Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Solarra

Solarra

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (31/7/1); Scheduled to end 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Solarra (talk · contribs) – I've had an eye on Solarra as a potential administrator for some time now, but since I'm apparently notoriously slow I've only just gotten around to nominating her. Solarra is excellent prospective admin material; she has a substantial editing history which features a reasonable variety of work, from content cleanup to anti-vandalism. She's spent time in admin related areas such as AFD, AIV and ANI, and has demonstrated a good understanding of policy in these areas.
More importantly, though, Solarra possesses one of the coolest heads I have seen on Wikipedia. She has weathered fairly persistent vandalism and abuse without batting an eyelid, and has been the voice of reason in every dispute I've seen her get into. She's never been afraid to ask for help or advice, and displays a degree of caution that would put many of our most active administrators to shame. In short, her temperment is ideally suited to admin work, and I'm convinced that once she has the mop, she'll quickly become one of our most respected sysops. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I agree with Yunshui and am happy to add my support. Solarra is indeed cool and courteous and while she hasn't created many articles she displays plenty of content knowledge, and seems to know her policies and guidelines very well. Most of all, though, I support her because of her demeanor: she strikes me as someone who doesn't push people around, judges fairly, is willing to change her mind, and genuinely tries to improve the atmosphere by seeking consensus through diplomacy. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:37, 29 July 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: They type of Admin work I look at doing is quite honestly the work I've been doing already, without the mop, just with the tools needed to actually impact some of the backlog that exists on various admin boards. I see the tremendous backlog, at RPP, often AIV, SPI, AN3, etc and I feel like I could be a tremendous help to the project if I were granted the tools by the community to do so. CSD is something I will probably become involved in as well as AFD. As far as AFD goes, if the community endorses me as an admin, I will be taking it slowly at first, like Yunshui notes in the nom statement, I am very cautious when it comes to things that may be even considered controversial, as such I will never supervote. To conclude, I wish to help out in areas I feel the help is needed.

Addition: I wanted to add a tad bit here, right now there is a huge backlog SPI. One of the most specific areas I plan to look to become active in is specifically becoming an SPI clerk. I note 6 active clerks at this time, and I feel this is one specific area I could give some assistance in.

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

A: This is a tough question to answer to be honest, I have been active in a large number of areas over the years and it is really hard to narrow it down to even a handful of individual contributions. To start I'd have to point out my long work at AIV, over the years and especially recently I have worked closely with some well known vandal-fighting admins to fight abuse by some of the more notorious LTA puppetmasters. I take much pride in the work I've put in to that particular aspect, primarily because of how important the project is to me, and I hate to see the work of others destroyed by the foolishness of malcontents and I try to resolve such issues as quickly as possible to protect the work others have often put many hours into.

Secondly, I'd have to point to copyediting and cleanup of various articles over the years. I really enjoy this sort of work, I'd love to do more of it, but sadly my free time has not always allowed it. When I do get to do it, I feel that the improvement to the article in specific, and the project itself more generally, are better as a result of it.

Lastly, I'd have to point at my contribution in the area of mentorship/coaching. This project is nothing without the efforts of thousands of active editors, and any opportunity I can take to 'teach newbies the ropes' I jump at the opportunity for. I love the process of it, I love the interaction, and I love seeing their completed work. The whole process is an absolute joy for me and it is something I am quite fond and proud of.

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 can say with impunity, that I have never became angry over something on the project. One of the most paramount things important to editing an encyclopedia, is having a cool head to look dispassionately at the facts. Given that doing so is literally my job, I try to bring that same collected and unbiased thought process to serve me here. That is not to say I don't feel when things get heated up, I just make sure to realize that I am being affected by a situation and recognize that as such. That being said, I have been involved in misunderstandings in the past that I feel could have been handled better by me. For example, a couple months ago on ANI, I noticed what I felt was a personal attack by a user on another user, and removed it. That user and a couple others and I argued the merits of the disagreement and eventually reached a common understanding. In the end, that editor is one of those I greatly respect the opinion of quite strongly now, and I feel they are a great asset to the project.

There was one particular AFD I argued quite energetically on, but it never got into the realm of anything resembling an edit dispute. Honestly I try to treat the project as that, a project. I feel that it is of utmost importance to keep a level head here in all things.

Additional question from Lucas Thoms

4. Before May of this year, you were inactive most of the time, with a few random months of high activity. Out of curiosity, why? Do you plan to be here more steadily now (especially if/when this RfA succeeds)?

A: I love Wikipedia, and in the past I have been active when I could, but honestly I would get involved to the point where it would affect other real life concerns, especially school. So when I noted I needed to, I took extended Wikibreaks for a time then came back when I could. A couple of times I'd post an edit or two here when I noticed something that needed improvement, but I purposefully kept myself away from the project to prioritize other things. As of May, those other issues are resolved now, I can fully devote my time and balance it with other ongoing 'life stuff' as it were and plan to continue to be involved with the project as much as my free time allows. If accepted as an admin, there will be plenty of pink to go around :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from ArcAngel

5. Let's put you in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have the mop, you made a !vote on this AFD. Based on what you see in the comments, how would you have approached the closure of it?

A:I'm going to take this in two pieces, first from an involved admin that !voted on an AFD (as I believe the intent here is). If I !vote in an AFD, I am not qualified to close it, as someone who has expressed an opinion on an issue, especially here expressing it multiple times, I would be WP:INVOLVED and cannot close it. Both out of policy and good conscious, it would clearly be out of line. This is an instance where another admin would have to close the discussion.

Going to take this on the second path here, the hypothetical where I am the patrolling admin looking to close the AFD I am not involved in. On first sight, this is an obviously controversial AFD, there are a myriad of opinions all citing valid interpretation of various policies. The insight given by several editors here regarding the possible connection with the author and some of the sources is particularly troubling. Frankly, without a clear consensus (as was the case here) as an admin, I'd let this run as long as possible to get as much consensus as possible, here, barring the nominator withdrawing his nomination, I'd eventually have no choice but to close this as no consensus reach. I would also follow up with personal attention on the article, to work with the whole group of individuals on trying to make this controversial article as sourced as possible to everyone's mutual agreement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you nailed it - the first situation you mentioned is what I was after.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from GraniteSand

6. A week ago you nominated an article about a battle in the present conflict in Gaza for deletion. At the time of the nom the battle was about two days old. I'm curious as to the logic behind your nomination and your understanding of WP:GNG and the generally excepted criteria for notability in relations to battles. Could you elucidate further your reasoning for the nomination and clarify, in light of both the unfolding AfD and topical coverage, whether or not you still support the article's deletion?

A:Again, gonna take this in two places, first why I nominated this for deletion. I nominated this for deletion because there was a discussion on the talk page where notability concerns and deletion possibility were brought up. As an AFD was the correct placement for the discussion I put it up for deletion per policy. On a personal level, at the time I felt that the article was a minor skirmish in the greater ongoing Gaza conflict and did not warrant its own article based on the quoted policies I named in the nom. When the article was nominated, the majority of sourcing was done from some of the more dubious sources I have seen. I have since changed that view since the article has matured, and can see the lasting impact of that particular battle, I have also withdrawn the nom per that view. The sourcing is much more neutral and the article itself more in line with the various applicable Wikipedia policies.

The second place I want to take this is on my understanding of WP:GNG. The guidelines exist for the establishment of sourced content for articles. The purpose of the GNG is to allow an article to reflect what the sources say on the subject. If the sources do not exist, or are extremely borderline, an article fails GNG because of the fact that it is impossible for the project to reflect that particular subject in a neutral way. In some cases, eventually the sourcing will exist, and the article can (and has been on multiple occasions) be created using proper sources. To put it simply, GNG exists so that neutrality can be established and confirmed and the article's content can be verified. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Jim Carter - Public

7. (I'm a bit sleepy now, can't think about question. I may add few questions later, hope you will not mind)

How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

A:Taking this in two pieces. First an involved admin on a block is an admin that has a history of disputes on either with the editor in question or in the topic area in general. As I touched on above with the AFD question, I am a very strong proponent of what I callzero doubt, I want absolutely no doubt as to the basis of my actions as a hypothetical admin. If there is a question that I am WP:INVOLVED with the editor or have a history of dispute, even if said dispute was amicably resolved in the past, I will not take admin action on the editor in question, I will reach out to my fellow admins for review and/or action.

Secondly, on page protection. A very similar guideline applies. I want my actions as an admin to be viewed as an impartial action by an agent of the community, as I believe all admins are. If there is even a hint at a perceived conflict of interest where that intent might come into question, or worse, draw attention away from the reason for the protection (vandalism, edit-warring, etc), I wont take said action. Every action I take as an administrator is an extension of the trust the community places in me, I firmly believe that every action I take as an administrator should reflect that. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: Jim Carter and to anyone else that has questions for me: Please do not hesitate to ask, I am more than happy to answer. This process is to verify trust that I am asking for in adminship, I am here because I am asking for your trust. I do not mind questions in the very least, especially if it answers concerns a user may have. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Solarra: Solarra (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Solarra 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

Support

1. Strong Support — A wonderful editor with more than one heart ♥ Always ends her sentences with a smile :-)  NQ  talk 17:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong support times a million - Already acts like an admin. Plenty of edits (almost 5000 non-automated), involved in everything, doesn't let stress get to her, and is incredibly helpful. She needs the tools, and she can be trusted with them.—LucasThoms 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support A good candidate from a good adminator (admin + nominator).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support An excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Should be an excellent addition to the admin corps. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
6. ///EuroCarGT 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support—Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Support excellent nominator. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   You're talking about Drmies, right? Ha! (also, Drmies, nominators should !vote too!) Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

9. Support Very patient when explaining policies to users embroiled in disputes and exactly the front Wikipedia should offer towards newcomers. I've seen Solarra take frustrated users step-by-step through the notability guidelines on AfD without losing her temper. Altamel (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
10. 100% Support - Until recently I wasn't even aware Solarra wasn't even an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
11. Support- why isn't she already? Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
12. Strong support - one of the strongest vandalism fighters on WP. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Qualified, no concerns. Answer to #5 was great. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I can understand the concern about content creation but that is not a huge issue to me as long as there is a history showing they do such work. I see great potential.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
15. I'm not familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of her contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
16. Support On balance this looks like a great future sysop. Content creation is a tad weak but I weigh that a bit less importantly than experience in the adminny end of things. I am also impressed by the things being said about this candidate by other editors whose opinions I respect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
17. Support - previous interactions and above comments give enough confidence for me. Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
18. Support. I mean, if Drmies co-nominates, who am I to disagree? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - For the short time that I've known her, this user has always struck me as admin material, and while I'm surprised that she has only created a single article (and I hope she creates more), she more than merits becoming an administrator. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Fine user, will make a fine admin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
21. Secret ^account 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - experienced and helpful editor. Agree with Sturmgewehr88. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
23. Aww I wanted to be a nom.--v/r - TP 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
24. Support Absolutely and without reservations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
25. Support – With Drmies as a co-nom and a good track record, it would be hard not to support. United States Man (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
26. Strong Support This user is by far the most frequent editor to edit conflict me with huggle. Been around for years with thousands of edits. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
27. More AIV admins is always a great thing. I've seen her name pop up numerous times and have no doubt that she'll use the tools wisely. Connormah (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
28. Weak support Solid candidate overall but the CSD diffs provided by Valenciano below are a legitimate concern. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
29. Strongest possible support I've bumped into Solarra multiple times while patrolling new editor contribs. I've been impressed by her helpful behavior towards new editors and her humility while being corrected. She is more than willing to talk things out with other editors to explain her reasoning in a calm fashion, which I believe is a very strong skill for an admin to have. Even with a lack of content creation, Solarra offers input in discussions and is quick to jump on malicious edits. I absolutely believe that giving the mop to Solarra would be a net positive to the project. Ishdarian 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
30. Support; I've got absolutely no reservations here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
31. Support Well dedicated and active. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose with regret, a lot of good qualities, but she states an interest in working in deletions and that's a right I'm not so comfortable giving her at the moment. Just yesterday there was this declined speedy, a government minister seems a clear enough claim of notability disqualifying an article from A7 criteria. Similarly this nom last week: elected member of the Romanian Academy and Moldavian Academy of Science "the main scientific organization of the Republic of Moldova" is clearly not an A7. Two weeks ago, an A1 nom of Central Library Cape Town (seems easy enough to identify) and added the same minute the article was created, despite explicit instructions at WP:NPP not to tag for A1 and A3 moments after creation. State Medical Faculty of Bangladesh at the start of this month was not an A1 and ended up redirected. AFD looks mostly fine, though there was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinod_Kumar_Binny, a politician in a sub-national legislature explicitly meets WP:NPOL. I could be more forgiving if there was some content creation, but she appears to have created a single article in her time here: Habitable Planets for Man, a stub. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Good contributor with an ideal temperament, but I think this RFA is a couple months too soon. Editor's only been active for the last three months; there was about a year of extremely light activity before that. I get it, I've taken long breaks multiple times, but I'm not asking to be accountable for admin responsibilities. Also, a minor irritant that I'm sure will be blown out of proportion but I'll mention it anyway: the vanity signature doesn't contain an obvious link to candidate's talk page, which is a problem when I'm on my mobile. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Just wanted to let you know, was the first time someone raised on issue with my signature characters. I have since resolved it, let me know if you still have any issues :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Well, the links were obvious if you could read Japanese, but... ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose, as not now. I am impressed with the candidate's thoughtful answers to questions, but their lack of experience shows through in several areas. First of all, almost no sign of content creation, and whatever experience an admin has, I now regard it as essential that they have extensive experience of the core activity of Wikipedia.
   Secondly, Townlake sets out a series of recent misjudgements on deletion policy, all of which are fairly basic mistakes. An admin needs to be doing a lot better than that in an area they particularly identify as wanting to work in.
   Thirdly, an apparently minor point: even the revised sig still breaches WP:SIGAPP, by its use of sub- and super-script. This is only a minor thing, which will be easily fixed; my concern is that when it was raised under the scrutiny of RFA, I would expect someone ready for adminship to take a few minutes to check the relevant guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   WP:SIGAPP doesn't forbid superscript or subscript. It says to "be sparing" with it. I personally would consider a couple links to be pretty accurately described as sparing.—LucasThoms 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Indeed it doesn't forbid them. But it does say "in some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed". That is the case with Solarra's application of them, which has the effect of increasing the line height both above and below the existing boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

4. Oppose, regretfully. The core of this sprawling place is still the addition and deletion of article content, areas the nominee shows little experience and dubious judgment, respectively. Being pleasant and having a good grasp of the technical underside of Wikipedia isn't enough for me; I need to see a demonstrated understanding of how to build an article and the recent absence of faulty logic in deletion, the latter being evidenced in both Q6 and by Valenciano. I hope for a reapplication in six months. GraniteSand (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose- Articles are the heart and soul of Wikipedia. It's the only thing that 99.9% (exaggeration) of visitors to our site see, and I can't find any evidence of at least even a B-class article she's been a major contributor to. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Actually, a depressingly large percentage of readers read articles that have been vandalized. Wikipedia needs both content writers and people who devote significant time to defending that content against malicious editors. Pichpich (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose; not now. An impressive user page, but... top edited article is Legal status of Hawaii, the editor is a practicing lawyer in Hawaii, yet edits involve fixing typos and formatting using AWB and another tool, tagging for {{POV}}, more references, weasel words, removing a dead link (which can be found at archive.org), adding a citation needed, then some adding and fixing references. I'd like to see more substantial content additions; maybe work on some physics articles too? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose- This user has over 1,000 deleted edits, which shows a 99% certanity of vandalisim in the 1,262 deleted edits.Gerry.y.ma (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I can not oppose because Solarra has good pre-admin experience (I see lots of good work at AFD, CSD, RFP and SPI) and I will just copy and past from Dennis Brown to say that "overall, I think your participation in a number of places has been very positive and helpful". But, I can not support because I personally do believe that admins should be content contributors —reasonable people may disagree—, which I see basically no evidence of here. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)