Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KTC

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

KTC

Final (130/21/0); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

KTC (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present KTC for your consideration for the role of administrator.

Katie has been with us since 2004, and has made over 14,000 edits. Most of those have been gnome-like, but she has written some respectable articles and has a handful of DYK credits to her name. She has put an extraordinary amount of effort into List of female Fellows of the Royal Society, which will hopefully soon be a featured list. She has also contributed to Wikipedia in ways that won't be revealed by edit counts, through outreach and training work which she has undertaken in real life.

Given her careful and thoughtful approach to things, and her desire to work in areas that are short of admins, I think KTC would make an outstanding addition to the admin corps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I came across KTC a while ago, largely through her work off-wiki. She's sat on the Wikimedia board election committee, the grant advisory committee and was the initial chair of the Wikimedia UK board. KTC has a passion for Wikipedia as a project that is invaluable. On Wikipedia, she's a hard working gnome, who has over the years helped out with both article creation and deletion and been there for many new editors both on and off wikipedia. KTC has the exact temperment I look for in an administrator, she's helpful, friendly and believes in the project. Certainly she has my support and my nomination Worm^TT(talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. KTC (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: In the short term, I would participate in the area I am already most comfortable with, which would be deletion in clear cut cases of AfDs, PRODs, and CSDs. As I slowly build up experience carrying out admin actions, I will branch out into other areas such as judging consensus in more complex deletion discussions, closing of debates in other deletion discussion venues, the blocking of repeat or serious vandals who have been appropriately warned, and page protection. In the longer term, I intend to work on whatever happens to have an admin backlog.

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

A: As I am very much a WikiGnome, most of my edits are fairly minor and straightforward. Having said that, I have created a few articles in my time. The obvious choice for me for best contributions in terms of content contribution would have to be a list rather than an article, namely List of female Fellows of the Royal Society which I created, bought through DYK, and then improved further based on feedbacks at its FLC.

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: While I have taken part in some heated discussion in my time to provide me with the experience and ability to handle conflicts, I have not been in any major conflict with any particular editor that I can recall. The important points to remember in any discussion, particularly when it gets passionate are to discuss the issues at hand, and not get personal. Be civil, and remember that Wikipedia work by consensus, so abide by that even if one personally disagree with the consensus.

In addition, my personality are such that I like to think things through all angles before making a (hopefully) well thought out statement. This means, on most occasion even if I have gotten stressed out over a situation, I would have calmed down by the time I am ready to post a response. If it does happen that I get really stressed over an issue, I would step away from the computer and or do something else instead, calming down before composing any response I may have.

Additional questions from Hahc21

5. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Except for the very small minority who are obviously and deliberately vandalising Wikipedia, most blocked users will believe their actions and point of view to be correct. As such, they will almost inevitably feel that the blocking administrator is in the wrong, whether on the more personal “this admin got something against me” and “they are trying to censor me” to the more general “Wikipedia don't know what it's talking about”.

What this means are that it is very important to explain to the blocked user the reason for the block, and to only issue blocks as a last resort after sufficient warnings and explanations to hopefully help an often new user editing in good faith to understand the Wikipedia way of doing things, or to remind an experienced user they are getting carried away. This will often be sufficient to defuse a situation or change a user behaviour so that blocks would not become necessary. Otherwise, if we're not carefully, we would drive away good faith editors whose contributions Wikipedia are built on.

6. If a a user gets mad at you because of some admin-related action you have made and starts vandalizing your userpage at the point on which they receive a level 4 warning, would you directly block the user? Or will you prefer to protect your page and wait until another unrelated admin makes the final decision?

A: I would personally consider this a textbook definition of being involved. Even though an administrator is not discouraged from taking obvious administrative action such as in the case of blatant vandalism, even if involved, I still feel it would be best not to directly block a user in such a situation. What I would do is to request an uninvolved administrator to take a look, whether through WP:AIV, WP:ANI or elsewhere, and for this other administrator to carry out any action he or she may deem appropriate. With regard to the protection of my userpage, it would depends on the particular circumstances, but in general I probably wouldn't even do that. Reverting any changes made are quick and easy, there's generally no need to protect a page just because of one user's vandalism.

7. When will you consider yourself involved enough in a given situation to hold off any administrative action and let other users/admins handle the issue withouy further intervention from you as a sysop, rather than as a user? (Fell free to ask me for a clarification if needed)

A: If I have ever been in a major conflict with the other user, if it's regarding an area I am deeply involved in, or even if I have a deep personal relationship with a party to a dispute. Of course, the principle is easy enough to state, actually applying it in practice requires one's best judgement. For example, it is entirely possible for me to not remember a past incident or conflict with another user, or to not consider a situation as a serious dispute which the other user does. As such, I would also cease further intervention as an administrator if another user comes to a reasonable conclusion as to my involvement.

Additional question from TheGeneralUser

8. You come across an article which is heavily edited daily by multiple editors from around the world. And during this routine patrol you notice in the article's revision history that some editor's (let's assume 4 or 5) are constantly reverting each other's edit over a particular section which has been recently added (which includes some references and sources not yet verified) by using their primary account and also editing while logged out through their IP address(s) for some days now. A few users among them have also made personal attacks against each other regarding that. What appropriate steps and measures will you take as an Admin to solve the ongoing dispute as being the first one to encounter/spot this situation ?

A: Regarding the article, one of the thing to be considered in such case is whether there's any acceptable reasons why changes are constantly being reverted such as WP:BLP or copyright violation. For the editors involved, assuming this is a straightforward edit war, I would consider warning them to cease their behaviour and to discuss any potential changes on the article talk page to seek a consensus. Depending on whether they have been previously warned or sanctioned for 3RR violation, edit warring or personal attacks, I would also consider issuing appropriate preventative blocks. In addition, I would consider whether temporary page protection may be appropriate. However, since only one section of the page is under dispute, full page protection would in this case prevent legitimate editing of the other parts by other editors.

Additional question from Scottywong

9. Can you explain the lulls in your editing in 2006-2007 and from late 2008 until May of 2012? What caused you to start editing at such a high rate all of a sudden in May 2012? The answer to this question doesn't need to include any specific details about your personal life.

A: I would say the overriding theme is that I was never a very consistent editor anyway. As far as I can recall, there weren't any specific reason why there were a lull in 06–07. It's likely to be simply down to the fact that I was really active in lots of university societies, sport clubs, and other “real life” activities and hence didn't spent time editing. Around the start of 2009, I started to deal with some personal issue occupying all my energy, so I effectively stopped everything I was doing, not just Wikimedia related. Once one stop, inertia kicks in and it takes some effort to really get going again even after whatever stopped you no longer apply. Towards the end of last year, and the start of this one, I once again felt comfortable to spend my free time doing things like editing Wikipedia and volunteering and I eventually started really editing again in May. Being probably slightly obsessive compulsive, once I get into something I really get into it, hence the zero to 1,300 edits.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10. Do you believe we are losing too many editors at wikipedia lately? If yes – what can we do about it? If no – what concerns you about the future of wikipedia?

A: No. According to the stats, the number of (very) active editors have been fairly static recently. Given the number of new editors are decreasing, it means we are doing okay retaining our existing editor base, but are struggling to attract new contributors. To combat that, we need to improve and extend our outreach efforts, and also to find ways to make it easier for someone new to Wikipedia editing to take it up. The new VisualEditor should help with that.

Additional questions from Gwickwire

11. About 57% of your edits came in the last 8 months, and 27% in 10 months between 2007 and 2008. This question is a supplement to the above by Scottywong, but do you feel that if given the mop you would be able to edit with more consistancy? Also, if something were to prevent you from editing, would you be willing to give more of a reason than you did last time of "semi-retired" such as a "school" template or "personal issue" message, with no need to be specific as to the issue?

A: More consistence in the sense of a reasonable number of edits per month in the hundreds, I would definitely say so for the foreseeable future. Although of course, one can never predict the unpredictable, I could never offer any guarantee. Personally, I'm not convinced whether a more detailed explanation for a user inactivity actually provides any benefit to the community for most cases. The useful parts of the information are that the user is not currently active, or may on occasion be suddenly inactive and hence unable to respond to any messages. While I'm not saying I would never provide a more detailed reason, it would be something for me to decide at the time.

12. Suppose a experienced user (user "A") had a friend in real life who had a Wikipedia account (user "B"), has been editing for over a year, and is an established editor. Do you feel it'd be right for user "A" to tell user "B" about an AfD that is on an article user "A" wishes to keep, or would you consider that to be canvassing? If you consider it canvassing, what course of action would you take?

A: It would very much depend on the details. Was the notice neutrally worded? Was user “B” selectively notified on the hope or expectation that he or she would !vote keep? How did user “A” notified user “B” of the ongoing AfD? If the friend just happen to have been notified because he or she is a concerned editor in the article such as by having participated in previous AfD on the article topics, the notification was transparently done, with neutral wording as part of a non-partisan notification, then no I would not consider it canvassing just because they are friends. If those weren't the case however, then it could be considered canvassing. I would warn a canvassing user to cease such actions if they have not been warned before. If the user have a history of canvassing and been warned as such, then I would consider issuing a block to prevent further disruption to the consensus decision-making process. Additionally, I would take the possible canvassing into account when judging to determine consensus if I were closing the discussion, or leave a note on the discussion page for the benefit of the closing administrator if the discussion is ongoing.

Additional question from Leaky

13. This question concerns articles for deletion policy, an area in which you have indicated an interest.

An article is created by a newly registered WP:SPA editor linking a dozen well known sporting, television and other notable celebrities and presenters with proposed participation in a future annual reality TV programme with a broadcast date 11 months ahead. The most recent series has just finished and no announcements or publicity is available to confirm that the event will take place. The article appears to be a spoof and an editor (A) who recognises the article format tags the article for speedy deletion – G2 and G3. The author is welcomed, notified but plays no further part in discussions. A patrolling CSD Admin. (B), declines to speedy delete but recommends AFD instead. The speedy tagging editor (A), along with several other editors, recommend speedy on the AFD listing and, realising that a delay is likely, removes all unsourced (and unsourcable because the article is clearly a fake and no sources can exist) references to living people from the article on the basis of BLP violation, leaving a vestigial stub. The original CSD Admin., (B) is approached by (A) to review their decision resulting in a change of mind and a speedy delete. Admin B then rebukes editor (A) for removing the living people material from an article while it was under AFD discussion. Please consider the various actions (author, editor (A), Admin (B)) and interactions and identify any policy or other related errors by all parties and what you would have done as the patrolling Admin.

If the scenario described is not sufficiently clear let me know before you commit yourself.

A: Such an article is not a test page and hence would not qualify for speedy deletion under G2. To qualify for G3, the article would have to be a blatant and obvious hoax. The bar is set at a high level so that if an article is “even remotely plausible”, the article should be subject to either PROD or AFD for other editors' review in case it turns out that the article is not a hoax after all. As this is regarding a proposed new series of an existing annual TV programme, it's nowhere close to meeting the threshold, so declining to speedy delete and recommending editor A to take it to AFD (or PROD) is the correct decision, which is also what I would do.

Just because an article is at AFD does not mean it's frozen and no changes should be made. Removal of unsourced contentious content regarding a BLP is not only allowed, it is mandated by policy. As such, the admin would be wrong in rebuking editor B. Though I certainly would have no problem with the content removal in this case, whether I would consider proposed participation in an annual reality TV programme as contentious is another question. I still would not delete the article under G3 during the AFD, though depending on the discussion, a case for deletion under WP:SNOW may be made.

Thanks. Why would policy WP:SPECULATION, together with the absence of sources and the knowledge of editor A in stating that such an event is never announced more than a few weeks ahead and that historically contestants identities are kept secret until broadcast time, together with the fact the the article was provided by a newly registered WP:SPA who did not respond to the speedy notification, not convince you that the article was an obvious speedy candidate? Do you agree and actively support that not only contentious material, but any unsourced material concerning a person should be removed, per [1]?

A: Because you're adding information to the scenario that was not in the original question?

WP:SPECULATION, while an important principle and policy of the project, and something to be considered in a deletion discussion, is not grounds for speedy deletion. The standard for inclusion as it currently stand is that content must be verifiable not verified. While editor A's knowledge may well be correct, it is perfectly feasible for the programme production or broadcasting company to have change their practise this time round, whether by choice or possibly forced upon them by media leaks or some other reason. Speedy deleting such an entry would not offer the opportunity for other editors to find or present appropriate sources that might actually exist. The fact that the article was created by a newly registered account, whether SPA or otherwise, doesn't come into it ever. Except for pages created by ban or block violating users, an article should always be judge by its own merit. Any otherwise would be a violation of good faith and or biting of newcomers.

I support the relevant policy based on the consensus of the project community. Consensus can change, but until then it is important for all editors to work to the existing consensus rather than their personal beliefs. If an editor were to propose a Request for Comment to change WP:BLP to remove all unsourced rather than just contentious material, I would look forward to reading and possibly taking part in the dicussion.

What additional info do you think I have added to the original scenario? To clarify, editor A using his experience and knowledge of the subject has confirmed by checking every published source available that no evidence exists to support a programme 11 months ahead of broadcast containing assertions that more than a dozen named individuals are included in the cast list. Several notable presenters are also named. This article's voracity is not just improbable, it is impossible by any known measure. Articles similar to this have been deleted by NPP. Please clarify why this article should stand for up to a week with patently false details relating to more than a dozen people, some of whom might object to their being mentioned in the same breath as such a TV programme?

A: You went from “an editor (A) who recognises the article format tags the article for speedy deletion” to “editor A in stating that such an event is never announced more than a few weeks ahead and that historically contestants identities are kept secret until broadcast time”, which is what I meant by adding additional information.

If your question is “would I speedy delete a page that is patently false?”, then yes I would. It is a subjective judgement where the line is where an article is a blatant hoax or merely highly suspected to be one. Since this question is hypothetical, I can only go on what you're describing. If the “article's voracity is not just improbable, it is impossible by any known measure”, then I would speedy delete it, but that's not the impression I got from first reading your question. The last caveat I would add is, it's not an either or situation. The options available to a patrolling admin are not just delete or decline. It is perfectly acceptable for an administrator to leave those speedy tagged articles they are unsure about to other administrators to review and make a decision on.

13A. I have added my support, this is purely supplementary. It relates to the BLP issue discussed above. From the WP:BLP policy you will be aware that the founder's opinion I provided is linked in bold from p2 in the lead of the policy. This brings it closer to core policy then perhaps you acknowledged in your first answer. The key in deciding whether some or all unsourced info about living people should be removed is the word "contentious". In your own view (or if you prefer in relation to the non-policy essay WP:CONTENTIOUS), do you support that only unsourced contentious (as in controversial) info should be removed or is any unsourced contentious material (apparently non-controversial but nevertheless factually disputed by another editor) the appropriate threshold?

A: I'm assuming you meant Wikipedia:Contentious. Personally, I probably operate more along the line of “unsourced contentious (as in controversial)”. Reading the essay, I particular like the last sentence. “Editors should … ask frankly whether they would have a problem with that edit being about their favourite (or least favourite) person in the world” Having said that, I also have no problem with editors who remove unsourced BLP content because they dispute its factual accuracy, and certainly wouldn't restore any such removed content without providing appropriate references.

Additional question from Cla68

14. As a member of WMUK (if I understand right), have you had any involvement in the Monmouth or Gibraltar-pedia projects? If so, could you explain the nature of your involvement? Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A: I've had no involvement in either project.

General comments

• Links for KTC: KTC (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for KTC can be found here.
• Edit stats are on the talk page. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - will not mess up the wiki and has a good history. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support Glad to support a good candidate. I was impressed by the nominations and the answers so far have been very good. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. Great contributions and very experienced user. I don't think that this user will mess with the admin tools. Torreslfchero (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Looks good to me. I checked out a few of the more recent bluelinks in the CSD log. Two were redirects, one had been recreated after it was deleted (by the author's request), and one was deleted to make place for a move, so no problems there. 100% edit summaries, good work with new users, mild temperament, and excellent answers to the questions so far. I chuckled a little when I saw how many articles she had created (and she calls herself a gnome). ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. A perusal of contribs only turned up good stuff. Although I must say that I am now disappointed that there is no List of male Fellows of the Royal Society. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support - I am surprised; I thought she already was an admin, but I suppose I was wrong. The answers to the questions, particularly number three show characteristics that few Wikipedians achieve, but we all should strive for. Based on a cursory review of her contributions, I think she definitely embodies those characteristics. Adminship is about judgment, and all I've seen from her is excellent judgment. Go Phightins! 20:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support logs show use of several tools and good work in recent years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Supporting on the strength of HJ's recommendation. Deb (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support balanced contributor showing good judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Support I'm a little unclear how the candidate will handle borderline CSD nominations, as their CSD log is full of really black and white cases, (which were correct) but otherwise seems like a strong candidate, and I can't really withhold support for having an uncontroversial CSD log. Monty₈₄₅ 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - seems to fit my criteria. --Nouniquenames 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Support, solid contributions including at AfC and AfD, good answers, and per the Worm's endorsement. Huon (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - Would make a solid addition to the admin team. (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Yes. - filelakeshoe 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - after a review of contributions. Normally I make a point of going through ScottyWong's AfD tool to review those contributions, for some reason that's not pulling up some AfDs I know the candidate participated in. Tool flailage aside, I was impressed by the breadth in types of participation. Not only do I support, but I suspect that giving this editor the tools is long overdue. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

    From my understanding, ScottyWong's tool analysis the last X (max 250) edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/* each time. I have a number of edits to WP:AFD/Old and NAC's which it is picking up. Click through to the "Next X AfD's" and you should see what you were looking for. -- KTC (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

    Now I'm even more convinced.  :) (And there was something a bit corked, before, I had been getting 4 AfDs on the first page before now over 20.) --j⚛e decker^talk 08:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

16. Support. I've often witnessed this user making herself useful. Spot checks turned up nothing alarming. Kilopi (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. Seeing thoughtful and conscientious interactions with new editors; a demonstrable amount of clue. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 22:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Support – good AfD/CSD, good edit history, great content work – I see no reason to oppose. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) ^{[Merry Christmas!]} 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
19. Support - About time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Unquestionably a net plus for the admin corps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Stephen 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
22. Support especially for answer to 3. Good luck! Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
23. Support - She has done a lot of gnome-work, and I appreciate that.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
24. Without hesitation. Courcelles 23:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Seems to be a trustworthy editor. TBrandley 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
26. I would prefer to see more than 14K edits since 2004, but otherwise I do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
27. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
28. You know those RfAs that pop up every now and then where you find yourself scratching your head, wondering to yourself — "Wait, wasn't this person already an administrator?" It's been sort of a cliché thrown around here for a long time, but does anyone really mean it when they say it? Or is it usually just a way of conveying appraisal for the candidate? Speaking as someone who has generally followed RfA closely since late 2008, it is very rare for me to mistakenly believe that someone is already an administrator. But here we are, with KTC taking the plunge for the very first time, and believe me when I say that I am nothing if not flabbergasted. You see, I had been under the impression that she was granted the sysop bit several years ago in a more lenient era, and in fact I came to regard her as among the most insightful Wikipedians I have ever encountered. While I'm not sure how she's managed to evade this process for so long, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support her today. She is a proven commodity and an absolutely indispensible asset to our cause. Kurtis (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
29. Support - Not going to say it any better than Kurtis just did. Trusilver 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Absolutely. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. Excellent contributor, would make a great admin. dci | TALK 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Good, if not amazing, answers. Now, I am more than happy to support. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with KTC on WikiProject Women Scientists and after a review of her contribs I think she'd make a great admin. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
34. Per solid nom statements, and answers to the questions look good. I don't follow WMUK goings-on, and anyway, as Ed notes, her time on the board predates the more recent kerfuffles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
35. Again been participating in RFA forever, and this is one of these rare moments I thought she was an admin. Secret ^account 04:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Solid candidate, fully qualified. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Sure. Legoktm (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
38. Support No reason to oppose, good luck. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I have no doubts that this candidate will make a fine administrator. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
40. Support I see no reason not to, and the first oppose below actually is giving me even more of a reson to support you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Absolutely - with no hesitation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
42. Support' as co-nominator. I was as surprised as you all were when I discovered KTC was not an admin, which is why I contacted her about a possible nomination. Good luck KTC! Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
43. Support - how could I fail to support a fellow Limey? But seriously, KTC is a solid candidate and all my interactions with her in the past have left a good impression, will be a welcome addition. GiantSnowman 09:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
44. Support. I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions, and gone through User:KTC/Contents taking a quick look at the BLPs. I'm happy.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
45. Support, has been sensible and level headed in all my interactions with her. Will be a great asset to the project with the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC).
46. Support; a competent and valuable used. KTC's contributions to the Wikimedia movement, both on and off wiki, have been exemplary and she can easily be trusted with the tools. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. As an editor with 8 years of experiance and answer to the first question, I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
49. Support. Slightly baffled that KTC wasn't already an admin, but she's a great contributor and will make a sane and reasonable admin. (Also, just to be clear, I'm not a big fan of guilt by association as some !voters seem to be.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
50. Support because of of KTC's thoughtful, forthright answers to questions. The gaps in editing history don't concern me; I'd rather see a long-term editor with a hiatus or two than an editor who comes in like a house afire, because the latter can also disappear just as fast. Should do a good job with the tools. Miniapolis (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
51. Heck yes. Great editor. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
52. Support. No concerns, and pretty solid answers — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC
53. Sane, sensible and useful candidate with a clean blocklog. We've met a couple of times at Wikimedia UK events, including on a training session; So as well as the need for the tools mentioned above there is the added bonus that an admin doing outreach work can avoid the throttling problem by setting course attendees as Autoconfirmed. As for the Oppose section and the criticism of her involvement in the UK chapter. I can't say I've always agreed with her, but I'm not a believer in opposing people just because you've been on different sides in a particular dispute. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
54. No major reason to oppose. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. Seems to have a somewhat different background than most candidates going through here, and I see no reason to think she cannot be trusted with the mop. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
56. Support Experienced, reliable... ok for me. Érico Wouters ^msg 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Looks good to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - Very good answers to my and other questions. Fabulous work done both on and off Wikipedia. Trusted editor with a serious commitment to the project. They will surely make a great admin and we truly need more users like her. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. User answered my two questions satisfactorily for me, and I see no reason he would abuse the tools, or be untrustworthy.. Basically, why not? gwickwire^talk_edits 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

    Apologies for being picky... but I notice that answer 6 and 12 employ gender-neutral language. The nomination makes the candidate's gender clear, not that it matters. Perhaps comments here should follow that example (although maybe this was a typo), if it's not going to be picked up on from the nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

60. Support - Pretty much everything has already been said. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
61. Support - Looks great! PStrait (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

    I've reevaluated in view of the unexpected (to me at least) opposes over the past couple of days, but haven't seen anything in them leading me to question my support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

63. Support a great contributor. No major reason for this candidate to oppose in his RfA. Mediran (t • c) 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

    See my comment to #59 regarding gender-neutral language. -- Trevj (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

64. Support - Trustworthy and experienced user. INeverCry 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
65. Support - She seems to possess the experience and wisdom necessary to serve in the role of admin. - MrX 02:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - No issues from looking at her edits; user seems qualified and wouldn't abuse tools. Vacation^nine 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
67. Support - contribs look good. --Surturz (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
68. Support No alarms here. GedUK  13:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
69. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
70. Support per Kurtis. GaramondLethe 17:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
71. Support I love gnomes- I was one when I was given the mop, and I still am. KTC's contributions and experience are strong, and I see no reason not to make her a sysop. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
72. Support...no evidence that they will abuse the tools or position...MONGO 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
73. Support - a candidate I know and trust not to do anything foolish, and to be calm and polite while not doing it. There are some concerns below that the relatively low edit-count (by RFA standards) implies a lack of experience; for what it's worth, I've had the opportunity to work with KTC in a number of outreach workshops, and I feel confident that her experience and understanding of the way the project works is at a suitable level for adminship. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
74. Support. Easy decision - I see no reasons at all to doubt KTC's admin suitability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
75. Support Looks like a good candidate. Didn't see anything in scanning contribs that stuck out as bad. Personally I think that gnomes make good admins. PaleAqua (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - Obvious. Qualified and very hard-working and experienced user. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
77. Support, have reviewed both the opposes and a random sampling of edits, and find nothing that scares me off. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
78. Support - answers to questions show maturity and discretion, and her outreach and training experience is desirable. Shrigley (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
79. Support, contributions withstand the valid oppose rationale enough to make me neutral. This one absolutely tilts on the consistent strengths of the nominators. The fact that I also have observed and interacted with KTC make me that much more confident.  --My76Strat (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
80. Support opposes unconvincing; seems unlikely to misuse the tools. Wish there was more content contributed, but that's not the question. Vouching for by the nominators went a long way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
81. Support, 8 years experience, 14k edits, and an understanding of relevant policies and guidelines, is well enough for me. Answers to questions like, "In addition, my personality are such that I like to think things through all angles before making a (hopefully) well thought out statement," is absolutely sufficient. Whilst, it's as if some people want to see poetry coming out of this candidates' answers, I'm one to accept clear cut answers from a candidate who has indicated they will think before doing. Good luck Katie, and Merry Christmas! -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 03:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
82. Support. - Thanks for being willing to help out. Good luck! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
83. Support. A strong candidate with wide involvement in the community. I just do not understand the opposes. If those views prevailed, we have no active admins. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Despite the claims of the nay sayers, I seen no reason why KTC should not be confirmed as admin. BO | Talk 11:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
85. Support While I understand the opposes, I don't agree with them. Partly because many would place me in the same 'WMF lackey' category as they've placed KTC, but mostly because of content. I don't believe that lots of content work is needed to become an admin (I didn't even have DYKs to my name when I was nominated, if I recall). I think that KTC is keen, intelligent, experienced and cares deeply for the movement - for me, those are what matters. Everything else can be picked up along the way. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
86. Support I don't see any evidence, in her contributions or in the opposes, that KTC would be anything other than a net benefit to the admin team. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
87. Support. I believe the standards at RfA have become ridiculously inflated in my absence. KTC is a long-term user with wide experience. Her content experience is adequate to assess notability, and I'm certain she will not abuse the tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
88. Support; for a one-off, I'll come out of my temporary exile to one article and put in a good word for a great editor. In all honesty, I think we could use more admins familiar with the inner workings of WMF issues to keep people like me from going off on them all the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
89. Support. More mainspace experience would be nice but still a competent editor who can be trusted to act for the good of the project. Highly likely to be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
90. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Good user and good knowledge and history. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
92. Support with pleasure. Seems trustworthy and committed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
93. Support Why not. I see no good reason to oppose.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
94. Support: Oppose votes are unconvincing, and what "snark" noted below is well within WP:CIVIL (moreso than some comments by admins and !voters here, dare I say). I must say I disapprove of universally hating anyone who works with / for the WMF, as some (many?) of them remain dedicated editors. Sarah Stierch and MRG, for example, have dedicated years to this project even before working with / for the WMF, and their contributions are invaluable. KTC should not be tainted by the Gibraltarpedia/pornography scandals which hit WM UK after her departure (what is this? Minority Report?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
95. Support - I am satisfied that she will use the tools appropriately. Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
96. Looks good to me. MJ94 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
97. I think the snarky comment was justified. As far as I've read, this editor has not been involved at all in the controversy surrounding WMF UK and her association with it predates much (or all) of it. No concerns, give her the bit.--v/r - TP 04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
98. Support per Pichpich; I wish the candidate did more in mainspace, but there's no reason to expect that she'll cause chaos. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
99. Support Length and breadth of experience seems fine to me. No major concerns about temperament. Why not? Pol430 talk to me 16:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
100. Support The WMF and non-snarky snark attack are non-issues for me. I respect the manner in which the candidate argues their point with assurance. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
101. Support. What I can see looks very good to me. I've pondered the comments in the oppose section, and I'm afraid that I not only find them unconvincing, but actually rather strange. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
102. Support Comfortable enough with experience and competence to support.--Slon02 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
103. Support, good answers to the questions, seems level-headed and fair. Nothing convincing in the oppose rationales. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 04:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
104. + "I thought the user already was one" cliché. Keegan (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
105. Support - I am won over by the quality of the nominators and supporters, by the candidates established record of service to Wikipedia, and by the marginality of the opposes. No reason to suspect misuse of the tools will be a future problem. Jusdafax 06:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
106. Support. Very respected nominators, and I don't have a problem with the candidate's contributions either. The WMF connection is a non-issue for me, nor is the WMUK affiliation (I don't think she was involved in the recent issues in WMUK). MikeLynch (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
107. Support No reason to think you'll misuse the tools. Im surprised to see comments about your writing, as to me it looks well above average. The thought and energy you put into considering situations rather than giving pat answers is attractive. Flawless grammar and a slightly more flowing style will come with time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
108. Support, per FeydHuxtable that was exactly what I thought. mabdul 12:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
109. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
110. Support I'm satisfied.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 17:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
111. Support History looks pretty solid/no concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
112. Support After reading all comments, I don't see any reason to oppose.--В и к и T 18:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
113. Support I've long known of KTC's work on Wikipedia and the fact that she's been involved in Wikipedia for 8 years speaks volumes for her love for this place. After reading through the pros and cons I also feel that the facts raised against her don't justify keeping her from becoming an admin.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
114. Support Good Luck.--BlueFen BlueTalk BuTions 20:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
115. Support. Appears intelligent, mature and balanced. The last seven months show dedication to the project. I found no problems with mainspace editing. An allegedly snarky comment below seems overblown. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
116. Support, experienced. --Makecat 03:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
117. Support - I can understand the concerns brought up. Lack of extensive article contributions and the time lapse admited as being due to being an inconsistant editor...but we all have real lives and the length of service and contributions in other areas (especially WP:AFC) here seems to balance that out. As a registered account that stopped editing for so long....I am glad they came back. No concern with WMFUK. _{Love the pic of the Mad Scientist on the page.} --Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
118. Support - I echo what has been said above and would like to add that whilst I don't believe KTC is in the "wider movement to one of our number" clan, this should not be used against someone as I've dabbled in the "wider movement", and it's not as sinister as it has been made out to be below! Thehelpfulone 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
119. Support, as seems willing to move carefully. Among KTC's 80 created articles (many for AFC), I noted ship "MV Kowloon Bridge" (with multi-level infoboxes) as the largest European shipwreck before 2012 Costa Concordia, created in 2008 after years of neglect by the rest of us. Well done. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
120. Support I have seen this users contributions and they will make a good addition. No concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
121. Support per Keilana who worked with her, my voice for capable women, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
122. Support, I feel she can be trusted with the tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
123. I have seen KTC around a lot and have generally been pleased with her work. I do know she isn't an admin, but when I saw her name the other day and clicked on her userpage I was surprised to learn then that she isn't. I think she'll be fine. Acalamari 22:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
124. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
125. Support - Experienced editor with a lot of contributions. I think she should be given the adminship.--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 06:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
126. Yes  7  07:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
127. Support because she has shown no reason not to be trusted, because of the trust of the nominators, and because she is unlikely to permanently break anything. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
128. Support. An excellent candidate. For the record, I'm disgusted by much of what I'm reading below in the opposition section. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
129. Support. A candidate with more than enough experience and maturity. I'm often skeptical about what the WMF does, but I'm not in the slightest concerned about her involvement in the Foundation or WMUK and find that the claims relating to them in the question and oppose sections seem to be looking for reasons to oppose rather than state any concrete valid claims. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
130. Support Thank you for volunteering to do more work :-). She has more than adequate experience to be trusted with admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Ya lost me at former Chair of Wikimedia UK plus sat on Grant Advisory Committee... Carrite (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe this is obvious to some, but could you explain what you mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

   To say that some editors do not like WMUK would be ... an understatement. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-24/News and notes and things like [2]. However, I would note that these incidents (which are all relatively recent) occurred long after KTC's departure in 2009. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   ...And this may also help to get in context. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   Many thanks from the ignorant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   Don't worry :) Not everyone is aware of that, and IMO, I don't find them reasons enough to oppose. But that's just my opinion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not gonna say another word on this. Carrite (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

   For the benefit of those unsure of context; KTC hasn't been in any way involved in the problematic WMUK activities... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Anybody close to the WMF who does not regularly edit articles needs to spend time editing before applying to be be a hall monitor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. KTC is a good editor, with many valuable contributions. While she has made many (uncontroversial) non-admin closures of AfDs, these have required minimal effort and don't show KTC's ability to judge an article's worthiness. She has few actual !votes in AfD. She does not have appropriate experience to be entrusted with deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   Could you clarify, you're not opposing because she hasn't closed controversial AFDs, right? You're just saying that they don't demonstrate understanding of notability criteria as well as actual !votes, is that right?--v/r - TP 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   That is correct. I was trying to preempt any claims that she has appropriate AfD experience due to non-admin closures. The presence of these non-admin closures is irrelevant to RfA & suitability for adminship. I do not believe that non-admins should ever close controversial AfDs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   By my count, she has voted in 187 AfD's and closed about 70. She has edited 577 unique AfD pages total. How many AfD's would you like to see participation in before you would be satisfied that the candidate has sufficient experience (not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious)? ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 07:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Your own tool shows a total of 21 !votes. When I checked your tool yesterday, it showed only 4 !votes—the ones in December. (I checked through KTC's contributions myself as well.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Please see my comment to Joe Decker above re. Scottywong's tool. Thanks! KTC (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose (moved from neutral) per WP:NOTNOW. Thanks to Axl for summarising the research I'm almost certainly not going to find the time to complete in time for Boxing Day. My initial feelings were along those lines, and now seem to have been confirmed. I expect that the candidate is a good editor and I'm not aware of evidence that the tools would be deliberately abused. However, I agree that more experience is desirable. In the event of this nomination being unsuccessful, I'd look to support next time. -- Trevj (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   WP:NOTNOTNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks. My mistake. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   I see little point in me asking a question at this late hour in the proceedings. But after finding a bit of time to skim through some of the comments here and checking through a few recent (no consensus) NACs at AfD too, I maintain that more experience would be beneficial. While non-admins can happily (although debatably, according to some) summarise AfDs as no consensus, this isn't a reason not to close as keep/merge if such arguments are based in policy and not countered. Conversely (and admittedly without delving into specifics of articles and sources raised) some closures may have been best left for an admin, in the case of delete being more in accordance with the discussion and policy. As I indicated above, this isn't IMO a good time of year to expect editors to give their usual levels of attention to any area of Wikipedia, and I'm surprised that the voting numbers don't appear to reflect this more obviously. I've nothing whatsoever against WMF, whose staff and volunteers I've always found to be genuinely helpful in all respects. Anyway, merry Christmas, and no hard feelings to KTC - and it looks as if I should probably be offering my congratulations on a successful RfA, in fact! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose Strong oppose after a great deal of thought. Positives; I like and respect both nominators very much, and the candidate seems sane. But the negatives seem stronger; no real pedigree either in article-writing (that list is ok but I need to see more than that in a prospective admin) or in admin-type areas. So, no offence intended, but I don't have enough data available to support and I default in cases like this to oppose. And, it's a minor point, but seeing sentences like In addition, my personality are such that I like to think things through all angles before making a (hopefully) well thought out statement. in answers to questions is not a turn-on for me. I like to see people who can write fluently, even beautifully, and this nomination doesn't provide sufficient evidence of that. Please come back once you have built up a portfolio of relevant experience and developed your writing skills some more. --John (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Now strong oppose per this; as Sandy says, this is not the temperament we need in an admin. --John (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   Well it was a fairly ridiculous oppose; we're always encouraged as editors to contribute views to the wider movement, and then complain when one of our number does so?? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   Ridiculous, perhaps, but it did provoke an interesting response :). Still, I believe you're reading my rationale incorrectly (as is KTC), or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'd have no beef at all with "one of our number" contributing to "the wider movement". But, what I see here, and I'm happy to proven wrong, is someone who has come the other way, i.e., from the wider movement to "one of our number". A higher proportion of article space edits would have alleviated that concern. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for your clarification RegentsPark. I guess our viewpoint differs. Personally, I don't think it really matter how someone become “one of our number”. For those that are interested, I first edited in December 2004 with decreased activity level between 2006 and mid-2007. In February 2008, the then WMF board Chair Anthere started an email thread on Foundation-l that called for election officials volunteers and I ended up volunteering to serve on that year's foundation board election committee. In August that year, a series of messages on Wikimediauk-l led to the dissolution of the first Wikimedia UK and proposal for the current one, and again I volunteered, to help found the company and served on its founding board until the first AGM. I would say that put me down as being “one of our number” contributing to “the wider movement” and not the other way round, but that's just me. :) -- KTC (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose per John (above) and Sandy (below). Like John, I see a bunch of (usually!) sane nominators and was planning on just staying out of this but two things give me pause. First, of course, is the lack of mainspace edits. I'm not a content only purist but I think this is below the threshold. Second, I'm not a fan of the two hat model because the agendas of the foundation and that of the community are not likely to be in total sync and I'd prefer to see the two kept at arms length from each other. I'd probably just stay out of this if she were a good content editor with a foundation hat but that doesn't seem to be the case, not as yet anyway. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that a volunteer occasionally reading over a few grant applications submitted to the foundation and giving their purely advisory personal opinion on the applications to be incompatible with being administrator on the English Wikipedia. KTC (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Moving to oppose per my initial reservations expressed below in neutral, per the info on AFDs, but more significantly because I feel the candidate's response just above this to RegentsPark is pure uncalled for snark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

   I see what you could arguably call "snark". I can not see it as "uncalled for" unless you mean to imply, it was demanded. To be clear, the exchange deteriorated when RegentsPark contrasted the "normally sane" nominations with this nomination, implying it is insane. The response is extremely mild in that context. The uncalled for moment belongs to RegentsPark and it was their post which led to more, and yours, and mine.  --My76Strat (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Your snark detector is broken. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

8. I'm sorry, but I agree with John and Sandy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Candidate's response to regentspark's oppose rationale (a rationale I agree with) is snotty and completely nonconstructive. As an editor, I wouldn't want to work with this person. Townlake (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   I look forward to working with her. I hope she makes it. I wouldn't wish one of these RfA proceedures on anyone, just because they always evolve devolove into veiled personal attacks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Come on. Pointing out concerns about a candidate's communication style is not at all a "veiled personal attack." Townlake (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   @Townlake - you're aware that she's British, right? That response to RegentsPark was positively warm! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

   Haha, point well taken! Townlake (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose - not enough close experience of Wikipedia to judge competence. I would feel more comfortable with either six more months of consistent contributions, or more evidence of high level contributions or clearer understanding of Wikipedia. The chairmanship of WMUK is neither here nor there as regards this admin request, though it is interesting to note that the applicant's Wikipedia activity was at its highest in two periods - around Sept 08 when she became WMUK chair, and in the past few months leading up to this adminship application. Given that, for me, the applicant's nomination of the rather dubious List of female Fellows of the Royal Society for Featured List feels more political than encyclopedic, I feel uncomfortable in more than one area. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    I often find myself agreeing with your, usually, measured approach, SilkTork, but in this case I find your comment to be obnoxious and unfair! I know Katie IRL (she and I have done outreach training together for WMUK and we are currently planning next years AGM) and she worked very hard on that list out of a real belief it is a notable topic. I don't want to pile on and criticise opposes on the grounds of activity (which I don't agree with, but you are entitled to hold that view) but the remainder of your oppose is very sad to see. Assuming bad faith about each other's hard work is exactly the sort of civility issue we are plagued with! :( --Errant ^(chat!) 16:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    I respect though obviously disagree with your opinion that you believe I do not yet have enough experience, but I just want to correct a couple of misconception in the rest of your comment. If you double check my contribution, you'll see that by September 2008 my activity at that time had already dropped to a lower level. In terms of the list, that was created the day after I took part in the Ada Lovelace Day editathons event at the Royal Society where I obtained the information aiding in the list creation. The list has been at FLC for 2 months now and wasn't nominated just before the start of this RFA or because of this RFA. In fact, it's a topic area I've been working on for nearly 2 months even before that. I had also previously nominated List of countries to featured list status eons ago when I was first active. KTC (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    Wow. I knew RfA was bitey but that's incredible. I'm sure you know where WP:Articles for Deletion/List of female Fellows of the Royal Society is. Maybe we should upmerge the Royal Society to East Kentucky Basketball Hall of Fame whilst we're about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    The list nomination is just fine as far as I can see, as a WP:FLC director. Certainly it does not appear to be a device to ingratiate KTC to the community, she has received plenty of (unnecessary) hostility there as well as here. I'm glad the original comment has been struck as being entirely outwith the scope of this RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose - per reasons of John and Trevj, noted above. Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Agree in general with RegentsPark. I feel the WMF people have a different agenda than wikipedians and the WMF Grant Advisory Committee membership seems to me like a reward WMF gives out to editors who follow the WMF path. Saying the there aren't problems in retaining editors by referring to a 2009 wikimedia charts doesn't persuade me that KTC understands the problem. Plus English skills seem poor, e.g. there can be legitimate reason why SW haven't edited for a couple of weeks, as John notes. Just my opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    Now I may have a somewhat skewed perception of grammar and syntax at the moment, given what I've been working on for the last several days, but is it really that big a deal? As long as she's not writing things like that in articles, I really don't see why this is such a major issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    I made my point badly. Kiefer and Ceoil say it better. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

    What do you mean by "WMF people"? Everybody ever involved with any structure, real or virtual, in some way related to WMF? If yes, I am afraid, we are infiltrated by a large number of users with double agenda.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    Crikey, if you define it widely enough even I'm a "WMF man", having done some (limited) chapter work... with a chapter that is not exactly fond of the WMF either — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    Please dont badger Mathew even after he said "I made my point badly" and clarified his oppose. And dont make light of the opposes, they are serious and thought through concerns we are entitled to hold. We are all here very invested in the project, and guessing on a meta level this stems from an unhappiness about the direction it is taking. I see a light editor here, connected, and ok her tenure was after it came out, but read this [3]. Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    I agree in part that people are entitled to hold such views. I am unsure we are required to see them as we'll thought through though. Considering, for example, that this opposer clearly never scrolled across on the graph to see much newer data. I think it's reasonable for people to point out badly thought through points and incongruities incongruities in comments. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

    I had intended to stay out of this, but I just wanted to say that the comment regarding the WMF is very odd. Sure, they're far from perfect, and sometimes I get frustrated with them, as do other editors, but the "different agenda" comment seems to treat the WMF like some weird outside organisation, when in fact it's the organisation that keeps this website running. While a little cynicism is healthy for the editors of a neutral encyclopaedia, I think comments like that take a somewhat blinkered view of the movement.

    While I'm here (I probably won't comment on this RfA further, having made my opinion clear in the nomination), I'd just like to remind everybody that this is a good faith offer of help, not an attempt at a hostile takeover. People are entitled to believe that the candidate is insufficiently qualified, and equally entitled to express that opinion, but I would personally appreciate it if those opinions (which are doubtless held in good faith, with Wikipedia's best interests in mind) could be expressed in a way that is not unnecessarily hostile or demeaning to the candidate. It is perfectly possible to state that you don't think a candidate should be an administrator while being respectful of the good faith in which the nomination was made. Perhaps we could bear that in mind and cut Katie—and each other—a little slack, especially in this season of peace and good will. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    Again, the mere fact that supporters disagree with how an opinion is expressed does not make that opinion a personal attack. And HJ, coming from the nominator section down here to lecture the opposers about how to oppose is pretty ridiculous. Townlake (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not accusing anybody of personal attacks. I think the opposers have honestly held concerns and, though I disagree with them, I defend their right to express them. What I am saying is that some of the comments in this section are more hostile than they really need to be, considering that this is a good-faith offer of help and not anything more sinister, and that it's perfectly possible to make a meaningful oppose without the acrimony. But I've probably over-stepped the bounds of 'best practice' for what a nominator should say on his nominee's RfA so I'll but out and perhaps raise this on WT:RFA in the new year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

13. Per Kiefer. Not comfortable with this kind of attempted parachute. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose Doesn't feel right to me, per Kiefer and Sandy...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose I'm not liking the 4 year layoff from 2008–2012 which means that there's less than a year of recent editing. Also the candidate's English seems quite weak. Warden (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

    Moved to Neutral Edits like this [4] bother me. Five editors said keep, no one saying delete but the nominator, and this person decides it should be listed another 7 days. [5] The nominator later withdrew the nomination. Why not close it as keep? Did the editor decide they didn't like it, so instead of just saying delete, decided to extend the debate longer and hope to get the results they wanted? And the edit history seems odd. [6] The person does almost nothing for years, then shows up with a horde of activity, then asks to be made an administrator because they went around doing the job of one closing AFDs and the extending some others, in order to prove they could? Dream Focus 16:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

    I relisted that particular discussion because all the comments made up to that point were by SPA with possible canvass issue. Never heard of the subject of the article, don't know anything about it, don't have a personal opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Regards -- KTC (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

    That makes sense. Still, oppose for your edit history I mentioned. A few weeks of activity doesn't earn you the right to become an administrator. Dream Focus 16:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

    Dream Focus, are you really serious? There is a big giant "SPA" tag on that AfD. Shouldn't that give you a clue what KTC's rationale was? I can't possibly imagine how you can justify your first sentence. I cannot even articulate how unbelievably stupid that rationale was. You should be embarrassed.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

    Half way through you have the pointless "if you came here because someone asked you too" which people toss up all the time just because they feel like it. It doesn't show anything. Dream Focus 00:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Dream Focus - You and I have very rarely agreed on things, but I've still had respect for you. But come on, you couldn't tell those accounts were brand new? I'm not going to badger you over it anymore, I just wish you'd had taken a little more care.--v/r - TP 01:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    I honestly didn't stop and check the contributions of every editor who posted, so I wouldn't know. I've seen the "If you came here because someone asked you to" message so many times, I know its mostly just meaningless 90% of the time so it didn't really register its meaning to me. People see something nominated for help by the Rescue Squadron and they post that for that reason alone sometime, so I just tune it out. No need for you to be rude and snippy about this, especially since it was already dealt with before you posted. Dream Focus 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Dream Focus. A few weeks of activity might not be enough for RFA, but this candidate first edited 8 years ago, has 19 different months in which she has contributed over 100 edits in the month, and that includes the last 8 months consecutively. I could understand your description if she had only resumed activity for 8 weeks, and if she'd run only 8 weeks after returning to current levels of activity then there might have been a concern as to whether she had got back up to speed with the latest developments in the community. But looking at this candidate's contributions your description just looks incorrect, may I suggest you look again and check your assumptions? ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    [7] She edits almost never over the past few years, then shows up making far more edits than she ever had before in a single month, right before asking to become an administrator. Would she edit that much if she wasn't going to ask for this position? I notice also by looking at his recent contributions, most of her edits are just rapidly going through request for article creation clicking the same "you don't have enough references found yet so denied", doing bot work, and simple functions that take no effort in various AFDs. Was most of her edits previously the same thing? How many are just her posting on someone's talk page a generic bot message? Dream Focus 00:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Hi DreamFocus According to the link you gave she contributed over 2,000 edits in June this year, in the subsequent six months she has contributed over 500 in every month, but her most active month this year was June, and that is several months before submitting this RFA. If she'd submitted this RFA in July after two months of returning to activity then I wouldn't have queried your description of her. But in my book "right before asking to be an administrator" would be November this year and in that month she made 561 edits. I wouldn't describe that as "far more edits than she ever had before in a single month" by my reading of the stats it was only her seventh highest monthly edit count so far this year. As for the proportion of her edits that are minor, well that's a separate issue but she is a content contributor with featured content to her name, so it is fair to assume that not all her content contributions are minor. You also raised the issue of how many of her edits were merely posting a generic message on someone's talkpage, as only 13% of her edits are to user talk space we know the upper bound on that number - but if you have concerns re that I'd suggest you scrutinise or question the candidate - I was merely querying part of your oppose that would appear to be incorrect. ϢereSpielChequers 01:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Those are months not days. Yikes. I need to get more sleep before posting. Never mind. Protest withdrawn. Dream Focus 02:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should !vote in the neutral section, with this one indented? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose - Per John and Sandy. I find the regent's park response telling too. Shadowjams (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Salvio. Andreas JN466 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose The response to Regentspark, particularly in the context of an RfA where one would presumably be careful to put one's best foot forward, absolutely raises red flags. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per John, Sandy, RegentsPark, and Kiefer. I'm also not a fan of the timing of this RfA during what I understand is one of the least active periods of editing of each year. I'm even less impressed by the increasing force of the responses to oppose opinions over the past couple of days. - UnbelievableError (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

    Extra effort to support when admin numbers are dropping: I think people are trying to refute the misguided opposition reasons, because they have December time to think about people but maybe not analyze articles/templates, and there has been talk about the dwindling admin numbers (and can we re-get past Wikipedians as admins, live count: 859), and so some admins would like some more helpers, especially someone who will edit in December (a major holiday/travel period for many editors). See the logic there? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

20. Oppose, per Sandy and Salvio. I highly respect both of these editors and find their reasoning compelling. Although I have not have much interaction with RegentsPark or Trevj, their arguments are also valid. GregJackP Boomer! 12:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose Mainly per Sandy but also Kiefer and others. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 16:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

(moved to oppose) Per Carrite and minimal article contributions; I don't like to see WMF types who haven't spent significant time in article creation using tools they aren't likely to understand. The actual editing here is negligible, and she has more edits to Wikipedia space than <replaced with> she has few edits to article talk and user talk combined, which indicates it is unlikely that she has engaged significant conflict or the issues of day-to-day editing where judicious use of tools is needed. I would oppose on that basis, but this bandwagon seems to be rolling already, and I expect I'd be badgered if I opposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy - It seems that most of the Wikipedia space edits are to WP:AFC. Wouldn't that fall under the content class of edits? Not trying to badger, just not sure if you noticed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, TP; struck and corrected above. Still concerned about lack of engagement at user and article talk and the very limited edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

moving to oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(moved to oppose) Neutral I'm not sure about some of the candidate's AfD nominations, and this is an area where work is proposed. Not enough of a concern to oppose until I've investigated further (if possible, bearing in mind the timescale of this RfA), but I currently don't feel able to support either. -- Trevj (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (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.