Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Merope

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.

Merope[edit]

Final (66/11/5) Ended Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:55:54 (UTC)

Merope (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of Wikipedia since 2004, though my level of involvement has increased dramatically over the past several months. I'm an avid new page patroller, and I'm committed to WP:BITE—I almost always leave messages on creators' talk pages explaining my reasoning. I'm involved in a couple of WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Wikify and WikiProjectNovels, which have served to better focus my encyclopedia-building efforts. I do my best to adhere to WP:CIVIL, and feel I am particularly receptive to questions and criticisms. I'm e-mail enabled and I'm here almost every single day. I adore Wikipedia, and would love to perform more chores to help keep it running smoothly. -- Merope Talk 01:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Self-nomination. -- Merope Talk 01:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I often do new page patrol, and would find the process easier with admin tools (particularly with the number of attack pages that get created). WP:AN/I always needs another set of eyes, and I've had it on my watchlist for some time now. I would really like to get involved in WP:CP, since that's an area that needs more attention from admins. I'm fairly active in WP:AFD (and some XfD), and would like to be able to close discussions. I also regularly check CAT:HELP, and some of the requests require admin tools (e.g., undeleting articles, autoblocks, etc.). I try to stay abreast of WP policy and changes, and am always looking for new ways to contribute to the project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: To be perfectly honest, my most satisyfing contributions have been helping other users by checking CAT:HELP. That's not to say that I don't enjoy writing—I do—but helping other Wikipedians figure out this often byzantine system is particularly rewarding.
As far as encyclopedia-building goes, I will have to say that I'm pleased with the articles I've started per WikiProjectNovels, particularly The Athenian Murders. I feel that literature often has a skimpy coverage in WP (for example, the article on Little Women contains more information about the film and anime versions than the classic work itself) and my adding even a handful of articles helps improve that coverage. I am happy to provide more links to articles I've created or worked on if requested. Though I'm currently on a break from WikiProject Wikify, I'm pleased with my work in that arena, since Wikification is much-needed and is probably one of the most unglamorous aspects of editing.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a few conflicts, mostly in doing WP:RCP. I'm no stranger to personal attacks or having my user page vandalized, but those are easily laughed off. I have had a few edit conflicts, but I feel I've efficiently and civilly resolved those, making use of both user and article talk pages. A few conflicts have caused me stress; a memorable example is a user who criticized me for fixing double redirects, saying I was doing "bot work". Admittedly, I found this insulting (as I was only trying to learn about different aspects of the project), but I forced myself to take a break from editing before I talked to him. (We were able to amicably resolve it.) Really, the best thing for any editor to do is to walk away from the computer, even if it's for a few moments. I never want to respond to someone when I'm frustrated and angry, and taking a small break to cool down before I hit the edit button is the best way I can keep civil.
Question from User:Wknight94
4. Pop quiz question: In retrospect, what would you say might be wrong with this edit?
A: CSD G4 is for articles that have undergone a deletion review process (which excludes previously speedied or prodded material). I've recently suggested a change to the template to clarify this here. -- Merope Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After Picaroon9288's addendum, I see the problem--back then, I didn't know the difference between "block" and "ban". I've done extensive reading since then. The CSD thing popped out first since I've recently worked on it. -- Merope Talk 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:ais523
5. When do you think it is appropriate to stop an edit war using administrator actions (blocks and/or protections)?
A: I think blocks are appropriate only if the users involved have violated WP:3RR or WP:NPA. "Cool-down" blocks are, in my opinion, rarely effective. (I imagine the user would return more agitated than before.) In such cases, I would leave messages for the parties involved on their talk pages and urge them to discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making any more edits. Depending on the situation, I might suggest mediation, but unless the users involved are personally attacking one another, I don't see that a block just to stop the edit war is justifiable. Protecting pages is a serious endeavor—it goes against Wikipedia's philosophy of an encyclopedia freely editable—but I believe it's sometimes necessary to enforce a cool down period. (Or to preserve the integrity of pages Stephen Colbert mentions on his show.) I would sooner temporarily protect a page (while telling the involved parties to take it to the article talk page) than I would block a user who is likely acting in good faith. -- Merope Talk 12:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Moreschi
6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
A: I will understand "established user" to mean a user with a solid edit history. I believe that, after appropriate warnings, violations of WP:3RR and WP:NPA warrant blocks. Blatant vandalism (including repeated insertion of copyrighted material) would also warrant a block after the appropriate warning ({{bv}} or a {{test4}}). In such examples, the user would have to show that he is no longer acting in good faith. As stated above, I don't believe that the solution to edit wars is to block the involved users, and that is especially true for users who have been around the project and should (and probably do) know better; it's better to start a dialogue with the user before handing out a block. Unless the user in question is disrupting Wikipedia (e.g., vandalism, page moves, personal attacks, etc.), I would want to start a discussion on WP:AN/I before blocking someone with a tradition of helping the project. -- Merope Talk 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Andeh
7. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) As you said you intended to close some yourself. Thank you and good luck.
A: The ones on my watchlist currently are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You See Me? (single); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurniFind.com; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choch. -- Merope Talk 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from T REXspeak
8. When did you start actively editing? A specific date would be nice. T REXspeak 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: On 6 July 2006, I played around in the sandbox and realized I didn't know really what the hell I was doing.  :) So I spent the next few days reading page after page of policy, and then crept in to make minor edits within the same week. Within two weeks I had started doing recent change patrol, reverting vandalism, and by the end of the month I started tackling new pages. I know it's unusual to read first, then edit, but as I state elsewhere in this RFA, I'm kind of a perfectionist. I'm just a perfectionist who makes mistakes and is okay with that. -- Merope Talk 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • The activity before July 2006 was equivalent to the activity of any random reader who has an account and makes the occasional spelling correction, etc.; for the purposes of adminship or editing, he has been a "member of Wikipedia" only since July 2006, which is quite a short period of time. —Centrx→talk • 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not tried to disguise the fact that the majority of my edits have been made within the last three months. However, a Wikipedian is anyone who contributes to Wikipedia, per WP:GLOSSARY. My first contribution as a registered user, small though it was, was made on 6 October 2004, nearly two years ago. I feel I've been a part of the Wikipedia project by my passive participation in reading articles. Also, I'm a female.  ;) -- Merope Talk 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support. Honored to be the first vote in support of this worthy candidate. Jcam 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Excellent user. - Mike 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Merope, whom I have not previously had occasion to encounter, seems altogether deliberative, trustworthy, and cordial and appears well acquainted with extant policy and practice, such that he is surely unlikely to abuse or misuse, even avolitionally, the admin tools. I don't see anything remotely objectionable here, and I imagine that the candidate's becoming an admin will benefit the project. Joe 01:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support; a quick review of her contribs shows nothing to worry about. Edit summary usage, patrols, and afd participation are all good. Granted, she hasn't been actively editing for as long as she's been here, but there is nothing noticable to suggest anything less than a good understanding of policy, except the diff pointed out by Wknight94. Oh, and does this make you a feminist, Merope? Picaroon9288 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This makes me a fan of gender-inclusive language, and represents a tiny attempt to combat WP:BIAS. -- Merope Talk 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm giving away the answer to Wknight's question, but I assumed he (Wknight94) was mentioning your suggestion of banning the creator, not the CSD G4, which seemed reasonable enough. Picaroon9288 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Per solid contributions and good answers. Seems to have reasonable understanding of policies and takes an interest in improving policies (per answer to my question). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. It was my previously expressed intention to nominate this user for adminship. I ran across Merope when they questioned a warning I gave a user. I then took a look at the contribution log and found a person who is almost unfailingly polite and welcoming to new users and actively tries to help people out. There's no doubt that Merope would make a far better admin than many of us and certainly is better prepared than I was when I became an admin. I rarely cast my vote in RfA's but I think this one more than deserves to pass. Wikipedia is improved by Merope's contributions. --Yamla 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support I was just about to write some very positive things on your editor review when I decided to check the RfAs and here you are! Friendly editor, commendable contributions (esp. to WikiProject Novels), efficient NP patrol, etc, etc, etc. --Húsönd 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (Changed from neutral); after all, adminship is no big deal. Having read the nominee's responses since I commented and looked into more things about this editor, I am quite happy to change my mind to "support". Whatever spurred this editor to go from zero to sixty seems to have done her well. Whether or not she gets the mop I hope she keeps up with the standards she seems to have set for herself. Agent 86 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per above. From what I can see there don't seem to be any major problems. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support This seems to be a strong candidate. (aeropagitica) 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Supprt, scoring 23 (pending on 24) on my Admin Assessment Scale, Merope has the highest score yet. Good luck ! -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Highway Daytrippers 07:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Kusma (討論) 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Unconditional support Rama's arrow 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support satisfies my expectations, and is a fan of Joss Whedon to boot.-- danntm T C 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support good answers. Renesis (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Excellent patroller, knows policy well, not afraid to help out new users. Wickethewok 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Merovingian - Talk 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. It's rare that a candidate goes up whom I have never of. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Solid user. Good to see fellow people dedicated to new page patrol. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I wanted to oppose, but couldn't come up with any good reasons. Oh, and 3 months is plenty of time for someone who has been around since 2004, even if not heavily active, and for someone who is well qualified otherwise. -- RM 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Heavy involvement or not, this user has been around since 2004. Meets (barely) my standards, but more importantly I don't see any reason not to trust the nom with the tools. Themindset 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I liked the answers to the questions. Adminship is no big deal, and I think that while three months is not a particularly long time, it's enough to establish that the user is not going to use admin tools for the wrong reasons. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support; seems OK.--Andeh 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support after striking neutral !vote below. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak Support Doesn't seem to have the range of edits an admin should have. For eg. Very few categories and templates have been created by the user. Satisfactory answers to the questions though. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Adminship is no big deal, unless the editor has serious issues. I see no evidence that Merope has any such issues. Give her the tools; Why the hell not? --Aaron 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. Meets my 2K and civility requirements, and is willing to help others. Given the restrictive climate of RFA these days, I applaud anyone willing (and with only four candidates, there's apparently hardly anyone willing, anymore) to submit him/herself to the RFA process. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Szvest 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support-Why not, you have done alot of hard work--You deserve it--Seadog--fly on....littlewing 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The answers to the questions are good and I feel that Merope's edits over the last few months have given no cause for concern. I don't know what else we really need from a candidate. Rje 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Hard worker, will not likely abuse admin privleges, very civil user. Hello32020 00:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per answers to questions and, IMO, sufficient experience. 2-3 months active edition is enough, especially when appended on to a longer period of reading and occaisionaly editing. Eluchil404 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per answers and some good edits Jeffklib 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support We should not use some arbitrary floor to weigh experience; some users gain "experience" faster than others. I think Merope is a solid enough editor to not misuse the tools, regardless of the time editing. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support for being here almost two years, despite so many recent edits in so few months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've seen this user around; she is helpful and good at new page patrolling. Also, she has sufficient edits and experience to become an administrator. -- Casmith 789 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, oppose section raises no important concerns, edits look good. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per kindness to the new users in BITE adherence. People Powered 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Markovich292 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Although I express concerns over the user's experience, I feel that she has demonstrated that they can handle the tasks involved in being an admin. She's had a good deal of experience with others, and contributes to RfA and AfD discussions. --Nishkid64 00:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support. We certainly could use more literature around here. Errabee 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Catchpole 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support. This user makes good sense. I think she is doing a good job and I appreciate her work. I like her areas of emphasis. KarateLadyKarateLady 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strongest possible support. One of this site's most pleasant, constructive, positive and hardest-working users. "You mean she wasn't one already?!?" Sorry...had to say that. :) - Lucky 6.9 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support despite the 3-month thing; she's a great vandalism fighter. NawlinWiki 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support  Doctor Bruno  21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I've seen Merope contribute to the AFD discussions and I think her contributions are well-balanced. zephyr2k 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Canderous Ordo 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Merope looks like a level-headed and polite editor. RedZebra 11:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I believe that she'll be a good admin. She wants to help the community and I see no reason why she'd abuse the tools. NCurse work 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, I beleive that Merope will make an excellent and fair adminstrator. Thryduulf 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Merope does good work at NPP. 3 months is enough experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-03 18:40Z
  58. Support good new page patroller. Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. I encountered Merope only today, when I asked her a question about a deleted article which had popped up again. Her knowledge about reposts, and the proper response thereto, was, no pun intended, encyclopaedic, and she was very helpful in the discussion about what I should do with the reposted material. I assumed that she already was an administrator, and was quite surprised when she said she was not. I fully believe that, as an administrator, she will be of equal or greater help to a great many other editors. ---Charles 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weak support. I think she is a very good user, and will probably make a very good admin. My concern is her lack of experience. I worry that people who become admins too soon tend to burn out.-gadfium 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support seems like a great editor that will make a good admin. Wikipediarules2221 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Great editor, someone I hoped would seek adminship. --MCB 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support. Late in the game, a good way to see the quality of a nominee is to look at the oppose comments. In this case, the opposes make it clear that there's no reason at all not to give this editor the mop. Several months of hard work is plenty to give us a good idea of the kind of job she'll do. -- SCZenz 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Emphatic support, for the same reasons as SCZenz. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support - if lack of experience is the best we can come up with, then I see no reason this user shouldn't be an admin. she's an active contributor, she's not shown any tendancy torwards abuse, so WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to argue against myself, but "lack of experience" is a valid reason to oppose an RFA. A user with insufficient experience could be detrimental to the project, even if he or she is acting in good faith. However, I believe that despite my short tenure, I have sufficient knowledge and familiarity with the policies via my extensive reading and researching. I completely understand and respect those who oppose my nomination based on my short tour of duty. -- Merope Talk 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support - Looks like she'll be a thorougly wonderful admin. --Masamage 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Lack of experience, per only substantially active since early July. Espresso Addict 02:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen in her contributions and answers here, she's more qualified than several recently made admins - whether she's been here since July or not... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be the case, but less than 3 months of active editing, 1327 mainspace edits (the bulk of which seem relatively minor) plus work on a project joined just over a week ago do not convince me that the editor currently has a sufficient breadth & depth of experience. Espresso Addict 05:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per my standards. Sorry, but less than 3 months isn't nearly enough time for us to be sure that you won't do anything untoward. Cynical 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose - I liked the answer to my question (apologies to Mcginnly for intellectual theft), but the time thing (three months of active editing only would IMO set a bad precedent) is a real concern. However, I would be voting neutral were it not for the a weakness when it comes to actual article-writing. No GAs or FAs have been mentioned and overall the answer to question 2 was a bit weak. IMO admins should set an example to us editing-wise as well as in other areas - a view which I know is deeply unfashionable, but we are here to write an encyclopedia, after all. I suppose the other thing is that in my experience admins who regularly contribute in a significant manner to the article mainspace are less likely to burn out. This vote isn't set in absolute stone, but at any rate I will definitely vote "support" when more experience has been acquired, if I have to. Moreschi 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose due to misleading nomination that skews that facts quite a bit. The candidate mentions that his/her level of involvement has increased dramatically over the past several months, and this is patently false. It could just be a severe misuse of the word "several", but the candidate has only been actively (and I use the term loosely) contributing since late July 2006 (so basically two months). Prior to this influx of editing in July, the candidate hadn't edited since February 2006 and has made seventeen edits between 6 October 2004 and 6 July 2006. Ergo, the user has been a Wikipedian since July 2006. I find the nomination to be grossly misleading and definitely not someone I would be comfortable with trusting with extra responsibilities and buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand several to mean a few, i.e., three. I believe I have been editing consistently for July, August, and September (which ends tomorrow). I would be happy to change the wording if you feel this is misleading. I never made claims to frequent edits of WP before then, but I have been involved--WP has been my homepage on my home and work computers since 2003, and I read articles every single day. My level of activity has increased--I've gone from being a passive observer who made occasional edits to someone who's committed to improving the project. I feel that before I dove in to editing (which I did in July), I spent a lot of time reading policies and trying to understand the system (which, as you know, takes a lot of time and effort). I will happily change my request, but my intent was not to be misleading; I believed that a simple check of my earliest edits would confirm what I said. -- Merope Talk 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why, but I feel compelled to say that there is nothing "patently false" (very strong words, by the way) about the candidate's statement. It is absolutely true that the increase in this editor's contributions was "dramatic". To have pause over the short period of intense contribution is one thing (it's a concern I share), but I don't think the way the candidate phrased the statement is any reason to call her honesty into question. Agent 86 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that the seemingly self-aware choice of diction is innappropriate and gives an untruthful representation of the nominator. I think that the way the registration date and length of time actively editing was approached is indeed very misleading. The nomination as it stands now, is inappropriate, in my opinion. As such, a misleading nomination (in my eyes) is a huge red flag for me. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is assume good faith. Agent 86 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I'm acting in bad faith. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a different opinion is not the problem. In fact, I share your concern on the length of time the nominee has been editing issue. The problem is that you've called the nominee a liar. If the use of "patently false" isn't a failure to AGF, it certainly seems uncivil. Agent 86 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncivil? I disagree, Agent 86. I believe Hoopydink is not calling Merope a liar per se, but he is just merely saying that Merope has possibly stretched the truth a bit about his length of experience here on Wikipedia in the coming months. However, that's just my interpretation of what Hoopydink said. And by no means am I taking Hoopydink's side on this issue. I actually think his words were a bit rough, but not bad enough to be considered uncivil. --Nishkid64 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - try again in 6 months... --T-rex 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sorry, 3 months is my cut off date. Most likely support next time if there is one seeing as you are probably gonna pass. T REXspeak 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Like the others, I feel the user has insufficient experience. Eusebeus 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - would like to see some more experience first. RFerreira 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Inexperience.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose - would support with another month or two of experience, and more contributions to administrative areas of WP. --Storkk 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - I'd like to see a bit longer of active posting. Under three months really isn't enough. Michael 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, very much lean to support. Impressive number of edits given that this nominee only really started contributing in early July; however, I am hard pressed to find any real work on content. Vast majority of contributions in the main namespace appear to be "minor" edits, largely the adding of templates, adding categories, minor clean-up, etc. While this is indicative of a potential need for the tools, I am concerned about the lack of work towards building an encyclopedia or indication of contributions that expose this nominee to the policies an admin should be familiar with. I am also concerned about the number of times the nominee has flagged articles for "speedy" that weren't really speedies (although, to be fair, some had the speedy tags removed by editors who salvaged the articles), or re-applied the speedy (and subsequently the prod tag) when other editors removed it. In those circumstances, the proper thing to do would be to take it to AfD. However, the nominee has some good answers to the questions, no real mistakes, and a talk page that discloses no concerns, so I doubt there will be any abuse of the tools. However, I think I just need that something more before I can support, given that I've now changed my mind between neutral and support a few times before clicking "save" on this comment. As adminship is no big whoop, I may well change my mind before this RfA closes. If not, I'll be pleased to support next time around, once a bit more experience is evident. Agent 86 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are absolutely valid concerns. I feel I've improved recently in this (certainly in not re-applying speedies or prods), though if articles have been deleted, this would not be reflected in my edit history. I will be more mindful of this in the future. As for encyclopedia building, I admit that it's an area I need to develop in; hence my joining projects. I've created a few articles, I maintain a to do list, and I am spending some time doing research to improve some existing articles (particularly the ones concerning the types of the Enneagram). It's one of those things that requires a lot of time and attention, and I'm a perfectionist. I recognize that there is a problem with an administrator/contributor dichotomy, and I don't want to perpetuate that. Thank you for the feedback. -- Merope Talk 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm convinced - see my new entry under "support". Agent 86 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. The edit history and answers to admin questions seem fine. Recent activity is also impressive, but I find it difficult to gauge long term staying-power based on less than 3 months of active editing. As a result, I can't fully support just yet. Still, I don't see any particular reason to oppose. --Alan Au 06:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning precariously towards support – keep running into you, and have been consistently impressed. Like Húsönd, I was thinking about commenting on your editor review, when I found you here :) However, it's the time issue – 3 months of active editing doesn't really convince me. If this RfA doesn't work out (hard to tell right now), try again in a few months time, and I will be delighted to support you. Best wishes, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Bah... support. :) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To you, and to the other users who have expressed concerns over my length of service: I completely understand. I debated whether it was premature of me to request adminship after so short a term of duty, but I feel that I have a good handle of policy and would be able to serve the project in a greater capacity with sysop tools. I spent a lot of time reading various users' standards for adminship and recognized that several people will understandably oppose me based on that. It is hard to demonstrate committment and trustworthiness in so short of time, and so I respect your reticence. If this RfA fails, I will learn from it and try again. I'm finding that, as nerve-wracking as the RfA process is, it is increasing my enthusiasm for the project and showing me how I can be a better contributor. Thanks for your feedback. -- Merope Talk 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - No real reason to oppose, but the relatively short period of activity prevents me from supporting. Burnout (temporary or permanent) can happen to the best of us, and Merope isn't yet at the period where we know if that will be the case here. I would also like to see some more encyclopedia building. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - per cholmes75. I have no doubts about your skills however I feel the possibility for burnout is a valid concern. Take it easy if the RfA passes, ok? Roadmr 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral: Mostly for the time concerns. If the RFA doesn't make it, the user should definitely try again in a few months; shows great promise. Heimstern Läufer 04:42, 3 October 2006 (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/Merope&oldid=1146560117"