Withdrawn by Candidate - It appears after only 12 hours that this obviously isn't going to work out. I will try to digest the input and make another request in a month or so. As I read the concerns (I am quite surprised at some of them!) I really don't see anything there that is not easily addressed, seriously, but with so much piled on so quickly it would be easier to withdraw at this time and perhaps write a better proposal in a month or two. I also see that self nomination was a mistake, so perhaps someone will be willing to help me remedy that. Be well, everyone, and happy holidays!--Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 20:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)] ; Reply[reply]
Sue Rangell (talk·contribs) – After seven years on Wikipedia, I have finally reached a point where I need to be an admin in order to assist in some of the things that need to be done on Wikipedia. I have worked extensively over the last year in account creation, where I am trusted with the personal information of future Wikipedians, and where I help them overcome whatever hurdles they may be facing while signing up. It is also a place where we filter out a lot of potential spammers and vandals. There is a massive backlog there and a need for checkusers. Wanting to help, I attempted to gain the Checkuser responsibilities, and found that I basically need to be an admin to apply. I have also had difficulties attempting to work with protected templates, and applications to join an ARBCOM committee, not to mention all the times I've had to call an administrator into a situation to do some small task which I could have easily handled myself.
I already hold many advanced responsibilities, but I basically need the responsibilities of an admin in order to expand my duties in new directions. I am already identified to Wikipedia, and trusted with confidential information. It is my hope that I can convince most of you that I am trustworthy enough to not abuse the extra tools and responsibilities. I will do my best not to break anything Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 03:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: As per above, I am hoping to eventually help with the massive Checkuser backlog at Account Creation. There simply are not enough checkusers available to do the work, and I basically need to be an admin to seek checkuser responsibilities, but I will help out where ever needed of course, such as patrolling UAA where more admins are badly needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am pretty proud of my gnome-type work, but I have dabbled in a little bit of everything. I enjoy helping people get their account problems sorted out.
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: Several times over the past 6-7 years, but I have never blown up or anything. If I feel that I am getting too involved, I generally just switch to editing a different area of Wikipedia.
6. Please describe your technical qualifications as it pertains to CheckUser. While ACC is not IPv6-enabled, the Arbitration Committee has recently looked for IPv6 expertise in CheckUser candidates; do you feel you could comfortably handle IPv6 checks?
A:
7. Describe your work with sockpuppet investigations. When is it proper to conduct a CheckUser?
A:
8. This is a pretty unusual RfA rationale. Do you have any other reasons to be granted adminship (be more specific than what your rationale listed)? Note that non-admin CheckUsers are OK with the WMF legal department as long as they are approved for the role separately in an RfA-like process.
11. Is there another reason why you would like to be an admin? You are gaining a lot of opposed votes so far. Epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. Would you please help educate me? You said you have worked extensively in account creation, where you are trusted with the personal information of future Wikipedians. Can you tell me how you got authorized to have access to personal information?
@Epicgenius: To be fair to the candidate, would you please consider retracting your question? It seems to be redundant to my second question.--Jasper Deng(talk) 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support You are an awesome editor. Work on Wikipedia a little more, build your reputation, and reapply in three to six months a short while; preferably in 2015. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral support - Sorry, Sue, but it seems you have stuck your neck a bit too far out of the window here... Kraxler (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral support from me too, for someone who's clearly a dedicated contributor and has done a lot for the project. Please be assured that your work here is appreciated, and try not to be too disheartened by what's happened down below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vehement Oppose There are three reasons why I can not/will not support this candidate.
1) Quite frankly, I don't like the candidate's sense of entitlement in this whole thing. Long tenure, while certainly appreciated, doesn't guarantee anything. I get the feeling from the candidate's statement and the lack of substance in the answers to the questions that Sue Rangell simply expects us to hand her not only Adminship, but also Checkuser, simply because she asked. I've never seen her at WP:SPI, which I view as an automatic disqualification for someone interested in becoming a Checkuser. If your entire reason for becoming an admin is to become a Checkuser, and I don't see it as being likely that you're going to become a checkuser, you don't really have a convincing reason to be an admin.
2) The candidare creates bad articles. This time last year, she was churning out microstubs like Adams, Pennsylvania and Barnard, Pennsylvania - one line of content, no in-line references, no categorization, no talk page WikiProject templates, nothing that the community expects in articles. Just a single line and some sources (only occasionally, as Allensville, Pennsylvania doesn't have any). This isn't 2004 when just getting new articles was an achievement, this was late 2012. I don't demand that admins all have a ton of content creation, I'm just looking for enough to feel comfortable that they would exercise good judgement in the mainspace. In this candidate I don't have that comfort. Instead, I have several instances of appallingly substandard work.
3) There are a handful of people on this project that a) have long institutional memories and would remember past incidents relevant in an RfA, and that b) I hold in high enough regard that I am willing to take what they say in matters of Wikipedia history at face value. Hahc21 is one of those people. If he has concerns about past incidents that you have chosen to not bring up, I have concerns about past incidents that you have chosen not to bring up.
Oppose. I am one more user with a long institutional memory, and I will land straight here: one (read the whole discussion), two (read the whole topic at the bottom). Granted both links are from a year ago, but my conclusion is that then the candidate had no clue. I would be willing to reconsider if she understood what is going on and has improved her understanding of Wikipedia policies, but the fact that she does not even mention the rollback removal is not really a good starting point. Note that as far as I remember this is my first ever RfA oppose vote.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose I was going to wait until she answered my questions, but the incident from January (per Ymblanter) is not what I want to see in an admin, much less a functionary. I also find Sven's oppose convincing and doubt that she has the technical expertise I expect from CheckUsers (I prefer CheckUser candidates to be at least ready to read User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 without reading the /nontechnical subpage - i.e. the candidate should be familiar with how IP addresses are allocated and how to do rangeblocks, especially how to assess collateral damage); besides, I consider this premature because WP:ACE2013 resulted in several new CheckUsers, and we will have to see if that alleviates the backlog. The existing question answers are inadequate and user has no demonstrated counter-vandalism work. --Jasper Deng(talk) 08:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Ymblanter's links led me to find that the editor in question had the Rollback bit revoked. If the editor can't be trusted with an unbundled Admin tool, it's reasonable to assume that the editor shouldn't be trusted with the bundle tools. Achowat (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately this is a name I remember popping up on practically every single AfD ever created with the samecopy-pastedmicro-rationale appearing on every page within under a minute of the last, which suggests she may not have been even considering the subject at all - and this occasionally showed.[1] I realise this too was a long time ago but I can't see much more recent AfD work to compare, just a lot of NACs, some of which aren't non-controversial, which also makes me feel uneasy. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I used to work a lot at entangling complex SPI cases; I enjoyed the detective work involved in tracking down serial spammers, POV pushers, and socks with other agendas. I really did begin to think that having the CU tool (fully aware of its usage regulations) would help me in my work and encourage me to do more of it. So, already an experienced user and admin to boot, although realising that I could apply any time a call for CU candidates came around, I enquired if becoming an SPI clerk would help me become even more routined with the process before applying for the tool. To my astonishment, the reply I received, broadly interpreted but in no uncertain terms, was "run along and play, get some experience on Wikipedia, and stop hat collecting". Well, I did better than that - I pretty much stopped bothering with with SPI at all. The moral of this story is that I'm not going to support an RfA which is to be used as a stepping stone to CU. When I saw this RfA I recognized Sue's name immediately but I couldn't quite put my finger on why - which was odd. Then it dawned on me, being the active coord of WP:WPSCH for years, that she had created dozens of one-line stubs about schools. Now even I can do better than that on-the-fly while I'm doing everything else, so I'm not overly impressed with her 53 article creations. Apart from the fact that she hardly checks any other of my boxes, I'm afraid I also have to concur with Sven who rarely gets things wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Moreover, Sven Manguard and Ymblanter point out serious problems. Axl¤[Talk] 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per filelakeshoe, as I also recall Sue Rangell's input at too many AfDs with that same "Delete - Not Notable" rationale. I have seen little since to convince me that this user is a suitable candidate for adminship. Sorry. — sparklism hey! 12:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The diffs provided by Ymblanter leave me no other choice. The unsatisfying answers to the questions don't make things any better either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - no real reason to become an admin, poor answers to questions so far, and the incidents highlighted by Ymblanter are, while a while ago, too serious to trust you with the mop at this time. GiantSnowman 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. A year ago the candidate couldn't differentiate between reliability and point of view with respect to sources. I see no evidence this confusion has been remedied in the meantime, and therefore don't feel comfortable allowing them to make administrative decisions on the basis of those criteria. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While I think I get along with Sue, I oppose because my perception is that she is constantly involved in drama issues on the ANI noticeboards and areas of editorial conflict. Her efforts never came across to me as conflict-resolving or drama-reducing.--v/r - TP 14:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is one such conflict where Sue's own comment, assuming bad faith and calling another editor a vandal for good faith edits, caused the issue she was raising at ANI and seeking to sanction another editor.--v/r - TP 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another comment. Sue does not understand what Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is as highlighted by myself and Ymblanter. Further, she has wikilawyers and become defensive when folks raise concerns with her. She has closed controversial AFDs as a NAC and the closures have been inappropriate. Sue is not ready for the tools. 7 years doesn't make her ready.--v/r - TP 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Although you do help a lot with editing, I dislike the fact that you participate in so much drama in ANA. SOrry, no support from me. Tritario (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. While I generally avoid participating in nominations with a majority of opposes, this request for adminship has me concerned with the sense of entitlement, misunderstanding of vandalism, and the seemingly frequent involvement in drama and conflict. The answers to questions (or lack thereof) also provide little detail that would lead me to consider supporting. Unfortunately, I am unable to support at this time. Cindy(talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Hi Sue, commend you for all her valuable contributions and your motivation for wanting to become an Admin (ie. wanting to be more helpful to the project) however a broader level of experience on various aspects of the project is needed. This would include high quality content creation and significant interaction with other experienced editors on talk pages, noticeboards etc. And obviously for future, asking for Admin tools as a segue to an application for Checkuser (which might not be accepted) is probably not the best way to present yourself in future Admin requests. Thanks for all you do and happy holidays! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I generally also never like piling on opposes at this point (and I find the start of Sven's oppose a rather harsh), but I know your heart is in it. Yes, we do have a massive backlog over at Account Creation, although I don't think it is as bad as some people make it out to be (we aren't collapsing, yet). In light of that, I really encourage you to apply again in the future, as I think you are a necessary asset to the project, but you don't yet have the experience to use the tools just yet, and the answers don't give me confidence that you need the tools just yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral support until it's more obvious that the candidate's experience is more appropriate. There are a few pointers here, and I'm sure you'll be fine in the future if you take note. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to the many concerns voiced above, your signature is a bit too long. 306 characters including the date/time and 276 without, whilst a minor infraction, may well demonstrate a deeper lack of experience with policies and guidelines. Nick (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I respect your enthusiasm however looking and your question answers and your contributions I don't think you have enough experience.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As usual, until I make up my mind. However, I'd like Sue Rangell to expand the three standard questions. I am aware of several past incidents they have had in the past and would like to see how this has changed for the better. — ΛΧΣ21 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never camp here. Hmm. I recognized the name, but I'm shocked Q1-3 are so meager. The article edit count is also below my dull 3K line at 2600; that means the Qs must show significant clue. Article + Talk < 50%. User has not opted in. That constellation usually makes me conclude the nomination is not serious and puts me in the oppose column without looking further. I'll wait here for a bit, but not for long. Glrx (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer to number 1 strikes me as a bit... odd, to say the least. --Rschen7754 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning towards oppose for the reasons given by User:Sven Manguard, but I'd like to see some answers to questions before I jump in to either support or oppose. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral leaning toward oppose — I believe a candidate for adminship should have a specific task or area of administrative action in which he or she intends to engage. Just being "at large" and otherwise wanting to use it as a stepping stone for CU doesn't really cut it for me. I lean towards oppose because of Sue's terse responses to Q1-3. While I don't think a prospective admin needs to be singing his or her own praises, I really think those responses are simply unenlightening. Given they're the standard RfA questions, you'd expect a self-nom to have polished responses ready to go, like a resume or cover letter. Having not done so makes me question just how interested Sue is in being an admin anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would certainly be open to supporting candidates looking to use the tools in a single area, but the candidate doesn't seem to have enough experience overall to become an admin yet. Answers to q1-3 are also lacking, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.
