Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lquilter

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Lquilter

Final: (72/3/0); Ended 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lquilter (talk · contribs) - I am honoured to be the nominator of Lquilter, one of Wikipedia's top article writers and WikiGnomes. She has been editing Wikipedia for over three years, and has made nearly 22,000 edits. She has an interest in several Wikiprojects, including WikiProject Organizations and WikiProject Gender Studies. She has created dozens of good quality articles on a wide range of subjects, and has significantly contributed to three Featured Articles: Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman, and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. On many other articles, she has performed WikiGnome activities, such as copyediting and adding categories. She has participated in hundreds of CFDs and AfDs, and has been involved with policy and guideline discussions at places including Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization and Wikipedia talk:No original research. She is also a good vandal fighter, having made 24 reports to WP:AIV. Lquilter is a very thoughtful, friendly and civil editor, who would make a great administrator. Epbr123 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


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 regularly participate in CFDs so I would probably take part in closing some CFDs that I do not participate in. Likely I would do my share of WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:RFP. I would certainly review WP:CSD, but I'll be checking to make sure that articles are not inappropriately deleted as much as checking to be sure that articles are appropriately deleted. I like to do OCD nitpicky tasks, and I like to explore the system and know what's going on, so probably I will spend some time looking through the various Admin areas, trying to figure out which ones have backlogs & can use assistance, and which ones pique my interest.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The contributions I think are best are two -- category-work and content. I've worked through a number of the category structures to improve them, which is often satisfying and occasionally challenging. For instance, Category:Awards, which is still in process, is in much better shape than it was, say, a year ago, with clear subject-oriented subcategories, most things diffused into appropriate subcategories, and so on. In terms of substantive content, I'm proud to say that I've added in a number of biographies for prominent scientists who were embarrassingly absent -- for example, Mary-Claire King, Joan A. Steitz, Carol W. Greider, Elaine Fuchs, Gerald M. Rubin, Barbara J. Meyer, Cori Bargmann. I haven't pushed these ahead in the review processes, which isn't as much up my alley, but I like to draft articles and then improve them over time, and it thrills me to watch other people improving work I drafted. I also very much enjoy collaborating with other editors to improve articles, and when I find an editor I respect and admire in any field, I really like working with them.
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, of course. The most significant and stressful was an ongoing dispute with an anonymous IP editor who was extremely tendentious, starting in late 2006 on the Nadine Gordimer pages. After dying down for a while, the whole issue got stirred up again a couple of months later by another tendentious editor. In retrospect I should have taken that one up the dispute-resolution chain much more quickly, but I hadn't been involved in any conflicts or dispute resolution processes at the time, so had to learn all those processes, and I was bending over backwards to assume good faith and an ability to -- eventually -- work with just about everyone. I had finally begun to draft out a significant description of the whole thing when the first IP editor was banned, and the second editor dropped off. I myself took a wikibreak shortly thereafter for personal reasons. Major lesson: Got a lot more familiar with the various policies & procedures around editor conduct & dispute resolution, and a lot more interested in dealing proactively with editors who are trying to make trouble. I still work hard to welcome and help along editors who are simply inexperienced, which is a critical part of building the community, but I now recognize the real harm that someone working in bad faith can do to the community.
A second conflict occurred when I was trying to clean up a series of categories, and a WikiProject had very distinct ideas about how to handle those categories. I did then and still do believe the editors on the other side of the opinion than me have it wrong, but as there's no rush to change things like this, I think it's fine to simply develop consensus and policy over the long haul. Lesson learned: Sometimes, just let it go. <g>
In general there are lots of opportunities to get into minor conflicts -- almost everyone at one point or another responds snippily, or can be perceived as responding snippily. I really don't need more stress in my life, so I'm always trying to be more constructive and calming, and less contentious and cranky. I try hard to balance being (a) respectful to others, (b) stating my views frankly, and (c) occasionally introducing a little levity.

Questions from User:Lawrence Cohen

4. If an admin adds themselves as available for administrator recall, should this be binding on them? What if they stated during their RFA that they would join the category?
A: I don't have a definitive position on these questions, but I have some thoughts and tendencies. When I do develop positions, I like to reserve the right for them to change. But this question implicates a certain matter of judgment that I do think is serious.
I'm not sure what it means that it "should" be binding on them. That they could be stripped of RFA by some automatic process if they don't follow through? In general I am opposed to automatic decisions; I like human judgment and lots of boring "processing" -- i.e., conversation and discussion. So, on a technical level, I would say "no".
In a more spirit-of-the-law kind of way, I have two thoughts. First, I do believe that people do -- and should -- change their views over time when presented with new evidence, new information, new ideas. So a "flip-flop" isn't going to necessarily cost a flip-flopper my support or trust, but it will make me want to understand why the change and it may cost my trust.
Second, the context you specify is particularly fraught. This isn't just a commitment to do something, or a statement of values; this is almost some kind of campaign pledge: it's a promise which has the potential and perhaps intent to induce behavior on the part of other people. So someone who makes such a commitment and then fails to follow through gives me particular pause. At that point, I tend to consider their promises and statements rather more carefully: Is this manipulative or political behavior on their part? Or a good faith change in heart? If a good faith change in heart, are there still issues to worry about? Such as (a) a failure to understand their own values in the first instance, (b) a tendency to take lightly things that I feel should be taken seriously (statements of one's own belief & intentions), (c) a failure to think things through and a tendency to rush to judgment, (d) a tendency to sign on to things simply to seek approval, (e) some other poor judgment? In other words, going back on a campaign promise isn't, for me, necessarily an ethical infringement that would turn me against them in a black-and-white fashion, but it would cause me to treat their comments with healthy skepticism. I myself wouldn't make a campaign promise unless I had a very strong belief I could fulfill it.


5. Do you feel that one admin should be able to reverse any one action by another admin once, if he believes in good faith that the reversal is the right decision to improve Wikipedia? If so, why? If not, why?
A: I think I have to say that it depends. If the decision appears to be a clear mistake or error on the part of the other admin, that the other admin would not have made except out of error (such as, closing "delete" when all consensus and weight of argument was for keep) and there is some good reason to do it rather than talk to the admin (such as, the admin went on a long wikibreak immediately afterwards), then I think sure, that is a good case for reversing & working out the specifics later.
If it is a substantive disagreement, then I think in general no. We all have our own inherent biases, and the whole point of wiki & WP processes are to encourage consensus-building -- meaning, conversation. That lets us take advantage of the "wisdom of the crowd", among other things, so we do not build an encyclopedia that maintains the biases of individual editors. Plus this kind of unilateral action is just not healthy in terms of maintaining the community.
That said, I could imagine situations in which an editor might feel, personally, compelled to act first and process second. For instance if Admin 1's action, if not quickly reversed, would lead to a significant harm that couldn't be undone, but reversing Admin 1 wouldn't harm but only at worst delay the benefits of Admin 1's actions, then that seems a plausible reason to act first & process later. (It's sort of a temporary restraining order standard, if folks are familiar with law: There's an urgent need, it can't be met some other way, there's no significant harm from doing it and there may be significant harm from not doing it, and so on.)
All that said, while I can imagine such a situation hypothetically, I've been scratching my head trying to come up with an actual live situation. Maybe, something like Admin 1 reinstates some BLP information; Admin 2 reasonably believes that the BLP information poses a threat to the life or safety of the subject, or a significant threat to the legal well-being of the Wikimedia Foundation. So Admin 2 reverses Admin 1's action and initiates immediate processes to get some consensus on the matter.
Since I haven't read a lot of the arguments and discussions about this kind of thing previously, this may not be a well-informed opinion, but this is my instinct at my present state of knowledge & experience. I would really hope to not see such situations until I have read more arguments & discussions on the matter but, frankly, again, this is the sort of thing on which every person must ultimately rely on their own judgment and discretion. My judgment regarding harm & legal harm is pretty good & well-informed, and my instincts towards consensus-building mean that I would only take such actions if I felt they were very well justified and I had very little other choice.
--Lquilter (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. (Beat the nom) Good editor. Epbr has found another good one. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support I had to go back through a number of Lquilter's contribs to find out where I knew the name from and why I already had a good impression. On Nov 29th, the editor left me some very astute and informative remarks on my talk page regarding a hasty speedy tag I left on CryptoRights Foundation when I was still quite new. I was impressed then, and am impressed now. Avruchtalk 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of my early deletion tags and noms were, uh, teh suck, so the advice was sorely needed! Avruchtalk 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice to hear! The positive interactions I mean. I'm pretty sure some of my early edits suck too. --Lquilter (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support seems ok. Dlohcierekim 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I trust this editor.--ragesoss (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've had interactions with this editor and seen her at work for a long time and she is always knowledgeable and professional. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Very experienced user. But, "Malformed RFA".... (as 'they' call it) your !vote tally marker (the 0/0/0) was in the wrong spot. (I'm gonna go off on a tangent and ask, how can you tally consensus if the discussion isn't votes....?) Anyways.... support! Icestorm815 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was moved there on purpose per discussion at WT:RFA. I guess we didn't consider that people would just move it back! Avruchtalk 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, must of missed that discussion! Icestorm815 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongest possible support exactly what we need. Good Luck! JERRY talkcontribs 04:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, excellent editor, good interaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — DarkFalls talk 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seen her superb work on some of the project's best content like Emma Goldman with Scartol, et al. Also seen her participate calmly, patiently and productively in some tedious project space discussions that few have the intestinal fortitude to withstand. --JayHenry (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Luck number 13... hah. Jmlk17 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Seems like a very thoughful editor, who is very familiar with the WP guidelines and policies. Her arguments that I have been reading are calm and well-reasoned. I am glad that editors like this continue to be willing to accept the responsibility. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Don't always agree with everything Lquilter says at CFD, but no doubt Lquilter would put the point the other way round! Sensible in discussion, though, which is the main thing, and an extra pair of experienced hands at CFD would be useful. Was (honestly!) thinking only yesterday that Lquilter was one to watch for here. BencherliteTalk 07:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Thoughtful intelligent editor. Unreservedly support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Will clearly make a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good user. SpencerT♦C 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. She will be a fine admin. - Darwinek (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - She is always level-headed and rational in disputes - even concerning abortion (see Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 3#Wollstonecraft's views on abortion). She provides thoughtful answers to questions (see Talk:Fanny Imlay#names & references to FI). These are essential qualities in an administrator. Awadewit | talk 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No worries here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support excellent in editing and discussion, careful and polite. Yes, there are some types of articles where we disagree, but I'd never hold that against someone who always says something sensible. DGG (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - yup! - Alison ❤ 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support without a doubt. --Kbdank71 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support all seems good. RMHED (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support trust with tools Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good luck. Timmeh! 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Thoughtful long-term contributor. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Can't say that I have recognize the name, but I definitely like what I see here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Indeed. seresin || wasn't he just...? 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support She is always contributing at CfD and I trust her completely. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I've seen nothing but reasonable posts from this user. Have a mop. --Jack Merridew 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've been milling around WikiProject proposals, and every word she's spoken there - which is a lot - is sensible. On the internet, it takes a heck of a lot to find someone like that! I hadn't checked, but I vaguely assumed she was an admin already. This looks inevitable - and rightly so Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, not an admin yet? Who's been sleeping on the job here? Heh =) Good to see that such an excellent editor is up for the mop. ♠PMC♠ 17:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Fair-minded and tactful. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I often see this editor doing good work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per above. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support User shows good sense in her replies to the questions, especially the negative one below! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Thoughtful, diligent, and very civil, even in arguments. LeSnail (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Great editor, would be a valuable, trustworthy admin. --BelovedFreak 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I became acquainted with lquilter through her insightful contributions to A Vindication of the Rights of Men and, later, to Emma Goldman. I've always been impressed with her energy, intelligence and clear thinking, and think those gifts will make her an excellent admin. Willow (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: the right stuff in all respects. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - She seems capable, serious and thoughtful. - Modernist (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Excellent contribs to Emma Goldman, courteous and helpful, seems trustworthy to me. Pigman☿ 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Having skimmed through some of the threads mentioned by the Oppose voters, and noticing her ability to remain diplomatic in stressful situations, I am happy to conclude that Lquilter is a good candidate for admin. Somebody who can discuss the respective advantages of lists and categories with such agility is good to have in policy discussions. Her work on the Nadine Gordimer article seems very sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support.: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Smart and tenacious. qp10qp (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly my favorite comment thus far. and especially from qp10qp! <g> --Lquilter (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Great contribs overall from mainspace and significant involvement in several WP areas/pages, particularly in Categories for discussion.--JForget 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Lquilter is calm and rational on some of the most contentious articles. --19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
  52. Support - Having read the comments in the oppose section below, I still have no reservations about this individual becoming an admin. If one knows to try to separate one's actions as an editor from one's actions as an admin, there is no good reason I can think of to believe this editor will abuse the tools. I've also had frequently contact with the editor in question and have never myself seen anything to give me the slightest concerns. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Our editing paths have crossed on several occasions. Lquilter is a good editor. In spite of having at least one of my own brilliant edits reverted by Lquilter, I have confidence that the project will be enhanced by Lquilter's use of the admin tools. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Solid editor, will make a great admin. Gromlakh (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support - Excellent Wikipedian, who is experienced in a wide variety of areas - should make a great admin. Lradrama 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Meets my simple requirements easily. Not likely to abuse the tools. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Secret account 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support as hard working Wikipedian making a significant contribution to the project. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Excellent editor. Acalamari 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Passes JG Test. Majorly (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. After witnessing this editor's conduct at Emma Goldman and other articles, I'm satisfied she is of a suitable temperment, has the requisite knowledge of policy, skills and civility to be an administrator. Passing the JG test is a sufficient but not necessary criterion. Skomorokh confer 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Great editor! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per WP:AGF - Triona (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. The candidate is a good contributor, seems to understand policy and works well with others as far as I can tell. Majoreditor (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I think this candidate has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, has made good edits, has good faith, and is an active user of Wikipedia. I think she will be a good admin. --Grrrlriot (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Passes JG Test as well. Anwar (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support He is very calm and level-headed when resolving disputes. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Fine. - Philippe | Talk 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Very good editor. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per the candidate's answer to my unrelated comment that ended up seeming like a question so he answered it anyway and it was a good answer. The candidate's contributions and experience look good, too. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support- The Marine does not just support anyone, you have to be good candidate to get my support. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry I disapprove of this users actions. During an RFC This user participated in a poorly thought out separate policy discussion, canvased to only one side of the discussion, and then tried to defend the action. [[1]]--Cube lurker (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At last, it's getting interesting. Yep, I did that (participated and defended), although I wouldn't exactly characterize it the way that Cube lurker did. Here's a link to that statement (current version) with more of my responses for your reading pleasure. --Lquilter (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Afraid it's not going to get too interesting. 30:1 seems to be inevitable, i know. But as they say if you don't vote you can't complain. Hope you exceed my expectations.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Oh, no, this is just the first couple of days -- there are lots more days before this nom is over. (2) As for exceeding your expectations -- I got nowhere to go but up, it seems! It might reassure you to know a few things about me that are relevant to the admin review: (i) I am highly atuned to role separation and will be quite careful about not acting as admin in issues in which I'm also acting as user. (ii) I would never feel comfortable using admin powers "against" a user with whom I'd been involved in a dispute. (iii) I much prefer talking things out & coming to an accord over bureaucracy, use of force (even wiki-powers-force), and resort to authority. So while you may think I show bad judgment in participating in a side conversation, I will be very surprised if you ever see me showing bad judgment by abusing authority. (iv) As a matter of philosophy, I do not distinguish between "real life" and working here: What I do here is part of my real life, there is no separation, and so I take as seriously any ethics issues or mistreatments of editors here, as I do in other parts of my life. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I have had, just recently, some interactions with this nominee in a category-deletion discussion, and, unfortunately, I haven’t felt that her comments and attitude have risen to the level of administrator. She has made some insulting and condescending remarks about me and other users that show a lack of neutrality and lack of patience which I don’t believe would suddenly disappear were she appointed as an administrator. Here she dismisses editors of Hollywood-related articles as “argumentative fans” and here she insults me (and others) by calling me/us merely "people with pet projects”. I have been active here for over two years, editing and writing on a variety of topics (and, in that discussion, desperately trying to understand the process and the rationale) and so I was extraordinarily offended by this remark. Belittling contributors and holding the opinion that those who work enthusiastically and in good faith to make improvements are just people defending pet projects seems incompatible with the responsibilities and outlook required of an administrator. Also, given what she's written, I've been left with the impression that she picks her category-deletion battles based on their win-ability and not on a consistent application of policy or a thorough combing-through of existing categories. In spite of what she has said in her statement, in my dealings with her I didn’t encounter much respect nor any levity. The few admininstrators with whom I’ve interacted here have all demonstrated tremendous patience, graciousness, a sense of humor, and a completely impartial, highly respectful attitude toward other contributors, always chosing their words carefully. I’m afraid, in my (admittedly brief) dealings with her, I’ve seen none of those qualities in this nominee. (Also, I'm sorry but I just have to ask: I simply can not fathom why someone who so rigorously and repeatedly battles against what she see as the major and hugely detrimental problems of overcategorization and non-defining and trivial categories, and accuses so many editors of being guilty of that infraction, would post this). J. Van Meter (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to comment on most of your oppose, but the fact that she has a subpage on her userpage for user boxes is a reason to oppose? Come on. Userboxes do serve a useful purpose because they help editors identify editors who may be knowledgable and able to assist with certain subject areas. Besides, there's a world of difference between trivia in userpages, and trivia everywhere else.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oh gosh lighten up a little. just trying to inject a little levity with that line. and no, that's not the reason to oppose: i gave my reasons. given how she's been arguing against things that are non-defining of people, i just found foggy days and dial phones awfully funny, that's all. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What weird timing. I was actually anti-UBX (for myself) for all the time that I was here, but a couple of weeks ago I was stuck in a hotel room with internet access for several days and in utter boredom I amused myself by pulling together all the UBXes I could find and playing with tables & CSS. And now it's an issue on the RFA and on the CFD as well and probably way more people have looked at this than ever would have otherwise. Wow. Who could have predicted. So much for obscurity. --Lquilter (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do pick my "battles", and this last couple of weeks, I nominated some awards for deletion, as I often do, but I ran into more dissent than is usual. So this is a bit more controversy than I ordinarily have in my weekly diet, and when JVM suggested "Hollywood Walk of Fame" as a counterpoint to my suggestion that we delete the category JVM created, I said I thought they were probably equally worthy of deletion, which is to say that Hollywood probably should go too, but that I was too tired to nom it this week. I personally don't think that's anything inappropriate. I don't think it's quite fair to draw from my comments that I pick my category battles based on their win-ability. As for my responses to users, I really don't feel I have anything to be embarrassed about, although I'm sorry that my words came across as disrespectful to JVM. But I'll link to relevant discussions below and am happy to take questions or commentary or feedback from people on the matter. So here are the discussions I've been in the last week or two that have made me a bit tired of argument & not up for taking on other battles likely to generate controversy (other than this one, I guess), this week:
    Lquilter (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ÷Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be more precise, I worked a lot on Emma Goldman, worked on cleanup & drive to FA on Mary Wollstonecraft, and did initial review & periodic follow-up of Vindication on its drive. I've certainly weighed in on various review processes but that has not been a focus of my work here. I do want to do more GA/FA work, but will probably start with reviews by request. FWIW, I'm not in love with this test, because I think it misses a lot: (1) is the editor civil in a wide variety of situations; (2) can the editor deal with situations outside of their control; (3) does the editor realize they don't own particular articles; (4) does the editor have a broad view of the encyclopedia as well as a close-up view? (e.g., structure, areas needing work, systemic biases, etc.). I like the idea of admins who come in with unique sets of concentrated experience, such as someone who primarily focuses on FAs (cough *awadewit* cough) or imagespace, but the JG Test apparently looks at that criteria alone; I think that's a problem. --Lquilter (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Sorry, my bad. You have passed the JG Test indeed. Anwar (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to block Anwar saadat for trolling, he just did a mass sweep of RFA not looking if he editor had any FAs or no. Himself doesn't have any FAs Secret account 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this user blatantly passes the "test", Anwar is simply incorrect and therefore his comment will be correctly ignored by the bureaucrat. Majorly (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Your failure to state definitively weather an administrator adding oneself to the recall category during their RfA being binding later in their adminship causes me to be opposed to your becoming an admin. Sorry, but consistency is absolutely essential in those whom we entrust with the mop. Bstone (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, of course, and I'm not trying to persuade you either way. But I don't know what it would mean to be "binding". So far as I know, there is no process to automatically de-admin people if such-and-such condition is met. If it's all an honor system, then I'm not sure what it means to say that it is "binding". If there's a proposal somewhere to consider making it binding, I would probably vote against it, because I don't like automatic switches; I like human judgment. I'm not sure how this is inconsistent, though. --Lquilter (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think - and Bstone, do correct me if I'm wrong - that "binding" here is intended to mean something along the lines of "irrevocable". The concern is that an admin could say that they're open to recall, then see interest in a recall, and either decline a proper recall request or say "no, just kidding, not yours" and remove themselves from the "Admins open to recall" category. A binding committment to Recall would, in theory, be a permanent committment to honor a recall should one come forward. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: A promise is a promise. If someone promises to submit themselves to recall, and then breaks that promise, that's a serious thing. But I don't see how a promise is made more serious by saying "I really truly promise in a binding fashion". I do take my own promises seriously, and do my best to keep them, and am concerned when other people don't. That's about all I can on it. --Lquilter (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, as backing out on one's word is probably a more severe breach than a bad block or page delete, both easily undone. But, in context here, that's my read. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:36, 30 January 2008 (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/Lquilter&oldid=1144623548"