Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarahStierch

SarahStierch

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (68/1/0); Scheduled to end 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

SarahStierch (talk · contribs) – Sarah has been editing since 2006, with a lot of great content work under her belt. Her outreach work with the Smithsonian Institution Archives and the Archives of American Art has led to the creation of many useful articles in art history, museum-related topics and biographies. She has also worked hard to increase representation of women in Wikipedia articles and has also put in a lot of time supporting new editors and helping people through OTRS. When a newbie is in distress, I trust Sarah to welcome them, help them and put them at their ease without compromising on the expectations of quality that Wikipedia has. With access to the powers of the mop, she can continue welcoming newbies and guiding them carefully regardless of what they get up to. I can't see any reason why Sarah would get into any major scrapes given her experience and cluefulness. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I've had the pleasure of meeting Sarah in person a few times now. I can say that what you see on Wikipedia is what you'll get in real life, a lot of spunk, a lack of bullshit, and an infectious level of enthusiasm. On-wiki, Sarah has been elbow-deep in the creation of three GA's and several DYK's. She has been the driving force behind the WP:TEAHOUSE pilot project that seeks to do something about our ongoing editor retention problem. Her OTRS work, and maybe more importantly, her GLAM activities, make her a true advocate for this project out in the off-line world. She could be more useful with the mop, in almost everything she does, and I hope you'll join me in supporting her. Courcelles 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you Tom and Courcelles for the kind words. I accept this nomination. Sarah (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (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: I really enjoy repetitive tasks, and clearing out backlogs - something I do frequently with disambiguations and OTRS. Admin work I'm interested in doing includes:

• WP:AIV I have experience in reporting IP’s and named accounts that do so, and often there is a small backlog. It’d be great to be able to handle this myself without having to wait while the account continues to vandalize!
• WP:RFPP As someone who has requested a few in my day, I’d like to make sure things are protected as need be (and within policy) as quickly as possible.
• As an OTRS agent this would be very beneficial - to be able to view deleted articles and media that may have been deleted before their permissions were granted. Depending on the backlogs, there can be a ton of these on OTRS, and I’d rather be able to handle it myself than provide a list of content for other admins to undelete for me.

And with all administrative tasks - I will thoroughly educate myself, and seek input from others before venturing into a new area of mopping!

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

A: First, my work with GLAM-Wiki outreach (GLAM=galleries, libraries, archives and museums outreach), which was the major catapult for me getting more involved in the community. GLAM WIKI As former Wikipedian in Residence at the Smithsonian Institution, I have worked with the community to improve content about underrepresented subjects such as women and minority artists. Two articles that I developed became GA’s - Louise Nevelson and Wadsworth Jarrell - which remain two of my proudest contributions.

I also co-founded WikiProject Public Art, which has developed hundreds (if not thousands) of articles related to public art around the world. Related to that, I singlehandedly created List of public art in Washington, D.C., List of public art in Indianapolis, and other lists, and I’m currently working on a list for San Francisco, California. Right now I’m working in my userspace to develop the entire list of California Historical Landmarks into digestible charts like the National Register of Historic Places for Wiki Loves Monuments.

I also am proud of my ability to take care of OTRS backlogs related to Wikipedia such as image permissions. I knocked out about 200 in a two day period. I was honored to receive barnstars for that from a few OTRS agents for my efforts! I also add a lot of images to articles in many different languages Wikipedias, often images donated by GLAMs. It’s enjoyable and makes me happy to illustrate content with beautiful quality images.

Another proud moment was the development of the Teahouse. I created the concept for the Teahouse based on discussions with many community members, seeing a need for a different type of help space. I’m really proud of it, and I feel so honored to have co-developed it alongside community members. I’ve also done a lot of outreach to get women involved in our projects, including WikiWomen's History Month and a number of meet-ups in the Washington, D.C. area. I also was on the planning committee for Wikimania 2012, and will be for 2013.

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: Like many active, long time editors, I have had moments of conflict. My first major “thrown for a loop” situation involved maintaining and watching articles related to men's rights subjects. This caused a lot of unnecessary problematic situations for people on Wikipedia and off. I found just simply asking experienced Wikipedians - many who are admins - for help on how to cope and handle situations of conflict was the best thing to do. I took advice from them and learned how to sit down and have a cup of tea, or just call in admins to help out and mediate things. I also learned to not edit subjects that are inherently contentious, especially after that fiasco! I’ve also had a few bumps in the road related to how I feel about civility and behavior on Wikipedia. For me, being nice is easier than being mean, and sometimes I’ve had a hard time with how people have acted towards others. Occasionally I’ve reacted, but, the longer I am involved in the community, the easier it is for me to ignore the negativity and call for calm, and move on. Or ask for mediation. Or, in many cases - just ignore it!

The biggest annoyances I deal with nowadays usually stem from vandals on certain pages I’ve created (topics that aren’t even popular, go figure), and even then I just request page patrol. But, those situations are small gnats which don’t really overshadow the more positive projects I work on.

Additional question from Carrite

4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what are the names of these accounts?

A: My former username is User:Missvain, a while back I had it changed to my current username. But, I have not used another account. Sarah (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Callanecc

5. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article on a living from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits for 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer in the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions, and why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: Note: waiting for some clarification on one part of this scenario before responding! Sarah (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from LuK3

6. When should an article be indefinitely semi-protected?

A: Hi LuK3! An article might be indefinitely semi-protected if an article is the recipient of excessive vandalism. Or, if the article is perhaps suffering from policy violations persistently - for example, a BLP (say...everyone's favorite, Justin Bieber) has content being modified that is either, for example, promotional of the subject ("Best singer ever!!") or negative untrue content about the subject ("He sucks eggs!!"). Then we can indefinitely semi-protect it. Sarah (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TCO

7. Write two structured paragraphs describing your content contributions.

General comments

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

• Edit stats posted on talk page. -- Luke (Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. As co-nom. Courcelles 00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support As nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. Everything I've seen of Sarah has all added up to tell me that she'll be a solid addition to our corps of admins. Smart, helpful, and expends more energy in one day to work for the good of the project and the movement than most of us have mustered in the past week. My one concern is that Sarah's sometimes-forceful personality might get her into some clashes, but there's also plenty of evidence through her work in places like the Teahouse (and her answer to Q3) that she recognizes that everyone can't know everything and that there's value to be found in consulting other people or having a cup of tea before acting or speaking in a contentious situation. So there's my advice to you, Sarah: when this RFA passes, as I hope it will, don't forget that you don't have to do everything that needs doing, and don't forget to make use of the brains (mmm, braiiiins...) of your fellow editors when you hit something new.

   P.S. Curiosity drives me to ask - have we ever had a WMF fellow run for adminship during the period of their fellowship before? I know we've had admins who then became fellows, but the reverse doesn't ring any bells in my memory. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Support Everything I've seen about Sarah's contributions has been very impressive, and I'm sure that she'll make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Great work on content and with outreach endeavors. No concerns. --IShadowed 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support. OTRS contributions look solid; AFC contributions look solid; Wikipedia- and talk-space posts are calm and well reasoned. Why not? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Yup. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support I've worked with Sarah at the Teahouse and she's a hard worker and very approachable to both new and experienced editors alike. I see no reason to oppose. -- Luke (Talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Of course. It will be great to see you continue your work with the extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Yes, definitely. Words can't describe the level of my support. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose Has poor choices of bars. Strong support – I don't need to explain why she wouldn't pass,. She is the queen of outreach and a fun character. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 01:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support AGF the noms and I've seen Sarah around and never had any concerns.--v/r - TP 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Great to see you here, Sarah. Thanks for your work at the Smithsonian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support, a valuable contributor with a strong presence on a number of different projects. -CTS talk 01:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Oh my goodness yes Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. At Wikimania, I asked Sarah what things we could learn about approaching new editors, general principles she had put together after months on the Teahouse project. She spoke with a great passion, an inspiring message to everyone in the room. That personal interaction, combined with my general sense of her from the answers above, move me to support. She has the clue for the job and the independent thinking needed of all admins. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Support great person, can't possibly do any harm with any administrator tools. Looking forward to seeing you on the far side. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Great contributor in so many ways. More like her are needed. First Light (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Support I only "discovered" Sarah through her work at the Teahouse, but since that time I keep seeing her work as a normal editor--and a good one at that. She certainly has personality, as Fluffernutter says, but Sarah would be a great addition to the admin corps. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Support I first became familiar with Sarah's work in the OTRS photosubmission queue; it wasn't hard to miss, being that she was the only one working there at the time. What little I've seen since then, coupled with Tom Morris being a nominator (sorry Courcelles, it's nothing against you) leads me to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Support I have not communicated with Sarah before, but I have seen the great work she has done over the years. We need well rounded admins and I think she got what it takes. Good luck! Tamsier (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Support. Mad props. Sarah's a rock star. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support She seems to be genuinely trying to help and is never afraid to outreach -- just what should never be turned down in admins today. Mysterytrey talk 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Excellent contributions in the article space. A couple of extra tools should be helpful here. EngineerFromVega^★ 04:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Support - I seriously thought that she was an admin already. She has done remarkable work at teahouse and I see no reason to oppose such a beautiful candidate. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 04:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Sarah will be an excellent administrator.--MONGO 04:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
27. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - Teahouse work alone clears the bar for me. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. forsooth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. She must have very cool and proud parents. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. Yes please - for all the reasons above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Strong Support; great teahouse work. ⇒TAP 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Strong obvious support. Knocked out 200 OTRS requests in a two day period? Started the Teahouse for promoting editor retention? 50,000+ edits? Engaged museums like Smithsonian in the GLAM initiative? If there ever was a slam dunk, this is it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Aye. I don't know this user, so I reviewed a random sample of her contributions (impression: personable and chatty) and then randomly selected one article of hers (Helena M. Weiss) to review for copyvios or close paraphrases (impression: follows Smithsonian Institute sources rather closely, but not so closely as to raise close paraphrase concerns). Support's a no-brainer.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
35. Support While I, unlike Tamsier above, can give no opinion as to her shape, and have h ad no interaction with her that I can remember, I've seen her name around and been impressed. I'm still more impressed by the info given here, and wonder why this RfA took so long to arrive. Peridon (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    I was not thinking about that "well rounded" Peridon. Lol.Tamsier (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

36. Well, of course. Sarah is one of the most suitable people for the job. Harej (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Support for the remarkable work done on Teahouse -- naveenpf (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
39. Support It is evident that Sarah has spirit, drive and dedication to the project and has already been serving well in roles that have helped groom her for adminship. She will do very well.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
40. Strong Support - I've had previous interaction with Sarah during a write-up for the Signpost and found her really personable and agreeable. She's done great work both on-Wiki and with the Foundation, and to be honest I thought she was an admin. Content work looks good, and Teahouse - though I've never participated - was a brilliant idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
41. Support - I believe she would be an excellent admin. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - My interactions with Sarah from my time as a Teahouse host have never left me in any doubt about her ability to work well with other people, assume good faith, and act appropriately in all situations. I can only see her being a benefit to the project as an admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
43. Support. No worries. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Support - Strong candidate based on OTRS and Teahouse alone. However has also made over 50,000 edits, and created 324 articles. Great editor will be good admin.E W 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Lot's of article space work + great service in Teahouse. TheStrikeΣagle 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
46. Strong Support I finally got to meet Sarah at Wikimania, after watching what she did at the Tea House and other places. I recently urged a non-admin to apply for OTRS, and argued it wasn't necessary to be an admin to process OTRS requests. Which is technically true, but I watched my own activity through those eyes for the next few days, and realized how limiting that would be.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
47. Support She has not only been an important creator and improver of Wikipedia articles - she has actually helped to improve the Wiki project itself, via the Teahouse. Sounds like she will be an outstanding administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Per my 8-ball. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
49. Sarah works hard for the wiki, knows the policies, and knows how to work well with others. We are lucky to have her as an editor, and will be lucky to have her as an administrator as well. LadyofShalott 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Support Sarah's done a great job at the Teahouse and will be a fine administrator. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Yah, she got a job at the Teahouse (maybe the owner or a waiter) --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Well-committed to the project and I admire her efforts in improving the quality and quantity of art-related articles. --Jennie | ☎ 16:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
53. Support - Very tolerant of other users. Would be an all-knowing admin. Arcandam (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - Squeaky-clean candidate with no block record in 6 years of editing. Toa Nidhiki05 17:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
55. Support I first interacted with Sarah a few weeks ago when she asked me to work with the Teahouse. I poked around a bit and found her to be incredibly knowledgeable about a wide range of policy, a great content contributor, and one of the most level-headed, hardworking Wikipedians I know. She'd make a wonderful admin - especially in explaining to newbies why their article got deleted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
56. I've actually not seen her around (or otherwise I might have confused her with this long term editor (and administrator)), but everything looks good from what I've read so far. Her answers are well reasoned and I trust the judgement of both the nominators. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
57. Great editor. Two words suffice. benzband (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
58. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. She's already doing a wonderful job. Anything to help make it easier for her. -- œ^™ 19:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Can't say it any better than above. —HueSatLum 21:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
61. Support - wonderful candidate. -- Dianna (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
62. Ayup - Good candidate, good work done in the past. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
63. Support. Her contributions to the encyclopedia and the community just get stronger and stronger. I'm confident she'll be an asset to the cadre of admins. --Jgmikulay (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
64. Support! Long overdue. Sarah should be an admin. (can't say thanks enough for your help and inspiration in your work with the Smithsonian, gender gap outreach, teahouse, and more.) --Aude (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. But of course - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
66. Support About as qualified as a candidate can be. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
67. Support. Outstanding editor. Sarah's work with the Teahouse and the Smithsonian have been inspirational. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
68. Helpful and knowledgeable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not very tolerant of other users. Would be just another know it all admin. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Diffs? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   This is a great example of the kind of oppose the vast majority of people agree should just be removed. Is there some reason we can't start here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   I see absolutely no reason not to remove it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   My point would be proven. If you aren't in an inner click on Wiki, you might as well go somewhere else. Public site for everyone? So not true. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Two things; 1 it's spelled clique and 2, far more importantly, I don't see how you translate Wikipedia's motto into "I can make groundless attacks on people at RfA". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm sure your point would be proven... so please prove it. Making allegations of this nature - that the candidate can't "tolerate new users" - needs some sort of foundation. It's one thing to say that X candidate doesn't do enough content work, or doesn't have skills in key admin areas-- all things that are more substantive pieces of criticism. But, if you're going to say that someone can't deal with other editors, an attack on one's character, you need something to back it up. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Not very tolerant of other users? Uh...have you even seen the Teahouse? Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   This is an undocumented criticism. Let it stand, alongside undocumented supports, as a monument to Wikipedia's intellectual standards. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Come on folks, just treat this !vote as it deserves - ignore it (as the closing crat will). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   I do not agree it should be removed. I trust that the 'crats aren't blithering idiots.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Leave the comment. Either FourteenClowns will make an effort to substantiate it, or s/he won't. Either way, the closing crat will give the comment all due consideration. It's up to FourteenClowns to make that due consideration something more than zero. LadyofShalott 16:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, but it's always a pity if an otherwise immaculate RfA gets tainted with a silly oppose. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   How about we carry on this discussion here and hope that, for once, something comes of said continuation of discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

   Normally I feel that everyone's entitled to their opinions, but when I see someone make one edit in 26 March 2012, and then show up for this RfA, and have those be the only edits of 2012, I get really, really suspicious. I'd be suspicious if it were in support to, mind you. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)