Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson

CaroleHenson

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (11/3/1); Scheduled to end 08:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) – Carole has been on Wikipedia for just over six years. Her specialist subject is the visual arts and she has taken ten articles to good article status including Langlois Bridge at Arles, Kate Millett, and Mary Brewster Hazelton, the latter of which she also wrote from scratch. She is a regular at New Pages Patrol and often looks for articles to rescue, such as improving Rabia Salihu Sa'id and helping to save it from AfD. She also takes part in the Adopt-a-user program.

I recently began to pick up on Carole's work around Wikipedia, and whenever I looked I have been impressed with the politeness, diligence and determination to make the project work. Her comments at AfD in particular always talk a good argument, even when consensus doesn't go her way. I think she'd be an excellent fit as an administrator, using the tools in a positive manner towards the NPP process, and I hope the community agrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I am delighted to co-nominate CaroleHenson to become an administrator. I have often seen her around Wikipedia and been impressed by her industry, courtesy, and clue. She's been here since 2011 and has 75,000 edits to her credit. She has created nearly 500 pages, including multiple GAs and DYKs, and has improved innumerable articles along the way. (Just take a look at the dozen or more barnstars here, from just the past couple of months, commending her for rescuing and improving articles!) She is a very valuable contributor at New Pages Patrol, and a patient and helpful mentor to new users. I believe she would be even more valuable to Wikipedia if she had admin tools at her disposal. MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (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: My primary objective is ensuring that quality, encyclopedic articles are created and maintained. To that end, my primary interest is working on CSD and Prod nominations. I also regularly monitor recent changes to existing articles.

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

A: I think my best contributions include new articles about women artists from the 19th century, prehistoric sites in Southwestern United States, visual arts, history, and other topics. Also important are improvements I made to new, existing articles, and some articles in the AfD process that I was able to save, like Debra Ruh. Helping others navigate WP guidelines and create informative and viable articles is also of great interest to me.

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 was involved in the initial work on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. I think that I did great work there in many ways, but I also think that I should have held back a bit more about my comments on the talk page and let the many other great contributors weigh in first. There were disputes like this and this talk page dispute with one user, as well as this related ANI. I think that if I had held back on my edits and not been too involved in the flurry of edits in the initial days it would have gone more smoothly. I think it's better for me to have a more toned-down approach for developing stories, like my involvement in the 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting (article, talk contributions).

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Andrew Davidson

4. The font used for your sig currently seems quite blocky and loud to me. Previously, you used a different font – Segoe – which looked more attractive. Why did you change it, please?

A:

Discussion

• Links for CaroleHenson: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for CaroleHenson can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Support We need more administrators, see no reason to believe they'd abuse the position. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Candidate clearly understands and appreciates the value of content creation and improvement, and although counter-vandalism is important having more content-savvy admins is a must! CaroleHenson's overall demenour on Wikipedia is one of a cool and collected contributor, and I see no reason why they would not continue being so with the mop. Thank you Ritchie and MelanieN for a truly wonderful nomination of an equally wonderful editor -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
4. The candidate's efforts on the Donald Trump pages, dealing with difficult issues and difficult editors with the patience of Job, amount to exceptional work. The links in Q3 are modestly presented as confessions; they are anything but. The Washington Post even commended those talk-page debates as 'orderly', no doubt due in large part to the candidate's influence upon them: [1]. The candidate's content work, with its significant focus on female artists, is also commendable. The candidate will clearly be a mature addition who will add intellect and needed diversity to the corps of wikipedia administrators. My only hesitation upon review is that there might be some naivete at AfD from time to time particularly about promotional biographies (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Errett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Glasgow). But (a) I can't see the deleted articles to draw more concrete conclusions, and (b) I hardly think that takes us anywhere near disqualifying territory in light of all the positives. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Per MelanieN's nom. Answer to Q3 indicates to me that they're able and willing to learn from their experiences, which is a pretty ideal trait in any admin candidate. Regarding the first oppose: I find it awfully difficult to knock someone for not having been to ANI enough. I mean, what's the worst case here? They actively avoid the page? I wouldn't blame them. Drama isn't fun. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Glancing over what's here and the ANI archives, I get the feeling that she probably should be an admin more than I should (not that I'm saying that I shouldn't be, either). Not particularly worried about AIV: if it had a backlog anywhere near the same size as New Pages, we'd be Uncyclopedia. Admins focused on New Pages is good. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Per PeterTheFourth. FriyMan ^talk 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
8. Support clear net positive to the encyclopedia, with no red flags. The oppose is unconvincing. We need admins with content creation experience just as much as we need them in more traditional admin areas.Tazerdadog (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
9. Support per strong nominations and particularly the answer to Q3. Good work on new pages, strong content creation, and polite helpful interaction with other editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
10. Support precious visual arts and Colorado prehistory and always good interactions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose - The candidate is very good and is qualified in content creation, however my concern is that I don't really see a clear need for the tools, and I think the candidate would be better off without them. I am also concerned about the lack of activity in administrator areas such as AIV. The ANI discussion also worries me slightly too as the candidate said she "had very little experience with the process". However, I am open to changing my vote if the candidate or anyone else is able to convince me otherwise. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Hi Class, hope you're well! I'm not overly keen on badgering at RfA but if I may I'd like to offer this: I know where you're coming from, and it's a very very valid concern - as I mentioned above, counter-vandalism is very important. No point having all this amazing content if it's constantly in a state of vandalism. But, I would urge you to consider that having admins who know the real nitty-gritty side of content creation is as helpful as one who can whip up edit filters or bat away spammers in their sleep. I'm no content expert, and sometimes I have to skip over adminy content things which need doing - this is where CaroleHenson could really help us out. Food for thought! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for the reply Sam, however my view is that to be an admin, you need to at least show some activity in adminstrator areas to gain experience, and that's not what I'm seeing in CaroleHenson. I can see your point and agree with the fact that we need more admins who know about content creation but the only thing they'll be using the tools for it seems is deleting articles tagged for CSD. I respect the fact that some people would like to stay away from ANI, which I used to do (until I was told myself in an ORCP I needed more experience there, so now I do participate there), but that is also a good place to demonstrate some experience in admin areas. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose. CaroleHenson's writing and interpersonal skills are admirable, thank you for your edits! Unfortunately, in the last two weeks I see an this A7 nom justified on the talk page by a lack of perceived verifiability and a spurious G11 nom on an article about the chair of philosophy at Santa Clara University. Based on these and in the context of the answer to Q1, I do not feel that the candidate has the requisite level of mastery of deletion to be the sole check against bad CSD nominations at this time. I could easily see myself supporting six months from now if the candidate demonstrates improvement in this area. I also am willing to reconsider my !vote now if anyone can demonstrate that these two examples are outliers. VQuakr (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict) Oppose. For someone who wants to work in speedy deletion, her judgment in that area has frequently been off, to the point that I cannot trust her with the delete-button. Some examples: A7 for article with plenty of RS, G1 within minutes on an article that only met A3, A7 on a redirect, two G2 taggings for A3-worthy articles ([2] [3], unfortunately deleted as such by an admin with roughly the same approach to speedy deletion), A7 with plenty of claims of significance, G8 on a redirect whose target existed (the G6ed and then taken to RfD where she withdrew the nom), A7 without checking the page history or the talk page, A7 for a school, another G8 for a redirect whose target existed (and another and another and another) and A9 for a recording of a notable band. Even some of the (incorrectly deleted) articles show such errors, such as this A7 with an offline source cited, this tagging of a non-English article that does not meet A2 and this A7 for the wife of a notable politician (with some claims of significance herself) (an accepted AfC submission!). The candidate seems to be a good content contributor but that alone is not sufficient to ignore such mistakes. We can expect a candidate who wants to work in a certain area to know the policies that govern it and this is apparently not the case here. If this request fails, the candidate should spend more time on such areas and reacquaint themselves with the criteria for speedy deletion before running again. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. For me being accessible to, dealing with, and supporting the community ~ community relations ~ is the most important area of an admin's "job"; i don't think i can support a candidate whose signature (given above, at 1758, 8 March) appears as two rectangular blobs, with essentially indistinguishable letters in them ~ without knowing that this is RfA/CaroleHenson, i truly would struggle to know who made the acceptance. I recognise that this may be seen as a minor point, and that is part of the reason i am here currently rather than immediately above. If the signature becomes more legible, and if my further investigations prove it wise, i anticipate being able to support later on. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   That's a little odd, would you be able to screenshot the signature as you see it? To me it looks like this (imgur link) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   Looks like this to me on Chrome. Pretty hard to read. Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'd have no problem with it, NoTime, if it looked like your example; on my computer, to mine eyes it looks very much like Sam's picture. But smaller. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)