Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Melesse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Melesse[edit]

Final: (59/9/6); ended 20:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk · contribs) - I really think that Melesse would make a great administrator. S/he does any awesome job with reducing images I tag with {{non-free reduce}}. Usually, within 12 hours after I've tagged an image, s/he's reduced it by then. I'm sure s/he would a great job being an administrator. Rappingwonders (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Additional candidate info: Melesse is an enormous image WikiGnome, with over 10,000 edits since early 2005 and of those almost 9000 to the image space. Could seriously benefit from a mandatory edit summary preference switch, but I'd submit that use of edit summaries in image tagging and revision could be less useful than elsewhere. Avruchtalk 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Oooh, now that I actually see it I think I might have made a mistake, but yes, I still accept, no harm in trying. Oh but FYI, I'm a girl. Melesse (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: To be honest, I'm not sure what I could do if I were an admin that I can't do now as a regular user. Possibly the only administrator functions that might come in handy for me would be being able to clean up after reduced fair use images (by deleting the old large versions), and deleting orphaned and replaceable fair use images. Melesse (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This is lame, but I'm really proud that I managed to significantly cut down the number of items in Category:Non-free images with red backlink. Unfortunately I didn't think to check how many items were in it when I started adding article backlinks, but now it's under 250 items, and trust me, it IS significantly less than what it was when I began. So I like to think I've rescued a good lot of fair use images from being deleted by making a little edit. Melesse (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes, and it was fairly recently. A user (User:Ineversigninsodonotmessageme) came to my talk page asking me to stop bothering her (I'd tagged several of her uploaded images as replaceable fair use, had to do them twice because the first time she'd removed the tags). I looked through her user contributions and got the idea that she was the confrontational type, so I asked the first administrator I found that was active in the image department (User:Butseriouslyfolks) to please explain why I tagged her images (he was very quick and nice about it, too). Melesse (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Keepscases

4. Do you think that I PUT THE P IN WIKIPEDIA is an acceptable user name?
A. Well, the name looks like it might be a dirty joke (and if it is, then I don't get it), so I'd keep an eye on someone with a name like that. If nothing comes of it, then that's it. If someone else expresses offense by it (and can give a reasonable explanation why), then someone should ask that user to change their name. Melesse (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A block is temporary, usually lasting as long as the blocking administrator thinks it will take for the blocked user to read up on what they've done wrong so that it doesn't happen again, and when it's over, that person is welcome back to edit (with constructive edits). A ban is generally permanent, because a group of people have come to the conclusion that the banned user doesn't make constructive contributions to Wikipedia. But for the most part, I think they're the same: blocked and banned users can't edit pages until the block/ban is lifted (if ever). Melesse (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A. That's a really long policy with a lot of very different reasons to remove something, so I would ask the other administrator exactly which reason(s) they removed the material for. When they tell me, I'll read more carefully on it/them, and maybe I'll discover that they were right. If I still think they weren't right, then I'd try to cite at least two reasons in the policy supporting why the material should be included and show them those. Melesse (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

A. I'm not really of the opinion that "majority knows best," so I find that to be a little silly. Any administrator that voluntarily stepped down from the position and wants it back really shouldn't have much difficulty getting it back with another RFA, same for administrators who were removed for being inactive. I wouldn't add myself because (besides that I don't agree with the driving idea of it) I'm not very well known and wouldn't get many votes. Melesse (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

A. For me personally it's the image policies. For the majority of images, someone has to care about them quite a bit to get them up. For free license images, someone had to take a photo or make a drawing, which requires an invested effort. For fair use images, the effort's a little less because all they have to do is find an image and give a rationale why they're valuable and why they can't be replaced with a free license image. For the fair use images, it's actually become quite easy, but even so a lot of users who upload them don't even take the time to copy and paste a rationale. Melesse (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. You have a tremendous amount of experience in fulfilling fairusereduce requests. Why do you resize all images to 300px? Are there cases when a greater amount of detail is necessary in rendering non-free content? In cases like Image:Triela Gunslinger Girl.png, is there a dire necessity to resize an image from 289x420 to 206x300? (These questions refer to WP:NFCC#3b requirements, which are purposefully undefined and vary based on the type and usage of non-free media)

A. When I first began resizing things I left them at a higher resolution (500-600 px) (they were really big back then), and someone pointed out to me that Wikiproject Comics recommends images be 300px on the widest side [1], so I went with that. Pretty soon after I found it actually documented on the fair use rationale [2]. And I don't always make them 300px, I always check if they've lost important detail, so usually book covers or movie posters end up a little bigger (325 or 350px, sometimes up to 400). But for the example image you picked out, no, I don't think it's really a dire necessity, especially since the individual images were acceptable size, but those images are very clear and not too detailed and I don't feel they suffered any quality loss from being made a little bit smaller. Melesse (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Dustihowe 10. If you agree with an admin's decision, will you revert what they have done? Dustitalk 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. No, why would I (or anyone in the same situation) do that? I think you must have meant DISagree, in which case I still wouldn't, I'd take it up with that admin and talk it out. Melesse (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

(49/6/6)

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Clearly an anemic nom, but hopefully that doesn't prejudice the votes. If anyone comes along and feels able to add a better nom statement, I'd suggest they do it. Avruchtalk 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respect the neutrals and opposes, but they raise an interesting point. Say the candidate fails this RfA and then spends the next 12 weeks on RC patrol and commenting at AfD. That would satisfy (assuming good contributions, and we have no reason to assume otherwise) the "balance" issue that seems to be reflected in the oppose/neutral comments. But to me, that seems like advising them to game the system - i.e. performing actions for the sake of adminship like it's a big deal, as opposed to granting the box set for the one tool the candidate will benefit from (delete) here and now so she can help further. I know we can't grant only one button but I see not only no chance of abuse but also no chance of misuse. If it does no harm why deny the request?Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're preaching to the choir, not to mention the congregation. I think the call for AfD comments and various patrols are designed to reassure commenters that the candidate knows their stuff--this I have no problem with, and I've opposed many a candidate based on their actions in those areas. I think the real issue arises when people recognize XfD/vandalism/CSD contributions as the only proof of policy knowledge. While I've seen candidates opposed for blatant disregard for WP:NFC, I don't think I've ever seen anyone opposed for a lack of image namespace work. Considering that this is an area where Wikipedia can really get in trouble, I think it may be time to revisit that way of thinking. --jonny-mt 09:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um. Yes. I think. I'm not actually clear on what you're telling me here to be honest! Sorry - I'll pop out and see if I can find where I left my brain :) Pedro :  Chat  10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry; the first comment was meant to indicate not only that I agree with you, but that a whole lot of people (particularly those at WT:RFA) agree with you, and then I followed it up with a minor rant that was connected, however tenuously, to the points you raised in that we both disagree with people having certain expectations regarding the areas an ideal candidate should be involved in. Perhaps while you're looking for your brain you can check and see if my communication skills are somewhere nearby? >.< --jonny-mt 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm with you now. No worries. :) Pedro :  Chat  14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er ... I don't think anyone implied gaming the system, and I'm sure Melesse wouldn't entertain such notions. Rather, there are other ways to gain experience. Admin training and adopt-an-editor programs are ideal for those who need to learn more about policy, practice collaborative editing and find out about different project areas. Majoreditor (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think you missed a "not" between Melesse would and entertain....!) No, you're right and I'm obviously not making that charge against the opposers and neutrals, all of who are experienced at RfA and I respect their position. My (unblued) point is that it seems (IMHO only of course) against the spirit of adminship to ask an editor to work in areas they clearly have no interest in, just for the sake of prooving they can be diverse. For an editor to deliberately participate just for the sake of keeping the "RfA crowd" happy, and not for genuine reasons of wishing to would be, well, wrong really. I find in this RfA genuine and valid concerns from the opposers, but per my rationale in support and my comments above in this section I personally feel (and it seems a number of others due to the "per Pedro's" :) ) that the benefitts of a clued up image working admin are more important to Wikipedia. The unlikely scenario of Melesse being granted the tools and then deciding she wishes to work at RFPP or CSD where she has virtually no experience seems to me just that - unlikely. Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, prepare to me extremely stressed and worn out doing image admin stuff. Admins specialising in dealing with images have (in my rough estimation) dropped at least in half since last year. --Iamunknown 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - Melesse has an excellent grasp of image policy, an area where more admins would be very welcome. Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Yes, Melesse would be a great help with image deletion. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support 1) I love the honesty and approach in your answers to the questions. 2) Another image working admin - bring it on!! 3) Clean talk page, all looks civil, communicative and gentle. 4) A Net Positive - zero danger of this candidate misusing the tools by design (due to her expressed interest in and demonstrated work on images not topics) or by accident (per the same rationale - she's hardly likely to wade into C:CSD or whatever as it clearly doesn't intertest her). Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Pedro's well reasoned rationale Dlohcierekim 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please see User:Dlohcierekim/standards, particularly "no big deal" and per Tyrenius. Dlohcierekim 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - also per Pedro. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Need for the tools is not a criteria by which a candidate should be judged as suitable for receiving same, but whether they have evidenced that they would not abuse them if they were given them. No qualms here... but please turn on the "Force Edit Summary" option; communication is vital in creating and building consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Given the backlogs we have in certain areas, it would be useful to have admins who are prepared to specialise in those areas to begin with, and maybe broaden their experience later. I see nothing to indicate that this would be a problem for this candidate, and answer to Q3 shows that she is prepared to seek advice when necessary. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — DarkFalls talk 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Absolutely love the answers to the questions. She doesn't seem like she would use the tools much and when she does I feel certain it would be a deliberative and intelligent decision. Even if she only uses them once we will gain a valuable contribution, I am sure. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support - I'd actually been considering nominating Melesse for adminship, but given her lack of article and project name contributions, I was concerned that the nomination might not be successful and in fact serve only to discourage someone whom I consider to be an invaluable contributor to the project. That being said, I couldn't be happier with the level of support she is receiving right now, and I am only too glad to offer mine as well. Melesse has a rock-solid grasp of image-related policies--particularly WP:NFCC--and she employs them to great effect. To those who would argue that more article writing or project-space experience is necessary, I would point out that a lack of image policy knowledge is almost never raised as a reason to oppose an RfA despite the fact that a quick browse through Category:All non-free media or a look at the daily litany of complaints on User talk:BetacommandBot shows that a huge portion of users lack knowledge about or simply ignore this area of policy. The fact that an image I tagged as WP:CSD#I9 (a re-upload of an image claimed under a free license with the watermark of the copyrighting website cropped out) stood for over a day before being deleted tells me that we desperately need more administrators willing to do the scut work in the image namespace, and I can think of no one more qualified to do just that than Melesse. --jonny-mt 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I admit image policy remains an area I'm weak in understanding which is why I have the utmost respect for those who do know it. Her contribs show consistent and diligent and admirable work in this area. Down-to-earth and well-considered answers to the questions above and an obviously courteous attitude toward other editors makes my support here a pleasure. I have no doubts that she will use the tools wisely and well. Pigman☿ 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Per Pedro. Gromlakh (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per our porcine friend. But Melesse, please use edit summaries more often. - TwoOars 07:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. User:Krator (t c) 09:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Pigman. At the risk of redundancy, I'll add that this candidate brings an essential skill set, and her manner makes me feel pretty safe supporting, since I don't believe she's going to wander over into unfamiliar terrain. Her response to the conflict described above rather suggests that if she's called on to use her admin tools in an unfamiliar area, she will rather quite sensibly seek out somebody better prepared to handle the situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Dlohcierekim 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, looks like an excellent candidate. — CharlotteWebb 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Extremely strong support - per Pedro and others. Another image sysop! EJF (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Seems to be a rational and communicative user. Deals with images, and we need more sysops that do so. I don't anticipate Melesse abusing +sysop. I also agree with Pedro's rationale, especially his 1st and second point. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per jonny-mt and Moonriddengirl. --Werdan7T @ 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I strongly support Melesse's nomination: she has great experience with images, and we need more image admins. I'm not convinced by the edit-counting in the opposition: whenever a candidate has a "lower-than-average" Wikipedia-space edit count, this always turns into "oppose - not enough Wikipedia-space edits" or "oppose - low Wikipedia-space edits means this user has little knowledge of policy". We all contribute in different ways, and Melesse's interests are images, and she has knowledge in that area: we shouldn't hold that against her. Acalamari 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. There's nothing wrong with this request *looks below* Yep, nothing at all. Majorly (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support more admins working with images would be a Good Thing, and (per Pigman, Moonriddengirl, Acalamari etc) she would be a welcome addition to the ranks for that reason. BencherliteTalk 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Pedro, Pigman, Moonriddengirl, and Acalamari. -MBK004 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support against editcountitis and AfDitis. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Avruchtalk 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per WP:AGF Triona (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. The candidate appears to be unlikely to abuse the tools, and would be of great benefit in an area that doesn't always get enough admin love. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support We need more admins that work with images. I think that Melesse will do just fine doing just that. Captain panda 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I like the answers to the questions and feel this user will help out in a field that needs all the assistance it can get. The lack of contributions outside that area does not bother me, I do not see the user exploring those areas and really have no issue with that. SorryGuy  Talk  04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support An admin focussing on images means I don't have to learn the intricacies! It's a specialised area that needs experience to perform the role properly. Why should Melesse learn other areas if she has no interest in them, to then promptly forget about them and return to images once adminship is received? And if Melesse suddenly expands her admin activities too quickly beyond her areas of expertise, then there are plenty of people more than willing to trawl the issue through the appropriate forums. --Stephen 05:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. the_undertow talk 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per Pedro. User is smart enough to wield the tools correctly, so her relative inexperience in certain areas is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the encyclopedia. faithless (speak) 10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Pedro made an excellant point. Also, this user could use the extra tools. SpencerT♦C 11:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I trust that Melesse will not abuse the tools, and they clearly will be useful in her ongoing, outstanding work on images. Gwernol 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per Pedro. --Kbdank71 14:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Impressive dedication, especially with regard to performing mundane image maintenance. BTW, if you run across a fairusereduce request that demands you cut something like one hundred pixels from an image, feel free to inform the tagger that they are wasting your time :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support oh yes -Dureo (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -  RGTraynor  22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support she seems a responsible person who will do what she says she wants to do, and do it well. As an admin who has avoided working with images, I recognize no one person can be exert in anything. If she wants to expand, there is every reason to think from her current work that she will learn carefully how to do it right, and ask help as necessary. DGG (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Others on this page have expressed confidence in the candidate's knowledge and diligence with regard to image policy, and I see nothing to contradict that. I encourage the candidate to use edit summaries and to go through learning phases of significant length before using admin tools in other areas. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support We always need more people minding the images. MBisanz talk 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. What was I on? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 10:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - per above. Keep up the good works. The Transhumanist 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. No need for every admin to demonstrate intense activity in every area of Wikipedia. Dedicated, diligent editor could make good use of the tools and would not abuse. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I would like to see a wider variety of edits, but I think you can be trusted with the tools and would be a valuable asset in the area of images.--BelovedFreak 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. So she's not part of the wikispace club yet? Good. User:Dorftrottel 14:35, January 31, 2008
  51. Weak support. She's done a great job as a wikignome with images, and I'd like to have more evidence about mainspace work. But I will not oppose her for that, as I trust her not to abuse the tools. Also, we need more sysops working to delete old images. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support No reason not to trust with the tools, and per Bearian. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. SupportAs per track and Bearian.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Belated support, welcome to the image cabal. :-D east.718 at 22:46, February 1, 2008
  56. I can see no reason or any suggestion that this nominee would abuse the tools. Her gnomish work is what makes the place function. Certainly images is one of those areas where we need plenty of help. -JodyB talk 15:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per above. NHRHS2010 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - appears to be an experienced editor. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - I must have been on the same thing as DHMO, since not only did I seriously mis-evaluate the arguments for support, I misunderstood the candidate's response to Q5. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. 39 projectspace and less than 2,000 mainspace edits? That is far from sufficient experience to be a trustworthy admin candidate in my view. It's obvious that your current area of interest and expertise is with images, but as an admin you are going to be asked by others to participate in other arenas, and the vast majority of users tend to shift their contribution focus as time passes. When this happens, I couldn't trust you to have the necessary experience. I'm sorry. But only 39 project space edits makes me uncomfortable with you potentially having the tools. Additionally, your answer to question seven is disconcerting. If you don't believe that a majority vote is an acceptable barometer of the best direction to take, then why are you standing for a position in which a majority vote is the deciding factor? VanTucky 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots and lots of people get admin tools prior to 2k mainspace edits. Avruchtalk 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest otherwise. I only stated my opinion. VanTucky 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why you think an admin should be so involved in the mainspace. It's possible for someone to come out of a month with thirty mainspace edits, and thirty FAs. And you actually say this candidate is untrustworthy! Have you any evidence to support this?
    Phoenix-wiki 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get in to a lengthy debate with you. I stated my rationale for voting quite clearly above, and having less than 2,000 mainspace edits is most certainly not the focal point of my discomfort. Getting livid with oppose voters certainly doesn't help the candidate either. VanTucky 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't state it clearly enoguh, that's why I'm asking.--Phoenix-wiki 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with VanTucky. Also, the fact that he has barely contributed to articles is worrying - eventually, you'll end up in an admin situation where a large amount of image work isn't going to help much. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (per Pedro, at 09:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    So? Admin action is rarely obligatory, a situation can often be left for another admin, or if urgent, mentioned on WP:AN. As an administrator, I can say I want more specialist admins, we can't do everything. Do you know how often I see some admin area and say 'I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft (3 m) pole'? Every time I read AN or AN/I. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - intelligent and rational enough, but scope of experience seems fairly narrow in focus. Achromatic (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Very good points made. Jmlk17 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per VanTucky's thoughtful comments. Plenty of potential -- just not ready yet. --A. B. (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements and per Van Tucky. Diversify a bit and try again in 3 months. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need this candidate to diversify? They have indicated that they would use their tools almost exclusively in relation to images, and they have the experience to back that up. If I'm hiring an accountant I don't end an interview with "Although your PhD in accounting is impressive, you can't make an omelette, nor are you licensed to drive a public bus. Please re-apply in a few months." RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you even get a PhD in accounting? And if you can, why would you want to? There should be an automatic prison sentence associated with it. Also, I agree. but badgering opposers is generally not a good idea as you know. Avruchtalk 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, obviously you can get a PhD in accounting. I don't really see RyanGerbil's comment as badgering. We have some essays, such as WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and WP:AAAD, that discourage some of the statements here. I'd certainly be interested in why Lawrence finds these essays to be unconvincing. I know Lawrence is a polite and reasonable editor, and I'm sure he'd be willing to explain why he disagrees with the fairly common sentiments of those essays. --JayHenry (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of LOL, I might badger less if I had done my laundry, I'm down to only my most uncomfortable underwear at the moment... 130.49.6.23 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just take a comfortable pair and turn them inside out. A nice pair of silk boxers is good for two days with this method. --JayHenry (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me, my internet browser is not doing to well lately. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all badgering opposers, but I note with interest that I comprehensively failed Lawrence's standards at the time I passed my RFA. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking all the opposes based on the criteria. There's a discussion on my talk page that I'll reply on, if anyone is interested, to not clog up the RFAs. Lawrence § t/e 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose insufficient experience in substantive WP matters. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful oppose I'm sorry, as you seem like a great (and experienced) editor, but your answer to question five seems to demonstrate lack of knowledge of what a ban actually is. A ban may be enforced with a block, thus not allowing a user to edit Wikipedia, but a ban in itself is merely a social construct; it technically does not prohibit a user from editing. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, with regrets. This candidate has great potential. Perhaps I can even talk myself into overlooking Melesse's almost complete absence of article-writing experience. However, her lack of edit summaries suggests that she doesn't understand certain basic WP procedures. She has just 85 user talk edits, which raises concerns over the candiate's experience with communicating and collaborating with other editors. Van Tucky makes an valid point on low participation rate in the Project namespace. And some of the candidate's answers don't inspire confidence: To be honest, I'm not sure what I could do if I were an admin that I can't do now as a regular user. I appreciate her contributions but feel that she'd be a much better admin if she took some time to acquire additional experience. Please don't take these comments as criticism, Melesse, and keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that just as a statement of modesty--she then proposes to explain just what she would do, which is delete the things that are left behind and need to be deleted, so the rest of us don't have to. She seems to actually knows very well what she will be doing. We need a few hundred people like this to become administrators. DGG (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very sensible comment, and I agree. --Iamunknown 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, sorry. Experience in project space is far below the least acceptable to infer aptitude for adminship. Húsönd 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose a little more experience would be desireable. Sf46 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry not enough mainspace experience. Polly (Parrot) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Given the nom's answers, I don't see a good reason for giving her/him the use of the tools. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Reluctant Neutral, leaning toward Support I'm sorry here, I really wanted to support. I'm leaning towards it because I know how badly we need image admins, but I am just a little bit worried about the full concentration on images. What I would recommend is waiting about two months, getting experience in other fields of the project in the meantime. Keep up the great work with the images, but also maybe drop in to WP:AN/WP:ANI once in a while, and write a DYK or two. Very best of luck, GlassCobra 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral GlassCobra said it so well that he might as well be my sockpuppet...or maybe I'm his? Regardless, I like what I see from this candidate, but it is still a little bit too soon. Trusilver 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral He is great a contributor as far is images is concerned but the number of Mainspace and WP contribs are quite low and would need more involvement in areas like WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:AFD.--JForget 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. neutral, leaning to oppose While I think there's a lack of experience in mainspace, I take the claims that we need more image working admins at face value, and withdraw my opposition in the absence of any indications of past behaviour that would cause concern. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I agree that their imagespace work is highly impressive, but the lack of experience in other fields are somewhat shabby. I believe the candidate can have a much more enriching experience if they choose to expand their horizons. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Impressive knowledge concerning the image policies. However, I don't feel confident about giving the tools to a candidate who considers WP:BLP "a really long policy with a lot of very different reasons to remove something". When asked a question directly related to a policy, even if you don't already know about it, you still need to take some time to read and understand the policy. When you are an admin, you cannot respond to questions outside your area of interests with a simple "I don't know", that gives the impression of irresponsibility, given that the policy is easily available for you to read. Answer to Q1 "I'm not sure what I could do if I were an admin that I can't do now as a regular user." is not satisfactory. Please familiarise yourself with the definition & technical abilities of an administrator, as it appears you're close to becoming one. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, I respond to question about policy in areas I am unfamiliar with by making a suggestion about where to ask or whom specifically to consult. I don't like to give advice about things I am not certain about--that might not give "an impression of irresponsibility"--but it would be actually irresponsible. DGG (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a similar approach, which is even noted on my userpage. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 31 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Melesse&oldid=1146518578"