Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sreed1234

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.
Note user changed her username during the process to Sue Anne (talk · contribs) - Taxman Talk 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sreed1234

[edit]

Final (44/4/2) ended 20:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sreed1234 (talk · contribs) – I first came along Sue Anne while working on Olympic articles. Her contributions were excellent. Apart from article editing, she also became active on other areas of WP, especially tagging images with unknow sources and notifying the users what they did wrong. She is also active on VfD and she got acquainted to the AVB tool. Not to mention that she has amassed more than 5000 edits. As she is a great wikipedian, I think giving her the admin tools would be beneficial to the community. Tone 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. Sue Anne 19:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to co-nominate this editor, since the first time I came across her (recently) I've had many postitive comments from her. Computerjoe's talk 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as the nominator. --Tone 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Strong from the start, if narrow in focus. Still, I believe she has the tools and will use the mop wisely. RadioKirk talk to me 19:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - no problems seen -- Tawker 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Rama's Arrow 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, no problems here. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:00 UTC
  6. Support per nom. DarthVader 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. Kimchi.sg 23:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, thoughtful, well rounded, experienced and polite user. Pass her the mop! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support a committed and balanced editor who I'm confident will become a committed and balanced admin. Bucketsofg✐ 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, great user. Would be even better with the mop. Royboycrashfan 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, no problems here. I hypothesize that she signs as "Sue Anne" because that is her real name, as encouraged on Wikipedia:Username. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Actually, WP:U says: A signature should not be misleading.. But that's not big deal, I recognize that she is a very good contributor, therefore, I remove my neutral vote. Afonso Silva 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SupportJoshuaZ 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No duh! --Primate#101 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support a skillful and good user, respects NPOV, copyright policy.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Ahonc (Talk) 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --Terence Ong 10:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support You deserve this! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ultra Support co-nom.
  24. Support--Jusjih 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support While I agree with Hetar's comment, I can't see how I can vote against someone I think will make a good admin based purely on that. I hope the nominee changes her sig or her username. --eivindt@c 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Without a doubt, an excellent user, will make exceptional admin OSU80 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support This user if promoted will make a great admin ForestH2 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support Per the answer on my questions abakharev 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. --Bhadani 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support.  Grue  17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good answers to the questions and a good (if somewhat narrow) editing record make me trust this editor would be a good admin. Guinnog 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, but I echo what was said by Hetar, and would appreciate it if you'd change your signature. Having a signature totally unrelated to your username can be confusing for anyone, not just new people. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support sounds great to me! —Mets501talk 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - No problems Canderous 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk[reply]
  36. Support. Sarge Baldy 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, great editor. Deizio talk 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support The sig issue is a minor one. Brisvegas 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nominator. --Arnzy (whats up?) 10:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. "Why not?" Support. Per the 38 votes above. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support as for nominator's own word. --Asterion talk to me 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, The Marine is very impressed with her. I'll be looking forward to welcoming you to the Admin. Club. Tony the Marine 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Joe I 13:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Thoughtful answers to questions. FloNight talk 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Myciconia 19:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose: A sig that is different than your actual user name is confusing, especially to newer users. Administrators should have simple and clear signatures which add to the openess and clarity of their actions. --Hetar 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but is that really a reason to oppose? (Not that it makes much different, seeing the way things are going.)--Primate#101 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While it may seem trivial, I think it is indicative of other more serious problems. A good administrator candidate would recognize the confusion that this could create, and would change werf's signature to be more standard. If Sreed1234 (or is it Sue Anne?) does this, I will be happy to change my vote to support. Also, with the harrassment other admins have received in real life from people who tracked them down on Wikipedia, I can't imagine why anyone would want to use even part of their real name. --Hetar 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, this (and the neutral vote for the same reason) is the first that I've heard that it's a problem. I created the account under Sreed1234 as many of my email and other online accounts are the same thing. However, early on I saw that someone used a different name to sign their talk comments vs. their user name. Sue Anne 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Very small number of Talk entries in the Main space (and few for any one article). This suggests either very little experience with compromise and working out differences or unaware that differences can occur. Neither is good for an administrator. Ted 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose don't need more admins. Ardenn 03:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This user has been voting oppose don't need more admins on everyone, I advise a 'crat to take this into consideation when closing RfA -- Tawker 06:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it seems like a perfectly valid (if very much a minority) opinion. --Doc ask? 10:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace suggests a lack of policy knowledge, and also please adopt an unconfusing signature. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per abve --Masssiveego 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - I disagree with users who sign with a completely different name. Understanding such thing can be a challenge to a newcomer, even to older users that can be confusing, I experienced it while reading the nomination. That's not useful. If you don't like your username, apply for a change (you have fewer than 20,000 edits). Perhaps you have a good explanation for your signature, if such reason exists, I may change my stance. Afonso Silva 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - I'm a little concerned about the lack of responses to people with image problems on your talk page. Not super serious, but it seems a little odd. - cohesion 02:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per cohesion. User_talk:Dlohcierekim 06:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have requested, and received, an official name change to Sue Anne. I didn't feel it was appropriate to change my user name on the RfA mid-stream. After the RfA is completed, I will fully transition over to Sue Anne. Sue Anne 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Total edits	7149
Distinct pages edited	3403
Average edits/page	2.101
First edit	19:25, 30 September 2005
	
(main)	5523
Talk	48
User	36
User talk	798
Image	460
Template	27
Template talk	16
Category	18
Wikipedia	186
Wikipedia talk	37

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 primarily see myself working on sysop chores dealing with images. Over the past couple of months, I have tagged several hundred images with appropriate tags or with the "no license" or "no source" tag. Once these have past the 7 day hold, I would like the ability to take these images off Wikipedia and continue the cleanup.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While there isn't a specific page, I would like to point to the overall work that I've done in the Olympics section. One of my downfalls may be that I don't have enough article talk edits, but when you're the only editor working on a set of pages, there isn't a lot of talking that needs to happen. I continue to work on the 2006 Winter Olympics country and sport pages and will eventually make my way back to the 2000 Summer Olympics country and sport pages. In addition, I would like to see articles on all Olympic medalists and have been working on those.
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: There have been a couple of time where other editors have caused me stress. Typically, I will take a step back from the page, project, template, etc. that is causing me the stress and focus on another section of Wikipedia for a day or two. Especially if something is contentious, I will weigh carefully any decision that could be made. I try to make sure that there is true consensus before making major decisions.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always all additional questions are optional.

1 Could you expand on your answer to question 3 above with specific examples/difs if possible?

There have been two times that I remember where there have been major revert wars, usually over a single word. On both of these occasions, I’ve tried to help organize a consensus. The first one would be on the The Apprentice 4 page, where there was a huge squabble over whether the runner-up was “fired” or “not hired” with an escalating edit war. I set up a straw poll to gain consensus [1]. I’m currently working on trying to stop a similar edit war on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [2]. That article has a smaller number of editors, so I’m not sure if we’ll be able to reach a consensus or not.

A couple of months ago, there was a large amount of contention over the organization and structure of the Olympics pages. There were many times where I had to take a deep breath and take several steps back and approach things from a different direction. I try to keep a level head, even when I feel strongly about things, and try to take the project seriously while not taking anything too personally.

2 Your work on Olympics related articles has been excellent. However, you haven't edited many other articles in article space. I see a few for Australian reality shows, but that seems to be it. Could you address concerns that you have edited in a narrow range?

I would agree that a large majority of my edits have been on Olympics-related pages. Additionally, I’ve made edits to articles regarding reality television, including an Australian reality show, and a handful of articles about the LDS church and NASCAR. Regardless of whether the article edits are in a narrow range or a broader range, the skill set is still very much the same. While narrow in range in some ways, the Olympics pages do offer a wide range of activities. I’ve created new pages; created new and used existing templates; and worked on streamlining things with other editors to make pages consistent, etc. One of the trickiest areas of Wikipedia is working on living people biographies, which are a huge part of the work I’ve been doing on Olympics pages. As an admin, I understand and relish the opportunity to work on different areas of Wikipedia that I haven’t explored in the past.

Question from abakharev As always all additional questions are optional.

1 A hypothetical situation. You have found twenty fairuse images without source information. The images had been uploaded by a user who later was banned by ArbCom for one year due to his disruptive behavior. Images seems to be important for twenty articles. Your actions?
First, I would try to see if there was anyway to determine the license for the photos. If that’s not possible, I would list the images on Images for deletion with the tag of AB for Absentee uploader. In the process of adding them to IfD, I would also tag the caption of the image on the article page. This would give anyone watching and interested in the page the opportunity to help find the license for the image or find a replacement image for the article. Sue Anne 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 Another hypothetical situation. Copyright people found that a category of PD images was defined too broadly. It was specified that all images published in the country XX before year 19YY are PD, but really it looks like, the images are PD only if the authors of the image were the citizens of the XX and the image was not reprinted in another country before. There are 2000 images in the category. Your actions?
In the way that you phrased your question, I’m not sure if all 2000 images are automatically no longer public domain or if only a subsection of the 2000 images are no longer public domain.
If all 2000 images are now no longer in the public domain, I would work with AutoWikiBrowser or someone’s bot to retag the 2000 images to immediately remove them from the public domain lists. In the same way that going through the untagged images is a methodical process, each image would need to be looked at to see if it can be retagged as fair use or if it needs to be listed on IfD as a copyright violation. Since the list is so large, I would appeal for help to get the project completed as fast as possible.
If the images needed to be sorted to see if they are still PD or need to have their licensing changed, that again just involves the slow, methodical process of checking each one and proceeding from there. Again, I would try to rally help to get them sorted and retagged. Sue Anne 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 You have found that a popular sysadmin uses fairuse images on his userpage. Your actions?
Whether or not a sysadmin is popular or not doesn’t play into the decision making process for me. If I were to be alerted to, or came across myself, a fair use image on another sysadmin’s page, I would post a message on their talk page with links to the appropriate policies (Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Fair use). If the person didn’t remove the image themselves, I would remove the image from the user namespace. If the person reverted that action, I would post to the Administrator’s noticeboard for other sysadmin feedback on how to proceed. Sue Anne 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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/Sreed1234&oldid=1089038432"