Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
re
→‎Neutral: neutral +1
Line 121: Line 121:


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====
#'''Neutral''', leaning weak oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Wikipedia:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Wikipedia:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the [[WP:XFD]] forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:REFUND]]) are all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in closing discussions of being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #2F4F4F;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
#



=====General comments=====
=====General comments=====

Revision as of 01:11, 17 September 2015

Montanabw

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/1/1); Scheduled to end 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Montanabw (talk · contribs) – Montanabw is a longstanding member of the community with a plethora of great content contributions under her belt. She has been editing since 2006, has been an Autopatroller since 2010, and has that currently fashionable combination of a clear need for the tools and audited content. If you check through her talkpage and other talk contributions it is easy to find examples of people asking her advice or collaborating with her. In several ways she is already functioning as an administrator - high time we gave her the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw is a long-time Wikipedian who has created quite a bit of featured content, where she has a good track record of collaborative work with other editors. She's an experienced DYK nominator as well, and has expressed an interest in helping out with admin tasks there. Her work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI will help her know how to check material in the DYK queue for copyvio. While her past has not been completely drama-free, she has a clean block log and a deep commitment to the project. She's a mature person who is intelligent, capable, and willing to learn. Montanabw would be a very good addition to the admin corps, and could make good use of the tools in her work on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the gracious nomination. I accept. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTERNATE ACCOUNT DISCLOSURES: Per WP:VALIDALT, I have two alternate accounts. The first is User:MontOther, which I created in 2014 as a space for materials I use for testing, training and demonstration purposes. When that one got cluttered up, I created a "vanilla" sample user alternative account with default settings, User:Breadedchicken, in 2015, which I use to show new editors how things look to them when they begin editing and for viewing pages as they appear with default settings. I also changed my original username on this account to Montanabw back in 2006, within my first two months of editing because my first username incorporated part of my real name and I decided not to self-disclose my actual name on-wiki. I believe that the other user name does not appear anywhere on-wiki other than the rename request. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:
  1. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
  2. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
  3. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.
  • To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
  • Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.
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 have been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.
  • One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.
Additional questions from User:DESiegel
4. What is your view of Process is important?
A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there is also a need to be proactive in controlling the process, or even closing it, when it is clear that there is not going to be further progress. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?
A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?
A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?
A:
9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?
A:


Additional questions from RO
10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?
  1. August 9, 2015: ([1])
  2. July 31, 2015: ([2])
  3. July 20, 2015: ([3])
  4. June 6, 2015: ([4])
  5. February 28, 2015: ([5])
A:
11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking.
A:
12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?
A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?
A: Because my focus in mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  7. Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Wikipedia's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I have a major concern that she's been mislabeling edits as vandalism that aren't, and I think a good candidate for admin should have a strong understanding of what is and what isn't vandalism. Particularly when "blocking obvious vandals" is a primary reason for wanting adminship. Also pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12. RO(talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that you are asking a candidate to explain what is clear, to almost any WP editor, vandalism or digging back to 2007 and a first article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Me too. At the very greatest, this merits a "neutral" !vote, not "oppose". Epic Genius (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The questions are relevant. Please don't try to make this about me. A good candidate for admin should have no problem answering my questions. But I could certainly expand on the oppose, if that's what you're asking me to do. Is it? RO(talk) 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not wait until the candidate actually answers the questions before making your judgments? Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. And yes, if possible, please elaborate on why you will oppose on the basis of "pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12". Epic Genius (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have lots of other reasons why I opposed this candidate, but I'd prefer to keep my oppose relevant to adminship and policy. I can supply more problematic diffs if that's what you're asking me to do, but I suggest you don't and wait and see how she answers. RO(talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Rationalobserver, WP:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out reads: "There is no policy against editing while logged out. ... Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts ... editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki." (emphasis added) It seems to me that Q11, as currently written, violates this policy. I ask you to strike it, or reword it so that it asks only about use of IP editing for improper purposes, as listed in WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Editing an article is not such an improper purpose. DES (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But can you edit an article with your account, and also argue against a copyright violation tag at that article with the IP that you never claimed was yours? Can you use it to vandalize Wikipedia? RO(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to be vague, so I wasn't ambushing with a specific accusation, which I'd rather not go into if possible. Lets she how she answers. RO(talk) 01:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism is wrong, via any account or IP. Using an IP to pretend to be a 2nd person falsely trying to gain consensus for any editing or policy position, including the removal of a copyright tag, is also wrong. But your question wasn't narrowly tailored to any such situation. DES (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DES is right that IP editing while simultaneously having an account is not illegal. Also, as currently worded, Q 11 seems combative. Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But can you edit an article with both an IP and an account, and support each other without ever revealing that the IP and the account are both you? RO(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationalobserver has a right to express her opinion here without being harassed or badgered because of her opposition. She stated exactly what her opinion was, there was no ambiguity, and if you don't like it, then don't use it as a reason to oppose. I think she's wrong (I support the nomination), but she absolutely has the right to oppose the nomination without being hounded about it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's real sweet of you, GregJackP, but I'm a woman, not a dude. RO(talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I've changed the pronouns, and I did not mean to offend. GregJackP Boomer! 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    {{pronoun}} and {{heorshe}} can be very helpful. DES (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationalobserver has a right to express her views of the nomination. She does not have the right to ask for information that policy specifically says need not be disclosed. Others have the right to express their disagreement with her views, or with anyone's views, either in hops of changing those views, or in hopes of persuading others not to adopt them. Doing so is not harassment or badgering. However, making such points over and over, to many different users on similar grounds, can become disruptive, in my view. DES (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It works both ways. If you are going to try and shut up editors who are asking polite questions of supporters who put down no reason at all for supporting a nomination, then you should not be doing the exact same thing to the (currently) sole voice in opposition. When enough people do it, especially repeatedly towards the same person, it is both badgering and harassment. It is inappropriate and hypocritical, and you are a better person and admin than that. I expect better of you. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, leaning weak oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Wikipedia:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Wikipedia:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the WP:XFD forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REFUND) are all in the "Wikipedia" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in closing discussions of being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw&oldid=681407090"