The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Miranda[edit]

Final (2/9/1); Ended Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:04:39 (UTC)

Miranda (talk · contribs) - I was going to wait until December or January to do this, but seeing the need for more administrators...

Hi, I am Miranda. I joined Wikipedia in January 2007. I have 19,000 edits so far on the project. I used to be known as Real96. My previous editor's review is shown here as Real96. The latest one is located here. My rantings/essay on my experiences are located here. A taste of my writing contributions in my sandbox. I have a doppelganger account named  Mirandargh  for public places.

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Some of the administrative tasks that I would like to take a part in is participating in requests for page protection, three reverts noticeboard, and helping to ease the backlog in the candidates for speedy deletion. I would also assist in investigating sockpuppetry cases as well as block users with confirmed cases of sockpuppetry. I would also would like to help assist in providing a second opinion to users who are currently blocked for vandalism, threats, et. cetera, by reviewing his or her block. In addition, I would continue to provide an opinion on administrative noticeboard - incidents, usernames for administrator attention, block open proxies, as well as community noticeboard, and administrative noticeboard.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my early days of editing, I was a check user clerk, and am pretty semi-active in that area. I have also assisted in the help desk by answering questions from new users as well as with users who need help. I have adopted four users in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program.
In addition, I helped to assess new albums in WikiProject Albums as well as helped assess 500 biographies as a part of the Spring WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive. I also used to create banners as a part of Wikipedia ads initiated by Gurch. These ads are meant to be used in userspace in order to advertise Wikipedia projects and generate interest for Wikipedians to participate in specific projects. I have also assisted with ads on meta with the fundraising campaign. I have participated some deletion debates. So far I have created over 30 ads.
I have also contributed to mainspace by helping to curve vandalism with Twinkle. Furthermore, I have created some pages relevant to WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. For example, I two DYK articles Myra Hemmings, a founder of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and Beulah Burke, an Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated founder. I have also helped to improve Alpha Kappa Alpha from a start class article to a B article. I am also a member of Wikimedia Commons where I upload government photos and public domain photos relating to the sorority and for Delta Sigma Theta, and am a trusted user. A trusted user is a person who is trusted in the Commons community to check to see if the license on Flickr matches the one on Commons (i.e. Creative Commons licensing). In addition, I look for freely licensed Flickr images to add to the site.
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.: First of all, I don't hold grudges against people because life is too short and deters energy which can be used in the encyclopedia. However, I am human and I do make mistakes. I don't see Wikipedia as a battleground where people should hold their grudges, even though a person has done something wrong in the past. In addition, I don't see Wikipedia as a place to bite new users even though I have been guilty of biting some users. I have though, at some points been kind of aggressive to some users, too critical of my comments on Requests for Adminship when I didn't know that using the RFA template is legal in some cases, assumed bad faith concerning users who are asking legitamate questions and not trolling and mistook vandalism when it was just a content dispute. For the Spadaro incident, I have apologized. I am working very hard on controlling my behavior into a civil and neutral tone to other users, because I believe that we all are examples of what Wikipedia is about — sharing knowledge from different perspectives. Late June was a very bad month for me in real life, and I was contemplating to leave the project and not run for adminship. However, I shouldn't have taken my frustration out on Wikipedians or the project as a whole. Next time, if my wikimood is past -4, then I will take a wikibreak. :-D
Second, I had a conflict with Qst, in which I had ignored him while he was uncivil towards me. However, he has been banned the community due to incivility, trolling, etc. He is later on parol. All of the details about my and his interaction can be seen there.
Third, another conflict that I have been involved with is when a member from her sorority was editing an article relating to her sorority. HistoricDST is a member of Delta Sigma Theta and was editing her sorority's article, which could arise a possible conflict of interest. She has also made ownership issues with the page, as seen here, harassed me via not knowing what "COI" is, deleting information which I have worked hard upon improving, twice, and has became POV pushy with edit summaries. At first, I assumed good faith, because she was new. However, when she began instructing me how to edit "her" sorority's page, quite naturally, I was angry and said something to the effect of her telling me what I should or shouldn't know when I had more experience than her, and I had "six months experience", etc. which can be seen as extreme biting. I apologize for that, and I am working hard to making those types of comments to a minimum. However, I do not agree that a person should use Wikipedia to POV push their organization, new or old. She has been warned to not be a conflict of interest to her sorority's talk page. I have tried to explain on ANI to some administrators about the incident, but they didn't seem to understand, as seen here.
Fourth, I had an issue with EFD, because I thought at first that the project was an attack page. So, I nominated it for MFD. However, I guess I assumed bad faith there. Another instance when I assumed bad faith is when I nominated another person's page for a MFD, because I thought the page fit the criteria of being a webpage or a blog. I nominated it for MFD, and the page stayed. The moral of these two stories is, that I need to work on assuming good faith with users.
Fifth, I had a conflict with a user concerning whether or not the word incorporated should be used in the article. I and the other user were in a heated debate, and I later initiated a mediation case. Several days later, without an active mediator, I came to a solution here.
4. Regarding concerns on IRC.
A. I am active on IRC. Any oppose based on that should be reconsidered. Also, I believe that IRC related topics should stay on IRC, and not be brought on the encyclopedia due to 1.) privacy reasons, since a person's IP address and/or location can be shown to others on the chatroom 2.) Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have no control over the content shown on IRC, and 3.) Wikipedia is not a place in order to hold grudges or to disrupt the encyclopedia. To the users effected, if my behavior seemed rude or unconcerning, then I apologize. I am a very humorous person in real life, and love to joke. The last thing I would want is for off wiki-conversations to be brought on Wikipedia in order to harass a user. If I were an administrator, and I saw someone who was harassed on Wikipedia based on off-wikipedia behavior due to revealing personal information and stalking in order to disrupt and scare the editor and his or her working environment, I will indef. block that user on sight after the edit(s) was/were made. After my blocking of the user, I would e-mail the arbitration committee and not mention the specific users involved, in respect to the harassed party as well as the accused one. However, I will make an AN thread to know what the situation's current condition is about. This is one of the many reasons in which I would ignore a rule.
I thank you for participating in my request for adminship. If you oppose me, I will not hassle you or challenge your oppose. However, if there is an unclear point raised, I will try my best in order to clarify the point up in the best way possible. I see this RFA as a evaluation as to where my strengths and weaknesses stand in the community's viewpoint. I also understand that adminship is not a big deal as well as not a trophy or award for my current contributions to the project. If this RFA fails, I will see the RFA as a status of where my current strengths and weaknesses are on Wikipedia. I see that Wikipedia is in dire need of good administrators, and I am willing to present myself to the task.
And with that, I present to you...Miranda.
Question from Kwsn
5. What is your definition of assume good faith and when should you assume bad faith?
A.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support I wanted to nominate Miranda a while back, her work is impressive, even though there have been conflicts, people are human and these things sometimes happen. I don't think she'll abuse the tools, and I do believe she would benefit the encyclopedia with them. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Is already an admin. :) Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Good God No - I shudder at the thought of Miranda with the right to block users. High strung, prone to temper tantrums, a long history of biting new users and misunderstanding policy. I'm horrified that Miranda's assesment of [1] is that the admins at ANI didn't understand. This is extremely worrying because the first thing an admin needs to do is know when they have made mistakes and learn from them. As recently as September was castigating a user for removing templated warnings from their talk page [2] and undoing the removal. She didn't appear to notice the irony that she was doing the same thing herself.[3]. Leaves Wikipedia so often we should install a revolving door. This suggests the user lacks the ability to cope with editing stress and someone who reacts badly to stress really shouldn't deal with the additional stress that the use of admin tools inevitably entails. I have no doubt that Miranda is a committed and hard working editor but she needs to show a sustained period of stability before we can seriously consider making her an admin. Spartaz Humbug! 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Spartaz. Thanks for your vote. However, whenever using twinkle, I don't know the difference between dynamic and status IPs, at that time. When you left notes on my talk page (seen here and [4]), I reverted them due to 1.) I never have been in interaction with you before 2.) potential cause of inflaming the situation. I am trying to become a civil and fair user, and in this case, I assumed good faith on this incident. The IP could easily archive his or her page, but I have seen IP users with shared IP addresses who don't know how their IP created vandalism edits. That's why I reverted them. I hope that answers your question. Miranda 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how [5] was either assuming good faith with anyone or actually listening to advice or information from other users. I'm not going to alter my position so please don't feel the need to spend time trying to talk me round. Spartaz Humbug! 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This user's comprehension of policy leaves a lot to be desired. Constant threats of leaving and stress-induced wikibreaks lead me to believe that Miranda is far too unstable to have tools that could potentially do serious harm to the project. Her inability to peacefully interact with new and established users further detracts from the good she has done. I've seen her frequently misuse words such "troll" when interacting with users and I believe that she lacks the judgment needed to place a block on anyone other than simplest of vandals. Essentially, I believe that bad outweighs the good. -- John Reaves 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regretful Oppose Personally, I have only had positive interactions with her. With me she has been very friendly. Also, her devotion to wikipedia is top notch. She is a very valuable editor, though she has some problems. With some users I have found her to be very rude. It would not be a issue if she was only rude one or 2 times over a short period of time, but she has been rude many times, both on and off wiki, since I have met her. She has a major temper, which is not a good thing for an admin to have. I am sorry that I cannot support you this time:( Good luck some other time!--SJP 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose - this user has shown in her interactions with other users that she cannot be trusted. Primarily, she is rude, but has also shown off-wiki that she is unable to abide by policies. I agree with most of what John Reaves said, especially regarding candidate's wikibreaks/attempts to quit. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regretfully, but I must oppose - This user seems to be high-tempered, and has a history of quitting and rejoining. While devoted to the wiki, I do not think that this user would be suited to the stresses and strains of adminship. Again, sorry. :-) Stwalkerster talk 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Regretful, but strong oppose — rude and unstable user (sometimes). Sorry. --Agüeybaná 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Miranda is almost comically rude and arrogant to people both on and off-wiki (yes, I know IRC is not Wikipedia - but it says a lot about how one feels and behaves regarding a lot of things overall). She is far, far too quick to label confused newcomers as trolls, routinely fails to assume even the tiniest smidge of good faith on the part of established contributors, has a temper problem, inconsistency and instability as evidenced by her constant retirements and deletions of her userpage, and is, to my taste, far too paranoid and willing to see sockpuppets waiting in the dark corners. I honestly don't mean to be all negative - she is a great article-writer, and has a sense of humour which I would love to see displayed more often, and perhaps even realise that it's OK to use that humour in situations where she is angered or irritated. I believe that with a few months of displaying stable editing, cordial interaction with her fellow users and continued wonderful article work, she would be a good candidate. I am willing to coach her, should she wish to be coached. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I have no choice but to oppose at this time. This user's behavior and knowledge of certain social constructs has left a very sour taste in my mouth. Bringing a newbie to AN/I who made good faith edits to a page she substantially expanded demonstrates an ignorance of WP:BITE, WP:OWN, etc. That is not very serious until you couple it with off-wiki incidents such as those on IRC, which include assessing numerous established users and newbies seeking help as "trolls", which is patently undesirable for a potential admin. There are other incidents which I am too lazy to hunt down (naughty, yes, I know), but the opposes above cover all else that needs to be said. Signed, —Animum (a rag man) 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose User can not show good faith as evidenced above. I had intended on waiting for my question to be answered, but the opposes answer it just as well. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Until question #5 is answered. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC) struck vote Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I intended to support, but I was not aware of the problems raised just now. Mitigating factors are the overall level of experience and the passage of time since the incidents that are now coming to light. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category