Final (29/27/17); ended 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate. Amalthea 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs) – I first encountered Figureskatingfan, aka Christine, at FAC. I was very impressed by her in 2009, when she nominated another article at FAC. The nomination was not successful, but Christine kept a positive attitude and worked diligently to understand the concerns of the reviewers and then implement them. I kept a closer eye on her after that, and have found that Christine is well-versed in policy (she now has 6 Featured Articles, 2 Featured Lists, and 7 Good Articles to her credit) and is very open to extending her knowledge. She invariably responds helpfully and patiently and is willing to provide constructive advice and solutions rather than just tell someone they are wrong or escalate a conflict. She understands the concept of consensus and how to apply it, and I haven't seen her complain when consensus is not in her favor. I think she has the right attitude to be a good administrator, and I think she has the policy knowledge to make wise and fair decisions, as well as an understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses and a willingness to continually improve. She will make an excellent administrator. Karanacs ( talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I withdraw my nomination; the discussion has degenerated, and I certainly don't want my RfA to turn into something it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'll try again later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
I'd explain why it was done and why I categorized it as vandalism.But would you have realized it was not vandalism and apologized for accusing that editor of bad faith? Your observation that "that kind of edit... has tended to be vandalism in the past" is also scaring me. You appear to be simply noting a casual similarity to a category of vandalism and then assuming the edit in question is also in that category of vandalism without any close examination. And you don't seem to realize that this strategy is problematic, despite wishing to be an administrator in order to combat vandalism.
I understand the difference—but I can't see any evidence here that you can see even now that it is pointed out to you that these edits that you reverted weren't vandalism; you seem to be defending the reverts. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) reply
TParis quotes WP:DOLT, an essay that explains my position much better than I could: when it comes to BLPs, we should be as accomodating as possible, we should not come down like a ton of bricks on someone who, through no fault of his own, is being defamed by Wikipedia and, out of frustration, is blanking his bio or saying "hey, this is slander". After all, he (probably) never asked to be included in our encyclopaedia and it is our responsibility to make sure that his biography is not causing him real-world harm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Final (29/27/17); ended 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate. Amalthea 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs) – I first encountered Figureskatingfan, aka Christine, at FAC. I was very impressed by her in 2009, when she nominated another article at FAC. The nomination was not successful, but Christine kept a positive attitude and worked diligently to understand the concerns of the reviewers and then implement them. I kept a closer eye on her after that, and have found that Christine is well-versed in policy (she now has 6 Featured Articles, 2 Featured Lists, and 7 Good Articles to her credit) and is very open to extending her knowledge. She invariably responds helpfully and patiently and is willing to provide constructive advice and solutions rather than just tell someone they are wrong or escalate a conflict. She understands the concept of consensus and how to apply it, and I haven't seen her complain when consensus is not in her favor. I think she has the right attitude to be a good administrator, and I think she has the policy knowledge to make wise and fair decisions, as well as an understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses and a willingness to continually improve. She will make an excellent administrator. Karanacs ( talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I withdraw my nomination; the discussion has degenerated, and I certainly don't want my RfA to turn into something it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'll try again later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
RfA/RfB toolbox | |
---|---|
Counters | |
Analysis | |
Cross-wiki |
I'd explain why it was done and why I categorized it as vandalism.But would you have realized it was not vandalism and apologized for accusing that editor of bad faith? Your observation that "that kind of edit... has tended to be vandalism in the past" is also scaring me. You appear to be simply noting a casual similarity to a category of vandalism and then assuming the edit in question is also in that category of vandalism without any close examination. And you don't seem to realize that this strategy is problematic, despite wishing to be an administrator in order to combat vandalism.
I understand the difference—but I can't see any evidence here that you can see even now that it is pointed out to you that these edits that you reverted weren't vandalism; you seem to be defending the reverts. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) reply
TParis quotes WP:DOLT, an essay that explains my position much better than I could: when it comes to BLPs, we should be as accomodating as possible, we should not come down like a ton of bricks on someone who, through no fault of his own, is being defamed by Wikipedia and, out of frustration, is blanking his bio or saying "hey, this is slander". After all, he (probably) never asked to be included in our encyclopaedia and it is our responsibility to make sure that his biography is not causing him real-world harm. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply