→Discussion: c |
Kingturtle (talk | contribs) oppose for now... |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|Gwen Gale]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|Gwen Gale]]=== |
||
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|action=edit§ion=4}} Voice your opinion]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|talk page]]) |
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|action=edit§ion=4}} Voice your opinion]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2|talk page]]) |
||
'''( |
'''(60/4/2); Scheduled to end 22:48, [[24 May]] [[2008]] (UTC)''' |
||
{{User|Gwen Gale}} - Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you ''[[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]]'', my next candidate for adminship. |
{{User|Gwen Gale}} - Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you ''[[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]]'', my next candidate for adminship. |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
#::I saw being accused of a copyright violation as uncivil, and objected to the edit summary . That was an with an interview with a decades long out of the spotlight film star which I saw as relevant to the article . Here is a link to the external links policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_YouTube.2C_Google_Video.2C_and_similar_sites] There is no ban on linking to YouTube. This is the only communication I have had with this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive1#Link_removal]—[[User:Sandahl|<span style="color:#000000"><tt>'''''<span style="cursor:crosshair;"> Ѕandahl'''''</span></tt></span>]] 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
#::I saw being accused of a copyright violation as uncivil, and objected to the edit summary . That was an with an interview with a decades long out of the spotlight film star which I saw as relevant to the article . Here is a link to the external links policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_YouTube.2C_Google_Video.2C_and_similar_sites] There is no ban on linking to YouTube. This is the only communication I have had with this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive1#Link_removal]—[[User:Sandahl|<span style="color:#000000"><tt>'''''<span style="cursor:crosshair;"> Ѕandahl'''''</span></tt></span>]] 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
#:::If Gwen had good reason to think that you had violated copyright, she would have been quite justified in saying so. (Or anyway, if you ever have good reason to think that I have violated copyright, please say so and don't mince your words.) But she didn't say so, and there's no sign that this is what she thought. She did not say ''the link is a copyvio'', she said ''the link is '''to''' a copyvio'' (my emphasis). The violation she perceived was by the person who uploaded the file to YouTube and perhaps also by YouTube, and anyway not by you. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
#:::If Gwen had good reason to think that you had violated copyright, she would have been quite justified in saying so. (Or anyway, if you ever have good reason to think that I have violated copyright, please say so and don't mince your words.) But she didn't say so, and there's no sign that this is what she thought. She did not say ''the link is a copyvio'', she said ''the link is '''to''' a copyvio'' (my emphasis). The violation she perceived was by the person who uploaded the file to YouTube and perhaps also by YouTube, and anyway not by you. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' (at least for now). I am surprised that Gwen only hinted at the [[Abraham Lincoln]] article in her statement and answers. Seems a few people are still feeling the sting of her actions after all these months. She says in her answer to Q3 "having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works" and "I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart". I'd like elaboration here. I'd really like to understand from her what went wrong on her part, what she learned, and how what she has learned will make her a better editor, and a good admin. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 18:05, 19 May 2008
Gwen Gale
(talk page) (60/4/2); Scheduled to end 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Gwen Gale, my next candidate for adminship.
Gwen Gale joined Wikipedia in early 2004 under the account Wyss, which she amassed over 13,000 edits under, and used up until late 2006. With Gwen Gale, she has over 17,000 edits, totaling over 30,000 under both. To move away from edit counts, Gwen’s article writing is impressive: she has significantly edited and improved articles ranging from topics such as Amelia Earhart and Apollo 1 to Lesbian and Shamrock Hotel. In addition to her great article-writing skills, Gwen is also at good vandal-fighting, knowing when to use and when not to use the rollback feature, which I granted to her. She is also very active on WP:ANI, giving regular input to issues raised there.
This is her second request for adminship. She was nominated by Epbr123 in January. However, that RfA did not pass because a lot of the users opposing were concerned about past disputes, and whether she had learned from and moved past them; and also some minor issues about her temperament. I do believe that Gwen has indeed taken the concerns raised in that RfA to heart, and will make an excellent administrator.
In my own interactions with Gwen Gale, I have found her to be very civil to me and with other users: she’s great at communicating, and it’s a delight when talking to her. She has E-mail enabled, which will be useful when editors will need to contact her in private.
I believe that Gwen Gale is easily experienced enough to be an administrator. I am honored to be able to nominate her. Acalamari 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Co-nomination from Antandrus
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Gwen Gale, already known to many of you as a calm, helpful, and respectful presence and voice of reason in many parts of Wikipedia. I had opposed her on her last run, and it's the oppose I most wish I could retract of any I've ever made: a lapse in judgement on my part. I'm making it right by co-nominating here, for people this good we should not pass by. Gwen has already been acting as an administrator, as anyone who has followed her posts on the noticeboards has observed. Every time she posts, it's helpful in some way. This is as rare as it is wonderful, and a refreshing change from the negativity which is so common there.
For her exceptional talents, which include finely-articulated common sense, skill at defusing conflicts and de-escalating dramas, being bold where appropriate, kind always, and being an exemplary Wikipedian in every way, I co-nominate Gwen, in conjunction with Acalamari. We need more people like her in the admin corps. For integrity and wise advice, with a delightful dash of humor, I rate her among the best we've got. People this good need to be given keys to the mop closet: please join me in supporting Gwen. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Acalamari and Antandrus, thanks. I accept your nomination. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 18 May 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: For the past few months I've spent much time at WP:ANI. Lots of the posts there don't need admin attention but rather, an experienced editor and I've tried to help out with many of those, as time has allowed. However, more admins are always needed at ANI and I'd be one of them, same goes for WP:AIV, WP:RFP, CAT:CSD and WP:AN3 along with anywhere else I might be asked to pitch in.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I tend to work on topics which for me, represent an overlap of two or more core areas of my own interest. I try to combine WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with a steadfastly wide historical perspective and coherent writing style. I always see an article as a "whole" so my edits are often targeted at integrating helpful but perhaps carelessly written edits into a smoothly flowing narrative. I think my most helpful contributions have had to do with putting all this together, with all kinds of editors. More often than not, one can nudge a very knowledgeable but inexperienced editor towards sharing what amounts to their acquired knowledge of verifiable sources.
- 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 had no meaningful disputes since my last RfA in January. Although, having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works, I'd already snugly settled into my peaceful, "hard core cooperative" editing outlook at the time, I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart and I must say, the past three months have been by far the smoothest and happiest I've ever spent editing Wikipedia. While you're reading this though, we very much need reliable sources about the history of Hummus. Please help us out if you know anything about scholarly or near-scholarly sources on this topic.
- 4. What are your thoughts on the drama in your past RfA? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- A: It was drama! But it helped a lot. When all was done, the support and kind words I got were wonderful and I was very pleased with the net outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear. There are a lot of legitimate issues raised in your past RfA. There were also come cases where the signal-to-noise ratio was low. What are your thoughts on both of these cases? (ie. what do you take out of the legit. issues, and out of the all noise parts of the RfA?) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- As Antandrus so insightfully noted above, after my last RfA I deliberately began acting and editing everywhere as I had already planned, like an admin (in so much as an editor could do this without misleading anyone) and was very thankful for the added input. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear. There are a lot of legitimate issues raised in your past RfA. There were also come cases where the signal-to-noise ratio was low. What are your thoughts on both of these cases? (ie. what do you take out of the legit. issues, and out of the all noise parts of the RfA?) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- A: It was drama! But it helped a lot. When all was done, the support and kind words I got were wonderful and I was very pleased with the net outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Option Question By Trees Rock
- 5. How can we trust you as a admin?
- Note that as per this discussion, no-one will object if you don't answer this — iridescent 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note I still can ask the question Trees RockMyGoal 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- A: Cuz :) Which is to say, if I botch something, please tell me and I'll fix it, fast (the fun link says 12 months but the community should take this as a "lifetime" thing). This said, I'm familiar with admin policies and often check them anyway before doing something on a project page, I always try to be civil as can be (even if it hurts during the odd, weak moment, eek!), I haven't mis-used the rollback rights and I've very much taken heed of and addressed any past concerns. I hope my contributions and behavior speak for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note that as per this discussion, no-one will object if you don't answer this — iridescent 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Optional Question By Zginder
- 6. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?
Optional question from Dlohcierekim
- 7. Just finished reading your prior RfA and the talk page. At the time, others seemed to share the concerns raised by BobTheTomato in this one. Some opposers took issue with your responses to opposes. What has changed since then?
- A. Hopefully, my answer here might also be taken as having further to do with User:Dihydrogen Monoxide's q4. In the aftermath of my last RfA, Slim Virgin said something which I've carried with me ever since: Gwen, the lesson here is that, as an admin, you have to learn to take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the website -- including things you have done, things you have not done, and things you couldn't even imagine doing. Otherwise, you'll be accused of being thin-skinned and will probably spend your entire adminship in tears. Meanwhile, I decided straight off to edit following my notions of how the "most helpful admin on Wikipedia" would do things. This shift wasn't hard to make and it wasn't all that big, but there was a shift, which I had planned on making by then anyway. If you want to ask a followup for more specifics, please go ahead, but it mostly has to do with skirting confrontation even in the most daunting of source disagreements and instead, doing everything I can to bring editors of many and sundry outlooks together in building stable articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
General comments
- See Gwen Gale's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi), 23 November 2006 to present.
- My old user account was Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi), from 14 February 2004 to 22 November 2006. Following a helpful suggestion by Fred Bauder, over privacy worries at the time, I changed my username to Gwen Gale. Also on 22 November 2006, by my request, he hid the user pages of both this account and the one below.
- I tried out The Witch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) for less than a day on 18-19 January 2006.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gwen Gale before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support, seen her around enough, no issues. Wizardman 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I wholeheartedly support Gwen for administrator. She is balanced, coolheaded, insightful, open-minded, and thoughtful... all qualities demanded of a good administrator. Pinkville (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
SupportStrong support We need more Gwens who actually think about what they're doing and less human-bot hybrids. I don't always agree with her but at least she understands what we're supposed to be doing here. — iridescent 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)- Change to Strong support thanks to a perfect answer to Q6. Gwen is WP:NOT#MYSPACE made flesh. — iridescent 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support per my co-nom, of course! Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I had some reservations last time around, but I believe that those concerns have been addressed and that the tools will be well-placed here. Best of luck. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, per the reasons I gave during the first RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, obviously. Sceptre (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support of course, per Pinkville, Iridescent, and of course Majoreditor. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Tons of experience and a very prolific mainspace contributor. I don't really like her shortcutting in the edit summaries, "c", "flw", "det", "capt", but I can get over that. Useight (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Trust nominaters. Gwen Gale is very reliable, net gain and more. Good luck. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly support this nomination for the reasons I listed in my nomination statement and the reasons I supported last time. Acalamari 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. Sp encerT♦C 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. I didn't realize that this User was User:Wyss, but I have a great deal of respect for Wyss. Corvus cornixtalk 02:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Impressed with wisdom and overall high clue quotient shown in frequent comments and actions at WP:AN/WP:ANI. Thoughtful, helpful, cool, and (based on the fact that I agree about 75% of the time) smart. ("Very smart" would have required agreeing with me over 90% of the time...) Significant mainspace contributions help make up for all the useless admins like me who don't write. --barneca (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- A "high clue quotient" is what we need in administrators. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ready for the mop. --SharkfaceT/C 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support - absolutely no problems here - Alison ❤ 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Past experience with this editor gives me great confidence that she will make a great admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Midorihanacontribs~ userpage 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Incredible article work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support Sensible, good grip on policy, civil. Outstanding candidate. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- —Dark talk 06:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Supported last time. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- My interactions with Gwen/Wyss back in 2006/early 2007 were shaky, but I've been impressed by her civility and cool-headedness as of late. At this time, I don't see any concerns granting her adminship. Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- GOAL! O I mean Support MBisanz talk 07:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest Gwen try and put a bit more effort/thought into giving fuller answers to questions asked of her in an administrative capacity. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. I think she'll do great work as an admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aye - no problems here now, good candidate. Black Kite 10:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree: her answers to our questions were good enough. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- · AndonicO Engage. 11:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Iridescent: we need more human Gwens and less human-bot hybrids. jmcw (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Marginly "light" answers to the questions are no match to a review of contributions - which shows a dedicated policy and guideline wise editor. In addition the candidate has clearly worked hard to address the concerns from the last RfA. Definetly a net positive to our work. Pedro : Chat 12:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a cool headed, civil person. Good skills in deletion and article building.--Lenticel (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. Rudget (Help?) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've nothing that would indicate she'd have any trouble as an admin. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Drama-free support. Learned her lesson, will be a fine admin - Revolving Bugbear 13:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support wonderful candidate, brilliant article work. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor. Hope to be working with you on the admin team soon! Malinaccier (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sí. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Everyone who got here ahead of me said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per ANswer to my question. Trees RockMyGoal 20:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support A very experienced and knowledgeable user who is able to learn from her mistakes. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support no reason not to. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'd say why, except it might get me in trouble. Keepscases (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Smart lady. I perceive no problems with this wonderful user gaining the tools. Good luck! ScarianCall me Pat! 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I love Iridescent's comment about wanting fewer "human-bot hybrids"; that really comes across in the candidate's answers. I see lots opinions from people I trust here, too. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I supported Gwen last time, and I still do. --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. --CapitalR (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't think anybody's perfect, so a few transgressions are not to be unexpected. Vishnava(talk) 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support In my experience Gwen has shown excellent wisdom and care. . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Merzbow (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns. Neıl 龱 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I believed the candidate to have been capable of fulfilling the responsibilities in the earlier RfA, and conclude that we are simply going to get a better prepared sysop this time round. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --jonny-mt 13:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Appears to have overcome past difficulties. Opposes seemed based on past events or on non events. Dlohcierekim 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support My own interactions with Gwen ahve been very positive. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support SexySeaShark 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support: I see a lot of progress since the prior RfA, and she's been a helpful and sensible presence around administrative areas. The current opposes don't concern me overly, and I think we should encourage someone who's obviously learned from past experiences. Good luck. MastCell Talk 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. As before, so I copy the text from my previous oppose: In my dealings with her at Abraham Lincoln, I was accused of edit-warring, personal attacks, and all manner of wikipolicy violations, none of which I'd committed. She couches her accusations of bad faith in faux politeness, but they remain unsubstantiated allegations, as she never supported them in any way. In addition, she edit-warred at that page, badgered against consensus, and displayed some quite blatant POV problems at the talkpage as pointed out above. It's disturbing to me that this candidacy is on track for promotion. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- An interesting thread she started on the talkpage of her last RfA, basically insulting all of those who dared oppose her. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that this oppose is at least partially per her non-answer to the perfectly legitimate Q#4. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No the only reason that wasn't answered was because she was offline and has only answered now that she's come back and seen it.--Phoenix-wiki 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- To judge from the timestamps of Bob's comment and her answer to question 4, I assume that by 'non-answer' he means 'inadequate answer' Olaf Davis | Talk 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- BobTheTomato, I'm fascinated by your list of contributions: since 23 January, you appear to have been exclusively interested in Gwen Gale. Care to comment on what might be taken or mistaken for somewhat obsessive behavior? -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Something of a mystery here as user has asked to Vanish. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- And Gwen's treatment of me at Abraham Lincoln was part of the reason why. I will gladly unvanish this account to oppose this nominee. Apparently, she will get the tools notwithstanding my oppose, but the oppose should stand, even if it means unvanishing my account. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- No the only reason that wasn't answered was because she was offline and has only answered now that she's come back and seen it.--Phoenix-wiki 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have interacted with Gwen Gail on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks. Her unsubstantiated personal opinion (what she calls a "glark") that hummus is very ancient is treated as the touchstone of correctness in sources, and she seems to think that modern folklore reported on random Web pages (not even reports in serious ethnographies etc.) is more worthy of attention than scholarly books. She also doesn't bother to try to refute others' arguments, but instead repeats her claims over and over. I'd ask other editors to look over Talk:Hummus and see if this sort of approach is consistent with Wikipedia policy. By the way, I have > 10,000 edits on Wikipedia, including on food articles like baklava, where I think we've successfully kept up high standards in the face of spurious claims (mostly by nationalists). --Macrakis (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to answer that, if it's not incorrect. After my previous negative interaction with candidate, I started watching her talk page, just to keep an eye open (I don't do this often, btw). I decided that watching her talk page's edit summaries was indeed entertaining ("Your immediate attention is needed on Hummus", for example), but when looking at candidate's work on food pages, it would be hard to find significant evidence of inherent bias even on content pages which reflect the occasionally spicy character of the societies and cultures from which such delicacies arise, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'd like to ask whether what User:Macrakis did here, is in accord with the rules of WP. Isn't he trying to influence an admin? Thanks in advance. ktr (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could be interpreted as canvassing. Last I looked, it is not strictly forbidden, merely discouraged because disruption and turmoil sometimes ensue. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not canvassing, but a friendly notice, by the definitions of the canvassing page which clearly states that informing one editor (who happens to be an admin, but that's not the issue) that there is a discussion on a topic to which he has contributed (see Talk:Hummus) is perfectly fine. --Macrakis (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to answer that, if it's not incorrect. After my previous negative interaction with candidate, I started watching her talk page, just to keep an eye open (I don't do this often, btw). I decided that watching her talk page's edit summaries was indeed entertaining ("Your immediate attention is needed on Hummus", for example), but when looking at candidate's work on food pages, it would be hard to find significant evidence of inherent bias even on content pages which reflect the occasionally spicy character of the societies and cultures from which such delicacies arise, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose My one interaction with her was not too pleasant. It was the edit summary which I considered out of line. [1] I might add that another user replaced the link .[2] The edit summary was uncivil and uncalled for. While a good editor, I feel that she might not have the temperament to be an administrator.— Ѕandahl 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am not correctly understanding why you oppose the nomination, but how do you see " interview of former celeb is not necessarily notable, + the link is to a copyvio " as uncivil? Was there more to the discussion between the two of you than this one edit? I do think civility is a critical issue in admin candidates, and if there was indeed a civility issue here I would not want to support, however, in all honesty, I can't quite understand how that summary was uncivil.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with CrazyChemGuy (LOL). That's not uncivil, it's telling it as it is. Youtube should not be used in Wikipedia articles anyway. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I saw being accused of a copyright violation as uncivil, and objected to the edit summary . That was an with an interview with a decades long out of the spotlight film star which I saw as relevant to the article . Here is a link to the external links policy. [3] There is no ban on linking to YouTube. This is the only communication I have had with this user [4]— Ѕandahl 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- If Gwen had good reason to think that you had violated copyright, she would have been quite justified in saying so. (Or anyway, if you ever have good reason to think that I have violated copyright, please say so and don't mince your words.) But she didn't say so, and there's no sign that this is what she thought. She did not say the link is a copyvio, she said the link is to a copyvio (my emphasis). The violation she perceived was by the person who uploaded the file to YouTube and perhaps also by YouTube, and anyway not by you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I saw being accused of a copyright violation as uncivil, and objected to the edit summary . That was an with an interview with a decades long out of the spotlight film star which I saw as relevant to the article . Here is a link to the external links policy. [3] There is no ban on linking to YouTube. This is the only communication I have had with this user [4]— Ѕandahl 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (at least for now). I am surprised that Gwen only hinted at the Abraham Lincoln article in her statement and answers. Seems a few people are still feeling the sting of her actions after all these months. She says in her answer to Q3 "having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works" and "I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart". I'd like elaboration here. I'd really like to understand from her what went wrong on her part, what she learned, and how what she has learned will make her a better editor, and a good admin. Kingturtle (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral - it's been four months since this candidate' last nomination. I think any opposition votes should focus on this time period. Her obvious and blatant prior misdeeds should be overlooked as a courtesy to the nominating admins who have, no doubt, been providing the appropriate mentoring and oversight. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -Pending answer to my question. Trees RockMyGoal 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- User switched to support. Indenting accordingly. Acalamari 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -Pending answer to my question. Trees RockMyGoal 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I was one who expressed difficulty with this candidate in the previous RfA process. At some considerable length (I made 36 edits to that earlier process page, and perhaps a few dozen more between her and my talk pages at the time), I raised questions concerning 1) transparency regarding failure to disclose the account User:The Witch prior to the process; and 2) what I viewed as "manicuring" her talk page to leave a favorable impression after the Abraham Lincoln talk discussion back in December 2007. Further, I admitted to what could be viewed as "canvassing" by notifying both users Bob the Tomato (vanished) and Rklawton (on wikibreak) of her RfA process. Candidate's defensive manner in answering my (perhaps) leading questions might have contributed to a somewhat negative impression conveyed to those reading the process. I once shared some of the concerns raised by Bob the Tomato in his opposition, but I urge those who do read candidate's previous RfA (and I'd like to think that's required reading here) to follow Rklawton's suggestion above: since then, candidate has demonstrated transparency and trust appropriate to such high responsibility. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)