Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laurascudder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Laurascudder

final (87/0/1) ending 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Laurascudder (talk · contribs) – Laura has been a Wikipedian since August 2004, and has made over 3600 edits. Her edits have been mainly on articles, which have been about a variety of subjects. A significant proportion of her edits have been on talk pages (including user) where she is helpful and civil. Laura already carries out tasks that are administrative in nature, such as participation in projects, reversion of vandalism, and translation. A recent practical example of her abilities was that she was largely responsible for taking an article (Adriaen van der Donck) from scratch to featured article status in fairly quick time, which I think requires not just good writing and editing skills, but also a good understanding of policies and guidelines, and a strong ability to cooperate with others. Alan Pascoe 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Haven't really interacted with her but I've seen her work on articles and with newbies and have been impressed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Sure; seems like a good editor who remains civil. joturner 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Excellent editor with a long wiki-career and obvious devotion to the project. Xoloz 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. I see no reason to oppose this user. I have had limited interaction, but in those times have always felt respect for and from her. No need to thank me with a standardized thank you. Good luck. Support. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I know her from Wikibooks. She's definitely admin material.--Shanel 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, because of my experiences with her. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support looks good. Excellent, civil editor. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Joe I 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Moe ε 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Fantastic editor. Chairman S. Talk 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I believe that 20 months more than qualifies her for adminship. --Jay(Reply) 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support A helpful physics user, always answering questions. I like her. -lethe talk + 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Good! Prodego talk 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Excellent candidate. - Richardcavell 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support--Jusjih 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support; likely to be a superb and cool-headed admin. I especially like the way she handled herself at Talk:Highland Park, Texas. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - wonderful user. --HappyCamper 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support of course --rogerd 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support excellent editor & communicator. ×Meegs 05:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, no reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support GizzaChat © 07:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 09:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support A good contributer to Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support per above. –Joke 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Seems like a quality candidate. -Colin Kimbrell 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - looks like a great user to me -- Tawker 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support --Latinus 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. An easy choice here. Weatherman90 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support It's nice to see a candidate who shows up just wanting to help make the encyclopedia better, without trying to RC-Patrol-race to the perceived goal of adminship. -Mask 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support per AKMask. A model Wikipedian. Feezo (Talk) 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support No reason to oppose, perfectly good user. -- Patman2648 21:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 05:36Z
  40. Support Intelligent and pleasant. Does good work on articles for deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. --Alan Au 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. More like this candidate please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools--MONGO 06:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support --Ancheta Wis 08:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - strong user, should make a fine admin. ProhibitOnions 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support --Terence Ong 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support per what they said. Hiding talk 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Distinct support. +sj + 10:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support I can remember hearing one of her (if there are more than one) spoken articles. Should make a fine admin. -- WB 11:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support, for future services to vandalism patrol Deizio 11:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - Liberatore(T) 13:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support,great job. pschemp | talk 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Great work, no reason not to. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per above, and answers to my questions --Masssiveego 21:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. youngamerican (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support —Wayward Talk 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. User:Go for it!/Vote Support seems sensible. Good candidate. Has my vote. --Go for it! 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Looks good! mmeinhart 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. I've only seen good editing from her. - Taxman Talk 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. the wub "?!" 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Looking good to me! --Mmounties (Talk) 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support - Sango123 (e) 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Bucketsofg 06:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Strong support per nom and everyone else! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Strong support - Having known Laura IRL for nearly twelve years, I can vouch for her incredible even-temperedness and unflappability, her keen sense of fairness, and her incredible analytical intellect. She's incredibly dedicated to Wikipedia and the pursuit of knowledge in general, and I honestly can't think of a better person to help further the Wiki cause. Strong support from me! aibarr 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support: Ahonc (Talk) 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Edit history looks good, see no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support A pointless pile-on support, with the standard Rfa comment #1: Youre not one already? We should {{sofixit}}. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. PILE-OOOOOOOOON!!! Will make a stellar admin. BD2412 T 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. -- DS1953 talk 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
  73. Support. Hall Monitor 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support. All experiences have been positive, will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Meets my requirements, 100%. Enough edits and right number of months for me to consider her an admin. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)
  76. Support--Aldux 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support (though the anon voting "oppose" had a good point). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support - A breath of fresh air. Wish all noms were this easy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support Good range of contributions not just this wiki but several others. Green Giant 06:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support Looks like great admin material. Nephron  T|C 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support per everyone. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support Go for gold! Brisvegas 10:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support. Great editor; level-headed and intelligent.--ragesoss 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support - not crossed paths before, but contribs look very good. —Whouk (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Supportizzle per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support. Good, friendly user. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose For her own economic well being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.198.110 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Anons aren't allowed to vote GizzaChat © 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral Average edits per day is less. Shyam (T/C) 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Laurascudder's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Every once in a while I go on a Special:Newpages kick, which has led to a lot of speedy and copyvio tagging, and as I'm starting to have a lot more time on my hands I expect more of that. So I'd mostly use my admin buttons to do the clear speedies and work on the WP:CP backlog. Aside from that, I have near 600 pages on my watchlist, so the rollback button would come in handy. Basically, I think the mop and the bucket would make it easier to clean up the messes I find.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, zone plate will always have a special place in my heart as the reason I created my account. Of my recent work I'm very proud of Adriaen van der Donck of course, and I have high hopes for female hysteria once I finish compiling some research to balance it out.
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 been in any serious conflicts, but I think the most memorable one was over this edit to Highland Park, Texas. I responded harshly at first to his rather entertaining tone on the talk page, which was not received well. It was a good lesson in how touchy some can be where their edits are concerned, and I intend on taking the time to be more gentle in such situations.


4 Personally I weight this question at 25%.

What your views on userboxes are? --Masssiveego 10:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A. Personally, I don't use many because I think that they're clutter. But my philosophy has always been that if someone enjoys something that isn't hurting anyone else, what right do I have to interfere. In that respect I don't see how they're different than anything else people put on their userpages everyday.
5 Peronsally I weight this question at 25%

When do you think it's best to block a vandal who deletes out more then half a page more then 3 times over 24 hours and one minute? --Masssiveego 10:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A. Like any situation, it would depend on the circumstances. I would probably block someone who had been repeatedly warned and had demonstrated such behavior before. A new user who hadn't been warned would cerainly be a different situation.
The above 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.