Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Espresso Addict

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.

Espresso Addict[edit]

Final (60/0/1); Originally scheduled to end 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk · contribs) - Espresso Addict is a calm and approachable editor who is particularly active in AfD, "Did You Know" and categorisation. She has created over 100 articles and is an expert and knowledgeable copy-editor. I've known her on Wiki for over a year and she has always been a very helpful collaborator. I have no doubt that she would use admin tools responsibly and carefully. An excellent editor and a genuinely nice person. Tim Vickers 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first edited Wikipedia some time early in 2006, and found it highly addictive, although I didn't get an account for a few months. For those who bother about numbers, I've amassed almost 5500 logged-in edits since then, with around 50% being in mainspace. I should probably mention that I took a partial Wikibreak from November till July of this year, after injuring my back. I spent many months lying staring at the ceiling, which made using a computer physically difficult and tended to exacerbate the inevitable stresses involved in editing. I feel that the time away and discussions with non-Wikipedians have given me a better perspective on the project, which has made my editing stronger.

Although my main experience lies in article writing and editing, I've taken on repetitive tasks such as assessing articles for the recent Biography Assessment Drive and the Cheshire WikiProject. I take a considered approach to editing, weighing carefully the effect of my edits not only on the article but also on other editors. I believe that editors are the most precious resource this project has, and I try to bear this in mind in all my interactions with others. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (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: Being entirely honest I doubt I'll ever be the most active admin on the project. My recent work updating the template for Did You Know? relies on an admin to upload it to the main page, and as it's often backlogged that's one place I would see myself starting. I'm also experienced at AfD, and I would begin to determine consensus and close discussions, starting with cases where I had no strong personal feelings. Beyond those areas I would take it very slowly. I have a background in publishing, so investigating textual copyright infringements would seem a natural extension, although I haven't done much in this area of the project to date. I'd also like to get involved with mentoring new editors who share my focus on article creation and editing, though I'm aware that I don't need the tools to do this.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created over a hundred articles on topics from science and medicine to local geography. A sample of my favourites might include William Gaskell, a prominent Unitarian minister and educationalist; Richard Partridge, a surgeon best known for missing a bullet in Garibaldi's leg; bovine papillomavirus, a model for cancer caused by papillomaviruses; and Churche's Mansion, a half-timbered Elizabethan building that was one of the few survivors of the Great Fire of Nantwich. A good example of my collaborative work would be Peak District, which has been a long labour of love for several editors attempting to give England's first National Park the quality of article it deserves. I spend a fair amount of time copy editing articles, often by editors whose first language isn't English, and trying to find sources. I'm also always pleased when my research helps to save a notable topic from deletion at AfD.
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: It's impossible to avoid conflict in a large collaborative project where everyone brings different experiences. I always discuss problematic issues on talk pages, and try to be proactive in bringing issues to the talk page before any conflict develops. Usually, I've found, differences in opinion can be resolved amicably in this way, calling on other interested editors if necessary via the WikiProjects. On one occasion, however, an editor repeatedly added a couple of examples to fan fiction that I believed to be unnecessary (eg [1] & see Talk:Fan fiction#Links/ref to Hardy Boys & Tom Swift) and I wasn't able to find any consensus among other editors to the page. After a few rounds of reverts and an obvious solidifying of our respective opinions, I had to walk away. There's always another 2 million articles to edit, after all.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support - No concerns. I believe this user would not abuse the tools, and also seems to be quite experienced with Afd. --Hirohisat Kiwi 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support out of the gate, glad I watchlisted this and very glad that EA accepted the nom. A trustworthy, thoughtful and reliable user who will make fine use of the mop. ~Eliz81(C) 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support known to me for a while now. Useful, consistent, thoughtful editor. Can definitely be trusted with the tools --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support will be an even bigger asset w/ the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. We need more caffeine-addicted admins who can stay up late. Melsaran (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I saw EA was approached with the idea of becoming an admin, and I'm very happy to see that a nomination has now been made. I wholeheartedly support this nomination, as I have been impressed with EA's work so far, and think it would be further enhanced on becoming an admin.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support — finally; someone with satisfying contribs. Comments like this, this, and this (to name a few) are exactly what everyone should do at AfD. Good work, man! --Agüeybaná 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I am happy to give my support to this user. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Wow the contributions of this user are impressive, and I especially like the fact that she values editors and subsequently deals with all in a friendly manner. Phgao 13:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Definitely a good user and definitely one that should have adminship. Captain panda 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support —[[Animum | talk]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Y not? 14:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Surprised I haven't run into you before. Looks good — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good user, good contribs. GDonato (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, Christ, I go to bed for a few hours and you guys all pile in before I'm ready. Typical. Tim Vickers 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go and nominate a Brit, you have to expect us all to start partying before you get up ;) Espresso Addict 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good editor. Marlith T/C 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Solid participation in Wiki-related pages particularly the WikiProjects, Afd's and editor review pages (being several being among the top Wikipedia edited pages by this user).--JForget 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support This is a great editor. Someone I would have nominated, and I never nominate anybody. --JayHenry 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support A strong candidate with valuable contributions. VanTucky Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Have had good interaction(s) with this user. Jmlk17 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Tim Vickers. — [ aldebaer⁠] 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. the_undertow talk 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Crap, I was going to nom and completely forgot...sorry mate, but you have my strongest support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Well, my head's spinning. Why, you may ask? Because for the first time in awhile, after going through someone's edit summary, talk page entries, and such, I can't find a reason at all to oppose. (And I love the fact that her first talk page edit included a reference citing where she retreived her information.) Everyone's human, of course. But this person is such a natural at WP:EQ, that I don't think she even has to try. I guess it's just nice to see considering how much faux civility we may encounter. I'm pleased to support for admin, and really hope she goes into dispute resolution : ) - jc37 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support (yay Cheshire) - no problems as far as I can see. Neil ム 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I think she has done a great job. Creating over 100 articles is not a joke. RS1900 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, really no reason not to be an admin. Wizardman 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - good enough for me. - Philippe | Talk 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Lots of good work creating new articles and at AfD. Bearian 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. No problem. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support have seen this editor at Afd's - knows what she's doing and can be trusted. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Excellent mainspace work (and I do mean excellent), excellent AfD work, and I completely trust the nominator's opinion :) You'll make a top-notch admin; I just hope the mop and bucket won't lead you away from article work, which would be a shame. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. An excellent editor whom I trust.--ragesoss 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Long live DYK Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Very much appreciate the answer to question one. LaraLove 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, Tim Vickers' nominee. @pple complain 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Great you are back and contributing after a back injury and your track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - sensible and good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Like the below mentioned User:Matthew Richardson, I am also concerned about talk page participation by admin candidates. This user has about a .3 article talk to article ratio. More discussion generally leads to less use of admin tools. --Rocksanddirt 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - per nom Bigglovetalk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support an excellent, conscientious, reliable editor, with a devotion to quality. DGG (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support quality editors make for quality admins. — Zerida 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - this user is just about ready. I think enough experience has been gathered in the correct areas now. Lradrama 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support A year is long enough, as long as the user appreciates that there's lots to learn in the first few months as an admin. "Espresso Addict is a calm... editor" does seem a bit of an oxymoron though ;) --Pretty Green 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. M.(er) 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No concerns. ♠TomasBat 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, Húsönd 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support no problems. Sarah 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I don't see any problems, the editor seems experianced enough and doesn't seem like one to abuse the tools. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. A fine user who will make good use of the tools. Acalamari 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per nom. Ronnotel 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support A productive, highly literate, even-tempered and constructive editor is being considered for admin? What a tough call. Guess I'll go along with the crowd. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Known him for awhile. Has what it takes to be an admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support anybody addicted to coffee will make a good admin ;) um, that is, never seen this editor but the oppose votes are poorly constructed and there is really no reason not to support. :) Good luck. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:60. -- Jreferee T/C 07:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Oppose. Fails my criteria. Matthew Richardson 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked. Wizardman 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no exact edit count in any space required for adminship. Saying a candidate must have "40 edits" in any arena is unacceptable, but is especially so when considering you require 40 Category edits. I humbly suggest you base further RFA judgements on the criteria which have been vetted by the community at large. VanTucky Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict:) It is my opinion that Category Talk edits are crucial in the RFA process. Just like other people say that you need to have X edits to counter-vandalism areas, or X edits to deletion discussions. Feel free to disagree with me, but respect my opinion. Matthew Richardson 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing based on an exact number of required edits in any area is not something I have seen any !voter do but yourself. Suggesting someone needs more edits and experience in a particular realm is not the same as an arbitrary number which must be exceeded. VanTucky Talk 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, then I say: this candidate has only nine edits in the Category space and four edits in the Category Talk space, and therefore I believe that he may need a little more experience in this area in order to become an admin. Happy now? Matthew Richardson 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been an admin for a year and I still only have nine cat edits and six cat talk edits. It is my opinion that editing the cat space is not a crucial experience for adminship. Cheers, Sarah 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I disagree with the criteria of 'the community at large', I may not voice my opinion? That's silly. Matthew Richardson 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not in any way suggest you should not participate in RFA, I only suggested that you refrain from basing your comments in a criteria which was not created through consensus. VanTucky Talk 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there is no message on top of the RFA page that says "Thou shalt not voice thine opinion if thine standards for supporting are higher than the average community standards". Matthew Richardson 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not characterize your criteria as too high. I said that we are directly discouraged from setting an arbitrary threshold of edits for adminship. VanTucky Talk 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page says at the top: 'It is not intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it.' Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, well, I'll say this: "Thou canst be blocked if thou disrupts the RfA prfocess." —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my User Talk page for what I think about threatening with a block when you disagree with someone. Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thouith shouldith denith him...:P (bad Medieval saying)--PrestonH 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That page is on how to block vandals and ignore them. I am not a vandal. I dislike destroying the work of others. Matthew Richardson 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No troll feeding. Mr. Richardson, if you make another oppose based on those erratic grounds, you will be blocked for RfA trolling. End of story. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked, that was his second edit, no editor ever met that crteria, sees like a account only used for RFA trolling. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike, I guess. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the block of User:Matthew Richardson, which was unjustified. No one seems to have followed WP:AGF in this case. This user's RfA criteria may have been somewhat outside community norms, but they were actually backed up with a rational argument (on his now-deleted criteria page) and possibly weren't as stupid as they sounded. "Troll" is a subjective term, and I don't think anyone should ever be blocked simply for expressing an unusual opinion on an RfA (especially not one which is going to pass anyway). WaltonOne 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what just happened? An "RfA troll"? Pssh. In most cases, the only people who disrupt RfA are those who badger the opposers, by saying, "You can't oppose because of that", or "You don't have X, so you can't demand X". Instead why not try to understand the opposition by asking, "Why do you think X?" or even better, "Who do you think the ideal admin would be, and why would X contribute to that?" Ya know, discussion, consensus, all that kind of stuff.
  • On his or her talk page, Matthew asked to be unblocked so that he or she could contribute elsewhere. I second his or her request. --Iamunknown 07:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the point of account Matthew Richardson was clearly to participate in Rfa's, I expect is was only due to the normal trolling of opposes and neutrals by various admin candidate supporters. The rfa process seems to be primarily a trollfest, and as such, Matthew Richardson was no more disruptive to it than many. --Rocksanddirt 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Putting both sides into account, I would have to sit on the fence but leaning onto the Support side. Very tough call. Aflumpire 09:02, 17 September 2007 (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/Espresso_Addict&oldid=1090627340"