Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nancy

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.

Nancy[edit]

Final (61/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gents it is my pleasure to nominate Nancy for adminship. A Wikipedian since June of last year she has made some 4,500 edits (for those that like to count 'em!) as well as some 915 deleted edits should anyone have concerns of experience based on editcount. So, the rationale;

Encyclopedia Building

  • Nancy has created 12 new articles since her time with us, all well referenced and across a diversity of subjects
  • User and Article talk page contributions show a desire to collaborate to improve the project
  • Many gnomish contributions, such as tidying articles and sorting re-directs

Maintenance

House Keeping

  • Clean block log
  • Sensible user and talk pages
  • A civil and thoughtful user
  • Edit summary use 100% since her first few edits
  • E-mail enabled

All, as ever, I would never nominate unless I believed that a net positive awaited us by granting Nancy the +sysop bit. She has prooved herself a knowledgable, civil and cautious user, who would put the tools to great use. I hope that the community find themselves in agreeance with this proposed course of action. Pedro :  Chat  08:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted and deepest thanks extended to Pedro for his kind and thorough nomination rationale. nancy (talk) 19:34, 30 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: Initially none – if my candidacy is successful I intend to take some time to understand the mechanics (and the power) of the new buttons in order to ensure that when I do use them it is in a considered, accurate and appropriate manner. Then… to start with I should like to help out at WP:SPLICE as well as keeping an eye on places where there are often backlogs such as WP:CSD (particularly copyvios and attack pages) and WP:AIV. I have spent some time at WP:AFD both as a nominator and a !voter and in time I would look to make closures, probably starting with the glaringly obvious but fully expect to be tackling the more problematic ones in a while. I’m still finding new bits of Wikipedia to participate in (as my slightly eclectic edit history shows) and have no doubt that that will continue.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Whilst the vandal fighting and wikignome work is important (indeed vital if Wikipedia is to achieve its aims) and is something that I enjoy, I would say that my ‘best’ contributions have been the articles I have initiated. Firstly because if I hadn’t done it they (probably) wouldn’t exist at all (well not yet anyway) and secondly because building an encyclopaedia is what we are all here for. The creation of Touchen End was my very first ever edit so I have a sentimental attachment to that particular article and the others I would single out are Cannons (house) (which I hope in time will be my first FA – please do drop by if you want to help) and Wherry Albion.
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: Have I been in any conflicts over editing? Not really, well not beyond what you would expect when on new page/recent changes patrol. I would describe myself as stoical and pragmatic; I believe that life is too short to get wound up by other people and that fighting fire with fire is a short-term, non-productive and potentially damaging strategy. I always try to stay calm, considered and friendly in my interactions and to keep them focussed on the issue at hand (although sometimes deflecting the issue to take the heat out of a situation works just as well). I am also not adverse to ignoring and moving on.

Questions from Avruch

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

A block is a software enforced restriction on editing which applies across all pages on the project with the exception of the blockee’s userpages. A block can be applied to a user or to an IP address and may be of various time periods (often escalating in length) from a few hours to “cool off” or in extreme cases of persistent vandals, indefinite.
A ban cannot be enforced by the software as it may be against a person (as opposed to a particular user account) or it may only apply to certain areas of the project. Bans therefore rely on compliance from the user to steer clear of certain pages or in the case of total bans, not to create a sock to circumvent any supporting blocks that may be in place. As with blocks they can be of varying lengths.

5. 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?

Not sure that the fact that the other user is an administrator is relevant here as this is something any editor could have done. I would approach this as I would approach any other contentious difference of opinion over content which would be to engage the other editor in a dialogue, try to understand their reasoning and enter in to a debate, hopefully ending in agreement one way or the other. It goes without saying (but I’m going to say it anyway) that WP:BLP is a most important and sensitive area so I would always err on the side of caution - it would have to be something pretty cut and dried for me to even think about trying to get the editor to revert in the first place.

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

If this RfA is successful, adding myself to the recall category will probably be my first edit as an admin. Administrators are given the mop because a consensus has been reached that they can be trusted with it. If in the future there are doubts that the consensus still exists then it should be tested and if necessary the mop should go back in the cupboard.

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

Given the likely areas that I will be working in the policy groups which will be initially the most important for me are deletion policies (WP:CSD and WP:DEL in particular) and copyright policy. I have pretty thorough knowledge and understanding of these already as I have done new page patrol almost since the day I joined the project and I am aware that as an admin I would be expected to be 100% sure that my reasons for agreeing to deletion (or for declining a deletion request) were consistent with policy. I have singled these few policies out but having just looked at the list of policies I would struggle to name any which wouldn’t be crucial in one way or another - you never know what circumstances you are going to find yourself in.

Question from XENON54 | talk | who?

  • 8. You come across the following articles that are tagged for speedy deletion. Do you delete them?
A recreation of a PROD-ed article, tagged as G4.
A: Decline and suggest that it is taken to AfD as G4 only applies if the article has been deleted as a result of an AfD.
"Bob is a guy from Regina, Saskatchewan. He likes the Calgary Flames. Idiot." (A1)
A: There is plenty of context here so A1 does not apply. However I would consider deleting per A7 (notability) or G10 (attack).
"A solution is saturated when any solute that is added to it ends up as precipitate." (A5, as dicdef)
A: Depends what the title of the article was as redirect might be more appropriate e.g. to Solution or Saturation (chemistry) or Precipitation (chemistry).
"Bold textAdrien monkey is A wel-know dectcetiev. he ha solvd 974 caes sinc join the polizei in ninten 93." (G1)
A: This is not unsalvageable and a G1 does not apply. It would take thirty seconds for any editor to change it to
Adrien Monkey is a detective who has solved 974 cases since joining the police in 1993.
Notability is asserted however I don’t know enough about policing to judge if 974 crimes in 15 years is a notable achievement but regardless I would google both “Adrien Monkey” and “Adrian Monkey” and see what came up – if there was nothing I would PROD as a hoax.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I must say, I am impressed with what Nancy did at Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich - not many people, it seems, clean up a to-be-deleted article, but instead just delete it. I don't have time to look through Nancy's other contributions, but if the rest are like this, then go right on ahead and become an administrator.  :-) --Iamunknown 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support Per my great nomination. :) Pedro :  Chat  19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I was ambivalent about the candidate, but the high-quality nomination was what sold me on the benefits of their adminship. In all honesty, a good contributor with whom I have no reservations as to their conduct as an admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per highly persuasive nom statement. Dlohcierekim 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Comment (supportive) I'm not suficiently acquainted with Nancy's work, but I wish to note that my first (and so far only) use of my Barnstar "Conceding a point" was for her. I still need to fix up the graphics. But anyway she has at least provided a definite example of something I consider important towards consensus-building, ethical disputation. (I'm trying to do something constructive about the morass of nonconstructive, eristic, contentious rhetoric.) Pete St.John (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Yeah, whatever. No problems here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Very good editor. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I like what I see. Jmlk17 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per Pedro's analysis. The Transhumanist 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with SlimVirgin. Acalamari 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per answer to questions. Avruchtalk 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Solid answers, and I trust Pedro's judgment. :) GlassCobra 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good things will be done. Timmeh! 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. This editor knows what she's doing; plenty of experience in all the right places. Useight (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support with suggestion for Cannons (house), you might want to use this tool for citations, if you want to make this article a GA, or perhaps an FA. Cheers. miranda 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - deserves the sysop bit.   jj137 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Very good answers to the questions. RMHED (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great contributer. SpencerT♦C 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good candidate. VanTucky 03:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - works for me. - Philippe | Talk 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support: This user has made come great contributions to Wikipedia, and I have no reason to oppose. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. — DarkFalls talk 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Track is okay over 2400 mainspace edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per everything but Pedro's nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Great track record. Excellent answers. Axl (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - clearly a great candidate. Wonderful answers to questions, Nancy! Good job! ScarianCall me Pat 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Looks good. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. No problems with this candidate. Nancy is a solid contributor and seems to work well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Was going to oppose, but then I read Pedro's incredibly persuasive "Support" argument. After something that incredible...how could I say no? Gromlakh (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :) Pedro :  Chat  16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Candidate is especially capable in AIV. Rudget. 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Seduced Persuaded by Pedro's prose :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - for reasons above RT | Talk 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - no concerns here. Good answers to questions! XENON54 | talk | who? 20:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Seems very sensible. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support a strong candidate, which will make a fine admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support "stoical and pragmatic" are ideal qualities for an admin, and there is a great breadth of experience here. No qualms at all. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very nice indeed :) RedZionX 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support -- @pple complain 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Excellent candidate, will certainly be great as an admin. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support She has made some fine contributions. I think she will do a fine job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support yes. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Nancy impressed me with her (many) swift reverts of vandalism over at Bread clip, so I'm pleased to support her here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. This user has enough experience, and has not done anything that indicates that she will abuse the tools.--SJP (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 45th support Excellent candidate, hope I don't run into edit conflict. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - she didn't speedy tag Drumahoe ;-) Seriously though, I see no reason to deny the tools. EJF (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Checked out the deleted contributions and it basically a variety of nominations (Prod's, AFD's and CSD's along with some image deletion proposals here and there). Will be a good admin as far as deletions is concernedJForget 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support — xDanielx T/C\R 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Should make good use of the tools. Jayjg (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support enough experience to do the sysop work. Polly (Parrot) 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support a good candidate --Stephen 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - good answers to the questions. Should be just great! - Alison ❤ 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - very good candidate with very good answers to the questions. - Neparis (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Slade (TheJoker) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support No doubts here. Good luck! нмŵוτнτ 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support. Of course, she meets all my standards in edit count, etc., but also because she saves articles and creates new ones across various fields. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support: An asset to the Project. --Bhadani (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Passes Level 2 of my criteria. Also, they look to be a remarkably able editor regardless of 900 odd deleted contribs. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - good answers to questions, good contributions generally. Merits the mop, in my view. gb (t, c) 13:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, looks like a great candidate. krimpet✽ 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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/Nancy&oldid=1140379523"