Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna

Kathryn NicDhàna

Voice your opinion (talk page) (29/0/0); Scheduled to end 07:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I offer you Kathryn NicDhàna, as my ninth candidate for adminship.

Kathryn NicDhàna has been contributing to Wikipedia since July 2005. Since that time, she has made over 5600 edits, with over 2700 to the mainspace, 460 to the Wikipedia-space, plus 1300 to user talk, and editing roughly 1900 pages in all. Located in those numbers, Kathryn NicDhàna is a good article-writer, and has improved pages such as Jim Morrison, Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, Samhain, Patricia Kennealy-Morrison, and Polytheistic reconstructionism. As well as article writing, she is also an effective vandal-fighter: giving accurate reports to AIV.

When it comes to Kathryn NicDhàna’s behavior, I have found her to be an extremely polite user, both on and off-Wikipedia. My observations of her interactions with other users and myself have been positive, and I also admire her patience. She has E-mail enabled, so if users need to contact her privately for whatever reason, they’ll be able to.

In all, I believe that Kathryn NicDhàna is a very experienced editor with a high knowledge of policy. I am certain that she will not abuse the tools if they are given to her, and Wikipedia will gain from her being a sysop. Acalamari 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am honoured and delighted to co-nominate Kathryn NicDhàna for adminship. As Acalamari says, she's been here for over two years now, and as a writer by profession, has been a solid contributor to some of our finer articles on Celtic and Irish history, mythology and folklore. She has a broad range of experience and, largely due to the Starwood Arbitration case, has gained an immense knowledge of WP policy. In the time that I have known her here, I have always found her to be patient, knowledgeable and always willing to give of her time to help others. She had quite a rough time through the Starwood Arb case of last year, and its associated battles but throughout it all, she handled everything with dignity, calmness (at least on the outside!) and level-headedness. Given the kind of pressures we admins are put under on a daily basis, I think she will be a tremendous asset to our team here - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, ok, you talked me into it :-) Thank you for your kind words, Acalamari and Alison, and for your nomination. I accept. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate statement:

With the possible upcoming change to allow IPs to create new pages, it looks like we need more admins. I’ve been putting off an RfA for a while, largely because I’ve been rather busy off-Wiki. However, the possibility of further backlogs at CSD, AIV, and possible angry responses when new users have their nn pages speedied, has made me decide to go ahead and see if folks want me to help out via the extra buttons. I already do some admin-related work (vandal fighting, policy discussions, informal mediation on content disputes and WikiProjects), so I think I’m pretty clear on how to wield the mop (as well as when not to). There are a handful of admins I work with regularly, so I know where to look for help if something is outside the range of what I’ve dealt with before. So, if you want me to help lighten the load, I’m here.

(Note – If we do proceed with enabling Anonymous page creation, I think this should help: Wikipedia:Article wizard)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am most familiar with AIV and CSD, and could help with backlogs there. After having to ask for page protection on heavily vandalized articles (Halloween on Halloween of 2006 was a notable example), I understand the need for protecting pages, as well as dealing with the vandals or POV-pushers that lead to protection being needed. I am one of those people who has stayed up far too late some nights because there were backlogs and no one had gotten around to protecting or semi-protecting a page that was being hard-hit, so I have a lot of sympathy for that now.

I already get requests for help with some of these things via e-mail and my talk page, so I anticipate a significant amount of my work coming in that way.

Helping Pigman and other admins gather evidence for the Starwood arbitration gave me experience in tracking and stopping sockpuppets. Since then I have helped out informally on some sockpuppet investigations, usually by observing editing patterns, gathering diffs, IPs and other evidence to help the admins running the checks. Being able to view deleted contribs and deleted pages would help with identifying the sort of editing patterns we often have to rely on in these investigations, so would make my work in that area more effective.

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

A: I consider myself a well-rounded Wikipedian. I have contributed in many different areas across the project, from writing, sourcing and copyediting articles, to image creation, template creation, vandal-fighting, XFD, informal mediation and helping new users. I feel my main strengths are as a writer, researcher and editor. I value WP and the WP community, and am committed to helping protect the ‘pedia.

I have written a number of small articles (Kevin Danaher, Helena Moloney), and contributed significantly to one Good Article (Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism). However, I feel my best, and most satisfying, work has been salvaging mid-size articles by rewriting, expanding and sourcing them, sometimes on my own, other times with one or two collaborators. Some of these are high profile articles (sections of Scottish people, like this one), while others pertain to more specialized fields such as Celtic Mythology and folklore, such as Cailleach, which looked like this when I found it. Or Geis which still needs a lot of work, but which looked this this before I tackled it. I also like improving and sourcing established articles, such as these additions to Hogmany.

I do a fair amount of wikignoming (mostly copyediting) and a bit of template work. I’ve made a few simple templates (Gaelic Festivals is one), and I helped Jossi proof and update Celts and Celtic mythology.

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: The events leading up to the surreal and draining Starwood arbitration were not fun. After weighing in on my very first AfDs and RfCs (on a slew of spammy, nn articles), I suddenly became targeted for harassment by a now-banned, virulent sock drawer. Being lied about, insulted and wiki-stalked was stressful, especially when I had no idea why most of it was happening, and when colleagues of mine and articles they work on were also being attacked.

However, it was largely because of those attacks that I learned about WP dispute resolutions processes, WP:AN/I, AfDs, RfCs, and numerous other admin-relevant sides of WP. Prior to being attacked, I had just written articles and patrolled RC for vandals. Once he filed the arbitration, I helped Pigman and others gather evidence on the sockpuppetry and policy violations. This gave me a lot of experience in learning to spot socks and what to do when they’re found.

Though I would have preferred to learn about things like Arbcom by less-stressful means, I’m glad for what I learned. Were it all to happen now, I would handle it completely differently, and I don’t think it would particularly stress me at all. I think that with earlier use of checkuser and more stringent application of policy by helpful admins (which would have resulted in sanctions and blocking of the sockdrawer before so much damage was done) it could have avoided going to Arbcom. It was stressful at the time because I didn’t know how to find help on WP or how to get policies enforced in a prompt manner; now I do. It also made me realize how important it is to help less-experienced editors who become targeted by trolls.

Other situations that could have been stressful but weren’t were when I helped resolve a somewhat contentious debate about the Irish People graphic, and some differing opinions about images on the Neopaganism article. It struck me during those discussions that the events leading to the Starwood Arb could have gone similarly well, if only the people involved had been respectful and civil with one another.

Disclosure: Like most of us, when I first came to WP I knew nothing about WP policies. Even before I discovered that it is against the WP:AUTOBIO guideline, I knew instinctively that it’s bad form to write about oneself. At the express request of other Wikipedians, I did contribute fairly extensively to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article. At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in the article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.

The article is now classed as a Good Article, and I am proud that it is very thoroughly sourced with third-party, WP:V sources. However, once I was named and cited in it, even though I was contributing as an “expert” and was always open about my identity, I realized it would be best if I scale back my participation in the article for WP:COI reasons. Though I would like to expand the article somewhat, I now do my best to limit myself to the talk page, and even stay away from that when it looks like it could get stressful. The only recent exceptions to this have been when I’ve added third-party sources, corrected serious misinformation or vandalism, or agreed to do a bit of collaborative addition of text and sources in direct response to a specific request from an admin or other experienced editor.

Optional question from Keepscases (talk · contribs)

4. Do you plan on making edits to Wikipedia in languages other than English? Keepscases 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Mais Oui! Yes, I do. I have made minor contributions to the Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and French Wikipedias. On en-Wiki, I often correct mistakes in articles that include words or phrases in these languages. If there's something beyond my skill level that needs attention, I know a small handful of native speakers and linguists to turn to for advice.

5. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A: The relevant policy is WP:BP#Unblocking. And yes, I respect the policy.

In a bit more detail: I would contact the blocking admin directly, through talk page and/or email, and ask for more information. Sometimes a block only seems unjustified because one doesn’t know the whole story. If I still believe the block is unjust, I would bring it up on WP:ANI or WP:AN and discuss it with other editors, getting more eyes on the situation and reaching some sort of consensus, rather than simply unblocking.

General comments

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

• Links for Kathryn NicDhàna: Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Co-nom support - of course :) - Alison ^❤ 07:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
3. StrongSupport from my experiences in Starwood. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support looks like a good candidate --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support. Our paths have crossed on numerous articles and I've noted that she's a stickler for the facts, polite and well spoken. I think it's only natural that Kathryn would make an excellent administrator. :bloodofox: 08:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, there is no reason not to. Great editor, deserves the tools. — E ^talk_BAG 09:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Got the goods. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - of course. An excellent candidate. I looked into nomming her a few weeks ago but I didn't get round to it. I trust her to not do anything silly with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Seen her around. Don't think she would abuse the tools, and is experienced. Good luck!--SJP 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - of course. Addhoc 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Support I do think 460 WP edits is a tiny bit low, but of course that's not nearly enough to offset all the fantastic and positive work that this user does. Good luck! GlassCobra 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support, good editor. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I see you around and I think, you are ready and have my trust. Good luck. Carlosguitar 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Experienced, no indications she would abuse the tools, and very grounded in Wiki-Policy. SirFozzie 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Ar ndóigh - Rudget _zŋ 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
19. I strongly support this nomination as the nominator. One of these days, I'm going to be the first person to support one of my own candidates, but the RfAs almost always begin when I'm in bed or eating! :) Acalamari 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support No problems. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support - meets my standards for edit count; has been a useful editor; more sysops are needed where she's promised to work; no red flags; expert in areas subject to edit wars and vandalism. Bearian 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Is ea. Support per all above ;). -- Jack 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Huge Honking Support. Calm, deliberate editor who adds good WP:RS and WP:V sources to articles (my personal bugbear). Acts calmly under pressure and I don't recall her ever being uncivil. Writes clearly and to a general audience. Most importantly, she's already doing some admin-type tasks up to the limit of a regular editor's abilities and indicates she will help with housekeeping work. I can't see any downside. Pigman^what?/trail 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I trust this user. Húsönd 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Experienced editor. Calm, civil, and sensible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. I thought she was already an admin.--Berig 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Keepscases 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Starwood support Keegan^talk 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Yet another Irish candidate! hehey!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    She is?? - Alison ^❤ 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Irish-American / Scottish-American, actually... Not that there's anything wrong with that! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)