Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Miniapolis: Difference between revisions

Miniapolis

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/1/3); Scheduled to end 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Miniapolis (talk · contribs) – It is a big pleasure to present this adminship nomination of Miniapolis. She created her account on May 21, 2007 and from there, she has amassed an incredible 27 consecutive months of active editing, earning her more than 12,000 edits (7,500 of them to mainspace), as well as several user rights to enhance her mission to improve the encyclopedia. I first met her a while ago when I put together the courage to participate in a GOCE Copyedit drive, and since then, I have only been impressed by her always helpful character, her attitude and dedication to the project. With her incredible copyediting work, I am sure she understands all the notability policies and, focused on content administrative work, she will become one of our brightest administrators. Today, in this current need of new admin blood, I consider that Miniapolis would be a very fine addition to the admin corps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. Miniapolis 02:30, 5 February 2013 (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'd like to pitch in in a number of areas, wherever I'd be needed the most. At first I'd tread carefully, and branch out after gaining some experience with the mop. My strong suit is probably dispute resolution; my interpersonal skills are decent, and I don't rattle easily. I'd probably start with ANI and backlog work (especially AFD and RFPP), stretching my comfort zone from there. Although I guess most admins tend to specialize in particular areas, I'd like to learn them all first.

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

A: Copyediting is my forté; I've had fun with the Guild of Copy Editors for the past couple of years and also participate in WikiProject Wikify and several other WikiProjects. Although I admire the content creators, I'm better at improving existing articles than creating new ones. However, I've created two short articles on lesser-known horse breeds (Spanish-Norman horse and Baise horse) and hope to improve them as I find reliable sources. It's very satisfying to take an article needing a lot of work (with the maintenance tags to prove it) and bring it closer to encyclopedia quality, regardless of subject. Recently I've been copyediting more articles from the GOCE requests page, and it's nice to contribute to an article that's up for GA or FA.

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've been fortunate in not encountering any major conflicts so far, and only a few minor ones. While it can bruise the ego when our contributions don't seem as valuable to others as they do to ourselves, it helps to assume good faith and remember that the vast majority of editors are here to improve the encyclopedia (even when they do things differently than we would). Once or twice I've had to take a deep breath, walk away and have a nice cup of tea; when I return, the conflict has always shrunk. I contribute to RFCs as a subscriber to the Feedback Request Service; as a (usually) uninvolved editor I may not have as much expertise in a particular field as the editor(s) requesting comments, but try to base my comments on policy and guidelines. Life is too short for edit-warring.

Additional question from MJ94

4. Why do you think you'll make a good administrator?

A: I have good judgment, a cool head and a good grasp of WP policies and guidelines. In addition, while I certainly wouldn't be available for many hours on end every day, I'm fortunate in that my personal circumstances allow me to "pop in" several times most days. Although the prevailing atmosphere on WP is collegial, I wouldn't shy away from the tough stuff (blocks and mediation).

Additional question from Go Phightins!

5. Thanks for expressing interest in becoming an administrator. Though I don't believe we've directly interacted, I have seen you around and admire your tact. I do, however, have a concern regarding your interest in closing AFDs which you can read in its entirety in the oppose section. Hahc21 thought it might be a good idea to ask you a question about it, so I thought I would.
a.) Would you define yourself as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or somewhere in between? In other words, what's your philosophy regarding what should be included in Wikipedia?
b.) What is your opinion on "super voting" (when an AFD closer uses their vote as a "super vote" to override consensus)? Are there any scenarios in which you think it could have merit and would you ever employ such a practice?
c.) And lastly, how would you have voted in this AfD? Assuming you didn't vote, how would you have closed it?
Thanks in advance.

A: Thanks, Phightins; the points in your oppose are well-taken (although I hope to change your mind :-)).
a) I believe that Wikipedia is large enough for a vast number of articles—within reason. I'm well-versed in WP:NOT, which (unfortunately) leans me slightly towards deletionism. I say "unfortunately" because there are a number of WP articles which are promotional, sourced entirely by self-published sources or not sourced at all. While I agree that WP is a work in progress and there's no deadline, I don't think that articles with no reasonable expectation of meeting WP:N and WP:V belong in any encyclopedia.
b) I'm not sure what you mean by "super voting" in this context. AFD discussions are just that: discussions, not polls. Therefore, an admin should determine consensus by giving more weight to policy- and guideline-based votes than those of the ILIKEIT variety (even if the ILIKEIT votes are more numerous).
c) In this AFD, the presence of RS for the conspiracy theories would force me to hold my nose and vote "keep". I think Sandstein's closing remarks, distinguishing WP:RS on the one hand from WP:DUE on the other without giving either greater importance, were very good and I agree with their decision. When in doubt, keep for now (which may make me an inclusionist after all :-)).

Additional question from Dennis Brown

6. A scenario: You are patrolling for AFDs to close one day as admin, and come across one with 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes, all are more or less average and reasonable votes. It happens to be a topic you are very familiar with but have no conflict of interest, and your gut and experience tells you that it is a notable topic, even if a bit difficult to source. How would you close it? Or would you just walk away or do something else?

A: Although we all edit WP on a volunteer basis, walking away and doing something else is a bad habit to get into (unless you're WP:INVOLVED, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Seven votes total seems low for a no-consensus after just a week; I'd relist it (probably only once) in the hope for more input.

If I may ask a follow up, what if the AFD had already been relisted twice? Go Phightins! 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't prolong the agony, but would close as no consensus. Miniapolis 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Marcus Qwertyus

7. Why did you become active from Nov. 2010? Have you ever gone on an extended wikibreak?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support As nominator. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Good editor; Came across a bit while in the background, no main reason to oppose or concerns just the lack of editing in the beginning. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, John; when I opened my account, I was still just a WP reader :-). Miniapolis 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Recently came across this editor in an article RFC; she displayed exemplary character and calmness, willingness to discuss and answer questions (actually past the point of IDHT on the part of the other party). Seems to have a good grasp of policy. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Miniapolis displays great qualities; Wikipedia would be lucky to have her as an administrator. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Looks like the oppose(s) have a to-do list for you. No qualms here, Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Support: Miniapolis's interpersonal skills are a lot more than just "decent", and I'm particularly glad that she is willing to spend time helping at ANI, where such skills and maturity are sorely needed. Easy support. --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Good editor, no concerns about suitability for adminship. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
8. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
9. Support I have never crossed roads with Miniapolis, but I am aware that she is a very kind user (a must for an admin, I might say) and judging her contributions, I think that she'll make a good use of the tools. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Indeed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Support A trustworthy editor that is obviously a net positive to the project. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Support Miniapolis is a great editor, and I have absolutely no reason to think she wouldn't use the tools responsibly. I'm proud to be casting my first RfA vote in support of her. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
13. Don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
14. Support I am familiar with the user's work with the GOCE. They are a capable editor with clue, able and willing to learn. -- Dianna (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
15. Stephen 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
16. Support as I see no reason not to. Regarding the reasons given for opposing this request, I find nothing wrong with the quality of Mini's edits in administrative areas, even if my colleagues take issue with the quantity of those edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
17. No reason not to. Miniapolis would likely do a great job. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
18. Support As per Someguy1221 and the user has been editing regularly since November 2010.There absolutely no reason to think or suggest that she wouldn't use the tools responsibly.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
19. Yeah, no concerns here, and she sounds very nice. AfD experience looks perfectly sufficient to me. Swarm ^X 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
20. Support, pretty strongly, based on Miniapolis clearly being an intelligent and calm contributor with buckets of common sense, lots of great content work, and a clear understanding of how this collegial project works. Do I need to see more action in the AfD arena? With some candidates, I would, but not with Miniapolis - clear common sense (supported by pretty good answers to questions) is plenty for me. Miniapolis strikes me as someone who will be cautious, and is not going to be doing anything contentious without careful deliberation and without seeking help from colleagues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
21. Support As per Boing Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - She expresses an interest in working at AFD, but she only has participated in 22 AFDs, never performed an NAC, and has voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time. In the last 2 months, she's only participated in 4 and voted with consensus only twice. I don't like opposing good candidates for adminship, but for someone who expresses an interest in closing AFDs, I need to see more experience in that area. I am open to changing my vote, but for now, I must oppose. Go Phightins! 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Given how users doing NACs have been recently treated, I won't consider that "never performed an NAC" could apply. I was very active performing NACs, and everybody knows what happened (I am not challenging your oppose though) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   I only brought it up because it could have been an alternate way in which I would find experience in AFDs. I know that NACs are controversial, but it was just an alternate way I could at least see participation in AFDs. Go Phightins! 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I know. Another way may be asking the candidate some questions about AFD and assess her answers :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Excellent work as an editor, but insufficient experience in discussions relating to administrative tasks, as explained by the caveats stated by the first two neutral opinions. I suggest obtaining more relevant experience and applying again in a few months. I do recommends doing some NACs; the difficulties experienced by some people have been because of a considerable series of erratic and unjustified closes, & I would hope to see otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Sorry, but simply not enough experience at AfD for someone who really wants to work there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Just not enough admin area experience, as DGG says. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - When confronted with articles at AfD that end up getting kept, they've !voted delete more often than they've !voted keep. They've demonstrated poor judgement at AfD, and yet list working on the "backlog" at AfD as something they intend to do. (And are apparently unfamiliar enough with the process to be unaware AfD doesn't have a backlog. Perhaps they meant CfD, RfD, FfD, or MfD?) WilyD 10:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Lack of experience, fluffy nomination and statements, and concerns over prose and maturity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - lack of experience in certain areas. Among first areas to get involved she mentioned ANI and AfD, but 23 AfD votes is quite limited amount, and as far as I can see she has never edited/commented on ANI up to now. Also she doesn't seem to have been involved in any prolonged discussions on article talk pages, highest number of talk page edits are 11 and 7 but these weren't proper discussions, and the rest are all 5 and below. On other hand, I fully approve her copy editing contributions and find it unlikely that she would cause serious problems as admin. So neutral it is.--Staberinde (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now. Unquestionably a great editor, but not all great editors make great admin, and vice versa as well. The answer I was hoping for "I would have found a better source and !voted to keep". In this case you would have a definite opinion on the subject matter, thus risking your close becoming a supervote, something that causes unnecessary drama should be avoided. Having the admin bit shouldn't prevent you from participating in AFDs, after all. That alone won't stop me from supporting, although I think that if you get the bit, I would suggest you participate in at least 100 AFDs and get your ratio above 80% before closing any AFDs. What has me on the fence isn't trustworthiness, it is experience under fire, and I don't see you participating in the very areas you say you want to participate in. As someone who has done a great deal of work at ANI and AFD, I have to admit that makes me a little nervous as those are two areas where a discussion can quickly devolve into a drama-fest. You will get abuse and insults thrown at you at those two venues when you are an admin, and you have to be able to brush it off, or at least know when to just walk away. And you need to realize that walking away isn't a dereliction of duty, it is the exercise of wisdom. I can't determine if you can or can not do this, due to a lack of experience in those very venues. We are all human, we all have emotions, and refusing to walk away when they get the best of you will only cause problems for everyone involved. Additionally, the lack of any long term discussions on article talk pages makes it difficult to determine what kind of demeanor you would have in a heated content situation. I will try to poke around some tomorrow, and perhaps find some information. If you have any diffs to that effect, that would be helpful. Right now, I'm torn. Unquestionably, you want to do good things and have the best of intentions. I don't question this. I just can't yet determine if you can take the heat, and with the lack of experience in so many areas, you will make mistakes and get some heat directed your way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   Here are a few recent threads from an RFC on Talk:List of pantheists#Carl Sagan. Miniapolis 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

   Personally, I always try to avoid asking questions where I hope for a specific answer - I tend to find I'm usually disappointed if I do, but that's generally because we all have different lines of thought and we rarely come up with the same answer first time. I thought your hoped-for answer and Miniapolis's answer were both good, and I expect Miniapolis would agree that your hoped-for answer is good too. (And I think another good answer would have been "I wouldn't close that one.") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I am nervous to support a candidate to work in areas that they lack experience in, especially technical areas like ANI and AfD (A discussion can turn from a debate to a drama fest in seconds). I'm definitely not going to oppose a candidate for these reasons though. I 100% agree with what Dennis has stated above. -- Cheers, Riley 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)