Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Calliopejen1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Calliopejen1

Ended (45/2/1); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) - I've participated in many adminship debates and have even nominated myself once... or twice... or three times... but I don't think I've ever nominated anyone else. Well, that will change now. This user has over 10,000 edits and nearly 2 years of experience as a registered user - check User:Calliopejen1 and User:Calliopejen. Why do I think she would make a good admin? Well, she is not only a good article editor, but she has also shown a familiarity with the behind-the-scenes work by working on image tagging issues, fighting vandals, getting involved in discussions, etc. In addition, she has always remained civil during all disputes she has been involved in, and overall I think she would make a great admin. ugen64 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept. Calliopejen1 07:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to do mostly image deletion and clean-up. I think it is important for wikipedia to be a repository of free content, so I have done a lot of work tagging copyrighted images for deletion where appropriate. Often, copyvio images are not processed very quickly, leading them to sit around for quite some time after I have tagged them. (Obviously, I am not talking about the mandatory waiting periods for no-source and other questionable items.) I would like to help monitor the deletion categories to make sure offending images and articles are deleted quickly, as well as to be able to delete offending images on sight as I encounter them.
I could see myself doing other admin tasks from time to time if I gain more experience in the relevant areas. I'm not a big recent changes/VP person, though I do correct vandalism and warn vandals from time to time. I imagine that I might occasionally block vandalizing users that I notice through my watchlist.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A lot of what I do is gnome work. I love the random button, which allows me to do drive-by editing to pages that need work or a new perspective (either from a non-specialist or a non-PR person...). It also lets me check out pages that may not get attention from other editors, especially for pages that need to be to prodded or sent to afd, and to find pages with nonfree media policy violations. I also make a bunch of random articles if a topic catches my eye and I want to learn more (e.g. Cuzco School, coon song, Shardha Ram Phillauri).
Otherwise, I have contributed a lot to wikipedia's fashion coverage, which is still pretty undeveloped. I started the fashion wikiproject and did an overhaul of Category:Fashion. Since it is very hard to find free image content for high fashion articles (fashion shows aren't exactly public), often I create articles (like Rochas and Gareth Pugh) to house the images I do find. I also monitor model articles to make sure nonfree images stay out of their pages.
In general, I am proud of my media-related contributions. I have recently discovered the WP:MCQ page, and I often respond to other users' queries there. I have uploaded many free images from flickr and the LOC, including two[1][2] that became featured pictures (after retouching and reuploading by others).
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: Much of my editing is on uncontroversial topics, or is on topics (like fashion) with few editors; obviously, here I don't encounter many problems. (Except the odd case... see Talk:Jordache, for instance.) Sometimes I do step into more controversial topics, however. Right after the whole Monica Goodling/President Bush controversy, I worked a lot on the Regent University page. Several national columnists pointed out connections between the super-conservative religious school and hiring in the Bush administration, and (predictably) partisans from both sides were editing the article a lot. After a lot of discussion, we hammered out a good compromise that has stayed basically intact from mid-April until now. I have also been involved in editing the Women and Islam and Islam and domestic violence articles. There I have learned that it's amazing how efficiently most disputes can be resolved, if you just insist on reliable sources and NPOV.
In general, I just try to be civil and explain myself and my motives politely. Yesterday, I had a minor conflict with User:NYScholar--see [3] and following diffs--which I think is fairly representative of my approach. After he starting replacing what I felt were innocuous reminders with {{NPA}} warnings, I got a bit frustrated, but with a bit of explaining things were fine again. I use the same approach when dealing with users whose images I have nominated for deletion. Sometimes people are quite upset with me, but normally it is because they don't understand wikipedia policies. I find that if I am patient and clear (but firm), I have few problems.
4. Your edit summary usage is very low, at 40% for major edits. Would you consider using edit summaries more often and/or enabling your preferences to be notified when you fail to use an edit summary? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
First, a question: Is the mathbot tool the most accurate one? According to the wannabe_kate one, it looks more like 70% or 80% to me over the last four months, and I don't think I've significantly changed my habits... I would definitely consider it if other editors (you) think it's necessary, but I think generally I use edit summaries where it is not clear what I am doing/why I am doing it, and don't when it is... Hence the sporadic use one editor noted. I think many or most of my unsummarized edits are when I'm doing a huge string of edits in a row to one article and don't see the need to summarize each one, when I am tagging things for clean-up, when I am adding to talk pages, or similar. (I don't use the minor edit checkbox because I find it too hard to decide what's minor, and I don't want to be accused of trying to hide things...) I am best about using edit summaries when I think other editors will question what I am doing, like when I am editing the controversial women and Islam articles, so I would definitely plan to use edit summaries when I am acting in an admin capacity.
Wannabe Kate counts the automatic edit summaries too, and those are not useful at all in deciding what an editor's intention was.
It is important that you use the preview button and always explain your edits, since what is clear to you may not be clear to others. I would strongly recommend you change a bit your editing habits so that others have an easier time following with what you are doing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Also it saves time for those watching the article if they don't have to click the diff to find out what's changed. Espresso Addict 08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay, you've convinced me... :) I've changed my preferences and I'll try to be better from here on out. Calliopejen1 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
Optional. Answer to #6 was thorough enough, esp. given the circumstances. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
I'm travelling in northern Thailand right now so I don't have easy access to internet or much time to answer so I'll have to keep this brief and research-less. One article I have recently come across that I think was incorrectly kept was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (3rd nomination). Many of the keep votes were ILIKEIT votes, and editors seemed to be misunderstanding the funciton of subpages. If there are certain things not important enough to go on the main page, then they should go on a themed subpage, but certainly not one named "trivia," which attracts cruft. Most of the well-reasoned votes were "merge," but the closing admin decided on keep, and the article exists today in the same embarrassing form it did a couple months ago. (As in, there are X number of stations that don't include the letters of this animal's name... I tried to delete earlier this citing policy, and now see it has been readded, which I think is inevitable in an article titled "trivia.") If I were the closing admin I would have either left a stern box at the top of the article saying that there had been a debate that had resolved to merge the info, or else it was subject to later deletion (I've seen these around somewhere but would have to ask just where to find it...) or would have redirected the article and pasted its contents (or most of its contents) onto the London Underground talk page so that editors could incorporate it constructively.
Another that I did weigh in on recently against the (then-existing) sea of deletes, was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Clancey, where other editors were suggesting that since it was somewhat promotional in tone it should have been scrapped. (" I know a news release when I see one," "reads more like news or an advert") This argument suggests clean-up, not deletion, when the article subject is notable. The article was ultimately kept after going through the references mentioned in the article and a tone clean-up. You can look at my comments there. Calliopejen1 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. Have fund in Thailand. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
7. How did you lose your password? Just wondering as I've never had that problem. —freak(talk) 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I knew it was not allowed, when I was very busy during school I told one of my best friends to log on as me and change my password so that I couldn't waste time. Then he forgot what he changed it to, so I had to start over... I've learned my lesson and won't do that again! Calliopejen1 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Next time try Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer! -- But|seriously|folks  04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Calliopejen1 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom. ugen64 13:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Appears seriously committed to the project, very productive and we desperately need more admins working on images (especially admins with calm demeanors). -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - I've met this editor numerous times. Great editor, civil and considerate. Knows the rules. No issues here at all! - Alison ☺ 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Looking at this user's contribution history and talk page history indicates that she contributes to some articles that tend to be fairly contentious, and has received some talk page comments from others that I consider to be less than civil. I am impressed with the fact that rather than lashing back at the editors who left those inappropriate comments, she responded very well and I believe that she has the necessary attitude and demeanor that an administrator would need to handle the firestorm that such a role entails. I'm less impressed with her lack of edit summaries on many of her edits and hope that that she recognizes their importance and increases their use in the future, but for me, the lack of edit summaries is by far offset by her being cool under fire. Neil916 (Talk) 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - experience in all the right areas. Good candidate. Lradrama 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I dig those who work with images. Keep it free, right? the_undertow talk 08:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Good when I've seen her around, & I don't share Neutral No.1's concern that she won't use the tools - I'm sure she'll find plenty to do. Johnbod 12:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Has strong commitment to making only useful edits and great attitude in discussions. I would expect this user to make only good use of sysop tools. CitiCat ♫ 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support 1) Despite your response to Q3 I see you working in potentialy contentious areas so kudos for that as it has demonstrated... 2) Excellent civility in your interactions. Also 3) A good well rounded and original set of answers to the mandatory questions and 4) Work throughput is just great (you know we don't get paid for this, yeah ? :). I am a bit confused on edit summary use though. Sometimes you write a really detailed rational and other times nothing. Perhaps you can turn on the prompt to remind you, as I think summaries will become more important as an admin. It's a minor niggle amongst a sea of excellent contributions however. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per Pedro. That really covered all the bases. J-stan Talk 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I would like to see more work in administrator-related functions, but it's not such a big deal to me that I won't support. Trusilver 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - All because of your experience and exceptional contributions.. Good Luck..--Cometstyles 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Lucky thirteen again? I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - No apparent problems. I disagree with Anthony's comments; there's no problem with someone gaining the admin tools "for them to sit rusting". Less active admins don't harm the project; anyone who is both trustworthy and experienced can be given the admin tools, IMO. WaltonOne 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong support fine user. Acalamari 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Very experienced editor (looking back over the contribs of your prior user names to 2005), whith strong knowledge of images (my primary reason for supporting), and special focus on areas less frequented by other editors. Hiberniantears 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Does need to use more edit summaries, especially when tagging images. Garion96 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support trustworthy and reliable candidate. —Anas talk? 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Strong contribution history, good understanding of policy, can handle conflict very well from what I can see. Wikipedia needs more admins with image experience—and willingness to use that experience :) I am ever so slightly put off by the edit summary usage, but I could never in good conscience oppose on such grounds; I know I've forgotten to provide them (and use Preview :P) my fair share of times. Best of luck! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Support Yeah, I concur! Mindman1 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    — Mindman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ Wikihermit 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    Vote struck as by indef blocked SPA/Vandal LessHeard vanU 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. The sort of candidate we need more of. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support She is a very good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Doesn't seem to be any cause for concern here. Carom 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. per nom. @pple 09:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support per nom--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Sure, why not? Jmlk17 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, yo. Thanks for enabling the edit summary message! Giggy UCP 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Looks fine.--MONGO 20:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Good nomination. Calliopejen is an encyclopedia-builder first, which is the point. --Aranae 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per nom. Peacent 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support 4 out of 5 wookies approve ~ Infrangible 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support People seem to like Callio, and from what I've seen Callio does deserve Adminship. Deliciously Saucy 21:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support We need people like Calliopejen .Lot of edits. Harlowraman 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Need good edits, and it's time to give him the mop. Politics rule 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support See no evidence will abuse the tools. Davewild 21:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see User:A.Z./Imagine. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Calliopejen1's merits: I just think no merits are required) A.Z. 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support: I was impressed by the way she did a cleanup job on Women and Islam. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support: Clearly understanding of and thoughtful about deletion policy; and per much of the above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. WjBscribe 08:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - Level headed and easy going. Additionally, she is trustworthy and is unlikely to abuse the tools. - Jreferee (Talk) 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support.Lustead 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support enthusiasm and thoughtfulness, I hope you manage them both well. Modernist 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support - I'm voting for support. Obliviously a great editor. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Lots of useful encyclopedic contributions, but I'm worried about a lack of consensus building per eg splitting gluten sensitivity (see talk page) & deleting list in female genital cutting [4] (see user talk), both apparently without prior discussion. Also the edit summaries issue; not so much not using them, as not fully understanding their importance. Espresso Addict 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm missing something, but it's not clear from your links why he ought to have expected these edits to be controversial. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    In the first case, s/he unilaterally split the article while others were working to construct it; in the second s/he cut a large chunk of text from a highly controversial article. Both edits proved contentious; neither were debated in advance. In neither case do I think his/her actions wrong, per se, but I'm worried about what making major edits to pages s/he's not previously edited without any form of prior consensus building says about his/her abilities to build consensus during admin work. Espresso Addict 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that an edit proves contentious doesn't mean that it ought not to have been made without discussion; e.g. WP:BRD. I still find it odd that you would expect him to have talked about those edits beforehand, but you are welcome to your view. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Since I was the person editing the page at the time, I should probably weigh in here. The idea of the split was not a bad idea at all, the problem was that the split was made with virtually no thought regarding the title or where it would best occur, and the work of link subtopics to sections in that page was given as a suggestion. Seems to me a little sophmoric to make such drastic change without putting in the work of adding summary and appropriate linkes. I did actually split the page up and I hope to get a couple more subpages eventually as more material gets pulled together. But at that moment I was moving material around between sections and one section completely disappeared. Then a few minutes later a link was provided. I know that this happens when one is editing, but my opinion was that this editor should have looked at the page history, first. This person as an administrator is premature, based on my interaction. I have worked on many pages and interacted with many people but never had such a negative experience with coeditors.Pdeitiker 16:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    A defense of this gluten sensitivity splicing. The article beforehand was hugely long (93k for a disease that non-specialists would likely want a general overview of), and I didn't see the need to have the entire 26k section on conditions secondary to GSE in the main article. I did leave the appropriate links, and I did the change all in one edit, not in two as Pdeitiker described. (See diff.) I followed standard wikipedia summary style of leaving a short summary, as well as a link to the main article. Pdeitiker writes that the whole secton "completely disappeared," but the link to the main article was right there at the top of the section, the standard location for such a link. Also, I did think about where the split should occur--this was the longest section of the article, and it was already somewhat summarized by the paragraph at the beginning of the section. I called it "Conditions secondary to gluten-sensitive enteropathy", which seemed reasonable considering that it was an article spliced from the section "Conditions Secondary to GSE"... This sort of edit is routine and I have no idea why Pdeitiker took such offense. Calliopejen1 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    The removal of information is justified (at least to me) because its pure trivia and mentions like that do not belong in a serious article of that nature and there is just no way to merge it back to the article tactfully Corpx 05:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Rome was not built in a day. The call for the page was made by people who wanted more information on the differences but were unfamiliar with the overall topic. I did not really want to make that page, but given a growing urban mythology it seemed to be an appropriate time.Pdeitiker 16:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think Corpx was responding to the gluten sensitivity issues, but instead the FGC issues here--he was calling the list of TV shows etc that had mentioned FGC trivial, not your list of conditions. Calliopejen1 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose.See Oppose #1 Pdeitiker 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral – I'm split two ways on this one: one one hand, Calliopejen has many of the attributes required of a sysop: the ability to explain oneself properly [5], often to new users who are a little clueless. However, on the other hand, I'm not seeing much participation in Administrator-related areas (e.g., XfDs, WP:AN/I, WP:AIV, etc...) and I'm a little worried that Calliopejen will gain the tools for them to sit rusting. Nevertheless, we could do with somebody else who has access to the Mop + Bucket, so I'm going to sit Neutral ~ Anthøny (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    "I'm a little worried that Calliopejen will gain the tools for them to sit rusting" - I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that, in itself. It's not really like there are only a limited number of sysop bits to go around. If Calliopejen uses the twiddled bit rarely, but uses it to benefit the project, surely that is a Good Thing? - Alison ☺ 09:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Can that which does not physically exist, experience rust?...Hiberniantears 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm too hesitant to support with the current edit summary usage. Enable the preferences option that reminds you to enter one, and I'll probably support (leave me a talk page note if you like; I'm not watchlisting this). Giggy UCP 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support
    Neutral pending answer to questions 5 and/or 6, at least one of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support.
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.