Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kate[edit]

The Lady formerly known as Lysine Ikinsile, now operating under the more prosaic name of Kate Turner, knows very well that adminship is not "an important and ponderous privilege", but simply a technical capability that allows people to do more housekeeping more easily. Having learned my lesson from trying to count up Gtrmp's contributions, I didn't even bother with Kate because I know she has nearly as many edits if not more (despite having been here only since early June, if I recall). She is always courteous and has a talent for looking to find agreement even when people are at loggerheads. I see no reason for the community not to entrust her with the keys to the janitor's closet. --Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. For the record, I have 11,940 edits since June 6, but the vast majority are menial cleanup tasks: I'd estimate I have about 1,500–2,000 "normal" edits. — Kate Turner | Talk 01:49, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sean Curtin 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mike H 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 01:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Strong support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Can't think of a better admin. — David Remahl 01:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. RedWolf 01:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  8. My interactions with Kate have been very positive and productive (well, she was productive).-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  9. Guanaco 02:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Dysprosia 02:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes! For sure.
  11. Quite the witty gal this one is, and a diligent worker to boot. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  12. GeneralPatton 02:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. —No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. Most definitely. Kate's understanding of the responsibilities of a sysop -- and the limits of sysop power -- are right on target. -- orthogonal 02:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. David Cannon 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I support you, Kate. It would be nice, though, if I could see your face and not merely the back view:-)
  16. Most certainly. ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Snowspinner 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Duh.
  18. Yes. I feel she would make a good sysop. - Mark 03:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  19. One of the most excellent contributors I've seen in a while. Diligent, dedicated, fair, and a whole bunch of other positive adjectives. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 05:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): She's not a sysop already?
  21. PFHLai 05:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  22. Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  23. 172 06:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  24. VV 07:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. Kim Bruning 07:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) NO FAIR! Someone beat me to nominating Kate. :-P
  26. Conti|✉ 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  27. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  28. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  29. Few people work as hard as she does; she runs a mailing list and made many thousands of edits to fix external links headers. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
  30. Support: Kate has been very helpful in redirecting all the cricket (sport) disambigs to cricket. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Strongly support. --Lst27 22:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  32. Arwel 23:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. Very strongly support. A++++ would buy from again!!!elevenone11. CryptoDerk 23:49, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Wholeheartedly endorse. Austin Hair 00:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  35. Acegikmo1 02:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  36. Kate's attention to detail on title conventions (and a more easily spelled username) get my vote. I have seen nothing but good out of her since I've been around. --avnative 07:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  37. squash 08:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  38. Strong support! - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  39. The Featured Article email custodian. Ancheta Wis 08:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  40. David Gerard 12:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Dammit, and I was threatening to nominate her ... A natural from day one IMO.
  41. Merovingian✍Talk 13:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  42. JCarriker 18:26, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  43. When I saw "11,496 edits" my mouth dropped to the floor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  44. Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  45. I'm pretty sure we disagree in many fundamental ways about the way Wikipedia works, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose. Adam Bishop 09:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  46. [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Arnfjör<eth>]] talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/| ]] 12:09, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
  47. "menial cleanup tasks" are the most important! func(talk) 19:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  48. Kate's not a sysop already? Tsk. James F. (talk) 23:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  49. ffirehorse 02:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  50. Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 08:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  51. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  52. Of course! - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  53. Hopping on the bandwagon. :) --Golbez 19:43, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  54. Wait for me! - Tεxτurε 15:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  55. Uhh... oppose, on grounds that she has db access... errr wait. no... make that support, on grounds that she's nice and deals with problems... nicely? Uhh... right. Node 03:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  56. Amazed by this user's edits, have seen much of hir work from afar. Easily support. Rhymeless 05:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  57. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Would recommend a somewhat more deletionist spirit, though.

Oppose:

  1. — i386 | Talk 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ridiculous charade. She's already a developer. Why is there no vote for this? Developer is clearly a more important position than sysop, and there is not even an announcement, it seems to happen behind the scenes. How can you possibly trust someone with developer powers before the person is even here long enough to meet the minimum standards for adminship? Gzornenplatz 17:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ugen624 04:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) - this user has caused me terrible distress, and I have been afflicted with a terrible case of multiple sockpuppet disorder (MSD).
  4. Not enough support votes at this time. Willing to support at 60 support votes. (Feel free to move this vote, if I forget to do it myself, am kidnapped by aliens, or if this sentence is false.) Κσυπ Cyp   23:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. strongly oppose. ends IRC name with non-alphanumeric. just say "no" to punctuation terrorism. +sj+ 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

  1. Fuzheado | Talk 05:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - willing to support at 12,000 edits. Just kidding! :)

Comments:

For a while in there, Kate was editing as an IP - has she returned to using her username? Snowspinner 02:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - at least I think (hope) I can manage to avoid the things that annoy me and still edit as a user. I may need to do some anonymous recovery from time to time, though :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 02:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

How many times will I see my "important and ponderous privilege" line parroted on Rfa? ;) I still stand by it, however. Adminship is the privilege of carrying out the community's wishes; ergo, adminship is important because admins are trusted with the responsibility of performing the duties necessary to implement the community's will, such as bans and deletions. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten who wrote the phrase originally, I only remembered that Kate reused it later, in the same fashion I did. It's all in how you look at privileges. In the sense you mean, that adminship privileges are "important and ponderous" and must be handled with great care and good judgment, the same way you would treat a precious vase, the phrase has its merits. I'm afraid we've coopted it for another purpose, which is to remind ourselves that in spite of having a few additional technical facilities at their disposal, admins are not "important and ponderous" people with a privileged position in Wikipedia society, but have the same standing as all other members of the community. Ultimately, we're getting at the same thing, which is that admins exist to serve the good of Wikipedia as a whole. --Michael Snow 05:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, how can someone have developer status, (Kate's good work with changing edit attributions), and yet not automatically be an admin? I mean, if you trust someone with the keys to the back door, why is there an issue with whether or not to also give them keys to the front door? func(talk) 17:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's silly (and your analogy is dead-on). She could very easily set the admin flag on her account (IE, as a dev, she can promote herself). →Raul654 17:51, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Well, sysops are not purely janitors: they have to make decisions about when users should be blocked, and other "value judgements" that require various degrees of social interaction and the ability to work well within the community. Developer tasks are generally either trivial from a social point of view - such as changing edits - or not related at all, such as work on the MediaWiki software. As well as simple trust, the RfA procedure therefore verifies the social aspects that are required for adminship, which being trusted as a developer doesn't require. (Of course, if I were to unilaterally set myself as a sysop, I'd imagine I wouldn't be a developer for long in any case...)
To give one example, there's at least one other developer who isn't a sysop on en:, but is given sysop rights by a bureaucrat from time to time in order to do the technical blocking that was required by the old version of the username change procedure. However, the need (and ability) to do this technical task does doesn't qualify the user to, for example, enforce a block from the arbitration committee - because that's entirely a social task.
Of course, this is moot inasmuch as a developer could set hirself as a sysop, but I would like to think that someone trusted with such technical access is able to abide by the (implicit) social contract.
At least, that's how I see it. — Kate Turner | Talk 18:08, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)


And that makes sense. :) Um, just to be clear: I didn't mention her developer status to in any way call into question her promotion to adminship. She is obviously qualified and trusted, (which is why I voted for her). func(talk) 18:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the oppose votes on this election...i386/33451's vote does not offer anything in the way of reasoning, and his explanations on my talk page are even more worrisome. JFW's vote is some kind of inside joke and he told Kate on hirs talk page that Kate could remove it if sie wanted. I don't follow why Gzornenplatz' chooses to oppose Kate just because the developer selection procedure is somewhat odd. Finally, Ugen624. Is that a joke of some kind too? They're all naturally entitled to their opinion, but they do confuse me... — David Remahl 09:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • Ugen624 is almost certainly a joke, given the explanation and that the user page redirects to Ugen64, who voted support. --Michael Snow 17:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's just a protest against the travesty of voting whether someone can be trusted as a sysop when the person is already a developer, a much more critical position in that regard. And maybe Kate should have mentioned this little detail - I just learned it when Func mentioned it above. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I wasn't a developer at the time the RfA was posted. I didn't mention afterwards because:
      1. I don't want people to vote for me because I'm a developer, or to appear as thought I'm trying to influence the process.
      2. I don't see a connection between "developership" and adminship. I shouldn't be a sysop soley because I'm a developer; conversely, I don't think I should be denied adminship soley because I'm a developer. As I said above, the implications from being a developer and being a sysop are very different,
    • I do not agree that being a developer is a "much more critical position", because I do not have the right to do any standard actions carried out by sysops: I cannot ban vandals, I cannot (un)delete pages, etc. Yes, technically I could, but I'm not going to, because it hasn't (yet) been decided that I should be trusted with the right to do so. The fact that one can be able to do something, but yet not have the right to—and to concede and adhere to this agreement—is the basis on which one can be a developer and not a sysop. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:51, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I'm slightly confuzzed. Is she Kate Turner or is he Edward Brocklesby? XYZ 16:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm both (although I don't use my real name online much). — Kate Turner | Talk 16:55, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kate&oldid=1138650847"