Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aitias (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 11 January 2009 (→Questions for the candidate: +unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Itsmejudith

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (1/2/0); Scheduled to end 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) – I've twice offered to nominate Judith for admin before: both times she declined, but thankfully now we have acceptance. The reasons for her change of heart I cannot say, but the reasons to support her should be blindingly obvious. A reasoned, educated voice of common sense, civility and neutrality at WP:FTN, WP:RSN and various other fora, Judith is a solid writer and has exactly the right sort of temperament for the admin role; forthright and reliable while also capable of introspection. She will do well. Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Dougweller: I have been trying to convince Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) to accept Moreschi's nomination for some time now, and I am very pleased that she has agreed. As an article editor she is interested in a wide range of subjects and belongs to four WikiProjects. She is almost frightenly multi-lingual (yes, that does have its uses here), and her membership of the WP:Kindness Campaign is something that perhaps all administrators should consider and emulate. I would have commented on her being a "voice of common sense, civility and neutrality" but I see Moreschi has beaten me to it so I shall refrain from mentioning these admirable traits of hers. Giving her the mop will be an asset to the community.dougweller (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate may make an optional statement here.

Doug, I only speak English and French fluently. I'm currently studying to improve my German, so please anyone feel free to address me in German if you wish. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A SPECIAL REQUEST
    • Kindly do not flood this RFA with 25 extra "optional" questions, as I have seen done recently. The answer to most of these questions, particularly the sillier ones, will usually be found in Judith's contributions if you bother to do your research before jumping towards that "edit" button. RFA is supposed to be a prosperous experience for the candidate no matter which way consensus goes, not some waterboarding-style drip-torture. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Moreschi. I'm OK about answering further questions, but if they're really silly I may give a flippant answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'll carry on with many of the tasks that I already do, especially on the noticeboards (reliable sources noticeboard, fringe theories noticeboard, original sources noticeboard, biographies of living persons noticeboard and neutral point of view noticeboard. I'll add the administrators' noticeboard to that, and take action on the issues that arise there. I'll continue to do bits of wikifying from time to time (the backlog continues to grow), to translate the odd article from French, and to work on articles that interest me, mainly on history and social theory. I'd like to do some mediation. Apart from taking up issues brought to the administrators' noticeboard, it might seem like more of the same, but being an admin would mean that I could see issues through, including taking sanctions against editors where there was abuse. I believe I could do that wisely.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Participating in the wikification project, because that has taken me into areas I wouldn't otherwise have visited. I have usually done much more than just wikify, e.g. completely rewriting, tagging for notability, tagging for experts, whatever the article needs. I haven't started many articles, but those I have I think were needed. Sportswear (no specialist knowledge whatsoever, but I couldn't believe the article didn't already exist). I created a proper History of antisemitism, from what is now the Timeline of antisemitism, and the History of education in England. I'm very proud to have created Stratford Langthorne Abbey, although all I made was a little stub, because it was a great example of wikimagic. Another editor came along soon afterwards and turned it into a proper article and put it onto Did You Know. Another very collaborative experience was in helping get Islam to FA. I rewrote several paragraphs on the history of Islamic civilisation only to see them deleted, but that was fine because the article needed to be shorter and more focussed. A long time ago I rewrote Solar power (now a redirect to Solar energy), splitting the material on solar water heating from that on solar electricity generation. Frankly, it had been a terrible mess, but now there is a series of reasonable to good articles on the related topics.
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: Yes, I've been in numerous conflicts, mainly because I've ventured into controversial topics. The Solar energy page has been bedevilled by conflict between two editors who both in their own ways have a lot to offer to the encyclopedia. I've encouraged them to work together and to participate in a mediation, which was helpful. One experience that helped me to learn about conflict resolution was on the page Hoang Van Chi, started (in Vietnamese) by a newbie. Initially it was a hagiographic account of the subject (a Vietnamese political writer), with some coat-racking advocacy of a position. I did a lot of rewriting and was patient with the newbie. For me the bottom line was that the subject was notable and an NPOV article was in theory possible. I hoped the newbie would be converted to the WP policy of NPOV and stay to contribute to other articles, but unfortunately he didn't. I was also very patient with the now banned sockpuppeteer User:Hkelkar, even after he told me I was "whitewashing antisemitism" when I tried to NPOV an article (again on a political writer, in this case still living). I did eventually and regretfully support Hkelkar's banning.
Optional questions from Aitias
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?maybe if it consisted of PENIS GRAWP HAGGER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreschi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. I can't think of any. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?did she say she'd be giving out rolllback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreschi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. I wasn't considering giving out rollback. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?God only knows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreschi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Not many circumstances. I would check. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest? obviously not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreschi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes I would probably block the vandal myself, because a final warning for vandalism had been given. If I thought the vandal was very frustrated I would probably only block for a short period to let them cool off. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?What warnings? Warnings from Judith or from other users? Maybe socks of banned users as a really obvious answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreschi (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Only as sock of a banned user, or if it was part of long-term harassment. Warnings are important. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion


Support
  1. Looks good. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good contributions at the noticeboards, clear evidence of positive consensus-building, good contributions to AfD, right attitude about adminship, no obvious reasons to oppose. I strongly suggest that Moreschi delete the thoroughly unnecessary mockery of Q4-Q8; I don't like stock questions either, but those are up to candidates to handle how they see fit. Townlake (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug. I agree it won't help, but it's time someone pointed out - yes, even pointed out - what a ridiculous farce RFA can become. I have no problem with additional questions, but they cannot be boilerplate ones. Stuff like "[Diff] is poor handling of a dispute IMO, in retrospect would you have done anything different" is fine and encouraged. Asking Judith about her rollback standards when she's never shown the slightest interest in granting rollback to anyone is just silly. Moreschi (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While RfA maybe a farce, it's rather unhelpful, and likely harmful, to react or express those sentiments here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Even if you feel a need to become uncivil and offensive, Moreschi, and call them silly, they help to evaluate two important things: (1) Policy knowledge and (2) the candidate's judgement. — Aitias // discussion 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Candidate seems thoughtful, but checking the contribution history I see no participation in admin areas - and while some might view that as a plus, I do not, at least not when it's this bare. Secondly, the answer to question 1 is...well..unsatisfactory when it comes to the tools. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is factually incorrect. Judith often participates in various discussions, such as those arising at WP:FTN, where use of the tools is needed and done (usually by myself, but the point of this RFA is to get others in on the act). She is a frequent participant at RSN: when lying about sources is discovered there, as it often is, admin action is appropriate. She has much experience in admin areas and much experience in observing use of the tools in the areas she works in; she has seen well what works and what doesn't. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take a closer look at recent discussions and revisit - but I'm still not convinced that admin involvement is necessary at the level you are intimating at said noticeboards. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Answers to questions all Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q8 provide undeniable evidence of a complete lack of policy knowledge. — Aitias // discussion 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd imagine that per the nomination statement, all were jokes. Next to the questions, in small font, he wrote answers. Perhaps he just isn't taking RfA seriously, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your POV. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wrote the answers in the small font. I'm afraid I cannot take questions like these seriously. Q4 has a really obvious answer (you don't delete pages with {{hangon}} unless the page is clear vandalism), Q5 is irrelevant to this candidate, Q6 requires intricate knowledge of copyright law (well, it's nice if admins have this but it is most certainly not required), Q7 has a trivially obvious answer which Judith gave, Q8 ditto. What are you trying to accomplish here? Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to accomplish? Your interference will likely derail this rfa. --Stephen 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for inadequate responses to optional questions --Stephen 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith&oldid=263475983"