Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clementina

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

The main (and very significant) objection to the candidate's promotion was concerns over the security of the candidate's account. However, it is important to note that the candidate has already taken several measures to prevent the situation much feared by some from happening again. The editors who were feared to access the candidate's account have also promised to never get close to the candidate's computer (which is never shared). Considering the current security of the account as a result of the measures taken (password changed, computer physically isolated etc.), any future breach of the candidate's account is no different from a hacker trying to guess passwords in order to breach the account of an administrator, which can happen to anyone. Therefore, this concern does not stand.

In the future event that this account is really breached by anyone, accidentally or otherwise, the account will per normal procedure be blocked and desysopped by a local bureaucrat and the reinstatement of rights will be determined by bureaucrat(s) or the community, if need be. Chenzw Talk 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the opposition related account security concerns which appear to be resolved, barring that, there is a consensus for promotion. Thank you to all the participants. Jon@talk:~$ 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clementina

Clementina (talk · contribs)

RfA of Clementina

global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

I'm nominating Clementina (formerly Classical Esther) for adminship. I'm not going to make this a long nomination because I firmly believe that her actions and commitment speak very much for themselves. She is a dedicated editor of the mainspace, has begun wikiprojects, taken over a lot of work to do with DYK. She fights strongly against those who wish harm to our project. Has made many reverts, nominations for quick deletions, commented in loads of RFDs, and taken part in countless discussions within the community. Not only do I feel she is a net positive for the community, but I feel she is a complete asset! Please elect her to the role of administrator! fr33k man 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End date: 10:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ended: 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Final: (15/8) (Promoted)

Candidate's acceptance: Thank you very much, Fr33kman, for your very kind nomination! It came as a most delightful surprise to me, and after some thought, I have decided to accept, simply and solely because I believe it shall help me contribute much more to Wikipedia. If the community decides to make me a sysop, I shall do my best to prove I am not ungrateful for its trust. Very sincerely, —Clementina talk 10:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Either way

What steps and/or measures have you taken to ensure that this will never happen again?

That's a very good question, and one not unworthy of concern. :) I am sure it will not happen again, however, as Belinda now edits by a different computer. I have also agreed to some suggestions in the Comments section. —Clementina talk 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kansan

I remember an incident a month or so ago in which Dewflower gained access to either your account or Belinda's. I don't remember which of you it was, so please forgive me. Along the same lines as Either way's question, have you taken any steps to ensure that nothing of that nature will occur? Kansan (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Dewflower ever gained access to my account (as I almost never let her use my computer without my permission). In fact, Dewflower has always have had to get permission from me before she does any editing on Wikipedia after she was blocked for using Wikipedia more along the lines of a social site. As for Belinda, she now edits by a different computer, and she has promised to ask me if she ever has the need to use mine. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cremepuff222

What administrative areas are you planning to participate in, Clementina? --cremepuff222 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would probably use them mainly to fight against vandalism (quickly deleting nonsense pages or blocking obvious vandals, for example) or quieting down drama and disruption, but I would also be very happy to help out in other areas (closing RFDs and GA and VGA proposals, among other things). —Clementina talk 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question from Either way: What exactly do you mean by "quieting down drama"? Can you give examples of when you would use tools for that and what tools you would use to quiet down drama?

Hmm, by stopping drama and disruption I meant warning users who had caused much controversy or edit wars with a full explanation why their edits were harmful to Wikipedia, protecting pages where edit wars are held, doing my best to peacefully solve conflicts, and, if necessary, blocking disruptive users. :) I hope this explains my remark, which might have sounded rather vague. With profound respect, —Clementina talk 03:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Codedon

Why did you change your username two days (June 11) prior to this request? Your sisters also changed their respective usernames recently. Codedon (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No great reason, I assure you. :) I simply got bored of my username (which I had never really liked much, since it was Belinda's idea), and decided to change it. I didn't know or expect that I would have an RFA two days later. Belinda didn't change her name recently; it was actually some time ago. Her reason was pretty simple as well - she just thought then name "Pretty Lydie" sounded a bit vain. User:Mella Mouse decided she wanted a fresh start, so she openly started a new account called Dewflower (which was allowed, as she had been unblocked) and didn't use the old one anymore. She knew she had been immature in the past and wanted to try to be helpful this time. I hope this answers your question. —Clementina talk 03:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of what piece of work are you most proud? Codedon (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think I've done enough to be really proud of, especially compared to many other devoted editors, but I'm pleased with my efforts to clean up and largely expand Mary II of England, Gettysburg Address and Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (you can look at their histories). I'm also very happy to help in DYK, where I've nominated about 16 hooks (and two more hooks I've nominated are being discussed there at the moment :) ). Hmm...I'm also glad about lots of pages I've QD'ed and the amount of vandalism I've reverted. I hope this answers your question. —Clementina talk 08:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from PiRSquared17

Can you explain range blocks? Do you know why they should be used only in extreme cases? π r ² 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A range block is blocking a group of related IP addresses (and registered accounts that change pages from these IP addresses, unless if I choose to block only IPs). Range blocks are usually used to block IP addresses from the same Internet service provider (ISP). To block an IP range, I have to enter the first IP address in the range. Then, I have to put a slash and a CIDR suffix after it. They should only be used in extreme cases because if I do a mistake, I could end up blocking thousands of uninvolved people. So, I know the general theory, but I probably wouldn't be performing range blocks as a sysop (not at first, anyway). And of course, I wouldn't hesitate asking someone else if I was unsure about what to do. —Clementina talk 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Griffinofwales

How will your religious beliefs affect decisions you make? Griffinofwales (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting question, Griffin. :) I am firmly convinced that my faith in Christianity will not hinder anything I do on Wikipedia. I haven't had any major problems or conflicts about it until now, and I don't think I will. I try to keep away from articles I don't agree with, but they're mostly subjects I'm not that great at anyway. I also try not to get involved in religious arguments that I know won't really amount to anything. Trying to create a dispute about the meaning of life on an online encyclopedia isn't going to have much effect. Though I do sincerely wish everyone on Wikipedia would believe in Jesus, I know Wikipedia isn't really the right place to try to evangelize people or push my views; and if a Christian user pushed his POV about Christianity, and this sparked arguments and disruption, I would block the user myself—not only because it is detrimental to Wikipedia, but also because I honestly don't think God would be really pleased with such conduct either. It only dirties His name without doing any good. A good Christian should write a VGA and promote peace instead of getting involved in angry wikidrama. If you have any more concerns, please feel free to ask, and I'll reply to you as honestly as I can. Kind blessings, —Clementina talk 08:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question: Sometimes disputes relating to religion are unavoidable, often you get yourself involved un-intentionally (for example, you are asked by a new user for assistance). Do you think that you would be able to maintain a neutral point of view in the matter, or would you have to send the user on to another user? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply go along with Simple Wikipedia's policies. If a user was trying to push a Christian POV, I would explain why this was wrong and warn the user that (s)he might be blocked. If it was a question about my beliefs, I would ask the user to drop me an email instead, since Wikipedia is not a social website. —Clementina talk 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question: What is your opinion on atheism and on atheists on Wikipedia, and will your relationship with atheists be different from users of your own faith? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand this question correctly (I didn't really understand the first one clearly either), but I've always treated users of different religions on wiki in the same way. I would be blocking users not on the basis of their faith etc., but through their behavior and disruption to Wikipedia. The same goes for articles: sex in itself is not something dirty or evil, and though I might dislike or disagree with some articles relating to them, I don't change them and I wouldn't delete them unless they strictly followed the QD criteria. If appealed to on such cases, I would just point to the policy. And about my using creationist texts...yes, when I first came here, I didn't know the first thing about Wikipedia...but after a few people suggested that they were unreliable, I stopped using them, and I focus on different articles now. I hope this answers your question and clarified my answers above. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Very strong support! fr33k man 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support. Clementina is thoughtful and prudent. She is also very willing to learn and listen to advice and that is something that makes a good sysop. (Edit as of 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC): Either way's comment is very wise. You are a very nice person, perhaps a little too eager to compromise, but I trust you'll use the tools only where you're confident. My support still stands.){{Sonia|talk|en}} 11:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support, Sonia. :) I promise that if I do ever become a sysop, I won't abuse your trust. —Clementina talk 03:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Covers editing the Wikipedia well with article expanding, reverting vandal edits and community input. Not too fussy and accepts advice when it comes to user reviews at T:DYK, WP:PVGA or WP:GA. Doesn't seem like the type concerned with edit count numbers. Nifky^{^} 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Clementina is a very civil and kind user here, who has been very helpful and active in just about every part of this community. She does not hesitate to help other users, and she herself is great at listening to others help and advice. I believe she will greatly help this community if she had the tools. Megan (^t/_c) 12:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Clementina is a very good contributor. She takes part in DYK and Simple Talk, among other things. π r ² 18:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support After looking through all the comments, I have changed to weak support. None of the oppose comments below make me think she isn't ready. With the security changes that have been made, I know the mistakes mentioned above will not happen again. Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - this is one of more active and valuable community members. I have no doubts at all that she will use the extra tools wisely and effectively. I am only disappointed that fr33kman nominated her before I got the chance. She has my complete confidence and support. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Open The Windows, please. 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is not a straight vote, it is more likely a discussion. In the case that you don't give a reason for your comment (!vote), your !vote may not be counted by the closing bureaucrat. -Barras ^talk 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been my understanding that support !votes in RfAs carry an understood "per nom". Perhaps OtW agrees with fr33kman's statement and feels that he has nothing more to add. As such, I don't really believe that his !vote should count "less" than others who perhaps offered a more detailed rationale. Just my two cents. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think a comment such as I go with the nom may be good. I just saw it and felt like commenting. Maybe I switched it with the oppose section... Just ignore me. Best, -Barras ^talk 09:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the security issues don't concern me. Clementina consistently shows a high level of civility and matureness. The project would certainly benefit from Clementina, whatever she plans on using the tools for. --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not worried by the issues brought up. Yottie ^=talk= 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I took a long time to think about this one. I was very concerned about the account security issues, and by the recent improper reporting of vandalism. However, I see that improper reporting has not become a habit, and am impressed by the steps she has taken to secure her account. Kansan (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kansan and fr33kman as well as the fact that you have the confidence of several editors that I trust without hesitation outweighs any doubts that I may harbour about account security. Best of luck, Lauryn Ashby (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Lauryn Purple backpack89 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Codedon (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained earlier, support !votes carry an understood "per nom". Lauryn Ashby (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid editor who appears to know what she's doing. I think she will be capable of remaining neutral and cool in the use of the tools. EhJJ^TALK 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You call a user who added a copyright violation a scant two months ago "know[ing] what she's doing"? Codedon (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose You are a very civil person, as well as a very helpful user in T:TDYK, WP:PGA, WP:PVGA, and WP:RFD. This is all very good no doubt but I have just not seen much vandal fighting from you (especially QD's). In my time here being on simple, I have only seen you QD 2 articles. Now I'm sure you did more, but how much more? We live on different sides of the world so its hard to be on wiki at the same time you are, but the time I am on, I see you working and expanding articles. That certainly isn't bad. But I hardly ever see you revert, nor do I see many user warning messages from you on IP talk pages. This worries me enough to have my opinion at very weak oppose. I'm sorry. But keep at it and do some more vandal fighting and there's no doubt I will give you a strong support in the future. Happy editing, Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through her deleted contributions, I count about 125 where it appears that she tagged the article for deletion going back to when she first joined here. Either way (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)What ^ he said! fr33k man 11:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) (change conflict) Thank you for voicing your concerns so civilly, dear Ian (and thank you Either way and Fr33kman for your comments). :) In fact, ever since I learned about new changes, I'm always looking at it. After I finish expanding one page, I immediately go to new changes and look at it, refreshing it once in a while, and often getting quite bored that nothing new comes up! Whenever I do see vandalism, I always revert it as quickly as I can. If you look at my changes, you might be able to see a lot of warning and reverting. Perhaps I don't do as much as you ;), but I do as much as I can, and I often feel quite impatient when I QD a page when I could just delete it. I hope this answers your concern. I understand if you still don't feel satisfied with my vandal fighting, seeing your great work in that area, but I believe I'm not unfamiliar with vandalism or fixing it. Kindly, —Clementina talk 11:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hard to say which articles have been QD'd by a certain user when they are already deleted and you cannot access the history of the page. With (admin only) she has about two or three pages of deleted QDs with the limit 50 per page. One easy way to find out without being an admin is clicking here and using the javascript filter list to filter edit summaries with the regex string 'quick deletion'. It shows how many of the quick deletion nomination of articles by the user talk links are there. It also shows the vandalism fighting that's been there (it's a shame X!'s automated count tool doesn't work on other projects than simple yet) so you can only manually count the TW edits if you do with the same javascript text filtering tool on the same contribs page in the last link I gave and using the regex string 'reverted' it shows a lot of TW and non-twinkle reverts. Nifky^{^} 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nifky? for the link. I will reconsider. I must apologize (I am not that good with RFA's and what to say). I'll try that link next time before I vote. ;) Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this person is right for this position. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? π r ² 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are account security and socking concerns, which I was trying not to get into. -DJSasso (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clementina was a sockpuppeteer? π r ² 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns that she is, yes. -DJSasso (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me your reason for your oppose, DJSasso. :) I've taken steps before the RFA to keep my account secure (as you can see in my answer to Either way and Kansan's questions above), and Fr33kman has been so kind as to confirm that we are three separate people (for example, Belinda, Dewflower and I have once gone on IRC and talked together at once—something rather hard to do if they were my sockpuppets, even if I had three different computers! ;) ) I hope this answers your concern and if you still don't think you can support me, I understand. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the checkuser who initially raised concerns about sockpuppetry. Along with another CU here and others elsewhere, I initiated an in-depth investigation. At one point I was pretty convined. I then began a systematic review of every edit each account had made, including the timestamps down to the second; they have all made edits at the same time from three different PCs. They each have different interests also. Over time I have become convinced beyond a doubt that Clementina is not a sockpuppeteer. I have also been tag-teamed by all three of them at the same time in IRC, both in the same channel and in multiple channels and PMs all at the same time. A person would need at least 6 pairs of hands and about four brains to pull it off. I also spoke to stewards about all of this and there answer was that it was entirely feasible that three sisters from the same house would edit Wikipedia; siblings often share the same interest in hobbies. The account security concerns are very valid and Clementina will have to convince people that there is no chance of compromise. fr33k man 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually the sisters being the same person I am concerned about. Pretty sure she is one of a banned individual. That being said. I am now really concerned with her reply to Griffen's question. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have proof, then for the good of the project you should give it. fr33k man 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This is something the community should know. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose - Frankly, while Clementina is a great DYK worker, and is good with articles, she doesn't have much in the way of vandalism fighting. With about 200 QDs, only 11 VIP reports, and the issues raised in the questions (if that had happened at enWP, this account could have been blocked), I just have the same feeling Djsasso has. On top of it all, more admins aren't needed (horrible oppose reason, I know :), Adminship isn't about the flag, it's about actually doing something with it, and I don't think Clementina would do much with it. I think it would be better for Clementina to just stick to what she has been doing, which is what really need more of. Not admins, but involved DYK reviewers, article writers, and GA/VGA reviewers. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me your concerns so kindly, Griffinofwales. Even if this RFA doesn't pass, I'll still remember and work on them. :) In fact, on the day this RFA started, I had already seen two pages in the new changes I wanted to delete; today, just before I began writing this reply to you, I was QD'ing a page that I-on QD'd at the same time, and I thought to myself, "If only I had the tools, I could be deleting this right away!" I do think it would help me more quickly keep Wikipedia clean than just QD'ing. Even if I did become a sysop, I'm sure I'd still continue to work on DYK and articles, because I enjoy all of them equally. The other issues I've replied above or below, so I won't tire you with writing down long answers to them. Please don't feel that I'm trying to be pushy: I simply wanted to answer your concern as well as I could. :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at least 145 QD requests shows by itself a use for the tools. Not every admin uses every tool available to them. There are admins who rarely ever quick delete pages, block people, close RFDs etc. That's why we have a team of admins. fr33k man 05:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, IMO, anyone not using the tools should resign them. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to resign individual admin tools. So are you saying that an admin who does not use every single button available to him/her should resign??? fr33k man 00:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. You misunderstood my comment. If you are no longer active as an admin (in any capacity), you should resign as there is no point in you having the tools. This is why we have an inactive admin policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, got ya. I was just demonstrating that it's not needed for admins to use all the tools. Yes, I remember the policy! :P fr33k man 00:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I along with Griffinofwales must place a regretful oppose. The account security issues are big. It isn't just you editing from the your computer. I don't think that would be a problem if we hadn't seen other people editing from your account. I know this was an accident, and I don't think Belinda would ever harm the Wikipedia, but admins accounts need to be very secure. My second reason, I am sure may result in me getting a few bad looks, is that I think you are to nice. Being an extremely nice person is good and bad. It is good in that you are easy to get along and work with, and you don't get frustrated when things don't work out. However, there are also some downsides. As an admin, you many need to make some tough calls, and not all of them will make all users involved happy. I know you don't want anybody mad at you, and that is reasonable, but I feel this may get in the way of making the correct decision when dealing with important admin decisions. You are an asset to this Wikipedia, and whichever way this RFA goes, I wish you the best of luck!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Gordonrox, for your kind comments. :) Be assured, you did not get any bad looks from me about my being too nice. ;) However, I think there's a difference between being kind and being soft. I'm sure I would block even Belinda if it was really necessary, and I certainly wouldn't hesitate because of the fear that it would make that person angry at me. I do like everyone in Wikipedia very much, and I would be sorry to take a tough stance on any of them, but I would do it when I think it justified. I like making people happy, but only when it's justified. The happiness of the whole community—and the quality of the precious knowledge on Wikipedia—is more important than simply the temporary happiness of an individual. The account security concerns I have replied to above, and I have taken steps to ensure will never happen again. Thank you for your thoughtful oppose. Cordially, —Clementina talk 23:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I still have concerns about this account being used, accidentally or otherwise, by someone other than the main account holder which is a big deal for an admin account. I also agree with the points raised by Griffinofwales and Gordonrox24. My concern is that Clementina will not be able to make tough calls, especially if they involve issues that may offend her sensibilities. So, unfortunately I must oppose this highly valued editor. Either way (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must now upgrade to a strong oppose per her reply to Griffinofwales's question. Lines like "I do sincerely wish everyone on Wikipedia would believe in Jesus" make me uncomfortable that she deep down cannot separate her religious views out of her views of others here on Wikipedia. She also says she would block Christian POV pushers, "not only because it is detrimental to Wikipedia, but also because I honestly don't think God would be really pleased with such conduct either. It only dirties His name without doing any good. A good Christian should write a VGA and promote peace instead of getting involved in angry wikidrama." So, she's going to block users because God wouldn't be happy with it and there are better things for Christians to be doing. Again, I think that, despite what she says she cannot keep religion out of her mindset. Either way (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where in our guidelines people with religous beliefs should not be able to become administrators. At least Clementina is open about her views which would make a POV push quite easy to see. And I haven't seen any, she has been very careful in this regard. Do we know what other editors religous views are, does any one know what I believe? Clementina has shown in her editing that this is not a problem and I respect her ability to do the right thing.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She does have tendencies to sway her editing towards a pro-Christian stance, one that is very clear to most regulars here. This includes using creationist textbooks as the references for many of the articles she has expanded. She said in her response to Griffin's question that she will block a POV Christian pusher because "it breaks our rules" and "God would not be pleased." God's feelings have no role on making blocking decisions here on Wikipedia. Period. Yet, she is saying she will block with God in mind. This is not something I personally believe that admins should be doing. Either way (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey, I'm fairly new here, and I wanted to jump right in to this community and get involved. I'm opposing based on the concerns of the people above. Your sisters may find it cool that you are an administrator, so they might want to try out some actions. Despite what you've done to try to prevent this, I'm still unsure. I'm also opposing based on a recent edit of yours. Maybe I'm not looking at it right, but that IP did not vandalize. That doesn't demonstrate competence. Other than that, I've seen your expansion of many articles, and I praise you for that. Great article work! Codedon (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (crat/admin note) - User has less than 100 edits to this project. Nifky^{^} 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter as long as they were around prior to the start of the Rfa. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Codedon. That VIP report was entirely a copy-paste mistake of mine. I had meant to report 217.108.17.197, and I guess I copied the wrong IP address number from the New Changes. I'm very sorry for that, and I understand why you feel I might not be competent (but while I might do another copy-paste mistake, I don't think I would have mistakenly blocked that IP). Anyway, welcome, and I hope you have fun here. :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 01:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Codedon, I see the second concern was already explained by Clementina. :p It made me laugh to imagine that I would try out some actions because I found my sister's tools "cool", which was probably something I might do if I was more young. But I really don't even want to be an admin myself, and I assure you I would just let her have them freely all for herself. :) My goal in wikipedia isn't becoming an admin, a crat, or even a checkuser. I just want to continue being a random user all my life on this website, trying to make people happy and comforting all the people who feel dejected. So, well, I think you misunderstood me slightly. I'm glad that you want to get involved with the community, and it's a pity you're blocked in enwiki. I know how you feel about that ;), and I gave you a welcome anyway. Well, have a nice time around here, I hope I could explain your first concern. Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 09:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your intentions, Belle. I trust that you will not try to gain access to your sister's account, although I'm still uncertain about your other sister. Codedon (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard from Dewflower, and seeing that she's only nine, I'm concerned. Codedon (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't frequently edit. Kansan (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, 217.108.17.197 never received a final warning. Had you copy-and-pasted the correct IP, your report would still have been faulty. Besides the concerns I have outlined above, I share the concern of your being too nice. You may not be able to make calls when you want to be nice. Even if you muster up the courage to block a vandal, I can imagine you appending the block template with a trite valediction like "kindly", "cordially", "sincerely", or "warm blessings for you" as you do in nearly all your posts. It would be very out of place and could be construed as passive-aggressiveness. Codedon (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must humbly disagree with the last comment. :) If I were that nice, I would hardly be able to "muster up the courage" to warn vandals without giving them "trite valedictions". If it was a regular good faith contributor who was blocked (for example, PiRSquared17), I would give him/her a fuller explanation and be kinder in my block message, perhaps, but not persistent vandals. —Clementina talk 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that I've seen: two days ago you moved Shakalabbits to Shaka Labbits with the move rationale "per enwiki". The page was later deleted for not establishing notability. You assume that all articles on en.wiki are perfect. Of course that's not the truth. The en.wiki article should be deleted as well for being non-notable. Codedon (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That move was her being an editor and it made sense frankly!! It had nothing to do with admin functions. fr33k man 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, one should check for notability before moving a page to its correct name. Codedon (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The determination of notability is for a community to decide, not a single editor. She moved the page to be inline with enwiki's naming of it. If the community then decides later on to delete the page, it does not affect the validity of her move. fr33k man 22:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, I oppose for four reasons: 1) This is a POV-pusher because she would block others because "I honestly don't think God would be really pleased with such conduct". Furthermore, she wrote, "...It only dirties His name without doing any good. A good Christian should write a VGA and promote peace instead of getting involved in angry wikidrama". 2) The candidate added a copyright violation (see User talk:Classical Esther/Archive 7#Tsunami) to Wikipedia a scant two months ago. 3) The candidate made a faulty report at VIP. (see diff above) 4) The candidate's account is unsecure. Codedon (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per concerns above. --Mercy (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previously mentioned concerns. Since the Poetlister and Mantanmoreland farces over at EN, it's hard to assume good faith in such circumstances Soup Dish (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not en. fr33k man 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to go with the other oppositions. My greatest worry is, the problem with the account could be used by anyone else exempt you. We elect here only one person and not Belinda or other people. The thing that is claimed somewhere above, that all three (you, Belinda and the other one) were online at one time on IRC is quiet easy to do. Even I with a very limited computer knowledge am able to go on IRC with 3 different nicks by using 3 different IRC clients. It's mainly the security issue that worries me. Also I agree especially with Either way's comments above made about the religious fact. (Not that I'm against religious people, but he is in my opinion right with his comment.) Keep up your good work at the (V)GA and DYK pages! -Barras ^talk 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are we stating here that if a person lives in the same house as another wikipedian they can never be an admin? Clementina has done everything possible to secure her account from her two sisters inclkuding agreeing to log out if she leaves her PC (and it is her PC, not a shared one) for even a toilet trip!! fr33k man 22:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the link in Either way's(?) question where Belinda said she was in the wrong account. The problem is, that Clementina may is ready for adminship, but the other two not. And if the 'trip to toilette' is urgent, the last think I'd do is to log out from somewhere... Sorry, but this is something I can't support. -Barras ^talk 11:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't say anything about toilet trips. Why are you putting words in her mouth? You are not the candidate. Codedon (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barras is responding to fr33kman's assertion that Clementina has done "everything possible to secure her account". You really should take a step back from this, your tone as of late is bordering on disrespectful. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codedon's reply was to Fr33kman otherwise he may would have put in one more colon to address it to me. -Barras ^talk 10:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Disregard the first half of my comment, then. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I apologize for all this commotion and opposes over sockpuppets because of me and Dewflower. I assure you I will never use my sister's computer again without her permission (I really did not use it on purpose, it was an accident). :) I'm sorry for that clumsy mistake, and I really will not do like that again. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AbstainI prefer to not vote in this RfA. Although I trust her. Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The greatest concern right now seems to be my account security concern. :) These are, in short, the steps I have taken to protect it:

I've changed my password to one both my sisters do not know.
I have forbade either of them access to my computer without my permission (and going on without my knowledge will be close to impossible, because as I'm homeschooled, I'm on the computer almost all the time - Internet classes, writing projects, and Wikipedia, of course! - so there is barely opportunity to get on). Both Belinda and Dewflower now edit by different computers anyway.

The concern is a valid one, and I hope this will fix it. I don't think Belinda or Dewflower have ever used my account except for the one instance Either way pointed out above. Cordially, —Clementina talk 08:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also logging off from Wikipedia every time you leave the computer (even to get a drink) would also be a good idea? fr33k man 08:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll do so (even though I really doubt either Dewflower or Belinda would dare to even touch my computer by now, the way I've been lecturing them about it ;) ). —Clementina talk 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to make sure you're logged in as you is to change the colour of your "save page" button; I've done it here. If yours is, say, yellow, and Belinda's is purple, it should alert you when the wrong person's logged in, or when neither of you are. Just as a final safeguard. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've double-locked, double-bolted my account. :P Thank you for the great idea, Sonia. —Clementina talk 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if I'm comfortable with the editor's religious preference being used here as a discriminator. May I remind all the participants that while religious POV editing is something to be concerned with, I don't think we should go as far as to judge a user based on his or her religious belief... Basically, lacking any other evidence, the answers to the above questions posed by GoW, should not in my opinion be used as a reason to support or oppose. The user did not admit to any propensity to allow such belief to affect her editing. Perhaps she should have sanitized her answers before she answered those questions above? If you ask me on my talk what are my thoughts on church, and I say that I believe all Wikipedians should give it a try, can I expect a removal of my access rights? The question should not have been asked, unless there was evidence of POV pushing, or other disruptive behavior. It was a little much to ask an open loaded question, then oppose due to the honesty. Something to think about. My comment is in reference to the process, not the candidate. My opinion on this RFA remains neutral. With warm regards, Jon@talk:~$ 17:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But she did admit to letting her beliefs affect her actions. This is the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we read deeply into the statement. There are surly many people who hold many beliefs. And many people who would admit that they behave a certain way on the wiki due to those beliefs. I see where she states "...I know Wikipedia isn't really the right place to try to evangelize people or push my views...". But she admits to believing in God. And we run from someone's honesty, especially when we ask such personal questions. This seems a bit discriminatory. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I'm not comfortable with it. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really have to be comfortable with it. Any reason that causes people to be uncomfortable with a person having the tools is a valid reason. Whether or not is a strong enough reason to oppose is another matter. But a persons beliefs very much play into why a person is suitable or not suitable for a role. People in an administrative role should not have strong opinions on either end of the scale. Yes you can have the beliefs as I know some people here are very religious who are admins and it doesn't concern me in the least. But when you become someone who is constantly pushing their beliefs as this candidate does, then it becomes an issue. As it did with a certain other editor who was banned for it. That being said my main reason for opposing is I believe she is a security threat to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that statement is something to the effect of "What one believes affects anybody's life/how they act", which would be true for anybody, myself included. Admittedly, she did not directly answer the question as it was probably intended to be asked; I think that what GoW was asking more related to whether she would let her beliefs interfere with the normal course of action on the Wiki (i.e. having different standards for blocks, etc. based on the beliefs or ideology of the editor, or being more willing to delete articles on subjects that may offend her sensibilities), and her answer did not, at least, indicate that she would (although it did not explicitly say that she would not, either). Perhaps more clarification from her regarding her answer would be helpful. Kansan (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well worded, and I think that a clarification in that manner may be most helpful. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I asked those follow-up questions is because Clementina didn't quite answer the question. Normally, I would not ask these questions, but Clementina has often brought up religion in commentary, and I want to be absolutely sure that decisions made by her are made without factoring religion into the equation (User:Blockinblox anybody?). I assume that most users on Wikipedia believe in a supreme being (since most people overall do), but yet I rarely see it mentioned as much as Clementina mentions it (or her sisters). I would also like to know what Clementina's views are in relationship to sexually explicit images on Wikipedia. I want to expect admins to be able to view things without a POV pushing its way in. Most users can block, delete, and protect correctly. Its the decision-making job that's the one that really matters. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blockinblox was habitual, but in his defence he came from a very different era of the project; one where admins ruled with an iron fist. Frankly, I thought your third question was inappropriate to ask. I see the question as no different from asking a gay person what they think of straight people! She's alreeady said she can be neutral. She even said she'd block a Christian who was making POV edits! What more can you ask for? Many admins have strong beliefs; I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I know that no one can find even a single edit in my history where I was POV about it. I've rarely even mentioned it. It doesn't mean I don't have strong beliefs about certain things. I (personally) didn't like the article and images Blockinblox was trying to get rid of, and on the street I'd agree with him, on wiki no! Yet, I was the one to begin his desysopping! :) fr33k man 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She even said she'd block a Christian who was making POV edits!" As I said above, she said she would block the user for Wikipedia rules AND for God's rules. A admin should, or any user, should not be going around saying "you have displeased God" or "God would not like your actions" to other users. This would be using the tools to carry out her religious ideas in addition to protecting Wikipedia. Either way (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way I read it, she said she would feel comfortable with the block because it violated policy and she disagreed with what they were doing. More of an argument for why she would do something that might seemingly go against her religious views, than the reasoning for the block. Make sense? (Yes, I'm nobody over here, but I edit much more over on English WP, so I'm not socking or SPA) PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Either way, of course I wouldn't go around saying "you have displeased God" to other Christian users! I know lots of active Christian users here - some of whose actions or words I disagreed with in a moral sense - but I didn't and wouldn't go preaching on their talk pages or anything. :) I just added the part about God to mean that I didn't think my beliefs would clash with anything I did on Wikipedia - that none of my actions would make me conscience-sticken or uncomfortable. —Clementina talk 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say "you have displeased God" to non-Christian users? π r ² 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "real life" (on the street, face to face, etc.), yes. On Simple Wikipedia, no. —Clementina talk 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat note: Discussion of closing process moved to talk page. Jon@talk:~$ 07:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.