→Support: s |
151.228.57.219 (talk) qqwwuvhuhgufgh |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/Sarahj2107|her contributions]] before commenting.'' |
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/Sarahj2107|her contributions]] before commenting.'' |
||
====Discussion====--[[Special:Contributions/151.228.57.219|151.228.57.219]] ([[User talk:151.228.57.219|talk]]) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)kgijfedjhsjdhsujfhiddhidhsdidfihifgdfjhcvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvdhcfdushsiaisjoauaaaaaaaaahgsdddddvsbbvfgbykuolnbyyyyyyyyyfiovkltxyyyyyyy |
|||
====Discussion==== |
|||
*rubypaltivmykid hdjhd,fdjfhdyfushdhfgbndyfbujffb udbfufndhn nchcjvhcjufdujdu7fuydtrvyruyrurheicfhudfnvfucj f9vyyttytytytyhiduhijvijnjgh gh hhhbkjhsughduehuiwuqhdfhhfdfuyfvhcfdfjfhvb ijpaltivmykid hchvcnudbnduchnsodiu8ejhujguxyhuryutyytytyyyuyfjisjhfod8yrytytytytytytytyytytybkgxcjhdfjhkxckklkoogyyyyyyyyyyy |
|||
{{RfA/RfB Toolbox|Sarahj2107}} |
|||
/#]=-guhfgunffknvpaltivuf,yb9rendl7887777777gipkktiy9997779gjhhobgtihygbgbfbgbbfgrfgirtifgksfkiuf9klklhkhlkl,vlbmblmnlbnmnlmlnmbmmlnmmnfhggkhhkojxuitjhijtyyyyyyyyyyyylkj |
|||
* |
|||
=====Support===== |
|||
#'''Support''' as nom.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
#Very glad to support. --[[User:Lixxx235|<span style="color:blue;text-shadow:orange 0.3em 0.3em 0.3em;font-family:Comic Sans MS">'''L235'''</span>]]-[[User talk:Lixxx235|<span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">Talk</span>]] <span style="font-size: 60%;">[[User:Lixxx235/siginfo|Ping when replying]]</span> 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
#Very glad to support. --[[User:Lixxx235|<span style="color:blue;text-shadow:orange 0.3em 0.3em 0.3em;font-family:Comic Sans MS">'''L235'''</span>]]-[[User talk:Lixxx235|<span style="text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">Talk</span>]] <span style="font-size: 60%;">[[User:Lixxx235/siginfo|Ping when replying]]</span> 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
#Another good candidate. [[User:Jianhui67|'''<font color="#0E0">Jianhui67</font>''']]<sup> [[User talk:Jianhui67|<span style="color:#1E90FF">'''T'''</span>]]<span style="color:red">★</span>[[Special:Contributions/Jianhui67|<span style="color:#1E90FF">'''C'''</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
#Another good candidate. [[User:Jianhui67|'''<font color="#0E0">Jianhui67</font>''']]<sup> [[User talk:Jianhui67|<span style="color:#1E90FF">'''T'''</span>]]<span style="color:red">★</span>[[Special:Contributions/Jianhui67|<span style="color:#1E90FF">'''C'''</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:02, 29 November 2014
(talk page) (?/?/?); Scheduled to end 17:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Nomination
Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Sarahj2107 for the adminship role. I've been discussing this with Sarah for a few months now and I find her to be very calm and an exceptionally insightful editor. She is a fine content contributor having recently completed getting Shimna River to good article status and creating dozens of other articles. She also has extensive experience with WP:CSD and a solid record at WP:AFD as well. With over 12,000 edits, three solid years of activity and 69.2% of her edits are to article space, Sarah has proven that her goals here are to build an encyclopedia and not to partake in some sort of MMO. I find Sarah's temperament and demeanor to be polite, thoughtful, and collegial. A great example of Sarah's attitude can be seen right here where she calmly and respectfully discusses Wikipedia's policies to a new editor who was blocked for socking. Overall, I just think Sarah is an awesome Wikipedian and we'll be better served by giving her the bit. --v/r - TP 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Mr. Stradivarius
I remember noticing some of Sarah's edits back in March, and I was impressed enough with her work that I left her a barnstar. So I was very glad to learn that she was running for adminship, and I'm happy to add my co-nominination. I think that she would be an excellent administrator.
One thing that impressed me about her work was the breadth of her content contributions. Sarah is a scientist, and she is at home editing biological articles, whether that is adding content to articles on hormones[1][2] or creating new articles on animal species.[3][4] She also has an interest in Irish geography: she has brought Shimna River to Good Article status, and I found a few other gems in that topic area as well.[5][6] And she is not afraid to get stuck in editing almost any topic, as the list of her top edited pages will attest.
TParis mentioned her experience with CSD and PROD above, but he didn't link her CSD log or her PROD log, both of which show solid work in new page patrol (check the CSD log archives as well). I went through and checked her recent deleted contributions (admin-only link, sorry) as well, and all her tags look like sensible decisions in line with the deletion policies. A random check of her AfDs also showed a good understanding of policy, and a clear and drama-free style of commenting.
Speaking of being drama-free, I agree with TParis about her demeanour, and I encourage other editors to check out the island of calm that is her talk page. Her way of dealing with new editors is exemplary, and will stand her in good stead for adminship. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations. I gladly accept. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2014 (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 enjoy working at new page patrol and AfD, and I would like to expand my editing to include admin tasks in the same areas. So, dealing with CSD, prods, and closing at AfD. In particular I would like to help with the backlogs at CSD. Before working in any other admin areas I would need to make sure I know the relevant policies and guidelines really well and would then slowly ease my way into it until I am confidant of my abilities and judgement; although this is true of any admin work I would potentially do (at AfD for example, I would only close discussions with a clear consensus to start with).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My contributions are spread over a number of different areas and include quite a bit of gnoming type work but I am particularly proud of the Shimna River article. It was one of the first articles I created and it started as a one paragraph unsourced stub. After a lot of work, time spent researching and much appreciated help from other editors it is now a GA. There are also a few articles I have come across that were in need of help and I was happy with how I managed to improve them with some copyediting , for example Leptin, Palacio de Lecumberri, Historical inheritance systems (though I think that one still needs some work and I plan to go back to it eventually) and Migration inducting gene 7 (which I saved from deletion [7]).
- 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 don’t think I have been involved in anything I would call a conflict but there have been times I have been in disagreements with other editors and situations that have caused me stress. In March 2012, not long after I started regularly editing and while I was still learning how things are done, I mistakenly tagged a foreign language article for speedy deletion as CSD A2. I then received a rather unpleasant message from the article creator and, mostly due to real life stresses, over reacted (basically rage quitting). It wasn’t my best moment but it was a valuable learning experience. I took some time to deal with my personal problems before I started editing again and now don’t edit when I’m in a bad mood or am already feeling stressed. I also try to walk away from situations when I feel I’m starting to lose my temper. I carefully reread the speedy deletion criteria before tagging any more pages and now feel I have a good understanding of them. I also always make sure to check the history and edit summaries of every article I come across because if I had spotted that editor’s summary I might have handled the situation differently.
- Additional question from Jim Carter - Public
- 4. Hello Sarah, do you agree that "RfA is a broken process"? Thank you and all the best!
- A:I definitely think there's room for improvement but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. Unfortunately, given the history of this topic, any improvements that can be made to the process are likely to take a long time to reach any kind of consensus. I do think its important that whatever process we use in the future has the full support of the community or we are likely to just end up in the same place we are now, with people calling it broken. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from an unregistered user 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- 5. As I went through your talk page history, I noticed you've been receiving disambiguation link notifications on a regular basis ever since you started editing. It makes me uneasy as it might be an indicator of sloppiness and unwillingness to double-check your contributions before hitting the Save button, even though you clearly know by now you have a knack of placing faulty internal links. What do you have to say about it? Should I be worried that you'll be equally sloppy in your admin work, or maybe just one specific area of it that you just won't be able to get right for some reason? It's the long-lasting pattern of repeating the same kind of mistake that really worries me; please address that in your answer.
- A:I do quite a bit of work in the Category:Dead-end pages backlog so I add a lot of wikilinks. I always try to make sure they don't point to disambiguation pages but sometimes I will miss one. It's definitely something I have been trying to be more careful about though. I wouldn't say its due to sloppiness or unwillingness to double-check my work (I always use the preview button before saving) but just normal mistakes and forgetfulness that can happen to anyone. I really don't think this is anything anyone has to be concerned about with regards to admin work. I am generally quite a cautious person and would definitely be double checking everything and erring on the side of caution with any admin actions I would make. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier so if I do add a link that goes to a dismb page, it immediately shows up as yellow and I know to fix it before that dreaded bot lands on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I notice you've added it today! SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- NSH002 let me know about it as well. I wish I had come across it sooner, it looks like it will be a big help. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I notice you've added it today! SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier so if I do add a link that goes to a dismb page, it immediately shows up as yellow and I know to fix it before that dreaded bot lands on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- A:I do quite a bit of work in the Category:Dead-end pages backlog so I add a lot of wikilinks. I always try to make sure they don't point to disambiguation pages but sometimes I will miss one. It's definitely something I have been trying to be more careful about though. I wouldn't say its due to sloppiness or unwillingness to double-check my work (I always use the preview button before saving) but just normal mistakes and forgetfulness that can happen to anyone. I really don't think this is anything anyone has to be concerned about with regards to admin work. I am generally quite a cautious person and would definitely be double checking everything and erring on the side of caution with any admin actions I would make. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for Sarahj2107: Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Sarahj2107 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.
====Discussion====--151.228.57.219 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)kgijfedjhsjdhsujfhiddhidhsdidfihifgdfjhcvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvdhcfdushsiaisjoauaaaaaaaaahgsdddddvsbbvfgbykuolnbyyyyyyyyyfiovkltxyyyyyyy
- rubypaltivmykid hdjhd,fdjfhdyfushdhfgbndyfbujffb udbfufndhn nchcjvhcjufdujdu7fuydtrvyruyrurheicfhudfnvfucj f9vyyttytytytyhiduhijvijnjgh gh hhhbkjhsughduehuiwuqhdfhhfdfuyfvhcfdfjfhvb ijpaltivmykid hchvcnudbnduchnsodiu8ejhujguxyhuryutyytytyyyuyfjisjhfod8yrytytytytytytytyytytybkgxcjhdfjhkxckklkoogyyyyyyyyyyy
/#]=-guhfgunffknvpaltivuf,yb9rendl7887777777gipkktiy9997779gjhhobgtihygbgbfbgbbfgrfgirtifgksfkiuf9klklhkhlkl,vlbmblmnlbnmnlmlnmbmmlnmmnfhggkhhkojxuitjhijtyyyyyyyyyyyylkj
- Very glad to support. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another good candidate. Jianhui67 T★C 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support I've had a quick browse through recent contributions and the spot checks seem fine. For example, she nominated The Islington for deletion. This is my kind of topic and I have saved quite a few but, in this case, I tend to agree with her finding. I am particularly pleased to see her pushing back banner tag clutter — "rm tags no longer needed" — as few editors seem to have the boldness or inclination to do so. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support No concerns so far and frankly there's a lot I like about this editor when I briefly reviewed some of their contributions. Mkdwtalk 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- A strong record, on my examination. Even when the AfDs don't go the candidate's way—perhaps one in every ten—she's still probably been right ([8]), even, perhaps, in the one example (and we're all allowed one) of swimming extremely against the tide ([9]). The AfD experience isn't extensive—perhaps only three to four contributions a month—but they're always thoughtful. Occasional but thoughtful is better than regular and thoughtless. We have had quite enough of the latter over the years. This was a good example of picking up a copyvio during an AfD. Sometimes these get missed if everyone is myopically focused on notability. As for the content creations, I had a good read of Shimna River, a solid contribution on a local but important topic that can't have been easy to write. My only quibble would be with the use of the source in footnote 33 to support the sentence immediately preceding the footnote. So: good luck. I suggest that on becoming an admin, and making the (significant) transition from tagging and !voting to deleting and closing, the candidate spend some time at deletion review. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- ///EuroCarGT 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support after a review of selected edits with an emphasis on discussions where we have overlapped. While this is a minor example in comparison to the comments noted by Mkativerata, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ude Jab Jab Zulfein Teri the candidate picked up a potential alternate spelling that had been previously missed. Missing such alternates is a common failure mode in a variety of topics outside of the Anglosphere, and I think this example provides a bit of additional evidence of what I believe to be the candidate's thoughtful approach at Wikipedia discussions. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Once again, another candidate that breezes through my criteria. —Biblioworm 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I don't see any red-flags. Seems like a responsible editor doing mostly gnomish work. With your education and skill set, I suspect you could crank out a lot more good articles in your field. But...we need vandal fighting gnomes here as well. —Gaff ταλκ 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No material concerns. —Dark 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- 100% Support. An editor that can keep her cool shows that she is more then ready. Not only am I confident this will pass, but I am sure everyone will agree we need more admins that would care more about the project itself. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Secret account 02:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was the reviewer for Shimna River, and it was a pleasure working with Sarahj. I can tell she has good horse sense when it comes to creating high quality content, and I especially am impressed with her conduct with editors unfamiliar with important policies on Wikipedia, like on having multiple accounts. Full support. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support: I see no red flags. Candidate has a friendly demeanour on her talk page. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - a perfect reply to Q4 which is practically alone worthy of my support ;) A polite reply to Q5 that IMO doesn’t deserve a reply at all - the anon who appears to have a lot of Wiki knowledge can't even be bothered to grace us with an IP signature, now if that isn’t ‘sloppiness’ itself... Indeed, such participation at RfA is one of the things that has contributed to RfA's bad name; so don't worry about the DABlink notifications, I get them all the time. With 85% accuracy, a really good overall performance at AfD. A mature individual who fully understands how to communicate with the most awkward of customers, she comes with a solid educational and professional background and has added a vast amount of new content, but at the same time is not too proud to stoop to the unenviable and thankless task of NPP which she has also been doing for a very long time par excellence . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Spot check of CSD/AFD work looks good, an excellent content creator, clueful and very WikiElf-ish. An outstanding candidate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- a check through contributions raises no obvious issues. Looks like an excellent choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. No issues whatsoever. AfD record well balanced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. No issues. Solid noms. Philg88 ♦talk 09:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Solid candidate, Great noms. Prefect answers, as already noted by Kudpung. Good AfD record, a good content creator and I'm impressed with her conduct with new editors. What else is needed? Jim Carter 10:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No concerns picked up while browsing through contributions. Does janitor work, adds content, has been involved in AfD. Other than the incident she mentions in 2012, I'm not seeing any drama. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Kudpung, for some reason... Nick (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support good work at AFD and CSD and the dablink stuff has come about because the user has actually been adding content, which is another plus point. Valenciano (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support—After several spot checks of the candidate's contributions, I think she'll make for a no-drama admin. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - as FreeRangeFrog said, her CSD and AFD work looks great. I have no concerns about Sarah being an admin - and I think she'll be great. :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Good answers, good nom statements, good and specific comments from supporters. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral