Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moonriddengirl

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

Moonriddengirl

Final: (62/13/7); ended 00:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) - It is my privilege to nominate Moonriddengirl for adminship. Moonriddengirl has been with Wikipedia since April 2007 and has accumulated approx. 5800 edits. She is well familiar with Wikipedia policies through her XfD participations, reports of vandalism at WP:AIV, and citing policy and guidelines in policy and other discussions with editors. Her understanding of what should and should not be in the encyclopedia is evidence by her success at correctly tagging many pages under WP:CSD. She has been very active at the Help Desk, where her friendly demeanor works to give new editors a positive view of Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl has contributed extensively to a variety of articles and you can often find her providing footnotes to material posted and long forgotten by others. She further contributes to the encyclopedia content by addressing articles long tagged by others with various needs for improvement, such as through wikifying Steel River (band) or cleaning up Clean Clothes Campaign. As a trustworthy editor who understands policy, she will be an asset to the admin team. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. --Moonriddengirl 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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: I am an active recent changes patroller, and the tools would be useful to me in helping Wikipedia combat vandalism, both through protecting articles and blocking users as circumstances dictate and helping others on vandalism watch by assisting at administrator intervention against vandalism and requests for page protection. They would also be beneficial in my efforts to help to maintain the quality of articles through speedy deletions and proposed deletions. I have noticed that speedy deletions in particular can sometimes build up a back-log. I have recently begun helping out at Account Creation and would be able to provide more assistance there with admin tools than I can without them, particularly since 6 a day is my limit. I would also be able to help out at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests when clear need presents (for example if vandalism has been accidentally locked in or a BLP problem is present.)

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

A: I can think of a couple of articles that I've worked on that I've been proud of—most recently, List of Sabini. I've been Wikifying tagged articles, and it went from this to this. I think that's a major improvement, and I am proud of the hard work I put into it, especially since decoding the references was sometimes a challenge. I'm proud of my contribution to the quality of the project overall. I like seeing the length of the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles go down or the items needing work at [[Category:Wikify from x]] disappear. I like seeing an article posted in another language make it through translation and into relative good shape (like Elizabeth Azcona Bocock). I like pitching in to help clarify policy & cleaning up vandalism. Overall, though, I think my best contribution to Wikipedia is my patience. If it takes a few hours to clean up an article, I'm willing to give it that. And if I have to explain the same policy at the help desk three times in a single hour, I'm willing to do that, too.

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: Naturally, I've felt some stress. Print can be impersonal, and sometimes others can feel brusque and hostile even when they don't mean to be. I take deep breaths, remind myself to assume good faith, and do my best to thoroughly proof my own comments before I save them so that I don't accidentally escalate any tension. Although they're not universally appreciated, I frequently use emoticons in comments when I feel they may reinforce my intended tone and defuse hostility. Generally I have found that if you demonstrate respect for the other user and exercise basic diplomacy, conversations don't become too heated. As far as edit conflicts are concerned, I have not entered into any of those in the traditional sense, though I have had a few tousles with vandals. I try to be careful to discuss controversial changes (as distinct from reversing vandalism) before I make them.

Even if none of them is very stressful, could you give one or two examples of what you consider the most difficult, so we can see how you deal with them?DGG (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I almost missed seeing that question. :) I think the most intense conversation I've had has been at an overcategorization discussion, where I felt that my own good faith was being questioned. I pretty much followed my usual procedure with that one. The other most stressful encounter I had was with an editor who didn't respond to me at all. That would be Kingsjohn, who was overwriting one article with another. I tried assuming good faith with him and approaching him directly at Talk:Aswamedham and his own talk page User talk:Kingsjohn because his edits did not feel like traditional vandalism. I sought assistance at the help desk for dealing with him before finally determining that the escalating warnings might be the best way to proceed. --Moonriddengirl 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Iridescent

4. Your first edit is (to say the least) not a typical first edit. Did you formerly contribute under another name? — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I had forgotten that one. :) Moonriddengirl is my first registered account. Prior to that, I contributed occasionally as an IP editor--I'm not sure, but maybe a dozen times over a couple of years (give or take a half dozen). When I finally decided to register and get involved, I wasn't quite sure how I could best contribute, so I clicked "random article" until I came up with something that I thought I could help out. :) On my second day I found Wikipedia:Cleanup and that helped me get going a bit more systematically, although I kept that "random article" thing up for a while, too. --Moonriddengirl 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

5 Your chief quasi-administrative experience is with BLP; so please discuss your view of it. For example, does it forbid only "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons", or is there a penumbra, and if so, what? Please sketch how you would justify your position in an actual discussion; I don't ask you to fill the page, but I would like to see how you think about the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Outright forbidden in the policy aside from unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is the categorizing of individuals by sexuality or religion unless the subject has self-identified and the sexual orientation or religion is relevant to the subject's activities or public life. The policy also strongly cautions against other things, like giving too much weight to criticism or maligning a person through "guilt by association"--reporting on scandalous activities of an associate and implying the subject is involved. We're urged to remember the rule to "do no harm". Take for example the "Privacy of names." A week or so ago I removed the name of a minor child at the heart of a child support case whose conception was alleged to be the result of a sexual crime. (The child's name was included in an article about the case, but BLP extends to biographical information in other articles.) If I were explaining this in a BLP discussion, I would note that privacy concerns take into account whether the individual is him or herself private or public. Aside from the connection with this event, the child is a private individual, and while her name is included in court documents, it is not widely publicized by the press. The inclusion of the child's name is unnecessary to explain the nature and the precedent-setting impact of the case. It does not add anything of significance to the article, and its inclusion has the chance to cause the child real harm. In such cases, we're to "cover the event, not the person". --Moonriddengirl 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

5A And is this a good policy? How would you change this, if you could? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I think it's a good policy, although I do believe there's room for improvement. I'm currently working on a proposal to tweak it at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sexual_preference with the aim to clarify when it is appropriate to label a person's sexuality--as distinct from his or her sexual behavior. I believe that in order to place a label on a person's sexuality, that label must be self-professed. The example in the proposal as it currently stands is "It may be noted that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile"." Behavior is distinct from orientation. Take Larry Craig for example. The arrest and its consequences are noteworthy, but conclusions drawn from that would be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly optional question of a general nature (and of somewhat peripheral relevance)

6 What prompted you to contribute to wikipedia as an anon in the beginning? What prompted you later to "finally decide[d] to register and get involved", considering that you weren't "quite sure how [you] could best contribute"? And now, what prompts you to seek adminship? - TwoOars (Rev) 06:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Anon editing? Ignorance. :) When I first start contributing to wikipedia, I had no idea what I was doing. I saw a mistake in an article, noticed the "edit" tab and very tentatively checked to see if I could fix it. Fact-checking is part of my job, and Wikipedia is one of my desk-top tabs. It's a wonderful compendium of information & resources. Since I used it often, I occasionally noticed things that needed repair. I eventually decided to register for privacy concerns. I'm not very technological, so I'm not entirely sure why my IP address is better protected, but people kept telling me it was. :) I may not have known where best to contribute, but I felt strongly that I could. And once I started actively trying to contribute, I found out how much I enjoyed it. I didn't precisely seek adminship, but when it was proposed felt that I was ready. I have noticed the backlog on CSDs and more than once wished I could help out there--especially with attack pages. --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the IP of an anon editor is visible to anyone who looks at the edit history; Moonriddengirl's IP would take checkuser. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Krator

7 Most of your edits I have read were uncontroversial, and all follow policy. I wonder, if you would rephrase WP:IAR, or edit that page in general, what would you change? User:Krator (t c) 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A: I don't see the need to change anything. If the page were interpreted solely on its top part, it would contradict BLP & policies on copyright violations. We can't ignore rules that put us at actual odds with federal laws of the US, where Wikipedia exists as a physical entity, or the law of the State of Florida. But it incorporates by reference Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, which puts forth the necessary disclaimer: "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors." Freedom is what allows Wikipedia to evolve and grow. Flexibility with rules is essential to avoid bureaucracy, which is what leads to paying $17 for a paperclip. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Q Do you interpret IAR as just for dealing with exceptional circumstances, or more broadly as a general reason for necessary flexibility? How often would you use it in arguments? DGG (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A IAR is definitely not simply for exceptional circumstances. It's one of the core philosophies of the project. In brief, it's a reminder that the policies are there to support the project, not the other way around. In allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia not only assumes good faith, but also basic competence in its editors. This means trusting them to understand the purpose for policy and to realize that sometimes the best interests of the project require altering policy or permitting exceptions. I might invoke it if I felt somebody was insisting on the letter of a rule that violated the spirit of the rule. But invoking IAR is the beginning of the debate, not the end of it. Invoking it requires explaining why the project is best served by ignoring the rule, so I might just skip the invoking and get on with the explanation. :) (This is a fairly complex question & I'm trying to keep my answer succinct; if I've not been clear, please let me know.) --Moonriddengirl 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From the sentence "Invoking it requires explaining ...", I think you meant "But invoking IAR is the beginning of the debate ..." instead of "But IAR is the beginning of the debate." -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So tweaked. Thanks for letting me know it wasn't clear. Succinctness is not my strong point. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsuccinctness is, I feel, one of your strong points; never change clarity for brevity. LessHeard vanU 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Moonriddengirl: Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Moonriddengirl before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - as nominator. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support She has solid edit count - and highly trust this user, and the nom! Pat^{Politics rule!} 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   "He"? Surely the clue's in the name — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. EC Support, great contributor, would make an excellent admin. And by the way Pat, I think "he's" a she. :) — Malcolm (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support I overlap a fair bit with MRG so run into her quite often, and have always been impressed. I've never seen a "per nom" from her, and she takes the trouble to do the dirty work of digging out and adding sources on articles that look like they're going to the wall, which IMO is A Good Thing. Although her username may prompt a repeat of the single silliest comment I've ever seen on an RFA — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Smart editor, writes for consensus, and willing to take the time to 'do the heavy lifting' to make an article consensus-worthy. Good candidate and kudos to Jreferee for nominating her. Ossified 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
6. the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I thought you were an admin already. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support no concerns after seeing track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - this is one of those occasions where the edit count doesn't do justice to the editor. Contributions have been consistently thoughtful and detailed, and interaction with other editors is uniformly civil. Involvement on WP pages demonstrates a good understanding of policy and nothing that I can see to suggest tools will be misused. Euryalus 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - seems to have a good record, very deserving user --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per Ossified. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support I seen Moonriddengirl around a lot. She will make an excellent administrator. Acalamari 01:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
13. STRONG Support That was a very impresive first edit. Civil, helpful, nuanced, good critical thinking talk edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Switched to strong, question 5. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Support. I've run into you in several places and thought well of you. A longer look at your contributions satisfies me that you have the right mix of caution, dedication and good sense. Thus, I believe giving you the extra buttons would benefit WP.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - I don't see why this user would kill wikipedia with the mop. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, no concerns about level of experience. After reviewing her contributions, I would trust with the mop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I do not have any concerns about this users time registered. I trust the record built in that time. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. Glad to give my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Sure the user has only been around a few months, but she actually went to the effort of reading all the wikipedia policies, and hence edits like a pro. That's dedication, and I see no reason why she wouldn't make a great admin. Recurring dreams 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. I looked into Moonriddengirl's talk page archives (1 and 2) and found that she's a very helpful and patient editor when dealing with others. In her Wikipedia namespace contributions, I saw lots of edits to the help desk, village pumps, and XfD's, and a few reports to AIV. Randomly choosing diffs for closer inspection, I saw that her answers to questions were spot on, and points made in deletion discussions were good points. I admit I didn't look through all of her reports to AIV, but I found no errors in those reports that I did look through. She demonstrates to me that she has a good understanding of policy, and I have absolutely no concerns that Moonriddengirl would misuse or abuse the tools. WODUP 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
22. I am willing to support even at three month's active editing with diffs like these -- Y not? 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
23. A pleasure to work with... some people just get how to interact with others in a productive way on Wikipedia, and this candidate seems like one of the. I understand the experience objections, but we've promoted similar candidates with the same short-at-a-glance experience time, but equal promise... and it's not really been one of the situations that's proven to produce bad admins. One that really pops to mind is Quarl (talk · contribs)... hardly a notorious rouge admin, huh? --W.marsh 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support because although my only interaction with her was an argument (surprise, surprise) she was intelligent, calm and polite throughout, exactly the attributes an admin needs. She has enough experience on wikipedia to have demonstrated the qualities and knowledge which are required of admins. Unlike the girl in the poem she isn't turbulent and she is kind and that's just the kind of person wikipedia needs. Nick mallory 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
25. No major experience concerns here, plenty of edits to WP:AIV, WP:BLPN and the help desk. This sort of helpful behaviour is what I look for in an admin. Melsaran (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Strong Support. Great editor with contributions in a variety of areas. Walton^One 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support concerns about inexperience are overblown. Wikipedia is not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, looks like a good editor, experience seems perfectly adequate to me. Everyking 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support -- I see no issues which imply that this user will exercise the tools in anything but an intelligent and even-handed manner. Concerns in the opposition section have nothing to do with the use of admin tools, which is the only important metric. As has been said, Wikipedia is not rocket science, and everyone should have tools if they won't abuse them. --Haemo 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Good, solid user. The issue of inexperience does not concern me much in this case. GDonato (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Strong Support because granting her access to admin tools will undoubtedly improve the encyclopedia. She is hard-working and intelligent. She is also friendly and approachable and excels at explaining policy and conventions to others. She is doing all the right things so let's help her to help the project. (note: I am a newish user) Best regards --TreeKittens 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support This editor has a knowledge of policy, has plenty of edits, and is friendly. These are good qualities to have if you are going to be an admin. You should at least have an idea of policy and be friendly most of the time. I feel as if this user not only has an idea of what our policies are, but actual knows policy very well, and is very friendly. The only problem I have is that she has not been active here that long. That is not enough of a reason to oppose her though. good luck!--SJP 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support I though you were an admin! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong support. She is an excellent editor, almost always uses summaries, works on a variety of projects, knows and respects the rules, and remains calm in discussions, especially on controversial matters (see Talk:Ted Nugent). All of those point to a great admin. Bearian 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Only problem is very few projectspace edits. Other than that, go for it! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. An experienced Wikipedian. The experience at WP:HELPDESK is a plus. --Sharkface217 00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
37. I've stumbled upon you're contributions many a atime, I've heard about you, and you're edit history looks good. Yamakiri 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - there is enough experience for me in each namespace. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - I don't see anything wrong. User is, from what I have read in and around Wikipedia, a generally nice and trustworthy person. Scarian^Talk 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Appears to know policy and the workings around Wikipedia; well thought out explanations at the help desk and an abundance of caution (AfD even when others might try speedy) convinced me she's an excellent choice for the tools. Shell ^babelfish 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support She is nice to other users. Sweet Winged One 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support I've been looking through the contributions of Moonriddengirl (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moonriddengirl, where I've placed some random diffs generated by my edit counter); in contrast to the concerns about experience I see in the 'oppose' section, this user seems to have a better grasp of the areas in which she often contributes (such as AfD) than many higher edit-count or longer-since-first-edit users. Likewise, there seems to be a lot more article-editing going on than with many admins (compare her last 1000 edits to mine when I ran for adminship, for instance); I don't take article-editing into account when deciding on RfA opinions, unless it shows misunderstandings of policy, but it appears to be better than many other users' and I don't understand why the candidate is being opposed for it. One major risk with inexperience in an admin candidate is misusing the tools and screwing everything up, but I don't think there's much of a risk of that based on the track record. (Oh, and my usual caution to WP:ACC regulars who run for adminship: you need to make a non-admin alternate account to go on checking username similarity, as if an admin tries to create a username it succeeds even if a similar username exists. You probably know this already, but I'm just mentioning this to be sure.) --ais523 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support John254 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Knowledgeable and civil participant in the wikification drive. Administrative tools would assist her in higher-level article maintenance tasks – e.g., AfD, vandal blocking. – Liveste 08:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - when we consider the relatively little experience this user has in terms of months active, I have to admit a real, real lot has been achieved. Well done! Lradrama 08:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support: Exhibits sufficient familiarity, consistency and professionalism to withstand concerns of "lack of experience" ... which seems adequate if not extraordinary. Moreover, no obvious evidence to question trustworthiness. dr.ef.tymac 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Strong contributor. Has done lots of vandal patrol and work on AfD. Skills, knowledge and dedication are evident. Sunray 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Yeah, she's fine. WilyD 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - Consistent professionalism and continuous civility. Edits at WP:HELPDESK are also a noted plus. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support More edits to mainspace talk would be nice, but certainly an experienced and responsible editor. Mbisanz 06:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Slade (TheJoker) 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. I agree: more edits to mainspace (by way of substantive article development) would be good, for the reason that many of the issues you as an admin will be called upon to make decisions about will come out of in-depth, practical knowledge of how policy applies to what people are actually writing in articles; & the best way to get a sense of that is by experience. Same goes for in-depth conversation on article talk pages. I would have voted neutral on these grounds; what teetered me over to "support" however, was your participation in this discussion at Tim LaHaye. Please do spend more time in mainspace; but if this is an indication of how you'll do there, then you're well on your way. I think you'll make a fine admin. --Yksin 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Has contributed extensively, I believe this user can be a great admin. Phgao 10:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. This editor is adequatly prepared to begin work as an administrator. I am particularly impressed by her calmness and her effort to seek consensus even in the face of difficult discussions. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Good (although brief) interaction - pops up often on my watched pages, but rarely have needed to discuss contributions. Also, impressive responses to optional questions. LessHeard vanU 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support I also thought this user was an admin already. I patrol recent changes too and this user beats me all the time. Also checked the contributions and everything seems to be in place. Kudret abi 08:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Most opposes are on "lack of experience". A few thousand edits is not enough when there seems no other reason to oppose? This is as silly as "no need for the tools".Sumoeagle179 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support per nom. Marlith ^T/C 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Great edit record, wide range of editing, and good mainspace edits. She has also helped me along quite a bit. I would be glad if she got adminship. Laleena 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
61. Strong Support Your response to how you would handle disputes is what got my vote! :) Icestorm815 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support per nom. I have yet to see a contribution of hers that doesn't show that thought went into it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose. While the candidate is doing good work here, I don't see solid encyclopedia-building credentials. Can you show us some better examples of you contributions to improve encyclopedia articles? Whether your RfA passes or not, I advise that you pick two or three articles and take them to the next level. Majoreditor 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some further checking and just found an article the candidate improved somewhat. I don't see strong enough evidence to support this RfA, but I won't oppose it. Best,Majoreditor 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving encyclopedia articles. Hmm. There's Machalilla, which looked like this when I found it. There's Clean Clothes Campaign, which looked like this. A few days ago, I took on wikifying List of 2006 human rights incidents in Egypt, which looked like this (the big change there is in going inline & checking references, but I kind of do see that as improving the article). Recently my contributions to article space have been in wikifying & creating new articles for the WikiProject albums, but in the latter I have created a few. An example or two: Stepping Out of Line: The Anthology and Rattlesnakes (album). Many of the articles I'm creating from the requested list are quite old and don't have as much material for expansion as those two did. I recently created the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act while discussing an AfD, but it's been changed a good bit today. Oh, and I would like to add List of Sabini, even though I mentioned it above. That one took quite a few hours out of my life. :)--Moonriddengirl 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Good editor, but the experience is not quite there yet. Jmlk17 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose Inexperienced. (Wikimachine 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
3. Great editor, but I prefer to see some more time. I was considering asking you about a nomination maybe next month or so, actually. I can't say with full confidence that you're entirely ready now. Nothing personal - I just feel that candidates who wait understand the inner workings better than the ones who don't. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   This RfA ends September 18th and it is typical that an unsuccessful RfA candidate wait three months before trying again. Do you think she needs to wait until December to be ready to be an admin? In reality, that is what you are asking her to do. Moonriddengirl now has a solid, consistent effort of contribution to the project in a variety of areas. In dealing with recent changes, vandals, speedy deletes, etc., she has dealt with a variety of issues in which the tools would be of value to help her continue her work. There is no question of her trustworthiness. It is true that the more time anyone puts into Wikipedia, the more experience they gain. But I do not think it fair to ask her to wait until December when she now is ready for adminship. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Fair to who, J? She will be administrating for the community and for the encyclopedia, not for herself. The bit's not something anyone 'deserves'. I do not believe she is entirely ready currently. She's definitely on the right track though. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   It seemed to me that you were asking her to mark time when she now is ready to administer for the community and the encyclopedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. In the face of the frantic support, I feel I have to play the party-pooper and contribute to evening this out a bit. I do agree that the candidate is very much on the right way, but two and a half months of serious editing is simply too short, even in a clear-cut case of near-future admin material. —ˈaldǝˌbæʁ 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I've seen some comments in XfDs that suggest inexperience -- nothing glaring, but the sum of my personal experience with this editor tells me that a little more time will do wonders. Xoloz 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Experience concerns. They have edited less than 200 edits in the first 3 months. It is very hard for anyone to be familiar w/ all the administrative environment in less than 3 months (July to now). It is just not the right time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Whoa - lack of experience! I doubt this user will abuse the tools, but again they just cant be familiar with what being a sysop entails. --Ben^chat 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Lack of article writing. And, I am not quite sure that this candidate knows the core policies. Patience is a good thing, and I do admit, every administrator need patience. But, that's not the only quality that he or she needs to have. However, I do agree that the user needs more time. For example, this question about reliable sources concerning a major Canadian Network. Miranda 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   • I do feel the need to point out that that question was actually defending the source to the editor to whom I was responding, who asserted in the comment above that "I've looked through the history and this page has never had a reliable source." I asked "Is this not a reliable source?" The entire conversation here, for context. (That editor had tagged the article, Clifford Olson, for delete as unsourced.) --Moonriddengirl 11:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for clearing that up, however, I still have to oppose for now due to inexperience. Miranda 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Not enough experience, particularly in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Bad user. She doesn't deserve to be the administrator. The Bully Boy 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   Don't suppose you could tell us why, given this is your 12th edit and not one of them has had anything to do with the user? Neil ム 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   A BAD comment from a troll who likes bullying people while being busy in real life. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   P.S. Blocked indef as a Vandalism-only account. You can disregard his trolling up there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've indented the oppose, now that he's been indefinitely blocked, and because it's not a good-faith oppose. Acalamari 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose for inexperience, by which I do not mean edit count. This editor has only been editing since April, and seems to have been caught up in the "BLP will cure everything; let's have some policy creep" enthusiasm. She should wait until she has seen this wave come and go, and (more importantly) have more experience in other areas of Wikipedia space, so she sees how much BLP is exceptional, and understands the case for limiting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Sorry, general experience concerns, especially in mainspace (which I feel is required because we are an encyclopedia and every administrator action in some way links back to our content). Daniel 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now. Regardless of the opinion on actual specific matters, i think the approach of using IAR as a basic first approach to discussions and proceeding from there is asking for chaos. I think it shows inexperience, and hope that the desirability of following some agreed-upon standards will be recognized in the future. I think the actual work to the present is promising, but i do not yet trust with the delete button, or to close debates DGG (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I respect your right to your opinion, but believe that you may have misjudged my response. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly; as I said, it was a complex question, and I was attempting to be succinct. While IAR is connected to the 5th pillar and thus is an essential part of Wikipedia philosophy, I certainly didn't mean to imply that it is my basic first approach to discussions. You asked how often I might invoke it. I indicated that "I might invoke it if I felt somebody was insisting on the letter of a rule that violated the spirit of the rule" and went on to indicate that I'd more likely just explain the problem rather than invoking it all. The closest I have ever come to invoking it is in advising a new editor to be bold, and I followed that with qualifications. :) I would imagine my willingness to follow agreed-upon standards would be evident in my proposal to BLP (and its related proposal at Village pump), in my proposal at Overcategorization, in my extensive contributions to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines and in my conversations at CVU. In offering a third opinion at Talk:List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, I advised waiting to ensure consensus an additional several days five days after one of the editors involved had made his last comment. If anything, I am probably too circumspect--see "Clarification_re_the_revision_on__A5". --Moonriddengirl 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose: I have had mostly positive dealings with this user, but they seemed inexperienced in all of those interactions. If you continue to improve, you should get my support next time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My brief interaction with the user has confirmed me that the user portrays great dedication towards the project and knowledge, but I'm wondering your overall time in Wikipedia. Yes, you've been with the project for 6 months, but only relatively active since July 2007 (5,500 in 2 1/2 months?). You also show a lot of knowledge on policies and guidelines, which makes we wonder if you previously edited under a different username, where/are involved in another wikimedia project, or if you simply acquired all that experience in such a short amount of time. Iridescent has already asked a similar question. I'll withhold my support/oppose until these concerns are addressed. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'll be happy to answer your questions if the above does not satisfy. Short form: no other wikimedia projects. I spent a good bit of time when I first arrived reading policies, because I didn't want to mess up. (And, yet, somehow it still happens...I just accidentally undid all my work trying to pull up the diff on the Egyptian Civil Rights article.) As I became more confident, I began doing more, reading less. And, yes, a lot of edits. Not to endanger my secret identity, but I work from home, and I spend a lot of time waiting for documents to come in the mail. Also, I type 90 wpm. And I use Twinkle. :) --Moonriddengirl 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Ditto. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi Jossi. Q4 asked about her first edit. There are telling signs from Moonriddengirl's first edit that she acquired her experience since she has been here. She did not use <ref></ref> to post her footnotes. She did not use * when placing her reference list and instead used double returns, which is typical of new users. Her initial posts appears to be from someone who used a computer to write and source documents, but not particularly using Wiki markup. Another telling sign is her even temperament. If she previously edited under a different username with a bad experience, that would have shown up in her present efforts. She is as genuine and knowledgeable as she now comes across and will not abuse the tools. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Solid contributions so far; however, only around 2 or 3 months of consistent editing suggest that the editor has insufficient experience for the admin role at this time. Espresso Addict 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Something doesn't seem right. Opposing would be too much though. Could just be the lack of experience, no real concerns. Keeps my theory about female RFA candidates doing better on average true, though. Neil ム 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   You do know this is the internet — anyone calling themselves "girl" is likely to be a large hairy man... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   There goes the "large hairy man masquerading as a girl" constituency! Ossified 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral What she's done, she's generally done well: good RC patrolling and getting to consensus or proposing reasonable things at Afd. But only 3 months of regular editing without a huge number of article edits makes it hard to believe that she has sufficient experiential-based judgment (which may really deviate from all our written policies and guidelines). I don't lack trust in her abusing the tools, so I won't oppose, but I think that a few more months of editing - articles as well as wikispace - would really make her a great candidate. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I agree with the previous neutrals. Continue on the same track you're on now and I'll support the next time around. LaraLove♥ 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. I concur - not ready yet, but will almost certainly be in a few months' time. Neutral. DS 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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.