Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Katefan0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Katefan0

Final (66/2/0) ending 17:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0 (talk · contribs) - I don't know Katefan0 well, but I do know that s/he keeps showing up everywhere, and always seems to keep a wonderfully reasonable presence. This user has been here since November 2004, and with more than 5200 edits, Kate's tool seems to be a fan of Katefan0. I only learned that Katefan0 was not an admin when in the course of discussing WoW vandalism s/he mentioned wanting to help, but not having all the tools. Let's fix that. Incidentally, Katefan0 is also a reporter. While not really a reason to promote, I think it is great that members of the press should involve themselves with writing for Wikipedia. One final bit of full disclosure, Katefan0 is one of several users initiating arbitration against Rangerdude (talk · contribs) claiming abusive behavior, but I don't see that as a reason to delay this nom. Dragons flight 17:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly accept and thank Dragons flight for such kind words. Oh, and it's she. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Dragons flight 17:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Is this where I say "I thought he/she was an admin already"? — JIP| Talk 17:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, I thought she was one too! ~~ N (t/c) 17:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support - (same cliche - thought she was one). Guettarda 17:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Absoblimminlutely, for all the reasons stated above. KeithD (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely. You finally got her to accept? Great at working out conflicts (Oh, and she is part of the Dmcdevit cabal). Dmcdevit·t 17:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support 'thought he/she was an admin. :)'

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  8. Support Overdue, strong support! Rx StrangeLove 18:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support without a second thought. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 18:50
  11. Support. Yet another overdue candidate (there've been loads lately). Rje 19:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Meets my guidelines. android79 19:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Andre (talk) 20:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  14. [[subst:cliche]] Acetic'Acid 22:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Yeah. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Meelar (talk) 02:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  17. I give this user the go-ahead.  Denelson83  03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Katefan0 seems to be all over the place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support --AllyUnion (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support the wub "?/!" 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support!! You didn't tell me you were up for a vote! Bad Kate....baaad Kate. --Woohookitty 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. --Canderson7 11:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support Friday (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - She is great at keeping her cool and helping to reach consensus in difficult situations. Both the quality and quantity of her work here is excellent. As a matter of openness, please note that I am a party to the arbitration concerning Rangerdude. Johntex 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. An excellent editor. -Willmcw 18:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. I have only a good experience with her. She will be a great addition to the admins-team. - Darwinek 18:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Good edit count, has experience in several namespaces, and is a deletionist to boot! :-) --Idont Havaname 20:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    It's nice to know that I have the support of both Willmcw and his sockpuppet. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Jaxl | talk 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strong support Stewart Adcock 20:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. El_C 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support Lack of edit summeries is annoying though Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  34. This looks like a Support to me, long live Texas. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Kate's a great editor, responsible, reasonable, lots of common sense, cares about sticking to policy and using good sources. She's exactly the kind of admin we need. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. --NormanEinstein 20:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support, but only if Katefan0 agrees to join the cabal. --Phroziac (talk) 20:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Sure, why not? I get a toaster right? · Katefan0(scribble) 20:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Remember, there is no cabal. Hall Monitor 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. -feydey 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support - mature, tactful and coolheaded in disputes. The JPS 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  43. Definitely.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  23:37:54, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  44. Support, K1Bond007 02:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. What a pleasant person. kmccoy (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. I'm just piling on the votes here, but Katefan0 deserves them.-gadfium 09:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support - Too many users lately where I (and many others) thought they were an admin. Ral315 13:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 16:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. I don't know this user, but I like his/her answers to the questions below. Zoe 18:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support an excellent user. If this is as gadfium says just a pile-on, it's one of the few I'm happy to add to. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Katefan has exemplary patience with troublesome users. A model for us all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support Because every time I see someone so well endorsed by the WikiCommunity, and even if I don't know them, I know that they are doing something right. Molotov (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support Without reservation. Marskell 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support Thought, admin, etc. Aquillion 03:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support, with the usual cliche. Katefan0 has shown a remarkable degree of patience in dealing with some of our more vexatious editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support. Fire Star 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  58. Ruairidi 02:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support. Shauri (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support I've watched from the sidelines and have observed Katefan0 conduct herself w/ diplomacy and level-headedness on several article disputes. I think she will make a great admin. maltmomma 19:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support- would make a great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Double, triple my-God-you-didn't-tell-me-you-were-up-for-a-vote Support. Katefan0 has shown herself to be a level-headed, calm person, even in heated disputes. Hermione1980 00:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support. JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support We need more female admins and I say this with utmost respect. Too much testosterone in WP, IMO. Strong support. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support Way, way, overdue for adminship. -JCarriker 02:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - way to partisan and political for adminship. She's civil most of the time and makes good contributions, but also seems to have difficulty in recognizing her own strong political biases. This editor is also very sensitive to criticism of or disagreements with her biases and views in content disputes, frequently taking them personally and responding in a hostile manner. This concerns me as I fear she would use her admin powers, perhaps even inadvertantly, to promote her POV or retaliate against those who differ from it.
    Also in the interest of full disclosure, several things should be noted about the arbitration request against myself in which Katefan is a party. This arbitration request was a retaliatory complaint by its primary initiator, User:Willmcw after I filed a request for arbitration against him here some three days prior. Katefan0 quickly joined Willmcw in this retaliatory request. A simple review of her "case" there is indicative of why she is unfit to be an administrator as she cites the very fact that I filed procedural and dispute resolution proceedings such as RfC's - all within my rights under the rules of Wikipedia - as her main "reason" for seeking arbitration against me, largely because she personally disagrees with the positions I took or advocated in those proceedings. Indeed, the majority of her diffs cited in the complaint she posted here are cases where I simply disputed her position on something or differed with her personal position in an RfC, VfD, or article content discussion. In each and every case she demonstrates an inability to tolerate viewpoints that differ from her own, dismissing them not on issues of merit or content but for the very reason that somebody else challenges what she personally thinks should be the outcome. In other points of complaint against me in the arbitration Katefan0 attempts to make issue about everything from the fact that I made reversions during content disputes well within the limits of 3RR, filed procedural motions to dispute adminship actions that I thought were wrong, and that I even dared to participate as a commentator or voter in other VfD's, VfU's, RfC's etc! Many of these complaints could very reasonably be construed as an attempt by her to limit the participation of other wikipedia editors to open content features of the forum if and when they differ from her personal position on one or more issues.
    Given this experience I fear strongly that Katefan0 would be prone to using admin powers such as page protect and blocking to suppress or control dissent from her own POV in disputes where she is either an involved party or a vocal participant. Rangerdude 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    I am not going to use this space to argue my RFAr, nor am I going to rehash old disputes. But if any editor is concerned about Rangerdude's comments, I will be glad to answer their specific questions. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Your contributions to Texas Rangers Division are copyright violations. I don't want that kind of behavior from an admin. Belkis 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    That is a most troubling assertion—could you indicate which contributions by Katefan0 were coypright violations? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    I believe Belkis is mistaken. I do see copying, for example this language added by SaltyPig (talk · contribs): [1] shows up here [2] (look for "after the Barrow Gang", middle of the page). However, I also think the flow of causality is wrong. There are also key phrases in [3] that showed up in the original July 2004 submission by Rlvaughn (talk · contribs): [4]. I note that it is unlikely that all of these users decided to copy from that website. What's more, it appears that document has a July 2005 date on it (bottom of my second link). Since all of the duplicated material seems to have been written before that, I would conclude that they copied the Wikipedia article without citation. (To be fair there are substantial sections and images that do not appear to come from us). Dragons flight 16:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Should that be the case, I'll apologize and withdraw my opposition, but the evidence was incriminating to say the least. The fact that the Legends of America page has a more complete and well illustrated page with a better storyline still strikes the contributions made by a couple of users as suspicious tho. The webmaster of Legends of America should be contacted to assert the truth behind this issue. Belkis 16:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Most of the information on Bonnie and Clyde in that article was added by User:SaltyPig. He seemed quite knowledgeable about the subject and I had no reason to suspect his addition. Certainly there are pieces of information that may have been paraphrased from the site (which is listed as a source reference at the bottom of the page), but there was nothing that I personally copied wholesale. Thanks for your diligence, though, Belkis; you certainly seem to know your way around here for someone so new. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    What reference are you referring to? SaltyPig did add reference material, but nothing pointing to http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ which is the copyvio site in question. Dragons flight 17:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was a little unclear -- Belkis also removed the entire section on Bonnie and Clyde and in the edit summary said it was because it was a copyvio. I think we're referring to two separate sections; Bonnie & Clyde (I have no idea if this is true or not, I haven't checked), and then the history section which he's saying was a copyvio from this www.legendsofamerica.com site. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    I would also add that the Texas Rangers material on that site is mentioned during a discussion of new content in an August 2005 newsletter: [5], which supports the July 2005 date on the page itself and the conclusion that they took content from us rather than the reverse. Dragons flight 17:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    My apologies to Katefan0 for taking up so much space here, but if anyone needs more convincing, their article on Yellowstone, apparently created at the same time, also copies substantially from us: [6]. Dragons flight 17:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Not at all, I very much appreciate your kind attention! I of course was a little taken aback at such a serious charge and would not have had time to defend myself in this manner until the vote was nearly closed. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm currently working on the Texas Rangers article, and I'd like to point out that the "more complete" text at http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ is nothing but a careless collection of copvios from both our article and the Handbook of Texas' entry on the Texas Rangers, to the point that they even transcripted a few (very) minor mistakes from us without notice. The images they use are also easy to come by on a Google search. The only thing I see here is that someone stole from Katefan0 and other users, not the other way around. I wouldn't take this seriously. Shauri (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I want to say that I plan to follow up with the LegendsOfAmerica website people. Dragons flight 23:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this information. I had no way to know it. I withdraw my opposition, and I sincerely apologize to Katefan0 for the trouble and personal stress I might have caused her. Belkis 11:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. No harm done on my end and maybe legendsofamerica will start crediting Wikipedia. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • You give new meaning to the term 'Be Bold!' with your answers below. :) Acetic'Acid 01:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
I know the idea here is that adminship should be no big deal, but I personally think it is. Not because it imbues a user with significantly greater powers, but because putting "I am an administrator" on your userpage sends a message. This is particularly important with more casual users, who will naturally feel that an admin is someone they can trust as impartial and turn to for guidance to steer them in the right direction. So those can be large shoes to fill. As an admin, I would want to be the sort of person a user can look to for help. I also would anticipate continuing to do vandalism patrol as I do now, as well as helping with VfD closures. Also, I think WP:VIP and WP:RFP sometimes don't get patrolled enough. Or at least, from an outsider's perspective, requests there don't get answered very quickly even if they're acted upon, and in those situations waiting to hear an admin response can be very frustrating. I would anticipate being a presence on those pages, which seem to need extra attention. I'm open to helping with other tasks as well, generally believing that the most important job is the one that needs doing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I have done quite a lot of work expanding and tweaking the article on Katharine Hepburn. While not quite satisfactory, I'm very proud of the way it's shaped up and will be pursuing a FAC nomination on it soon. I'm also proud of Texas Ranger Division, which I expanded greatly, as well as articles I wrote to help complete WP's coverage of the most recent freshman class of the U.S. Congress (Mike Conaway, Lynn Westmoreland, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mike Sodrel, Dan Lungren, Randy Kuhl, John Salazar, Gwen Moore).
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?
One of the overlooked portions of WP's dispute resolution system, I feel, is WP:RFC, so I've tried to be active there when I can. I have actively participated in several conflicts listed on WP:RFC hoping to help broker a consensus between warring users, and as a result have gotten into several content disputes, most of which have ended on a good note. I would particularly point to Clay Aiken, which is finally stable after months of hit and run edit warring over the pop culture speculation that he's gay, Perverted-Justice.com which is also now relatively stable (thanks to several other users, I should add), and GreenFacts, which I helped adhere to NPOV. Others have not been so successful, primarily Price-Anderson Act, which is currently undergoing mediation. And, as Dragons flight mentioned, there is the matter of my current RFAr with User:Rangerdude, which initially began with my responding to an RFC on Jim Robinson but has spilled over into other articles about which we have a mutual interest. If anyone is concerned about this RFAr I'm more than happy to answer their questions. In terms of how I deal with conflict, generally I find that adhering to (and reminding people about) WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and related policies helps calm things greatly. And I always, always try to be polite. If wikistress ever feels like too much, I generally go back to writing articles or expanding things I'm interested in until I feel levelheaded again.