Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalie Erin

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] Natalie Erin

Final (79/0/1); Ended Wed, 14 March 2007 23:18 UTC

Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) - I happened upon Natalie Erin's contributions while browsing the noticeboards and feel she would make an excellent admin. Indeed, she has proven herself to be a prolific vandal-fighter (always leaving warnings and using edit summaries) who shows civility and consistently good judgment across AfD discussions as well. She has been a steady and dedicated contributor with over 6000 edits since June of 2006, and has put together a particularly impressive level of contribution over the past several months. Given her level of activity, particularly at WP:AIV, I feel she would make an excellent admin and would benefit greatly from having the tools for rollbacks and blocks. I also feel her judgment indicates she would close discussions and make deletions with speed and care. She also has solid article contributions and is a member of a Wikiproject (no, I am not so biased that I only nominated her because she also liked the Simpsons... :-)), and is member of the Cleanup taskforce as well, for those who desire evidence of encyclopedia-building. IronGargoyle 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.


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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I initially plan to use admin tools to continue activities I already do: recent changes patrol and new pages patrol. I am very comfortable with the policies and processes for these two activities, so I feel like it would be a good place to get use to admin tools. I already read WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and other noticeboards, and would certainly continue to do so, as well as help out with problems brought to those boards when possible. I am also comfortable with closing many XfDs (especially AfD), although I can't say I would be comfortable closing a particularly close XfD or one that seems to fall into a gray area, at least for now. Once I had some more experience, I would be more willing to close close or controversial AfDs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I must admit that I am not an FA writer, mostly because I am currently in college and have to do a lot of writing for school, which kind of burns me out on writing. Also, I am a historian-in-training, which involves a lot of what Wikipedians call OR. But I have been able to work with several very bad articles and turn them into what I would consider average articles, including Antioch College, Aryan Brotherhood, Elizabeth Van Lew, and Myrtles Plantation. I was also able to contribute to Sean Bell when it was a current event and have updated it once, although it probably needs updating again.
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: I haven't been involved in any content disputes that I can recall during my time here. I have been the target of vandalism, personal attacks, and whatnot in my RC patrolling. Mostly I just ignore this, as these users are usually blocked within minutes and all is well. But occasionally I've been targeted and have been the only person to notice or warn that particular user. In the past I have alerted admins to the situation and let them make decsisions. If given admin tools, I will block if it is a very obvious disruptive spree, and otherwise will continue my practice of alerting others to the situation.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. IronGargoyle 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support hey I thought you were one... I should study the admin list more often... :) Majorly (o rly?) 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support —dgiestc 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support User:brianherman
  5. Support Rlevse 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support everything I've seen has been good. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes, yes: Seems to already do quite a bit of admin-related stuff and does it well. Heimstern Läufer 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support- looks okay to me :) --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems likes a person who would use admin tools well Gutworth 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Looks like a fine, fine admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - did she do all those vandal-reverts manually? Crikey. - Richardcavell 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong support Yes please, should be a splendiferous admin. – riana_dzasta 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Looks good! -Mschel 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support - A very good Editor plus also a good vandal fighter..--Cometstyles 08:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support A fine editor, indeed. IrishGuy talk 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Excellent RP patroller who has answered the questions well. Rje 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Herby talk thyme 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support no problems here. - Anas Talk? 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Encountered a lot lately, and always leaves a good impression. Bubba hotep 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Experience of vandal stopping alone is good enough for me. Seivad 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, all seems fine. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support because of their good edits and vandalism fighting though the lack of experience. We all know that experience comes quickly w/ time. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Qualified and able. Agent 86 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support qualified candidate.-- danntm T C 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. SupportDina 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support No worries here, very worthy editor. SMC 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Everything checks out, trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support John254 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Dorange 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Nice user, I've seen her around; well, I edited her user page for her too. Acalamari 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Seems nice, she would probably use admin tools in the right fashion Shindo9Hikaru
  33. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I've seen good things from this editor :-) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Solid vandal fighter. She does not have many content contributions but what she has contributed to content has been good. --Selket Talk 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support I've never had any interaction with the user other than edit conflicts in rollbacks, and I've watched her for months. Mop worthy for certain. Teke (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, this looks like an old skool RfA, and I like it. Taxman was a random user with that old style RfA that I came up with off the top of my head Teke (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, dedicated users make good admins Alex Bakharev 06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support I think some vandals are about to be whacked. James086Talk 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. support :) --dario vet (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Looks good. -- Infrogmation 18:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Have seen Natalie doing good work and have had positive interactions with her. Her contribs show her to have the necessary experience (particularly in relation to the vandal whacking stick...). Trustworthy candidate who will use the tools well. WjBscribe 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Obviously working hard to make Wikipedia a better place. Will use vandal-thwacking stick for the good of the community. Pigmandialogue 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Kafziel Talk 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Erin seems to have done a lot of great work as an editor, and will continue to do so as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. She helped me understand what's going on here, hehe! TheFuzzyFive 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support yes, helpful and skilled editor. Was thinking about nominating her Jaranda wat's sup 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Strong anti-vandal candidate and experienced editor, no concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the tools, Natalie. Rockpocket 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Will do fine with the tools.-- Dakota 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Strong Support From what I see, even though she's greenish in other places, if she was granted the mop, she'd double her capacity as a WikiPolicewoman(my new term for a user who concentrates on Recent Changes, New Page, and of similar kind). Great user, she will do great with the mop. The Evil Clown 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Bandwagon support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support S. Miyano 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per wiki gnoming and patrols. Addhoc 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. Michael 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 00:23Z
  56. Support per above. Yuser31415 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Not much more to add - a great all-round editor. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. Even a brief scan of her contributions reveals that she is a valuable vandalfighter and civil even in the face of provocation ... an admirable feat given how hectic and stressful RC patrol can be. -- Black Falcon 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support seems to be a good, balanced across the board canidate... - Denny 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. Will definitely make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support; Why not? Someone who already reads WP:AN would make a good admin, and she seems to have a very good perspective on the function of administrators. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Looks good. --Tbeatty 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support, good accross the board. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Per AIV contributions and in general I think that this user would be a good administrator. --Meno25 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Good answers to the questions and solid contributions to the project. No reason to think she would not handle the extra tools well.--Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support - Already using available tools to perform admin type tasks with civility. She can be trusted with the extra tools. -- Jreferee 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Great use who deserves tools. Shows knowledge of all processes on WP. Definite sysop material. Imageboy1 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)←
  70. Support like everyone else.--Wizardman 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support - although this candidate has no need of my vote; there's no opposition at all so far. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support I see no problems. Darthgriz98 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support She needs the tools and she will use them well. -Mschel 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Voting twice is not permitted in RFAs.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    AGF? I'm sure he knew that and just forgot he'd !voted before... WjBscribe 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support per Mschel > Kamope < 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. I support this user, because she has demonstrated that she doesn't lack the needs for these tools. Again, I Support her. Zazzer 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Great work on AIV (but enough said above) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support This user welcomes out new admin overlord. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support per nom. — S.D. 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Support I simply think she'd make a great admin.Rlevse 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually you've already supported :-). See #5.WjBscribe 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. Final support under the gun. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose 82 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    May I ask why? WjBscribe :01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    May I ask, too? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Never mind. I looked at her contributions more and found that she is worthy. 82 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral due to general lack of experience in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. While she's off to a good start, I think a little more experience is necessary before I support. I would support if the current level of activity is maintained for another 2-3 months, especially if more focus is given to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is where many admin duties are found. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:14, 8 March 2007 (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.