Moonriddengirl

Voice your opinion (talk page) (30/6/3); Scheduled to end 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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Support She has solid edit count - and highly trust this user, and the nom! Pat^{Politics rule!} 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I thought you were an admin already. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support no concerns after seeing track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. Support - seems to have a good record, very deserving user --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per Ossified. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong support I seen Moonriddengirl around a lot. She will make an excellent administrator. Acalamari 01:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support That was a very impresive first edit. Civil, helpful, nuanced, good critical thinking talk edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
15. Support - I don't see why this user would kill wikipedia with the mop. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
18. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
26. Strong Support. Great editor with contributions in a variety of areas. Walton^One 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support concerns about inexperience are overblown. Wikipedia is not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, looks like a good editor, experience seems perfectly adequate to me. Everyking 19:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. Oppose Good editor, but the experience is not quite there yet. Jmlk17 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Inexperienced. (Wikimachine 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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