind numbing work of recategorisation - when it needs to be done - or correcting disambiguation links like East London, England - but these things have to be done and done with some degree of care. I'd guess in the early days I was a bit more wiki-prickly, I think I have more patience now (although some people's mileage may vary).
In my current work, I'm not proud of Jack the Ripper, which has reached an intractable impasse between editors (and I'll recuse myself from any administrative involvement in, if appointed to serve). I'm not proud of Orpington, where I think an editor has something to offer - but resolutely refuses to put it in an encyclopaedic form - at least I've stopped the edit-war there, but again it seems something impossible to move forward. I like to achieve consensus, but it's sometimes difficult to achieve and occasionally it goes against quality issues that you need to take a stand on. I think I also reserve the right to revisit this question! Kbthompson (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Corvus cornixtalk

6. If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to the "admins open to recall" category?
A. I think anyone chosen by their peers should be subject to sanction if their actions become unacceptable to those peers. The one reservation that I would have it is needs to be a properly regulated procedure that currently doesn't seem to be in place. In principal, I would add my name to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Further, I will agree to be bound by any process that is accepted by that group, or choose from one of the existing 'prepared' processes.

Additional question from hjuk

7. Do you see the admin role in any sense as a leadership role? If so, what weight do you give to those behavioural leadership characteristics currently valued in the world's best organisations (e.g. how to get things done using emotional intelligence rather than a directive style) against technical skills and knowledge (e.g.: knowledge/application of procedures, number of edits)?
A. I think the question is in two parts. The common metaphor for the role of administrator is that of 'mop and bucket' - that's exactly what administrators do, repair damage to the project. The metaphor for the project is that of the hive, and it's where the best editors excel by providing examples and guidance to others. The two roles are complimentary, not exclusionary. I do not become a better editor by becoming an administrator - if my peers think I'm ready for it, I'm agreeing to shoulder some of the burden of making the project work. If I were unsuccessful, then I would hope to provide 'leadership' in the quality of my writing, in helping others and performing the many repetitive tasks that enhance and repair damage to the project - which is also what I do if I'm successful.
The second part is less relevant, as this is in no way a supervisory role. It has a short answer and a very long one. The short answer is, I'm pragmatic, whatever gets the job done. The executive summary for the long answer is that if you ever apply a purely directive style to any task, then you'd better make sure the task is very well specified. A group of people who are self-directed, self-ordered, self-motivated and have a common vision of where they want a group of tasks, say an encyclopaedia project, to go; they might just have a chance of achieving that rather open-ended goal. I also wouldn't devalue technical skills and knowledge, after all they're what get the job done, although the EI management view is probably ya' just hire'em! If you want the long answer, we'd probably best continue on my talk page ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Congolese fufu

8. Would you block a user whose name was that of a country? For example, Laos or Canada? For your information, my user name used to be Congolese but I had it changed for fear of being blocked like User:Laos?
A: I can well understand someone being proud of their national origin. But I do think you did the right thing in changing your username, as a username which implies some impression of authority or a special relationship with a group, may be considered inappropriate (WP:IU). As far as I understand, the use of such a username is not prohibited, but not recommended. I would discuss the issue with the editor, I don't think my first recourse would be to block. Kbthompson (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. If you encountered a POV pusher who simply deleted other editors' negative, but reliably sourced, edits and edited only overly positive information about the subject and refused all attempts at consensus building, mediation, and RFC, would you block the editor? What if the editor kept deleting positive information (that had reliable sources) and edited only very negative information (that also had reliable sources); would that change your action?Congolese fufu (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Oh, you know that editor too ... It would depend on which role I was engaged in on the article. As an editor, I'd try to engage the editor and suggest they might be too close to the subject - I would suspect WP:COI in either of the cases (particularly if the editor limited themselves to that single topic). If I were asked to review the behaviour of the editors, I would look for explanations for the edits - they may even be justified; I would look for incivility to other editors; and I would look for a consensus on the talk page. There are other administrative means than blocking. They include issuing a warning and monitoring the article, page ((protection)) until consensus is reached, a ban on the editor participating on that article, or seeking a probation on the editor's behaviour. Consensus is a policy, so there are situations in which a blocking may be justified, but in most cases I have seen of this type, the offending editor is sufficiently aware of the policies to never blatantly invite a block. Kbthompson (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Why not? Contributions fine, etc. Good luck. Rt. 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely Mr Senseless (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I was a little set back by your lack of deleted edits (i.e. CSD tags) but then you haven't said it's an area you want to deal with. Certainly your edit summaries seem to indicate a firm grasp on notability, so no worries there. Stunning article building work, some vandal fighting and your WP:AIV reports seems accurate. A clean and civil talk page and a pleasing user page indicate a commited contributor. Okay you've not that much in the traditional AIV / RFPP /AFD (allthough I did see some AFD contribution) areas but I see no reason whatsoever why you won't be a great asset to the administrative team. Oh, and your answers to the questions where great, which is probably why I'm not fussed about the relatively low project space edits. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nom. I wonder why i wasn't the first? Simply south (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - excellent contributions; keen and trustworthy. Warofdreams talk 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I would have preferred more reports to WP:AIV. That's a minor quibble compared to the nom's many, many contributions. Dlohcierekim 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks good to me. Timmehcontribs 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - a most courteous, civil and efficient editor who is concerned with building a quality encyclopaedia, not just a big one. A valuable addition to the administrator team. Regan123 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Could do much to help. -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support obviously — iridescent 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Thanks for answering. Malinaccier (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Nice answers to questions. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, impressive article work. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, as said by User:Regan123, a most courteous, civil and efficient editor who is concerned with building a quality encyclopaedia. A great candidate for adminship if ever there was. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I dorfbaer I talk I 02:29, January 3, 2008
  18. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Pedro's analysis tracks, on the whole, closely with mine, and I see nothing to suggest that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Very good mainspace work. Midorihana∫∞ 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Have seen no problems with his work. David Underdown (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, seems trustworthy enough, no reason not to support. Lankiveil (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support From a user who's a relative new boy. When I started I came across what's probably a typical experience of new users - aggressive and overbearing editors who never consult. KBT's behaviour was a breath of fresh air and stopped me from concluding that the whole space was inhabitated by a particularly infuriating small-minded bunch. High emotional intelligence - he/she is civil, thoughtful, helpful and consultative - particularly important when dealing with new users. Wish there were more like him/her. Buena suerte KBT. hjuk (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support a strong, worthy editor likely to use the tools well. Doczilla (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support - was friendly and helpful to me when I first started editing, I think KBT would make an excellent admin. Sue Wallace (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - sure.   jj137 ♠ 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Singopo (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Gotta go with a yes on this one. GlassCobra 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - The safest pair of hands imaginable. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I have worked with Kbthompson on many articles, and I find him to be patient, thoughtful, generous with his assistance and willing to discuss any differences. I have asked him on many occasions to comment on talk page discussions, and his input has been valuable and has often defused conflicts. I think he would make a very fine administrator indeed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -Dureo (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seen him around; looks to be a strong, constructive editor. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)I'm sure he appreciates it, but you already are listed as number 14. Dureo (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. The Transhumanist 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Worked with kb to develop ((Infobox theatre)) and found him to be intelligent, fair, and EXTRAORDINARILY easy to work with. By far my greatest collaborative effort on WP. —  MusicMaker5376 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Answers questions well. I think he's thinking of a different user because I haven't seen kb's name in articles that I've edited. Congolese fufu (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support and without any reservation. Is more than capable of using extra tools for the good. MRSC • Talk 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, Definitely. ChetblongTalkSign 08:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. *Cremepuff222* 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Of course. Acalamari 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. maybeee it's becorse i'm a Lahnduner .... Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sure. Jmlk17 10:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support. Sensible and trustworthy. JPD (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I have no problem with giving the candidate the tools. James086Talk | Email 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category