Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegship

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

Pegship

(87/0/3); final Andre (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pegship (talk · contribs) - Her Pegship has done a power of work on Wikipedia, much of it on the stub-sorting project, though she is also involved with WP Films and does work on commons. In particular, her work here is often related to housekeeping tasks such as clearing out the debris at WP:SFD. For this reason in particular the tools of adminship would be very useful (SfD always needs more people with the tools), though Peg's diligent work and courteous and thoughtful interactions with other editors are also good reasons why adminship is long overdue. After all, she's been here since late 2005, and has made so many edits that my poor dial-up can't load the editcount details - suffice to say that it is a five-figure number, and she has an edit summary use figure of some 99%. Isn't it about time Pegship was an admin? Grutness...wha? 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination and thank Grutness for his good faith! Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:26, 31 May 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 specialize in stub sorting, categorizing, and general cleanup such as defaultsorting and formatting. Adminship would be most useful for the ability to delete items such as obsolete stub templates and stub categories and to merge articles that are redundant.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I excel at mindless minutiae! I am the gnome who comes in and tidies up sort order, assigns a more specific (or more general) category or stub type, and tweaks article layout to achieve a more aesthetic, user-friendly interface. My pet project has been pitching in on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books, which was begun by Lady Aleena and is ongoing (and has taught me to not OWN).
B: I believe that the second most important aspect of any reference work, after its content, is its accessibility. To that end I like to be sure articles can be found by a casual user, via search, redirect, category, or list, and I think I have a knack for it.
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 believe in living and letting live. I occasionally run into users who have an agenda who take offense at any objective evaluation of an article or its place in the encyclopedia. Most recently I assigned a stub type to one of Ludvikus' articles on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to which he objected, and we had a lively little discussion. Once I realized we were arguing at cross purposes (and he kept reverting my changes), I bade him adieu and let it go.
B: I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who knows the subject better than I. My first major overhaul of an article was kind of presumptuous and prompted some ire from an expert, at which point I apologized and pleaded noobism.

(Optional) Question/s from PookeyMaster (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is your interpretation of BLP?
A: I'm not sure what I'm requested to interpret. It seems clear to me.
To respond to comments in the "Neutral" zone, I think BLP is well-stated and fair overall, but I still don't see what the Master would like interpreted.
5. What is the Difference between a Block and a Ban and when is each Appropriate?
A: A block is temporary, used to prevent further infraction; a ban generally seems to be longer, used to stop a user from habitually disruptive behavior. In mommyspeak, a block would be like a "time out" and a ban similar to being grounded. :P


Optional questions from RyRy5

6. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A: After properly posting warnings on the IP talk page(s) I would block the IP(s) for a brief period per WP procedure. If it continued after the block was lifted, I would block for a longer period, and if it continued still, I would consult other admins to explore further preventive measures.
7. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: After appropriate talk page warnings, I would bring it to the attention of the admin noticeboard.

Optional question from User:Novickas

8. Do you foresee yourself ever participating as an admin in the WP hotspots of ethnic/cultural wars and science topics? If so, what do you think you would bring to those tables? Novickas (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I try to stay aware of such hotspots but would not take a leading role in discussing them, mainly because my Real Life is full of that sort of controversy already, and I'm much better at cleanup than diplomacy. I would certainly participate if I felt strongly moved to do so.


Optional question from InDeBiz1

10. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?
I do think some such users can be trusted again; it very much depends on the circumstances and the user's attitude. Let's face it, all we have to go on is the user's edits and statements, and if we don't give someone the benefit of the doubt there should be a clear reason. I think that someone who has made a mistake or two, or even done something deliberately but for the wrong reasons, could be watched briefly and then let alone. A user who, on the other hand, has repeatedly erred, whose behavior shows no sign of amendment despite claims to the contrary, bears watching indefinitely. Again, it really depends on the situation. Her Pegship (tis herself) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support, good editor.-gadfium 06:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support excellent candidate, experienced and tactful. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support a good candidate --Stephen 07:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Would be a good admin.--Lenticel (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Talk page shows good evidence of communication, article contributions look good, some participation at XfD, and I like niche area admin candidates (helps you learn new things, I was unfamiliar with SFD). MrPrada (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I trust this editor.--Sting Buzz Me... 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rudget (Help?) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Well, this is embarrassing - guess what the nominator forgot to do :) Support Grutness...wha? 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A Grutness nom?...Wha dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened before - just not for some time (which is probably why I forgot to add my !vote :) Grutness...wha? 08:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually wondering if anyone would not the resemblance to your signature. Clearly I'm a bit too subtle. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sure. Good candidate with good article contributions = checkY Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems link a well-rounded editor. 1:Stub sorting 2:Over 1000 edits per month 3:Seems to know her way around Wikipedia. Congratulations.  Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs)  11:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support. Will make good use of the tools (already does a lot of "housekeeping" sort of work here, and as the nom alludes to, SfD has averaged about one regular closer for several years now, and that person burns out every six months or so -- I know, since I was that one person for a while), and seems exceptionally unlikely to misuse them in any way. Alai (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
  14. naerii - talk 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Not so much "no concerns" as "impressed!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per above Lots of experience, particularly in area for which tools requested. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per LHVU. I consider being experienced in an obscure area (I bet there are some admins who have never heard of SFD) a very good trait in a candidate. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, seems to be an experienced editor that could make good use of admin tools. ~ mazca talk 15:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, I have no concerns and am sure user will research unfamiliar areas. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. A clear case of a candidate who needs a few extra buttons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Crap, I was actually going to nom you myself in a couple days ><. Another miss for me, but I definitely support this. Wizardman 16:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - User requires the tools for work in areas that they have extensive experience in. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support definitely trusworthy. Shapiros10 WuzHere  17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support every once in a while I stop by RfA to see if any of the exceptional contributors I've had the pleasure of interacting with over the years has gotten nominated ... and hey, this is one of those times! Peg is great. -- phoebe / (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support View of contributions shows a good editor. SpencerT♦C 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I didn't see any problems in the last two archives of her talk page, so no problems here! Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Definitely. ;) Per the nomination statement, and the above opinions. Anthøny 21:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support More editors like this, Great candidate! RxS (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Suppport good candidate for the job. Vishnava talk 22:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support a superlative editor, careful and thorough. I think she'll find a good deal to do with the tools, and I am totally sure she'll be scrupulous in learning any areas that are new to her. DGG (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support admins with specialist skills are welcome, and the attention to detail I've seen convinces me that Pegship will be a welcome addition to the team. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. keep Notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - per my criteria --Chetblong (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ithoughtyoualreadywereone Support Thingg⊕⊗ 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Just dont change like some evil admins do :-) Prom3th3an (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - a very able & experienced editor, all contacts have been very positive! SkierRMH (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Pegsport seems like a pretty cool guy eh. Likes to to fight vandalism and doesn't afraid of anything. 24.15.158.90 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Always seeing her around, doing useful stuff. Johnbod (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Pegship adminship will benefit the encyclopedia. — Athaenara ✉ 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Hemmingsen 11:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I'm very surprised to see her here - I always thought she was an admin. Her work and leadership at WP:DYK is exemplary. The Transhumanist 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- No problems at all. Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 12:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Tovian (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - definitely admin material, I don't even see the need to wish her luck, she won't require it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Why not? Great editor, trustworthy, shall I continue? TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Has seemed sane for a long time. - BanyanTree 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not necessarily an advantage or requirement for adminship ;) Grutness...wha?
  48. Support. About jolly time too. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Why not? Celarnor Talk to me 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The candidate appears both trustworthy and helpful, and understands policy. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Just barely makes my edit count req. MBisanz talk 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Good 'pedia builder and lileky to be a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - brilliant editor, can easily be trusted with the tools, Lradrama 09:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Thoughtful and courteous. Novickas (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No reason not to, no reason for concern. The area in which this candidate edits regularly would benefit from the candidate having the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Tons of experience. She knows what she's doing and will make a fine admin. Useight (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Absolutely. Pegship is not only an extremely experienced editor, but also one of the most qualified candidates at RfA for a while. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, I've seen this user about and imagined she was already an admin. Bob talk 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Good luck! GlassCobra 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Yup, per Malleus. Clear case here. Gnomes welcome and appreciated! I trust this user to not abuse, or even misuse, the tools involved in adminship. No hesitation -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. It seems that you've hit the edit counting cap for Interiot's edit counter. SQL's indicates a count of 70103 (w/o deleted edits) of which a whopping 56994 are mainspace! bibliomaniac15 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support as what appears to be a constructive editor. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose, good user, but would like to see more mainspace edits. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Shouldn't this be in the oppose section? dorftrottel (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered asking this user if this was intended as ironic/humorous. I then decided to proceed on the assumption that it was. (Her number of articlespace edits is huuuge; though it's always possible the user is looking for "substantial" contributions, or some such.) Alai (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries] Alai - check the edit summaries :) Grutness...wha? 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrmph! Hilarious, guys, hilarious. Last time I try to be helpful... This last from the user who's rarely known to click through a link at WP:WSS/P, mind you. :) Alai (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - No reservations. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Everything looks good.— Ѕandahl 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - All the time I've been here I've always assumed you were an admin already. Waacstats (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I thought she became already an admin.--Appletrees (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - seen in odd places helping other eds out - a good sign SatuSuro 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. dorftrottel (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Stub support. Fellow stub sorters beware. </stub> — MaggotSyn 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. For a very long time, I've seen little but hard work and sound judgement from herself. She'll do a great job. ×Meegs 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Gurch (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Kbdank71 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support – Agathoclea (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - WTHN? Qb | your 2 cents 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. — CharlotteWebb 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, has been around enough. feydey (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great contributions to the encyclopedia, and I see no reason the user would abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Pegship appreciates the support, but you already expressed it at #26. WjBscribe 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Blind Support: 76K edits and still no blocks ? (Just kiddin) I dare to believe she will be a good admin. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Trebor (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I have never had any interactions with this editor that would lead me to believe they would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Yep. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Looks like a great user. Acalamari 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I have seen this user stubsorting, the kind of unrewarding maintenance task that all admins should be forced to do for at least a month to earn their buttons! EP 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Neutral This would be a support, except it'll mean that we will have lost another good editor to the ranks of the evil admins. ☻. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now. An excellent user, and I would have supported, but the answer to Q4 let me slightly concerned. I would have expected an explaination of your thoughts on BLB, but instead, there was hardly an answer at all. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was an oddly open-ended question to ask, personally. In fact, since it's basically a "request to restate (all of?) BLP", one might regard it was not much really a question at all... A more specific query about some aspect or application of the policy might have been better. Alai (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm not really sure how I feel about this one. Reviewing the last 1,500 or so edits, I don't see a lot of article work. It appears that it's nearly all stub sorting. Don't get me wrong, that is something that needs to be done, in order for the encyclopedia to fully function as intended, but the lack of user talk contributions doesn't give me confidence (but, to be fair, nor does it give me any concerns to the opposite) that this candidate can successfully interact with other editors in various situations. I'm more inclined to oppose this one on the grounds that I feel that this candidate serves a more important role in areas other than adminship, but I will remain neutral, pending further review. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking my edits. I do go through phases sometimes; for a while I was working on film & book articles. Stub sorting is like knitting or playing solitaire for me (kind of pathetic innit) and I have been kind of on a binge lately, mostly because of the behemoth current size of some of the stub cats. If you take a look at my edits by "space" and go back a bit you might see some variations on the stub theme. HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a calm response. I will go back a bit further when I have some time (hopefully later today) and see what else I can learn. Regards, --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pegship