Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ponyo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ponyo

[edit]

Final (75/1/2); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Ponyo (talk · contribs) – (who signs herself Jezebel's Ponyo) is an experienced clueful hardworking editor who has been mopping up BLP problems for a very long time. Ponyo has been actively editing for at least 30 months in the last three and a half years, has a clean block log and a long history of civil interaction with other editors, and also of article improvement. In recent months she has been very active in Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, referencing or where necessary deleting our backlog of unreferenced BLPs. For those who care about statistical analysis 60% of her edits are in mainspace. I consider that Ponyo has the temperament and ability to make a fine admin and would like to commend her to the community. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words; I accept the nomination. For transparency purposes I would like to state that, other than any potential IP edits I may have made while unintentionally logged out, this is the only account from which I have ever edited. I created the alternate account Jezebel's Ponyo as a redirect to my account in order to avoid impersonation, but have never used it, nor do I ever intend to do so.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Given the amount of work I have done in the area of BLPs, it would be a natural offshoot to help out with BLPPROD and PROD backlogs and eventually WP:RFPP. I would also like to help out at CSD as I have experience with the various criteria from recent changes and new page patrol. My intention is to help out in areas where I am most familiar, and then, over time, branch out as my skill set and interests expand.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done a great deal of referencing through the URBLPR project, sourcing unreferenced BLPs from the backlog and ensuring that the articles do not contain any harmful or unsourced contentious information. The project has been hugely successful in cleaning up the backlog of unreferenced BLPs and it’s been a great experience working with the fantastic group of people there.
I am also proud of the handful of articles I have contributed to the project. To think that I have played even a small role in adding to the sum of knowledge available here is really inspiring.
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 believe that if you edit here long enough and often enough you will eventually come into conflict with other editors; this is an inevitable outcome when working in a collaborative environment with the variety of personalities editing here. The most stressful conflicts that I have been involved in both relate to my interactions with what were eventually revealed to be sock accounts (User:Selma Simpson and User:LoveActresses specifically). Their edits were problematic, my advice was falling on deaf ears, and my frustration was increasing. Since there were several other editors aware of the situation I chose to disengage from them altogether.
I believe that the dispute resolution process works in most situations and try to adhere to it in order to resolve any conflicts I encounter. As I would never use my admin status in order to gain any advantage in a conflict, the DR methods I have used in the past would remain the same.
Additional optional question from Groomtech
4. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?
A: Issuing topic bans may be a part of the admin role, but I don't imagine they will be part of my potential admin role. Topic bans can be a useful tool in preventing disruption, however they are not to be issued lightly. If I believed that a topic ban was the most parsimonious method for preventing ongoing disruption at an article, I would bring the proposal to ANI for discussion. If consensus emerged that a topic ban was indeed required, then it could be implemented. With regard to Arbcom related bans and prohibitions there are many knowledgeable and experienced admins who work in this area, I have no intention of dipping my oar in there.
Additional optional question from The Utahraptor
5. Would you ever block editors at WP:AIV? If so, under what circumstances would a block be acceptable/unacceptable?
A: The requirements for AIV reporting are quite explicit. If the report meets the conditions (it’s actually vandalism and the editor is currently active), then a block may be in order. Regarding the requirement that “The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop”, there is certain degree of leeway available; I would not decline an AIV block request based solely on the fact that the vandal had not been given all four levels of warnings. An example of this would be an account that was created in order to add disparaging remarks or attack-style information to a biography article. The recent page patrollers shouldn’t have to issue a full set of warnings prior to receiving admin support at AIV. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from SarekOfVulcan
6. What's your favorite Studio Ghibli film?
A: Ha! I know what I'm supposed to answer, but alas it would not be true. My username came about via a completely unrelated and somewhat convoluted fashion, a mishmash of unfortunate nicknames as it were. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from decltype
7. Why did you retag Steve Crenshaw for speedy deletion under criterion A7 despite the fact that a previous tagging under the same criterion was declined in the past?
A:I tagged the article as A7 because the I see no credible assertion of notability. The article had been tagged two years ago for speedy deletion and was declined, however there is even less information and assertion of notability in the article now then there was when it was tagged in 2008. It may not have met the criteria at that time, but I believe it does now. Outside blatant copyright violations, articles should not be speedy deleted if they have been subject to a previous deletion discussion, but I don't see anything in the instructions at WP:CSD that states an article cannot be tagged for speedy deletion more than once in its history (unlike the clear instructions for PROD use). If the case is that an article can never be nominated for speedy deletion more than once, then the instructions at WP:CSD should be updated for clarification. I try to be very accurate and concise with any CSD tagging, so if the article should have been PRODed instead of speedy deleted (as it was until restored and PRODed by another editor today) then I apologize. I certainly won't make the same mistake twice. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I Support a candidate who wants to help out with backlogs. Minimac (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict) per nom --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Clueful, helpful, will make a great admin. The Interior(Talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - has the profile and history of a candidate who has the potential to be a keen and trustworthy sysop. --Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No alarms here; seems balanced, good content work, BLP work seems good, should be a good addition. GedUK  17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I find no issues when checking out his contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Trust the nom support---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Her work cleaning up the unreferenced BLP backlog shows dedication to the project. Always remains sensible, confident that she will not misuse the tools. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Epbr123 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I see no issues that worry me. I'm always happy to see someone well-versed in BLP policy. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support . Ponyo is a clueful and conscientious editor who is also unfailingly civil, and that seems to me to be just about a perfect recipe for an admin. Looking at Ponyo's contribs, I note several instances of Ponyo expressing uncertainty about policies or guidelines, and refraining from further action or comment before doing some research. That sort of caution is just what's needed in an admin, because a rushed action can create a lot of drama, something which Ponyo seems skilled at avoiding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Very experienced and constructive editor. Doing great BLP work, which is a hard and often thankless task. Handing over a mop can only benefit the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I have had a lot of opportunity to observe this editor's work adding references to unreferenced biographies of living people. It's excellent work, and Ponyo has always been a delight to interact with. This work with URBLPR has left hundreds (perhaps more) articles significantly better than they were before, as well as sending a few to a well-deserved end. I'm confident that this editor's work has been a significant, positive contribution to the 'pedia, and that providing this editor "the mop" will allow Ponyo to be an even more valuable contributor. While much of my support is based on personal experience, I also did a review of randomly-selected portions of Ponyo's contribution history and found nothing which concerned me, and much to like. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Will make a great admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC) moved to Neutral. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely! Giving her her own bit will, if nothing else, reduce the pressure on mine! Excellent BLP work, both in enforcement and sourcing and all around very clueful Wikipedian. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Looking back through her recent contribs, this candidate seems to be doing a good job cleaning up BLPs, finding sources and removing uncited claims - an incredibly important job, obviously, and one that someone's got to do. She also seems reasonably level-headed and approachable (something which is very valuable in admins who work on BLPs, since that particular policy has been used as a pretext for way too much trigger-happiness in the past). All in all, no red flags that I can see. WaltonOne 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support'. Good work with BLP referencing, and being a moderate on issues of inclusion is good for an admin. Fences&Windows 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good mainspace contributions. Good contributions to discussions. Enough experience here and competence to make supporting an easy choice here.--Michig (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per nom. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes, I'm happy to support, although I'm disapointed with some of the editors I seem to be in company with. Nevertheless, a solid review of your talk page history indicates a pleasent and agreeable nature; recent sourcing work on articles is particularly impressive; enough talk page edits to indicate your desire to collaborate; general experience on the meta side is sufficent for me. In short - likely to use the extra tools without any concern of misuse or abuse. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Some mild concerns related to seeing him/her commenting on a recent AN or AN/I thread, nothing barring me from supporting. It's almost not worth mentioning and I don't really remember what it was, but I disliked it at the time. Meh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Excellent with BLPs Secret account 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per the nominator's reason. WAYNESLAM 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No issues here ;)--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 01:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per the above supports. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yes NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I see no problems with this candidate. --SharkfaceT/C 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —Dark 03:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support More admins are needed who are willing to wade into BLP problems, and fix them. First Light (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Experienced and trustworthy, the candidate's more than 20,000 edits includes 10 new articles and 11 redirects. A terrific vetting statement by nom is also a feather in this candidate's cap.--Hokeman (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - worth a go with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - An editor who appears to be good at taking out the garbage, thus, I say we give them the janitorial tools to continue doing so. And, "Yay! Two candidates this cycle that are a pleasure to support!" --Quartermaster (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support – Experienced, communicative, and appropriately cautious. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, no reason to think the tools would be misused. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Having worked on a few articles with Ponyo, It is always good to work with her/him and I found her/him clueful and experienced and fully capable of helping out with the extra buttons without making the wiki wheels drop off. There is more than enough content creation in their edit history to satisfy me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Her. :) --intelatitalk 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I have seen Ponyo enough at WP:CP to already appreciate the diligence with copyright concerns. I don't see anything to give me cause for concern, but, on the contrary, quite enough that it seems to me this would be a benefit for the project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Ponyo has always seemed helpful, civil and clueful whenever I have encountered her. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Stephen 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good Editor, Good work. Good Luck. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support per all above--intelatitalk 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Absolutely! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:59pm • 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support An admin who has good knowledge in BLPs? Sounds like a Good ThingTM. Worm 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support (move from Neutral) While I was hesitant due to a recent interaction, I have reviewed the contribution history and find an editor who is polite, thoughtful, and very good with BLP concerns. Additionally, nomination by WSC is generally a good reason to consider supporting a nominee. uBLP work, and good arguments on either side of AfDs show a level of contemplation and policy interpretation that makes me quite comfortable with giving the tools to Ponyo. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support The candidate seems to generally have their head screwed on, and I see no reason to believe that they would be abusive of the tools. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Everything I have seen looks good and I see nothing that makes me think Ponyo will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I think the example q7 was a stuff-up by both me and the candidate: we don't need policy to tell us that once an admin has declined speedy deletion, it shouldn't just be reversed unilaterally. And earlier versions of the article, while copyvios, had information that arguably crossed the A7 bar. But strong support nonetheless -- the track record is excellent! --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Inka888 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Tiderolls 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support no issues here. Neither of the oppose opinions have raised any flags. ThemFromSpace 01:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per nom.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support kind, helpful, cares about the project and about other contributors. Thanks to Ponyo's generosity I got my first-ever DYK credit. My sig is boring vanilla but I can' imagine the wildest of sigs being a reason to vote against somebody who would make such a good admin.betsythedevine (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Seems good to me! Baseball Watcher 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - without a doubt. Orphan Wiki 01:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Quarl (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --v/r - TP 15:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Mkativerata is spot on (as usual). The problem in this situation is an admin unilaterally overturning another admin's decision. Re-tagging for speedy deletion should therefore normally be avoided. Having vetted Ponyo more closely I see no other problems, so I'm still happy to support. decltype (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Candidate is clueful, has a positive attitude and an excellent track record. Opposes to date vary between nitpicking and trite, and are wholly unconvincing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Good ser, knows what she is doing. Oppose changing either username or signature. Courcelles 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Valuable contributions, and clearly trustworthy. Steven Walling 05:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Without Conscience. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support—Knows what she's doing, and I can trust her with the tools. Personally, I don't have problems with her signature. I believe she will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Airplaneman ✈ 06:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - seen the candidate around, has clue. Good answers to questions. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - looks to have experience and clue. A read through of talk page archive show that the candidate responds well to confrontation. Jujutacular talk 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 22,000 edits (including over 60 % article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. No issues. Long-time editor, perfectly safe.Bearian (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Good contributions, especially in BLP. – SMasters (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Unusually good understanding and application of BLP and deletion criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: Another great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I looked over your user talk archives, and they confirm what others above have said about you being trustworthy. And if the biggest problem uncovered in this RfA is that some people don't like your signature, well... --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Best wishes to you. —Soap— 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]

Oppose Unlike Gonzonoir's application below, this candidate does not edit much as far as making an article good or featured. Wikipedia is a writing project and this candidate may be capable of writing but hasn't shown it. An administrator should be capable of writing well and have a track record of doing so. Suggest re-application later after improving credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Struck vote as user is blocked for sockpuppetry. –xenotalk 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 20:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An essay that doesn't have unanimous agreement. Feel free to read it, but don't let anyone tell you it's policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that others, such as support 8 and 13 do not observe the criteria in the link that Perseus provided. That link says the reasoning not to use. Also note that my reasoning is very well explained below, is not an unreasonable demand, is logical, and can be remedied by the candidate. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second? So the whole 'providing sources for unsourced biographies of living people' thing this candidate does on a regular basis dosen't satisfy you? Sure, good articles are nice. They show commitment, skill at writing, and an understanding of core policies, but if you're going to say that you value those things, then I would, at least in my opinion, see working on BLPs to be a quite acceptable substitute. Not everyone can craft beautiful prose, you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finding references to unsourced facts is great. An administrator doesn't have to do everything. For example, they can know the image policy only in general terms but not have experience in deciding on deletion/keeping and then, as an administrator, do tasks other than discussions on images/pictures. However, a big part of Wikipedia disputes is content and writing. If a candidate only knows how to decide on deletion discussions or only knows how to add BLP references, they are ill equipped to handle issues relating to editing. I am not saying that the candidate is a bad person. I am only saying that the minimum standard that I have for being an administrator has not been met. Note that my standard doesn't say "must have x number of good articles". Not having any good articles but a good record of consistently good writing and an failed attempt to reach a good article could be enough. Nor is that standard an impossible standard as 67% of candidates pass (see above and below). The standard is also can be reached by working then reapplying later. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be up to your standards, but I wanted to bring to your attention something not mentioned in this section thus far: if you look at Ponyo's userpage, you'll find a list of articles that she has created and/or worked on significantly. If you haven't already, it may be worth giving them a look and giving your opinion on them. Airplaneman ✈ 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike extensively questioning others' opinions at RfA, but I will say that "Suggest re-application later after improving credentials." is out of line. Ponyo is a person, not a name on an application that his/her boss is denying. One reason why RfA brings along negative connotations is because the air with which others opine is one of general disrespect for the candidates' feelings. The rationale is acceptable (yes, people, we all have opinions) but the generic expression of "I might support if you had more experience in heavy content development" is not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to draft comments to follow Fetchcomms' advice except to delete how I would support the candidate whole heartedly. In fact, the arguments after listing an oppose is so distasteful that I am considering not opposing any RFA in the future. Consider allowing anyone with 2 years experience become an administrator for a 3 month trial period unless it can be easily shown that they are not qualified. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can always strike (<s></s>) your 'oppose' and move to 'neutral', or 'support', or even abstain completely. Any editor's !vote is reversible - it's quite a normal thing to do. Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also strike just that part of your oppose that was called into question, the reason for your oppose is not invalid. You should feel free to oppose if you believe the candidate is not qualified.J04n(talk page) 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote from "oppose" to "some reservations" and wish to keep the discussion in the same section and not move it to the neutral or support sections. The candidate's comments may be useful. Would she like to comment? Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to comment if you'd like, however it appears that your 'oppose' is based solely on the fact that I have not written a GA or FA class article, which is indeed the case. I have however written several start class articles which I linked to in question #2 above (and here again for convenience sake). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an administrator for over three years, and I still don't have any GAs or FAs. Does Madrid 2020 want me to be de-adminned? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Madrid 2020, not everyone is an artist. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perseus, son of Zeus, I think Madrid 2020 got your point way before this... Airplaneman ✈ 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. While RFA regulars may see a signature as a minor stylistic choice, I see an unnecessarily complicated one (French?) as a symbolic barrier to new editors fully participating in the project. The media attention Wikipedia's power-up users are getting lately is part of my concern here; whereas the nominator sees a declining admin class as a problem, I disagree with him and (as increasingly widely reported) I see a declining editorial class as the real issue. Admins should be able to address the newest 10% of that group as easily as they engage the most veteran 10%, and someone who so curiously defends a signature in a neutral section doesn't necessarily seem cut out for that. Not every great editor would make a great administrator. Townlake (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to clarify, you're opposing because there are French words in the candidate's signature? SnottyWong squeal 16:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not as if those are really obscure French words; I haven't taken French in 7 years, and I know what bon mots means. Would you oppose over my signature? If someone really cared that much, I'm sure Ponyo wouldn't mind telling someone what her signature means, any more than I mind explaining mine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really expect the people who frequent everyone who frequents RFA to understand this oppose. It's complete as written; additional explanation would be pointless. Townlake (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If your rationale made any sense to me, I wouldn't have said anything. I don't see how having a partially French (as Ponyo's signature does) would be off-putting to anyone. If you could explain why that would be, I wouldn't have asked you, but you're making assertions without evidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have noted your dissent. Townlake (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These types of opposes contribute to the view that RfA is a broken process, in my opinion. A user's signature is probably the most insignificant thing from which someone could draw conclusions regarding the candidate's fitness for adminship. Unless someone has an egregiously offensive signature (like Jezebel'sPonyohey, go suck on a turd, asshat), it shouldn't even come into play. Basing your oppose on a signature (especially when that is the only thing you base it on, apparently finding no other faults with the candidate) is absurd. Claiming that your rationale is at such a high level that RfA regulars can't fully comprehend it is delusional. I'd suggest seriously considering taking a hiatus from contributing to RfA discussions for awhile. SnottyWong gossip 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that has to be the funniest "signature" I've ever seen. The first time I remember seeing opposes of this nature were at Wifione's RfA, and here they are again. I've already said what I have to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order for Snotty: My oppose is actually at such a low, basic level that I fully expected the point to be missed. Your invitation to leave RFA was amusing, and is declined. Townlake (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Townlake, I don't dispute that the decline in our active editor base is also worrying, even though it is a rather more gentle decline. The stat I think is most relevant to that is editors who make over 100 editors a month which shows a 10% annual decline. Total edits is broadly stable at 200,000 a day, so the admin workload if anything is rising slightly (I'm assuming that newbies and especially new vandals generate more admin work than long established uncontentious editors). So the pool of potential admins is thinning, but at only half the rate of the 20% annual decline in our active admin cadre. However, may I suggest we keep such discussions to WT:RFA? I can assure you that my own RFA nominations are far too few to sustain the size of the admin cadre, and more importantly when I nominate a candidate it is because I believe they would make a good admin, regardless of whether we have too many or too few admins. So by all means oppose a candidate if you have concerns about their suitability to be an admin, but if your concern is about me as nominator, can we discuss that elsewhere? ϢereSpielChequers 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have concerns about you as a nominator. I'm not voting on you, and you are not the basis of my oppose. However, if you're going to attach your name to the nomination, your well-known, often-repeated concerns about the admin corps are certainly fair game to be mentioned in passing here. The fact your philosophy helps me advance my point is a happy coincidence. Townlake (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
For now My only personal contact with this nominee was this, which comes across as unnecessarily placing the editor into the discussion rather than the edit, or as hostile towards the rescue process, neither of which is compatible with with admin status. Going through the last 2000 edits, I have found only one instance of sourcing an article to remove the unsourced BLP tag, which is hardly a stunning record in uBLP work. I will need to review more carefully to see if these are anomalous instances. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to respond to the two issues that you have raised. The first incident you mention came about when I noted that you had tagged an article for rescue after it had been relisted twice, and after two additional delete arguments had been made. I believe that is an important event to note, and made no comments regarding you as a person. As I noted in my reply to you I would have made a similar comment in the AfD it the article had been nominated for speedy deletion in the midst of an AfD discussion. I believe that when something as critical as the deletion of an article is at stake it's important that people who are weighing in at the AfD have as much information as possible to make an informed decision. Given my searching for references and subsequent keep vote in this contemporaneous AfD, I would not say that I'm hostile towards the rescue process. I apologize if you took offense, none was intended. Regarding issue two, the purpose of the URBLPR project is to find sources for articles that currently contain zero citations, not to source every statement within the article. In the process the article is vetted for negative material and POV statements. An additional benefit is that the article is then also added to my watchlist so that it can be monitored for BLP violations - this is a huge benefit when it comes to little watched BLPs. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of courtesy and transparency, User:JimMillerJr should have notified the AFD discussion that the article had been tagged for ARS attention. When Ponyo did that instead, Jim's response should have been a simple "thank you", not a complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it would have been courteous of me to do so, I would only have used one of the standard {{afdrescue}} or {{ARSnote}} templates which place a subscript message that provides the necessary information. I will try to make it point to do so in any further uses of the rescue tag. Who placed a rescue tag is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and in this case was obvious from both the page history and the fact that I was the only keep comment at the time. Pointing it out was gratuitous. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the templates - if the situation were to arise in the future I would certainly use them rather than write a message out by hand. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Support Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate's signature indicates a user name that doesn't exist on the Wiki. There's simply no reason to be overly creative with a signature that is supposed to act as a functional tool. That said, I see no other reasons to oppose. (The fact I had to correct the formatting of this section so I would be Neutral #2 isn't exactly inspiring, though.) Townlake (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC) moving to oppose[reply]
A minor note; I have also registered the name Jezebel's Ponyo and redirected to my main userpage in order to avoid impersonation. If I had known when I first registered in 2006 how important and entrenched my user name would become, I certainly would have put much more thought into it. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger Townlake, but isn't the formatting of one's signature just a minor stylistic choice? The Interior(Talk) 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something everyone has to agree with, however. Airplaneman ✈ 00:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jezebel'sPonyo is an unregistered account as of the time I'm typing this. That's the name in the signature. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jezebel's Ponyo is registered and I've been assured that variations on the spacing are not required to avoid spoofing. Regardless, it's a minor detail, and if you find the username problematic then you have every right to make note of it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps ask for a rename/usurp of your main account from "Ponyo" to "Jezebel's Ponyo"? As you already own the target, I would have thought that would be accepted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of history as to why I changed the name. I registered the account based on a personal nickname in 2006. Around August 2009 this movie was released in North America. In September 2009, in order to avoid any confusion with the film, I decided to add the 'Jezebel' portion to my name by modifying my signature (which is now actually suggested at WP:CHU "If you simply want to change your "public appearance" on talk pages, you can change your signature"). If renaming the account to "Jezebel's Ponyo" will alleviate the username concerns that have been expressed then I will make a request for a name change. I would however prefer to wait until the RfA is closed in order to avoid any potential technical issues that may arise in doing so. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot possibly see why anyone should expect a user to change their username in this way in order to become an admin. In what way does this cause confusion? The account is clearly linked in the signature. If you want to ban this practice then start an RfC to try to develop consensus to change the signature policy, but in the meantime, RfA is not the forum to criticize behavior that is both harmless and completely within the letter and spirit of long-standing guidelines. Zachlipton (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree - I was just suggesting what I thought might be a better method than having a second account redirect to the main one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, regretfully. I stand by my previous comment that the candidate would make an excellent admin, and I do hope that this RfA goes though (which it looks like it almost certainly will). However, I find myself strangely agreeing with User:Townlake on the signature bit. This is something that I would usually dismiss as a trivial concern, but I have a nagging feeling that it poses potential problems in this case. I'd personally like to see the candidate choose one name and stick with it, but this is not enough for me to oppose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, people will find anything to get hung up over! Plenty of admins have usernames that slightly differ from their signature. Fences&Windows 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ever so much for the kind words. Problem is, this is not a "slight" difference, as you claim. This not a matter of diacritics or abbreviations, which are fairly common, and only result in a slight, logical difference from the original name. The addition of a whole new word is a different matter entirely. As for other admins: I'm not voting on other admins, am I? Let's focus on the here and now. I realise that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies mostly at AfD, but I should think that its spirit carries over to other areas. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Ponyo's explanation above regarding WP:CHU change your opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Provided that the candidate resolves to change her username, I will move back to support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Conditional neutral pending acceptable resolution of the signature issue. A bit of flair can be nice, I suppose, but there's really no acceptable reason to have a CamelCase in this instance. Badger Drink (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ponyo&oldid=1252976816"