English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/Maedin

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Maedin

Final (85/0/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Maedin (talk · contribs) –

Dear fellow editors, today I want to present Maedin for your consideration. Maedin is a friendly, helpful user who has been active on this project for over a year now. In her time here, she was my adoptee in the beginning and probably one of the best new users I ever met, willing to learn and eager to explore the project, never losing her mind or being the least bit unfriendly to anyone. She has been trusted with both rollback and accountcreator rights and has worked hard at the ACC tool, creating more than 1000 user accounts. She has also 8 DYKs to her credit which shows that she knows her content writing and while she has "only" approximately 3330 edits, all of them are manual (with no tools whatsoever). Apart from ACC, she is a vivid contributor to the featured picture candidates page and has done good work on tennis related articles.

So if you want a great candidate who has a clear head, good grasp of policy, regular quality contributions and eagerness to help out without any allusion of grandeur, you cannot go wrong with Maedin. Oh, and she is a girl, which is very important to strengthen our "female admin" demographics Regards SoWhy 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Wadester16

I would like to offer to the community, in conjunction with User:SoWhy, an excellent contributor and asset to this project and community: User:Maedin. My first interactions with Maedin were at Featured Picture Candidates, where I saw her as a level headed, clueful, and intelligent user. Since then she has done nothing but impress me. While her edit count may be a bit low for some users' standards, her edits are about quality, not quantity. She has been a steady user since she began here in July 2008. She has 8 DYKs, more than I did when I was given the tools. And these aren't 1,504-character, just-get-by DYKs; no, she noms full articles to DYK. (She also has more barnstars than me. ) By far her greatest attributes are her personality, level-headedness, and ability to stay calm when needed. She is also resourceful and motivated. During a very contentious time at WP:FPC, she took the lead and began and mediated a review of the process, something that no long-time regular made the effort to do. Her admin-like efforts focus around WP:ACC, where she's created over 1000 new accounts. Wherever she goes, her reputation precedes her and she is a trusted user by many. I ask the community to give her just a little bit more. wadester16 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nomination. Maedin\talk 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to carry on much as I am now, with an occasional need for the tools, and move cautiously into other areas at a later date. My main need revolves around WP:ACC; I have recently been granted admin rights on the tool by Stwalkerster (talk · contribs), but not being an admin on wiki means my hands are tied in that area. In conjunction with that, I would also like to hang around WP:PERM and handle requests. I'm also interested in helping out at WP:DYK, though so far I haven't. In other areas, I have more than once been frustrated with not being able to take care of something myself; page moves, questions on deleted pages, deleting my own user subpages. I sometimes offer assistance at the help desk or by email, and more than once I've had to say, "I'm sorry, I can't help you, I'm not an admin."
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm mostly pleased with the articles that I have written, expanded, and rescued. I have 8 DYKs, with a ninth on its way (the hook is awaiting review). I've created 8 articles (2 are (or were) stubs), and I've improved, expanded, or rescued about 7 or so others. I won't link to them here specifically, but I do welcome their review, so I will instead link to User:Maedin/Navel gazing. I do realise that my article contributions are substantially inferior to that of others, and I have no GAs or FAs, but I hope the quality of the articles that I have written is still up to scratch. Another area I'm pleased with is my contributions to WP:ACC. Although it isn't a competition and the numbers mean little, since I was approved to the tool in December, I have created 1,120 accounts; better than that, I sometimes reply to email requests for help that come through the mailing list and have spent time helping new ACC users. I also sometimes assist users at the Help Desk, though I wouldn't call myself a regular. When I see good edits on my watch list coming from users with red-linked talk pages, I take the time to leave them a welcome template (sometimes accompanied by a more personal message). I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling, but I often see loads of areas where I would love to help and where I have an interest, but lack the time to meaningfully contribute; I have many things, such as WP:Requested moves watch listed with good intentions. I hope in the future to start picking up more of these interest areas.
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: I wouldn't call them conflicts, as such, but I have had a few disagreements with other users; mostly involving Tennis expert (talk · contribs). Here and here, exception was taking to my bold moves of two articles. Here, exception was taken to some changes I made at List of female tennis players. With all three, I attempted to diffuse the situation and avoid giving any reason for complaint, while maintaining my ground. October last year, I made an untrue remark regarding Tennis expert (not deliberately), and he/she put me right on the subject. I apologised, both on that talk page and on Tennis expert's talk page. An administrator gave me a warning template a few months ago when I accidentally edited an out of date page revision, unwittingly removing someone else's comment in the process. I removed his warning template with a somewhat snotty edit summary, and this discussion ensued—this is the best example of a case where I was a little more worked up than usual. It was basically a misunderstanding and was resolved amicably, even if I did feel a bit stupid when I realised the error I had made. I can't really think of any other conflicts. In any case, I handle conflict, disagreement, and discussion the way I try to handle it in real life: just stop, and think. Walk away. Do something else! Come back later. I very rarely find myself getting "worked up" about something, and when I do, I just try to make sure that I'm calm and collected when I finally make a reply. I really don't enjoy drama and stay out of it at every opportunity, apart from when I feel a sense of duty.
Optional question from Uncle G

Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 31st of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following DYK discussions, as they stand now, and why?

  • Could I ask for some clarification, please? I've answered two so far and am still uncertain as to how either administrative tools or the 31 August would be relevant to the answers? I've given a basic description of how I think I would assess the DYKs, is that what you were looking for? Please let me know if you had something else in mind. Maedin\talk 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You've stated above that one reason you want administrative tools is to help out at DYK. And the 31st is just an arbitrary date in the future that is on or past the date when these entries would more probably become eligible for promotion. Uncle G (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Q:Template talk:Did you know#Map of Rensselaerswyck
    • A: Hook is close to 200 characters, but is still inside it, and is a little uninteresting. The article relies heavily on a single source, but it is at least a seemingly solid source. I would like to know if the author/nominator had the book offline or if he pieced together the information from the Google Book snippets that he's linked to; snippets can be misleading, so I'd be cautious if the article was written based largely on them. Personally, I would like to see better reference formatting, but is probably an improvement I'd make instead of mentioning. To sum up: I'd ask if a better hook was available and possibly suggest something (perhaps that the tracts of land were named by Kiliaen van Rensselaer after the women in his life). I'd ask if the book was available to the author or if he relied on the snippets. Based on the answer, I would either approve or request a second opinion (considering my inexperience). I hope that answers your question!
      • It is admittedly a boring, niche subject; but I like it. :-) wadester16 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Q:Template talk:Did you know#Game pie
    • A: I understand the concern raised, but the current wording of the hook isn't unsupported. The statement is that Wedgewood produced dishes, specifically ones that allowed one to make pies without crusts, and that he produced these during a period of wheat shortages. The link between eating pies without crusts and wheat shortages is only an inferred one. Now that the article has been further expanded and improved, I don't see any issues and the references seem ok; I would probably give it a tick (though in this instance would also leave it for the original reviewer to come back to).
  • Q:Template talk:Did you know#List of programmes broadcast by CITV
    • A: As it stands, this one is a fail. A completely different hook could be used, though I note that the nominator hasn't done that yet. I probably wouldn't have dismissed the statement and the source used quite so strongly () but I agree that it isn't up to scratch. After eight days, assuming no attempt has been made to remedy the hook or source, I'd delete it.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: To answer the first part of the question, even if I personally don't find something "notable", as long as it has been covered by multiple reliable sources (assuming we don't mean just the odd editorial here and there in an obscure online newspaper) and meets those general notability guidelines, then I have no doubts about the content being on Wikipedia. I find the general notability guidelines to be ever so slightly on the strict side, considering the goals of Wikipedia, as I see them. But I also appreciate that they need to be that way; in this sort of environment, you are more likely to find people who want to interpret the guidelines in a relaxed way than in a tough way. That being said, I also feel that there is a lot of content on Wikipedia that doesn't belong, because it simply doesn't meet the criteria; as an example, I find the majority of beauty pageant articles a waste of time; they don't meet the guidelines, they aren't sourced, and they are often poorly written, with no hope of expansion. There are a lot of them, though, and picking the wheat from the chaff would be a big time investment. Regarding subjects that I think are noteworthy, even though they aren't covered by several reliable sources; that's tough, and even if my personal opinion were that something or other would be worthy of inclusion, that doesn't mean I would consider bending Wikipedia's guidelines to have the content included. I do think that we need to be aware of how the internet is moving, and the emphasis and social structure building up around blogs; I'm not involved in media or journalism and so I have no direct experience, but I have a vague idea in the back of my head that we will need to eventually consider blogs as sources, once they begin to outstrip printed publication. Like newspapers, I think that blogs will begin to gather credibility and become more internally concerned with facts and verifiability, and I don't think we can ignore this rich medium forever. But yes, that's all just personal opinion and like anyone who has an open mind and self-awareness, I don't hold my opinions as non-negotiable, written-in-stone proclamations. They are considerations from where I stand at the moment; as I grow in knowledge and experience (which is hopefully a perpetual process), I expect my opinions to move with me.
Optional question from Keepscases
8. Assume that tomorrow you unintentionally wind up involved in some major newsworthy incident that makes you an instantly notable personality. How would you feel about a comprehensive Wikipedia article about yourself? How often do you think you would check it? What would you do if you knew that certain information was incorrect?
A: Well, apart from welcoming the money, the men, and the personal stylist so I always look magnificent, I'd be devastated! I'm just the sort of person who would shy away from the exposure, so I would probably exist in denial for some period of time, and the rest of the time just laugh about it. I think a comprehensive article about myself would be boring in the extreme and would probably have abysmal view statistics. Joking aside, I'm not sure I'd care; I think I'd read the article, find it funny and novel, and then ignore it. It depends what sort of information were incorrect, and where the information came from; if it was something really incorrect (not like calling me a lesbian, because that would likely improve my view statistics, but more like calling me a beached whale) and it wasn't sourced, I'd probably just change it. If it was sourced, then I'd try to do something about the source being wrong, instead. The bigger question, of course, is whether or not I would reveal, as Wikipedia-editor Maedin, that I am, in fact, also the Julie so-and-so of some fame, and thereby publish my conflict of interest as an editor. I'd probably prefer to keep the identities separate, but, as I already stated, not so I can go polishing and tweaking this new Wikipedia article on me. I can't think of any sane reason why I would want to attract so much unwanted attention both on-line and off-line. Oh, apart from the men, of course . . .
Questions from Tony1

Although I've already voted "Support", I'd still like to see your responses to two questions:

9. Do you think it would be useful for ArbCom to consider the creation of a subcommittee of admins and non-admins to run a tightly constructed process such as AdminReview for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of (or the threat to use) admin tools in breach admin policy? Be critical, please: has its time come, or is it unnecessary? Possible pitfalls? (AdminReview is still in draft form as a community-driven idea, and probably needs to be set out more simply.)
A: I did look at AdminReview some time ago, so at least it isn't entirely new to me, though it has moved on a lot since I last viewed it. Perhaps this has already been discussed elsewhere, but . . . what happens then? Assuming the process is live, a valid grievance comes in, the co-ordinators conclude that an admin was in breach of policy and say so . . . the page in its current state doesn't seem to move beyond this at all. Is this just vindication for the user who had the grievance, a simple, "Yes, you were right all along"? Is it meant to be used to strengthen a "proper" case at ArbCom? Is it meant to be used to persuade the admin "in the wrong" that they should retract or apologise? This is very briefly mentioned in the "nutshell" banner, but no further mention is forthcoming. I think it really needs to be made explicit; otherwise I can see a swathe of well-handled cases with an equal number of poorly-handled outcomes, perhaps caused by vindictiveness or a misunderstanding of what the review was for or what it was meant to achieve. Is there going to be a system for informing those implicated by the complaint that there is an ongoing review, and at what stage would it happen?
Drawing back, yes, I think it would be useful for ArbCom to consider the creation of the subcommittee; I would be very interested in what they had to say about it. I can see the motivation behind AdminReview, though I'm still undecided on whether it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing": on the good side, I think it's a less complicated, smaller scale way to help "even the score" and settle issues, hopefully amicably; I don't see very much "admin abuse" personally, but I've read enough to know that there are many grievances about the way some admins "abuse power" and the lack of the average editor to fight a perceived "bias". On the other hand, I question the wisdom of singling out a group of editors, and building a process all around this perceived abuse; it doesn't say very much for our assumption of good faith or our trust in the admins we elect. I can see that causing some bad feeling; how much, I don't know. Perhaps it isn't a good example, but it may be a little like deciding that, say, editors who work on anime articles or editors from Peru are more troublesome than others and therefore can have a subcommittee to deal particularly with grievances against them. It's impossible to tell at this stage, but AdminReview could be viewed as a "black mark", a negative on a track record, meaning that admins could become antagonistic towards a complaint procedure that actually just officially makes them look bad, even when there is a wide discrepancy in the seriousness of individual cases. I would hope it wouldn't be like that, but I can see the potential for it.
I'm sorry, I'm so verbose, I should stop now, ;-) I hope that gives you some insight into how I view AdminReview. Oh, and as a side note, I don't think the process sounds complicated; it seems to me like a simple "follow the steps" sort of thing, but as a somewhat experienced editor who sometimes has trouble crouching, I'm probably not the best person to ask!
10. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been very rude to another editor in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use such a strategy?
A: I may not win any friends or favours with my view on this, but in my opinion the option is the firm request to strike and apologise; it's not just a viable alternative to a block, which I don't find appropriate in that situation. I believe that all editors in good standing, regardless of their positions of authority, should always be given an opportunity to explain, or to apologise, or to retract. Only their response to this should be up for a block, if it's still considered necessary. Obviously, there can be some difference of opinion on what "good standing" means, and I suppose that a more troublesome user with a "past" could be considered a repeat offender, even if some significant time has passed since the last transgression. But 99% of our regular editors qualify for a very basic level of courtesy and respect and the opportunity to make good a mistake, before an arbitrary "punishment" is handed out that actually does nobody any good. It doesn't make the offended party feel much better, and it doesn't do that most obvious of block reasons, which is preventing further harm to Wikipedia. Hope that answers your question!
Question from Maedin
11. You've been editing for just over a year. Why the low edit count? Is it a red flag?
A: Well, no, I don't think it is, and I'll try to explain why.
  • I don't have editcountitis. If I did, I would have pulled out AWB or Huggle a long time ago and got to work putting some quantity in. I don't have any problem with AWB or Huggle, it just hasn't been where my interests lie so far.
  • I preview before I save! Mostly. Every time I've felt confident enough to save without previewing, I've made a silly mistake somewhere.
  • The toolserver isn't working at the moment (and hasn't been for a while), so I can't give you an exact figure, but my combined contributions across Wikimedia is approximately 7,700. This includes ~4000 edits at Commons (where I have a handful of quality pictures and one featured picture), ~70 edits at the French Wikipedia and ~110 edits at the Spanish Wikipedia.
  • I never like to wade into a situation (sticky or not!) until I've read up on the current discussions, and if I'm uncertain about things, I search through guides and policies until I have a better idea of what to do. In fact, I often intend to comment, read the discussions, and then find that I have nothing to add after all! When I first got excited about editing Wikipedia, I was so keen to not screw up that I actually read the Manual of Style, top to bottom, beginning to end. Overkill, maybe, and anal, probably yes, but it was a good foundation.
  • I'm busy! I work full time, I'm a part-time student, I have a social life, a house and a cat to take care of, and a mum to talk to regularly, ;-)
  • My final reasoning behind a comparatively low edit count is that I love Wikipedia too much to burn out. I know it happens and that it's a risk for editors, and it's happened to me with other interests and projects that I've gotten really excited about. I'll be relentless in my pursuit and then totally exhaust my interest by overdoing it. I really don't want that to happen with my editing, so I force myself to be moderate and not go overboard. As a result, I feel good about Wikipedia all the time; I'm always looking forward to editing and always log out before I've had "too much". Hopefully this means that, instead of burning out, I will be contributing to Wikipedia for many years to come, at the same steady and moderate plod as now.

General comments

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


horrible very horrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisconsinhockey (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is? -- Ϫ 05:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that the user that posted the comment is relatively new... Until It Sleeps Wake me 07:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Ummm...Why can't I vote? For some reason I can't scroll down.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Never mind. It's fixed.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters

Support
  1. Heck yes - intelligent, with good judgment, plus two great noms. How can I say otherwise? ceranthor 11:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Ceranthor. Totally agree with the noms. Oh, and <cue "ZOMG NEW GIRL ADMIN" comments> iMatthew talk at 11:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yep, hope she registers around Durova. :) ceranthor 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Although she probably won't be making as much as her male counterparts, since 0 > 0. Oh wait... wadester16 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. Good luck :-) Regards SoWhy 11:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Yeah , contribs check out strong,
    We don’t need no long song,
    This baby’s gonna fly,
    When its my man SoWhy! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support, all of my concerns predate this RfA by over two months, ergo I see no reason why they would abuse the tools or act in a disruptive manner. –blurpeace (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. No problems here so support from me. AtheWeatherman 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support To be honest, I was hoping to see more in the line of contributions; but, all that I do see appears to be very positive. I also have a great deal of faith in SoWhy and Wade, and I am definitely in favor of more soft curvy types. ;) — Ched :  ?  12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support For a cool head while dealing with User:Tennis Expert. I had to deal with a Wikilawyering, open proxy using, sockpuppet of his and know how difficult it can be to keep your cool Francium12 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Yes, an excellent candidate and kudos to the well researched and useful nomination statements. Maedin is a prime example of why editcount should not be part of RFA. 3,500 cautious considered contributions seems to me ample evidence of being able to use the extra tools wisely and with prudence. A pleasure to support. Pedro :  Chat  14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    cautious considered contributions Try saying that five times fast! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support - No problems here, she would make a very good admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support No qualms here. hmwitht 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. Strong support - I have worked with Maedin extensively at WP:ACC, and I have no qualms saying that she is one of the kindest and most helpful people on the project. Good luck! NW (Talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support I can't see any reason to oppose. I've seen Maedin around, and I have no doubt she'll be a net positive as an admin. Timmeh (review me) 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support Make me oppose. All looks great.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. Of course. I was wondering when this would happen.--Res2216firestar 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support; glowing statements from two nominators I trust; and nothing but positive experiences with her myself. A quick review of contributions reinforces my initial impression, and I am very happy to support. ~ mazca talk 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  18. Yep, excellent candidate. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support per Francium12. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support for a level-headed user with vetted-contributions who creates over 1000 accounts! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support For a Civil friendly editor. I actually had this one watchlisted. ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support as the co-nom. Good luck, Maedin! wadester16 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support Excellent answers to rigorous questioning. Seems to have good judgment. Limited experience/ edit count is a concern. But I trust that, like Rumi, you are prepared to handle the things you know you don't know, and the unknown unknowns, the things you don't know you don't know. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support. Very civil user, prolific contributor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support. Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support - Can't say anything other than what the noms said. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support - Will obviously make a good admin, per nom and per above. Airplaneman talk 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support. Why not? She seems intelligent, amicable, and experienced. Should make a fine admin. -- Ϫ 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support Seems to employ a large dose of “common sense” to her approach to dispute resolution. Greg L (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support aside from being a strong candidate (in terms of contributions to the project) she will give a much needed boost to the female admin. demographics. Likeminas (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support I don't see the relatively small number of total edits as a problem considering the quality of the edits made. Everything else seems positive, including a willingness to acknowledge and correct (somewhat minor) mistakes. -- Atama頭 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  33. Support. No significant drawbacks. Matheuler 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  34. 33-0 makes it an easy call, but I also trust both noms and like the answers. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  36. Support As as Track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  37. Support—Excellent candidate; the project needs more of her in positions of responsibility. Tony (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  38. For the second RfA in a row now, I am also joining the unanimous support! The candidate meets User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards by having never been blocked, being trusted enough by some admin to have rollback, has an interesting username explanation on her userpage and per her userbox is named Julie (a name I have always found pretty; in the totally unrealistic chance I ever had a daughter, it is up there on names I would go with; I like Kimberly also, but anyway...), the candidate has 8 DYK credits on top of her userpage and so is here to build the encyclopedia, no memorable negative interactions with me, and impressed other editors enough to earn five barnstars and one award. And yes, interesting flicky pages to link to from userpage as after all, in addition to finding snakes cool, I like green eyes as well... :) (I am trying to be original here!) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  39. Well, how can I possibly follow such a colorful tribute? All I can give is just a simple Support. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  40. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  41. Support because I can't see why I should oppose.--The LegendarySky Attacker 02:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  42. Strong support - I've seen her here and there; I trust her. AdjustShift (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  43. Strong support, no problems here. Looks like a helpful, intelligent user and another excellent choice in our slew of good admin candidates recently. And actually (see #75), people seem to think there are benefits from having us females as admins. :) I appreciate people who are both hardworking and kind to newbies, and overall I like her method of handling disputes in Q3. Some disagreements have happened, and a couple of mistakes have been made. She is able to lead tiffs to a decent and concluded resolution, though. The attitude here is perfect: just stop, and think. Walk away. Do something else! Come back later. I very rarely find myself getting "worked up" about something, and when I do, I just try to make sure that I'm calm and collected when I finally make a reply. I wasn't too familiar with Maedin, but that is a mindset I love to see in admins, so she's now got my "strong" support. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 13:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  44. Support Never heard any serious drama from this candidate :-) ZooFari 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  45. Support. Excellent AFC work. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support Great work at the ACC tool, no problems at all. Willking1979 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  47. Fully qualified candidate. @harej 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support per Title IX concerns. Questions look good, and a quick spot-check on the contribs look pretty good. But remember the drama only starts once you get the tools. MuZemike 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  49. Of course. Great user with great work at ACC. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  50. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  51. Support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  52. Support — Jake Wartenberg 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  53. Support — I have a sneaking suspicion this person will be a net positive to the project. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  54. Support - No concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  55. Support No problems here. Until It Sleeps Wake me 07:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  56. No doubts whatsoever - from mutual experiences at ACC I know this user is very hardworking and should make a brilliant addition to the admin ranks.  GARDEN  10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  57. Support - What's not to like? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  58. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  59. Fine with me. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  60. SupportWhy the heck not?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  61. Support High respect for her, and the noms. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  62. Support. An excellent editor who would make an excellent admin. I see nothing which worries me here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  63. Support - user looks fine, excellent nominations from SoWhy and Wadester. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  64. Prodego talk 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  65. Support per reasonable and well considered answers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  66. Support ZOMG NEW GIRL ADMIN o.O--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  67. Support. No issues and currently no opposes to even consult. --candle•wicke 16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  68. Enthusiastic support for a candidate who has the right temperament for the admin role. She is habitually pleasant and friendly, but willing to offer detailed criticism where that's appropriate, and to stand up for herself when necessary (an interaction on her Commons talk page supports this point.) This user is well organized, hard-working, and not reluctant to admit mistakes. I was also very pleased to see that she plays the music of the chronically underrated Muzio Clementi. In summary, and keeping in mind her answer to Q8, if I were a much younger man I would be tempted to emigrate. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  69. Support looks to be helpful, and also does good work on the commons too. I could find no problems with image copyrights! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  70. Support good answers & history! :) Skier Dude (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  71. Support Yep. Alan16 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  72. Support Great answers; nice to see common sense. Friendly, good contribs, and...well, all the other stuff above. Best of luck.  Chzz  ►  16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  73. Support per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  74. Support Definitely trustworthy, obviously knowledgeable . Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  75.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Maedin. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  76. Support, nothing worrying found MLauba (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  77. Support, good work at DYK, and FPC, I like your talk page; you always seem polite enough, and have good interactions with others. But, I would like to see you warning users when you revert their edits. Good answers to questions. And over all; trustworthy. - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As a new user, I was informed that if vandalising edits are more than half an hour old and the editor is not on a vandalising spree, one usually shouldn't give them a warning. When I sign on, I usually have a quick look through my watchlist for vandalism that has occurred through the night, and that is where most of my reverts come from; it's all old stuff. When I do catch recent vandalism, I leave warnings; see [1], [2], [3]—some examples from the past few days. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome correction! Thanks for the feedback, :-) Maedin\talk 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  78. Support, no concerns here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  79. Support. Pile on in hopes of WP:100. :-) Vicenarian (Said · Done) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  80. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  81. A good name that I have seen around. Happy to support. Acalamari 02:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  82. Support - Maedin has shown dedication to the project through consistent editing over an extended period of time, strong communication skills, and has given extremely thoughtful answers to all questions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  83. Support. See no serious issues. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  84. Support. Trustworthy candidate. — Σxplicit 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  85. Support, 84 other Wikipedians can't be wrong. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
    Support – A very good editor. Alan16 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You are caller number 71, as well, :-) Which one would you like to strike? Maedin\talk 10:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That is the second time I've done that in as many weeks... Pay attention Alan. Removed duplicate although if it comes down to one vote I'd be surprised. Alan16 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose


Neutral
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://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Requests_for_adminship/Maedin&oldid=16501788"