Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karanacs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Karanacs

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk · contribs) - I know RFA nominations from me are rare as hen's teeth, and the only editor I have nominated was shot down in a fairly spectacular fireball — but that said, I'd still like to nominate Karanacs for your consideration. I freely admit to not having heard of her until a month ago, when I was asking round looking for new admin material and her name was suggested to me. Having spent a fair while looking over her history, I'm honoured to be the one to suggest her for the mop, as well as surprised she hasn't been put forward before.

All the "doesn't need the tools" opposers may as well get their opposes in now, as she certainly doesn't fit the "traditional" admin candidate pattern. Hardly any discussions at AfD; a relatively low number of posts to AIV; never been a regular hanger-outer at WT:RFA, ANI or any of the other places wannabes are expected to hang out. To me, that's a positive, not a negative; she's an editor who realises that without content, Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people, and works steadily and unobtrusively to keep our content the best on the net. (But she's not exclusively a denizen of the mainspace; she has over 4000 non-mainspace edits, spread across all kinds of nooks and corners.)

She is, in my opinion, someone who may not need the tools, but would find them more useful than most, and has more than adequately demonstrated her trustworthiness. Her deleted contributions show a consistent well-judged use of CSD and PROD. She has maintained a steady flow of quality mainspace contributions for well over a year (including some mammoth articles on the history & institutions of Texas), and has a superlative record at pulling almost-there articles through the GA/FA hoops. Her talk/user talk edits show a consistent pattern of being able to collaborate, discuss and improve without once (that I can find) getting stroppy or arrogant, or even getting into an argument (aside from this storm in a teacup, in which I can't find her putting a word out of place). The ability to view deleted articles would be invaluable to a user like this who spends so much time putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers; the ability to block would be useful to anyone working on the vandalism-magnet US history articles in which she works (as I know to my cost, since Davy Crockett somehow found its way onto my watchlist), and I'd trust her entirely to use the delete button appropriately. More to the point, while she might not plan to do a lot of admin-drudgery, we have here a demonstrably committed and trustworthy editor who's willing to help where she can, and I think whatever help someone as good as this wants to give should be welcomed with open arms. — iridescent 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I am delighted that my very first RfA co-nomination should be for Karanacs, who is without the shadow of a doubt one of the best-qualified editors I could imagine for the role.

I first came into contact with Karanacs though her work with the FA-Team as she helped my students in the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. She showed utmost patience and generosity with these newbie Wikipedia editors, guiding and teaching them as they wrote three Featured Articles and eight Good Articles.

Since then, I have frequently seen Karanacs as she reviews articles at WP:FAC, where she demonstrates immense dedication, thoughtfulness, and a wealth of constructive criticism on a regular basis. She is undoubtedly one of the pillars of the FAC process.

FAC can be a stressful time for nominators and reviewers alike. But above all, I am constantly struck by Karanacs's good sense and good humor: I have not once seen her be brusque or dismissive; far from it, she endlessly goes out of her way to show her appreciation of other people's work, even as she never compromises on the very highest standards for Wikipedia's best work.

I also see Karanacs frequently intervening on fellow editors' user talk pages. She always finds a way to defuse potentially volatile situations, with her good sense and courtesy pouring oil on troubled waters.

Finally, let me point out one detail on Karanacs's user page: she "usually hide[s] from Wikipedia on weekends." If I had my way, every Wikipedia editor would have an enforced wikibreak a couple of days a week. The fact that Karanacs is able to take her distance periodically shows that she will never be drawn into the murky waters of wiki-drama that so often flood the project.

Karanacs is a model Wikipedia editor; she has certainly been one of the models I have tried to emulate. I could not think of anyone I would trust more with the admin tools. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, thank you. Karanacs (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC) After Iridescent asked if I would be interested in becoming an adminstrator I took a 24-hour break to consider my answer. I have never actively aspired to be an administrator; my edits have been in places where I tried to be useful. I am first and foremost a content editor and that will remain my priority. However, I believe those who accept administrator tools have a responsibility to use them (hopefully wisely); there is lots of work that needs to be done, and it is much easier if the workload is spread out. Although I am sure I would never be one of the most prolific users of the tools, I would try to be helpful and shoulder at least a small bit of the work.

[edit] 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: As mentioned, I am primarily a content editor. However, when I need a break from research or FAC-stress I often look for little tasks to do (assessing for wiki projects, recent changes patrolling, category cleanup etc). Having administrator tools would allow me to expand the pool of potential tasks. I am a firm believer, though, that one should know what they are doing before actually trying to do it. I do not see myself using administrator tools in areas that I do not feel I have a comfortable working knowledge (closing AfDs, for example). At this moment in time, I would feel comfortable closing prods and some CSDs (if I felt it was extremely clear-cut). Later, I could see myself monitoring AIV, but only after spending time watching the page to see how other administrators handle the currently listed intervention requests. As a frequent FAC reviewer, I would also try to help there where needed (for example, deleting pages).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of my contribution to bringing the article Ima Hogg to featured article status in time to be on the main page for April Fool's Day. User:SandyGeorgia had noticed that I've brought several Texas-related articles to FAC and recruited me for the project. Although I got the credit for the FA promotion, the final product was the result of a collaboration between at least a dozen people: image copyright specialists, copy editors, MOS experts, researchers, peer-reviewers, picture-takers, etc. We brought the article from little more than a stub to FA in two weeks. It was a great experience to work with so many editors I respect to build a quality article in such a short time, and a lot of people left comments on April 1 applauding the work (although others didn't appreciate the joke).
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'm a frequent FAC reviewer; by definition that means I'm often embroiled in wiki-stress. I believe that many (but certainly not all) conflicts occur because of an ignorance of or misinterpretation of WP policy, WP processes, or article-specific facts. Generally the best way to diffuse these is to explain why I am advocating a certain position, with brief summaries of and links to all the appropriate WP-space documentation or article-specific sources. By giving the other person a glimpse into my thought process and an invitation to frame their argument in the same way, we can (ideally) calmly debate the merits of the arguments and skip the drama. This does not always work; when it doesn't, the important thing is to remain civil and assume good faith, and if I feel I can't do that at the moment, I try to walk away for a bit before coming back. If it looks like the other person is getting overheated, sometimes I disengage for a while just to let them calm down. I'm human, though; I'm sure I've made mistakes, though hopefully not too many.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

Note: This nomination is not live yet. Please check back the week of June 15th.

[edit] Oppose

Note: This nomination is not live yet. Please check back the week of June 15th.

[edit] Neutral