Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triona 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m tally
→Oppose: oppose
Line 97: Line 97:
#'''Oppose'''. I'm not really one to oppose for lack of mainspace editing, but the answer to question 2 frankly gives me little confidence. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I'm not really one to oppose for lack of mainspace editing, but the answer to question 2 frankly gives me little confidence. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' on acct of a lack of substantial mainspace editing experience. One should not be granted the exercise of the admin functions without an evidence of editing experience. -- [[User:Iterator12n|Iterator12n]] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>[[User Talk:Iterator12n|Talk]] </sup></span></font> 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' on acct of a lack of substantial mainspace editing experience. One should not be granted the exercise of the admin functions without an evidence of editing experience. -- [[User:Iterator12n|Iterator12n]] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>[[User Talk:Iterator12n|Talk]] </sup></span></font> 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
#Per Doc. Administrators will end up having to deal with disputes surrounding articles, and the best administrators in these situations are those who have experience in article-creation and article disputes. Knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene, when to use protection instead of blocking or vise-versa, and how to deal with SPA's, editors with a strong COI, and how talk page discussions work in disputes are essential for administrators. Your answer to Q2 means I can't support. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 05:26, 3 February 2008

Triona

Voice your opinion (talk page) (29/5/5); Scheduled to end 08:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Triona (talk · contribs) - I've been around for quite some time, and work mostly on housekeeping tasks, including tagging articles, vandal patrol, and cleanup. I believe that administrator tools would be helpful for me, and I'd mainly use them to more effectively combat vandalism, but would help out with closing AFD, fixing copy/paste moves, and otherwise clearing admin backlogs from time to time. Triona (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Triona (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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: As noted above, more effectively combating vandalism via blocks and page protection, as well as occasionally clearing backlogs at AFD, CSD, and elsewhere. I'll probably continue to stay "in the background", just adding some administrator tasks to the housekeeping I do already.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: To be honest, nothing particularly stands out. I've made mostly small contributions, but I've tried to make sure that all of my contributions help to improve Wikipedia. I don't think I could really in good conscience call fixing typos or reverting vandals my "best contribution".
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: Not really. Anytime I've been tempted to be drawn into a conflict, I've either been able to reach an agreement, or walked away from it. Fighting is boring anyway. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF go a long way towards never getting to the point of a conflict.

Optional question from Ouro:

4. Can you explain the enormous gap in your edit pattern, and then the accumulation of half of your edits within one month? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure. Real-life issues have caused me to take several breaks over the years due to lack of time to contribute. As far as the recently increased number of edits recently goes, a lot of those are from using new vandal fighting tools to aid me in what I've been doing all along and the increased efficiency of using rollback. I was probably close to that active in the past, but I'm working quickly enough now that I'm not hitting as many edit conflicts when trying to revert. (In the past perhaps 2/3 of my revert attempts were reverted by another user first.)
Thank you kindly. I will consider. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pedro

5. You say you intend to work at fixing cut and paste moves. Frankly that's an area I wouldn't touch with a barge pole three miles long, so good on you! However I'm interested as to why you have identified that as an area of interest, and why you feel you may have special skills there. Can you elaborate on your desire to work in this area? Pedro :  Chat  14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. I list this only because I think I have a reasonable understanding of the process - basically delete the "new" article to move over the top of it, move properly, delete again, and restore the revisions so that the history is merged. It's not a difficult process per say, just tedious.

Question from O.Waqfi

6.a small question,If they don't choose you admin here..you will leave wikipedia or what ? --O.waqfi (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Whether I get demotedpromoted to admin, or not, I plan to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Just as adminship is no big deal, being rejected here wouldn't be a big deal either.

Optional question from Keepscases

7.What are the origins of your user name?
How is that question relevant to be coming an administrator? Maxim(talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepcases regularly poses rather offbeat, apparently meaningless RfA questions that frequently add a bit of levity to the process (and, in fact, on occasion, elicit useful information); although one or two questions were (unnecessarily, IMHO) objected to as untoward, the community has, it is probably fair to say, (rightly, IMHO) permitted the practice, especially since the questions are, of course, optional. Joe 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

  • i think it is not good or enough resaon that she didn't made over 25 articles,everybody said that we need a mach big contributions and articles..i think all of that don't have any meaning.she must know everything in wikipedia,and how to do anything, & she has that..regards --O.waqfi (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support -Dureo (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good vandal fighter. Though, possibly need more experience before closing AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concern noted, I'll try to keep that in mind and possibly try to get some mentoring before I make a mess there.. Triona (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I saw her contributions and she have a lot of good things..she will help the wikipedia and help us.--O.waqfi (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FUCK YES SUPPORT! Yes, I agree. She will make a wonderful admin. Cheers. miranda 10:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Every interaction I've had with Triona has been positive and she's a good vandal fighter. I think she'll make a good admin :) Astral (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - of course! - Alison ❤ 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A capable editor in their capacity, and reflects the true qualities of what is needed in an administrator. Rudget. 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, good user. - Zeibura ( talk ) 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Yeah, a good editor. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I do not feel that intermittent editing is any sort of bar to adminship, nor do I feel, per the first Oppose, that there is any requirement for a minimum number of article creations. We are looking for a skilled editor with demonstrable competence in admin-related procedures, and the willingness and eagerness to use these skills for the benefit of the project. Triona is such an editor. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Edit conflicted Support, I have had nothing but positive interactions with her, and she has a sensible and cool demeanor. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A good choice. Majorly (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Whoa, thought you were one already. Malinaccier (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support I have not seen anything that leads me to believe this person will abuse the tools. I do have a problem with her lack of experience though. She has not been in any conflicts, and she only seriously started to edit last month. I have learned from experience the value of experience. However, I do not consider lack of experience a good enough reason to oppose, or go neutral, so I will support her.--SJP (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Wow, of course. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A non-idiot. – Steel 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support Great user, ready to be a sysop. NHRHS2010 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support Not enough to oppose, but I'd like to see how this user handles pressure. RC-0722 communicator/kills 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Knowledgeable and trustable. -- Mentifisto 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. + I've seen her around a long time, and I trust her judgment. Lack of article writing does not mean the user doesn't know what is and is not policy. Keegantalk 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I was thinking about asking Triona if she wanted a nomination in a month or so's time. I'm not worred about her inactivity: there are no shortage of mops to give out, and I'd rather see the tools used rarely and correctly than often and abused. No concerns here. Acalamari 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Yay! to the vandal fighters. Polly (Parrot) 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support while I'm concerned about lack of article writing skills, my experience with this user cancels that out. Secret account 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Vandal fighter and declined earlier RFA where she was nominated by another user as she was not ready shows User is macure and not power hungry.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great Vandal fighter and very respectable person. Good Luck wit the tools. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose I am not happy with her answer to question no. 2. A person who wants to be an admin must have created or significantly contributed to at least 25 articles. And, those articles must not be stubs. Vandal fighting is OK. However, we are editors first. She made only one edit from May, 2007 to December, 2007[1]. She needs to edit regularly for few months. Sorry Stephanie. Better luck next time. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Masterpiece, I respect your oppose on grounds of a lack of article contribution from the candidate. But creation / significant development of 25 articles all non-stubs? I find it hard to believe that we need standards as high as that? I'd wager we'd be down to sub 100 admins if that was the minimum criteria. Pedro :  Chat  14:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your concerns, however, I fail to see what writing articles has to do with my ability to do housekeeping jobs. Triona (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be argued that if a candidate is familiar with working with articles, they can perform better when dealing with AFDs, somewhere you have stated you wish to work. Although, 25 is a little high. Rudget. 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I would meet this requirement myself. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. 25 is a little high. However, a candidate must be familiar with building articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have a fairly low content threshhold, but admins need to have at least some content editorial experience. Please spend a few weeks contributing to articles and then return and I will likely support.--Docg 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose More than half of the editing has come within the last month, and while that is not the complete issue at hand, a LOT has changed around here (at least for myself) since I started regularly editing. I can't really base a support decision off of just one month's editing. Jmlk17 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm not really one to oppose for lack of mainspace editing, but the answer to question 2 frankly gives me little confidence. bibliomaniac15 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose on acct of a lack of substantial mainspace editing experience. One should not be granted the exercise of the admin functions without an evidence of editing experience. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Doc. Administrators will end up having to deal with disputes surrounding articles, and the best administrators in these situations are those who have experience in article-creation and article disputes. Knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene, when to use protection instead of blocking or vise-versa, and how to deal with SPA's, editors with a strong COI, and how talk page discussions work in disputes are essential for administrators. Your answer to Q2 means I can't support. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. – Gurch 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Malinaccier (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because not showing up at all would be rude – Gurch 16:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy you came. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurch is really funny sometimes. :-p -- Mentifisto 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Although in the past month you have made a substantial amount of edits, it has only been one month. I would like to see some more months of edits. A very sporadic editing pattern does not look good. I need a longer span of solid edits to decide whether you'll use the tools effectively and not abuse them. Timmeh! 16:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning to support. Your contributions look pretty good, but the answer to Q2 combined with relatively low project space edits gives me pause. If you could provide an example of work, especially in the project space, that you feel is very good, then I would be happy to switch to support. VanTucky 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Like VanTucky, I'm leaning towards support, good involvement in WP pages but your contributions are spread out over a long period (three years +) but over 80% of those are in two months only and over 60% over the last month.--JForget 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutrality - Per gurch....--Cometstyles 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Triona_2&oldid=188745435"