Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tohru Honda13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Candidate withdrew on 2 April 2007 (see diff). Errabee 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tohru Honda13

Final: (6/5/2); Ended 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tohru Honda13 (talk · contribs) - I hereby introduce Tohru Honda13 for adminship. Tohru Honda has been an excellent editor on Wikipedia since July, 2006 when she started editing. She has much experience on Wikipedia and has contributed innumerable constructive edits to a variety articles in many topics. Tohru Honda is in Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors and tirelessly made tons of copyeditting to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. She is also active in combating vandalism. On Wikipedia project space, she actively participated in AFD[1], MFD[2], RFC[3], et cetera. You can see it if you go through her entire contribution history. When I first interacted with this user, she was very polite and helpful. I've never saw her posting any sort of incivility, as civility is very important for an admin. I'm not going to say too many words here, Tohru Honda cannot be more suitable to handle sysop tools. Wooyi 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination I have meet a lot of friends here on Wikipedia but I consider Tohru to be one of my best friends. She works so hard here and in the real life. I remember when I was in need of sources for the article List of Stratocaster players I called upon Tohru for help. I was shy about it but I knew that she could be a great help. A couple days later she checked out several books from her local library and went to work! It was very inspiration, she was sourcing everything and to me that shows just how a good Wikipedian should be. She is honest and kind...and when she has a question she is not afraid to ask. She emails me her questions and I try to help out as much as I can. She has grown as a Wikipedian considerably since I first met her. In my mind if there is anyone suited for adminship it would be "Tohru Honda13". ~ Arjun 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly and graciously accept. ¡Gracias! Tohru Honda13 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Hmm... I'm a vandal-fighter, and I would love to help out at WP:AIV, but the place where I would most love to help out is the Requests for Page Protection. Not very much admins look out after it. I'd also love to assist on MFD's and AFDs. I've also taken an interest in the requests for comment/usernames; I'm totally against innappropriate usernames, and I find the discussions quite fun.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:A tough question, really. I enjoy nearly everything I help out with. Currently, I've lent my editing abilities to the Heroes WikiProject, The League of Copyeditors, Guitarist WikiProject, and the anime and manga wikiproject. Most of my proud work is copyediting articles that need it, and in many instances, I've added appropriate cites to them. All in all, I would say List of Stratocaster players, The Holocaust, and List of characters in Heroes please me. I don't have any featured work, I'm afraid.
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, I have been very few conflicts, but that was when I was a few days old as a Wikipedian. I didn't know better. Gradually, I read on Wikipedia's policies and straightened up, learning that I shouldn't be a reckless schoolgirl on Wikipedia. A few instances, some IPs and users have stressed me out, but from the help of my best friends on Wikipedia (you know who you are) I managed to just brush it off. Recently, I've been polite and civil (Wooyi certainly thinks so).
General comments
  • See Tohru Honda13's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Edit Count
  • Can the nominee explain this edit by Wooyi (since Wooyi's edit summary says that the edit in question was prompted by the nominee)? The nom has already been accepted and the questions answered, and had been transcluded over an hour. Further changes to answers can be made while it's transcluded. I don't want to oppose over this but the nominee should know that, if they think they're ready for adminship. – Chacor 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The nominee filled the answers very late at night and she must go to sleep, she said she would work on these answers the next day. Here is the original diff on my talk page. Wooyi 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No, what I mean is that at that time, there were already answers on this page, and it had already been transcluded over an hour. The nom was already accepted. Changes or updates to answers are allowed while it's transcluded. There was no valid reason to de-transclude it, and I would expect an admin candidate to know that. – Chacor 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like she asked to hold off on transcluding the page a couple of minutes before Arjun went ahead and did so, though, admittedly, she had already accepted. But she wasn't the one to yank it off the RfA page. Nor has she had a chance to sign back on yet to do anything, anyway. She made a comment that seemed to go against process (i.e., accepting the nomination without realizing she'd be immediately forced to start the clock), but she's never touched the RfA after it went up or even suggested that the RfA should be stopped after going up. I don't see how a small mistake — typing in the four tildes a little too early — in a procedure most people only ever have to deal with once should be a big deal. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I think it was a huge mistake for me to sign when this nominatation wasn't ready. I've de-transcluded it for now... Tohru Honda13 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Wooyi 03:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support as co-nom. ~ Arjun 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. He has enough experience to be given a mop and bucket. -Mschel 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. An excellent editor who would use the mop effectivly. I agree the answers to the questions were a bit weak, but I already know Tohru, so I support. · AO Talk 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support seems experienced enough.-- danntm T C 16:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per lack of proper experience in admin-related stuff in the Wikipedia namespace. Motto of the day is cute, but you seem to have an over-focus on something that's at best trivial. – Chacor 04:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I have a difficult time on RFAs - I either get an easy descision for oppose like below, or I have to make a difficult decision to oppose like here. You are friendly, eager & civil. I could never think that you'd abuse the tools. However, your edit count is very low on both the mainspace & the Wikipedia namespace sides - I usually like editors to have at least 2K mainspace & 1K Wikipedia (And over 100 edits to wikitalk) - You haven't met any of these standards yet. In time, undoubtedly you will, but for now my vote has to be oppose. I don't think neutral is a good vote on RfA's - you're either ready or not. As per above, quote of the day is too trivial to be counted as real wikipedia space edits. I'm so sorry, but if you keep at that count over the next few months, I don't see why I couldn't support you then. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    I won't say that this oppose comment is an arbitrary standard, but I will say that the benchmarks seem more quantitative than qualitative. However, Spawn Man is freely entitled to his opinion. —210physicq (c) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'd call this a misuse of the shrubbery template. Raw number standards are impolite; number bounds enmeshed in explanatory paragraphs seem thoughtful enough to me. Everybody has varying mileage, but the template struck me as odd here. Xoloz 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have never had anyone have a problem with either my opposes or my supports before. They're my standards & you don't have to agree with them. Tohru is by far not the tallest tree in the forest & my standards haven't changed as much. If he had a FA or two in only 100 edits, then I could make an exception as that would be a special case, but this is not the case here. The people who are making notes on perfectly good opposes should be ashamed - funnily the only one who is actually accepting the oppose votes as they are is Tohru! As I said, I'd support Tohru if he had a higher amount of edits, & that isn't the case right now is it? Now if you want to oppose my oppose then go ahead, but it only makes you look foolish as you're neither going to sway my vote & the vote is perfectly clear & acceptable! Spawn Man 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Tohru's a she--$UIT 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per Chacor, lack of experience. Nothing personal, but I don't like the fact that your userspace edit count is nearly half your mainspace edits, and it is actually higher than your Wikipedia-space edits. Arfan 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is nothing bad with more mainspace edits than other namespaces. Remember we are writing an enclyclopedia, mainspace is the utmost important aspect in Wikipedia. Project space and userspace should be only used for the purpose of improving mainspace articles. Wooyi 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Chacor and Arfan. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Inexperience in project-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't that a bit circular? Unless you mean "inexperience" in a different way than I'm interpreting it. GracenotesT § 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Nope... and I've said it in many opposes before without anyone saying anything. ;) To elaborate, project-space is a portion of our encyclopedia (the domain of the "nuts-and-bolts" pages, if you will.) "Wiki-Process" (like due process) is the method of doing things thoughtfully, thoroughly, and expeditiously. To learn the method (an acquired skill), you show involvement in the "domain". To learn how to bake, you work in a bakery; to learn blacksmithing, you apprentice in a forge. This is the only sense in which one might call the sentence "circular"; it is a useful comment, though, because it explains what the candidate lacks ("process skill") and where he can remedy the lack (project-space.) Xoloz 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't new to me. The analogy just seems a bit shaky. If experience is just as important as what the policies and guidelines say, then said policies and guidelines really need to be rewritten... GracenotesT § 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    If there is one thing I've learned about a wiki, it is that policies and guidelines can never fully be written. The project is too dynamic to permit that. That's why experience is very important. Anyway, in any field of endeavor, the written code cannot replicate the lived experience -- in wikis, this is especially true. We do have a "policy" called ignore all rules, remember? Any place with a written policy like that one is destined to have a subtle component to its work! ;) Xoloz 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    It's erroneous to say Tohru Honda13 lacks experience on project space. As I pointed out in the nomination, she has actively participated in AFD, MFD, RFCN, and many other Wikipedia project space processes. Please do not make the wrong conclusion before you actually look into her contribution history. Wooyi 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    With respect, I've already looked, and it is fair to say that our definitions of sufficient participation are different. Xoloz 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Woah, let's calm down. Everyone here has their own opinion, I totally respect that. I don't mind a few arguements here and there, but please try to keep it under control. Thanks! Tohru Honda13 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I usually hate to oppose candidates on edit count problems alone, but you state in Q1 that you wish to participate in AIV and RFPP, yet you have very little edits there. I believe that this alone is not reason enough to Oppose you, but I'm afraid I can't fully support you. I wish you the best, however. Kntrabssi 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Your edits are good and spread out. I doubt you'll abuse the tools, but your answers to the questions could have been more thought out, in my opinion,--$UIT 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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.