Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeaceNT

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

[edit] PeaceNT

Closed as successful by Cecropia 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (71/1/0); Formal end time 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PeaceNT (talk · contribs) - Nomination from Majorly: It's my pleasure to nominate PeaceNT. Wherever I notice an edit from her, I've always been pleased to see it. She's been around since December, so is definitely an established part of our community. Those who love to edit count should be satisfied I think :) Above all, she's kind, helpful and... peaceful ^_^ and would do good work as an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Riana: PeaceNT is a superb worker and would no doubt make a fantastic addition to the team. She is invariably kind, helpful, civil and well-spoken, a participant in many different areas of the encyclopedia, and has 5 months of good, solid work under her belt. She's a great vandalfighter - I've never had a problem with any of her AIV reports - and always takes the time to caution vandals appropriately. She also assists people at the help desk, participates in RfAs and RfBs, and does some great work at AfD - lots of non-admin closures, which shows that she would most likely exhibit good judgement at XfDs as an admin. She also has excellent contributions in the mainspace.

As for the technicalities, she has e-mail enabled, no blocks, a nice signature and a noncontroversial userpage. All in all, I think she'd do very well as an admin, and would use the tools wisely. Let's give them to her! – Riana ⁂ 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Appleworm: Although I’ve just taken part in Wikipedia project for 3 months and this is the first time I ever nominate a person for adminship, I pride myself on having choosing the right one for this honorable position. PeaceNT possesses all manners of an exemplary Wikipedian. I respect her for her kindness, helpfulness, civility and dedication. I could remember the first days I joined Wikipedia: ignorant of policy, inept and disoriented. Luckily, she accepted me as her adoptee and gradually guided me to get my hand in other activities with all her devotion and zealousness. Her behavior towards other Wikipedians also remains decorous and polite. Moreover, she is an experienced user and has profound understanding in Wikipedia policy demonstrated by her frequent participation in closing over 100 AfDs, the work that requires wisdom and intellect, not mention other various fields. She is a familiar user at help desk and always ready to answer all queries. PeaceNT makes a well balance in Wikipedia namespace edits and writing articles. She has created some interesting articles like Brenda Jackson and substantially added a lot of information in some pages like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series. I’m sure that PeaceNT will use the tool in the most judicious way. AW 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much for the kind words. I accept this nomination with gratitude. PeaceNT 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to assist in closing deletion debates. I have spent time participating in deletion discussions and have closed several AfDs under WP:DPR#NAC. I hope to have a chance to help out more and keep down the XfDs backlogs. I also anticipate being able to maintain CAT:CSD with my RC patrol experience. Besides I will keep an eye on WP:RFPP and may respond to unblock requests.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In my first three months, I contributed mostly to writing articles. I started Sally Caldwell Fisher and Thomas Demand and assisted in saving Swanand Kirkire from deletion (thanks to the input from other editors), anyway I don't feel any of them are particularly good articles. I've also put a lot of time into Harry Potter and Teens Titans related articles, my recent favourite article is List of Teen Titans episodes, which I have helped clean up, fix spelling errors and add substantial references, I am trying my hardest to improve it further. More recently I’ve been engaged in new pages and recent changes patrolling and I am quite pleased with my overall work in these areas.

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 have been involved in a couple of conflicts over editing, it's a good thing that they are only minor disagreements and have not caused me any stress. As I recall, my first ever conflict on Wikipedia was with two other editors over the article Half-Blood Prince. The argument was settled quite quickly as we could find the middle ground. I was a fairly new editor at the time and the conflict had helped me gain valuable experience. I understand that editing while in a temper isn’t conducive to any discussions, therefore I believe it's necessary to stay out of heated arguments and only return to the discussion when I am in a positive frame of mind. I will continue to apply this principle to any debates in the future keeping in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I feel that so far I've been able to remain calm and handle myself well in response to every disagreement I've been involved in.

Optional question from falsedef

4. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, and therefore those editors replace the edit with their own, but they no reliable sources. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?

A: Let me get this straight. There is initially a talk page consensus when the new edit which goes against that consensus is made, yet the controversial edit is supported by reliable references while the consensus is not. As far as I can judge, the nature of your question is consensus versus verifiability. Good question. In this case, I would say, verifiability comes first.

From what I can gather, the original editors revert the article back to their version. Unfortunately this move would easily give rise to critical reversion wars, which is in no way desirable. IMO the key action to take in reaction to content disagreements in general is to hold serious discussions over the issues. If need be the page in question might get protected to force the parties into debating. Though a consensus was already built, the editor who brings up the new information has his fact proved by good sources, so the discussion must be continued. Consensus is determined not by a group with numerical advantage, but rather by a system of good reasons, that is to say, WP:CON doesn't justify the reversion of the group. (Note that it is laid down in WP:CON: "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.") Consensus can change and the original party bear the responsibility to provide valid rationale for reversing their information. It is vital that they assume good faith, be respectful to the new editor, and be open minded. Everyone should be afforded equal input into the process, and the "contentious" editor has every right to make his opinion heard fairly. Next, a good research can be carried in order to find reliable sources for the talk page consensus. If so I believe the article can safely include both sourced viewpoints about one issue. If not the unsourced material must regrettably be removed. Finally, at worst, if the original group refuse to adjust to the fact and persist on edit warring, I would recommend speaking with third parties. Request for comment is my go-to-page. Though I hope this doesn't come about.

Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)

5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See PeaceNT's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for PeaceNT: PeaceNT (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PeaceNT before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• Please note this editor is female ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So is my dog. What's your point? Dfrg.msc 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clearly you weren't here at the start of this RfA when PeaceNT was referred to several times as "he". No need for the aggressive tone really, is there? Majorly (talk | meet) 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Calm down, ladies :) – Riana ⁂ 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Pardon? Majorly (talk | meet) 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Er, it was a joke, because of the gender confusion, and I know you're both male. Never mind me, I shouldn't try to make jokes after 7PM, they don't seem to work :p – Riana ⁂ 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Hehe, I got it (...eventually) ;) Majorly (talk | meet) 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I love all you guys. Dfrg.msc 05:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
                • And girls too...? Phaedriel - 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • *shudders* Way to undermine discussion, guys =P G1ggy! 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme co-nominator support. She'll do good things, I'm perfectly sure :) – Riana ⁂ 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC}
2. Support - A look back through her contribs shows a high level of contribution towards making this a better encyclopedia. Akradecki 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Riana nominee. Moreschi ^Talk 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Wow, a great user. Definitely support, and good luck my friend :) Majorly (talk | meet) 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support5 edit conflicts! I've spoke with PeaceNT on Wikipedia before and she has always shown a trust for the tools and extreme politeness and civility, she could use to the tools really well! Good luck! Regards — The Sunshine Man 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

   I think you're a bit confused with this user's gender. :-) AW 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

6. Support - She has shown that she can be trusted with the tools and her contributions has been excellent..Good Luck..----Cometstyles 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Very Civil.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Firstly, I always thought you were a bloke, secondally, I aways thought you were an admin! Best of luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, I'm so absent-minded that I forget to add my vote? AW 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. We need more editors such as her to be nominated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm looking :) – Riana ⁂ 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Strong support Excellent nominators nominating an excellent candidate. By the messages above, PeaceNT is obviously belongs in this non-existant list. Acalamari 16:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support always had positive interactions with this editor. Should've been one a long time ago. —Anas ^talk? 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Great work.--Húsönd 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - great editor & worker. Will make a super admin - Alison ☺ 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - Proceed, as per comments above and as per my noting that this user is admin-worthy... Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} Vote! Vote! 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support per Moreschi. I have the utmost confidence in anyone nominated by Riana. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Per nomination and excellent contributions. --Mschel 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Are you kidding? I thought she already was an admin. Seriously. She left me a friendly note a month ago advising me not to overstep my boundaries in closing AFD discussions, so I could see she knew the ropes. YechielMan 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
19. Support – B.hotep ^u/_t• 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support per all of the above. Very surprized she isn't already one. VegaDark (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. PeaceNT is a great user who definitely deserves the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
22. Support, per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per Appleworm. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Has shown vast improvement as a (fairly) new Wikipedian; makes me a bit jealous how fast she has caught on! That, coupled with the reputation of your nominator, makes this a very strong support. Good luck! Jmlk17 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Seems fine, and we need more admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Excellent user. -- John Reaves (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Easy decision --St.daniel ^Talk 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support per noms, no doubt at all. Trebor 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support: Has plenty of experience, seems very dedicated. Edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per everyone else.Shindo9Hikaru 03:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Yep. Daniel 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support as your work appears first rate. Seem dedicated to improving things here. JodyB _talk 11:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Nice choice Majorly and co-nominators. Goodnightmush^Talk 14:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support per all above, will be a great admin. GDonato (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Strong candidate and it seems one who would use the mop well. Orderinchaos 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Nice show.--カラム 00:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
40. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Support But no more co-noms, please. Xiner (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Terence 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Olando 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. WjBscribe 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Strong Support - I have seen her around and have seen great interaction with others. Great candidate indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support--MONGO 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support per nom and co-noms Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Definatly a good admin. Captain panda 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - no reason to oppose, and I trust Majorly. Philippe 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Joe I 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
52. S The name states it all...Don't see any issues erupting from PeaceNT becoming an admin... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong support, good luck! The Rambling Man 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support for a Peaceful adminship. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support per all of the above. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Support- good credentials for adminship- well done! Thunderwing 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support - great candidate. —METS501 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support, great experience! Very peaceful, and quite an editor. *Cremepuff222* 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. Seen her around on RC patrol, great user. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Support No problem at all with this user. · AndonicO ^Talk 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support ... good name and an even better editor. I have no reason to think that the effect of sysopping PeaceNT will be anything but positive. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support No reason will not make a good admin. Davewild 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Support The noms say it all. --Random ^{Say it here!} 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Good editor, will certainly be a very good administrator. --Carioca 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Support per nominators. Sarah 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support, delightful person and talented editor. Will make an excellent addition to the admin ranks. Phaedriel - 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
69. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Support, why not? Extranet is now E ^talk 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
71. I understand MECU's concerns in opposing, but adminship is no big deal. I doubt he she will do image work before reading the fair use documentation. G1ggy! 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for use of fair use images in userspace. See [1]. This was recent (3 days ago) and blatant. An admin should know, understand and follow this simple rule of our fair use criteria. MECU≈talk 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
   • sigh No where has PeaceNT mentioned she wants to work with images. I had a fair use image in my userspace for a while before my adminship. Does it make me a bad admin? Not in the slightest. I personally think the number of people who understand fair use is incredibly low, and many admins don't even go near it. It's a poor reason to oppose PeaceNT though. I would understand if she expressed interest in working with images, but she hasn't at all. And now you've removed them, she won't do it again. Why don't you look at reasons to support instead of reasons to oppose? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
     • Whether she wants to work with images or not, she should know and follow all policies on Wikipedia. As an administrator, she will be looked to as a model for other users (correct or not). A user that looks at her pages and sees her using fair use images in her userspace could think it's okay, that admins are allowed to do it, or many other incorrect reasons. Familliarity with all of our policies is important for an admin. They are not just an admin of "vandalism" (or any specific area), they are an admin. MECU≈talk 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
       • Hehe, I can't think of any reason in the world why a user would want to look in her sandbox... but nevermind. I doubt after seeing this oppose regarding this offensive addition of images to a sandbox (which was probably temporary too) she will continue using fair use images :) Majorly (talk | meet) 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
   • Be calm, gentlemen :) Mecu, your concern is appreciated. I acknowledge that this is a mistake on my part to include fair use images in the sandbox. Just for clarification, please rest assured that I am aware of criteria 9 in our non free content policy and always try to remove fair use images in userspace where and when I have seen them before (e.g.[2][3]) . Then again, it was really silly of me to mess up my own page. I will carefully note this when working with my sandbox from now on and promise not to repeat the error, you have my word of honour. Thank you for removing the images and please accept my sincere apologies. PeaceNT 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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.