Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moni3

Edit count for Moni3
User:Moni3

run at Wed Aug 20 22:35:34 2008 GMT

Category talk:        1 Image:                103 Mainspace             3246 Portal talk:          1 Portal:               1 Talk:                 808 Template talk:        28 Template:             8 User talk:            860 User:                 1075 Wikipedia talk:       410 Wikipedia:            684 avg edits per page    9.16 earliest              22:36, 23 July 2006 number of unique pages 789 total                 7225

2006/7 11   2006/8  0   2006/9  0   2006/10 0   2006/11 0   2006/12 0   2007/1  5   2007/2  31   2007/3  51   2007/4  1   2007/5  6   2007/6  24   2007/7  158   2007/8  281   2007/9  402   2007/10 298   2007/11 452   2007/12 520   2008/1  584   2008/2  379   2008/3  229   2008/4  864   2008/5  1004   2008/6  933   2008/7  564   2008/8  428

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 387 [2]To Kill a Mockingbird 285 [3]Mulholland Drive (film) 226 [4]Birmingham campaign 221 [5]Ann Bannon 200 [6]Everglades National Park 194 [7]Everglades 136 [8]Marjory Stoneman Douglas 124 [9]Draining and development of the Everglades 115 [10]Restoration of the Everglades 100 [11]Geography and ecology of the Everglades 88 [12]Barbara Gittings 88 [13]Stonewall riots 72 [14]Indigenous people of the Everglades region 61 [15]Mary McLeod Bethune 43 [16]And the Band Played On

Talk: 129 [17]To Kill a Mockingbird 88 [18]Mulholland Drive (film) 33 [19]Lesbian 32 [20]Stonewall riots 28 [21]Everglades 26 [22]Ann Bannon 25 [23]Historical pederastic couples 23 [24]Geography and ecology of the Everglades 23 [25]Birmingham campaign 18 [26]Homosexuality 17 [27]Everglades National Park 17 [28]And the Band Played On   16  [29]Draining and development of the Everglades 15 [30]White Mountain art 15 [31]Gay

Image: 6 [32]Women In The Shadows Cover 1959.jpg 6 [33]Daisyfaycover.jpg 4 [34]Mockingbirdfirst.JPG 4 [35]Journey To A Woman Cover 1960.jpg 4 [36]Odd Girl Out Cover 1957.jpg 4 [37]I Am A Woman 1959.jpg 3 [38]Oddgirl2001.jpg 3 [39]Lee medal of freedom.jpg 3 [40]Daytona School with Bethune.jpg 3 [41]Everglades River of Grass.jpg 3 [42]Imawoman2002.jpg 3 [43]Journey2002.jpg 3 [44]Daytona Normal School in 1919.jpg 3 [45]Women In The Shadows 2002.jpg 3 [46]Mary McLeod Bethune Cabin.jpg

Template: 3 [47]LGBT 3 [48]LGBT open tasks

Template talk: 24 [49]Did you know 2 [50]Convert 2 [51]Sexual orientation

User: 385 [52]Moni3/Sandbox1/Workspace7 248 [53]Moni3 123 [54]Moni3/Sandbox1/Workspace8 114 [55]Moni3/Sandbox1 43 [56]Moni3/Abba cleanup 27 [57]Moni3/Userboxes 27 [58]Moni3/Sandbox1/Workspace4 25 [59]Moni3/Sandbox1/Workspace3 15 [60]Moni3/Mulholland Drive 12 [61]Moni3/Sandbox1/GAN 7  [62]Moni3/Cogs, Trees, and the Forest 6  [63]Moni3/Sandbox1/FAC 6  [64]Moni3/monobook.js   5   [65]Moni3/Stars 5  [66]Moni3/Sandbox1/Workspace6

User talk: 365 [67]Moni3 88 [68]SandyGeorgia 38 [69]WillowW 17 [70]Awadewit 14 [71]Keeper76 12 [72]AgnosticPreachersKid 12 [73]Scartol 12 [74]SatyrTN 11 [75]Horologium 10 [76]Aleta 10 [77]Jeffpw 10 [78]Karanacs 8  [79]Carcharoth 8  [80]Maralia 7  [81]Moni3/Sandbox1/FAC

Wikipedia: 35 [82]Featured article candidates/Birmingham campaign 34 [83]Good article nominations 23 [84]Featured article candidates/Everglades National Park 22 [85]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 22 [86]WikiProject LGBT studies 20 [87]Today's featured article/requests 18 [88]Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird 16     [89]Featured article candidates/Draining and development of the Evergla des 14 [90]Featured article candidates/To Kill a Mockingbird/archive1 13 [91]Featured article candidates/Mulholland Drive (film) 13 [92]Featured article candidates 13 [93]Featured article candidates/Restoration of the Everglades 11 [94]Featured topic candidates/The Florida Everglades 11     [95]Featured article candidates/Geography and ecology of the Everglades 10 [96]WikiProject Novels/Peer review/To Kill a Mockingbird

Wikipedia talk: 231 [97]WikiProject LGBT studies 38 [98]Featured article candidates 18 [99]WikiProject Florida 17 [100]Citing sources 16 [101]Non-free content 16 [102]Good article nominations 12 [103]Today's featured article/requests 7  [104]WikiProject Films 4  [105]WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission 4 3  [106]Biographies of living persons 3  [107]Requests for adminship/Karanacs 2  [108]Userboxes/Ideas 2  [109]WikiProject Plants 2  [110]WikiProject Discrimination 2  [111]Copyright problems

If there were any problems, please [112]email Interiot or post at  [113]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

A bot request
Hi. Can somebody please add the link below to the RfA? I can't do it, presumably since this RfA was speedy deleted in the past and I can't handle that. Thanks!


 * See Moni3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Mathbot (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved conversation unrelated to candidate
(from following Prom3th3an's !vote)


 * In the meantime Prom3th3an, why not invest in a speel chequer? Ewe no that makes scents. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I made a few spelling errors (that i have now fixed). We all have our flaws some more than others to say the least. Thanks for pointing out my errors, just think you should be reminded of yours, in your own language. Happy Editing  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

noved by Risker (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion re Jc37's oppose
Comments: - (Makes for easier reading than a single block of text)
 * After going through the candidate's edit history, I find many examples of where the candidate will just "jump in" to a situation without first attempting to find out what's going on, as well as before attempting to learn a process. Typically, another editor had to take the candidate in hand, and "show them the ropes". (A first major example of this is here. It truly would appear fortunate (as another editor noted) that the candidate encountered User:Awadewit and such others.) While I appreciate being bold, this would seem to border on "reckless". And this isn't something that the user has done once or twice, but consistantly, up to and including this very nomination. I find this problematic when considering that (should this be a successful nomination) the candidate may be "jumping in" to unfamiliar areas, relying solely on others to "fix" their mistakes, and guide their actions. Once "in" and once "guided", the candidate seems to slowly but steadily learn the process, though it's slow going, through much trial-and-error. Just this might have placed me at neutral, as hopefully something the candidate could potentially learn "on-the-job" (despite consistantly making the decision to not attempt to learn until "assisted"), but for the other issues.
 * The answer to Question #11 (and others) just reinforces these concerns. The candidate seems very unsure about what steps to take and when to take them.
 * And the answer to Question #10 is just a severe problem for me:
 * "But for simplicity's sake, in a yes-or-no situation such as an AfD, XfD discussion, as I understand it, consensus is determined by majority rule."
 * As I noted on the candidate's talk page:
 * "Absolutely not, for several reasons. Though I suppose that it's easy enough to see how it could be perceived that way. Read the second sentence at WP:AFD, which points directly to WP:CON."
 * This mistaken view of discussion determination, combined with the candidate's consistant lack of willingness to change a perception or learn a policy/process without "help", leads me to Oppose. (See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, if interested.) - jc37 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is so wrongheaded I'm afraid I won't let it stand unremarked. If the candidate's FAC nomination for To Kill a Mockingbird was reckless than pray tell why almost the entire community around FAC is supporting?  The answer is simple: we desperately need people to go for it.  It's how you learn.  Reckless?  What on earth do you imagine was wrecked?  I suggest, in fact, that you discard your reservations, learn a lesson from Moni, and go jump in the deep end yourself (something I see you've never done).  The reason I'm just frustrated almost to tears with this oppose section is that I don't think a single one of you get it.  As in Wikipedia.  As in the encyclopedia.  Your RFA criteria are about policy this and process discussion that, and you missed the whole damn point that at some point, somebody has to get the articles right!
 * Pardon my language, I've felt this way for ages and I apologize it's boiled over on you Jc37, but I really want to address not even just you or just this oppose section (and look, you guys are good editors, I don't want to impugn the editing work any of you do, but I fear somewhere along the way you've lost sight of the ball) -- I want to address this entire mentality. Adminship is not some institution that exists for its own sake.  It exists to facilitate the building of an encyclopedia.  That's it.  The encyclopedia is the ends.  The guidelines and policies are really only there to help people who don't quite know how to build an encyclopedia; the guidelines stop them from screwing it up.  They're guideposts to building an encyclopedia.  Can I say this emphatically enough?  They only have value when the end result is good encyclopedia building.  Here we've got a candidate that has demonstrated the ability to build better than 99.9 percent of us.  It's not that she's better than average.  It's that we're talking about someone who's better than at least 1,570 admins at it (find me 15 admins who even dare to claim they're better at building and I'll quaff my lava lamp).
 * Read the articles. All of the highest quality, done civilly, done helpfully, done efficiently, and even some fun along the way.  The purpose of knowing how to apply NPOV isn't in how you answer some inane RFA hypothetical question with a politically-correct answer only tenuously connected to anything that might conceivably happen.
 * The proof of the pudding is in the eating. For everything.  It's in the articles.  If candidates like this are unfit then honestly what's the point?  No honestly?  What is it?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  We write it collaboratively.  All the rules in the world, rote memorized by an entire admin corps, get us what exactly if nobody has the perception to get the content right? --JayHenry (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that this user hasn't made useful contributions.  Admins are a ridiculously small percentage of Wikipedians and are a ridiculously small part of why Wikipedia is one of the most complete sources of information in the world.  Being an admin isn't about your previous article contributions.  Most of us who oppose do so because this user hasn't demonstrated much familiarity with the related policies not because we think the user is a bad person.  If this fails, this user could pass another RfA easily in 3 months with the requisite experience at XfD or elsewhere.  The mop isn't necessary to write good articles and in some cases it can actually distract from the best article writers. Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oren0 makes a great point actually - most administrators take massive detours from their previous editorial work, replacing it with the janitorial duties that comes with the buttons. It would be a significant shame if this user were to get sidetracked. I'm not using that as a reason to oppose, but just making an observation.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly mean no offense by this, but it's as if you all are trying to make yourselves feel better about opposing a truly wonderful writer, who also happens to be very level-headed, and quite a good bridge-builder. S.  D. D.J.Jameson 07:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oren makes a point that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Where did I say that someone else said Moni is a bad person.  Read my comment.  Slowly if you need to.  I said you guys have completely forgotten why policies exist.  Good god, I'm outta here. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, my point has everything to do with what you said. In a nutshell, you're saying that we shouldn't oppose Moni because Moni is a great article contributor.  Nobody has argued otherwise.  Nobody is saying Moni should quit writing articles.  I would argue that being a good article writer and being a good admin have almost nothing to do with each other.  The only commonalities are desire to help the project and knowledge of some of the core policies (a good article writer would be well versed in WP:V but could very well know nothing about WP:CSD).  Do you believe that being a good article writer automatically qualifies one for being a sysop?  Admin work is menial and requires a different set of skills and knowledge than article writing does.  Is Stephen King qualified to run a printing press just because he knows how to write books? Oren0 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting question. If Stephen King expressed a desire and willingness to run a printing press, how many people in a plant would deny him the opportunity to do so because he "doesn't need to" or "hasn't shown any aptitude for it"? Nay, I believe they'd say "certainly, Mr. King" and "yes, see...here's the fetzer valve right here..." and he'd get the hang of it pretty quick. Is Paul Newman qualified to sell salad dressing? Frank  |  talk  09:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oreno, I agree the many admin tasks are menial and require a different set of skills and knowledge than article writing. Some admin tasks, especially those involving content dispute, really need administrators who understand the policies that underly those disputes.  Too many administrators jump into these types of disputes without always having a good background in those policies.  We need more administrators who understand what an article should look like, who know how to get an article to that point, and who are willing to share their knowledge. Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with JayHenry (and others here by extension) I am astounded by some of the opposition based solely on the answers to "the questions" as a replacement for actually going and seeing how she works.  If anyone, after looking through Moni3's communicative and collaborative editing, actually thinks that she will spuriously block someone, they clearly didn't do enough research.  What is most amazing to me, is why are we deciding, as an arbitrarily collected group, whether she "needs" the tools or not?  If she didn't want them or need them, W(hy)TF would she put herself through RFA?  For giggles?  Isn't accepting a nom (something she turned down earlier) enough "proof" that she might find them useful?  Isn't her dedication to the encyclopedia instead of the encyclopedia wonkery evidence enough that she won't wonk out?  What I am most impressed with, by the way, is the attitude and composure of the candidate through all of this, both here, on her talkpage, and wherever else this keeps turning up.  Kudos to Moni3, you are setting a fine example for those of us that are bearing teeth against you and on your behalf.  Keeper    76  15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no, its not enough proof. Clearly indicated by some of her answers (but oh wait! we're not supposed to judge her on those.), she displays a lack of knowledge in this area. Nice redirect to her composure though. I fully agree with you over how shes conducting herself, but it doesn't trump a thing.  Syn  ergy 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Synergy, that her composure doesn't "trump" anything. I disagree with you apparently, as to whether it should or not.  Keeper    76  16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You folks are talking past, not to, eachother. JayHenry argues that her status as an exemplar of a content contributor makes her worthy of being an administrator. The opposers argue that her status as a content contributor is not directly pertinent to the question - her track record in admin-related areas is the crucial consideration for whether she should be an administrator. I suspect its a combination of both. Experience in Wikipedia is prerequisite to a successful RfA, and generally the widest range of experience is the best predictor of a successful outcome. The question in this case is this: Does the depth of her experience as a content editor outweigh the lack of breadth in her experience in policy enforcement areas? I would say it does. Being an administrator is not rocket science, and we don't expect or require that our administrators get it right every single time straight from the get-go. I'm convinced that Moni3 is a highly reasonable and intelligent editor, with the interests of Wikipedia and its goals at the heart of her contributions. Obviously she should take the criticism in this request as strong advice to bone up on conduct and enforcement policies before using her buttons (should she receive them), and I think she will and I expect she'll do fine. Avruch  T 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the fact that Oren0 is opposing based on lack of experience, when his own RFA got most of its opposes from lack of experience (ie saying he wanted to work in stopping vandals with 1 edit to AIV), a bit silly. There is nothing stopping people learning once an admin, and I really doubt Moni3 would decide to just do idiotic things without knowing the policy. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, did we reach consensus on the "doing idiotic things" policy? ;-) Frank  |  talk  17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of somebody trying to codify that here is a little scary! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tombomp, your comment kinda borders on incivility inasmuch as you're essentially accusing Oren0 of hypocrisy. His RfA is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The bottom line is this: The user does not possess the requisite experience, and the answers to many of the questions confirm this.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not uncivil at all, it was simply making an observation. As for "bottom lines", there are none in RfA. There's no "requisite experience", no checkboxes necessary as to how many ANI/XfD/other adminny area posts you have to have made. Every editor gets to make their choices based upon whatever criteria they wish. Some editors even get to dramatically switch their recommendation from support to oppose, if that's what they wish to do. It's not about bottom lines at all, W89, it's about to what standards you choose to hold a candidate. You've chosen yours, and I've chosen mine. If your opposition carries the day (and it well might), then I have to say the process is broken. A great editor, with clearly a tremendous amount of cluefulness, who also happens to be a wonderful bridge builder, should pass easily. Just the fact that there remains all of this drama surrouding this RfA indicates some serious flaws in the process. S.  D. D.J.Jameson 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if it reads that way and sorry to Oren0 if he takes it that way. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we can agree to disagree about the candidate I suppose, and that's fine. I was in the support category at one point if you remember. I am profoundly impressed by their editorial work, but I was more than put off by the answers to the questions, some of which were just flat out wrong. We can split hairs and argue that there are no right or wrong answers, or that policy is descriptive not prescriptive, but at the end of the day we have to judge an RfA using certain criteria, and that's where you and I seem to differ. On an unrelated note, I will say that I completely disagree about Tom's "observation" - yes, indeed it was an observation, but it was a barbed one at that. Exactly what did it bring to the discussion, what was its purpose? If somebody said that to me, I'd be mildly offended. I view it as a swipe, but perhaps you have thicker skin : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Tombomp, I believe you. It just really came off as a strange thing to say.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

""I truly mean no offense by this, but it's as if you all are trying to make yourselves feel better about opposing a truly wonderful writer, who also happens to be very level-headed, and quite a good bridge-builder.""

- S.D.Jameson


 * I dispute this comment. I am not trying to make myself feel better. Rather I am trying to give constructive feedback and avoid offending the candidate. Nor am I opposing a truly wonderful writer. I am opposing the wonderful writer's adminship candidacy. Axl (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to dispute whatever you like. In the end, this fact remains: you are opposing a superb editor, who has demonstrated in spades the temperament necessary to be an admin, and who has never demonstrated the slightest hint that she would be prone to abusing the tools. Why are you doing so? Well, most opposes I've seen can basically be summed up thusly: she doesn't hang around the normal places that people who want to be admins hang around. That's sad, as I've seen people with far less cluefulness pass an RfA, simply because they hung out in the right places, and regurgitated the "right" answers when asked. Hell, I've even recommended that some of those types be given the bit. We need less people who treat this as some kind of "Second Life" game (a la Dwight Schrute), and more that truly understand why we're here: to build an encyclopedia. Moni understands this well, and has proven it over and over again, both in her actual mainspace contributions, and in the civilized and friendly way she interacts with other editors. S.  D. D.J.Jameson 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the end, this fact remains: you are opposing a superb editor, who has demonstrated in spades the temperament necessary to be an admin, and who has never demonstrated the slightest hint that she would be prone to abusing the tools.'
 * First, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And I do think that, at this point, there is ample evidence that Moni could unintentionally misapply the tools. I cite her answers questions to 5, 9b, 9c, 10, and 11 (protecting a page then editing it!). Yes, Moni is a fantastic editor. No, she doesn't have a lot of knowledge as to appropriate applications of admin tools. The implications in this thread that being worried about answers as wrong as hers are is insulting. We expect your opinions in support, although we disagree with them. You owe us the same. The opposes have a legitimate complaint. -  Revolving Bugbear  22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, most of the opposes have been respectful and well presented; indeed, quite a cut above the typical show one encounters at RfA. Just a note that no intended or unintended disrespect towards editors declaring oppose has come from the nominee or the co-nominators, and S. Dean Jameson recently struck most of his comments from the page.  It would not be Moni3's style to badger the opposers, and I wouldn't be nomming her if it was.  When this RfA closes, content writers, admins, gnomes, bot and script writers, and all combinations of different kinds of contributors will still need to depend on each other to keep it all running; I hope we can maintain the tone here that the nominee would appreciate and see what we learn from each other and about the RfA process along the way.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well said. - Revolving Bugbear  01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Nicely said. - jc37 06:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I find the fact that Oren0 is opposing based on lack of experience, when his own RFA got most of its opposes from lack of experience" - A fair point. If you look at the progression of my RfA, it started with mostly opposes (and even calls for WP:SNOW) but as the RfA progressed and I answered questions I started garnering more and more supports. There were several comments to the effect of "I would oppose due to lack experience but the answers demonstrate knowledge of policy." I'm not opposing due to Moni's lack of admin experience, it's the answers to optional questions (which range from decent to just plain wrong imo) that led me to oppose. Oren0 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I may be biased.) I think there's a difference between not preparing for the admin questions out of disrespect for the process, and not preparing because you are up to your neck in other useful wiki-work.  I don't mind making candidates jump through a few hoops and learn a bit out of basic fairness, but Moni isn't getting away with anything here; she's learned much, much more than most candidates do, and much of it will be relevant to closing discussions and resolving disputes.  She just hasn't learned the standard RfA stuff first.  It might not be what some people are looking for, but the supporters aren't showing lower standards for this candidate, just different standards. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The candidate stated that they would close AfD's against WP:CON, which is supposed to be a core policy of Wikipedia, and why WP:CLUE can exsist.-- Koji Dude  (C) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I didn't do much in the way of preparing. Most of the questions I answered were from my own knowledge and experience. And regardless of that, a user who's been around as long as Moni doubtlessly knows the fight that comes with an RfA If she was too busy to learn the admin tools before her RfA, why should we believe that she'll learn them after?  Again, I don't believe this editor will do anything intentionally wrong, but I do believe that she is likely to make several mistakes. Oren0 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)