Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heidianddick

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Heidianddick

(0/5/2); Ended 20:12, December 01, 2007; closed early in accordance with Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Qst 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heidianddick (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination of a very unusual sort. The chances of success are extremely small but the benefits of success are potentially very helpful to Wikipedia.

I am a long time (2.5 year) reader of Wikipedia but have only read and approved some of the edits of my husband and gave him ideas on what to write.

I seek to become an ombudsman for solving problems in Wikipedia. As a wife, I never seek conflict, only conflict resolution. Frequently there is a running battle between vandals and administrators. This just gets everybody mad. Some administrators develop an "us versus them" attitude, start blocking willy nilly and either make good editors leave wikipedia or encourage marginal editors to become vandals (as a result of being punished too severely). Other administrators object to all discussion, labelling anyone with a different opinion a troll. Vandals are no better. They destroy Wikipedia.

As an administrator, I would have an open door to discuss problems with all editors, even vandals. I would talk with them and persuade them to stop. If they didn't stop, I would block them. I have the benefit of not having an article that I zealously guard so I can block without worrying about a conflict of interest (such as if I edited the article).

My husband has the benefit of about 1000 mainspace edits and approaching 3000 total edits. His experience is very helpful to me. A small group of editors/administrators have a fixation on a sock (and possibly a fixation to eliminate all except positive edits on a certain group of politicians' articles, even if the negative or neutral edits had reliable sources). They have used the very convenient excuse of "sock" to attack anybody. Their vindictiveness and scheming led to them trying to get rid anyone that even remotely was related geographically with a certain sock (leading to their wanting to attack my husband).

My husband (VK35) was wrongly accused of being a sock. He never had edit conflicts with anyone. He was cleared and unblocked by the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales. Not satisfied, the small group of editor-administrators kept attacking him, trying to drive good users out of wikipedia for their own sadistic, power hungry appetites. They have discovered that saying "sock of a banned user" is an easy way to ban anyone and that other administrators are too busy to confirm if this is true or not.

The facts are that my husband was one of the best editors in Wikipedia. He created over 50 new articles, added little known (but referenced) facts to Wikipedia. The checkuser even shows that he is not a sock (but he is one of the 1,064,000 users of the ISP in question). Furthermore, it has been proven that the sock in question was banned for falsely claiming to be a doctor. By a stroke of luck, my husband is a doctor and therefore cannot be this sock. Jimbo Wales confirmed this. Therefore, not only is there checkuser evidence proving that my husband is not a sock but there is actual evidence of his identity that proves that he cannot be that sock. I wish that I didn't have to discuss this sock issue but it is a point that must be explained for my candidacy for being adminstrator. I am not going to ArbCom because the issue is my RFA, not my husband. My husband has been morally driven away from WP and has no desire to return. (See, that's how Wikipedia is harmed. If he had stayed, he would have about 4,000 mainspace edits and 8,000 total edits per year).

I have a doctorate level graduate degree. I am a mother and a responsible citizen. I am very well read and understand Wikipedia policy. in part from my own research and discussing with my husband his knowledge of WP. I would be happy to answer any questions about policy. I also recuse myself from using any sysop powers regarding VK35 and state that I will immediately resign if I break this pledge.Heidianddick 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. I ask that the bureaucrat not remove this RFA too soon. Another RFA was removed minutes ago after only 4 oppose votes (characterized as WP:SNOW)

I am well versed in policy such as BLP, fair use images, etc. I am aware of that ArbCom is very busy. That's why we need to take care of WP ourselves and not be irresponsible administrators saying that ArbCom will clean up any mess we administrators make.

In short, here is my platform:

I am a long time (2.5 year) reader of Wikipedia.
I seek to become an ombudsman role (as an admin) for solving problems in Wikipedia.
As an administrator, I would have an open door to discuss problems with all editors, even vandals so as not to make the problem worse.
I am a mother and a responsible citizen.
Sysops powers are potentially murderous weapons because they can drive away good editors (so admin can unknowingly become vandals of wikipedia). I will use them will great care.
I pledge to resign in 1 year unless asked to continue.
Rather than speculate that I don't know WP policy, just ask me.
I will not get into an edit dispute with someone as an administrator and will resolve it as an editor.
I will submit myself to recall if selected.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take a look at 3RR and AIV and block when needed. Then I plan to enter discussions with the vandals and get them to stop. 3RR editors are especially open to rehabilitation. Blocking them and taking sides only creates hard feelings.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are coming here with an open mind and a very fair attitude. I have had some contact with AFD. I also believe I understand the image policy well having experience in discussing it.

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: Yes. My husband took my photos and put them on Wikipedia. These are my photos. Some administrators refused to delete these photos even though they were stolen. I learned from this that an administrator must take the time to respond to their actions and not just yield the whip. They call it a mop. In many ways it is a mop. However, let's not kid ourselves. The mop is a whip. Administrators are janitors but they are also keepers of the Wikipedia AK-47. Sysops powers are potentially murderous weapons because they can drive away good editors (so admin can unknowingly become vandals of wikipedia). I will use them will great care. I also pledge to resign in 1 year unless asked to continue. I also will submit myself to recall if selected.

There may be an upcoming conflict about this RFA. Rather than speculate that I don't know WP policy, just ask me.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Do you find these men nice to look at: http://www.toheroes.com/pics/1paco3.jpg Keepscases 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to look at this non-WP website. Consider moving the photos to your user page and I will comment. Warning: Fair use images are not permitted on user pages, only article. Heidianddick 19:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Heidianddick's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Heidianddick: Heidianddick (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Heidianddick before commenting.

Discussion

Hi,

An unusual RFA indeed. I can't support it, but as you've written reasonably, I'd like to comment, I hope reasonably as well.

Independent and level headed voices are a definite plus to the admin team. I respect many of the points you make; there are cases where unfairness has happened. With millions of users over time, it is hard to avoid that as much as people try. My reasons for being unable to support are therefore nothing to do with that. They are entirely to do with the nature of RFA, and adminship.

My first observation is, RFA is a tool, not a position or platform. You will not be able to use it to campaign, or correct wrongs, any much more than you would otherwise. Seeking adminship to promote a cause, however good the cause may be, is not what RFA is for. We arent here (the admins who may respond) to run the place. We are users who care and have access to tools that allow us to execute decisions that certain pages should be deleted or not, protected or not, and in some cases, users removed or not. We aren't more. In truth, we're mop wielders, like the humor says. If you feel that adminship will in any way give you a means to promote or expound the values you explain, which are good ones, then think again. It won't. It will give you no extra power or ability at all.

I point you to my own record. I'm active in making changes. So are many others. My record of policy improvements, dispute injustices fixed, and so on, is a long one. But I was doing that for 2 years before adminship. Two years that I found I could quite effectively help, and actually, didn't need the tools to contribute. Sure they let me do more, but I had shown I was doing the basics and more beforehand... that I was (and had been a long while) already doing the things you describe anyway.

You might also look at my RfA view, which sums up what I look for. How can I know you will meet even one of these? They aren't arbitrary; they are a recognition of what the job needs, from someone who does it; what I'd look for, as someone who's been asked to do the role.

We also don't allow multiple people on one account. A team can be strong, but we like individual accounts only, not accounts for Heidi and Dick. A technicality for accountability, that is.

I also have a problem that your promise "give me the tools and remove them if misused" doesn't work for me. The tools are all-or-nothing. They cover a wide range of accesses, that can cause harm if misused. Desysopping isn't the point. That's backwards logic. The point is, if we don't have strong evidence of good conduct endorsed by the community, we don't sysop in the first place, regardless.

But ultimately, the problem is this. RFA isn't an appointment to make a point. Its not like some supreme court, or cabinet, where you appoint a representative from one side to represent that side's views. Its a generic name for editors who know how to judge debate closes... when to give chances and when to draw lines... what advice to give on policy and practice... show consistent clued-in-ness and good judgement that gets respect. You need to learn those things and demonstrate that consistent judgement, every bit as much as you'd need to learn to drive in your own right, and all its ancillary skills and knowledge, before being ready for a driving test.

I hope this both helps and explains. If you need to ask anything more, please do.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. Rather than go line by line, I will comment on the most important ones. User:Heidianddick is only Heidi. Similarly, I think the next RFA by Useight is one user, not eight, even though the name says "eight". This RFA is not a platform for redress. Reading it carefully, I mention my husband only because it provides context to the RFA. I will not take any sysop action on him and plege to be desysoped if I do. This RFA is just about that I am a discusser and will continue to do so if an admin. Discussers can solve problems before they get bigger. Heidianddick 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose. Thanks, but let's wait until you've shown your way around by doing some work in the various areas. Until you've actually been involved yourself we can't really make a good judgment. - JodyB_talk 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 20 edits? How could we possibly know you well enough to trust you as an admin. Seek more experience then try later. 1 != 2 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will be an issue. I offer you something better than trust. I pledge to immediately resign if I act irresponsibly and to be desysoped if I don't for failing to adhere to a RFA promise. No other RFA guarantees this. They all say trust me. I say "You may verify my actions and desysop me for not fulfilling an RFA promise". I also have the benefits of marital consultation with my husband, who has well over 2,000 edits.Heidianddick 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning towards neutral. I don't doubt your good intentions but I have to agree that 20 edits is far to little in order to gain a proper reputation in the community. Therefore it will be very difficult for you to receive enough votes. Also, the comment on politicians biographies touches the highly sensitive subject, described in WP:LIVING. It could be good if you could provide us with some examples of the edits that you were concerned with, and possibly also with some mediation attempts that you have been part of as a problem solver. But don't give up if you won't be elected. Stay here for some months, do some hundred main space edits. Then I'm sure you'll be elected admin. --MoRsE 19:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. You don't appear to understand what an RfA is, we have no evidence that you understand any part or policy of Wikipedia outside of finding your way here to RfA, your husbands edits are not a factor in your own RfA, I find the 'I'm a wife, so I don't cause conflict' idea comical. Participate in mediation, get involved in some articles, do SOMETHING, and maybe come back. Avruch ^Talk 20:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; with only 20 edits to Wikipedia, you haven't demonstrated a knowledge of how Wikipedia works. You can already participlate in discussions and help with discussions on image issues. Since you seem passionate about that, why not start by helping out with that? It's rare for someone to become an admin with fewer than 2000 edits, ad you have only 1% of that. Do apply again when you've logged some experience here. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Avenge the death of your husband, dealt by the hands of the Wikipedian peasants! --Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 20:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think she actually looked at the picture, but won't admit it. Keepscases 20:10, 1 December 2007 (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.