Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crystallina

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Crystallina

FINAL (4/7/2) Ended 00:12, 2006-08-18 (UTC)

Crystallina (talk • contribs) – Crystallina is probably one of the most obsessed people I know. She has over 20,000 edits, of which some are reverting vandalism, but she takes part in stub sorting and deletion discussions. I think she should be trusted with the tools. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. never mind, this is pointless. Crystallina 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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: As the nomination states, I've done a bit of reverting of vandalism. I don't like vandalism; it only feeds the flames of those people intent on criticizing Wikipedia and limits its use as a valid reference. Reverting vandalism is something that needs to be done constantly or else the whole system falls apart. Recent changes patrolling is good, but things still fall through. (I've seen pages that've gone unnoticed for hours, even days. The worst was an offensive edit to the Help:Minor edit page that went unnoticed for about half an hour - considering it's a help page that's one link away from every edit, that's not good.) Having the ability to roll back pages will make this a much easier and less cumbersome process. Having the ability to block vandals would help stop the more persistent ones, which I've seen and dealt with from time to time. A warning template can only do so much.

This is a side note, but I'm a regular poster on a few message boards which unfortunately contain a few users who find Wikipedia vandalism amusing. Whenever someone makes a thread about said vandalism and I'm around to see it, I go revert it immediately. One day I'll get through to people that vandalism = bad.

In addition to vandalism, I've been rather active in nominating articles for deletion through WP:AfD, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and WP:CSD. (Not as much WP:SFD, but I should probably start.) Almost every time I've checked the speedy category, there's a bit of a backlog, proposed deletion always has a large backlog, and AfD just gets immense every single day. If made an administrator I'd spend a fair amount of time deleting and/or closing articles and debates here as needed. In particular, speedy deletion is one category that needs to be monitored often, because they seem to be more prone to blanking, reversion, and people not using the hangon tag. Crystallina 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My article creations and major contributions are listed on my user page. In particular, I'm proud of my contributions to the Sarah Brightman article; I took it from a bare-bones, unreferenced and simplistic article to something better (and sourced). There's definitely a lot of work to be done and a lot to be added, and my goal is eventually to get it to Good Article or Featured status. What needs to be done now is to find print sources, and I'm working on this - I've tracked down a pretty lengthy magazine interview from Hello! Magazine, and all I need is to buy the back issue, read it, and work it into the article. There are many, many more print sources that I've yet to dig up, but I'm persistent. I guess you could call this my "pet project" here.

I'm active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Currently it's still in a rebirth process, but I've created articles for several prominent (and admittedly some more obscure) musicals and actors - two of these are Allegro (musical) - a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical that went from nothing to better than average for musicals with my help - and Caroline, or Change - a multiple Tony winner from 2004 which nevertheless didn't have an article for two years.

Finally, as is clear from my edits, I do a lot of stub sorting. Very much a lot. I've sorted thousands of stub articles and created several stub templates and categories for several formerly oversized stub categories. I feel this project important because it helps bring order and attention to articles which might otherwise fall through the cracks. While sorting I try to do minor cleanup to the articles as well- adding birth and death categories, wikifying, fixing grammar and spelling mistakes, and such. There's still plenty of it to be done - upwards of 35,000 articles in oversized categories - and I'll help as long as it's needed, which is probably as long as Wikipedia exists. Crystallina 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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 don't recall being in any serious debates or conflicts with Wikipedia editors, although there have certainly been edits and decisions that I haven't agreed with. I've gotten involved with a few discussions - I wouldn't go so far to call them arguments - and I usually try to calmly state my points, because people are more inclined to listen to the comments of someone rational than a ranting, angry fanatic. If I do happen to become stressed about a certain development, I'll just log off the site and return to the discussion in question when I'm less likely to say something I shouldn't. Crystallina 18:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Crystallina's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count as of 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's temporary tool Joe 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Nominator support Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Qualified support pending the time to diligently search this out. I must believe that a user with 24,000 edits can be trusted with the mop, regardless of talk page edits. :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. I've seen a lot of work from Crystallina over at WPSS and it's all very good work, and that overrides my concerns about lack of talk page edits to a reasonable extent. BUT you really need to up those talk page edits! If, as seems likely at the moment, this Rfa fails, an increase in interaction on talk pages would make adminship very likely on a future nomination. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support.Sango125 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Abominably low levels of talk abnd usertalk edits. An admin needs to have the experience of interacting with the community, not 20+K edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Unrelated to my reasons for opposing, the nomination is too short, to the point of rudeness. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2. I reiterate the lack of talk edits. For someone with over 23000 edits to have less than 300 edits on ALL categories of talk page is disturbing. Especially if this user is a vandal fighter. Shouldn't there be a slew of warning posted on user pages? Sorry but i would have to see this user interacting more with others to be able to determine if they are suitable for an admin role. Another issue is that almost all the edited pages are distinct. Is this because of the users contributions to stub sorting? Crystallina mentions that "I've gotten involved with a few discussions". Are there any diffs for these discussion, they would be useful to see how this user interacts with others? - David D. (Talk) 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, most of them are because of that. For those discussions, one of them is the ongoing debate about when and whether to classify a singer as one that uses whistle register; it's on my talk. The other one was a long time ago and had to do with gender categorization of singer articles. Crystallina 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Do you have a link to the second discussion? Also, your nominator mentions deletion discussions, do you have any particular examples that stand out? David D. (Talk) 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I do; it's archived here. For deletion discussions, most of my work there is actually nominating articles for deletion. Most of them are fairly standard cut-and-dried deletion candidates, so I wouldn't say any stand out in particular although I can provide samples. An example of a keep vote would be the AfD for Andrew Plotkin. Crystallina 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   i have reviewed your comments and they look very good, although you did not really enter into debate with others. Themindset made a good point below when s/he wrote "I think I would suggest the nom withdraw and focus on some article building and direct user interaction. I will support on re-app once this is done. " I think you should take this advice seriously. You clearly have a lot of potential but as yet you have probably not gained enough relevant interaction to pass this RfA. i think there are admin coaches who are happy to give advice to help you build experience in the areas of editing you currently lack. Please don't take this oppose vote personally since you're clearly doing a good job and working well. You just need a little more breadth and interaction. Initially i'd suggest get involved in more article editing rather than maintainece. It will not take long before you have to start defending edits and negotiating consensus. This will give you the experience you currently seem to lack. David D. (Talk) 22:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose For someone with around 24,000 edits to have only 103 user talk edits is absolutely ridiculous. You need to interact a little more within the Wikipedia community and post more on user talk pages. Also, a big part of adminship is dealing with vandals, which apparently, you have very limited experience with. Wikipediarules2221 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per David D. Rama's arrow 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose inasmuch as I'm unable to discern whether the candidate is sufficiently well-versed in policy as to be unlikely to misuse (avolitionally) the admin tools (or is able to know whereof, vis-à-vis policy, she does not know), even as I am confident in her ability to act deliberatively and civilly (per [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my guidelines). I share CrzRussian's concerns with respect to the nomination; I imagine the candidate ought not to have accepted such a terse nomination—and, ideally, not to have accepted a nomination from this nominator, of whom I think highly but who has of late, of course, been involved in such situations as to lead some editors to question his judgment (I make no normative assessment of the nominator; I mean only to make an objective observation about that which has happened in the community). Joe 20:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Fails two of my criteria, namely article and user talk edits. As mentioned above, the sheer total of edits in ratio to talk edits is disturbing. Acting in consultation is very important, and I would suggest the nom withdraw and focus on some article building and direct user interaction. I will support on re-app once this is done. Themindset 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Nominated has withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Blows my criteria out of the water. No charges of incivility. But, per CrazyRussian, there is so little inter-editor communication. I can't oppose this nomination but can not support it either, sorry. Ifnord 20:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I am a little concerned that the candidate talks about thwarting vandalism and working on Afd's but if I look at the last 3000 edits or so (basically the last week and a half) I see about 95% stub sorting. I know I have stuck to AfD's recently, perhaps just currently focused on this, or if I look through 3000 more am I going to see the same thing?DrunkenSmurf 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'll be honest with you; stub sorting is a large proportion of what I do. Of course, this is because those are quick and easy-to-find edits. I can spend half an hour and only find, say, two or three articles I feel are worth deleting; I can spend the same time and sort 30-60 articles. I'll also be honest and say that I do not consider reverting of vandalism something I do persistently at the moment; this is both because others are much faster than I am (about 33% of the time, I try to edit it, go to history to add a talk template, and find out someone got there first) and because I just need to do more. Crystallina 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps that is part of the disconnect editors are having then. They see a tremendous amount of total edits and a correspondingly small amount of talk edits and can't figure out why that would be. Based on your comments above, I would assume (please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken) that the majority of your total edits are stub-sorting and it is hard to filter out how much other stuff (vandal fighting, XfD work etc) you have done to get a feel for whether or not you have the experience in these different areas to be an admin. Hence I remain neutral. Please don't take this as me telling you you shouldn't stub sort or that it is not a valuable thing to be doing, hoepfully you see my larger point.DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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.