Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aude

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Aude

[edit]

Final (71/0/1) ending 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Aude (talk · contribs) – Audeis a reliable Wikipedian who has been with us since August of 2004, accruing over 6,200 edits, as of this timestamp, and more contributions to article space than myself, even. She appears to have a good sense of what is and what isn't encyclopedia-worthy, as I have noticed she has only once been on the losing side of an AFD discussion, and that one exception looks like deletion review material. Audehas also been active in the detection and removal of link spam from articles (a heroic effort). Additionally, she has been involved deeply in the main page drafting process and has uploaded several images. She reverts quite a bit of vandalism as well, and uses edit summaries nearly 100% of the time. Perusal of the history of her user talk page reveals no sign of conflicts with anybody besides anonymous vandals and trolls (remarkable in itself, for anybody with over 1,000 edits). She was recently blocked by accident due to a case of mistaken identity, and sought a resolution to the situation in a commendably civil manner. To make a short story longer, I see no reason why Audewouldn't be suitable for adminship, so let's give her some support. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:18, Feb. 14, 2006

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I'm delighted to accept the nomination. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Support as nominator, you can't beat me to the punch. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:18, Feb. 14, 2006
  2. Support I don't usually vote on RfA's, but Kmf recently came to my attention re:indexing the Wikipedia namespace, and e seems eminently sensible. Keep up the good work (and don't get sucked into the madness!) JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support We don't always agree, and sometimes I think she's a little too conservative, but Kmf's heart is in the right place. She cares about Wikipedia and its users, and it shows in everything she does here. She has my hearty support. --Go for it! 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I was about to nominate her myself after my wikibreak, but I was too slow! Johntex\talk 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - my interactions have all been positive, and the contributions all look good. violet/riga (t) 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support clearly an awesome user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support looks really good. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good editor, good image contributions. Level headed, will be good admin. --rogerd 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Seems like a good user with decent experience. Props for fighting the linkspam. --NormanEinstein 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Friendly and intelligent. --Quiddity 20:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Great answers to questions, edit history is very impressive, fantastic contributer. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support easy decision. Thanks.Gator (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I've seen her name around, looks like a good choice. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A pleasure to work with and a valued ally in the fight against vandals. Go get 'em!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support This user looks good. -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. e??????pa?de?a* 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Pete.Hurd 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support NaconKantari e|t||c|m 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Indeed, Aude has been a pleasure to work with on the main page redesign project, and she undoubtedly will be a fine sysop. —David Levy 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Sorry I have to.... bring up the cliché. Damn yes, I really thought you were already one. NSLE (T+C) 00:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Of course. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Appears very qualified based on a random selection of edits. David618 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support of course.--MONGO 03:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support--Jusjih 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- Looks good.-- No Guru 04:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. great work. pschemp | talk 07:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good record —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 08:33Z
  32. SupportEdit summaries, seems like a level headed person, per others. Sam Vimes 08:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, great user. Raven4x4x 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support DaGizzaChat © 12:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support.--Ugur Basak 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support Of course! You deserve this. Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - looks like she'll be an excellent admin. Essexmutant 15:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sheep Vote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^I Mean Support  ALKIVAR™ 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Mihai -talk 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support It would be great if you were an admin! Uncke Herb 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Samir · TC 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, excelletn candidate - no question. Phædriel ? tell me - 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 01:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. --AySz88^-^ 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. support: Good rapport and plenty of contributions; perhaps a mite overdue. Ombudsman 05:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Good vandal patroller. Merecat 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. — FireFox • T • 10:35, 17 February 2006
  50. Support. jacoplane 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per her always sensible and thought-out AfD decisions. Proto||type 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Mjal 02:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support based on answers to questions below. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I trust her. - Darwinek 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support so do I. Good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Nice, friendly user who's been with us since Aug 2004, (active editor after June 2005). Heavy mainspace contributions; Aude is very experienced with anti-vandalism, and my understanding is that she's very, very good at this, as some answers below indicate. Roper v. Simmons is a beautiful article (well done!). Beneficial article edits elsewhere. I note that her Wikipedia space contributions are comparatively rather fewer; on a quick assessment I estimate edits to that space to be less than 6-7% on average over her active period. She has participated in some 30 AFDs; in those I checked I saw no cause for concern. Has placed 6 items on the copyrights board for review (all images). Has edited WP:AN 4 times, WP:ANI 2 times. However, although her WPspace edits are somewhat less frequent than many nominees, I do not see this as a reason, necessarily, to oppose such a strong candidate. WP has grown so much, so fast, that most would-be sysops will not be able to devote time to all facets of administrative duties; specialization is inevitable in complex organizations. Her answers suggest to me that if she does start to take a more active role in other areas, she will do so with an abundance of care and good sense. Support. ENCEPHALON 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support among the very best. Utopianheaven 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: --Bhadani 07:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- Nice can be good. John Reid 09:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. What's with all the grilling down below - are you running to be Jimbo's replacement? ;-) hydnjo talk 15:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - female solidarity :) [if seriously, impressed over comm portal and other redesigns] Renata 07:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, seems a good contributor. Hiding talk 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Good Luck :) -- Avi 22:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Elf-friend 07:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Like your user-page, good answers to Qs below, excellent photography/map creation :)--Andeee 21:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Mjal 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Thoughtful answers to questions. (welcome the female, too) FloNight talk 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. *drew 03:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship. gidonb 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. A small amount for her long time here at Wikipedia only thing holding me back sorry. Looks like you will make it though :) Mike Beckham 05:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would be more effective with RC patrol for vandalism, with the rollback button as a handy tool. I have built special watchlists for history and other topics. It amazes me how often the American Civil War, Alexander Hamilton, Harlem Renaissance, and such history topics are vandalized. Probably correlates with what's on the middle or high school syllabus. In rare cases, template protection would be useful, such as last Saturday's (Feb. 11) blatant vandalism of the "Current sports events" template, used at top of the 2006 Winter Olympics and other olympics articles. I'm also lookout for spam and enforcing external links guidelines. (though the rollback button would be inappropriate, as spam requires different edit summaries) I would also handle cases of possible image copyright violations.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. While I first registered in August 2004 and contributed sporadically, my first substantive contribution was in March 2005. I created and wrote most of the Roper v. Simmons , following the U.S. Supreme Court decision. This case needed a good article writeup as it was to be featured on the main page, In the news. The article is well-referenced, with footnotes and scholarly references, and is still probably the most extensively researched of my contributions.
With the election maps, there were numerous comments of constructive criticism. I accommodated the suggestions, as much as I could. In the future, I will take all this excellent and very appreciated feedback into consideration. Same with criticisms of anything I write, photography, and web design (Main page redesign).
  • As just mentioned, I have contributed to the ongoing Main page redesign effort, which aims to improve how the main page enables new users to find information, through browsing and searching. While contentious debates at times, we have worked constructively towards consensus, taking into account all the excellent feedback received.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I also watch articles including Global warming, September 11, 2001 attacks, and John Kerry for NPOV problems. These articles naturally attract edit wars and problems. I rarely get stressed by such debates, but try to be a voice of reason, putting aside any of my own political views.
  • On the Global warming article, I stepped into the discussion over adding a chart that extrapolated "costs of extreme weather events", decades into the future. Yet, the data used for the extrapolation was based on just a few data observations/points, included many questionable assumptions, and its mere inclusion in the article implies a direct connection between extreme weather events costs and global warming. The relationship is far more nuanced and involves a great deal of human, socio-economic factors, as well as natural factors. And the chart was potentially in conflict with WP:NOR. To help move the debate towards resolution, I first trying to reason with Nrcprm2026. Then, turned to some of the steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. The user wanted to take this directly to arbitration, but I pointed out the other steps first needed in the process and tried a poll. The debate pretty much ended there with the straw poll.
  • There was also debate several months ago about John Kerry's Purple Heart, involving Rex071404. When I got annoyed with Rex, I stepped to the sidelines and let the process work itself out. Rex, who had three prior cases of arbitration, once again ended up in arbitration. He was permanently banned from editing the John Kerry article. Since then, I haven't seem any problems there, except for the usual vandalism.

Since Johntex was originally going to nominate me, I'll go ahead here and answer the three other questions he normally asks:

4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I always err towards assuming good faith, so normally would use {{test}} or {{test1}}. Though, if the editor has been repeatedly warned for vandalism in the past, I would probably use {{test2}}. If they have already been warned ({{test1}}, {{test2}}, ...) for the current spate of vandalism, I would use {{test4}} or {{bv}}. In the case of blatant vandalism to important templates, such as {{current sport}}, it's very likely that the vandal knows what he/she is doing and is acting on bad faith. Such vandalism would call for immediately blocking (for 24 hours, or whatever time appropriate, according to the blocking policy). Such blocking is to protect Wikipedia, more than as punishment.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. Again, I would err towards assuming good faith, and think it might be an innocent mistake or that the user is just not aware of the WP:3RR. I would just give them a warning and explanation of the 3RR. Though, if the editor has past history of violating 3RR and other rules, then I would take stronger action.
6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A. The rollback button will be very handy for reverting vandalism. Though, if it had alternative edit summaries that I could use (e.g. one for reverting spam), that would be so useful.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

7. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. First of all, as a newbie admin, I would be willing to close some clear-cut, non-controversial AFD debates, but would defer to the more experienced admins on the more controversial debates. Once I gain more confidence with handling AFDs, I may start handling more controversial debates. (of course, if I was involved in the debate, I would recuse myself.) If the debate is truly split, then it should be closed as "no consensus" and kept, with possibility of deletion review. Before closing it as no-consensus, I might seek a third-opinion. If I'm leaning towards deleting the article, then I would most likely get a third-opinion. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A.
  1. I would first assume good faith and look at the editors previous contributions.
    1. If they have history of vandalism, I would revert the changes, and leave a note on their talk page.
    2. If they have no history, or a good track record, I might revert and leave a note on their talk page and the article talk page, seeking clarification and reason for deleting the chunk of text.
  2. I would also look into the article's edit history and figure out who added the passage in question? what it added by an experienced editor? or an anon.? What's that anon's track record? vandalism? POV? or good faith edits?
  3. Regardless of the above, I also would try to verify the information myself, find sources, and investigate if the removed information is factual or not, and copyedit it to make the text comply better with WP:NPOV. If there are bits of information that I just can't verify, I would remove them. I would also leave a note on the article's talk page.
    1. Not a case of removing a large chunk of text, but rather changing dates..., but this is how I handled [1], on the Moktar Ould Daddah article.
  4. If the case is more complicated, or I am just totally unfamiliar with the topic, I will seek third opinions and perhaps place a {{Template:POV}} at the top of the article.
    1. Not a minor celebrity, but an organization... But, this is how I handled the case of an anon. deleting the entire article, Sabeel and replacing it with something totally different.
  5. If the removed passage is truly libelous (e.g. John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy), and I can't verify it myself, I would leave the passage out and seek comments or third-opinion from an admin.
  6. Finally, this is all hypothetical and I handle each case on it's own merits. There's no one particular way to handle everything, so the above are just some general principles that I follow. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. A stub with just a link probably is Vanity and spam, and most likely merits speedy deletion. It wasn't a brand new page, but a similar example... A few months ago, I came across the article, OpenInfo and OpenGCL which was clearly non-notable and vanity. I listed it on AFD, and the article's creator indeed got nasty and rude. I just kept pointing that I wasn't being indiscriminate, but was following the policies, which I explained and referred them to. In the case of OpenInfo, I was supported by other editors. If it was just me against him/her, I might post notice on ANI. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aude&oldid=1082476290"