Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morhange

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

Morhange

(41/27/10); Scheduled to end 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Candidate withdrew. –xeno (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Morhange (talk · contribs) - Hi everyone. I'm very happy to be nominating User:Morhange as an admin candidate. Morhange has been editing here regulary since 2005, and has balanced experience in both article and Wikipedia namespace. On the one hand, Morhange is most dedicated to improving content. She writes new article, including Did You Know?, saves article from deletion, and works extensively on expanding other pages. On the other hand, Morhange is highly acquainted with Wikipedia policies and internal process; giving many reasoned arguments at AfDs ([1] [2] [3]) I've also found her to be very tactful and friendly when interacting with other editors, and her many article talk edits show a collaborative spirit and willing engagement in community discussions. Though Morhange isn't practised in doing all Wikipedia tasks (she has never reported a vandal for block as I notice), no one is perfect. And as a smart and responsible editor, Morhange will I believe do very wisely and responsibly in fields where she has experience, as well as being cautious in area(s) unfamiliar to her. I have every trust in Morhange being an excellent administrator, and hope community agrees on granting her the admin tools. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have reported a vandal for block, I believe: User talk:136.227.2.68 Morhange (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honoured and grateful to accept this nomination :) Morhange (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I hope this is visible to everyone! I apologise about not being able to be more active here. I've needed to do this sooner, but only now do I really have a space of actual free time available to actually type it up and submit it. I have a job as a summer counselor that takes up roughly 15 hours of my day, the rest of which is spent trying to get in some sleep. I don't have time to edit Wiki normally except for a few quick edits, and I definitely don't have much time to set aside to finish my questions, so I'd actually prefer to withdraw myself from this nomination. I appreciate it and everyone who voted, both for and against. I really feel awful about this, but I think this is better than just kind of dying off the face of the Wiki globe. Anyway, thanks again. Morhange (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: The first thing that I think I'd really like to take care of is deleting all the unnecessary links on Crown Prince Pavlos' children (starting here) Other than that, I monitor a lot of pages on my watchlist and otherwise, and I'm always checking for vandalism, so being able to have a more effective way to handle that will be nice. I admit that I am not familiar with some of the admin tools, and I hadn't familiarized myself with them until after receiving the nomination. To be honest, I didn't expect an admin nomination, so I didn't go the extra mile by learning the ins and outs of admin duties until getting the nom. However, now that I have the opportunity, I'm willing to learn more about the tasks that I am going to be expected to complete. I've done a lot of reverting and I'd like to be more active in helping to block vandals. There are also times when I see articles at WP:AFD that have been open awaiting consensus for long periods of time, and I'd like to help with this process.

Follow-up Why are you under the impression that you need to have administrative privileges to delete what may be inappropriate links in articles? DGG (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm really proud, so far of the work I've been doing on the Titanic survivors, the Titanic passenger and crew lists that I've been working on. I'm most proud of the article I expanded on my grandfather, because the fact that he was the first black mayor in the US is not widely known, even in Springfield, where he was mayor, so being able to help bring attention to that is really nice.

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 can't recall a situation where I've been in a big conflict with someone. I don't think I've ever been in an edit war, although I may be mistaken, since I have a terrible memory, but I do try to compromise or provide information that tries to diffuse the problem.

Optional questions from Keepscases

4. You've edited the articles of your various family members. Do you feel this has represented any conflicts of interest? Why or why not?

A: Yes and no. I think it's always going to be a conflict of interest when you're talking about family members, but at the same time, it helps to be able to provide information that you wouldn't normally get from a standard encyclopedia. At the same time, yes it is a conflict because you do have a bias because these people are your family.

5. What is the origin of your user name?

A: The main character's name from Les Choristes is Pierre Morhange (which has gotten people confused and I'm occasionally mentioned as a 'he' but I really liked the film and I signed up for some website using it, and when I needed to register for Wiki, my first choice was taken, so I used that one, and it's been my username ever since.

Optional question from User:Tombomp

6.I hate to sound like a dick, but your answer to 4. seems very evasive. I don't think that it is possible to add information you wouldn't be able to normally, because I'd have thought any information would have to be sourced to reliable sources, not just conversations had with people. (Please excuse me if I've misread totally). Also, we should obviously strive towards presenting a NPOV in articles, and it would seem as if when you are, by your own admission, biased, a sensible thing to do would be to not edit, especially if it could be seen as contentious. I'm interested on your thoughts about this. Apologies if this read terribly, long time reader, first time asker

A: I agree, and by my own admission, I didn't have time to expand on my answer. I try not to be biased when editing family articles, and I'd like to think that so far I've been successful in this. By adding information, I mean being able to add information that normally couldn't be obtained or is not easily obtained, like city records or family information. Having information like "he was the best so-and-so since..." would definitely be a bias, but being able to provide family records, etc, I think is beneficial to the article.

Optional questions from User:TaborL

7. Why are you so sparse when using edit summaries?

A. I try to use them whenever I make major changes, but alot of the times, I neglect to do them. For a time, I did have the setting on where it would remind me to put one in, but I turned it off. Now that I know it's an encouraged and important policy, I've been trying to do it more often, and have turned on the warning again.

8. In response to number 4, couldn't that constitute orginal research?

A. I think I might have explained this in the answer, but if you don't think that's adequate enough, please let me know!

Optional question from Keeper

9. I hate to pile on here, but I commend you for being very upfront on your connections with BLPs that have articles on wiki. My question: As an admin, you will be able to block other editors from editing. Will you block another editor that is editing, say, Tim Ayers? In your opinion, where is the line between a clearcut vandal being blocked and a simple content dispute? Please note, this question is completely and unequivocally optional, but it will affect my opinion in the support/oppose/neutral section.

A. If it is a vandal, and it is persistant vandalism, then I would block, but if there's a dispute about content, then I would not block someone. If the dispute is over something major, and they provide information that backs up what they're putting in the article, it is a legitimate edit. Even if I don't like what someone is putting, if they are providing sourced information, I wouldn't block them and remove it. If it's something like, for example, "So-and-so was a horrible doctor" then I would consider that vandalism. However, if it's something like "So-and-so was not considered a well-respected doctor, because insert cited reasons here" and though I personally might disagree, they are giving cited information. To the point, I will not block someone just because I disagree with their edits unless they are disruptive edits that do not contribute to the article in anyway.

Optional questions from User:Filll

10. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A.

11. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

Optional question from xenocidic

12. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A:

Additional question from BigHairRef

13.Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote (X being another user who has !voted) without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not obviously applicable and the only likely reasoning?

Optional question from Bigvinu

14 Will you answer Questions for RfA Candidates —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• These are not appropriate questions to be asking. I'd suggest you withdraw them, and consider coming up with a single coherent question that does not assume bad faith. –xenocidic (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Morhange: Morhange (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Morhange before commenting.

Discussion

• Discussion about early transclusion moved to talkpage. WjBscribe 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just wanted to let everyone know what's going on, there was a big storm where I live and we lost power for most of the afternoon and evening, right as I was in the middle of working on my answers to the new questions. Which means I have to re-write them from memory, but as it's very late now, I'll get to work tomorrow morning or afternoon. I apologise to people waiting to vote for the hold up! Morhange (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to remind the opposers and neutrals that "need for the tools" is not considered a valid reason for opposing, since the criteria is supposed to be whether the candidate can be trusted with them - not if they are going to push the buttons. The deciding 'Crat will evaluate the reasons given for support/oppose/neutral and see who has the majority stronger arguments; the balance for a successful candidature is far greater than the numbers might suggest. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! (Yes, even though I know someone is sure to say something about edit summaries) - 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Charming! Take my number two spot away! :'(. And yes I had mentioned something about edit summaries, before you went and posted your vote above mine. ;) ;) ;) Lradrama 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hehehe... ^o~ - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Support. A brief look at contributions shows that this user is a fine editor and should not abuse the tools. Block log is clean, so no problems there. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak support - very good article builder. Wikipedia-space participation is a bit low, but what has been done seems good. Please use the edit summary all the time. I think you could make a good admin, from what I see atm. Lradrama 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Looks good to me. Acalamari 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - sure. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support RMHED (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
8. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

   Support - I think you'd perform just fine as an administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to WO. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

9. per mailer. Dlohcierekim 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support — Office fan...can't ask for much more. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    Discussion regarding kurt's support moved to talk page. –xenocidic (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

11. Support. Yes, I had planned to write a more detailed rationale, but thought better of it. — CharlotteWebb 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Oh, this is not the numerical slot for someone with triskaidekaphobia. But it is worth the risk for this good candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Satisfies what I view as the essential criteria for being an administrator. I have a few concerns with Q4, but not enough to prevent me from supporting. S. Dean Jameson 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support as well as I am mostly pleased with what I have seen. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - Rudget (logs) 10:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Naerii 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support -- Good Wikipedian, good article work... Good luck! --Cameron* 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Good, happy and nice Wikipedian. Will be a great Admin. Much success! Happy138 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Overall looks good...although I really would like to see a bit more interaction in wikipedia space and more talk interaction. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support--LAAFan 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Has over 3 years experiance. Time to give her access. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. No concerns about family member articles. About using edit summaries: aim for 100% and remember that this is even more important when protecting pages or editing protected pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and issuing blocks or unblocks. — Athaenara ✉ 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Sure. SQL^{Query me!} 06:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. The main question is if we can trust the user with the tools. The contributions show that we can and Morhange has learned policy through her edits even though she is not a constant-vandalism reverter. I see some reverts which show the user knows what they are doing. However, she should enable edit-summary usage reminders in Special:Preferences.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support No reason not to trust her with the tools. Also a note for the closing bureaucrat: the opposes are particularly shallow. They rely either on the good old "no need for tools" argument (widely discredited), the edit summary argument (and a tick in preferences can fix that) or the "does not really know about admin tools". Sure, the latter argument makes some sense though I'd point out once again that adminship is not rocket science. Morhange doesn't strike me as a loose canon and I have full confidence that she'll read the relevant guidelines when entering a new area of tasks. Most admins are active in areas they knew little about at first and are doing just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Would you mind identifying how many opposes you see that rely on "no need for tools" or "edit summary" as the primary reason? I count 1. I'm seeing a lot of other reasons. Not trying to be combative, but if you are going to generalize the oppose section as "particularly shallow", I'd like to see more evidence. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Many rely, to a large extent, on a combination of the above, including (at the time of this writing) opposes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13. I think they are misguided. Sure, we'd rather have candidates with 100% edit summaries, many AIV reports, tons of AfD participation, CSD tagging, experience with images and whatnot, but it's important to remember that most responsible editors with a clue get the idea of AIV, AfD, CSD in 15 minutes. Ultimately, the real question is: "Is Morhange a responsible editor with a clue?". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Lots of non-admins are "responsible editors with a clue." Sure, AIV, AfD, and CSD might not be too hard to grasp (actually, I consider myself quite familiar with those, yet I still make mistakes on them), but what about her failure to demonstrate 1) much activity in these areas, and B) familiarity with at least several of the many policies and guidelines (perhaps even a WP essay or two) that make admin work the intellectual challenge that it undoubtedly is? "Ultimately," I'd say, "the real question" is: Is Morhange an extraordinarily responsible editor with an extraordinary clue?" The answer, I think, is, "maybe (or potentially), but there's not enough evidence to tell." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry to disappoint but admin work is most definitely not an intellectual challenge and I doubt that any admin would say otherwise. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: If you don't think it can be an intellectual challenge, then perhaps you haven't spent enough time at WP:AFD or, especially, WP:DRV. And it involves the careful and, at times, contentious interpretation of multiple policies and guidelines. And it ultimately boils down to considering, answering, and acting upon a conceptual question: "Just what is an (online) enclycopedia?" Anyway, while I still think my opposition reasoning was sound, I severely overstated it--and now count myself as one of just a couple strong supporters of this candidate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    Pascal, thanks for the response, and further explaining. I understand your rationale a little better, although I disagree with the notion that the closing crat should discount or give less weight to such opposes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Pascal, I think you are confusing 'no need for the tools' and writing a not particularly good answer to Q1. Candidates are expected to communicate clearly, and from her answer I'm not sure what she is trying to say. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    I may be but a "not particularly good answer to Q1" shouldn't be confused with unsuitability to be an admin. RfA is not a test: instead of focusing on answers to questions (and it's pretty clear that anyone desperate enough would just cut and paste answers from past successful RfAs), people should just look into her contribs and determine whether they indicate that her sysoping would be a net gain. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that 'no need for the tools' is a poor reason on its own. But I think it's very valid as an additional exacerbating reason to oppose if it's combined with other reasons, particularly 'poor understanding of relevant policies' or 'lack of experience in admin areas'. Basically, on supporting a candidate you are making a judgement on whether giving them the tools is going to be a net positive for the encyclopedia - and if it doesn't look like the candidate is going to make that much use of the tools, then it's quite easy for the potential risks of (accidental) misuse of them to outweigh the benefits. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

26. Support, I would trust this user with the mop. The opposes are unconvincing to me. Shereth 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
27. user:Everyme 17:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Seems to be trustworthy, and is aware of WP:COI in regard to editing relevent articles. I believe that communication is vital in the performance of sysop actions and the candidate has now turned back on the force edit summary option, and I don't believe that an indicated need for the buttons should prevent them being given, so my default position must be support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Support — Low edit summaries takes time to correct as a percentage, but tick the box and be cognizant and it's a minimal issue. Admin tool knowledge ought come best with access to them, just as editing format and markup is learned best through editing (hence the sandbox and Don't Bite the Newcomers). Candor in answering questions is of paramount importance (rather than prepackaged answers that are political and "sound" good). Realizing that editing BLP articles about family can introduce bias and yet working hard to prevent bias is noble and in the best interests of Wikipedia. Support of users such as PeaceNT and Pascal.Tesson reinforces my confidence. While I do agree with Cosmic Latte ("what differentiates her from countless other great editors who are not administrators") and SSBohio ("wanting to delete articles, and there are plenty of admins willing to do that already"), perhaps more great editors should be admins, and even with plenty of admins willing to delete articles, there's always a backlog (is there not?) and current admins could always use additional support and help, eh? With faith, support this admin nomination. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime • 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support your specialist nomination to continue your afd and maintenence work. Recommend you stay away from AIV, etc until you are more familiar with those areas. And turn on your edit summary warning in your settings.--Finalnight (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose, not enough edit summaries. Some of the other reasons are equally weak. —Giggy 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    I just read that link, it was hilarious.--Finalnight (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

31. Support Thanks for not answering the questions. 5:15 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC) (That wasn't sarcastic)
32. Support No problems here, she seems like a decent person who wouldn't be a bad admin. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - Looks trustworthy and capable to me. No need to deny the tools even though it appears they will be rarely used. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Looks trustworthy and capable to me. No need to deny the tools even though it appears they will be rarely used. Oops, that's plagiarism. No reason not to support that I can come up with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Weak support. I think you'll do fine, you answered my question well, and your contribs are good faith and with the best for Wikipedia in mind. I'm believing that you won't misuse or abuse the tools and will go slowly (especially around articles that you are RL familiar with, as we all should). Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong support - Strong contribution as an editor demonstrates trustworthiness, levelheadedness, an ability to learn the ways of Wikipedia, and enough experience with our culture and policies to function effectively as an administrator. "No need for the tools" is a bogus argument. Perhaps if we promoted more people like this, and fewer power-hungry loonies who devote all their time to inside politics, we wouldn't have so many RFARs consisting of little groups of squabbling admins or cases of power abuse. Mr. IP (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Strong support: I still believe that she was nominated prematurely, and I think that the nominator should bear this in mind when working with future candidates. But User:Mr. IP's argument pretty much rocks my socks off. There's no doubt that Morhange seems intelligent, genuine, kind, down-to-earth, and willing to learn, and I sense no power-hunger or selfishness in her. It was silly of me to overlook these sheer human qualities in the candidate. Might be a bit weak on policy and procedure in the beginning; but insofar as she is able to contribute to admin-related areas, I believe she'll do so with an exceptional degree of respect and humanity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I've been thinking about this RfA a lot lately, and I've decided to upgrade to strong support, per my reasoning above plus WP:NBD. I just don't see anymore how the opposition to this candidate--of which I used to be a vocal part--will amount to anything meaningful and productive. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I just came across WP:WTHN and think that it applies here, too. I've come to think that opposition to this sort of candidate (yes, including that which I initially expressed) ultimately serves to sour the collaborative atmosphere with a twist of technical elitism. Why not give the candidate the benefit of the doubt? We have nothing to lose--and potentially much to gain--by empowering her with our confidence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

38. Support see nothing that leads me to believe she would damage the project. Seems willing to learn. WP:AGF Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support to spite the opposition. If this vote does not get removed, then shut down RFA indefinitely. --harej 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    To spite the opposition? Way to really help the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    I believe that he's making a point. Axl (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

40. Weak Support I think the already mentioned reasons allow me to support the nomination but a 25% ratio for edit summaries on major changes is really very low and she needs to change that. Even I got 95% there and I hated them when I started. But while it's important for an admin to summarize their edits in the summaries, I think she will be able to do so in future. Also, I think we need more female, geek admins ;-) So#Why 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support mainly to counter the baseless opposes. Just as editcountititis is very disruptive, its little cousin editsummaryitis is even worse. I had a few dealings with this user as an IP, and they showed they were a perfect adminship candidate then--and that was over 6 months ago! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for now Weak oppose per WP:NOTNOW: Overall contributions and apparent dedication are impressive. However, the lack of edit summaries is an issue for me. Also, I'd like to see some more involvement in administrator-related issues, such as WP:AFD and even WP:RFA itself. In other words, I'd like to gain a better sense of what you (the nominee) think distinguishes the good and the bad and the ugly articles and admins. (My apologies if anyone didn't understand my corny allusion.) On the whole, I just don't really think I get a good sense of your personality and your familiarity with WP policies and admin procedures. In fact, I don't really see how your stated goals as an admin would really differentiate you from the countless dedicated non-admin editors who patrol Special:RecentChanges for vandalism, or who otherwise communicate with admins or use talk pages in order to pursue specific tasks (e.g., "deleting all the unnecessary links on Crown Prince Pavlos' children"). I can see myself supporting your RfA in the (near?) future, but first I'd really like to gain a better, more thorough sense of who you as an individual administrator--separate emphasis on each of those words--would be. Best wishes, Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Now that she has finally gotten around to answering some more questions and elaborating on earlier responses, I think I have to say that we have an excellent potential admin on our hands. However, she seems to have been nominated prematurely, and the nominator should have familiarized her more with admin-related aspects of WP before submitting the nomination. I will happily support this nominee in the future, just as long as she brushes up on admin stuff and tries to develop an I-as-potential-admin identity that is reasonably distinct from her I-as-editor identity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Edit summary usage is too low, low Wikipedia-space contributions (almost no AfD experience) makes it difficult to gauge policy understanding. I agree with Cosmic Latte in asking what differentiates you from others who patrol for vandalism, because you don't need the tools just to delete a few dozen redirects.--Michael White^T·C 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hi, are you sure you meant "almost no AfD experience"?? Here are some, but not all, examples of Morhange's participation in different AfDs:[4][5][6] [7][8] [9] [10]. You can review more of the candidate's involvement in AfDs by checking her contributions. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   Based on my quick count, the candidate has participated in 27 AfDs in her 36 months here, and almost all have been about either minor members of royal families or Titanic-related articles (her areas of interest), so, yes, I would say that she has essentially "almost no AfD experience" as it relates to deletion policy, one of the administrative duties.--Michael White^T·C 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry for responding late. I understand your view, and would like too share mine. :) Doesn't everyone, with the exception of a small number of AfD regulars, take part in an AfD with subjects that they are interested in? Most editors I believe come to understand the XfD process, and in turn gain experience with it by getting involved with the range of topics that they are knowledgeable about. To quote User:Black Falcon, who had said it better than I could, "Setting the standard at "a high level of XfD experience" is quite vague. Thoughtfully participating in 10 deletion debates can give one more experience than simply blowing through 100 in rapid succession." The 27 AfDs of Morhange, as you noted above, are reasonably enough to judge her understanding of policies, and her level of calmness and rationality. I admit I'm a rather astounded to see a couple of opposes mentioning lack of experience with deletion process, as I'm nominating Morhange partly for what she has shown in this area. Yes she may only join debates of her interested subjects, but, the way I view it, this should tell us more about her ability to maintain her composure in AfDs that she feels strongly about. I love it when editors stay calm to sort things out, and Morhange's AfD contributions have been exemplary. (Also, I might add that 27 is a very big number for me personally, I hardly commented in half as many AfDs before being granted adminship.) --PeaceNT (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Q1). Not only shows no need for admin tools, but doesn't even seem to know what admin tools are. If being an admin is no "badge of honour" then what is the point of giving someone the tools who has shown no need for them and, even worse, no understanding of them? George The Dragon (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   "Badge of honour"? Oh dear, adminship is not a trophy! - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   See the point raised in discussion, above; need for tools is not considered a valid reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think that the lack of apparent need for the tools should be considered a valid argument. When a user is given the admin tools there is always a risk that they will be misused, or abused, and we have seen many cases of this. Therefore there has to be a perceived benefit which outweighs the risk. If there is not a belief that the user will make significant use of the tools, I think it is valid to ask whether it is worth taking the risk of giving them the tools. Revoking the tools is, as we know, far more difficult than granting them. TigerShark (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Your reasons given is precisely why trust is more important than perceived need; the tools are given to those who, when they use them, have the interests of the project at heart. The new sysop then has the ability to use the buttons, but no demand to do so - since this may lead to inappropriate actions because of pressure to perform. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, trust is important but so is a belief that the tools will be put to use. We cannot know how an individual will use the tools until they have them, and if they are not going to use them much we have to question whether it is worth taking the risk. So, no question that trust should be a valid argument, but so should risk/benefit of which the likelihood of use is a key issue. TigerShark (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I agree with George the Dragon. Also, the user's grasp of policy seems vague at best. NuclearWarfare (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Answer to Q1 shows she doesn't understand adminship. It's not needed to clean up wikilinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose Lack of edit summaries bothers me as well. II | (t - c) 02:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose As others have said, cleaning up wikilinks does not require admin powers. I'm also a bit concerned the fact she edited some information about her family, which I beleive would violate WP:NOR. If she can put up some compelling arguments against that particular point, I would at least change my vote to neutral, but I'm not easily impressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milskidasith (talk • contribs)

   Comment: Even though I also oppose, I'm not convinced that the WP:NOR argument for opposition holds water. Per, WP:NOR (see the WP:COS subsection), you can even cite yourself as long as you've been published in a reliable source. WP:COI could be an issue, but I've yet to see any evidence that it is. Regarding close relationships between editors and subjects, it says, "as a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I don't see any evidence that she has failed to follow this advice, and I think that an ability to write about one's family from a WP:NPOV is pretty darned impressive. Actually, from what I can tell, I think that Morhange is a great editor. I think the most compelling argument for opposition is that, as you note in the first sentence of your opposition reason, it's simply not clear what differentiates her from countless other great editors who are not administrators. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Actually, even though I've yet to find direct evidence that she has violated WP:COI, I reviewed her answer to question #4 and have concluded that she likely doesn't understand it. I still think that this user is a fine editor, but I also think that she really needs to familiarize herself with admin-related policies and procedures. While I'm at it, I'd like to quote a line from the "close relationships" section of that guideline: "The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager." Because there's some inherent subjectivity in "common sense"--and because we're dealing with a guideline rather than a policy anyway--the reader has a bit of leeway in interpreting this, and I interpreted it so liberally in Morhange's case as to assume that there wasn't necessarily a COI between such a good editor and WP (even when the pertinent articles were about not bandmates but family members). But after reading Gwynand's entry and scrolling up, I can't help but think that her answer to question #4 demonstrates ignorance of WP:COI's existence. It doesn't follow that she hasn't happened to edit consistently with the guideline anyway (just as a confession doesn't necessarily prove a crime), and again, I think she's a rockin' editor. But we're not judging her as an editor; we're judging her as a potential admin, and I think it's "common sense" (to reiterate a familiar concept) that an admin shouldn't simply happen to edit consistently with policies and guidlines, but rather should know them inside-out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: As noted above, I've softened my stance on this candidate. I don't fault her for being unfamiliar with admin-related pages, so much as I believe that the nominator should have taken better care to familiarize her with them before submitting the nomination. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose Far to little involvement in anything related to the admin tools to judge her knowledge of policy. Only a very small number of xFD discussions and almost no experience of the warning escalation process for vandalism (or anything else). No evidence of experience in any other admin related areas. TigerShark (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose - After revisiting this entire discussion and some intense mulling over, I'm actually quite concerned given the points raised within the opposition. I've also been a stickler for demonstrative experience, and I'm really not seeing it here. It's hard for me to judge this user's knowledge of policy towards admin-related tasks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 10:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose I must say that after supporting, I am reconsidering because of the candidate not answering the questions. As Wisdom89 said above me, it's also hard for me to judge if this user has knowledge of admin related activities. America69 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Circumstances beyond his control is preventing him from answering the questions promptly. See above for his statement. The questions hopefully would be answered soon. (Same for Gmynand) - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   I understand that, discussed it in my oppose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Come on, even I wouldn't have the hindsight to type it in Notepad. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   No, that's not what I meant. I was saying she could've easily started writing up the answers again and started transcluding whenever she regained internet access. I was actually surprised she felt it neccesary to take the time putting up the note, and not just answering at least one of the questions. Now it looks like she has edited since then, and still no answers to those questions, a little confusing at this point. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   "she could've easily started writing up the answers again and started transcluding whenever she regained internet access" - if you reread her statement in the Discussion section it says she lost power, not internet access, so saying "she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to type directly into the browser window" (below) really doesn't seem justified. And she's only made a couple of small edits since saying she'd have to rewrite the questions. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that it has been over a day, and still no answers. It appears, and I may be wrong, that the candidate is ducking out of answering them. I do hope, however, I am wrong. America69 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose - I was going to wait until further questions were answered, but it's been a few days with no response and I'm not quite sure my concerns could be calmed anyways. Candidate appears to be a solid editor with helpful contributions, although a very limited editing history in the various admin areas. When this happens, it often means we have to rely on handling of the RfA itself to gain more evidence that the candidate "knows what's going on" in relation to the concept of adminship and what the tools will mean. Answer to Q1 right away makes me question whether she really knows what being an admin entails. I don't need to see an emphatic need for the tools, but when the answer shows a misconception of what the tools provide, I don't feel good about it. Q3 answer comes off as lazy and not well thought. Q4 though, is the most concerning. I'm not even sure if the candidate understands what COI really means, and the perceived benefits she sees from conflicts of interest don't jive with the project's core policies, nor again do they even make sense. Lastly, while initial candidate mishandling of the RfA procedure didn't bother me too much, the note she added earlier regarding the storm is again confusing... surely she understands that answers could've been typed off wiki than pasted in? It almost seems that she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to type directly into the browser window. In the end, all this adds up to a sizeable concern about misuse of tools--not from a bad-faith perspective, rather from problems with general maturity issues and understanding of core policy. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose - sorry, you are a good editor, however your answer to Q1 is somewhat vague. If this request isn't successful, then I suggest you re-apply in 6-8 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    ... re-apply in 6-8 weeks and write a better answer to Q1? Why wait 6-8 weeks? Might as well withdraw it right now and open a new RfA tomorrow with a more standard answer. Come on people, at least pretend that you've considered this application in depth. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

12. Weak oppose, open to reconsideration -- The first answer this editor gives is about wanting to delete articles, and there are plenty of admins willing to do that already. Coupled with that, the answers to the questions above are insufficiently descriptive and give no basis for evaluating the user's judgment on admin issues. Lastly, the very low rate of edit summaries concerns me. I'm open to reconsidering should these issues be thoroughly addressed. --SSBohio 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Ditto to the last sentence there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose. WP:ARL and WP:ADCO would go a long way. Next time I will support. Sorry, Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Scope of activity much too limited. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose I wanted to wait and give you the benefit of the doubt by answering the questions. I was gonna oppose this morning, but you said you had lost power. Its now 13 hours since your last request for more time. Even I dont sleep that long. I might revisit this depending on your answers if/when they show up... but thats not looking likely. At this point, its just disrespectful. There are alot of valid questions out there. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ah yes, it is absolutely unacceptable to be someone who may have other things to do. I suppose then that you are either asleep or editing Wikipedia. Most of us, though, have the unfortunate, not to mention disrepectful, habit of having a real life. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Excuse me? I would request that you not assault my vote and strike out your above comments. I was not making the assumption that she had to be on wiki 24/7. I was stating that she's been on wiki since writing that request for more time, and had not, since my oppose was timestamped, answered those questions. Check yourself, please. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 00:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose, basically WP:NOTNOW. A good editor, with excellent contributions to the royalty articles, but not ready to be an admin yet. Her honest answer to Q1 (both the original answer and the extended version) shows that she does not have a good understanding of what an admin actually does. The part about wanting to delete redirects to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece is particularly bad. That is what WP:RFD is for, this has nothing to do with being an admin. She says that she is interested in fighting vandalism and in the AfD process. That is great, but her record in this regard thus far is just too thin for us to be able to make intelligent judgement as to whether or not she would do a good job as an admin there. She has a grand total of 3 AIV reports, and a fairly small number of AfDs where she participated in (I went back and founf 9 AfDs in the last 7 months). There is no AN/I or UAA participation so far either. While it may sound cliche, but in this case the candidate definitely needs more experience in admin-related areas. Regarding other matters, I am moderately bothered by the lack of edit summaries (but not enough for that issue alone to justify an oppose) and a bit more than moderately bothered by the answer to Q4 regarding COI. Editing an article about a family member is always a COI, there is no "Yes and no" about it. Overall, I do think that this candidate may make a good admin in the future, but now is not the right time. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Nah Ah Sorry its just not working for me, Lack of edit summaries and admin work is very short supply   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Please read the rules at WP:RFA: you need to have an account to vote in an RFA. It takes all of thee minutes to open an account. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

    Dam cookies, logged me out :P   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose - per Q&A, needs more knowledge, time and experience. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose unfortunately for several reasons: the answer to Q4 is troubling as it shows unfamiliarity with basic tenets of Wikipedia such as WP:ATT and WP:NOR. Edit summary usage is also quite weak. The only real WP space work is in a handful of AfDs. But my biggest concern is the extremely low count of Talk and User Talk edits (500 and 100 compared to 7000 mainspace edits). To me, this indicates that the user may not be communicative enough to be an effective administrator. I'd suggest working on your edit summaries, participating more in AfD and other WP space work, and using Talk more. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    I've commented on the "number of AfDs participated" issue in response to User Michael A. White's concerns above. Regarding talk edits, while 100 user talk edits isn't a high number, it is not particularly low, and Morhange's 500 article talk edits is fairly high if you compare this number with that of other editors, say, other promoted RfA candidates this month. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    It's not the raw number that concerns me but the ratio. This candidate has 1 talk edit for every 14 mainspace edits. This indicates that most of these edits aren't being discussed. In my opinion, that means that the user isn't having to explain herself and build consensus, or she isn't using talk as much as she should be. In reference to my own edits (I assume I'm the "other promoted RfA candidate this month", I had 800 talk edits to 1800 mainspace edits. There's a HUGE difference between a 2.25:1 ratio and a 14:1 ratio, though I do edit more controversial areas and would expect that I edit talk way more than most people do. Oren0 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oren, I'm afraid I have to point out the dramatic failure of your argument. It assumes that every editor works like you do: wikignomes who do a lot of small, entirely uncontroversial stuff have ratios way below 14 to 1. I had a 20 to 1 ratio during my second RfA and nobody seemed to have a problem with that. On the other hand, some people do massive amounts of assessments for WikiProjects and end up having more talk edits than they have mainspace edits. At the time of your RfA, you had 800 talk edits, about half of them on the same three articles. That 2.25:1 ratio you seem to take pride in is simply a reflection of how you chose to spend your energy. I know that dividing 7000 by 500 is much quicker than looking through the actual contributions but that ratio carries no useful information. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Weak Oppose I will happily support in three months if this user brushes up on Wikipedia policies and the role of an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

    Added note: I do agree with Mr. IP and Cosmic Latte above, though I'm not going to switch to support at this time. Keepscases (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

21. Weak oppose. I have to agree with TigerShark in regards to experience in admin-related areas, coupled with the answer to Q1. --Kbdank71 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Very weak oppose - The answer to Q1 is... questionable at best.  Asenine  19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per answer to questions one and four. If the first thing you'll do after becoming an admin is something you can do without the mop, it doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools. You answer to question four, "information that a normal encyclopedia can't provide" violates WP:OR, and I think it is almost impossible to contribute to articles about family members without some bias or conflict of interest. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose but request again in a few months, demonstrate greater understanding of what you're being nominated for at that time, and I would anticipate supporting. I agree with Cosmic Latte's indented statement under Oppose #1. Townlake (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose after giving a few days for you to work through the questions a little more, I'm still not really sure you're ready. Certainly you have the potential, in future, to be a very good admin. But right now I just don't think you've given much thought to why you could use the tools, and how best to do so - your understanding of many relevant policies seems lacking, as does your understanding of exactly what admin tools are for. With more experience in the relevant areas I'd very happily support in the future. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose — candidate's answers indicate poor understanding of the administrative tools, and running for adminship during a time where RL is seemingly taking up too much of their time to answer questions that were asked 4 days ago displays poor judgment. –xeno (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC) switched back to neutral

26. Oppose per lack of sufficient experience. Sorry. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose I wanted to wait and give you the benefit of the doubt but after I read the answers to the questions, it led me to believe that you need some more time to get a better understanding of the administrative tools. --Kaaveh (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral Questions could use more, so i'm going to do more research before opposing or supporting. America69 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Edit summaries are pretty important to me, and 21% for major edits just isn't cutting it (Nothing below 95% for major edits is reasonable for an admin in my books). Also, would need to see answers for questions 6,7,8,9, and 12 (the most important question, in my opinion). I'd be much more comfortable with opposing here, but you've made some pretty good contributions. Metagraph comment 06:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral pending more and better question answers. No immediate concerns with your editing history, but there are some very valid questions that I think need answering. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Per Metagraph, communication is vital in the role of administrator - but since the tools are given on the basis of trustworthiness rather than a need it means that it isn't a valid enough reason for me to oppose, if the candidate is not looking to dramatically shift their contributing toward the sysop remit then it isn't as important. Some sort of response regarding future plans and whether it includes use of edit summaries may well result in my changing my position. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Moved to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   Pending more Q&A, especially A given that there are some Q's.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral for the moment, pending more answers in the Q&A section and possibly elaborating on the answers to the first three questions as well.

   change to oppose. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Not quite Support since low use of edit summaries, while concerning, can easily be improved going forward (my preferences -> Editing -> [x]Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary = job done). I'm sure the candidate will not abuse the tools, but it's also necessary to communicate well, which is why this isn't yet in the Support section - I'm waiting for a statement from the candidate acknowledging this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral pending more Q&A tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral, I really want to vote support, because I believe that this user won't deliberately misuse the tools, but the editing of family member articles and the edit summary usage has me very wary. Could be persuaded to move over to the Support side though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC).
5. Neutral: I personally don't feel the user needs the admin buttons on seeing the answers. Please take care of your edit summaries also -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 08:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now, I'd like to hear more on the Conflict of Interest topic, so will look for answers to some of those questions. I have no qualms about "not needing the tools", for I'm sure she would find uses for them (as all administrators end up doing). -- Natalya 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral pending answers to the questions. –xenocidic (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) switched to oppose Switched back from oppose - candidate's most recent statement has indicated solid judgment. –xeno (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - she's pretty good as an editor, and has an interesting user page, but I think she ought to have waited a bit longer for RFA. With more experience and consistency of edit sumamries, I'd gladly support the next time around. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Placeholder neutral, brain overloaded, unsure at this moment. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - A rare neutral vote for myself. By your record alone I would vote support, but I am a little confused as to why exactly you want/need the admin tools. If any more clearer plans are posted for your adminship, this may change to support.--Finalnight (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (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.