Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KrakatoaKatie

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.

KrakatoaKatie

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC) at (59/0/0); Scheduled end time 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs) - KrakatoaKatie, formerly known as BaseballBaby, is an experienced Wikipedian with over 8,700 edits to her name. She is a regular participant in XfDs and RfAs, and fully understands what is expected of an admin. She is also active in contributing to articles as a member of several WikiProjects. Given that we need more admins (anyone who doesn't believe me should watch CAT:CSD for a couple of days), I think KrakatoaKatie is a good candidate and should be given the tools. WaltonAssistance! 16:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Samir: I agree entirely with Walton, and it's my pleasure to add a co-nomination. KrakatoaKatie is a well-rounded contributor here, and has participated heavily both in article space (I first met her through her excellent editing of a number of articles at WP:GI), and in deletion discussions, suggesting to me that she understands both content and policy very well. She's kind, always civil and even-tempered, and has shown an interest in helping blast through backlogs. I think she'd make an exceptional administrator, and ask for your support -- Samir 18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I'm honored. KrakatoaKatie 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I regularly participate in RC patrolling and vandalism repair, and AIV seems backed up whenever I check it, so I'd like to help there. I've also worked to close keep or merge AfDs, especially during backlogged periods, and I always find several unambiguous delete discussions that I could clear if I had the tools. Speedy deletions are constantly in need of attention, as are copyright problems. Although I don't have a great deal of experience, I'd like to dig into the images backlogs, not only to help clear the logs but to see the images themselves. I'm an incurable encyclopedia reader.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I wrote much of Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, which is a Good Article. I've also worked on Miles Browning. An editor who I believe is a relative of Browning started the article as a hagiography, more or less. I've tried to engage this editor in discussion on the article talk page and his user talk page, but unfortunately he hasn't responded once. So, I gave the article some structure, referenced it, and sent it for peer review at USMILHIST, and I'm working on more sources for it.

While doing RC patrol I'll almost always find a stub or start-class article in which I'm interested, and lately I've been rewriting, expanding, and referencing some of those articles. Examples are Doyle Holly, NetNewsWire, First Report on the Public Credit, David L. Payne, De'Mond Parker, Diana Vincent, Clean Energy Act of 2007, and University of Connecticut Marching Band. Just today I wandered to Donna Nelson.

I also enjoy welcoming new users. It's great to give a newbie the help he/she needs before he/she realizes the need for 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: As a general rule, my areas of interest don't include hot-button, controversial topics or articles. I'll occasionally edit an article on a political or religious figure to copyedit or revert vandalism. However, there is one instance that caused a lot of stress – it was caused by my own newbie mistakes and I've learned from them.

When I first began to participate in RC patrol and reverting vandalism, I unintentionally reverted a few changes that were actually correct and mistook content disputes for vandalism a couple of times. The editors involved notified me about it, so I quickly learned what is and is not vandalism. I'm grateful for their explanations, and I think about it every time I welcome a new user.

I was editing frequently and receiving comments about my edits, and I think two or three of those comments came in over a two or three-day period. One editor, User:66.235.35.207 (probably a sock of User:Lovelinelistener) was upset over one of those mistakes I made, and I apologized for it twice – but he either didn't see my apology or didn't care because he made seven increasingly creepy edits to my user talk page over a three-day period. I nearly left Wikipedia for good after making so many errors and getting hammered so hard for them, but I didn't. I tried to be civil to friend or not-friend, and I took each one as a step along the way to Wiki-nirvana. This experience is the main reason why I try to help new editors.

I also feel I should explain a bit about the MedCab case I was forced to abandon in September/October 2006, when real life violently interfered with my offline and online activities not once, but twice. I took a MedCab case between User:Cedars and User: Light current over Electrical engineering. I had amassed over a dozen pages of notes between the two editors and I'm pretty sure I had drilled down to the bottom line for both parties and understood the problem. I was not confident, however, that I could move Light current away from his stubborn, dogmatic definition of electrical engineering and convince him he didn't own the article. Before I could find a compromise, I had to leave Wikipedia suddenly and couldn't complete the negotiation. Light current, of course, has since been banned, which made me feel a little better about my own perception of the situation – but then again, he said he thought the mediation was going well, so I'm not sure what that says about my skills. I enjoyed doing this but I haven't taken a MedCab case since then, only because I think my talents and interests are better used elsewhere. If necessary, I'd be happy to mediate another case or any dispute.

Optional joke question from Nishkid64

4. How did you go from "BaseballBaby" to "KrakatoaKatie"? Also, should Wikipedia expect other random name changes, perhaps to "Tambora1816", "IknowzITEOTWAWKIlyrics!" or "SarongDancer11"? (sorry I cheated with the last two, saw your userpage)
As for how, I went to Wikipedia:Changing username and requested the change. :-) Seriously though, I decided I didn't like being called Baseball. I love baseball, but as a username it lacks panache. Shaking a sarong is much cooler, and I really like doing it, so KrakatoaKatie is the permanent username for me. (Unless Mike Mills happens to fall for me, in which case all bets are off.) - KrakatoaKatie 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question from bainer (talk)
5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
Intention is everything. The intent should and must be to improve the body of work, not to simply disregard a rule one does not wish to observe. IAR isn't all about freedom – it's both freedom and security. It's the independence to do what one thinks is correct to improve the encyclopedia despite written policies, to allow consensus to guide instead of doctrine to govern. At the same time, it's a safety net to help the community rein in those who would or could use an existing policy to stall improvement of the encyclopedia or to manipulate other editors. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and the bureaucracy shouldn't stand in the way of its progress and growth.

Admins cannot use the admin tools to win arguments, delete pages which they do not like, or otherwise behave in a privileged or superior manner toward other editors. Neither can any editor use IAR to promote or accomplish their own personal aims at the expense of the encyclopedia and/or everyone else. That's the only hard and fast statement I can make on the subject because each case is unique.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/KrakatoaKatie before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as co-nominator. WaltonAssistance! 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Alison ☺ 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support You seem like a great, knowledgable editor who will never abuse the tools, and your answers to the questions were wonderful. On a positive side note, your consistent use of edit summaries is a definite plus for me, as well. hmwithtalk 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great user, shall make a great admin.--Húsönd 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; excellent contributor, good judgement, good sense of perspective: everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support You're kidding me right? I so thought you were one! Majorly (talk | meet) 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great edit summary usage, great edit count and with the current backlogs building up around here; we could use more admin candidates like this, good luck! The Sunshine Man 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support nice answers, seems fit for the job. Really neat user page, by the way. —Anas talk? 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Peacent 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Was wondering when we were going to see this one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support on the condition you will not destroy Wikipedia and make a Year Without a Summer.Wrong freaking volcano (P.S. Everything looks good for this user. I don't see any reason not to support this RfA) Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--MONGO 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as co-nom -- Samir 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Excellent user, the "some words on editing" user page section is one of the strongest sources of clarity I've seen in userspace during my time here. Would make a superb admin. Best of luck! - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read that section just now and you're absolutely right. Fabulous stance on Wikipedia. —AldeBaer 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support No reasonable cause for any objection. Have fun administrating Black Harry 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. D. Recorder 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Two cliche moments at RfA in one day -- times like this are marvelous for Wikipedia! :) Xoloz 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support- Great editor. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per noms. —AldeBaer 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support Definitely. Acalamari 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support like a wonderbra --Infrangible 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. BaseballBaby! I was wondering where you where hiding, dear - it's great to know that's you! :) And support, by the way! ;) Phaedriel - 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I like the answers, and I feel the candidate is ready for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support there's not much more I can say than above Gutworth 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support seems like a good candidate. --rogerd 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Majoreditor 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. A nod of the head in the affirmative Very knowledgeable and pleasant, will do fine in passing judgment and taking the bruising afterwards. Welcome to hell :) Keegantalk 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Great editor and certainly will be a great administrator. --Carioca 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Um yes. Great asset to the community. Jmlk17 06:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support extremely intelligent, civil, prolific editor who will do a fantastic job. Riana ⁂ 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - as per Riana :) ..--Cometstyles 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak Support All looks fine, but the fact that the candidate is honoured to get the key to the broom cupboard worries me. I'm sure you'll be sucesfull in this RfA, so when you're an admin try and rememeber that in the real world there's lots of people that do administration and very few people that are editors. Please don't view this as some kind of promotion. Pedro |  Chat  17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Thought you already were an admin. —Gaff ταλκ 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, she'll be a great admin, don't find any cause for concern at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. DeleteSupport, great xfd contribution, great candidate. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Fine user, excellent contributions. No worries; no big deal.™ Firsfron of Ronchester 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I offered to nominate her long ago; glad to see she's taking the plunge. Mike Christie (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, I have seen nothing but good things from this editor. --Spike Wilbury 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support good editor to support. Captain panda 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support based on contributions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No doubt about it - I approve. TML 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Ready for the mop. -- Jreferee 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, of course. — CharlotteWebb 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per excellent contributions to articles, experience in admin-related tasks (reporting vandals and closing AfDs), and overall friendly/polite/positive attitude. Having the tools would only make her more efficient in performing all of these tasks ... Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Pile-on support. Good user, I have seen her around. --John 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I was initially a little baffled by this RfA, as I'd never heard of KK. However, I have seen BaseballBaby around, and there's no doubt that this/that user would be a great asset to the administrator corps. Daniel 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support she won't erupt or explode when she's stressed, from what I've seen, will probably vent elsewhere if she is, and I think the sysop community would warm to her rather well. Will (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Most definitely! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Just piling on, but this is the first editor for whom I'm voting that I've actually seen about, and I love her name. But I like the Tambora1816 too! Orangemarlin 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, despite conom. Tomertalk 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - very active editor with an excellent edit history. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I was quite certain that I'd already !voted here, and now I'm inclined to think I expressed my support for KK at some other RfA, although with the one might not even notice. In any case, although I very rarely pile on, I must here; it is altogether plain that the net effect on the project of Katie's being sysopped should be positive, and even were I not inclined to support in view of past interactions, I almost certainly would exclusively on the basis of the answer to question five, which evidences an understanding of adminship as ministerial and of consensus as paramount that is, well, quite good . Joe 05:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per above:).Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/KrakatoaKatie&oldid=1147979889"