Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mindspillage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mindspillage

final (41/0/0) ending 18:11 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage is perceptive, cool-headed, and has made many excellent contributions, particularly on articles relating to music. She understands quite well how Wikipedia's various policies relate to each other and I think she would be a trustworthy administrator. --Michael Snow 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm honored to accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Besides, I'm partial to double reeds. --Michael Snow 18:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support--Duk 18:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. CryptoDerk 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Very, very strongly support →Raul654 18:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Adam Bishop 18:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, exactly the sort of Wikipedian an administrator should be. Thryduulf 19:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support, I second Thryduulf's comment. Rje 20:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, very good contributor.  ALKIVAR™ 20:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. An excellent editor who understands and cares about policy. She'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Fine contributor (and quite the looker to boot :-P). My compliments on your signature, as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I struck out your male chauvanist POV :P  ALKIVAR™ 21:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not expressing an opinion on the appropriateness of Blankfaze's comment: Some people enjoy a compliment on their looks, some don't; it's not for me or you to decide. But it's inappropriate in Wikipedia (and obviously POV as well) to strike out someone else's non-obscene comment. It's up to Blankfaze to modify it if he wishes or for Mindspillage to complain. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    It was meant as sarcasm :)  ALKIVAR™ 18:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I thought as much, but you did actually strike out the comment, so I wasn't going to restore it w/o explanation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong support; a superb editor with extraordinary common sense. Hard to find a better admin candidate. Antandrus 21:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. What they said. — mark ✎ 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. - Darwinek 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. - I have seen her work all over the place and I think she will make an excellent admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Very much so. — Dan | Talk 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Her user and talk pages show us someone who communicates and works well with others. Jonathunder 23:15, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  17. Of course. --Bjarki 00:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. The sooner the better. Grutness|hello? 00:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, certainly. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support seen some of her edits, quality stuff! =)--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 09:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. I concur with User:Plato. Phils 09:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Often seen her edits around and they are always well-reasoned. Dbiv 10:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  23. Very strong support. Mike H 11:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Thought she was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. - RedWordSmith 19:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. You should put {{test}} on vandal's Talk page when you do a revert, to have trail for future block. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Bla bla bla. Nadavspi | talk 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Very strong support. JuntungWu 13:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Theo (Talk) 16:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Great user. --Lst27 (talk) 21:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  32. Of course. ugen64 02:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support, well liked and her contributions are appreciated by the Wikipedia community --nixie 03:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, a credit to Wikipedia, enthusiastic support! --Wgfinley 03:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. --Chammy Koala 16:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support, I've seen this user's contributions via rc and she's very admin-like in her approach. In my opinion she's already made the transition. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 04:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support, read your user and talk page, very impressed plus, the comments made by the other supporters convinced me. Tony the Marine Talk
  38. Support! Already acting like an admin! Oh, and one terrific trollslayer to boot. - Lucky 6.9 03:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  39. But of course. Isomorphic 03:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. --Bishonen | talk 23:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. --RobertG 11:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose You have the support of the User:Blankfaze, called a users a "looker", who appears to vote based on his 'like' to other users (see his vote above, and comments here).It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can not turn to yes under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of this third party, but I am affraid that users like User:Blankfaze will be able to continue with such behavior.--Gmaxwell 03:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow. I'm utterly speechless. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • These "votes-to-make-a-statement" are an absurdity and disrupt the RfA process just as much as bogus VfD nominations; it's a shame those people who make them don't come under fire like users submitting "stupid" VfDs do. Phils 05:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    It's not Mindspillage's fault that Blankfaze voted for her, or what he said. You shouldn't take it out on her. --Chammy Koala 16:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    You're missing the joke. I suggest you carefully read Mindspillage's user page to find out who Gmaxwell is. --Michael Snow 17:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, he's her "significant other". --Chammy Koala 17:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. He didn't believe it would be proper form to add his vote to support... so, naturally, he had to oppose for what he hoped was a transparently ridiculous reason. (Alas, no one will bathe in a toilet if my nomination fails, so he has little incentive to do so.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, and the oppose vote from Snowspinner's RFA was too funny to only see once. I'm disappointed that no one remembered it. :-) --Gmaxwell 18:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And here I thought we had the makings of tragic opera. "Sigh* -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Blankfaze has amended his evil ways, so I now withdraw my objection. ;) --Gmaxwell 15:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Mindspillage currently has 2300 total edits: 1760/66 to articles/talk, 82/129 to User/talk, 193/13 to Wikipedia/talk, 37/8 to Category/talk, 6/3 to Template/talk, and 3 to Image. —Korath (Talk) 19:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
For one, the usual RC patrolling which I do when I'm too lazy to write, which would be aided by a rollback button and the ability to actually put some bite behind my bark when I tell vandals to cut it out. I've been around blathering on in IRC during several of the recent rounds of page-move vandalism and I'd be happy to help clean that up, as well as fielding the other admin requests that come up in the channel; I'd also like to take a closer look at Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. And it's been driving me nuts that I can't tweak things in the Main Page templates that are too minor to bother anyone else about!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
At the moment, Hugo Wolf, Luigi Dallapiccola, and Rebecca Clarke, which were sad little stubs about two extremely important composers and one who doesn't get half as much notice as she should, and I think they're just about decent now. (But never finished, naturally...)
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 will deal with it in the future?
I've been in very little conflict thus far, especially as I don't seek it out; not too surprising for someone who mostly sticks to the dusty corners of classical music. The few minor differences of opinion I've had have been just that, differences of opinion, usually resolved without incident. I try to treat people with courtesy and respect even when I don't at all agree with them, as I don't think anything is gained by doing otherwise; I would like to think I'd remain cool-headed even being drawn in to stickier situations.