Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Versageek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Versageek

Final (90/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 12:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Versageek (talk · contribs) - I've known Versageek for a while now, and she has my complete trust. Versageek has been a Wiktionary admin for more than a year, an OTRS volunteer (for info-en, not just wikt-en-info) for many months, and is also an admin and CheckUser at wikiHow, for what it's worth. Versageek is a tireless spam and vandal fighter, but she also understands the inner working of Wikipedia, and, with almost a year of activity, has the experience to be an admin. She will be able to do more excellent work with the tools to block spammers, protect pages, and delete vandalism. I am happy to nominate her for adminship. :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, Thank you. --Versageek 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to take a moment to address the concerns of those who will note that I haven't done much content editing. While I can write, writing encyclopedic prose is exceptionally difficult for me and not something I enjoy. I prefer to contribute to Wikipedia by doing things that I do well & enjoy.

That said, it's a sad reality that there are those who would seek to use the project for their own ends. We must ensure that in our zeal to defend against such things, that we don't inadvertently inflict damage ourselves.

One of the things I've taken-to-heart in the past two years of wiki participation is that constantly doing only anti-vandal and anti-spam work can quickly lead to the development of a Siege mentality. It is very important to recognize when this starts to happen, as this sort of thinking causes one to lose perspective and ultimately leads to newbie biting and incivility. To avoid this sort of thing, I've tried to vary my wiki activities by participating in multiple projects, delving into the technical side of things and even doing some wiki-gnoming. If I get to the point where things start to appear as "us" vs "them", I know it's time to step back for a bit and find something else to focus on.


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The areas that I will focus on are AIV, RPP, anti-Spam, and WP:BLPN. As my schedule permits, I will help with backlogs wherever they may occur.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In late 2006 while using Google to track what I refer to as "invisi-spam" deposited by spambots - I uncovered about a dozen articles on en.wp (as well as a few on other WMF projects) which had large sections of content clobbered by a spambot several months earlier. The damage had gone unreverted, or in some cases, partially reverted then buried under newer edits. This was before the "undo" feature was introduced - so I hunted down the original spambot edit and reintegrated the clobbered content with the subsequent changes.. I'm most proud of this because I was able to recover a lot of meaningful content which would have otherwise remained buried in the page history and unavailable to the average reader.

( some of the diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] )

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 had many conflicts here, apart from a few encounters with users intent on spamming. First I'll try to discuss the issue with the person, if tempers are heated - I'll allow some time for cool-off before engaging. If my personal attempts to reason with the person don't seem to be working, I will try to get other members of the community involved, when dealing with spam - this usually means taking the issue to WP:EL or WP:RS, one of the WikiProjects or even a specific article discussion page. It has been my experience, both here and on the other wikis where I participate, that involving the community in the discussion is very helpful when an individual feels you have singled them out for unfair treatment.
4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?
A: I registered FireParrot (talk • contribs • count), and recently PornographicFireParrot (talk • contribs • count), which as noted on it's userpage - is an attempt at levity related to this incident in May 2007. I don't have any plans to edit with either account. --Versageek 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I am aware of it. My interpretation is that BLP deletions should never be undeleted without a full understanding of the reason for the original deletion. If restoration is to happen without the agreement of the deleting admin, then there must first be a discussion which addresses the reasons for the original deletion, leading to a consensus that it should be restored and a plan as to how to ensure the article will comply with WP:BLP once it is restored. --Versageek 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
6. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: In the event of a BLP deletion, I would follow up with the admin who did the deletion. In the event of an OTRS cite, since I am an OTRS volunteer myself, I would familiarize myself with the ticket, and discuss it with the admin who deleted the article. I wouldn't restore it myself without a full understanding of why it was deleted, a consensus as to how to make it meet our policies once it was restored, and the agreement of the deleting admin. --Versageek 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Versageek before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support. A trustworthy, dedicated user with experience in many diverse areas of the 'pedia. --krimpet⟲ 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. That's hot. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - large number of edits shows commitment as a vandal fighter. I think she can be trusted with the tools. Also has a good temperament for approaching conflict, which will serve the community well. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Although I usually prefer more participation in the WP space, after checking your past few thousand contributions I can see why you need the tools. Furthermore, you clearly have experience in the areas where you pretend to use the tools. Húsönd 07:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Exceptionally strong candidate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. John Reaves 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support - no problems whatsoever. Excellent candidate - Alison ❤ 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Excellent comments about the dangers of the 'siege mentality'. Nick mallory (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. OK, seriously, this one surprised me. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, not seen much of the user but Dmcdevit's got good judgement. Neıl ☎ 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. I'd be pleased to have you on board. -JodyB talk 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. --Cometstyles 12:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong support based on many months of working with Versageek on spam issues. Always civil, always shrewd. --A. B. (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, solid work on external links and very level headed. Kuru talk 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Wholly qualified, clearly. Redrocketboy 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - without question or hesitation --Mhking (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 13:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support obviously, excellent candidate. BLACKKITE 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, good to work with, persistent spam fighter, I am sure a good addition to the list of wikipedia moppers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support per Riana. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support great user. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - with their "spam fighting" edits as like A. B. - they could make a formiddable team at the Spam WikiProject. — Rudget speak.work 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. I thought you were already an admin. --Kyoko 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per a number of the above comments --Herby talk thyme 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Pile on Support Good luck! --Dustihowe  Talk  19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Disappointed you didn't ask me for a co-nom Support. If I recall correctly, I offered to nominate you a few months ago. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Might as well. I mean, my Support virginity was broken last week, on the 7th. Dlae│here 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Deli nk (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Trustworthy user, nothing wrong in my eyes.Mitch32contribs 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support, per the nom and answer to Question 1. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  34. Support - Per nom and previous comments. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Secret account 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Yes, SQLQuery me! 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. As Riana. Daniel 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Very dedicated user; would benefit mightily from the mop. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support - will do a great job. Videmus Omnia Talk 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Yes. Wikipeda is is indeed more than us vs. them. Sean William @ 13:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Strong support - A valuable and trusted contributor I've known for well over a year at Wiktionary, and who helps with Transwiki issues from WP to WT. That kind of work uses a mop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - that was easy. Jauerback (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Pile-on support! GlassCobra 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support Have seen work elsewhere - thought they already were an admin! Happy to support. Orderinchaos 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support seems to have a clue. (And more to the point, more than a hint of good balance and background.) FT2 (Talk | email) 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support should be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Yes, number 46! Not my favorite number, but a good one. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support - looks great. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - has clue. Regards, Keilana 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support - Overall great editor. I'm a little concerned about the low amount of Wikipedia namespace edits, but what counts is quality over quantity and Versageek certainly has quality in all her edits. Admin material 100%. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Since when does Dmcdevit make mistakes? :) --DarkFalls talk 05:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support - excellent candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. @pple complain 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Excellent candidate: no reason to oppose. Acalamari 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support NHRHS2010 talk 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, yes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support Good luck. IrishGuy talk 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support, without question. Kafziel Talk 08:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Strong support. Absolutly trustworthy of the tools..--Hu12 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support good decision making skills, will make good use of the tools. Shell babelfish 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Significant experience, various contribution on WP pages --JForget 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support - adminship on a sister project is an automatic support for me. Will (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Yes. DS (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Per Will and Husond. --Writer Listener 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. + I thought you were one, since I've seen you off-wiki. Good enough for Connel is good enough for me. Keegantalk 06:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Mackenzie for Prez!
  67. Support without reservations. Maser (Talk!) 07:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support She deserves to be an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  69. Never going to give us up. Never going to let us down. Never going to run around and desert us. --Deskana (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support with no worries. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support Of course! VanTucky talk 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support A great deal of experience. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Overqualified candidate. —Animum (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support as per DMCDevit and Newyorkbrad.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support; definitely. Good answers, good experience. Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. She has done wonderful things for Wiktionary and wikiHow. If 'pedia doesn't want her, we'll gladly keep her to ourselves, though. --Dvortygirl (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support Jmlk17 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support, and how.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  81. Weak support - not much participation in Wikipedia space, but apart from that, a very trustworthy and honest Wikipedian. They are qualities valued in admin. Being a Wiktionary admin shows she's competant enough to be a Wikipedia admin. So I'll offer my support, but more Wikipedia participation would be better. Lradrama 11:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Versageek is female, btw :) Redrocketboy 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oh sorry! I've ammended it now. ;-) Lradrama 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. Pile on support - Jehochman Talk 14:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support Based on the above comments, and edit history. Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support Cheers, LAX 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  87. Not admin already? Genuinely surprised. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support - A well qualified candidate that I feel will not abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  89. Lots of Support Your work is superb, and you are a hard working Wikipedian. Best of luck to you.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support level-headed and will be a great assett to the admin community. ArielGlenn (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
Oppose per this diff – Gurch 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm... that Rick Astley joke is getting old. Orderinchaos 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.