Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AngelOfSadness

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casliber (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 2 June 2008 (ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AngelOfSadness

Voice your opinion (talk page) (14/0/2); Scheduled to end 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you my next candidate for administratorship, AngelOfSadness.

AngelOfSadness, originally known as HappiestCamper, joined Wikipedia back in May of 2007, but in early July of the same year, I had the privilege of welcoming her after I saw her name show up on my watchlist when she edited the Kelly Clarkson article. Since those days, however, she has made over 14,000 edits, done a significant amount of article and anti-vandal work, become familiar with relevant policies, rollback rights granted by me, and has a kind reputation.

She does do a lot of vandal-fighting, but a review of her contributions shows that in addition to her vandal-fighting, she does a substantial amount of article-work too, on subjects such as Tokio Hotel, HIM (Finnish band), Evanescence, and, as I mentioned above, Kelly Clarkson. She has not limited herself to those articles, however, and has worked on other topics, and she has also contributed to images, and has done a little bit of work in the template namespace.

Her personality is just perfect for an administrator as well: she is constantly nice to other users, and never resorts to incivility or disruption when under pressure. AngelOfSadness has good communication skills, and it’s a pleasure interacting with her. Plus, she has not been in a hurry to become an administrator: a look through her archives will reveal times when other users (myself included) encouraged her (in a friendly way) to run for adminship, but she preferred to wait some more before deciding to accept a nomination.

Overall, AngelOfSadness is an excellent, experienced, patient, and friendly Wikipedian. I am confident that she would make great use of the tools if they are granted to her. Acalamari 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by User:Rlevse

AoS says I was the first person to approach her about being an admin. That ways about 7-9 months ago. I don't recall what we were working on, but I do recall her skill was so great I asked her about adminship. She says she wasn't ready at that time. To sum it up, she's a well-rounded wikian whose strongest point, IMHO, is her great skill at handling tense situations. She will undoubtedly be an asset to the admin corps. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Nishkid64

Acalamari has covered everything I would like to say about this user. Oh well, I'll say my spiel. I offered to nominate AngelofSadness for adminship in December 2007, but she politely declined. In her time on Wikipedia, I believe AoS has done an amazing job in both fighting vandals and editing the encyclopedia. She's a model Wikipedian: she's polite to other users, never bites the noobies, and always expresses herself in a civilized and diligent manner. She has participated in CSD tagging, AfD discussion, AIV and UAA reporting, and SSP reports. I believe her excellence in these admin-related fields is demonstrative of what a wonderful addition she would be to admin team. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and sincerly thank the nominators for their comments. AngelOfSadness talk 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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: I would begin with admin work that does not stray too much from the non-admin work that I have done in the last few months. A fair amount of my contributions to Wikipedia are those of a vandal fighter and so I think I would start in areas such as AIV, UAA and CSD and branch out from there.
I would also like to take part in closing Xfd debates but, at the beginning, mainly ones where consensus is clear otherwise I would leave it until consensus is clear. I would also like to help in WP:SSP as I have some past experience in that field and it does tend to be backlogged from time to time. Also a recent conversation on my talkpage has inspired me to become involved with processes such as WP:ACC.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have made many contributions to Wikipedia which a good chunk of them would fall under the "vandalism fighter" and "wikignome" categories. But when I come across articles in dire need of attention, I do what I can to improve the articles as much as I can. For example, when I found the articles Escape (Enrique Iglesias song) and Not in Love, both could have been easily redirected to the album articles for asserting importance/significance. But I did what I could and now both articles not only provide more information but are also are not red links or redirects right now. I have also improved the articles Dangerous (Busta Rhymes song) and Sitting Down Here.
Along with improving existing articles I have also created articles such as My Favourite Game (the article I'm most proud of have written), Erase/Rewind and Cradle of Love. With the first two articles, I knew a lot about the subjects so writing those was no problem. But with the third article, I found it red linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs and so I spent the day researching and writing the article. I have also created templates such as Template:Lene Marlin, Template:Enrique Iglesias and Template:Billy Idol aswell as improving existing templates such as Template:Tokio Hotel.
While I don't make many major content contributions, I have spent some of my time improving the sources and reliablibity of the content in many articles including Venus Doom and a few of the singles articles of Craig David, HIM (Finnish band) and Tokio Hotel. To me, I find that the reliablility of content is very important as many people use Wikipedia as their primary source of information so the content they read may as well be well sourced or at least factually correct. That may be the reason why amongst my many vandalism reverts there are also reverts with "rev addition of unsourced content" as the edit summary. Such revert explainations are necessary, especially when dealing with articles that have subjects of high public interest such as Blackout (Britney Spears album) (as it did particularly before its release) where much of it's content has to be discussed on the talkpage.
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: To date, I haven't been in any major editing conflicts except for the genre changing (without sources, explaination or discussion) sockpuppets of their puppetmaster, who I encountered back in July when, at that time I was an active Wikipedian for a whole three weeks. Because of that stressful three day conflict, I was almost blocked for edit warring but I learned a whole load of what Wikipedia is really about such as: lame edit wars are simply not worth it and that Wikipedia is an ongoing collaboraive effort so communication is always better than edit warring.
For present and future similiar situations, I think it's best to write a friendly note on the editor in question's talkpage in an attempt to begin a discussion about the edits and how to improve them instead of reverting the edits. If the editor in question is a suspected sockpuppet, it's always better to assume good faith and be civil were possible which can be hard to do if there were dealings with the puppetmaster and several other sockpuppets previously.
I have had my fair share conflict with persistant vandals and other editors but these conflicts have been relatively minor in comparision to the conflict mentioned above. But the minor conflicts might have been caused by simple misunderstandings. I have always found it's best to review the situation and try to understand what happened in the views of both parties involved before pressing the "save page" button on the other party's talkpage.
Although about two months ago I found what appeared to be a dynamic IP making BLP violations on the Jason Goldberg and Soleil Moon Frye articles. Of course I reverted countless edits of the IP between the filed report and the block, meanwhile trying to make the page protection reports for the two articles and revert the vandalism from my user talkpage from a new sockpuppet every minute. Unfortunately, my account got accidentally blocked (the blocking admin was of course trying to block the sockpuppet) and was unblocked but my IP remained autoblocked so the page protections went unreported and eventually the sockpuppets and IP address were blocked and the pages were protected. This definately caused a lot of stress and that the thing I really should have done and will do in future is to make sure that those page protection reports are filed early and don't revert except for truly blantant vandalism.

Questions from Razorflame:

4. These questions are designed to see how well you know the policies relevant to administrators:

4a. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

4b. What is the purpose of a block?

4c. What is the purpose of protection?

4d. What defines an inappropriate username?

4e. What defines a vandalism-only account?

5. How would you proceed if a user continuously attacks you through your talk page?

6. Why is wheel warring a bad thing? What can you do to prevent it?

7. A user requests semi-protection of a page, but you fully protect it. Why?

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as co-nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I belive she will have a great use of these tools. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Yes. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Solid nomination, trustworthy, competent, and will use the tools. Good luck! Anthøny 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, seems like she'll be a good admin. Bob talk 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, will make a great admin. --Oxymoron83 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good editor, fairly good balance of edits, although I'd like to see more Wikipedia talk edits. Vandal fighters are always appreciated! Good luck. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above and more. Dlohcierekim 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I strongly support this nomination, being AngelOfSadness' nominator. In response to the communication concerns, I can honestly say that AngelOfSadness is a fine communicator: a look through her talk page and her archives will show that she is good at talking to people (and that includes vandals and trolls), and that I have never found any problems with her communication. With "a lot of her user talk edits are templates", that's only because, in addition to her article-writing, she has done a lot of vandal-fighting, and the fact that she's warning vandals after she's reverted them is a good thing and should not be held against her. Finally in response to her low WT count, in my 11 months as an admin, I've found that it's actually not a high priority to edit those pages: the actual Wikipedia-namespace is more important to edit, and she has plenty of activity there. She'll be excellent. Acalamari 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. YES FINALLY Nuff' said. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - After carefully looking at the user's special contributions, I've decided there exists ample evidence that the candidate will be nothing less than a benefit to Wikipedia. Yes, there are few WT edits, but there are plenty of instances in the article space that shows how they interact and communicate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support WT edits? There's enough evidence that the user communicates well. Would there be 3 noms if she didn't? Vishnava talk 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a temporary neutral stance, see below. I'm not going to cast a meaningful vote based on a short gloss over. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support (changed from Neutral). After a deeper look, your contribs are good enough and after going through your user talk edits, I think you'll be communicative enough. Your work in User Talk makes up for the little work in Wikipedia Talk. I, like Wisdom89, want to give my !vote meaning, so I can add to the discussion. Useight (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. naerii - talk 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Per nom. MBisanz talk 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Supportgood 'pedia builder. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
move to support) Neutral for now. I'm going to spend some more time looking into this one. So far, in weighing the pros and cons, her work seems pretty good, but she only has 11 edits to Wikipedia Talk and a lot of her User Talk edits were automated via Twinkle. I find communication between editors to be a very important trait in an administrator. Useight (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now as well and basically per Useight. From my cursory glances, nothing really seems to leap out at me as alarming, however, talking and communication are vital to administrative duties. I shall return and formulate my permanent stance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Changing to Support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral The lack of edits to the WT space concerns me, as does the support of BLP1E, although that not as much, since I understand the need for administrators from multiple policy standpoints, even ones that I don't believe are in line with the goal of producing a quality encyclopedia. Communication is one of the most important duties of being an admin, and I just don't see anything that demonstrates the ability of the user to do that. Celarnor Talk to me 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AngelOfSadness&oldid=216559698"