Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AbigailAbernathy

Add links
Source: 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.

AbigailAbernathy

Final (3/17/0); ended 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Mkdwtalk 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

AbigailAbernathy (talk · contribs) – Basically, I just see Abigail's name coming up quite a bit in various places. She seems to be well on her way. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I wholeheartedly accept this nomination.--A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 23:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: It really isn't easy to predict what work I intend to take part in, seeing the wide selection of things I can help with. However, I can say for sure, that I will participate in:
  • CfD
    . I do openly admit that I have somewhat above-average knowledge of this topic, but I can say that in the past I have tagged articles that fit the criteria for speedy deletion. I know enough to review articles and make careful judgement.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My strongest contribution is making sure newcomers know our guidelines and other rules of Wikipedia. I often get questions regarding my reversions, or I even point out why I reverted using links. The most linked help article I use is
referencing for beginners
because I have seen that most of my reversions are due to incorrect citation use, failure to cite, or just adding biased information overall. Also, as said above, my second strongest contribution is just keeping vandalism under control and making sure nothing is added that goes against the guidelines and format.
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 can't say that I haven't, many newcomers come to me about disagreeing with my reversions; also there are the obvious trolls who try to get my attention. There was this conflict recently about a newcomer who was trying to add a table to the
Once Upon a Time (season 3)
page and someone was reverting it, they were obviously frustrated and was showing their frustration in the edit summaries. I reverted some of their additions as well, so I felt obligated to go in, cool stuff down, and talk it out. I educated the newcomer about referencing and how if your addition has no source that cannot be retrieved easily on the internet, then it cannot be added. I also told them that I was willing to have a full on civil compromise as long as they are calm and rational before beginning. The newcomer backed off, reverted their own hurtful messages on the second user's talk page, and I have not seen further vandalism from them.
In the future, I intend to deal with stress and frustrations of newcomers in a neutral and positive manner. I believe all newcomers can someday become great editors as long as they know our guidelines and can effectively add sourced material that is helpful and constructive to articles. I love seeing users like that on my side of Huggle and will do anything to keep them coming back to Wikipedia to improve it rather than vandalize it.
Additional question from Filelakeshoe
4. Thanks for your contributions. Aside from vandalism reversion and gnome work, are there any particular articles you've written or improved?
A: I'm sad to say that I have not taken time to write articles or significantly improve them. However, I am interested in doing so and plan on attempting to do so in the future. I cannot give a legitimate excuse why and feel a little disappointed for not doing so.
Additional question from Chris troutman
5. I noticed that you don't have a
CSD log
. Is there a reason why? Could you list some of the pages you've nominated for deletion?
A:


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Beat the nominator on this one, but I see no reason to oppose you at this time, especially since you have a good attitude towards other editors.
    talk) 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Support I didn't know that the nominator was supposed to support... seems a little self-serving, since I presumably wouldn't nominate someone that I wouldn't want to see succeed. In any case, I've seen solid work from AbigailAbernathy, and the admin tools would definitely be helpful for her work in fighting vandals. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose due to lack of article work. I understand this stance tends to make one seem like a rigid old fogey so let me explain. Reverting obvious vandalism is a good thing and we need editors doing it. However, there is a line between vandalism and other kinds of disruption and problematic editing which is oft very thin and you only really know how to deal with those things as an admin when you have dealt with them as an editor, i.e. once you've worked hard on a few articles, then someone comes to those articles with one intention only, to push their original research POV or to remove information they don't like or to add useless trivia or whatever, and interaction in those disputes tends to require a lot more than just template messages linking to guideline pages. Also, she mentions mentoring new users about referencing, but "if your addition has no source that cannot be retrieved easily on the internet, then it cannot be added" is patently false (reliable offline sources are perfectly okay, as are internet sources requiring registration, etc.), and I can't honestly assess whether someone understands policies such as reliable sources unless I see their article work. So not now, sorry. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    "if your addition has no source that cannot be retrieved easily on the internet, then it cannot be added"
    literally means
    "it is obligatory to cite at least one source that cannot be retrieved easily on the internet"
    which is nonsense - presumably the opposite was meant,
    "if your addition has no source that can be retrieved easily on the internet, then it cannot be added"
    which as stated is not Wikipedia policy. Just nitpicking, but clear communication is of the essence in admin work and you'd expect the candidate to be taking considerable care at this point: Noyster (talk), 09:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for the moment. No reflection on what seems like Abagail's excellent work, however admins must be acquainted with some form of article creation or expansion. I would be uncomfortable with a vandalism-fighting admin that hasn't seen WP from the perspective of editors. So I think
    talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose 84.15% automated edits. I don't think I've ever seen one that high at RFA. While that surely shows some nice vandalism work, that leaves 1200 non-automated edits, 600 of which are to user page (not talk) and Wikipedia space. I didn't break it down further, we are likely looking a 200-300 manual article edits. My bar is pretty low, but not that low. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose – based on what User:Dennis Brown said—not a lot of content creation, and mostly automated edits that do not show much of a need for admin tools. Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abigail, you are a very dedicated vandal-fighter on Wikipedia. Based on
    Huggle is the only significant work you have done. The ability to interact with newcomers and identify vandalism is an important part of being an admin, but that is only a part of it. I recommend participating in more project and article-related areas, such as article development and the deletion process. Administrators should be able to handle more serious disputes than simple vandalism, and most importantly, have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reverting vandalism gives you only partial experience in Wikipedia administration, and for this reason, I must oppose for now. After 6 months of work in other areas, I will be more than happy to consider you again. Best, Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Oppose -- as in
    WP:NOTNOW -- per LT910001. IMO, Administrators must have significant experience creating/editing articles so they understand the editor experience. I hope this motivates you, Abigail, and does not discourage you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Oppose without prejudice to future reconsideration. Regrettably there are just too many boxes on my check list that are left blank right now. I echo the comments above in my high regard and appreciation for your very important contributions to Wikipedia. But I think an Admin needs to have a broader resume. In particular I need to see some actual editing in the mainspace and also some serious work in AfD. One of the most important and powerful tools an Admin has is the ability to delete an article. Some sort of track record that gives me an idea how the candidate approaches that subject is an imperative for me. I suggest spending the next twelve + months working on articles and helping out in AfD. Then if you are over 10,000 edits we can take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Dennis Brown. The work you have done looks solid but you do not seem to meet enough of my current criteria -- which seems easily accomplished so I hope we see another RFA from you once you've gathered some more editorial experience. Mkdwtalk 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per
    Japanese Rail Fan 07:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose. I agree with everything that User:Mz7 says - keep up the great anti-vandalism work, take part in some AfDs & related areas, contribute to some articles and try another RfA in 6-12 months time. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Dennis Brown and Filelakeshoe. More article building needed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose You're certainly on the right track, however for now I have to agree with Mz7's comments. Your work against vandalism is great, you just need more experience when it comes to other areas, namely article construction. I can see you becoming a great candidate for adminship in time and look forward to when you rerun for adminship with more experience. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sorry, going to have to put in my own Oppose here because of this apparent misconception about sources having to be findable on the internet. It could be quite harmful actually, if good contributions on historical matters are reverted because they cite only old books that can be found in libraries but have no internet presence: Noyster (talk), 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. AbigailAbernathy declares an interest in working with speedy deletion. I have found seven flagged articles in the last one year: March 2014, September 2013 1, September 2013 2, August 2013 1, August 2013 2, May 2013 1, May 2013 2. All seven have been deleted. As far as I can tell, AbigailAbernathy has never participated in AfD. This level of activity in deletion areas is nowhere near enough for me to trust her with the deletion tool. She states "I do openly admit that I have somewhat above-average knowledge of this topic." This seems rather implausible, but it is followed by the non-sequitur "but I can say that in the past I have tagged articles that fit the criteria for speedy deletion." Therefore I presume that there is a typo in the first statement. Then there is the confusing statement "if your addition has no source that cannot be retrieved easily on the internet, then it cannot be added." With so many negatives, it took me a while to parse the statement. Indeed as Noyster points out, there seems to be a typo here too—as well as the fact that the intended implication is contrary to
    WP:SOURCE. The lack of article content creation doesn't help either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Oppose - as above, just not experienced enough in real (i.e. non0automated) editing I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Dennis Brown. Improve some articles and participate in some AfDs, then in 6-12 months come back and run. Good luck. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per
    rolbacker flags, and despite several months on the job and 25000+ edits, I don't think that I am ready for the mop and pail. I suggest you slowly expand your field of work on Wikipedia, maybe work on a few articles, assist editors, vandal fighters, and all the different groups on Wikipedia, and gain some experience. Remember that not everyone can become admin, and that's okay. You don't need to be a sysop to help Wikipedia in a huge way. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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/AbigailAbernathy&oldid=1075580223"