Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Esprit15d

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Esprit15d

Final (44/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Esprit15d (talk · contribs) - I am Esprit15d, female (just to clarify the myth), and recently interested in becoming a admin. Previously I hadn't been interested, but I have of late run into protected pages and tedious requests that I thought have hindered my ability to efficiently contribute to WP. I am an avid and regular contributor, and am generally familiar with many WP processes and intimately familiar with others (I can "provide a resumé" of sorts upon request). I am slightly horrified at the fact that I am nominating myself, but since being a admin is "no big deal" I have done just that. Just for statistical purposes, I have been here for over two years, and have over 16,000 edits. Esprit15d 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to answer any specific questions, provide examples (gulp!) or elaborate.

[edit] 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: As mentioned previously, I occasionally run into protected pages, and especially templates, that will need some minor modification (like removal of excess newlines) that I am unable to do because the page is protected. I go through spurts of new page patrol, which is greatly sped up if you have admin access, especially speedy deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My rabid devotion to the John Mayer page (and its satellite pages, which are admittedly still works in progress) I believe is probably my best single work. You will note that it is a featured article, and, given his recent surge in popularity, is a vandal playground, which only demands more of its maintenance. I pride myself or taking the time to reference almost all content that I add - a particular goal of mine since April 2006 - even using dead-tree sources. I frequently alight on articles (especially about music) and add a critical reception section - fully referenced. I will often spend a lot of time adding properly-formatted footnotes to articles to add even a little new material. I also like to come to a completely disjointed article, and in one or two large edits, or a blitz of smaller edits, completely rearrange and copyedit the article to some point of cohesion. A good example would be the work I did on the Appalachian Trail article. It is not a GA or FA, but prior to me coming in, it was a hodgepodge of disparately-placed information. Using a similar method, I single-handed brought the Danny Tidwell article to GA status. I also like to integrate trivia sections into the body articles and delete the fancruft. These tend to be thankless jobs, but I enjoy them nonetheless. I am proud of several templates I have radically changed, improved or outrightly created: {{Duflu}} & {{Notenglish}} (which supplanted the previous system used for article translation; {{FGAN}} (which I got a barnstar for, and is one of the standard GAN templates); and {{Nn-warn-reason}} (which provided a talk page warning to correspond to {{db|XYZ}}). I also did a lot of the work to organize the subcats for Category:Wikipedia images and Category:Logos.
I also pride myself on leaving welcome messages and warning messages on user's talk pages. I have sometimes been praised for how through my GA and FA responses are, such as one of my latest ones.
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: Much like I am in real-life, I do not enjoy fighting or arguing. I am passionate about certain points, have strong opinions about certain things, and tend to play by the rules. I have been in mostly run-of-the-mill skirmishes about content inclusion and policy interpretation. Two that come to mind are (1) keeping album cover images in song and artist articles when the album is being discussed and (2) copyediting issues, which are often hashed-out in GA noms, FA noms and articles in general. But there have been others, like whether some media I have uploaded should be deleted or not, or whether or not a template I created has any merit. I have been known to apologize or openly admit ignorance when I am wrong or mistaken. When I am not the wrong party, I usually approach the offending editor on their talk page or on the relevant discussion page and write a persuasive argument about why I feel a certain way. When I feel I have made my opinion as persuasive, supported by policy and succinct as possible, I usually let the Wikipedia process run its course. This has led to me both turning around AfD discussions to my favor as well as having media and other things deleted despite my disapproval of the deletion. You win some, you lose some. But I believe that if your arguments can't stand for themselves, there is a chance you are wrong. And, if you aren't wrong, you're at least outnumbered, and consensus rules here.
Optional question from iridescent
4. I believe my opinion of BetacommandBot's "Kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out" approach is well known, but you have a lot of warnings on your talkpage — would you feel confident in decision-making in deletion issues? (Note that a "no" won't count against you - I, for one, wouldn't know where to begin in assessing the validity of a category or a stub tag, for example.)
You asked one question, but I'll answer two. (1) I think some of the bots (and even users) are a little trigger-happy when it comes to nominating and deleting even free material. So I am not greatly disturbed by the number of warnings on my page. While doing my nom, I went around to some of the recently promoted admins' talk pages and also found varying amounts of warnings, which encouraged me to proceed with my self-nom. However, I do give the messages credence and usually go to the page and sniff around for what could be tightened up some. (2) I think there are four basic types of deletion judgements (a) duh! (a picture uploaded from Getty Images with the watermark still on it or a blatant text dump that can be found in two seconds with a google search); (b) contributions that are arguably good, but failing policy pretty blatantly (an image with no fair use rationale, orphaned, etc..., or a nicely-wikified article about some unknown, indie garage band); (c) Misuse of a medium (an album cover that is illustrating what a butterfly looks like, or a category tied to userbox for "users whose favorite movie is XYZ"); and (d) that last area that requires a degree in international copyright law, a passport and certificates of proficiency in 14 languages to judge correctly. If it falls in the first three cats, I feel competent making a judgement call. If it's in that last cat, I'll leave it to BetacommadBot. --Esprit15d 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
5. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: The policy in a nutshell: Wheelwarring is bad. Much like edit wars. Neither of which I engage in. As I am obviously new to the arena of admins, how I would proceed is conjecture, but if I disagreed with the block I would behave something like I have in the past. Occasionally I see Xfd nominators biting newbies, acting on non-existent policies (like GAs have to have images), etc...If it is a blatant violation that I couldn't imagine a third-party disagreeing with, I boldly reverse it and leave a message for the offending editor, and (if it is warranted) the abused editor as well. I happen to know that one admin revert is allowed without any "reprimand" (for lack of a better word), so that is something I would do sparingly, if at all, and only in, as I've said, blatant situations. If its trickier, or it is not evident to me what the editor was going for, I leave a message on the sysop's page (1) inquiring about their intent and waiting for a reply, or (2) letting them know what I believe should have occurred and suggesting he/she reverse him/herself. Hopefully we would be able to hash it out at this stage as to which of us is right. Again, I'm not a fighter, and I have personally never had a conflict go beyond this stage (accept with vandals). I may just be blessed, as you have no control over whether you cross paths with a nut or not. If the person were obstinant or stupid, I would take it to the ArbCom or another senior editor for advisement. I've also hear it helps to leave 50 messages on Jimbo's talk page (JUST KIDDING!)--Esprit15d 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Esprit15d before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I highly recommend you set your preferences to ensure that you always use an edit summary. Special:Preferences -> "Editing" tab -> "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" (last item). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Found out about that today. Will do :) --Esprit15d 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support - Sure, editor seems strong. ScarianTalk 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I've never heard of you before (or John Mayer, for that matter), but you seem perfectly good — iridescent 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Esprit15d seems like a good user. I think she will do well as an administrator. Acalamari 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Seems to be a good idea. Jmlk17 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Has been a regular contributor since August 2005 and track is excellent with no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support east.718 at 01:39, 10/30/2007
  7. Support K. Scott Bailey 03:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Quite a good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Her admin status will only benefit this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. ♫ Cricket02 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Prime candidate, will be most helpful! No concerns at all. And haha, my opinion about Betacommand's "shoot first, ask questions never" approach to images is much the same as Iridescent's, so the warnings on her talkpage mean squat to me as well. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Loads of experience --wj32 talk | contribs 06:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Very good candidate. --JayHenry 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, no concerns. Betacommand's bot warnings should never be taken seriously. Neil ☎ 09:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support nothing wrong with this user. NHRHS2010 talk 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - I've crossed paths with this editor many times and taken note of their contributions. Lara❤Love 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - She has a large number of edits, of various types, and a good record. My only concern is that she just found out how to set her edit summary, but that is not a big deal. Bearian 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Who? Exactly. Keegantalk 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Good contribs, definitely to be trusted. VanTucky Talk 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I've had a few run ins with this user and she seems like she is suited for the job. -- Scorpion0422 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, all the right stuff. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  21.  — H2O —  08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support extremely helpful. Ρх₥α 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Scarcely have I seen editors who're as dedicated as Esprit, but even moreso, humble enough to learn things when shown, but using wisdom to discerne often the greyest of areas. I don't think I'd support any other editor as strongly as Esprit. Truly an asset to Wikipedia. --lincalinca 04:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    You're gonna make me cry! Thanks Linca, that means a lot coming from you.--Esprit15d 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Aw, don't cry! You worked hard to earn those words. I wish you well with adminship! --lincalinca 06:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Everything I've seen of Espirit fills me with confidence about how she'll handle the new tools. Whole-heartedly support the RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Experienced and dedicated editor, she will make a wonderful addition to the admin rank. PeaceNT 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Quite an overlooked editor with the edits to boot. Mop for you! Phgao 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, great candidate with tons of experience. --Coredesat 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Weak support; candidate has indicated that they may occasionally deal with deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support, solid candidate. @pple complain 10:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Solid stats, very helpful. Do be careful of WP:OWN on your good friend John, though. ;) GlassCobra 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    LOL! Thanks for the tip!--Esprit15d 17:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. No real reasons not to support. Good luck!--SJP 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. D. Recorder 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Great user who will be fine as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support for the concise answers to all questions, but especially for number 4 (d), since there are times I find that the image policy needs exactly that, a degree in international copyright and a passport! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support John254 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support--MONGO 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Picking three of her recent edits more or less at random from recent article contribs showed all of them to be excellent and substantial additions or reworkings of info. I like her forthright description of conflict resolution and reliance on founded and persuasive argument as a method of interaction. I swear this is not a pile-on !vote. I'm really very impressed. Good luck! Pigmanwhat?/trail 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Has done excellent article writing. No reason to believe she can't do the same with the tools. Spellcast 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support--per nom, don't see a problem based on history. Solid writing. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - looking through the contributions, can't see anything that would lead me to oppose. Rudget Contributions 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Awww - you broke my streak :) It's all good though. Go Colts! --Esprit15d 19:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A-men. Thanks for being sane about this; it's nothing you've personally done, but past events have led me to the conclusion that self-nominations are a bigger risk than I'm willing accept no matter what else the candidate may have going for him or her. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that first oppose rather weak to be honest. Denying someone the right to a self-nomination is rather on prima facie that the user who makes the comment may be hiding secretive resentment. (See here) - Rudget Contributions 15:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What goes on in the dark...--Esprit15d 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.