Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karanacs

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

Karanacs

Final: (119/4/3); ended The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk · contribs) - I know RFA nominations from me are rare as hen's teeth, and the only editor I have nominated was shot down in a fairly spectacular fireball — but that said, I'd still like to nominate Karanacs for your consideration. I freely admit to not having heard of her until a month ago, when I was asking round looking for new admin material and her name was suggested to me. Having spent a fair while looking over her history, I'm honoured to be the one to suggest her for the mop, as well as surprised she hasn't been put forward before.

All the "doesn't need the tools" opposers may as well get their opposes in now, as she certainly doesn't fit the "traditional" admin candidate pattern. Hardly any discussions at AfD; a relatively low number of posts to AIV; never been a regular hanger-outer at WT:RFA, ANI or any of the other places wannabes are expected to hang out. To me, that's a positive, not a negative; she's an editor who realises that without content, Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people, and works steadily and unobtrusively to keep our content the best on the net. (But she's not exclusively a denizen of the mainspace; she has over 4000 non-mainspace edits, spread across all kinds of nooks and corners.)

She is, in my opinion, someone who may not need the tools, but would find them more useful than most, and has more than adequately demonstrated her trustworthiness. Her deleted contributions show a consistent well-judged use of CSD and PROD. She has maintained a steady flow of quality mainspace contributions for well over a year (including some mammoth articles on the history & institutions of Texas), and has a superlative record at pulling almost-there articles through the GA/FA hoops. Her talk/user talk edits show a consistent pattern of being able to collaborate, discuss and improve without once (that I can find) getting stroppy or arrogant, or even getting into an argument (aside from this storm in a teacup, in which I can't find her putting a word out of place). The ability to view deleted articles would be invaluable to a user like this who spends so much time putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers; the ability to block would be useful to anyone working on the vandalism-magnet US history articles in which she works (as I know to my cost, since Davy Crockett somehow found its way onto my watchlist), and I'd trust her entirely to use the delete button appropriately. More to the point, while she might not plan to do a lot of admin-drudgery, we have here a demonstrably committed and trustworthy editor who's willing to help where she can, and I think whatever help someone as good as this wants to give should be welcomed with open arms. — iridescent 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Jbmurray: I am delighted that my very first RfA co-nomination should be for Karanacs, who is without the shadow of a doubt one of the best-qualified editors I could imagine for the role.

I first came into contact with Karanacs though her work with the FA-Team as she helped my students in the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. She showed utmost patience and generosity with these newbie Wikipedia editors, guiding and teaching them as they wrote three Featured Articles and eight Good Articles.

Since then, I have frequently seen Karanacs as she reviews articles at WP:FAC, where she demonstrates immense dedication, thoughtfulness, and a wealth of constructive criticism on a regular basis. She is undoubtedly one of the pillars of the FAC process.

FAC can be a stressful time for nominators and reviewers alike. But above all, I am constantly struck by Karanacs's good sense and good humor: I have not once seen her be brusque or dismissive; far from it, she endlessly goes out of her way to show her appreciation of other people's work, even as she never compromises on the very highest standards for Wikipedia's best work.

I also see Karanacs frequently intervening on fellow editors' user talk pages. She always finds a way to defuse potentially volatile situations, with her good sense and courtesy pouring oil on troubled waters.

Finally, let me point out one detail on Karanacs's user page: she "usually hide[s] from Wikipedia on weekends." If I had my way, every Wikipedia editor would have an enforced wikibreak a couple of days a week. The fact that Karanacs is able to take her distance periodically shows that she will never be drawn into the murky waters of wiki-drama that so often flood the project.

Karanacs is a model Wikipedia editor; she has certainly been one of the models I have tried to emulate. I could not think of anyone I would trust more with the admin tools. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, thank you. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) After Iridescent asked if I would be interested in becoming an administrator I took a 24-hour break to consider my answer. I have never actively aspired to be an administrator; my edits have been in places where I tried to be useful. I am first and foremost a content editor and that will remain my priority. However, I believe those who accept administrator tools have a responsibility to use them (hopefully wisely); there is lots of work that needs to be done, and it is much easier if the workload is spread out. Although I am sure I would never be one of the most prolific users of the tools, I would try to be helpful and shoulder at least a small bit of the work.[reply]

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: As mentioned, I am primarily a content editor. However, when I need a break from research or FAC-stress I often look for little tasks to do (assessing for wiki projects, recent changes patrolling, category cleanup etc). Having administrator tools would allow me to expand the pool of potential tasks. I am a firm believer, though, that one should know what they are doing before actually trying to do it. I do not see myself using administrator tools in areas that I do not feel I have a comfortable working knowledge (closing AfDs, for example). At this moment in time, I would feel comfortable closing prods and some CSDs. Later, I could see myself monitoring AIV, but only after spending time watching the page to see how other administrators handle the currently listed intervention requests. As a frequent FAC reviewer, I would also try to help there where needed (for example, deleting pages).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of my contribution to bringing the article Ima Hogg to featured article status in time to be on the main page for April Fool's Day. User:SandyGeorgia had noticed that I've brought several Texas-related articles to FAC and recruited me for the project. Although I got the credit for the FA promotion, the final product was the result of a collaboration between at least a dozen people: image copyright specialists, copy editors, MOS experts, researchers, peer-reviewers, picture-takers, etc. We brought the article from little more than a stub to FA in two weeks. It was a great experience to work with so many editors I respect to build a quality article in such a short time, and a lot of people left comments on April 1 applauding the work (although others didn't appreciate the joke).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I'm a frequent FAC reviewer; by definition that means I'm often embroiled in wiki-stress. I believe that many (but certainly not all) conflicts occur because of an ignorance of or misinterpretation of WP policy, WP processes, or article-specific facts. Generally the best way to diffuse these is to explain why I am advocating a certain position, with brief summaries of and links to all the appropriate WP-space documentation or article-specific sources. By giving the other person a glimpse into my thought process and an invitation to frame their argument in the same way, we can (ideally) calmly debate the merits of the arguments and skip the drama. This does not always work; when it doesn't, the important thing is to remain civil and assume good faith, and if I feel I can't do that at the moment, I try to walk away for a bit before coming back. If it looks like the other person is getting overheated, sometimes I disengage for a while just to let them calm down. I'm human, though; I'm sure I've made mistakes, though hopefully not too many.

General comments

Additional comment by co-nominator. As this is my first ever nomination, I feel it especially important that I thoroughly research my candidate, and look into the most tricky situations that the candidate may have faced over the course of her 10,000 edits to the encyclopedia. Again, as this is an editor who spends a lot of time reviewing other editors' work, she is far more likely than most to end up involved in tense exchanges.

A premature oppose to this RfA has helped me with this task, commenting on Karanacs's interventions during the recent FAC for Roman Catholic Church. In fact, however, I believe that her contributions to that FAC, as well as to the user talk pages of involved editors, were absolutely exemplary.

But you should judge for yourself. Here are the diffs in which she raises the important but tricky question about possible misuse of sources, that is, plagiarism: [1] [2] [3] [4] Note the way in which she remains civil and respectful, at the same time as she is firm about the problem itself, which she takes the trouble to explain at some length.

For Karanacs's contributions on user pages during this most tempestuous of FACs, please look at this page or this one. In all cases, what strikes me is her sensitivity, thoughtfulness, and level-headedness in the midst of what is something of a maelstrom.

I should also inform readers that Karanacs has had an incident reported on WP:ANI. It is here and it concerned these two edits. Again, what emerges is that Karanacs is an editor who not only adds content and is an extraordinarily thorough reviewer; she is also willing to step in and help other editors even if this means tackling the most difficult issues. I am in awe. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should further say that a number of other people voted or commented on this RfA prematurely. I took it upon myself to notify them that the RfA was now active. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I am fully confident that I remained fully within the guidelines of WP:CANVASS, but want to be upfront about what I have done. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Beat the noms support I've followed this user's contribs for a while. Excellent article work, good balance between namespaces, experience in admin-related areas, as well as other things. I've been waiting for this for a while. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Karanacs is one of the most active and efficient FAC contributors on the project. Also some excellent article work. It's a pleasure to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support great editor, very level-headed. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support obviously. – iridescent 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. - Bobet 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support -- per the Ima Hog article! I love that, well done! Best of luck, --Cameron (T|C) 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've seen Karanacs around at FAC quite a bit, and I've got no reason to suppose that she wouldn't behave sensibly as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support—Just excellent! Tony (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support, simply the best. Karanacs has been principle author on seven featured articles (James Bowie, French Texas, Lawrence Sullivan Ross, Aggie Bonfire, History of Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University and Ima Hogg), showing the range in her researching and writing skills. She is also consistently one of the busiest and most thorough reviewers of featured article candidates, as well as a frequent author or copyeditor on the Dispatches written for the Signpost. But the most impressive part about Karanacs is her calm disposition, good nature, and excellent character: important requirements for adminship. I've observed her at FAC, and have had her talk page watched for a very long time, and have never seen her lose patience, be uncivil, or be anything less than generous, thorough and professional in her dealing with other editors and on FAC reviews, even as she firmly and politely insists that Wiki policies are upheld. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See today's press coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding that, Sandy...what a nice welcome-back present :) (although I'm a bit ashamed that you found that before I did!) Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...there were others involved in those articles ;-) — BQZip01 — talk 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'm not personally familiar with Karancs, but her userpage and answers are those of a level-headed, intellectually curious editor with common sense. Looks good to me. Dppowell (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No concern at all that they would abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support—an excellent Wikipedian who most certainly can be trusted with the tools. --Kakofonous (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Article builders are we need more of. MrPrada (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Holy moly. An astoundingly overqualified candidate. A look through the 'tribs and talkpage was a pleasure trip. Karanacs knows exactly what Wikipedia is here for and what needs to still be done. Easy, no hesitation support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - obviously. --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Trusted user. Good contributor. Enigma message 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, every one of my interactions with the candidate have been overwhelmingly positive. Displays excellent judgment and temperament on top of being a tremendous contributor. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. bibliomaniac15 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Everyything I know and have read about this editor leads me to believe she is very mop-worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Reasonably strong support per ANI. Thank you jbmurray for including that. Keepscases (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Per jbmurray and all of the supporters above. Also, the answers to the questions, and her comments in the "error of punctuation" debacle, prove to me that she has excellent judgment and is extremely thoughtful. I have reviewed "random" contributions and am confident that Karen will be a great administrator. (Excellent writer, too!) « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:12 2008 June 16 (UTC)
  23. Dlohcierekim 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: elaboration I might have offered thereupon has already found eloquent expression above - a laudable Wikipedian. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per everybody above. Looks like a brilliant editor with excellent qualities for adminship. "putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers" is so poetic! ;) --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my metaphor, much as I'd love to claim credit; it's drawn from the logo of the now-virtually-defunct AMW (see right). At least, that's what I think it's meant to represent, although I agree it more closely resembles "dropping a Pringle onto a crab". – iridescent 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the picture is a little less than inspiring. It's a nice metaphor though. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support — definitely. →Christian.И 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support. WP:FAC would not be the same without her, and this is a model RfA for a candidate that doesn't have any current plans to use the admin buttons a lot. (In fact, if she ever starting spending her days at XfD, people at WP:FAC would howl.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, I believe sysopping this user would be a net positive for the project. Shereth 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, this editor meets my minimum, "would I trust this person to use responsibly?" criteria and exceeds many times over. The vast content and process contributions (esp at WP:FAC), while not specifically a tool-intensive place, can only serve to increase the strength of my support. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Editor was polite and helpful during a past FA review of mine. Gave lots of good advise and went out of his way to give extra feedback. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I have seen nice work from this user at WP:FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Conditional Support. As long as you stick with your promise about not getting involved in areas that you have only limited experience in (you cited AfD for example). Other than that, you're a fine candidate! Malinaccier (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs does not have to make any such promise, (but she did). If she suddenly goes berserk and decides to clear out CSD or XfDs, I'm confident based on her editing skills and habits that she'll do so with the same meticulous attention that she's done everything else on wiki. Edit wherever you decide you can be helpful, Karana-cs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise I'll find a different way to go berserk that does not involve admin-tools ;) Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want a promise :). I just want you to know that you should be careful (as I'm sure you always are when editing) around the deletion area. No offense meant, no promise needed, and you are of course free to branch off into the deletion area after you become a administrator. Sorry if I came off wrong! :) Malinaccier (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a recommendation, your first act should be to block this wacko!!! [/sarcasm & humor] BTW, congrats on making WP:100 that 100 wikipedians agree about ANYTHING is an amazing accomplishment. — BQZip01 — talk 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. per iridescent. Naerii - Talk 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No apparent need for the tools Support - just seems like someone who can be trusted with them is all (that is needed). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, per LessHeard vanU. Admins who work on FAs are what we need more of... · AndonicO Engage. 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I haven't supported anyone recently, but Karen is one of my favorite pure article writers and a joy to collaborate with. Editors like her make the project great.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support definitive trustworthy. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support trustworthy and helpful to the process :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Ima Hogg Support. This user is not a corpulent snout-nosed creature of pinkish complexion. He swears! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No reason to oppose. When you feel you need to use the tools, I trust you'll use them well. Good luck. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support especially for the tough comment at Editor Review - we need more blood on the floor there (and then we'll have less here). Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - this is the first RfA I have ever voted in. Karanacs is one of the most highly valued content editors I know. I am honored that she takes an interest in my articles and gives them a peek or two. I wanted to support as soon as I saw this was an idea she was entertaining. In fact, Support twice. --Moni3 (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this is the first RFA that you've "voted in" makes me want to nominate you Moni. Are you an admin? If not, why not? If you want the extra tools, let me know on my talkpage. I've seen you around, I've always thought you were an admin anyway, but apparently you're not. Again, let me know. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - If only for the answer to question 1. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. A great editor and will make a valuable admin. Please don't stop writing articles, though! Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - of course. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – a consistent contributor, with the added benefit of providing quality article building to the project, with over a year’s experience.. No civility problems, even considering the one mentioned in a oppose opinion. Best of luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - knowledgeable in all the right places. No one is perfect and it would appear on review of Karanacs' edits that the civility issues mark a rare departure from hisher usual cordial exchanges with other users. No one is perfect and I believe Karanacs would make a good addition to the admin team. WjBscribe 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go with the sexism again! ;) Enigma message 03:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. WjBscribe 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support As much as I wanted to be the first Aggie Admin, I can't be selfish here. She's good and will only benefit Wikipedia with these tools. I can't think of a better candidate! — BQZip01 — talk 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - for nothing more than the mindboggling nature of the Opposes. Are people flipping serious, and opposing because Karanacs was insufficiently fluffy in telling the fellow that she opposed him as an admin and here's why? It would never remotely occur to me to oppose a nomination for no other reason than someone had told me something I didn't like, and I wanted proper subservience before I withdrew that opposition.  RGTraynor  04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support as per Ima Hogg. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support if there are no more French claims on Texas. Squash Racket (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support with no reservations whatsoever. — Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - superb editor. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Good steady contributor. MBisanz talk 07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Complete support. I've seen Karanacs's work in many places (first running across her during jbmurray's descent into madness), and she has been nothing less than impressive. Whether she needs the tools or not at present is largely irrelevant; once she has them, plenty of opportunities will present themselves where they are in fact needed... and I trust her absolutely to use them with good judgement and forethought. EyeSerenetalk 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Great editor. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support; I've been meaning to ask to nom you for a while but was slacking. :) east.718 at 08:30, June 17, 2008
  61. Automatic support for incivil article builders. No, seriously, it's been taken way too far. giggy (:O) 09:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Excellent article writer with solid policy knowledge. One of the most active and dedicated reviewers at WP:FAC, she is unusually adept at communicating difficult news. I have yet to see her lose her cool. Maralia (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Obviously Wiki do need more reviewers with good writing skillsDKNY89 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Great Admin. BlueQ99 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Does excellent work for the signpost. Rudget (logs) 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I've only had productive interactions with this user. Ameriquedialectics 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strongly per article contributions and Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki. Daniel (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Solid editor with productive contributions, and meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. xenocidic (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Karanacs has superior communication skills and a strong history of collaboration, my two big points. She's willing to step back from her usual tasks and look at other things as well, as she identifies in her statements above. An excellent candidate. Risker (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: the nomination statements say it all, and a quick review of Karanacs' contrib's flags up no obvious problems. I think the candidate will make a productive administrator, and I'm happy to support the request. Anthøny 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Has the experience, and a great editor overall. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support; excellent article writer and Texas historian. I have no reservations about her ability to handle the extra buttons. Kuru talk 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Deli nk (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was my earlier support comment deleted?  :( Deli nk (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like an accident that took place at the next support vote. I'm sorry I missed it! Thanks so much for coming back and checking. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong Support super smart, hard working, helpful, mature and patient. I've been impressed with everything I've seen from this editor. --JayHenry (t) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Absolutely. BuddingJournalist 06:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, positives outweigh negatives. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Very thoughtful editor who contributes a lot of a skill in short supply through her work reviewing FA candidates. Her attention to detail is absolutely spot on and the way she handles herself shows a real willingness to build to concensus. I am sure that with the admin tools she will be mre of a benefit to the project, so I'm happy to support. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, very much so. Neıl 龱 12:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - looks great! Bearian (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Gigantisaurus Support Looking through the contributions, I've come to the bold conlcusion that there is literally no reason she shouldn't be an admin.--Koji†Dude (C) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Let me start off by saying you're a huge asset to wikipedia:-) Your work here is amazing, and I hope you continue to edit here for many years to come. Though you're clearly an excellent wikipedian, I do have a minor issue, and that is your inactivity in admin areas. One of the main things I look for in an admin is that they have demonstrated a need for at least one of the tools. If an admin doesn't use the tools they might as well not be an admin. Demonstrating a need for the tools isn't the only important thing to me though. The attitude of the person who is going through an Rfa, and his grasp of the policies he'll be working with is important as well. Though you haven't demonstrated a need for the tools, you have proved to us you have a good attitude, and you have shown a firm grasp of policy. The good things about you far outweigh the bad, thus I believe you are deserving of the tools.--SJP (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Of course. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Doesn't really need a comment. Excellent reviewing work at FAC, excellent content work, civil and intelligent. Not much more can be said. Woody (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Looks good. GlassCobra 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I don't always agree with her, but she's trustworthy, bright and hard-working. She will make a better-than-average admin. Majoreditor (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support trustworthy reader and editor. Shyamal (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Enthusiastic Support as co-nominator. It is gratifying to see the community's appreciation for this magnificent editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong support - consistently informed fac reviews indicate a firm grasp of relevant policy and commitment to thankless tasks. Will be a great admin. Savidan 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I trust her judgment, and a talented article writer furthermore. No hesitation, Cenarium Talk 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support An excellant editor, the only problem I saw with this user was that listed below. While Karanacs IMO did not handle the situation to the best of her ability, I view this as an isolated incident and I prefer not to hold grudges. Other than this I trust this user very much. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, no reason not to. Wizardman 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Seems like an excellent candidate...Modernist (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Per iridescent (talk · contribs) and jbmurray (talk · contribs), and of course also per some excellent contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - I extend good faith to the editor using the admin tools for the benefit of the project. On a side note, the editor should avoid using bad faith comments towards fellow editors. The "deliberately misleading" comment made me think twice on whether to support or post a Neutral !vote. Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support as well, since you're doing a good job to improve the 'Battle of the Alamo' article. I can't wait for you to handle the mop with care. -iaNLOPEZ1115 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Very talented writer, here for the right reasons, has good judgement. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support No reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support per excellent noms and review of edits.  Frank  |  talk  16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:100! :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong support - excellent editor! Great article work. Great Wikipedia-space participation. Excellent knowledge and understanding displayed. It's all there! :-) Lradrama 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support I was slightly involved with Ima Hogg (the Wikipedia article, not the person), so I can attest to Karanacs' good work. And I believe we may be ready for an encore.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I see no reason the user would abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Sceptre (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I believe he will do fine. America69 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support We need more admins not all about the mop and bucket. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. why not? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. support-At least someone on wikipedia is getting something done. God, 10,000 edits, and you're not an admin yet? ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I could have sworn I'd already supported this nom, but oh well. Karanacs is a solid editor with a clear understanding of policy. I have no doubts she'll make an excellent admin. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support --Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - see no reason not to. work with FAC looks good --T-rex 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. A review of this user's contribs and answers to the questions, I see no reason to oppose at this time. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - No problems here. Will wield the mop much like Roland wielded Durandal. Or maybe not. --SharkfaceT/C 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong Support: great editor...Knows policies...Strong and long experience and wiki experience... No reasons to believe any possible misuse of the 'power' buttons. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Editor will make a solid and helpful administrator. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already supported above @ #99. (indented). –xenocidic (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Seems like a great person. Would never abuse the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support seems fine to me. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Excellent contributor and editor! --Creamy!Talk 15:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Sure. Acalamari 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Weak oppose I am impressed with your FA work. However, incivility like this forces me to oppose. While I know I might have been on the strong side sometimes, I always give the user that I offended an apology. Since the incident on April 17, Karanacs has not offered me one, which "gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin." I hate to be a party pooper, but I apologise. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC) (switching to Support) I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, I don't think anyone should have to apologize for opposing (or for any other civil expression of their opinion). Thanks for putting forward your point of view, EotW. I would also like to ensure that commenters focus on Karanacs's contributions (which of course, they may or may not want to criticize) rather than on EotW's. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. What EotW did could be viewed as self-promotion, and Karanacs is entitled to his opinion. I don't believe this was incivility at all. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to self-promote, though it might have come across that way. Right here I apologise, if I haven't already, by creating drama at the ANI. I simply want an apology from Karanacs, and I'll be happy to switch to support. This is pretty much a null vote anyway, since the RFA is definitely going to pass. I do not hold gudges, and good luck on adminship Karanacs!I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving subsequent discussion over to the talk page. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I want to add here that using an RfA as a lever to exact an apology is tangential to the aims of this process. Tony (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per stances supported in Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability. I am, however, happy to see User:Karanacs/Barnstars, so while I am a bit concerned about notability interpretation as relates to likely interpretation of arguments in AfDs, the candidate does seem to have done some commendable work elsewhere. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the 41 sections are they in? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are ones that seem to be overly exclusionary, which is a concern for anyone who will have deletion tools. Anyway, to answer your question, such ones as Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode_Notability#Statement by Kww (contrary to the stance there, the vast majority of episode articles should be better referenced, which most can as just about any episode has been reviewed somewhere, not outright removed). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify my stance on deletionism/inclusionism - in general I believe an article should be in existence if multiple reliable independent sources that offer more than trivial mention can be found about the subject. I haven't been convinced yet that anything deserves to be inherently notable. If the reliable independent sources aren't there, then the topic probably doesn't need an independent article...yet. If it means anything, Le Grand Roi, I occasionally look for a fiction article to bring up to WP standards; Barney Stinson is the most recent I've worked on. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will of course keep that in mind as I am always open to reconsider my stance before an RfA closes. My main concern is that in some of these AfDs, some claim that sources cannot be found and then when they are still dismiss them anyway. So, it is important to me that admins take note of when an AfD has a bunch of "non-notable", "unreferenced" comments as delete rationales and whether or not these comments are necessarily true or accurate. We have tons of articles that look like this and which I typically see in AfDs as "delete, unreferenced, no assertion of notability," and yet in but a few hours I found that whole books were written about the character by searching solely on Academic Search Complete rather than say Google. It is my hope that admins will not simply look at the comments in the AfD, but also be open-minded to these sorts of possibilities. Now, obviously not every fictional character is going to have a whole book written about him, but there are more sources out there than I think some realize. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The FA honours and other accolades are impressive, but I feel Editorofthewiki is justified in taking umbrage at the brusque and snotty commentary dumped on him by this candidate in an open setting. To borrow a quote from the candidate herself in her slam of Editorofthewiki: "The fact that you would do this in such as public area gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin." Ecoleetage (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) I am moving my vote to neutral, as per Karanacs' comments on the discussion page linked to Editor Review brouhaha. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Everything on Wikipedia, by definition, is "in an open setting". The actions that she undertook were a simple response to a certain editor's review. It's that simple, but it is one of the drawbacks to such a venue: anyone can comment on anyone else. Her opinion (whether brusque or anything else) is as valid as any other Wikipedian. Simply let the chips fall where they may. I have been in many FAC reviews (as SandyGeorgia will attest :-)). Sometimes my view wins out and sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't make either opinion right or wrong, merely how the majority went on a subject. Her opinion seemed well within bounds, IMHO. Most of the people above seem to agree. — BQZip01 — talk 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously! In the concept of "constructive criticism," the emphasis should be on the "constructive" aspect. I do not see Karanac's comments as being constructive. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but no special investment is required to present the opinion in a positive manner. And for the record, EotW is doing a great job on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And EotW supports her too. Some of her comments can be an assessment and need not be directly constructive. — BQZip01 — talk 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Weak Oppose.My oppose is a complicated one. You are no doubt a awesome editor, no doubt about that. But my concerns are with the nomination, which to me messed up the entire RFA. "does not need the admin tools", not eaxactly a reassuring statement. you have been grossly uncivil and yet you are a great editor. I really think that you need to work on your attittude(if it hasn't changed since the incident) and get someone else to nominate you(no offence to first nominator).Gears Of War 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. On another current RfA, I've been suggesting that people should not support simply on the basis of the nominator's statement. It would seem consistent to ask you to think twice about opposing on that basis, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read past that part of my comment you woud notice that that is just a small reason and is not to reassuring.Gears Of War 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors submitting to editor review, such as Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki, request feedback from the community; it's not quite fair to qualify requested feedback as gross incivility. Editor review should be eliminated if people can't speak freely there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you call being uncivil speaking your mind, then you a mistaken.Gears Of War 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely nonsensical. Being civil is all about keeping a discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into violent conversation; in the context of an editor review, it's discussing the editor at hand. It's not uncivil or a personal attack to provide solicited feedback or even disagree vehemently: criticism is permitted and is vital to the operation and improvement of an open community. east.718 at 08:30, June 17, 2008
    I'm moving subsequent discussion over to the talk page. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that the conversation's moved to the talkpage but I'll still reply here; as the nominator Gears is referring to, I think that in this instance "oppose per nom" is a valid statement. I deliberately covered the arguments against Karanacs in the nomination as well (as the reasons to support, which IMO obviously far outweigh any negatives), so I think opposing on the basis of the issues I raised is perfectly valid here. – iridescent 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, from reading this editor's comments at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria, Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability, and her most recent reply to me at WT:FICT, I could not support this editor being an admin. Just about every statement Karanacs supported at Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability contradicts Wikipedia is not paper on meta, which is linked from the policy Wikipedia is not paper. It looks like this editor does good work with WikiProject Texas. But if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things. --Pixelface (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I actually think that this reply, to which you take exception, is very clear and reasonable. I'm not entirely sure I see what your problem is with it. Perhaps I'm missing something from the broader debate; but again, what she says there makes eminent sense. Do you not agree? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There does seem to be a trend where candidates are opposed because of their inclusionist/deletionist stance. Inclusionist/deletionist stance has very little to do with adminship tasks, if the candidate is well-balanced. I think Karanacs' reputation as an excellent content contributor should outweigh that type of concern. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing deletion debates is an admin task. Notability is frequently brought up in deletion debates. There is no such thing as "WP notability", just notability. I also think Karanacs is an excellent content contributor, but you don't need to be an admin to do that. I never said Karanacs was a deletionist. Karanacs said real world notability is not the same as WP:NOTE on purpose, and that's simply not true. Karanacs also said that NOTE is the best we have to filter out topics that don't need articles, and I totally disagree. Plenty of articles got deleted before NOTE was created in 2006 and before various Wikipedia pages were turned into notability guidelines in September 2006. NOTE has been around for less than 2 years, but Wikipedia has been around for over 7 years. We need more admins who know the history behind the notability guidelines and understand the concept that Wikipedia is not paper. In that episode RFC, Karanacs supported a statement by a user who the arbitration committee was recently debating a topic ban over. I simply couldn't support this editor being an admin at this time due to their current views on notability. But Karanacs does great article work and I encourage her to continue doing so. --Pixelface (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Le Grand, Pixelface. SashaNein (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral: I would support, but the characterization of User:Editorofthewiki's edit to the Wikipedia Signpost as "...deliberately misleading..." seems not to assume good faith. To say that a user "needs more experience," or "added irrelevant information," or engaged in "self-promotion," is perfectly reasonable, but to say that somebody has been "deliberately" misleading in my view is a grave accusation that should only be made if it is actually true. Aside from this (and granted that I too have been known to say things that would have been better left unsaid), I would support. Bwrs (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Switching vote from Oppose, as per Karanacs' input on the talk page relating to the Editor Review brouhaha. While I feel the whole matter could've been handled better from the beginning, I see no reason to continue opposing this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per User:Bwrs above. Your contributions are phenomenal, but I cannot bring myself to Support a nomination given such recent incivility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    The only uncivil word in the whole thingamabobber was "deliberately," and as I mentioned, most of us say things we later regret. If she regretted it, I'd switch to "support" in a heartbeat. Bwrs (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Takes all sorts I suppose. If she regretted it, I might well switch to "oppose" in a heartbeat. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs