Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sonia

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

Closed as promoted: Clear consensus to promote. 29/0 -Barras ^talk 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonia

Sonia (talk · contribs)

End date: 10 July 2010; 9:15 UTC

Hi there! I'm here today to nominate Sonia (talk · contribs) for adminship here on simple. She has done fairly good work around here for some months already. Sonia reverts vandalism and has tagged hundreds of pages for quick deletion. She has also reported several vandals to our adminteam. With the mop, she could delete the vandalism and block the vandals herself. However, she is not only a vandal fighter, but also a content writer. She helps to simplify and also to expand our articles. Sonia also takes part in community discussions on AN and ST. Overall, she knows about every part of the admin work and will be a benefit as administrator for our project. I hope you see it the way I do! Good luck, Sonia. -Barras ^talk 09:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:I accept. sonia^♫♪ 09:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Optional questions from Jon@talk:~$

Q: If a user is revert warring on a page, you have decided to block them for 24 hours. That user now on the user talk page requests unblock, and has promised not to repeat. Do you unblock?

A: It depends. If the user is an established user who has been warned about it before, I would not unblock. If the user was new and the revert war wasn't over inserting vandalism, I would probably unblock but watch them very closely. They know they will be on a last chance so if they act up again I'll just block for the remainder of the original period. My natural inclination is toward assuming good faith; however, as a newer user, it is possible that I may be missing signs of long-term abuse. So I would ask for a second opinion in some cases especially as I start off.

Q: What is the difference between a punishment block and a prevention block. Is there an example of when a punishment block would be acceptable?

A: A prevention block is when blocking the user is likely to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia; a punishment block is solely for something that happened in the past. (For example, if an IP stopped vandalising half an hour ago.) The only time a punishment block of sorts is acceptable is in the form of a username softblock, but the user is of course welcome to create an account with an acceptable name. Otherwise, blocks should always be prevention blocks. Except for cases of clear trolling/outing/sockpuppetry I think that it should always be clear that the block is to stop behaviour like that in the near future, not to prevent the person from contributing. It is similar to protection- we usually protect when there has been damage in the past, and there is likely to be damage in the future. In general, that should be why we block as well.

It is possible that a block of a user who is blocked on another project may be seen as punitive, but I have no issues with this if the user has also broken our rules even once. They have had a chance to reform and if it is clear they are not going to be helpful here then we are preventing drama from other projects coming here, and so it is still preventative. Of course a lot of prevention blocks are naturally going to be seen as punishment blocks by the blocked user, but that is something we cannot change.

Q: Could you describe what a personal attack is?

A: Well, we do like to say "comment on the content, not on the contributor", but commenting on the suitability of a user's writing style is not a personal attack. Commenting on their IQ, however, is. In general, an insult that is unrelated to the building of the encyclopedia is a personal attack. Sometimes it is necessary to comment on the user's behaviour or attitude, or on the flaws of a particular opinion or argument, and I don't feel that this is a personal attack as long as it is phrased in a constructive way, not intended to spite the user. Bringing up a user's race, religion, sexuality or physical/mental capabilities in an irrelevant context is a personal attack. So is any threat of violence or outing or legal action, or anything else that makes an editor's experience here highly unpleasant. (If, for example, my age were brought up on this page, I would not find it a personal attack as it is relevant. Talking about how a user's life and experiences could influence their stance on a particular article is acceptable, but can pass easily into personal attacks once it becomes off topic or intrusive.)

That said, regardless how established an editor is, an attack is an attack. Users should not be given more leeway because they are not new. A user who has been around for some time should still get a warning if they make a personal attack, and should still be blocked if they do it many times.

Optional questions from wiooiw (talk)

Q: Would you ever block a user or ip without any warnings?

A: Yes, if they were outing/threatening to harm a user, or obviously evading a block (via sockpuppet or proxy), or if they had a very inappropriate username.

Q: What would you do for a Klondike bar?

A: I would learn to play the banjo.

Support

1. As nom. -Barras ^talk 09:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Will be a good addition. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
3. I asked her a short while ago if she'd accept a nomination, so, strong support from me! fr33kman 10:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Will make a good admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. We really already have enough admins, but this isn't the place to discuss that. This is the place to discuss how well Sonia will perform as an admin, and I think she will do just fine.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support – I trust her with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•L) 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Support I am familiar with Sonia from my English Wikipedia interactions as well as her work here. I can support the statement above and I can't wait to work with her on things here. Ktr101 (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
8. Support - Per above, looking through her contribs I find no reason why she shouldn't be sysop'd. Great work :) Ajraddatz (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - Nifky^{^} 04:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support Sonia is mature, just, sensible, kind, and hardworking. I've wanted to nom her for some time myself. —Clementina talk 05:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - wiooiw (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
12. I have no issues with this editor having the tools. Thanks for volunteering. Jon@talk:~$ 10:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - has shown she could use the extra tools. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - Yup, all looks good here :) - tholly ^--Talk-- 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
15. Support stronger than metal She's net-positive, kind, smart, brilliant.... It would take years to say all the good things about her! I simply can't imagine why I hadn't nommed her earlier if she was going to have an RFA. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
16. Support I can't find any problems here. πr² (talk • changes) 15:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Although I haven't been here for quite a while, I've checked her out(no, not like that) and she's a good choice. Simon^KSK 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
18. Support—Great work here and on en_wiki. Airplaneman ✈ 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
19. No problems here, will do a good job. Some of the other comments confuse me, but that's not the point here. :) Goblin 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!
20. Support Seems good to me. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 04:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Kansan (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
22. Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
23. Support -Avicennasis @ 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    Support --Fridae'sDoom (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Crat note: newbie with no edits in the main namespace --Mercy (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    Just a note: en:User:Fridae'sDoom Airplaneman ✈ 05:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

    Doesn't actually matter, we have a policy that people have to have edited prior to a Rfx's start on this wiki in order to vote. The reason for this is to avoid people coming from other wikis to support or oppose candidates when they aren't active editors here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

24. Support per ev'rbud Purplebackpack89 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
25. Support --Lcawte (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Fetchcomms (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - I have no concerns from her contribs, answers to questions above, or direct interactions. Looks like a good candidate. EhJJ^TALK 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - I gave some consideration to the "too many admins" way of thought, but cannot abstain/oppose in this RfA simply for that. Sonia's contributions are great, her answers good, and I have found her to be very welcoming. She'll do good work. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
29. Support —§ stay (sic)! 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Note: User has just under 75 QDs and 8 VIP reports. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes. I should be more careful and count them out exactly next time and not just scrolling down by a look and seeing many QDs... Anyway, if you want I change it. -Barras ^talk 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: 118 edits to ST (4% of total edits) and 26 to AN (1% of total edits). Also, of the 6 months user has been active (Feb-Jul), in three of them, article edits have only been at a third of total edits (including last month). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Her lack of comment at ST and AN might be something to consider wonderful. My all time hero as an admin is Peterdownunder (talk · contribs). This is because he shows up, does his work, does his job as an admin, is firm when he needs to be and stays clear of the drama. I like editors who just work towards the aims of the project. There are actually quite a few editors who most people have never heard of, yet have thousands of edits and are still very active. Sonia may become another Peterdownunder, and if so, well done, and I bow down to her! fr33kman 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I like disproving Barras (read his statement). :) Griffinofwales (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• I was thinking about what eptalon said on ST (A challenge...). Are we rewarding good users by giving them admin? If half of the admins (not randomly though) resigned, there wouldn't be a difference in vandalism response. Some admins are good admins, and some are good users, and if we have enough good admins, we don't need any more. I think we view adminship and the trust it requires as an accomplishment to work towards, even though we might not need another admin when 80% of our active community are admins. While clearly, being trusted to be an admin is a good accomplishment, do we really need a 46th admin? Griffinofwales (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Being an admin gives an editor access to some extra tools for improving the Wikipedia. If a person has demonstrated that they would be able to use the tools effectively, then they should be given them. Can we have too many people with a mop? There is plenty of work to do with it. The question should only be, will this person be an effective admin? --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have always felt we could have too many people with the mop. (this comment has nothing to do with this candidate and is just a reply to Peter's question.) People start tripping over each other to try and do stuff first and decisions end up being made too quickly. I would also note, that there is actually very little work to do with the mop on this wiki, especially since we have so many people with the mop. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Who tripped over whom, may I have a diff of these over active administrators tripping over each other? And... minds need to know, what were they tripping over each other to do? Jon@talk:~$ 22:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
        • There's not much help in providing diffs. The belief there are too many admins, is just an opinion. The belief that there aren't, is just an opinion also. Both are valid. fr33kman 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Just in case it does not flow to all, I was being playfully sarcastic. I don't subscribe to the too many admins school of thought, after all we are all editors. :) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL you better be joking, cause its common enough on IRC to see people bugging each other about how they keep edit conflicting with each other when deleting or blocking or whatever. :P -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but do you recall certain users who have also written "!admin [[C:QD]] has been there for 10 minutes!!!!!!"? Some people will always think admin actions are immediately required, while I hope we always have other admins who are willing to sit back and think things over before acting. As for "too many admins", I'm in favour of allowing any trusted user to have the admin bit, because it really is so useful (such as letting you see deleted contribs). EhJJ^TALK 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and its people like that, that I hope we don't "reward" just because they had been here awhile. Patience is the most important trait an admin can have. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It took 45 minutes to process this request. Note the stunning absence of clumsy administrators. Jon@talk:~$ 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you look at it. I choose not to do it the minute he put it up (so technically it was handled immediately), because I felt I should give him rollbacker. But I didn't want to start an arguement so I left it for another admin. I would also note its not something that needs to be done immediately, which is my point. Too much of a culture to rush things here. Oh and if you want a diff that prooves that look at the comment below by PIR. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From watching RC, there were about four admins online at the time. As for too many admins, I think that if there is the right mindset it is not an issue. After all, as long as the bad pages get deleted, it's not a race to see who is fastest or most active. Admins should remain editors first and foremost. sonia^♫♪ 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

<-Re to NVS: The problem isn't with not enough admins, it's with admins being unwilling to get involved in that type of thing. Maybe we should start giving out pink slips to the lazy ones? (jk) Griffinofwales (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Close per SNOW? There are more support !votes here than signatures on the census! πr² (talk • changes) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't close an RfA per snow when it comes to promoting. Because the candidate could do something in the last day that changes peoples minds for example. Only time snow is used in Rfa's is when they get a huge amount of opposes right off the bat. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the census, that's probably because we haven't done a good job about publicizing it. I didn't know about it until you mentioned it above Purplebackpack89 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Of course, there's a lot I don't know...but I certainly hadn't seen it before now. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I note that Sonia herself is quoted as saying that there is not a need for more admins, and that she doesn't intend to use tools like blocking and rights adding.[1] - If that's true, exactly why is she needed in that position? Deleting is nice, but it doesn't stop much. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 Facepalm That was a poorly worded comment. However, the key word is much. I originally did not feel that there was a need, that is true- for more people using those particular tools you have mentioned. There are enough administrators to give out flood and rollback when people need it, and generally (although due to timezones, sometimes there's a lapse when I'm online) at least one actively watching RC, ready to block any blatant vandals. Which is why I said that I would not be using those tools as much. Naturally, I am of the opinion that users should be admins if they will find the toolkit useful and will be capable of handling all of it well, and if they are of a suitable temperament. I don't want to rush just to close something before someone else does, so I would end up using those particular parts of the bit sparingly in comparison to others. That is what I meant.sonia^♫♪ 03:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • So you agree that having you as an admin would not change the speed of response by admins. You also say that you misspoke in the enWP comment (even though the edit summary also disagrees with you). In other words, you want admin for two reasons, 1. because everyone wants to give it you (reward system again), and 2. because you want to do things yourself. "I originally did not feel that there was a need" Do you feel there is a need now? Your edit summary on en is very wise in saying "reply re too many chiefs, not enough indians.", and now it appears that you've completely reversed your stance. In Indian tribes, there are many "indians" that can lead and are probably qualified to be chiefs, but they're not chiefs because there is only one "chief". This is why we have more 'crats than we need. We keep rewarding good "indians" with chiefdom, and when all the indians become chiefs, we have to create a new level of chiefs. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • (Poking my nose in). As an Indian, one might grow food, for example, whereas such a task may be below a chief who would direct others to perform the task. However, we start off here as editors, building an encyclopedia, and when users become admins or 'crats, they don't stop being editors. It's a few extra tools to help out, that's all. Rather than ceasing to be the Indian planting crops, you are simply giving them fertilizer now. That's my take, anyhow. I don't really care if we have 50 admins so long as it means we have 50 good editors, too. -Avicennasis @ 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Avicennasis puts it perfectly. Why should the only admins be the ones who happened to be here early enough (i.e. when there was a need)? How does it hurt to have more admins, especially if they aren't in a hurry to up their admin count? It seems as if Sonia cannot win. If she argued that there was specifically some admin area she wanted to work in, someone would probably accuse her of being power-hungry and here you berate her for running when there is no need. One could perhaps even argue that she is bowing to consensus by accepting a nomination from the community. Where is the balance? PrincessofLlyr ^talk 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Not really, generally people like admins to state what area they intend to work in. So I don't think people would fault her if she did. Basically its up to the candidate and nom, to show why we should make them admin. Either way Sonia won't have any issue with becoming an admin by the looks of the communities opinon. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reply to Avicennasis: Following the Indian metaphor. I think it's slightly different. By getting admin, they are adding a responsibility, which is more like becoming hunters & farmers, taking time away from farming to hunt. Both are good, but you can only do one job at 100%. We don't need more hunters, we need more farmers. Also, we have 45 admins, but we don't have 45 good editors. Percentage wise, I think more of our good editors come from the non-admin side of things. Re to Princess: Sonia doesn't need to win anything. She's doing a great job where she is now. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Then concern should be expressed that admins will cease or dramatically decline their editorial work. A little is ok, IMO. But Sonia doesn't seem like the type who'll turn into an admin-action only account, so I have no worries. :) -Avicennasis @ 23:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Griffin - What I was saying is that she seemingly couldn't make the right choice. And obviously there were several editors that thought she could do more and she respected their opinion enough to run. I've been trying to see the point of the "enough admins" philosophy, but simply feel that there are too many problems for me to support it. While I understand the concern, where is the solution? Say that RfA is closed? Oppose all candidates? Or just discuss it endlessly? Perhaps you have an idea that I have not seen? I would love to hear. PrincessofLlyr ^talk 03:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No policy, I just think that users should stop running for admin if there isn't a need. Opposing a good candidate for something they can't control is not something I like doing, so that wouldn't be an option, and a policy would be too vague (or too strict). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2010 (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.