Usedtobecool (talk | contribs) →Support: s++ Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
::'''A:''' I doubt that I will ever block anyone, the only exception being in a situation where Wikipedia was suffering from an ongoing spate of vandalism, in order to prevent further damage. I would not expect an admin to behave in a way that I thought warranted an immediate block, with reporting at the appropriate noticeboard being a better option in a non-urgent situation. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
::'''A:''' I doubt that I will ever block anyone, the only exception being in a situation where Wikipedia was suffering from an ongoing spate of vandalism, in order to prevent further damage. I would not expect an admin to behave in a way that I thought warranted an immediate block, with reporting at the appropriate noticeboard being a better option in a non-urgent situation. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
::In the hypothetical situation where an admin and a non-admin were edit warring, both were equally at fault and I was required to act, I would treat them in an identical manner when blocking them (subject to their previous block records being similar). [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
::In the hypothetical situation where an admin and a non-admin were edit warring, both were equally at fault and I was required to act, I would treat them in an identical manner when blocking them (subject to their previous block records being similar). [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
;Additional question from [[User:Naypta|Naypta]] |
|||
:'''8.''' Most admin work is generally fairly unseen by the general public, hence "taking up the mop". In your area, though, that's a bit different; as someone working on DYK and POTD, your work is immediately visible to potentially millions of people every day, and is effectively the face of Wikipedia as a whole. <sup>no pressure(!)</sup> Could you talk a little bit about how you handle this challenge, not just in terms of policy but in terms of preventing errors or security issues? |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
====Discussion==== |
====Discussion==== |
Revision as of 14:04, 9 May 2020
Cwmhiraeth 2
(talk page) (91/2/0); Scheduled to end 13:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination
Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) – I’ve worked with Cwmhiraeth extensively at DYK, where she is a tireless contributor both of content and to the process. She’s one of a very few experienced prep setters, a pillar of the project who sets two or three preps a week, a job which requires expertise, attention to detail, and a willingness to work in an area so visible that it inevitably draws heavy criticism. I’ve found her invariably helpful, low-key and dedicated there, with a history of civil interaction with other contributors. I’m aware there are a couple of editors she hasn’t gotten on with in the past, but she’s since disengaged, and I’m not at all concerned she’d suddenly re-engage just because she had the tools she needs to be able to help at DYK. Primarily Cwmhiraeth is a content creator who just wants to get on with the work; she’s uploaded hundreds of photos and written thousands of articles, bringing many to GA or FA. She will be a good admin, and as one of only a few admins working at DYK I look forward to her contributions in an area chronically short on admin help and to which she has already proven she is committed. —valereee (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Co-Nomination
It is my privilege to recommend Cwmhiraeth as a candidate for adminship. Many of you may know this editor from their running of the WikiCup. There's a show business expression, "What a trouper!" that defines someone who keeps doing their part regardless of the unexpected. Cwmhiraeth is a veteran trouper on several of our inter-connected sites, and who would also be a great administrator trouper. LIke ... for instance ... at WP:ERRORS.
Cwmhiraeth has been active at Wikipedia since 2010 as an article creator, and through DYK, GA and FA. GA is a process dependent upon only the nominator(s) and one reviewer, and FA has an excellent cadre of some of Wikipedia's best talent for honing articles to Wikipedia's top rating. It is at DYK, arguably the training boot camp of the encyclopedia, where Cwmhiraeth has submitted over 1000 nominations. Any DYK editor with more than 5 prior nominations, must review somebody else's nomination when they submit their own. You do the math on how many nominations Cwmhiraeth has reviewed for other editors. They have been invaluable as one of the few editors regularly promoting the approved nominations of others to the Prep area, and as an admin they would be able to help promote preps to Queue. (NOTE: A "Prep" area at DYK is the first step in assembling the group of hooks to appear on the Main Page. They are then moved to a Queue by an Admin where they sit until moved to the Main Page by a bot.)
They have additionally contributed several hundred edits to Wikidata, the knowledge database of Wikimedia. I've also been impressed with the 150 images they uploaded to Commons. Not usually mentioned as a requirement for adminship, uploading images on Commons necessitates adhering to copyright laws of various countries. Such knowledge is vital for images that appear on the English Wikipedia Main Page, and a definite asset for any admin assisting with same. Overall, seeing Cwmhiraeth go through the same DYK-GA-FA training ground as I have, extending their contributions to Commons and Wikidata, I know they will be a good addition to the admin ranks. What a trouper! — Maile (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words. I accept this nomination, but mention in passing that my contributions to Wikidata have really been rather minimal. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited under any other name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2020 (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: I have considerable experience at DYK of building prep sets. I would hope to be involved in moving prep sets into the queue (but not any I had prepared), and making alterations to hooks when they are in the queue and, if they are clear errors or after there’s some level of consensus, on the main page. There is often a shortage of admins to do these tasks. Similarly, I have been helping out at POTD, selecting pictures and writing the captions. These are protected before they appear on the main page and adjustments sometimes have to be made which only admins can do. I would be cautious about moving into other areas of Wikipedia with which I am unfamiliar.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Article creation and expansion is what I chiefly enjoy on Wikipedia. I have been involved in a number of featured articles and good articles, and probably the most memorable was bringing Sea to featured status. I mostly concentrate nowadays on bringing, to at least start class, articles on organisms that previously had no article or were merely short stubs.
- 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: I have no difficulty in avoiding conflict about article content. If I disagree with other editors, I normally move on to something else. This happened in Decline in insect populations, where instead of continuing to argue my viewpoint, I researched and wrote some articles on related aspects to get more insight into the topic. In 2016, I observed a series of interactions that ended with the retirement of a long-term editor. I found it disappointing that nobody had intervened and felt that I had also let the editor down. Taking the matter to ArbCom was a bad idea. That was 3.5 years ago. I have also had some friction with another respected editor. That was 18 months ago, and I settled it by successfully making a new year’s resolution at the start of 2019 to avoid engaging at their talk page. In general, I get on well with other editors. If in the future I find myself in conflict with others, I will not engage in an ongoing argument, but remove myself from the area of dispute. I’ve learned this lesson well.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional questions from King of Hearts
- 4. The admin toolkit is a bundled permission set that requires us to trust the candidate's judgment with respect to all aspects of it. How will you give us confidence that you will make prudent use of the delete, block, and protect functionality? That is, can you describe any relevant experience or provide an explanation of how you plan to acquaint yourself with each of those areas before jumping in?
- A: I don't plan to be jumping in to any of these areas of administrative work. The only occasion I can envisage blocking anybody would be in connection with a rampant vandal intent on maximum disruption. As a creator of content, I have empathy with a new editor who finds their article deleted. So I am basically not a deletionist, and looking back over the last six weeks, the only deletions of parts of articles that I could find were this removal of spam, this and this removal of uncited material, and this removal of copyvio material that has since been revdelled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- 5. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR, and when is it appropriate to invoke it?
- A: Wikipedia doesn't really have rules, it has policies and guidelines. The policies are paramount and the guidelines are arrived at by consensus as best practice and are subject to change as Wikipedia evolves. IAR is not a means by which editors can do just what they like, it is instead an invitation to editors to interpret the rules with common sense. The objective is to improve Wikipedia rather than adhere to a mass of restrictive rules. IAR is sometimes used at DYK where, for example, non-regulars have submitted a nomination that is outside the permitted time period of 7 days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Ahecht
- 6. Tomorrow will be the three-year anniversary of your first RFA. How have you evolved as an editor since then?
- A: Looking back at my previous RfA is a bit embarrassing. How could I have thought that, having done an ORCP whose result I did not accept, I could undertake an RfA shortly afterwards in which the wider community would support me? I now think it is better to get on with the job on hand and that personalities do not matter. Another thing I have learnt is that rather than being defensive when criticised, for introducing errors for example, it is better to try to improve the accuracy rate in the first place. I hope I have improved as an editor since my first RfA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Sir Joseph
- 7.Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?
- A: I doubt that I will ever block anyone, the only exception being in a situation where Wikipedia was suffering from an ongoing spate of vandalism, in order to prevent further damage. I would not expect an admin to behave in a way that I thought warranted an immediate block, with reporting at the appropriate noticeboard being a better option in a non-urgent situation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the hypothetical situation where an admin and a non-admin were edit warring, both were equally at fault and I was required to act, I would treat them in an identical manner when blocking them (subject to their previous block records being similar). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Additional question from Naypta
- 8. Most admin work is generally fairly unseen by the general public, hence "taking up the mop". In your area, though, that's a bit different; as someone working on DYK and POTD, your work is immediately visible to potentially millions of people every day, and is effectively the face of Wikipedia as a whole. no pressure(!) Could you talk a little bit about how you handle this challenge, not just in terms of policy but in terms of preventing errors or security issues?
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Cwmhiraeth: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Cwmhiraeth can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support - Per my statement above, I whole-heartedly support Cwmhiraeth for administrator. — Maile (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support as nom —valereee (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support per noms. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Have seen Cwmhiraeth around many times doing good on the project. All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems good, no problems that I recall, has clue. SemiHypercube 14:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I supported the candidate in her previous RFA, saying
I think Cwmhireath can be trusted with the tools, if only for the sole purpose of helping DYK
, and will add that she is a trusted content creator. I think that any problems raised in that RFA have been resolved, mainly the Arbcom disputes. My support from the previous RFA still applies here. epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - Support - No question. SethWhales talk 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I see no issue. Their vigilant work at DYK is sufficient enough to warrant the tools, in my view. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Trusted content editor with experience with main page issues who is devoted to the encyclopedia and can absolutely be trusted with the tools. Cwmhiraeth is a user who has been devoted to this project long term, and with that comes having some disputes. None of the issues raised in the past RfA trouble me, and I think they more then pass my standard criteria of has a clue, not a jerk What we would be gaining if this RfA passes is a dedicated administrator who cares about the best interests of this project and would be willing to put the community above themselves in serving it. I see no reason why we shouldn’t take them up on that offer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Prolific content creator with much work in the main space. i will forgive the high delete !votes at AfD because this candidate is a content creator. I also respect the DYK work. As an editor who has worked on articles which were accepted, I know a little about the process. I also appreciate the candidate's ability to reflect on situational conflict, and modify their own behavior. Two thumbs up for this candidate. Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and collegial editor in my experience. Just over a year back they made points on Insect Decline which seemed a little bold at the time, but which have been proved valid by rigorous research published last month. I recall they thanked me for some of my talk page comments even though I was arguing a partially opposed point of view, which was most appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support clear net positive the previous RFA was in 2017 .See no concerns at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Happy to support.--v/r - TP 15:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nothing but positive interactions. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Brilliant, tireless work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support for meeting my minimums, no big deal, and no concerns raised from time elapsed from last RFA - which has been three years, plenty of time. Ifnord (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen them around in a few places and been impressed. Cwmhiraeth has a clue and have the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart. Apositive benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Firm support. Clear need for the tools, and enormous experience in the area she plans to use them. I've worked with her for years now, and always found her polite and collegial, even when we disagree. I don't see past conflicts becoming an issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Having seen Cwmhiraeth and the excellent work they do, especially at DYK and managing the WikiCup, I feel confident supporting them. While I'm not a strong believer in the "has need for the tools" approach to RFA (anyone who needs to move pages over redirects with non-trivial history has need for them), Cwmhiraeth is active in DYK, where admin tools are needed to promote hooks. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've been concerned about nominating Cwmhiraeth myself, but personally I think they'll make a fine admin now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I think Cwmhiraeth will use the tools conscientiously. It's obvious she really cares about Wikipedia, particularly DYK. Enwebb (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trustworthy, reliable candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I thought you were already an administrator! Thanks for everything you do, especially in DYK Zingarese talk · contribs 17:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Definitley has the skill to handle the tools and the mentality an admin needs. Clearly a fine addition to our admin lineup. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Lot of excellent work, especially on DYK. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have known Cwmhiraeth since my early days here, and she was among the first few editors I got to know and respect, who tolerated me and my mistakes at the beginning so I could become a much better editor after all these years. A polite, supportive editor tirelessly dedicated to the project. I have no doubt about her proficiency in areas such as DYK since years, and she surely deserves the tools at least for this field at the start. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 17:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes to this excellent candidate. El_C 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support: clear need for the tools—in an area where we really need more admins—thorough experience and exceptional skill, and a demonstrated ability to calmly respond to hostile and uncivil feedback. — Bilorv (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Vanamonde93's response to the opposing comment. --MrClog (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Trusted editor and has done a great job on DYK. - FitIndia Talk Commons 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Cwmhiraeth is a major cog in the DYK process and the admin toolset will only enhance their work there. The user is also vastly experienced and I have no concerns over their temperament. Kosack (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Very helpful at DYK and were a joy to work with at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Uganda. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support based on witnessing work at DYK. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Tireless contributor, experienced, and good attitude. Best of luck Pagliaccious (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good work, level headed. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious choice. — Wug·a·po·des 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support – I have a good impression of Cwmhiraeth as a denizen of the DYK process, one of only a handful of active coordinators. In that role, I believe she will be a net positive to the project with the toolset. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Seems to be a thoughtful, polite, and extremely dedicated editor. I'm happy to trust her with more tools. Ajpolino (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Strong content creator. 10 years of diligent volunteer service. Works hard in thankless areas. Not a jerk. This is a no-brainer. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- – Juliancolton | Talk 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Judging by Wikipedia talk:Did you know I hope they get all the help they need! - Astrophobe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support enthusiastically. Although I opposed in the first go-around, I have seen great growth as an editor in the candidate and I think the earlier issues are justifiably buried. The two opposes at this time are coatracking broader issues onto the candidate and not germane to the evaluation of this RFA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I have every confidence in Cwmhiraeth's abilities and judgment. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Clear net positive. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Very good candidate. Many AFD contribs, edits, and contribs to the site. Give her the Mop! Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely. Full technical competency and solid temperment. I'm sure they will take note of the Mainpage concerns in the oppose. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support precious wildlife, and constantly good interactions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support—I have been a long time admirer of the candidate's diligent work at DYK. Admin privileges will allow her to do the work more effectively. buidhe 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support As it looks like we won't get consensus for a Main page editor, there is a clear need for the tools and I don't think she will abuse them. I opposed last time but I think the ill-advised ArbCom request is far enough in the past now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support: a trusted contributor who would not abuse the tools. Thank you for volunteering. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. My complete support. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Has done excellent work, time to receive the mop. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support does great work in a high profile area with relatively little conflict since previous RfA. --Find bruce (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Cwmhiraeth is a great editor and would make a good admin, we have all seen them mature over time and I think having them as an active admin will benefit our encyclopaedia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support A committed editor who has no doubt learned from earlier feedback, and they're welcome here now. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm mildly concerned that Cwmhiraeth may find it harder to avoid blocking and/or stressful situations as an admin, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh hell yes! - knows what goes into creating, reviewing, promoting articles. Atsme Talk 📧 00:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Although I didn't vote in her first RfA, I support wholeheartedly now. Miniapolis 01:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've seen the good work Cwmhiraeth has done for DYK. No concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support great content creation and image uploads and article expansion and reviewing, also we definitely need more female admins in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support no doubt will make a great admin 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'm not going to say anything that hasn't already been said, so suffice to to say that they meet all of my criteria, and as per all above. Hopefully I didn't accidentally remove anything this time! Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 03:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent candidate! This is a no-brainer. Joy to all! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to be a net positive and unlikely to abuse the tools. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. – Teratix ₵ 06:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Long tenured editor with demonstrated use case and no obvious red flags. As an aside, I'm glad that a user that can state - explicitly - that they intend to use the tools in a very narrow area, and is able to have [what looks now to be] a successful RfA. I remember when that was not the case. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Great candidate. Thank you for taking this next step. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support – POTD needs a coordinator, desperately. Cwmhiraeth has been serving that role for months with one hand tied behind their back. They would be much more effective in this role as an admin. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support I started the article decline in insect populations which the candidate mentions above. Their avoidance of conflict by approaching the topic from a different direction was commendable and I have no complaints on that score. I also started another article about their namesake which was used in a personalised DYK as a Christmas present: "Did you know ... that Cwmhiraeth is known for its industrious weaving?" This was a tribute to their indefatigable industry and admin tools would give more power to their elbow. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Experienced and trustworthy. Kurtis (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Needed to re-read answer to Q7 a couple of times as it might of swayed me the other way. Good Luck! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support great editor, will make a good admin. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks well-qualified with long-term dedication. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Da iawn, happy days, LindsayHello 09:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding editor who ticks all the boxes. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Definitely seems to have the community's support. SKay (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I have no idea what a "prep set" is (the nominators seem to be speaking an insider lingo of some corner of the project where I don't spend time), but what I see of the candidate's work is solidly in WP:ENC territory, focused on content. I'm hard-pressed to find any recent incidents or behavior patterns that give me pause. The DYK, POTM, and other front-page stuff looks like a lot of hard work, and of considerable public-interface importance to the project. The GA work is also key, and generally comes down to a lot of personal volunteer involvement and judgement (since it doesn't depend a shared-workload "committee" approach). FA I'm less impressed with, as I think it's "polishing the chrome" and is also kind of running off the rails, but the candidate is not among the problem-causing number in the FA-regulars contingent. Anyway, Cwmhiraeth is clueful and a will be a net positive as an admin from what I can see. I find the answers to the questions so far generally satisfactory (though I might quibble a bit on no. 7; past blocking history matters less than current behavior; the hypothetical admin-turned-editwarrior might be behaving worse than the other party, and should know better). Like The Squirrel Conspiracy, above, I'm glad that this RfA isn't mired in complaints about the candidate having a comparatively narrow intended use for the tools. While we do need more generalist admins, we also have some needs for specialists here and there, and this editor is already highly specialized and competent at what they do, by all accounts, and will be better able to do at least some of it with some additional tools. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish and anyone else -- sorry for the jargon. I forget that even regular nominators and reviewers at DYK might not know what a prep is unless they're working in that area. A prep is 8 hooks that have been chosen by an editor to appear on the MP together as a set. It's fun work, sort of solving a puzzle, but it's time-consuming and requires the editor "building" or "setting" the prep to basically do a re-review of all eight hooks to make sure the nominator and reviewer did their jobs correctly. Once a prep set is ready, an admin moves it to the queue, which tells a bot it can be transcluded to the main page on schedule. —valereee (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good editor, had assumed that she was already an admin. Deserves the nomination. Hzh (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support No concerns here. Number 57 12:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Graham Beards (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support Don't see any problems --Shrike (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Happily One of the ones I thought was an admin before I learned to tell. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
- This will no doubt pass, but I can't let this go through without registering my concerns. At the time I was deliberately avoiding naming names to avoid personalising the issue, but Cwmhiraeth was one of the two editors I had in mind when articulating my opposition to the creation of the "main page editor" userright. (See this thread on my talk from last year, or Fram's evidence at the TRM arb case for some illustration, but those are just small snapshots in time and you can find similar patterns of problematic behaviour with regards to the Main Page and related processes whenever you look.) If there were some kind of reverse unbundling in which someone was an admin in every respect except the ability to edit the Main Page I'd have no problem with that as I don't foresee any issues in the traditional admin areas of blocking and protection, but I assume the traditional admin areas of blocking and protection aren't what Cwmhiraeth wants the admin bit for. ‑ Iridescent 2 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, as addressed in Q3 the arb case was nearly four years ago and is regretted, and the candidate, between reviewing and promoting, touches more DYK hooks and articles than any other editor. She almost certainly touches at least half of all DYKs. It should surprise no one that in such a case even an error rate lower than average is going to generate a sheer number of errors much higher than anyone else's. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- What Valereee said. I feel like a broken record, having made this argument repeatedly for several years now, but anyone looking at Cwmhiraeth's track record (or DYK's track record) needs to look at the proportion of errors, not the number. Cwmhiraeth's dectractors, and DYK's detractors more broadly, consistendly fail to do this. For the record, when I say errors, I mean real errors, i.e. factual inaccuracies or failures of core policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, as addressed in Q3 the arb case was nearly four years ago and is regretted, and the candidate, between reviewing and promoting, touches more DYK hooks and articles than any other editor. She almost certainly touches at least half of all DYKs. It should surprise no one that in such a case even an error rate lower than average is going to generate a sheer number of errors much higher than anyone else's. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per question 7. I was really going for a support pending a basic answer to my new question I decided to ask at RFA. However two things with the answer struck me as odd. 1)The fact that Cwmhiraeth says she doubts she will ever block anyone. I think that just shows a lack of awareness of what goes on throughout the entire gamut of adminship and also where admin backlog is often needed. Also, 2)the expectation that an admin would not behave in such a way that would warrant an immediate block but instead going to a noticeboard being a better option. Those two options together, unless the answers can be clarified make me feel hesitant to support at this time. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I kinda took that to mean that Cwmhiraeth knew they'd be working in an admin area were instant blocks are relatively few and far between. Maile66, for instance, who is a regular on Main Page business, will be able to tell us how many times they have blocked someone for MP-related disruption. serial # 18:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- My stats as an admin are public: Adminstats/Maile66. This month marks my 4th year as admin, and it looks like I blocked 1715 editors in that time. How many were because of Main Page stuff? Probably none. Most of them were either because they were reported at AIV or ANI. And I recently reverted a block of mine, as I thought I erred. Most blocks are for a given time period, from hours to days or weeks. Permanent blocks usually require a community discussion, or they are for vandalism only accounts. Depends on the why of the block. Blocking is a learning experience, and each one depends on the circumstances, and all blocks have an appeals process for the blockee. The fact that Cwmhiraeth says right now that they won't block, is their honest opinion. Who knows what any of us will do in the future. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, Maile66 and I thank you for that: rest assured, I wasn't picking on you, but as an admin who worked on MP business, you knew (know) better than me how few blocks come about as a result. Thanks for the reply! serial # 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I took it exactly as you meant it - just asking for my perspective. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, Maile66 and I thank you for that: rest assured, I wasn't picking on you, but as an admin who worked on MP business, you knew (know) better than me how few blocks come about as a result. Thanks for the reply! serial # 19:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- My stats as an admin are public: Adminstats/Maile66. This month marks my 4th year as admin, and it looks like I blocked 1715 editors in that time. How many were because of Main Page stuff? Probably none. Most of them were either because they were reported at AIV or ANI. And I recently reverted a block of mine, as I thought I erred. Most blocks are for a given time period, from hours to days or weeks. Permanent blocks usually require a community discussion, or they are for vandalism only accounts. Depends on the why of the block. Blocking is a learning experience, and each one depends on the circumstances, and all blocks have an appeals process for the blockee. The fact that Cwmhiraeth says right now that they won't block, is their honest opinion. Who knows what any of us will do in the future. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - just some insight from an admin here. I ran on the idea of going after vandalism. That was my #1 priority, and anything else with the tools was way in the rear of my thinking, if at all. And little by little, one situation at a time, I've learned there are so many other good things I can do with the tools to help the encyclopedia. I still deal with the vandalism issues, but actually being an admin is a whole different perspective than your vision when you stand at RFA. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, I think Maile is right about the likelihood of you eventually expanding the scope of the admin activity which you are now preparing for. That evolution —regardless of the varying degrees of frequency with respect to you stepping outside that comfort zone— is something to be expected. El_C 19:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I kinda took that to mean that Cwmhiraeth knew they'd be working in an admin area were instant blocks are relatively few and far between. Maile66, for instance, who is a regular on Main Page business, will be able to tell us how many times they have blocked someone for MP-related disruption. serial # 18:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments
- For the record, in a recent case, the arbitration committee felt that looking at the number of errors was more useful to them than the proportion. FYI; I say that as—ahem—not an endorsement of the committee's decision. serial # 17:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to make zero mistakes. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't make a single mistake when I don't edit. Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Funny how that works. —valereee (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't make a single mistake when I don't edit. Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: I take your point, but I think it's a bit of an apples-oranges situation; Cwm makes a lot of promotions, but we're still talking about something of the order of a 100 a month, rather than tens (hundreds?) of thousands of speedy deletions. Admittedly, tracking proportions are hard; I tried, for a couple of months. Those stats are probably off-topic here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I interpreted SN's comments as sardonic rather than as an indication that that's what should happen here. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- He may have meant it that way, but I figured it was a fair point that needed answering nonetheless :) Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- With the exception of errors which are especially egregious, Serial Number 54129 is right that proportion should be paramount. His point is a good one,
even if it is a bit of a non sequitur.El_C 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)- why are we whispering? :D—valereee (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to disturb anyoneI didn't want to disturb anyone. But yes, my—very general— point was meant to be that, however we approach a particular issue one day can very much be reinterpreted by anyone else on another. @Valereee, Vanamonde93, and El C:, thanks for your characer refs :) and apologies for any opacity. serial # 18:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)- Dang it, valereee! That was going to be my joke!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we all whispering
?(edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- why are we whispering? :D—valereee (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- With the exception of errors which are especially egregious, Serial Number 54129 is right that proportion should be paramount. His point is a good one,
- He may have meant it that way, but I figured it was a fair point that needed answering nonetheless :) Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, those stats are eye-opening. I had no idea. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ERRORS is quite ephemeral as there's no archiving and little long-term analysis or discussion. So, I've been keeping my own personal archive of discussions there. Browsing this for mentions of the candidate's username, I'm not finding much. I'm inclined to think that this is a good thing as it is somewhat of a drama board. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I interpreted SN's comments as sardonic rather than as an indication that that's what should happen here. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I know how to make zero mistakes. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Re: blocking people -- fwiw, I doubted I'd be blocking people much when I stood for RfA, and in fact I've averaged fewer than 2 blocks per month. I block when I stumble across an active vandal, usually because a page is on my watch list. I don't see many vandals in MP areas, where I do nearly 100% of my (therefore nearly invisible) admin work. Vandalism on MP talk is generally dealt with by someone else before I can even get there, I don't think I've ever even arrived in time to revert. —valereee (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)