Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FisherQueen

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

FisherQueen[edit]

Final (12/16/6); Ended 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate FisherQueen to become an administrator. Part of the class of September '06 Wikipedians, FisherQueen has coming along 5000 total edits. He/she is just as I expect a great administrator to be; polite and civil always, even when attacked by vandals and trolls (and yes, this user's page has been vandalised 58 times already). I'm sure he/she will find the admin mop useful, and will use the "powers" if given fairly and competently :-) Majorly (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Majorly's nomination with thanks. I promise, if made an admin, to do my best to use the sysop tools wisely, and, when I inevitably mess up, to gracefully admit to and try to correct my errors. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:SNOW, I withdraw. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request; I'll work on the areas mentioned and see you again in three or four months. -FisherQueen (Talk) 09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I have been focusing my attention lately on recent changes patrol and the reversion of vandalism, so I expect that my first sysop contributions will be extensions of the work I'm already doing- deleting articles listed at CSD, helping to deal with vandalism listed at AN/V, and helping at AfD. I'd like to spend some time helping to resolve the more complex problems listed at AN/I, though I'd proceed with caution while I learn to wield the sysop tools.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The thing I'm most proud of is my ongoing work removing vandalism and useless pages on new pages patrol. I've really refined my process since I began- for example, once a week or so I go back through my contribution list to catch recreated pages and check on prodded articles, and I always document my work with talk page warnings.
I freely confess that I have been much more active in Wiki maintenance than article creation, though I have created stubs for several winners of the Lambda Literary Award, and am doing the research now to improve Lillian Faderman to a more detailed article.
The most work I've done in article-writing lately has been on Save Indian Family, which I stumbled upon during its first AfD and became determined that, though it should be on Wikipedia, it needed to be much improved- so I jumped in to help improve it. The page still has a long way to go, but it's much better than the anti-feminist advertisement that it was when I discovered it, and I was able to draw attention to the page from several other editors who are continuing to work to refine it.
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: It's hard to call the attacks of vandals that I see as part of my recent changes patrol 'conflict,' although I think that I do a good job of maintaining a cool head even when I get attacks like this. I don't like my userspace protected, because my attitude toward personal abuse by vandals is that, while a vandal is attacking my userspace, her or she is distracted by me and not damaging Wikipedia. I provide a useful distraction while admins look at evidence and block the vandal- of course, it would be nice to be able to block obvious vandals myself, and save the admins the trouble.
I have, however, found myself in more genuine conflicts from time to time. My work on Save Indian Family and its talk page, I think, would offer a good example of my best attempt to keep a cool head when editing gets really hot.
I've also had an ongoing problem with User:JFBurton, who periodically leaves rather random personal attacks on my talk page, or little hate notes about me on talk pages I've warned. I react either by ignoring him or with requests to stop that are as calm as possible, and have avoided engaging him in debate as much as possible. Recently an editor who had noticed the problem took him to AN/I, and the outcome (a short block and rather firm request to knock it off) was satisfactory to me. I suppose it must have been satisfactory to him, too, since I haven't heard from him since the block expired.

Optional Question from David Fuchs (talk · contribs)

4. One thing I notice from your edit count and looking through your history is that you have a comparatively low mainspace edit count (in other words, you aren't contributing in force to any particular article.) Given that mainspace edits are often considered a criteria among those voting on an RfA, what is your explanation for your lack of edits in this region? If you are given the "mop", would this lead to even less mainspace edits given the extra duties? (Bringing this up since it appears to be the basis of your 'oppose' votes.) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misunderstanding, but my reading of the 'oppose' comments is that the biggest argument against me is that I have a lower number of edits in Wikipedia spaces like WP:AfD. When I considered the likely arguments against me, I considered the fact that I spend more time in maintenance than in creating and improving articles, or that I have not been here for a year yet, but that objection didn't even occur to me, so this RfA has drawn my attention to an area where I could be contributing more.
You are correct, as I've acknowledged above, that while I've made contributions to articles, my biggest contribution to Wikipedia has been in maintenance tasks. My only explanation is that I tend to edit most frequently during down-time at my job, and Wiki maintenance tasks lend themselves better to that time. When I'm putting in time on research and serious writing, I work at home, but I spend less time editing from here.
If I had the "mop," I don't think I'd do less work in the editing of articles. I think that what makes Wikipedia important is its content, I take pride in those articles that I have created or made significantly better, and I don't see any reason that I couldn't continue making contributions in the way I have been- lots of maintenance from work, balanced by a smaller amount of more significant mainspace editing at home.
I'm aware that there are editors who think that an admin must have helped to build featured articles, or spent as much time in writing as in maintenance, and those editors won't support this RfA no matter what I say in answer to this question. I understand where they're coming from, and I respect it. I think that article creation and improvement is what Wikipedia is all about, but that the maintenance work is also essential work that keeps the encyclopedia from being overwhelmed by vandals, spammers and POV pushers, protecting the work of our best writers. I don't have any regrets about the way I've spend my time here thus far. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
I have become, if I may wax rhapsodic for a moment, genuinely inspired by the goals of Wikipedia, which, at its best, seeks to provide all of human knowledge for free to everyone. I've found my participation here challenging and intellectually stimulating, and I learn new things every day I edit here. Whether this RfA is successful or not, I look forward to continuing to work regularly to make Wikipedia a little bit better than it was when I logged on.

Discussion

FisherQueen may have had a short tour of duty, but she is committed to helping the project, shows a great understanding of policy, and is civil, courteous, and calm--exactly what an administrator needs to be. I first encountered this user when doing NPP, and I found that she was accurately tagging articles and, what's more, leaving appropriate messages on the creator's talk pages in line with WP:BITE--something rather exceptional for a new user. It's clear that she is the type of cautious look-before-you-leap editor when it comes to the project--spending more time reading policy and slowly acting on it. She adapts easily, takes criticism well, and doesn't allow herself to be riled up by vandals and those who personally attack her. I had recently offered to coach her should she choose to seek adminship, and I will do that regardless of the outcome of this RFA: I'm convinced that FisherQueen would make an excellent administrator, now or in the future. She will only benefit the project. -- Merope 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. I am Majorly and I support this candidate! --Majorly (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I trust the nominator. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I trust the nom on this one, and I trust the users judgement, despite a rather low wikispace edits. Arjun 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support per answers and looking at contribs to Wikispace, shows a decent ammount of knowledge of what Wikipedia is about. What would 400 more edits to sift through really prove? Looking past editcountitis here... --W.marsh 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Low Wikipedia space edits aren't a major concern for me and I trust Majorly's judgement in nominating FisherQueen. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good user. Would be a good admin in terms of vandal fighting and certainly would not do any damage. Canjth 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Lack of experience is only an issue in cases where the lingering possibility of abuse exists. I just don't see that here. A responsible and increasingly knowledgeable editor who gave very good answers to the questions deserves the mop in this editor's opinion. —Cuiviénen 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. See discussion above. -- Merope 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support per the above, especially the point made by W.marsh. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Qualified and a safe choice. Owen 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support but recommend withdrawal - you look like a good candidate, but because of lack of WP-space edits, you dont stand a snowball's chance in hell. Work on AfD or MfD and try in a few months. ST47Talk 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral Support - but need more experience with mainspace edits (ie writing articles, copyediting, and so forth) outside of the usual vandal-fighting or template tagging. Suggest withdrawal and re-apply in a 4-5 months with a lot more experience. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. 98 Wikipedia and 83 mainspace talk edits just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. Sarah 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I believe that more experience is needed. Only 98 Wikipedia edits and 2 Wikipedia talk edits are below what I like to see. Seems to be proactive with gaining experience, as demonstrated by learning to create a diff, and I think a several more months of learning would be really helpful. SuperMachine 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as above. I am not happy with levels of contribution to Wikipedia and Wikitalk. You may well go there, but only edits prove that you have been there. Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Not onyl do you lack wikispace edits (about 100 only?), but most of your edits are in the usertalkspace, which to me doesn't show that you could be a good admin. You seem like a good user and I'd probably support you in the future though.--Wizardman 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for now, as more I believe experience is required (as mentioned several times above). Come back in a couple months or so with more experience in the area you're likely to go when working as an admin, and I'll likely support you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose- Really needs to work on Wikipedia edits--SUIT42 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose lack of article writing Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose unless you can demonstrate your participation in admin-related duties (ie., lots of WP-space edits). Yuser31415 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per Yuser31415. Carpet9 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Vandal fighting, while nice, is insufficient for adminship. You have to show that you are familiar with policies. Also, near complete lack of talk or projectspace edits shows that you don't discuss things very much, which is kinda important for admins. We don't need more admins willing to jump the gun on things that should instead have discussion. -Amark moo! 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Sarah Ewart. Michael 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Low experience. Crum375 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Sorry, but per Amarkov, I don't think you're ready yet. yandman 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose inadequate experience and participation in the projectspace. ← ANAS Talk? 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Not enough Wikispace experience sorry. At the pace you're moving though if you worked more on Wikispace edits I could see you becoming an admin in the near future. Quadzilla99 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per lack of policy and process experience. Work on that and I'll gladly support in the future. --Coredesat 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral A good vandal hunter and accomplished speedy-tagger, but just not enough visibility of experience in WP policy. The Rambling Man 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You have too many edits for me to oppose, however, the percentage of Wikipedia edits is quite small, so I can't really support. If you dedicate a lot of time getting Wikipedia edits, I'd see no reason to oppose. Ganfon 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Not enough experience. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - 100 WP space edits. Needs more to show evidence of understanding policy. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I don't have any concerns about your ability, just about your length of time here. And I love your user name. I will support a future nomination. Deb 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. User:FisherQueen just needs to get a bit more experience around here, particularly in the realm of talk page discussions (most of the talkpage discussions I saw were "canned" messages; though I am very encouraged by the fact that this user notifies editors when tagging something for speedy deletion) . This is a very promising candidate; if this RFA doesn't succeed you should try again in a few months.--Isotope23 17:12, 22 January 2007 (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/FisherQueen&oldid=1146586652"