Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarah Ewart

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

Sarah Ewart[edit]

Final (160/4/1) Ended 19 September 2006 05:09:54 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs) – This user has been at Wikipedia since September of last year (2005), and since then has accumulated over 5000 edits, distributed well throughout the various namespaces. She is a great vandal fighter, with many reports to WP:AIV, and is very active at WP:AFD. I have never seen her get even slightly uncivil, even after hours of vandal fighting. She has email enabled, has 100% edit summary usage, has an uncontroversial userpage, has never been blocked, and has demonstrated her clear understanding of policy many times in all of her Wikipedia: space edits. She would be a great administrator and a great asset to Wikipedia. —Mets501 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom. I previously offered to nominate Sarah, but she said then that she wanted to wait a bit longer, which is always a good sign. I thoroughly endorse Mets501's evaluation. Sarah has already been acting with the responsibility of an admin, implementing policy and addressing difficult situations. These have included users who have been abusive, revealed personal information, created an offensive barnstar, removed warnings and made a legal threat. I have backed her up because she has not had the admin powers to follow through, but the obvious thing is to give her the ability to do this herself. Tyrenius 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in a co-nom as well. Sarah was instrumental in helping myself, Bunchofgrapes, and various others deal with the now-indefinitely-banned EddieSegoura (exicornt vandal). Her civility shone through; her patience never wore thin. I'm glad to be able to have the honour of co-nominating Sarah - it certainly is a pleasure - she'll make a fabulous admin. – Chacor 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:07, 12 September 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: One of the main areas I would love to help with is removing copyright violations. I have tagged a lot of copyright violations over the last year, so I would anticipate working on WP:CP and WP:CSD. I would also like to help with WP:AIV and WP:PAIN. But I'm willing to help with any backlogs as necessary. I currently revert a fair amount of vandalism and make reports to WP:AIV, so I would find the anti-vandalism tools useful. I also participate in WP:AfD and would like to help further in that area.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I don't have any feature articles, but I've been particularly pleased with my contribution to Australian articles. I've contributed a number of new biographies, for example, Debra Byrne, Robert Timms, Christopher Dale Flannery and Sallie-Anne Huckstepp. I have enjoyed contributing to the Australian crime series and think I helped improve accuracy of information with rewrites of Warren Fellows, Roger Rogerson and Neddy Smith. I have also been pleased with some of my contributions to medical articles having started some new stubs, such as Intravenous digital subtraction angiography and helped with the rewrite of Central venous pressure.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in a several conflicts. My conflict with User:Litch resulted in the user filing a mediation cabal request (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Litch-Sarah Ewart). I was also involved in a conflict on Binghamton Review where one editor was writing another editor's personal details into the article, with the implication that she had written anti-Semitic articles at College. The editor then repeatedly posted the information onto the article's talk page. I explained WP:BLP to the editor and asked for administrative assistance in selectively deleting the history to remove the personal information. I have also been involved in some relatively minor conflict with sockpuppets of User:Eddie Segoura, User:Jackp and User:Pnatt. All three have since been community banned or indefinitely blocked. The only editor who has caused me stress was the editor on Binghamton Review and that was because I was worried about defamation. I had to ask for administrative assistance since I didn't have the necessary tools to remove the personal information and potentially defamatory comments.
4. Why did you make us wait so long before accepting a nomination?
A: Mainly because I was busy with work and I wanted to make sure I did it during a week I would be around. Partly because I was sick. And partly, I confess, I had to work up some courage. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Andeh

5. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.
A: Andy, I'm not sure how many you're looking for, but here's a few: Biosetpoint (nom), Gianna Jessen, Terrorists of Pakistani origin, Hypergeometrical Universe - Theory of Everything, Petroglyph Fan Forums, Dromana Primary School, Connor Barrett, Al Israel, Joe Rossini, Natural habitat of most of the snakes of Australia, Sustagen, Rajesh Chauhan. Thanks Andy, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Andeh 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from --Mcginnly | Natter 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Could you point me towards either, 1. a Featured article you have written or collaborated on, 2. A featured list you have compiled. 3. A featured portal you have have helped gain featured status? Thanks.
A No, Mcginnly, unfortunately I have not yet significantly contributed to a feature article, list or portal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does helping make something featured make the user a more qualified admin? Admins do janitorial tasks.--Andeh 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I wan't to establish the users experience in writing article before giving that user the power to block experienced editors.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcginnly (talk • contribs) .
It's important for admins to be experienced writers, but lack of contributions to featured content alone is not a good reason to oppose. --Gray Porpoise 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't really understand how a user who can write great articles also makes a good admin. What does writing articles got to do with admin chors? Not much I believe.--Andeh 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dots are not that hard to connect. The single most important goal of Wikipedia is to get great articles written. (If you disagree with that, we're going to have trouble.) If you don't have experience writing great articles, you might be likelier to use your admin tools in ways that end up impeding that goal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your dots are a little faint and far apart. What particular admin powers, and in what particular ways? This is a little like arguing that people who write lots of article content are more likely to get into content disputes, and therefore more likely to misuse admin tools in the furtherance of same. Alai 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DVD R W

7. An admin is a(n) ____________.
A A helper, a teacher, a defender, and, of course, a janitor. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mcginnly

8. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
A
Comments

Support

  1. Definitely! Her not being an admin is a detriment to Wikipedia. – Chacor 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I offered to nominate her myself, but a nomination was already underway. For sure. -- Longhair 05:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. michael talk 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; definitely a good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Curses on those pesky people who posted above my commented-out vote Beat the nom cliche Support. Enough said. — Werdna talk criticism 07:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SupportDownunda 05:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Tawker 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as co-nom. I have been extremely impressed with Sarah's contribution to the project. Tyrenius 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I liked her handling of JackP. The JPStalk to me 06:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Merovingian - Talk 06:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. My own observations of Sarah have been nothing but positive. She handles conflict exceptionally, understands policy, and is a great contributor to boot.--cj | talk 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good interactions with this user. A positive person. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Good and responsible contributor. I'm impressed by the civil and level-headed interactions with other contributors as well as dedication to the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support intelligent, level headed, and contributes. She'll do a brilliant job -- Samir धर्म 07:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Great user. Rebecca 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Ixfd64 08:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Cliché omitted for safety reasons Support, ditto above. Daniel.Bryant 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support solid contributor, quality civility, well worth a mop. MLA 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Unlikely to abuse tools⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support. In my experience, very active and exceptionally capable and civil. Also, I used to think she was already an admin. JPD (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support. High time, too! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --*Kat* 09:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support. I'm impressed. Will be a good admin. --Bduke 10:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support.Nileena joseph 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No problems here. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I've seen this user around, and I think she'll make a great admin. Good luck! --Alex (talk here) 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I think this user has been around long enough and made enough useful edits to become an admin. -- Casmith 789 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Provides a consistent presence a lot of the Australian related articles I hang around. I'm sure you'll be great! :D Ansell 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support This exemplary editor has been a lot of help and support to me. She will make an excellent admin. --Guinnog 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Looks like excellent editor.-- danntm T C 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Szvest 13:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good editor, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --W.marsh 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. My only criticism is that she makes many of us look bad by comparison. I have encountered this user on occasion, and found her to be an excellent user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Why the heck not! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No worries about this excellent editor having admin tools. Have noted her thoughtful comments and felt they were right on. FloNight 14:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Pile on Support, cliche omitted for fear of being badged an RfA groupie. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support I am pretty sure that Sarah will be an excellent addition to our happy family of administrators; her civility in dealings with EddieSegoura has been of special note for me, and I am glad to see that her content work looks substantive enough too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support per noms and all comments. People debate whether RfA is a vote or a consensus or something else. In this case, the vote is overwhelming, the consensus is clear, and whatever something else might be, this candidate qualifies. Newyorkbrad 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 14:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per noms, absolutely. An excellent candidate and a great user, knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia, with the wise head of an admin already on her shoulders. --bainer (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Rama's arrow 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support One of the best editors of this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Super Strong Support Are you kidding me? Truly monumental cliche moment here -- totally in shock. :) The editor is outstanding in every imaginable way. Xoloz 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Meets the critical criteria of need for the tools and trust of the community. (Was she really not an admin yet?!?). Agent 86 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support good trusted user. No reason to deny the tools. feydey 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. User performs admirable anti-vandalism work and clearly has appropriate admin temperment based on question three. Erechtheus 18:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Solid user with civility, respect, and experience. Themindset 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Doctor BrunoTalk 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support one of the best editors on wiki. Will make a great admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  18:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Hello32020 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support An all around good user, TewfikTalk 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per above. Michael 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong nominator support per nom 57 votes above :-) —Mets501 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Pile-on support, obviously. Grandmasterka 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support ~ trialsanderrors 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - a very good user--Aldux 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Zaxem 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Mike | Patch 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. ~crazytales56297.chasing cars//e 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Well balanced edits. Time to give admin tools. --Ageo020 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support SOADLuver 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support We've clashed over deletion policy but she's always responded in a calm and civil manner. Dedicated, passionate and professional editor, would make a fine admin. --Canley 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support with pleasure. A very good user. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. -- Lost(talk) 04:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support per above and answers to questions, I've seen her around a few times, and she would make a great admin (I thought she was one, as cliche as that remark is). --Coredesat talk! 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Absolutely. --WinHunter (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support whole-heartedly. EyeMD 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support can find no reason against. –– Lid(Talk) 11:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. DarthVader 11:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Nice, helpful user. --Tachikoma 11:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, even though AfDs were a little old, user certainly has the potential to become a deletionist :).--Andeh 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support what are you doing not being an admin? Its a disgrace. Goodness, we need to do something about that. Gwernol 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support--Absar 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support. She should get the mop and bucket. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Range of contributions, especially good on sourcing and copyright. Espresso Addict 13:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. - SpLoT 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Will make a good admin. Garion96 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support A strong opponent of linkspam. Bcnviajero 16:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Completely qualified. I hope I'm like her someday. Trnj2000 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Good edit history, well balanced. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Great user. Good answer in Q1, in my opinion. --Nishkid64 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Mature and liberal editor. - Darwinek 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per nom. John254 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per nom, all the above, etc. Nothing but good things to say of this dedicated person. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support with no hesitation. Excellent user. AnnH ♫ 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Seems like she'll make a good admin. Bastique▼parler voir 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support JoshuaZ 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Strong (edit conflict) support! Sorry to be late. I've worked quite well with Sarah and think she would make a great administrator. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Sarah is a doing a wonderful job already, and I would love to see her nomination reach at least 100 votes of support. Badbilltucker 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Jaranda wat's sup 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Unanimous WP:100 support --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support!! I wanted to be 100. :( Anyway, on a serious note, Sarah is a very civil person and has the trustworthy background I require in a candidate. I was involved with the Litch case she cites above (I reverted some vandalism by Litch) and she behaved in a perfectly civil and helpful manner. She's a great editor. Give her the mop! Srose (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Unquestioned support. A valuable member of the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Bigtop 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Sad but Enthusiastic Support. You're going to push me out of the top ten RFAs :(. alphaChimp(talk) 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per nom. --Gray Porpoise 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support per nom. Good editor. Anger22 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Have seen Sarah's work and she is indeed a great asset to Wikipedia. Dryman 03:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support per above.--Húsönd 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. [ælfəks] 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support, and note the extreme dubiousness of applying "1FA" criteria above and beyond all else. Or at all, frankly. Alai 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. El_C 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support per nom. VegaDark 07:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support fits my rules Jeffklib 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 11:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. You're bumping me down on WP:100 Support Bummer. :( But, I believe Sarah will be an excellent addition to to the admin squad. She displays common sense and is calm, something that is invaluable in being an Admin. Yanksox 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support per Rogerd--Londoneye 11:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - I've always noticed her great work on many of the articles on my watchlist! -- Chuq 11:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Having looked through her work and the above comments, I cannot possibly withhold support.--Holdenhurst 12:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. I don't consider 1FA to be an overriding principle. I've looked over a few of the contribs, and I'm convinced that there is no reason to block support on this one. I specifically don't agree with the opposition that there is a lack of editing experience. -- RM 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Due to low edit count in MediaWiki namespace and per answer to Q4. --Ligulem 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - per nom. Well done. (JROBBO 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  122. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. And go Aussie cabal! enochlau (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. I've been impressed since the exic*rnt days. FreplySpang 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - She has answered all the questions to my satisfaction ; though few comment about her lack of editing experience ...but i personally feel that it should not be held against her if she can perform her duties to her abilities .Hussain 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support--MONGO 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support per nom. RedZebra 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Well deserved. Skeezix1000 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support, great editor, very civil.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support per cj and others. CWC(talk) 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Readers should choose their own cliche to use here. --TeaDrinker 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support --HappyCamper 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Seen her around; I understand the opposing voters' concerns, but for me those concerns are outweighed by the reasons to support.BaseballBaby 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Looks like admin material based on what I've seen at WP:CLINMED and her edits on medical articles. Nephron  T|C 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support—When it gets over 80 supports, I don't often bother offering an opinion, but this is going to be impressive support. Williamborg (Bill) 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I usually don't vote in these things, but this is an exceptional user! HeyNow10029 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Always impressed me with her considered contributions to talk, and serious edits in article space. Rockpocket 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support My experiences with this user have all been positive. InvictaHOG 09:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I have yet to encounter the candidate, but from a brief look at her contributions and talk page, I feel confident in asserting my belief that Wikipedia will be better off with her having the admin buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support #140, is there really any point?! Fantastic user, have seen her around and like what I see. Should be an asset to the project. All the best! — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support per nom and others. the wub "?!" 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support, pretty much everything has been said now. Since a few editors below are concerned about article writing, you may be interested in Danny's contest. Titoxd(?!?) 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. The 1fa criteria is a joke. Although it is important for candidates to have main space experience, having a featured anything is not necessary. If some people feel it is, it is of course their own opinion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong support Sarah is very professional and does a fine job. I am highly impressed with her work and positive attitude. She is an asset to Wikipedia. KarateLadyKarateLady 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. DVD+ R/W 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. --Muchness 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Piling on is fun. Jcam 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Very well-rounded, conscientious edits. No reason to not trust this user with the tools. Marskell 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support If the only thing that anyone can say against Sarah is lack of experience with featured articles, she certainly deserves to pass.--Runcorn 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. Absolutely. -- I@n 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. support keep up the good work Mjal 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support - I generally avoid piling on, but in this case I feel it's warranted. Levelheaded positive contributor all around. Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Definitely Support Preparing for best admin in the future, and always assuming good faith in every situation. I'm also very proud abour her hard working in Wikiproject. Daniel's page ☎ 03:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I welcome this user - they obviously have enough edits and experience to become an admin. -- Casmith 789 14:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate vote - Tangotango 08:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support for teh Sarah! Yay! ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Yet even more support, as if you needed it. Imhungry talk to me here. 16:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. At this point just piling on and running up the score support. No question about this on my part. --- Deville (Talk) 21:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support--Golden Wattle talk 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. My pleasure to return an unwavering support vote. This one's a Jedi. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support per 159 other supports. An excellent Wikipedian. Canadian-Bacon t c e 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Lack of editing experience. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral after consideration of arguments from Alai and pending answer to question. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 5000 edits isn't enough for you? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What Mcginnly means by that, I believe, is that Sarah hasn't significantly contributed to featured content. While experience is important, I do not believe that simply not editing featured articles is "lack of editing experience". --Gray Porpoise 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There had to be one. No matter, we can see by the timestamps that Sarah reached her century before anyone opposed. Back to the point, however, agree that participation in featured articles is not an important criterion for admin. In any case, Sarah has written her share of good and consistently well-referenced articles. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcginnly has made over 6000 edits and is putting in a lot of work to raise article standards. He has earnt the right to his view, which merits respect, as it can only serve to improve the project by focusing attention on the primary purpose of creating a world class encyclopedia. (Nevertheless, of course, Sarah should still be an admin!) Tyrenius 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Mcginnly believes that 1FA is crucial to being a good admin, it's necessary to point out how flawed reasoning that is. If he's doing it to "focus attention" on anything accept the suitability of the current candidate in each case, I refer you to WP:POINT. In the absence of any clear statement from Mcginnly that it's the latter, I'm going to AGF that the former applies. The point of RfA is to reach a consensus, not to log "votes" that fly in the face of community standards. Alai 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are entitled to apply such standards as they see fit, and this has previously been accepted, provided that it has been done in good faith. Consensus does not require unanimity, and community does not require conformity, or it could not evolve. 1FA has been applied by others in the past, but, as yet, not widely adopted. Further discussion would be best on RfA talk. Tyrenius 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that editors may apply their own standards. I just believe, however, that the 1FA rule should not be the only thing to influence one's vote. --Gray Porpoise 10:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that is your standard. I dare say Mcginnly has other requirements in addition to that. Other people have different sticking points, some over edit summaries, for example, even if the candidate performs well otherwise. Consensus is arrived at through the sum of individual contributions, not through requiring conformance of every single one. Tyrenius 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we let Mcginnly speak for himself before having this debate? For all we know, he's referring to lack of edits on Image talk.--Holdenhurst 12:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read question 6 above. Tyrenius 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there Alai, it says at the top that I'm allowed to 'Voice my opinion' on each candidates request for adminship. I must say I find it a bit of a stretch to suggest that because I register an oppose vote this is "fly[ing] in the face of community standards". I'm a member of this community and vote according to my conscience. I'm an editor, I contribute content; my conscience says that if I have a vote for those who will police me, then I would like to satisfy myself that the candidate understands what editing involves.
    If I were an apple farmer in Somerset would I vote for a Aeronautical engineer from Papua New Guinea to be my Member of Parliament, or another apple farmer in Somerset? The answer is I might well vote for the engineer if the field of apple farmers is scant or if he had a great insight into issues relating to Somerset, but I'm much more likely to vote for someone who understands how to grow apples and can sympathise with the difficulties and joys of apple production. For clarity I was refering to the number of quality encylopedia building edits, 1FA is not my only standard, but is my main standard (I'd even go for a few GA's or a good portal or well anything that shows this person can sit down with a book, type it up and help with content.) I'm really not interested in WP:Point (and I'm actually quite annoyed at the suggestion) and I think that Tyrenius's suggestion to continue this on the talk page is a good idea.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment to Auroranorth below. Tyrenius 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcginnly, we're not trying to deny you the right to your vote, we're just pointing out that the standard is, when used alone, flawed. Regardless, a single vote is not going to change the high likelihood of Sarah Ewart becoming an admin. I believe that she'll be a great admin, and that you may be happy with the outcome. --Gray Porpoise 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mr Porpoise, I think you're the second person who has pointed out that an FA standard is flawed but not explained why. I can imagine that single issue voting is flawed, and I can imagine other reasons why this person will be a great admin (see below), but I can't see why asking for evidence this user can contribute meaningful quantities of quality work to the encyclopedia is a flawed position to take. Perhaps you can show me where I'm going wrong.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. It's not flawed to ask that a user can contribute meaningful quantities of quality work. However, what I'm saying is, the thing that is flawed is only looking at featured content contributions. Sarah has performed countless good reverts, restorations of content, interactions with users- important things that should be looked for in an adminship candidate- and occasional quality additions of content in the midst of those. I'm not going to bother you until you change your vote; I'm just sharing what I think. --Gray Porpoise 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me first of all reiterate what I already tried to express, that my WP:POINT comment related to Tyrenius's "focusing attention" rationale supplied on your behalf, and not to your "vote" as such. Your MP comparison is far from the mark however: firstly, you're not selecting a legislative representative, in any sense whatsover; secondly, you're not electing a fixed number of positions, but filling a pool (or declining to) for which there's ever-increasing demand. If apple farmers only vote for other apple farmers, we'll have not just a highly undesirable degree of factionalisation, but before long, too few active admins. It's rather more like "voting" for a special constable and/or part-time roadsweeper in a city where the citizens are regularly rioting in the streets, and the litter has piled up to be about hip deep (and rejecting them on the basis of failing to have an apple tree). You should not be asking yourself, 'how much like me is this person as an editor?', but 'will they put the tools to good use?', and balance that against 'is there a significant risk that they will misuse the tools?'. It's one thing to ask "that the candidate understands what editing involves", but to equate that with being a major contributor to a FA is an entirely different matter. (Bear in mind that the FA process is at bottom a contest to get onto the main page, and thus subject to periodic ratcheting up of standard to reflect current best work -- as is reflected in the fact that for some time, we've had more admins than FAs (and nor can we be alleged to have too many admins).) Your suggested alternatives are less unreasonable as such (I was going by a second-hand characterisation of your criteria), but similarly fail to address the job description: why is the writer of several GAs better qualified than a "wikignome" to perform the many essentially wikignomish tasks on our many backlogged admin tasks? Or put another way: would you rather have admin tasks done by someone you consider to be an inexperienced editor in articlespace, or left undone by people you consider better editors in that regard? Or at best, to divert from from continuing to do so. Alai 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Alai, at nearly 138 votes for 2 against, I'll call time on this thread here and pick it up on your talk page (If anyone's interested). This lady clearly has the support of the community, and I'll defer to that. Good luck Sarah! --Mcginnly | Natter 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose on the grounds that Mcginnly pointed out that Sarah Ewart has a lack of quality editing experience. Auroranorth 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    She has over 2000 article edits. I've always been impressed with her accuracy to sources and clarity of expression, e.g. Intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Where do you find the quality lacking? Tyrenius 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Intravenous digital subtraction angiography and also the Mechanics' Institute, Sorrento, but these few, short stubby articles don't put this person over the bar for me. Please don't get me wrong I am not belittling all of the excellent vandal fighting, copyright policing and all the other wikignomic tasks that people do, we all do them to greater or lesser extents, I'm just concerned that admins should have had the experience (and delight and horror) of having one of their articles go through WP:PR and WP:FAC, they're no picnic and the experience is character building in my opinion. I'd be much more likely to vote for a candidate that has at least attempted this.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. You make a point which merits serious consideration. Tyrenius 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you. I now understand your vote. No further discussion is, in my opinion, necessary, unless someone wants to debate on it some more. --Gray Porpoise 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per 1FA concerns. Yes, I know people up there are sharply divided. But that's my criterion. -- Миборовский 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a query, if an editor had 1FA would you unconditionally vote for them or would you have other criteria? Ansell 11:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. For tormenting and for being a general pain in the ass [1]. Not half-qualified to be an Admin. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, haven't I seen you say some pretty unfriendly things to or about the editor being poked fun at in that post yourself? I am confused. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's totally different: "the editor being poked fun at" deserved it from me for personal reasons (you know the entire history). However, she did nothing to Sarah, who was simply nosy and unnecessarily unpleasant. Orane (talk • cont.) 15:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah's is obviously a humorous response and not unfriendly as such. I don't think you have to worry too much about it. Tyrenius 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm speaking from personal experience here. That response wasn't humour; she was mocking someone. I've known her to be unpleasant, so it surprises me how she has managed to garner this much support. I guess it's a case of 'knowing all the right people.' Orane (talk • cont.) 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously these people's experiences of her have been pleasant (I'm speaking from personal experience here too). Perhaps you could supply diffs to help us understand your viewpoint more fully. Tyrenius 01:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I must say that for a card carrying member (your sig) of Esperanza to call someone a "pain in the ass" and then attempt to justify one's one incivility is rather disappointing, but perhaps I should not be so startled. And as to the comment about social connections, the less I say the better...Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'e' in my sig has nothing to do with Esperenza— it's there for style only. But I digress. There is nothing wrong with what I've said here. And by the way, are you guys Sarah's publicists? I've noticed that she has simply ignored the oppose votes, while you guys run around and try to address them/defend her. Orane (talk • cont.) 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one also stood up for an oppose voter, up in Q6. I think we're just trying to understand. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm Sarah's co-nom. It is only fair to the candidate (and the community) to find out how much substance there is in the opposes. RfA is a debate about the candidate's merits. If I've missed something severe, I might have to change my opinion, though I don't feel the need for that at the moment. Sarah has answered the optional questions, and there is no obligation for her to respond to opposes. Tyrenius 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not ignoring anything, Orane. I have read all comments, support and oppose, and taken them all on board. I personally don't like it when I see candidates needlessly reply to, challenge or badger opposers and try to convince people to change their minds and I won't do it myself. Before listing this RfA, I made a conscious decision to only reply to questions and any points may need clarification but not to reply to opposers for the sake of it. I also do not want or expect anyone to function as my "publicist". I believe after more than 12 months of regular editing, people know me well enough to make an informed decision about my character and my suitability for adminship. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I trust journalist. T REXspeak 05:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused with that vote. Do you care to clarify? —Mets501 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Journalist signs as Orane, see Oppose !vote 4 above. Newyorkbrad 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. I read the comment above, but didn't click on the sig to see the real user name. —Mets501 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TREX, you comment implies that you have not found a reason yourself to oppose the candidate, which I find rather worrying. Tyrenius 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral pending answer to question. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:59, 19 September 2006 (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/Sarah_Ewart&oldid=1146558949"