Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmky87

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

[edit] Rmky87

Final (2/9/6); Ended 23:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rmky87 (talk • contribs) – Rmky87 is a great, dedicated editor, and exactly the sort of person we need as an administrator. Over the past few months, she has identified more copyvios than any other editor I can name; her work with wikification also demonstrates how willing she is to take on imposing backlogs. (Lest I give the impression that she only deals with maintenance work, I should note that she also has very solid writing experience.) With the copyright problems page currently backlogged by over a week, we need more admins who are willing to dig into this kind of work. Rmky87 is already a great asset to the project, and I say we should give her the administrative tools and enable her to help out even more. --Robth^Talk 23:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accepted!

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:

Prod patrol, because we have 78 articles in Category:Proposed deletion as of 7 December 2006. Also speedy-deleting the blatant copyright violations that are now listed under Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I will start with mine, since many of them were listed by me and I know that those are copyvio. I would also like to do other sorts of speedy deletions.

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

A:

Primidone, which is amusingly larger than the valproate semisodium article, even though the latter is much widely used in epilepsy.

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:

Oh yeah. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subrabharathimanian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chayathirai, where I concluded with almost absolute certainty that there are very few people in India who really, truly care about either subject.

General comments

• See Rmky87's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

• Alas, the early comments on this nomination remind me that this page specializes in dealing with people who have been grooming themselves for a candidacy, and that I have brought someone here who had no interest in adminship as a trophy or mark of validation (and thus little interest in touching all the bases that people frequently insist on seeing touched), but a very legitimate and important use for the tools. As I said in the nomination statement, we need help dealing with copyvios, and Rmky87 has demonstrated that she can provide that help. Please consider that this may outweigh such issues as the popular-out-of-all-proportion-to-its-significance edit summary metric. --Robth^Talk 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think your comments do a disservice to contributors in these discussions. Yes, I can see that some criteria might be suspended when someone is nominated for specialist admin work. But for someone who will deal primarily with copyvios it seems very odd that there is no obvious use of the {{Nothanks-sd}} tag being used on TalkPages in her contribs. Many copyright violations are by new users, and by warning them clearly future violations may be avoided. Furthermore the original copyright material can potentially become the basis of a good referenced article (with the original copyright versions of the page then being deleted). The fact that her first response to your suggestion that she become an admin [1] was to ask if this would entitle her to delete article without bothering with the WP:CSD process only hightens concerns that her approach in the task of dealing with copyvios would be heavy-handed to say the least.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Although use of the {{nothanks-web}} (or whichever) tag is good, it must be noted that Rmky87 ususaly deals with days-or-more old pages created by users who edited only that page; actually reaching the user is the longest of long-shots. I believe you have misread her response to my question; she was asking for confirmation that sysops are indeed permitted to speedy copyvios they discover (which they are). If my comments seemed dismissive of other contributors here, I apologize. --Robth^Talk 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support Your heart is in the right place. Sharkface217 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, of course. The concerns raised below don't really resonate with me. Frequent updates to the wikification template is an odd habit, perhaps, but not indicative of anything problematic. The answers to the questions get the point across--not overly verbose, but you don't need to be to do a good job with the work that really needs doing around this project. --Robth^Talk 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my interactions with the user around the Wikification project. Rmky87 insists on updating the Wikification progress template with a great frequency (over 1400 edits to the template in about 3 months) that is unexplainable. Some of these updates are to update that one article has dropped from the total in the last 5 minutes. See relevant discussion here (granted I tried to prove a point a little following the response). But this was after other discussion about it User_talk:Rmky87#Updates. I am also concerned by the incredibly low edit summary usage. The 3rd answer also concerns me in that it doesn't really answer what the user does during conflict other than try really hard to prove her point. Metros232 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   What I did was manage not to stoop to the level of mere insults, even when Bruno posted this clone of the oldest version of the erstwhile Chayathirai article as proof of Subrabharathimanian's alleged notability. And managed to sarcastically thank him for accidentally giving me Subrabharathimanian's name in the original Tamil script (how on Earth was I supposed to look him up in that language without that?). I even managed to avoid foul language (which I admit to using regularly outloud). Does that clear things up?--Rmky87 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose at least for now. The answers to the questions are definitely not sufficient. And edit summary usage is only 40% for major edits and 26 for minor ones. TSO1D 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   What would you like to have seen?--Rmky87 03:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   I would have like to have seen more complete answers. I mean simply saying that you will take care of speedy deletions in two areas seems a bit inadequate. Please look at other candidates' responses to see what a more thorough response would look like. TSO1D 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Not only are edit summaries woefully low but a glance through Rmky87's contribs suggests she uses them primary to disparage other users eg. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Any of these summaries by themselves wouldn't be a big deal but taken together and being the primary use of edit summaries is concerning. That and the fact that she does not seem to place warnings on users' talk pages about copy violations, which would allow the copyright work to be rewritten as a valid article, reveals an apparent disinterest in WikiEtiquette. I don't think so heavy-handed a user would make a good admin, sorry. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per incivil attitude in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subrabharathimanian. Not the kind of attitude one would expect from a candidate for adminship.--Jersey Devil 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I had no idea that anyone wanted me for that until very, very recently.--Rmky87 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per concerns about civility (or lack thereof) and vapid answers. While succinctness is appreciated, completeness is better desired, especially from a candidate for adminship. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Per incivility concerns. --Danaman5 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - absolutely not. Tagged good faith, sourced information (with refs!) as vandalism and possible copyvio with no proof here and made no attempt to discuss this with the author. Over-zealotry like that isn't needed. pschemp | talk 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose as per pschemp. We do not delete things as "possible copyvio". By that rationale, all of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Nobody knows where it came from! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I am not talking about possible copyvio; I'm talking about things that I know for a fact are copyvio.--Rmky87 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose per pschemp and incivility concerns pointed out by others. Nishkid64 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, but may reconsider. An incredible number of contributions, but having read the answers above and this discussion on the nominee's talk page, it seems that the nominee isn't really ready for adminship or have a real need for the tools (other than the copyright issues, and even on that her knowledge of policy isn't entirely clear). Agent 86 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

   "Other than the copyright issues" rather understates the importance of the fact that she is willing to work on that area; it's one of our most chronically undermanned areas we have. --Robth^Talk 04:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral as per Agent 86. Good contributions but answers to questions leave me concerned. Another area of concern is low edit-summary usage. Canadian-Bacon 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Recommending withdrawl. --WinHunter ^(talk) 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral From a quick review of your contributions, you appear to be a good editor and contributor. The reason for my neutral stance is that you can improve your standing here rapidly with a couple of simple changes. Firstly, set your edit summaries as compulsory in your preferences, available at the top right-hand side of your screen. Secondly, hold in your mind the fact that everything you contribute here is available to an audience of millions - not just today but years hence. Edit summaries and comments are almost carved in granite. I think that it was Machiavelli who said; "Make your words as sweet as honey in order that you will have something pleasant to eat when you have to swallow them". I know that I mentally cringe when I read some heat-of-the-moment e-mails in my Drafts folder - who wants to receive nasty, vindictive, cynical character assassinations? Walk away from the screen or do something else before you hit 'save page', as it can make a tremendous difference. Much better to point out the strengths of any particular person/edit/action and constructively point out how it could be made even better - at bit like this process, don't you think? You might do well to withdraw this RfA and work on these points before reapplying in three-or-four months' time. Regards, (aeropagitica) 14:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
   • • Is it just me or is it easier to change Skin preferences? Anyway, I set it to remind when I'm leaving a blank edit summary.--Rmky87 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, looks like a good editor but certain issues does not allow me to support this RFA. Suggest withdrawal. Terence Ong 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral, issues in this RfA are troubling. I suggest you take Terence Ong's advice and withdraw this RfA. --SonicChao ^talk 17:23, 16 December 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.