Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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, Misplaced Pages 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. — iridescent20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 from Misplaced Pages on weekends." If I had my way, every Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.
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: 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 thesetwo 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)
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. 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)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Karanacs before commenting.
Discussion
Support
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. Juliancolton16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Holy moly. An astoundingly overqualified candidate. A look through the 'tribs and talkpage was a pleasure trip. Karanacs knows exactly what Misplaced Pages is here for and what needs to still be done. Easy, no hesitation support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 2008June 16 (UTC)
Support: elaboration I might have offered thereupon has already found eloquent expression above - a laudable Wikipedian. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
File:Mergist-logo.svgIt'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". – iridescent18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. ⇔ ∫ÆSdt @ 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 | Disclaimer20:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 | Disclaimer00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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. ShoesssS03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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. WjBscribe03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages with these tools. I can't think of a better candidate! — BQZip01 —04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. EyeSerene07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Editorofthewiki20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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1500:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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 Editorofthewiki00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Citrouilles03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
Seriously? Everything on Misplaced Pages, 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 —04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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).GearsOf War05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
If you read past that part of my comment you woud notice that that is just a small reason and is not to reassuring.GearsOf War05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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.718at 08:30, June 17, 2008
Neutral: I would support, but the characterization of User:Editorofthewiki's edit to the Misplaced Pages 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)
