Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Plange

Final (61/0/1) Ended Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:06:33 UTC

Plange (talk • contribs) – Plange is the model Wikipedian. She passes 1FA (Stephen Trigg), is friendly and civil (see her contribs and user talk), technically knowledgeable (see her edits to {{WPBiography}} and her bot), and has excellent organisational skills. Almost single-handledly she brought WikiProject Biography back to life, and it's now an active and well run WikiProject. The project's template was protected for a while, and may well be protected again in the future, and that meant Plange was unable to edit it leaving me to do all the work. Neither of us were satisfied with that. Plange has been actively editing since May and I believe now is the time to give her the extra buttons. kingboyk 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the months since she began to actively edit, Plange has been a thoroughly excellent Wikipedian in every respect. Her massive improvements to the Biography WikiProject have resulted in its transformation from a deserted backwater to one of the largest, most active, and most innovative projects around, and she has rendered similarly invaluable assistance to the Military history WikiProject. Plange is unfailingly courteous and diligent, and has proven her commitment to the encyclopedia many times over; I see no reason why we shouldn't give her the mop. Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination/edit conflict - I was writing this up, had to go away from the computer for an hour, came back and found Kingboyk's nom. I would like to co-nominate. --Aude (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few months since I first noticed all the great work Plange has done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which was largely inactive when she became involved. The WikiProject now has 158 members, up from 18 in July before she took on leading this project. Through this WikiProject, she has worked with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team on identifying core biographies and has helped assess articles. Plange first registered an account here in November 2004, and has been a regular contributor since this past May. I have been thoroughly impressed with Plange's dedication to improving Biography articles and the overall organization of these articles on Wikipedia. Plange also been very helpful with maintenance of Portal:Biography, which I had been doing for a few months but no longer really have the time to put into giving it the proper care. Plange has also created a number of new Biography articles that have been showcased on the Main Page in the Did you know feature. I have looked through Plange's talk page and contributions, seeing no sign of incivility. Plange is also very helpful in reverting vandalism, and would only be more helpful with admin tools in dealing with vandalism. Since the beginning of August, Plange has received 6 barnstars for her excellent work. Plange also has a featured article, which was awarded that status just a few days ago, and is working on bringing another to featured status.

Contributions summary

Total edits 12540

  • (main) - 2154
  • Talk - 5739
  • User - 329
  • User talk - 887
  • Image - 61
  • Template - 341
  • Template talk - 95
  • Category - 321
  • Category talk - 7
  • Wikipedia -1501
  • Wikipedia talk - 982
  • Portal - 107
  • Portal talk - 16

I see absolutely no reason why Plange wouldn't make a great admin. She's already done a great deal to help the project, and would only be more effective if she had the admin tools.--Aude (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept --plange 17:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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 would like to help out with clearing speedy deletes, any backlogged AfDs for biographies, as well as any vandals reported. I like to sift through Special:Newpages and Special:Recentchanges to either spot WP:CSDs or, for the latter, vandalism.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
For articles, I brought Stephen Trigg from a stub to FA (along with some help from other editors in peer reviews, etc., of course!) and currently have John W. Johnston in WP:FAC which used to be a stub. Another would be John Floyd (Virginia politician). I'm also happy with my contributions to WP:BIOGRAPHY, and the first project I started WP:FIREFLY where we've got a good team of editors working to improve those sets of articles to fight fancruft and re-work the existing ones to get rid of fancruft. I worked with WP:WAF to come up with guidelines for writing about characters and TV episodes for our project which we're just starting to overhaul our articles to conform to those (so don't judge on the current status of those!). However we did work together to get Serenity (film) and Firefly (TV series) to GA status. I also created Portal:Virginia which is still in the works :-)
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 haven't really been in major edit conflicts on articles. When I first started, I had some reverts happen and I went to either the Talk page or to the policy in question to either work it out or understand what was happening-- 'finding my sea legs' with WP. I have stepped in occassionally to try and help in biography articles that are having some conflicts... Only time I think something stressed me was this discussion about auto assessment for WP:WPBIO where another editor was upset with how we were grading. I just tried to remain calm and explain our position and attempted to understand where they were coming from. I added this to our assessment descriptions as a result.

100% Optional Questions from Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

I believe that answers to these questions will help the participants judge you better. In case you think that a question cannot be answered without ambiguity, please ignore the question(s) and proceed.

4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies?


5. What are your views with respect to WP:WONK? Can users be cleanly segregated into either category? Do you fit into any particular category?

Question from Malber (talk • contribs)

6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:
Both policies need to be handled with care and common sense. What WP:IAR means to me is that if a rule is getting in the way of what is good for WP, you can ignore it. Having said that, the application of this would be a very unusual thing for me to implement, as I think I've only come across one instance where as an administrator I would have invoked it. It's also not something I'd take lightly or invoke lightly, as in general I think the policies and guidelines in place cover most situations and, in relation to WP:SNOW, I believe in process. I definitely don't see WP:IAR as a way to get around a contentious ruling or concensus, etc. The one instance I came across might be a good illustration of when I would invoke it. It also would have used the application of WP:SNOW. The incident was when an anon (or brand new user, can't remember which, but there were 2 involved -- see User talk:Teenomlette & User talk:68.223.110.14), created a page called Amit Walia and put nonsense on there (something along the order of "Hi look at me. This is soooo cool!") and then changed the director of The Lake House (film) to Amit Walia. Someone tagged it as a speedy but then the user deleted the tag and copied the content from Alejandro Agresti (which I wrote and is the real director of the film) to the page to circumvent the speedy. It went through an AfD and was of course, finally deleted, but after it went through the full process and was on WP all that time. This would have been a clear case to me for invoking WP:IAR (since it didn't exactly fit one of the CSD criteria) and WP:SNOW. To expand on how I see WP:SNOW, I would never ever invoke it if there was the teensiest tinyest chance that someone would popup and say, Hey, wait a minute! Its usage should only be used if it truly fit the definition on its page (snowball's chance in hell) and not as a way of stifling debate. --plange 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
7. (Editor added question) What is your opinion and view of the websites wikipediareview.com and wikitruth.info that are critical of Wikipedia? Anomo 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't even know they existed until I saw this question :-) Given the size of WP I'm not surprised and they have every right to express their views and have their opinions. If the sites are legit watch dogs, even better... --plange 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
8. What's going on with the recent edit warring on Robert E. Lee? —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Not really my place, but reverting obvious vandalism isn't edit warring. Kafziel Talk 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A:
No edit war - was combatting a vandal. Their first edit was this which would normally have only warranted a test1 template from me but when I went to their page, they already had a test4, so I reported the IP to AIV. After reporting them, I caught them again here, here and here before they were blocked. --plange 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support --kingboyk 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I have nothing but the highest opinion of plange. I didn't even know that she wasn't an admin until I saw the RfA discussion pop up on her talk page. EVula 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support --Aude (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Browncoat support Looks like a good editor; little doubt that the admin tools would be used well. (aeropagitica) 17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. An excellent editor, highly focused on improving content. No reason for mistrusting use of the tools. Marskell 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support. I would prefer to see some more experience with process, but lots of activity in various wikiprojects is laudable. >Radiant< 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. support: Per nom. Ombudsman 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Kafziel Talk 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak support, the large volume of usertalk edits as opposed to a relatively small mainspace count concerns me slightly, don't forget the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    A great majority of those talk page edits are tagging biography articles, assigning categories, assessing articles, etc., in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies which are important for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was thinking you meant large volume of talk page and not user talk, but not sure. She has 755 user talk page edits which I don't think is at all out of line. --Aude (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    A lot of the User Talk edits are due to either adding vandal warnings or welcoming new members to WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:FIREFLY and WP:VIRGINIA. I also deliver monthly newsletters for those projects too. Others are generally due to editors posting questions to me about their biography articles, etc. --plange 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it was Talk not Usertalk. My bad. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, Overall good and excellent contribution from his side, Shyam (T/C) 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per nom. Michael 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Outstanding editor with a steadfast commitment to making Wikipedia a better project in several facets to which she actively contributes (WikiBiography, Good Articles, Bot creation, etc). Plange also has a very even keel temperment, tiredlessly assumes good faith and actively works with all other edtors for compromise where there is disagreement. These are some of the most sought for characteristics of a good admin and Plange exhibits them to a "T". Agne 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong support, looks like an excellent user. Definitely admin material. --Coredesat 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Errabee 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support The added tools given to her would only benefit this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support. Still shocked by the number of talkspace edits you have. This user definitely deserves to be an administrator. She is a great contributor to Wikipedia, and she also is an active participator on article and Wikipedia discussions. How can you do so much WPBiography tagging? That's insane. Nishkid64 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support Wikipedia need more admins like her; ones who stay cool and calm. RelHistBuff 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support. Excellent, well-rounded, capable editor who'd make a great admin. — TKD::Talk 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  23. Merovingian ※ Talk 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support for a highly qualified, experienced user with no troublesome issues. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support Will make a fine administrator, although I do wish mainspace edits made up a greater proportion of her total edits. Nevertheless, that by itself does not override other tremendous qualities. Good luck!UberCryxic 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support of course, will make a fine admin, which will complement her existing works... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support looks good! Surprised I never ran into her as of yet -- Samir धर्म 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support  Doctor Bruno  01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support I've got nothing to add. Way to be, Plange. -- Kicking222 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Good user giving my support. Hello32020 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Has been great for Bio. Delta Tango | Talk 03:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support per nom and above. --Esteban F. (con.) 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. Hemmingsen 08:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strong support - civil, friendly, hard-working, qualified, and no problem with number of edits considering her work on FACs, FARs, and the Bio project. Sandy 12:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - Great contributions to WP Biography -- Lost(talk) 14:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, great editor. --Terence Ong (T | C) 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  39. Shiny Support great, hard-working, and effective editor.-- danntm T C 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support. Cbrown1023 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  41. Well I was gonna comment oppose so that Kingboyk'd have to keep working but on second thought... Anything to let Kingboyk slack off, I say. :) Ok seriously... Heck ya, a great editor by all metrics I've checked. More candidates like this one, please!tm support ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Zaxem 23:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support—Williamborg (Bill) 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  44. Strongest support Wow, I'm late. Amazing writer, very civil, will do well with the tools. T REXspeak 04:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support- if the only reason somebody is NEUTRAL is due to lack of time, I'm not convinced.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorcoga (talk • contribs) .
  46. Support. Passes all major criteria--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. Model, progressive Wikipedian. Also she is interested in American history, as I am, and she improved many related articles greatly. - Darwinek 13:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - Skapur 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - Excellent contributions. Nat91 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support--MONGO 05:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-16 12:57Z
  52. Strong Support - As has already been stated, a model wikipedian. Badbilltucker 19:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support to quote an RfA voter from a while back: "Ding Dong Special Delivery from FedEx: A new mop!" Wikipediarules2221 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. The contribution to a featured article is especially helpful. Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 18 October 2006
  55. Support No problem with supporting, and recent handling of Robert E. Lee shows good understanding of dispute resolution process. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support good editor. Anger22 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support, per nominator. --Carioca 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support looks like an excellent candidate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. I see no issues at all. Alphachimp 05:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  61. Strong Support no problems,high edit count,experience he'll be a great amin I'm sure SOADLuver 06:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral - looks to be a good editor, but lack of time with the project prevents me from supporting --T-rex 03:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Lack of time? Is this really necessary? You can never have a lack of time. You can only have lack of experience. This user definitely has a great deal of experience, and I think that setting a time quota on who should become an admin and who shouldn't is foolish and unjustified. Nishkid64 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, while she may have only been around for five months, her absurdly high edit count (and, more importantly, the content of said edits) shows a dedication to neutrality, in both article content and user interaction, that is the cornerstone to any successful admin. If she had just a couple thousand edits, I would most definitely agree with your assessment (and wouldn't have been chomping at the bit to voice my support), but in this case, I think such a stringent requirement can be waved. EVula 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Plange_4fd7.html"