Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Musical Linguist

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] Musical Linguist

Final (78/2/0) ended 03:21 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Musical Linguist (talk · contribs) – Musical Linguist has been a model Wikipedian since her first edit on April 10, 2005. Editing in a diverse range of subjects, from Catholic theology to medicine to current events, Ann has racked up 2027 edits. Her edit content run from vandalism reverts, grammar changes, article writing and creation. But what impresses me most is the way she deals with other editors here. Just check out her talk page; it is full of messages from users thankful for her clear, helpful, and extremely kind responses and messages. In my opinion, Ann would benefit from the adminship tools, and so this nomination begins. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 02:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with thanks. Musical Linguist (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, I was allowed an extention on my computer time, just so I could support her. Private Butcher 02:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    That's right I voted before the nominator, what are you going to do about it? Private Butcher 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. What, you dare vote before the nominator? *grin*. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 02:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Ann is intelligent, level-headed, civil, concerned about fairness, sticks to our policies, tries to seek compromise, is a delight to edit with, and will make a great admin. Not only will she benefit from having the tools, but Wikipedia will benefit from giving them to her. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong support. He beat us to it.--Wiglaf 09:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Not much personal contact with the editor, but I'm amazed at how level-headed she remained during the TerrorMaker sockpuppet ordeal. I was losing my patience with this guy and she remained completley composed, a quality that's shown to be true throughout her history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfg284 (talk • contribs)
  6. Support. Interesting that she isn't already one. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 09:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems calm in the face of provocation and a worthy knowledgeable editor. Grutness...wha? 10:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Another good one...Lectonar 10:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. She's clearly the sort of person who's needed as an adnministrator. --Phronima 12:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support positive contributor. Martin 12:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Kiss me, you're Irish. — JIP | Talk 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Before I go to school, let me say Strong Support!!!. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Super support for Ann. A fine, courteous editor who always follows the rules. Marskell 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. A friendly and helpful editor. --Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support seen her around and would be a great admin.Gator(talk) 13:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support She brings intelligence, patience, sensitivity, and intellecutual diversity. patsw 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support As per previous votes. Nothing new to add here. --Martin Osterman 14:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support We need more mature, level headed admins like her --Rogerd 15:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - I swear I voted already... --Celestianpower háblame 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support She knows her stuff. Will make a fine admin for sure. Banes 15:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support with no reservations. Jkelly 16:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support I think Ann is friendly, couteous and knowledgeable. -- CQ 16:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC) CBTF
  24. Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Finally! I can't think of anyone I had decided was admin material quicker than I did Ann. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Ucucha (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. An excellent editor, with all the qualities that make a great admin., as attested to by those above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. I have disagreed with her on article content, but still found my talk page interactions with her very positive. Will make a great admin. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Now this is one person I was convinced was already an admin!--MONGO 18:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strong support Str1977 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Looking at her writings I can see that I disagree with her on many things and she'll clearly call some things differently than I would. But I trust her to use the admin toolbox with discretion and restraint. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Joining the chorus for another member of the musicabal. --Michael Snow 19:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support Very kind user, I know we can trust her with the admin tools. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Geesh, I left for a few hours and now find myself in a position of having to pile-on with this Support ballot. Ann will be as fine an Admin as editor and, for full disclosure, we have had our differences. --hydnjo talk 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. This is what I get for being so insecure... I was *this* close to nominate you yesterday, and now I also have to pile on :( Anyway, I'm sure you'll make one of the greatest admins ever, Ann :) Go for it! Shauri smile! 23:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. --JAranda | watz sup 00:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Never had any dealings with the candidate but have seen her around and been impressed with her editing approach. Palmiro | Talk 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Merovingian (t)N (c) 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support--Duk 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support. KHM03 03:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. BD2412 T 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support. I've been impressed with her considerate and clearheaded approach. (Oh, yes, and the musicabal bit too.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 04:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Strong support. My first experience with Ann was rather conflictual. But since that time, I have interacted very positively with her, and she entirely rose above any prior dispute. She shows an ability to edit professionally and promote NPOV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support Sound judgment, excellent contributor. Xoloz 05:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support I don't believe that I've ever made an easier decision.--Sean|Black 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. She's knowledgeable. *drew 08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. I only read the first 30 "supports" (in addition to the "nomination" and "opposes"), but I have to say that I agree with all of the comments in those "supports" and in the "nomination." When I became an editor and had questions, she was the single most helpful person on Wikipedia to me. -DoctorW 09:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support, nothing but positives vibes here...well 90+%, so PILE ON :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Dottore So 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, already an admin, why are we going through this charade of an Rf... no, that's not that funny. Oh, well, too late now. Support, of course! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Ann has demonstrated her unfailing commitment to the idea that consensus and NPOV will ultimately result in a high-quality unbiased encyclopedia. I've also seen her on many occasions working to soothe conflicts and informally mediate disputes. She knows how to handle herself in a conflict (she rarely if ever gives anyone genuine reason to have a conflict with her) and knows how to advise others when they are in such a situation. She also knows how to respect consensus even when it goes against her as well as how to compromise in order to achieve it. I've been considering nominating her for some time now, actually, though I had planned to wait until next year (and see if it happened in some other way). Ann has been building experience of late doing the admin "mopping up" jobs that naturally lead to adminship. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 21:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  55. Strong support, truly the best choice of the pool of non-admins. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  56. Strong Support. While excessive online time expenditures are bad, and may prove harmful to Ann (I, for example, have retired for now), I support her candidacy (and hope she doesn't burnout by spending too much time online). She is honest but polite and considerate -and knowledgeable on all things Wikipedia by experience firsthand. Also, I can say that I personally have known her for a long time and do not need to rely on a glimpse of one or two isolated edits, in the same way that some people vote on candidates whom they don't know -based merely on superficial information. Ann is human, but she does well anyhow. I support her nomination.--GordonWatts 01:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support, I was starting to wonder when she was going to be nominated. Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support; definitely would have nominated earlier. Absolutely no problem supporting now. Ral315 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support; excellent editor, calm and thoughtful, and I've been noticing her work for a while. Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support. I have read the whole page and some of her articles and she seems quite capable.--Dakota t e 06:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support. Yamaguchi先生 06:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support! I have gotten a very positive impression of her and looking at her contributions, this impression is more than confirmed --JoanneB 10:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support. This one is a duh. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support, conscientious and responsible editor, dives into the pool of conflict and emerges dry. Bishonen|talk 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  65. Oppose per EffK, Free the WP! Winnow the arbitrators ! Just kidding. WTF? :-) the wub "?!" 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support figured she already was an admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support as above. I figured she was an admin, too. I'm pretty new here, but everything I've seen from her is indicative of a prime candidate for adminship. --Elliskev 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  68. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  69. Everyking 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support, a pleasant and polite user, very knowlegable, and despite her strong views on religion, is able to 'seperate church and state', as it were. Proto t c 16:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  71. sUPPORT aRRGGH STUPID CAPS LOCK Borisblue 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  72. Utmost support. I would struggle to think of a more suited user on Wikipedia. I've never seen her be anything but courteous, and she edits in areas that can sometimes be heated. Ambi 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  73. Support. Never thought I'd say this, but I actually did think she was an admin. Dlyons493 Talk 21:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  74. Support --pgk(talk) 18:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  75. Of course. El_C 23:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support, as very well outlined above. Ramallite (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support, a courteous, helpful, mediating editor; a real asset. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  78. Support Izehar 23:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The following votes were made after the deadline:

  1. Support. Sarge Baldy 08:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. -Willmcw 09:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Nothing more to say at this point. Good luck, Ann. Blackcap (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yeah. JFW | T@lk 02:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - her articles, especially those related to Candida albicans frequently promulgate theories which have no credible scientific basis. An admin should more careful about their sources. Fawcett5 13:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you aying that the candidate is also User:24.64.223.203? If so, on what basis? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    That resolves to Victoria, British Columbia. Ann lives in Ireland, as she says on her user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Huh, what? I made no such assertion...I don't understand the basis for the question about the anon IP... Fawcett5 15:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Because as far as I can see, Ann has never edited Candida albicans, but that anon did, adding the stuff you reverted. So I was wondering. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    No, I have never edited Candida albicans. However, Fawcett5 is correct in stating that I have edited articles related to that topic. Please see my reply on this talk page. Musical Linguist (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think that I owe Ann a clarification. I should first say that, about one month ago, I considered asking Ann if she would like to be nominated for adminship myself — as an editor she has many positive attributes, and comes across like a nice person. However, I changed my mind when reviewing her edits...one of my personal criteria is that wikipedia administrators should have above all a commitment to objective verifiability. I strongly feel that editors are obliged do due diligence, establish what is actually known, and research before they write. And on that account I thought that she fell short with articles like grapefruit seed extract (I provide the following diff illustrating changes I made that reflect this difference in outlook [1]). I do not in any way question her good faith, and also appreciate that others mileage will differ. Fawcett5 21:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    I looked at the link, and saw Ann starting an article as a stub, and you expanding it. There was nothing objectionable in her original article, and your additions were fine. Isn't that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? --Phronima 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose . Absolute shame, for user's outrageous apologious editing that most seriously emasculates the Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal User rmd 31 and reverted to one number of Priests , re Ferns report, rmd scandalous governmental deal made some period ago for Church property against Irish state payment of the compensation to other victims, rmd "and other Abuse of the pontifical secret may lead to formal (automatic) excommunication" , see Pope Benedict XVI and see my accusation re elision of same subject to understand how pernicious this removal remains ,rmd facts of current irish priestly mini-rebellion re diocesacan disobedience/ non-collaboration with diocescan letter,rmd celibacy balance rmd more look yourselves . User is incredible in this case , and if the User keeps such company as people who write , and keep this , confronted with a series of allegations concerning sexual abuse of children under the legal age of consent ¹ by Catholic clergy and religious. in the preamble ,well , I ask you all to oppose . I do not want more church war right now, but I wrote to this editor on the relevant talk requiring sanity . Oppose firmly , despite User's skills. Sorry but this represents live editor conflict]] and I respectfully request the pro votders to quickly arbitrate this user onto the satraight and noarrow, as I do not wish to post an rapid PoV tag . Represents execrable apologia of the worst order, as was the BXVI elision by a.n.other as of yesterday .Free the WP! Winnow the arbitrators ! EffK 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    Whatever you're on, share me some! Mike H (Talking is hot) 04:51, 15 November 2005
Adho..minem EffK 12:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"I could blow smoke in the president's stupid monkey face, and he'd just have to sit there grooooving on it " ;)--Sean|Black 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't be greedy, tailpipe ! Dottore So 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
...may I ask what the hell was just said above? o_O!

Neutral

Neutral until I hear from Ann. hydnjo talk 02:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sincere thanks to all those who voted for me, especially those who disagree with me on article content. I'm grateful for your trust, and promise not to abuse it in any way. Musical Linguist (talk) 08:59, 21 November 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I already do some reverting of vandalism, either through RC patrol or through having some of the more frequent targets (in which I'm not particularly interested) on my watchlist (diarrhoea, Michael Jackson, Adolf Hitler). I have had WP:AN/I on my watchlist for some time, and have sometimes reported incidents there (sockpuppet attacks on someone's userpage), which I'd have liked to be able to deal with myself. I'd also be interested in helping out at WP:AN/3RR and requests for page protection, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Unfortunately, and humiliatingly ;-), the articles I created from scratch (see links on my userpage) have not yet attracted a great deal of attention! I think the articles editors can normally be most proud of on Wikipedia are the ones which evolved and grew and became real collaborations! Failing that, I'd quote Terri Schiavo – an article about a brain-damaged woman who died after her feeding tube was removed at the request of her husband and against the wishes of her parents. Very little on that page was actually written by me; my article edits there consisted mainly of tidying grammar and fixing typos. However, I feel that as a result of my quiet persistence on the talk page over a period of months, I have succeeded in making it more neutral. I understand that Wikipedia policy is not to take sides when writing an article – for example, articles about convicted murderers who protest their innocence usually have that X "was convicted of the murder of" Y, not that X "murdered" Y. The Schiavo article originally had that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that her parents and some doctors claimed that she wasn't; that her husband had woken in the middle of the night when she collapsed, and had immediately phoned 911, and that her parents claimed that he had tried to strangle her; that he eventually came to accept that she wouldn't recover, and that her parents claimed that he just wanted to inherit the insurance money and marry his girlfriend. In other words, because the courts had sided with Schiavo's husband, the article was full of "verifications" of things that could not be verified. I do feel that my presence there helped to make it more neutral.
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. Obviously, if I've been involved with Terri Schiavo – and another favourite of mine is Pope Benedict XVI – I'm experienced with conflicts! I believe I've managed to stay calm. Also, nearly all of the conflicts were between one group and another, rather than between one editor and another. But the fact that I was on any side in controversial articles means that I was, to some extent, involved in conflicts. I've never lost my temper, and I've never felt I had to get out. I have sometimes felt a temptation to make a slightly snide remark, but with controversial talk pages, I make it an absolute rule to use the preview button, and I try to remove or reword anything that might cause more "inflammation".
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.