Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Shirahadasha

Final: (51/2/3); ended 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) - Let me first say that I know Shira in real life and in fact knew the user before knowing he was a Wikipedia editor. Independent of knowing who Shira was, I found the user to be reasonable and helpful. The user had slight issues understanding some policies and guidelines when first coming to Wikipedia but since then has progressed remarkably. Shira's edits have mainly focused on topics related to Judaism, especially those that concern Modern Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism. See for example Shira's work on Conservative Halakha. Shira has also helped maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism since Crzrussian retired. Shira has not just been involved in Judaism related topics but has also assisted in math and science articles such Pareidolia as well as a variety of other topics. Shira also has an extensive history of AfDs, often making well-thought comments. Good examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamebiz 2. The user is open-minded and more than willing to change opinion when new evidence is presented such as here Shira had an earlier request for adminship last January which did not succeed. Since then Shira has been patiently plugging away as always, making many useful helpful edits. It is time we give Shira the mop. JoshuaZ 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I thank JoshuaZ very much for his gracious introduction. As an administrator, I will do my best to keep cool, be fair, but protect the encyclopedia when necessary, as fairly and as politely as I can. I've been involved in the project for more than a year, have about 6,000 edits, and will do my best to earn, keep, and deserve your trust. --Shirahadasha 02:49, 12 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I hope to help vandal-fighting. The rollback tool, protecting-and semi-protecting, and the ability to block when necessary (after due warning and discussion), would be very helpful. I would like to help with page moves, CSD, PROD, and AfD closures requiring administrator intervention. I also plan to help with the administrative backlog including addressing copyright issues, BLP violations, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I started out with articles on Jewish feminism and Role of women in Judaism. I've helped create several Jewish-related articles, such as Maaser Ani and Partnership minyan, and have made contributions to a number of other articles including Yoruba religion, Pareidolia, Bible, Tom Bombadil, W. Edwards Deming, and others. I've made occassional contributions to discussions in a number of policy areas including WP:NPOV, WP:A, and WP:POVFORK, including a couple of contributions to the policies, and have participated in various AfDs, RfDs, etc.
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: I've been asked to help defuse a number of conflicts, including a recent one involving the Jewish reactions to intelligent design article. I've also tried to provide assistance with a light touch in my work with the WP:AMA, for example the this AMA case. See also the Mami Wata edit dispute. I've been personally involved in a number of edit conflicts, including various discussions involving different approaches by religiously-oriented editors and members of WikiProject Biblical Criticism. I try to stay cool and admit my mistakes when I am wrong.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I generally believe that rules impose a burden on people and should only be there when needed. Nonetheless, ignoring rules has a downside, so it should be applied only in limited situations. If I disagree with a rule, and I sometimes have, I believe everyone would be better off if we toned down or just got rid of the rule, as I argued regarding guidelines for editing ones own comments in this discussion on talk page guidelines, and at this RfC discussion in the Cow tipping article. I believe it's particularly important to avoid rules that risk hampering natural human instincts and behavior, like the desire to correct mistakes or engage in occassional humor, that help people feel the ease and well-being necessary to be sociable. I believe, however, an injudicious use of IAR can be particularly problematic in discussions whenever there are even conceivably two sides to an issue, even if lopsided. If the minority doesn't feel they have an opportunity to be heard, it makes it harder for them to accept a decision against them as legitimate; this can stress our mutual sociability. IAR is appropriate to remove purely procedural obstacles to genuinely unanimous decisions as in SNOW. To this end, I thought this argument regarding the AMA MfD was particularly unhelpful given that proponents of deletion were associating the organization with Wikilawyering to prevent decision-making. Even if an "incorrect venue" or similar argument could have been made, it just wasn't helpful to the Project or our interests. I generally believe that discussions and decisions should be based on substance, people should have an opportunity to he heard fairly, and then decisions should be made and abided by. I support rules that achieve these ends, but too much attachment to pure technicalities can prevent us from achieving anything. --Shirahadasha 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support John254 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. JoshuaZ 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Active in all spaces on Wikipedia; XfD and policy-related contributions; user Talk edits high and have clarity and concision; mainspace edits also of high quality and all have edit summaries too. No serious objections or problems here. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - looks fine to me. Good edits and clear edit summaries where required most. - Alison☺ 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Shirahadasha has been helpful to me on wiki in the past. I'm surprised it's a "he" rather than a "she", and now I'm trying to figure out it I know anyone whose first name is Joshua and last name begins with Z...Shirahadasha has had a few disagreements with User:IZAK, but doesn't look the worse for it on closer examination. A particularly instructive example of his thought process on AFDs is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber. I want to oppose just because I don't like his views on Jewish feminism, but I know that's not allowed, and overall he's a strong asset for Wikipedia. YechielMan 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Experienced and trustworthy editor. utcursch | talk 06:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, trusted and good user. Terence 08:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support not likely to abuse the tools, good candidate. —Anas talk? 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I acknowledge Amarkov's concern but the summary in question seemed like a general FYI to not just the anon but anyone else who happens to see it. Anynobody 09:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per sufficient experience. Addhoc 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per last time. Very experienced, trustworthy, and less interested in red tape than the average RfA candidate. Well done. Grandmasterka 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support excellent, trustworthy candidate. --Dweller 10:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rama's Arrow (talk • contribs).
  15. Improved from last time. Good luck. -- Y not? 13:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - A very excellent Editor with vast amounts of experience and he can be trusted with the tools...--Cometstyles 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - will make a fine admin. Crum375 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - I have encountered this user a couple of times, as we are both AMA members and have met at AfD as well. This user is civil, helpful and knowledgeable. So although I currently support every RfA (as adminship is no big deal), I would support this user even if my standards were higher. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support: Little has changed since the last RfA. :-) Heimstern Läufer 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support: User seems very civil and has good contributions. Could be a fine asset as an admin.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - A great candidate who has good experience, good contributions and who seems to be fair and civil. Camaron1 | Chris 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Trusted user who understands policy. -- Jreferee 19:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good user all the way. Virtual Cowboy 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. 'Support Excellent editor, excellent nominator. Xoloz 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per all the other supports. Acalamari 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - Good editor, will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support A good user, editor, (and hopefully soon administator). Captain panda 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Naconkantari 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I see no reason to suspect abuse or misuse of administrator tools, and thus I see no reason to refrain from offering my full support. Ninja! 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 04:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support--MONGO 08:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. With pleasure. Grace Note 10:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. I support this applicant's request for adminship. He has a good range of edits across a variety of Wiki parts - both pre-admin style duties and mainspace.--VS talk 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. support. Why not? --Masterbobo 13:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Good editor. Beit Or 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Very good editor. Good luck and enjoy! Gidonb 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Gets my vote --Rayis 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support (again) - she deserves the mop. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support again. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Clearly ready for responsible use of the extra buttons. Support somewhat weakened by relatively narrow scope of articles (users like this one are needed in all areas, that's why). —AldeBaer 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I actually wanted to oppose, but if Y, Jayjg, Humus, Gidonb and just about everyone else approves, I'll fall in line. Support! Some more explanation, as requested by others. I think that Shira does still have a problem with NPOV. On Orthodox Judaism-related topics, she writes as if several things which are only commonplace in the most modern and left-wing circles of Modern Orthodox Judaism are in fact very normal and accepted practice in the entire Orthodox world, when this is not the case. However, I myself am also guilty of this - but from the opposite point of view. This makes me doubt on whether or not to support her RfA. I have decided to support anyway, since other Orthodox Jewish editors (including admins) who know her better support it. --Bear and Dragon 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Closing Bureaucrat, take note of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (5th). Best, --Shirahadasha 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Definitely ready, and will handle the tools well. Good luck! Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Good editor. --Carioca 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Good community skills, feast of knowledge & collaboration. Knows the project well enough to use the tools. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. support good editor. Have seen some potentially touchy interactions in the past, and the candidate handled them all well. --Bachrach44 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per aeropagitica. -- LeCourT:C 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. I am satisfied that concerns raised during last RfA have been addressed. WjBscribe 01:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - After scanning through the contribs, I am sure Shirahadasha will be an asset to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, improved since last RfA, no problem supporting.--Wizardman 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. I do not see any problems. -Mschel 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Little has changed since the last RfA.--R613vlu 12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I really like this editor, but she's not ready yet. I'd be honoured to nominate her when she is ready.--Runcorn 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'd like to support, but edit summaries like this leave a lot to be desired. And you didn't warn the person on their talk page, which you should have. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is not that bad. It is basically a merge between WP:NOT and WP:NOR :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    True, but civility is important enough that I'd probably oppose if it were "that bad". -Amarkov moo! 03:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Note that sine it was a couple hours after that edit, the person behind the IP probably never would've gotten the warning. Just my two cents.--Wizardman 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agree it would have been better to have left a comment on the user's talk page. --Shirahadasha 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Almost no indication of experience with images, categories or templates. Says he'll work on other things as admin and seems nice enough so I'm not going to oppose over it. Haukur 10:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Looks to be a suitable candidate, but I would prefer to see an endorsement from a WikiProject before supporting. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Shirahadasha is already part of a Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Why are you saying that? Acalamari 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kelly Martin is posting a "neutral" position on every RfA nominee (unless she's opposing) unless the nominee has been officially endorsed by a Wikiproject. Since at the moment there is no mechanism for any Wikiproject to endorse anyone, some people believe this is a problematic position, but that's the explanation. See User talk:Kelly Martin for related discussion. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Don't worry, I am aware of the discussion there (no disrespect intended). Acalamari 22:49, 13 April 2007 (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.