Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN

MelanieN

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination from Kudpung:

MelanieN (talk · contribs) – As most of you know, or at least those who take an active interest in RfA, I very rarely make nominations, preferring to work in the background on adminship issues. To use a hackneyed phrase, I really did think she was already an admin. Probably because I‘ve !voted on so many RfA that I couldn’t remember if she was or not. Discovering by chance in December that she in fact is not, this nomination is one I simply could not resist making.

On nominating her for Editor of the Week in April 2014, user Jim Carter said ‘’An editor with more than 80 articles, 27 DYKs, 2 Good articles and more than 313 rescued articles. She deserves to become an Editor of the Week. Not only this, she has been on Wikipedia for more than 5 years and has 27000+ edits. A constructive editor with the patience of eternity; I have never seen her in any conflict. She has never refused to help anyone (One can see it on her talk page). […] She is a true wikipedian, yet her qualities are "behind the scene" so I want to nominate her because, again, she deserves it. Thank you. ’’

You’d think there’s nothing one could add to that, but this wouldn’t be an RfA nom without mentioning an extraordinary experience in almost all areas including CSD and AfD (over 3,500) with with one of the highest rates of accuracy I have ever come across (85.8%), 33 votes at RfA with 84.8% accuracy, four GAs, a raft of barnstars for all the right reasons from all the right people, and an edit count analysis that actually says it all anyway.

This is not a user who has been working towards adminship, this is a user who simply ‘’works’’ - and cares. Naturally, knowing that RfA can invite some unpleasant comments Melanie was at first reticent. Well, a) RfA isn’t any longer the totally ‘’Horrible and broken process’’ it was when Jimbo Wales made that comment nearly 4 years ago, and b) with a Wiki career like this we don’t owe it to Melanie to give her the bit, she owes it to us to be an admin, so I am asking the community to prove me right on both counts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Harry Mitchell:

Kudpung's statement articulately summarises Melanie's experience, so I will endeavour to keep my co-nomination brief and to the point. There is a myth that has been circulating on Wikipedia for a long time that we do not need more admins. This is, in part, born out of the fact that administrators mostly operate behind the scenes, so most of their work goes unnoticed. What we need is more admins who quietly get on with keeping the place tidy and free from loonies who would do the encyclopaedia harm. Melanie would, I believe, be exactly that sort of admin. She's been around for a long time and has amply demonstrated her clue. Hers is a name I associate only with sensible things, an impression backed up by perusing her talk page—which shows nothing but friendly, productive collaboration—and further backed up by our most recent interaction (now archived), where Melanie spotted a coordinated spree of vandalism to a school article and quickly brought it to the attention of two admins (coincidentally Kudpung and I) who had each blocked one of the accounts involved and raised it at ANI. Melanie, of course, knew exactly what needed to be done but lacked the tools to do it. Given her experience and her obvious clue, I'd say there's no harm—and an awful lot of good—that could come from giving her those tools. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, I think. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I've been contributing to AfD discussions for years. So for starters I would work on AfD, PROD, and CSD. I think I could also be helpful with technical moves (RM) and page protection (RPP). Later, as I gain more experience, I might help out at AIV and UAA. And there are times in the course of normal editing when I could find the tools useful - times when I know what needs to be done, but have to ask an admin or take it to a request board to make it happen.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best and favorite work is in article creation and improvement. I have especially worked on articles about San Diego, four of which have been brought to Good Article status. And I like biography; about half the articles I have created are biographies, often of scientists or doctors. I also enjoy article rescue - by which I mean, finding articles that are about notable subjects but are in poor shape or in danger of deletion, and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards by rewriting and better sourcing. I find these articles mostly by patrolling Unreferenced BLPs; sometimes while patrolling New Pages; and occasionally at AfD or the PROD categories. This doesn't mean I'm an "inclusionist"; I strongly believe in maintaining standards for inclusion here, and most of my AfD !votes are "delete". But it means I always have an eye out for a way to retain valuable material through improvement or merger.

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: About conflicts: I have twice been complained of at AN or ANI. Those discussions are here and here. I once took a complaint about someone to AN; that discussion is here. Other than that, I have not been in serious conflicts that I recall.
About stress: I don't tend to get stressed about Wikipedia, partly because I don't take things that are said here personally - even if they are meant that way. And partly because I rarely take part in the drama boards or contentious subject discussions. I know I will attract some flak if I become an administrator, since I may be doing things that upset people, but I believe I can respond to their upset with calmness and (when appropriate) kindness. I am generally pretty even-tempered. I have a tendency to get amused (rather than angry) when someone calls me names or accuses me of stuff, and that helps me keep my cool.

Additional optional questions from Addshore

4. What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?

A: I am a former teacher and I loved teaching. And I have always loved writing, mostly for free or as a hobby, occasionally for money. Wikipedia gives me a chance to do both; it's a hobby that adds to the sum (or at least the availability) of human knowledge. I also enjoy the collaboration with people around the world that is possible here, where barriers like age, gender, profession, and even geography are irrelevant. (My two nominators and I are about as widely separated in time zones as it is possible to be.)

I should add, since I see that my wording above leaves it open to question: I have never edited Wikipedia for money.

5. In a State of the Union address, American president George W. Bush once said, "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research...creating human-animal hybrids." If such human-animal hybrids are created, do you believe they should be allowed to have Wikipedia accounts?

A: Only if Reliable Sources confirm their existence.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: I would say that only autoconfirmed users could create articles. Anyone who does New Pages Patrol knows that the most obviously unsuitable articles are almost always created by brand-new editors with brand-new user names. If the requirement was not merely to register, but to wait a few days and make a few edits, they might gain a bit of clue how this place works, where to get help, and basically what we are about. It might also create a partial barrier to spur-of-the-moment hoaxers and vandals. I also suspect that allowing brand-spanking-new users to create articles is bad for editor retention. My hunch is that someone who creates an article as their very first contribution very rarely stays to become a regular contributing editor. For one thing, there is a significant likelihood that their article will be deleted, a highly negative experience for them, after which they leave and never come back

7. If selected, would you add yourself to the Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If not, then why not, and if you would, then what would your criteria be?

A: I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point of asking for a mop; do you think I am going to fight to retain it? 0;-D Seriously, I know that many people have laid out elaborate criteria and processes for their own recall; more power to them. My approach would be much less formalized: if two or three respected admins told me I should resign my tools, I would do so.

General comments

• Links for MelanieN: MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for MelanieN can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Notice to those who want to do research before !voting Please take a look here to know more details about this user. Thank you. Jim Carter 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, absolutely! ;) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Tutting passive-aggressively at Amaryllis for beating me to the top spot! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Support; very strong candidate, clueful and competent. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Support I don't recall any previous problems with this user; and if both Kudpung and HJ Mitchell have nominated, that's good enough for me. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
5. I'm truly honored that my Editor of the Week nomination statement about Melanie is quoted here by one of the most respected admins on Wikipedia. I support her admin nomination for more reasons than I can say here, but you can read them here! Jim Carter 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

   @Jim Carter: is here really the page you meant to link to? --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

   It's most probably intended to be here, see immediately above this section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

6. Support A remarkable record of contributions, an ideal attitude and way of going about things. Adminship is a heavy burden so I feel almost feel guilty in supporting, but you can handle it! Regards Irondome (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
8. Support Yep.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
9. Strong support I have recently come across MelanieN through collaborative work with Beer in San Diego County, California and Ika Hügel-Marshall and found her to be a strong and productive article collaborator full of patience and understanding. Her ability to rescue articles from AfD such as Emil Frei is excellent, and she has a good track record at AfD otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
10. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
11. I've deleted a number of this user's prod and speedy noms over the past few days, and have inspected a sample of her other deleted contribs. She interprets the speedy deletion criteria accurately and narrowly - most admins, including me, would have A3'd Alumni of Nalanda (Boys') Central College instead of prodding it, for example - and she's not afraid to improve marginal articles instead of slapping on a questionable deletion tag or just moving on to another target. She's ready for a delete button. —Cryptic 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
12. Support Wow, two top-notch nominations in a row. I absolutely support Melanie and am happy to see such great editors requesting adminship recently. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
13. Support, great editor. Cavarrone 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
14. Support per noms. Trustworthy and prolific editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
15. Strong support, oh yes! I've seen Melanie around quite often, and in fact watched the mentoring that Jim mentions in that sandbox. A very exceptional Wikipedian. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
16. Support I thought this editor was already a sysop... Mkdw^talk 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
17. Support. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
18. Support Great candidate for adminship - good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
19. Support Per nom and Long Term User trustworthy with good temperament and policy knowledge.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
20. Support Fantastic candidate for the mop.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
21. Support -- KTC (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
22. Support. Clueful candidate. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
23. Support Of course! --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
24. Support - Absolutely no concerns; MelanieN is one of the best editors that I've ever seen here. She would use the administrative tools very well. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)