Miniapolis (talk | contribs) →Support: Cmt to Ks0stm |
|||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
#'''Support''' - can't see any specific problem. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - can't see any specific problem. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. It's not the strongest support I've every given, as I have some concerns about answers to the questions. The answer to Q6 kinda rubs me a little wrong...I would have preferred an answer along the lines of "I would not close the AfD but would instead !vote", as that's a good middle ground between just walking away and letting bias affect your close. The other answers seem just a hair off from what I would like to see as well, but all in all I still feel that I can support. The user is generally clueful; I trust their judgement and ability to get it right. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. It's not the strongest support I've every given, as I have some concerns about answers to the questions. The answer to Q6 kinda rubs me a little wrong...I would have preferred an answer along the lines of "I would not close the AfD but would instead !vote", as that's a good middle ground between just walking away and letting bias affect your close. The other answers seem just a hair off from what I would like to see as well, but all in all I still feel that I can support. The user is generally clueful; I trust their judgement and ability to get it right. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#:Thanks; I realize now that you (and Dennis) are correct, and will keep that in mind. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
#'''Support''' Can't see any problem to not to give support.--'''[[User:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Pr<font color="red">at</font><font color="blue">yya</font></span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:orange;font-family:Verdana">'''(Hello!)'''</span>]]</sup> 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' Can't see any problem to not to give support.--'''[[User:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Pr<font color="red">at</font><font color="blue">yya</font></span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:orange;font-family:Verdana">'''(Hello!)'''</span>]]</sup> 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' You want to work on backlogs? Sounds like a job for an admin to me, you have my support. Best of luck to you. —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> - [[User:Dainomite|<font color="#FFFFFF">dain</font>]]-</span> [[User_talk:Dainomite|<font color="#000">talk</font>]] </span> 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' You want to work on backlogs? Sounds like a job for an admin to me, you have my support. Best of luck to you. —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> - [[User:Dainomite|<font color="#FFFFFF">dain</font>]]-</span> [[User_talk:Dainomite|<font color="#000">talk</font>]] </span> 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:28, 7 February 2013
Miniapolis
(talk page) (38/12/4); Scheduled to end 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination
Miniapolis (talk · contribs) – It is a big pleasure to present this adminship nomination of Miniapolis. She created her account on May 21, 2007 and from there, she has amassed an incredible 27 consecutive months of active editing, earning her more than 12,000 edits (7,500 of them to mainspace), as well as several user rights to enhance her mission to improve the encyclopedia. I first met her a while ago when I put together the courage to participate in a GOCE Copyedit drive, and since then, I have only been impressed by her always helpful character, her attitude and dedication to the project. With her incredible copyediting work, I am sure she understands all the notability policies and, focused on content administrative work, she will become one of our brightest administrators. Today, in this current need of new admin blood, I consider that Miniapolis would be a very fine addition to the admin corps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. Miniapolis 02:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
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'd like to pitch in in a number of areas, wherever I'd be needed the most. At first I'd tread carefully, and branch out after gaining some experience with the mop. My strong suit is probably dispute resolution; my interpersonal skills are decent, and I don't rattle easily. I'd probably start with ANI and backlog work (especially AFD and RFPP), stretching my comfort zone from there. Although I guess most admins tend to specialize in particular areas, I'd like to learn them all first.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Copyediting is my forté; I've had fun with the Guild of Copy Editors for the past couple of years and also participate in WikiProject Wikify and several other WikiProjects. Although I admire the content creators, I'm better at improving existing articles than creating new ones. However, I've created two short articles on lesser-known horse breeds (Spanish-Norman horse and Baise horse) and hope to improve them as I find reliable sources. It's very satisfying to take an article needing a lot of work (with the maintenance tags to prove it) and bring it closer to encyclopedia quality, regardless of subject. Recently I've been copyediting more articles from the GOCE requests page, and it's nice to contribute to an article that's up for GA or FA.
- 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've been fortunate in not encountering any major conflicts so far, and only a few minor ones. While it can bruise the ego when our contributions don't seem as valuable to others as they do to ourselves, it helps to assume good faith and remember that the vast majority of editors are here to improve the encyclopedia (even when they do things differently than we would). Once or twice I've had to take a deep breath, walk away and have a nice cup of tea; when I return, the conflict has always shrunk. I contribute to RFCs as a subscriber to the Feedback Request Service; as a (usually) uninvolved editor I may not have as much expertise in a particular field as the editor(s) requesting comments, but try to base my comments on policy and guidelines. Life is too short for edit-warring.
- Additional question from MJ94
- 4. Why do you think you'll make a good administrator?
- A: I have good judgment, a cool head and a good grasp of WP policies and guidelines. In addition, while I certainly wouldn't be available for many hours on end every day, I'm fortunate in that my personal circumstances allow me to "pop in" several times most days. Although the prevailing atmosphere on WP is collegial, I wouldn't shy away from the tough stuff (blocks and mediation).
- Additional question from Go Phightins!
- 5. Thanks for expressing interest in becoming an administrator. Though I don't believe we've directly interacted, I have seen you around and admire your tact. I do, however, have a concern regarding your interest in closing AFDs which you can read in its entirety in the oppose section. Hahc21 thought it might be a good idea to ask you a question about it, so I thought I would.
a.) Would you define yourself as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or somewhere in between? In other words, what's your philosophy regarding what should be included in Wikipedia?
b.) What is your opinion on "super voting" (when an AFD closer uses their vote as a "super vote" to override consensus)? Are there any scenarios in which you think it could have merit and would you ever employ such a practice?
c.) And lastly, how would you have voted in this AfD? Assuming you didn't vote, how would you have closed it?
Thanks in advance.- A: Thanks, Phightins; the points in your oppose are well-taken (although I hope to change your mind :-)).
a) I believe that Wikipedia is large enough for a vast number of articles—within reason. I'm well-versed in WP:NOT, which (unfortunately) leans me slightly towards deletionism. I say "unfortunately" because there are a number of WP articles which are promotional, sourced entirely by self-published sources or not sourced at all. While I agree that WP is a work in progress and there's no deadline, I don't think that articles with no reasonable expectation of meeting WP:N and WP:V belong in any encyclopedia.
b) I'm not sure what you mean by "super voting" in this context. AFD discussions are just that: discussions, not polls. Therefore, an admin should determine consensus by giving more weight to policy- and guideline-based votes than those of the ILIKEIT variety (even if the ILIKEIT votes are more numerous).
c) In this AFD, the presence of RS for the conspiracy theories would force me to hold my nose and vote "keep". I think Sandstein's closing remarks, distinguishing WP:RS on the one hand from WP:DUE on the other without giving either greater importance, were very good and I agree with their decision. When in doubt, keep for now (which may make me an inclusionist after all :-)).
- A: Thanks, Phightins; the points in your oppose are well-taken (although I hope to change your mind :-)).
- Additional question from Dennis Brown
- 6. A scenario: You are patrolling for AFDs to close one day as admin, and come across one with 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes, all are more or less average and reasonable votes. It happens to be a topic you are very familiar with but have no conflict of interest, and your gut and experience tells you that it is a notable topic, even if a bit difficult to source. How would you close it? Or would you just walk away or do something else?
- A: Although we all edit WP on a volunteer basis, walking away and doing something else is a bad habit to get into (unless you're WP:INVOLVED, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Seven votes total seems low for a no-consensus after just a week; I'd relist it (probably only once) in the hope for more input.
- Additional question from Marcus Qwertyus
- 7. Why did you become active from Nov. 2010? Have you ever gone on an extended wikibreak?
- A: Although I opened my account several years earlier (more to support the project than for any other reason), over two years ago I realized that I could help in a small way by working on the typos and poor prose in many articles. When I began learning the policies and guidelines behind the encyclopedia itself, I branched out into content and behavioral issues. Since then I've never taken an extended wikibreak, nor do I intend to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Northamerica1000
- 8. Do you feel that your !votes at AfD discussions should be congruent with other editor opinions most of the time, perhaps as an example, in 90% or more instances, as a qualifier for adminship? I noticed in User: Go Phightins!' "Weak oppose" below that they stated you have "voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time" in AfD discussions. Do you perceive this type of comparison as a valid qualifying metric regarding abilities to make correct closes in AfD discussions? Why or why not?
- A: I think it's intellectually dishonest to see which way a vote is going and vote with the majority, and believe that all my AfD votes have been policy-based. The difficulty arises when a consensus has been recently reached (since consensus can change over time) and an editor persists in arguing a minority view. That's disruptive; once consensus is reached, it's time to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Requesting a follow-up, since you didn't answer the second part of question 8 regarding the use of AfD statistics as a metric to predict the probability of editors being able to make correct discussion closures. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I thought I had answered both parts of your question. To reiterate—no, I do not. Consensus evolves over the course of a deletion discussion, and I don't closely monitor discussions on which I've already commented. As I've said, I base my opinions on policy and guidelines; it would be easy to change one's vote at the end of a discussion to that of the majority but a) I'm usually somewhere else (contributing to the encyclopedia) by then and b) I don't play that way. The phrase "voting against consensus" sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Miniapolis 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Requesting a follow-up, since you didn't answer the second part of question 8 regarding the use of AfD statistics as a metric to predict the probability of editors being able to make correct discussion closures. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- A: I think it's intellectually dishonest to see which way a vote is going and vote with the majority, and believe that all my AfD votes have been policy-based. The difficulty arises when a consensus has been recently reached (since consensus can change over time) and an editor persists in arguing a minority view. That's disruptive; once consensus is reached, it's time to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- 9. Would you ever consider closing an AfD discussion that you have contributed to?
- A: I'd be uncomfortable doing so, and would ask another admin to close it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- 10. Should AfD discussions be closed based upon general consensus in the discussions, or per the strength of the arguments within them?
- A: Consensus is not just the number of votes in a discussion, but the strength of the arguments within them. You don't need walls of text to make a point; a sentence or two (and a link to policy always helps, assuming it's relevant to the issue at hand) can shed needed light on a previously-deadlocked discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Miniapolis: Miniapolis (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Miniapolis can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support As nominator. — ΛΧΣ21 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good editor; Came across a bit while in the background, no main reason to oppose or concerns
just the lack of editing in the beginning. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)- Thanks, John; when I opened my account, I was still just a WP reader :-). Miniapolis 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- That has set it; Full support I guess now. Hopefully everyone else (mainly opposees) could see the current skills and communication abilities you have. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, John; when I opened my account, I was still just a WP reader :-). Miniapolis 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Recently came across this editor in an article RFC; she displayed exemplary character and calmness, willingness to discuss and answer questions (actually past the point of IDHT on the part of the other party). Seems to have a good grasp of policy. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Miniapolis displays great qualities; Wikipedia would be lucky to have her as an administrator. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Looks like the oppose(s) have a to-do list for you. No qualms here, Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Miniapolis's interpersonal skills are a lot more than just "decent", and I'm particularly glad that she is willing to spend time helping at ANI, where such skills and maturity are sorely needed. Easy support. --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good editor, no concerns about suitability for adminship. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- --LlamaAl (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I have never crossed roads with Miniapolis, but I am aware that she is a very kind user (a must for an admin, I might say) and judging her contributions, I think that she'll make a good use of the tools. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support A trustworthy editor that is obviously a net positive to the project. TBrandley (what's up) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Miniapolis is a great editor, and I have absolutely no reason to think she wouldn't use the tools responsibly. I'm proud to be casting my first RfA vote in support of her. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I am familiar with the user's work with the GOCE. They are a capable editor with clue, able and willing to learn. -- Dianna (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Stephen 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as I see no reason not to. Regarding the reasons given for opposing this request, I find nothing wrong with the quality of Mini's edits in administrative areas, even if my colleagues take issue with the quantity of those edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- No reason not to. Miniapolis would likely do a great job. Kurtis (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support As per Someguy1221 and the user has been editing regularly since November 2010.There absolutely no reason to think or suggest that she wouldn't use the tools responsibly.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, no concerns here, and she sounds very nice. AfD experience looks perfectly sufficient to me. Swarm X 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, pretty strongly, based on Miniapolis clearly being an intelligent and calm contributor with buckets of common sense, lots of great content work, and a clear understanding of how this collegial project works. Do I need to see more action in the AfD arena? With some candidates, I would, but not with Miniapolis - clear common sense (supported by pretty good answers to questions) is plenty for me. Miniapolis strikes me as someone who will be cautious, and is not going to be doing anything contentious without careful deliberation and without seeking help from colleagues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support As per Boing Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tentative support, in the absence of glaringly problematic areas being raised by opposes/neutrals, per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Whether or not this request is successful, you might wish to consider whether a few of the userboxes you display could potentially be viewed as off-putting by editors visiting your user page: while I'm sure you're very capable of editing with a neutral POV, some may infer otherwise by your obvious expression of personal opinions in such a way. Good luck. -- Trevj (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; your point about the userboxes is well-taken, although I'm not alone in a small degree of self-expression. I've edited a number of articles whose subjects are opposed to my own beliefs, and have had no trouble maintaining (and restoring) NPOV; I don't lose sight of the big picture, which is maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure this is the case, but the danger is that it may ring alarm bells for others. Administrators are sometimes more visible than non-admins, that's all. But the importance of self-expression is understood; indeed I share some of your convictions - however, I'd give serious thought before including such things on my user page. -- Trevj (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; your point about the userboxes is well-taken, although I'm not alone in a small degree of self-expression. I've edited a number of articles whose subjects are opposed to my own beliefs, and have had no trouble maintaining (and restoring) NPOV; I don't lose sight of the big picture, which is maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. In part, I admit to thinking we need more female admins, but that's only a minor reason. There's a good track record of high quality copyedit work, indicating attention to details and a proclivity for helping other editors make articles better. I see no reason to worry about anything getting broken. As for AfD being a drama-fest, no kidding! And it's spilling over to here, in opposes based on disagreeing with the candidate's views about keeping or deleting particular pages. RfA isn't about settling scores in the perpetual inclusion-deletion conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Fair-minded answers. Miniapolis seems highly unlikely to take controversial admin actions in areas unfamiliar to her. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems fine. Though if you're interested in helping with the Category:Wikipedia backlog, AfD and RFPP are the very tip of the iceberg. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Response to Keepcases oppose is not appropriate for an admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I think Miniapolis can be trusted to use the tools in a responsible fashion and believe her when she says she would tread carefully. Any potential concerns over AfD could easily be addressed through a mentoring period. I'm encouraged by the interest in working on backlogs and a demonstrated history of doing so at GOCE. Gobōnobō + c 21:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Not massively experienced but it sounds like the candidate will take it slow and learn from any mistakes Jebus989✰ 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support – the concerns listed in the Oppose section have not been enough to make me personally oppose the candidate. It Is Me Here t / c 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support While the answer to question 1 is not perfect, the opposes are not convincing in my view, because she mentions that she would use the tools cautiously and would seek mentoring if anything arises. That question shows she won't abuse the tools. Secret account 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support no concerns, user will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Net positive Inka888 03:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks more than competent, no reason to oppose. GaramondLethe 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I trust this editor to not misuse the admin buttons and to be a thoughtful force for good here. Opposes fail to convince me; the insistence that Afd's should have a certain "correct" percentage, for example, should carry little weight. Thanks for your service to date, and best wishes! Jusdafax 08:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I believe this editor will stay within her purvue and know when back down. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support She seems sensible, and unlikely to rush into closing contentious AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - can't see any specific problem. Deb (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It's not the strongest support I've every given, as I have some concerns about answers to the questions. The answer to Q6 kinda rubs me a little wrong...I would have preferred an answer along the lines of "I would not close the AfD but would instead !vote", as that's a good middle ground between just walking away and letting bias affect your close. The other answers seem just a hair off from what I would like to see as well, but all in all I still feel that I can support. The user is generally clueful; I trust their judgement and ability to get it right. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Can't see any problem to not to give support.--Pratyya (Hello!) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support You want to work on backlogs? Sounds like a job for an admin to me, you have my support. Best of luck to you. — - dain- talk 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
- Weak oppose - She expresses an interest in working at AFD, but she only has participated in 22 AFDs, never performed an NAC, and has voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time. In the last 2 months, she's only participated in 4 and voted with consensus only twice. I don't like opposing good candidates for adminship, but for someone who expresses an interest in closing AFDs, I need to see more experience in that area. I am open to changing my vote, but for now, I must oppose. Go Phightins! 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given how users doing NACs have been recently treated, I won't consider that "never performed an NAC" could apply. I was very active performing NACs, and everybody knows what happened (I am not challenging your oppose though) — ΛΧΣ21 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Excellent work as an editor, but insufficient experience in discussions relating to administrative tasks, as explained by the caveats stated by the first two neutral opinions. I suggest obtaining more relevant experience and applying again in a few months. I do recommends doing some NACs; the difficulties experienced by some people have been because of a considerable series of erratic and unjustified closes, & I would hope to see otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry, but simply not enough experience at AfD for someone who really wants to work there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just not enough admin area experience, as DGG says. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - When confronted with articles at AfD that end up getting kept, they've !voted delete more often than they've !voted keep. They've demonstrated poor judgement at AfD, and yet list working on the "backlog" at AfD as something they intend to do. (And are apparently unfamiliar enough with the process to be unaware AfD doesn't have a backlog. Perhaps they meant CfD, RfD, FfD, or MfD?) WilyD 10:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of experience, fluffy nomination and statements, and concerns over prose and maturity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per DGG. I have very few expectations of candidates. I am willing to pass a candidate who has no admin experience and makes no promise to even do admin work and oppose a candidate who says they intend to work an area because they have no experience. It's a matter of trust and damage. I trust a candidate who intends to start easy or use the tools sparingly if they have no experience but have shown an ample supply of clue and trust. I do not believe that person would cause damage. I am concerned about Miniapolis though. When you come to RfA and you answer the first question with an admin area, I want to see experience. Am I punishing someone for offering to do work? Maybe. But I don't see it that way. When someone wants to work an area they have no experience, they can potentially cause damage. Further, ANI should be the ending place that admins work, not the start. A brand new sysop should not start at ANI. New sysops should start at RFPP, UAA, PROD and PERM. Areas that are the least controversial. What this boils down to is that I am not confident that Miniapolis is aware of their limits. I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - nothing more than lack of experience in the areas you want to participate in; you look to be a good editor and so will be happy to support when you run in future :) GiantSnowman 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per KW and TP. Intothatdarkness 17:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose No candidate who displays an anti-religious userbox should ever be granted adminship. It shows terrible judgment on the part of the candidate, and serves only to alienate other editors who actually want to keep their religion, thank you very much. A userbox stating the world would be better off without (for example) Jews, homosexuals or black people would probably get someone banned. This is really no different. Keepscases (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Removed; I do not consider the userbox in question to be anti-religious, and meant no offense. Miniapolis 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You could also say that somebody who has a "This user is a Christian" userbox would alienate people as well, so that's actually not a legitimate reason. It's not as if it said something like "Death to the Jews!", it said "no religion" [quoting a very well-known song]. That doesn't affect adminship in any way. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the selection of that userbox shows horrible judgment by the candidate. I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking? I tend to think all people have the right to believe whatever they like, as long as they are not harming anyone else, and I don't trust a candidate who wants to dictate what other people believe. That's a *whole* lot different than a "this user is a Christian" userbox, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the userbox does not say "All religion is bad and nobody must believe in it because I don't." If someone is a Christian, they can be and they can say they are. If someone does not believe in any religion, they are free to do the exact same thing. It's no different what-so-ever, and it's not a reason to oppose. If someone takes offense to that, that is their problem. I could very well take offense to someone's userbox stating "This user is a Christian", as that's not my beliefs (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just stating this for an example). "I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking?" I'm curious – what does that actually have to do with anything? Are you now questioning someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in an RFA? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and don't call me "chief". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have explained why an anti-religious userbox is indicative of terrible judgment, and you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that. There is nothing wrong with professing your own beliefs. There is a big, big problem with suggesting other people don't have the right to their own, especially when you're a candidate for a position that ideally will be able to get along with the vast majority of other users, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say I do understand Keepscases's point here. Whatever my own view on religion (and I don't disclose it, because I really don't think it is of any relevance to my work on Wikipedia), I would never use a userbox that states an opposition to a religious belief (or a political or philosophical opinion, etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I should just add that I don't think the userbox in question was intended to be derogatory towards religious beliefs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't even believe it was meant that way, I just took it as being a quote from a song, and I don't wish for the candidate to specify (as that has nothing to do with the RFA). Yes, you can say that is "terrible judgment". And please! "you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that." How about you keep the conversation on topic and don't go for a "If you don't understand it, you don't know how to read properly" comments. I've read your comments several times before actually commenting (I couldn't believe what I was reading). And for the record, my reading comprehension is perfectly fine (I'm not an A+ student in English for nothing.) Boing, I agree, I wouldn't do such a thing either, but look at it this way. Once the issue was raised (which obviously wasn't before now), Miniapolis said "I don't agree, but I will remove it" and removed it. If the candidate knew it was going to be an issue, then they wouldn't have had it there in the first place. Let's assume a little good faith here that the candidate wasn't trying to offend anybody, or, as you suggested, convert people to non-religious beliefs (ridiculous). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Making a fuss over a quote from a John Lennon song seems overkill. Taking that particular userbox as anti-religious seems to require a leap of logic, or a the very least, is unnecessarily presumptive. I'm concerned about experience, but certainly not by someone quoting the song Imagine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't even believe it was meant that way, I just took it as being a quote from a song, and I don't wish for the candidate to specify (as that has nothing to do with the RFA). Yes, you can say that is "terrible judgment". And please! "you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that." How about you keep the conversation on topic and don't go for a "If you don't understand it, you don't know how to read properly" comments. I've read your comments several times before actually commenting (I couldn't believe what I was reading). And for the record, my reading comprehension is perfectly fine (I'm not an A+ student in English for nothing.) Boing, I agree, I wouldn't do such a thing either, but look at it this way. Once the issue was raised (which obviously wasn't before now), Miniapolis said "I don't agree, but I will remove it" and removed it. If the candidate knew it was going to be an issue, then they wouldn't have had it there in the first place. Let's assume a little good faith here that the candidate wasn't trying to offend anybody, or, as you suggested, convert people to non-religious beliefs (ridiculous). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have explained why an anti-religious userbox is indicative of terrible judgment, and you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that. There is nothing wrong with professing your own beliefs. There is a big, big problem with suggesting other people don't have the right to their own, especially when you're a candidate for a position that ideally will be able to get along with the vast majority of other users, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and don't call me "chief". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the userbox does not say "All religion is bad and nobody must believe in it because I don't." If someone is a Christian, they can be and they can say they are. If someone does not believe in any religion, they are free to do the exact same thing. It's no different what-so-ever, and it's not a reason to oppose. If someone takes offense to that, that is their problem. I could very well take offense to someone's userbox stating "This user is a Christian", as that's not my beliefs (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just stating this for an example). "I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking?" I'm curious – what does that actually have to do with anything? Are you now questioning someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in an RFA? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the selection of that userbox shows horrible judgment by the candidate. I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking? I tend to think all people have the right to believe whatever they like, as long as they are not harming anyone else, and I don't trust a candidate who wants to dictate what other people believe. That's a *whole* lot different than a "this user is a Christian" userbox, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You could also say that somebody who has a "This user is a Christian" userbox would alienate people as well, so that's actually not a legitimate reason. It's not as if it said something like "Death to the Jews!", it said "no religion" [quoting a very well-known song]. That doesn't affect adminship in any way. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Removed; I do not consider the userbox in question to be anti-religious, and meant no offense. Miniapolis 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - per experience, as noted above, at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kiefer and DGG. Not enough experience in important admin-related areas. SpencerT♦C 06:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral - lack of experience in certain areas. Among first areas to get involved she mentioned ANI and AfD, but 23 AfD votes is quite limited amount, and as far as I can see she has never edited/commented on ANI up to now. Also she doesn't seem to have been involved in any prolonged discussions on article talk pages, highest number of talk page edits are 11 and 7 but these weren't proper discussions, and the rest are all 5 and below. On other hand, I fully approve her copy editing contributions and find it unlikely that she would cause serious problems as admin. So neutral it is.--Staberinde (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Unquestionably a great editor, but not all great editors make great admin, and vice versa as well. The answer I was hoping for "I would have found a better source and !voted to keep". In this case you would have a definite opinion on the subject matter, thus risking your close becoming a supervote, something that causes unnecessary drama should be avoided. Having the admin bit shouldn't prevent you from participating in AFDs, after all. That alone won't stop me from supporting, although I think that if you get the bit, I would suggest you participate in at least 100 AFDs and get your ratio above 80% before closing any AFDs. What has me on the fence isn't trustworthiness, it is experience under fire, and I don't see you participating in the very areas you say you want to participate in. As someone who has done a great deal of work at ANI and AFD, I have to admit that makes me a little nervous as those are two areas where a discussion can quickly devolve into a drama-fest. You will get abuse and insults thrown at you at those two venues when you are an admin, and you have to be able to brush it off, or at least know when to just walk away. And you need to realize that walking away isn't a dereliction of duty, it is the exercise of wisdom. I can't determine if you can or can not do this, due to a lack of experience in those very venues. We are all human, we all have emotions, and refusing to walk away when they get the best of you will only cause problems for everyone involved. Additionally, the lack of any long term discussions on article talk pages makes it difficult to determine what kind of demeanor you would have in a heated content situation. I will try to poke around some tomorrow, and perhaps find some information. If you have any diffs to that effect, that would be helpful. Right now, I'm torn. Unquestionably, you want to do good things and have the best of intentions. I don't question this. I just can't yet determine if you can take the heat, and with the lack of experience in so many areas, you will make mistakes and get some heat directed your way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here are a few recent threads from an RFC on Talk:List of pantheists#Carl Sagan. Miniapolis 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I always try to avoid asking questions where I hope for a specific answer - I tend to find I'm usually disappointed if I do, but that's generally because we all have different lines of thought and we rarely come up with the same answer first time. I thought your hoped-for answer and Miniapolis's answer were both good, and I expect Miniapolis would agree that your hoped-for answer is good too. (And I think another good answer would have been "I wouldn't close that one.") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, the answer I gave as "preferred" wasn't the only good answer, it is just how I would have answered it. There is a range of acceptable answers, although I think the answer given did come up short and missed the point about supervoting completely, as another answer did. Again, I wouldn't use that as a basis to oppose by itself, but it is one unknown in a series of unknown issues with the candidate. As you know, my criteria is "some experience in a few areas, can stay calm under fire, independent", if I have to put it in a nutshell. Fairly lax, actually. I'm just worried that there are more questions than answers here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would have found a better source and !voted to keep and what if you were unable to find a better source :) Still, I think the candidate's answer does show a bit of inexperience. I generally walk away from things when my gut does the talking without adequate source backups because, as bitter experience shows, that gut of mine is as often wrong as it is right so "I wouldn't close that one" is the best answer. I certainly wouldn't close a conversation if I had an a priori feeling about it - there are sure to be other - gutless - admins around (couldn't resist that one!). --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, the answer I gave as "preferred" wasn't the only good answer, it is just how I would have answered it. There is a range of acceptable answers, although I think the answer given did come up short and missed the point about supervoting completely, as another answer did. Again, I wouldn't use that as a basis to oppose by itself, but it is one unknown in a series of unknown issues with the candidate. As you know, my criteria is "some experience in a few areas, can stay calm under fire, independent", if I have to put it in a nutshell. Fairly lax, actually. I'm just worried that there are more questions than answers here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral - I am nervous to support a candidate to work in areas that they lack experience in, especially technical areas like ANI and AfD (A discussion can turn from a debate to a drama fest in seconds). I'm definitely not going to oppose a candidate for these reasons though. I 100% agree with what Dennis has stated above. -- Cheers, Riley 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral - I can't support at this time. Some of the answers to the questions seem one sided, where an administrator would be able to see all sides and answer accordingly, presenting ever possible solution. I just don't see the maturity and responsibility I'd be looking for at this time. However, I have no reason to outright suspect the user will abuse the toolkit, so I'm in the neutral pool for now. gwickwiretalkedits 06:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)