Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CattleGirl

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] CattleGirl

Final: (58/1/1); ended 08:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CattleGirl (talk · contribs) - I would like to proudly nominate CattleGirl for adminship. In the nine months that she has been with us, she has shown skill, experience, dedication, and all the prized qualities we look for in an administrator.

I personally first came across CattleGirl in my editor review a few months back, where she offered me friendly, helpful tips and criticism. It is in this very area that she excels: helping other Wikipedians. She has been highly active in the Adopt-a-User program, aiding multitudes of budding new Wikipedians in learning the ropes, and in welcoming new users to the project. She has contributed a great deal of knowledge to the encyclopedia, particularly in the alternative rock WikiProjects, as well as, naturally, cattle and other livestock topics!

CattleGirl has also been highly dedicated to the behind-the-scenes work that makes Wikipedia tick. She's been a prolific vandal-fighter, dealing with vandals in a civil and level-headed manner. She's also contributed to an eclectic mix of xfD debates. I have no doubt that getting started on administrative chores would be a smooth transition for her. Krimpet (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept this nomination. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:31, 7 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: To start with, I'd keep an eye out on many admin backlogs- I'd start off with looking out for Candidates for speedy deletion and requests for unblock. As seen in my contributions, I tend to do a lot of vandal fighting- WP:AIV always needs another set of eyes, and the rollback button would always come in handy. I'd also be seen closing deletion debates- not only normal deletion debates, but more obscure debates- for example, Templates for deletion, User categories for discussion and Categories for discussion as there can never be too many admins there. I'd like to take an active role in watching the administrators noticeboard- therefore, being able to act on the issues being brought up there as an administrator.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are not necessarily featured article contributions, but article rewrites that perhaps saved a notable article from deletion. After a request from a friend to help rewrite the article Nick Vujicic, as it was going through a deletion debate, I started gradually re-wording, rephrasing, and generally wikifying it until it reached a satisfactory encyclopedic tone. Where this is not by a long shot the best written article on Wikipedia, a group of Wikipedians, including myself, banding together to help rewrite it saved it from a deletion debate. Non-article related, as mentioned in my nomination I take pride in helping other wiki editors learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I watch the Help Desk and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page‎, and take an active role in the Adopt-a-User program. These projects perhaps 'convert' a lot of test-editors to recognised editors of Wikipedia, and without them, the levels of vandalism on Wikipedia would probably be considerably elevated, making it a satifying experience once you help editors get through the sudden learning curve.


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: Being a generally calm person, I do not easily get stressed, whether in real life or on the internet. As mentioned on both my editor reviews (1 and 2), probably the most stressful sistuation I've had on Wikipedia was at the start of my Wiki-career, where I was involved in a sockpuppet argument with User:Topcattheirrefutable (user page now deleted). Basically, he was throwing around sockpuppet templates (which were obvious vandalism), which I reverted, and then warned him for it on his talk page. We then got into a heated discussion on wiki-policy- where I believe I kept a cool head and stated the relevant policies. He was eventually blocked for disruption. I'm sorry I can't state a page that hasn't been deleted, however as mentioned before, I tend to keep a cool head in arguments, and therefore am not engaged in many conflicts. Other that that mentioned, there is the various attacks from vandals I have warned, which I revert, and warn them about on their talk page. If they persist after being given all the warnings relevant, I list them on AIV, if they haven't already been blocked for disruption. If there is a situation causing me stress, naturally, once clearing it up, I'd go and work on another part of Wikipedia- there's always something to do- until whatever is stressing me out has cooled down.

4. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: Thankfully, yes, it should be extremely hard to gain access to my account. CattleGirl talk | sign! 22:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from falsedef
5. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. The talk page consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no reliable sources to verify claims. What sort of actions and compromises should be taken to resolve the issue?
A: If the edit is controversial, but supported by multiple reliable sources, naturally it should be put in the article, however in this page it goes against the general consensus. With no sources to back up claims of the talk page consensus, it seems that the controversial edit is much more reliable. I would bring up the issue on the talk page of the article, stating all sources, and all reasons why this should be included. I would also try to find some reliable sources for the talk page consensus. Unless the edits are exactly opposite one another, there may perhaps be a way to include both (for want of a better word) 'points of view' (not violating WP:NPOV, of course).
If the talk page consensus does not have any sources, it may be original research. However, with these issues it's always a good idea to check out WP:SOURCE- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true."
I hope I answered your question to your satisfaction- it was a good one. CattleGirl talk | sign! 07:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support - I've just scanned your contribs and you look like you'll be fine (I'm very impressed with your XfD comments!). Best of luck. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)`
  2. Support per good answer to Q1 and helping new users. Addhoc 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support → Can this user be trusted with the tools? I think so! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support This user is obviously calm and level-headed. But I am especially appreciative of her work with the adoption program. The attitude of helpfulness is a big positive. JodyB talk 11:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I see her around all the time. She will be a good admin. -Mschel 11:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support tis' all good. ~ Arjun 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support as nominator; almost forgot! Krimpet (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Especially like the interest in saving borderline cases from deletion. (I do not particularly like autograph pages but that isn't a good enough reason for an oppose). I am sure my first RfA !vote is going to a worthy candidate. And you didn't even hint at this RfA yesterday! :) - TwoOars (T | C) 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm highly disappointed, I was looking forward to nominating her myself. :-) Support, obviously. Walton Need some help? 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support No red flags, good answers to the questions, no reason not to support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Looks like a fine candidate...----Cometstyles 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Bonne chance! Abeg92contribs 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Yes looks fine. Majorly (hot!) 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Looks like a user who knows her stuff and helps out around the wiki.--Danaman5 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Per everyone, Good job! Felix 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - looks great. Am impressed with Ryan's diffs below, too. Good luck! - Alison ☺ 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Yes, I like! Jmlk17 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong support I've seen her numerous times around XfD, and she looks great to me. Acalamari 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Great answers. the_undertow talk 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Moo --Húsönd 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Trusted and experienced editor. utcursch | talk 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Great candidate for adminship. Absolutely. —Anas talk? 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, good editor, helpful. Everyking 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, PATD would be proud of you. :) icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support CHanged my vote from neutral to support, I think you handled my comments veyr well and I was being to picky, good luck! The Sunshine Man 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Hmmm, nice user talk page ;) Good user, experienced and trusted. – Rianaऋ 12:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I've checked the contribs; the tools will help with some of the work CattleGirl is already doing (such as the vandalfighting), and the interactions I remember with this user have all been positive. --ais523 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Can't go wrong here. - 2-16 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Default support. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Trustworthy. Lovely name too. ;-) Stammer 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support: I have ran into this user a couple of times and everytime it has been nothing but a good experience. I think this user can be trusted, has plenty of experience and edit count summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support This wikipedian fits my criteria for adminship. --Random Say it here! 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Easily support. She has shown nothing but class. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support CattleGirl will make a great addition to the administrators. - Dan D. Ric 02:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support calm and experienced falsedef 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - CattleGirl has all the qualities needed for an admin. --Deryck C. 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Totally deserves it. Will do Wikipedia proud. Fneep 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - looks good to me. Deb 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support always needs more people to keep an eye on CSD. --Bachrach44 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I'm too new to know all the ins and out, but this person is the best of the bunch running. I found this because I made an edit on another's page and saw that they had a RfA (which didn't pass because of inexperience).Feddhicks 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Looks good!! You'll do fine. --Shirahadasha 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support, why not. --Phoenix 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support constructive, trustworthy candidate.--cj | talk 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support A good editor. Xiner (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - good luck!--thunderboltz(TALK) 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support - yep. Give 'er the mop. Philippe 06:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Her editing seems good, and I remember her to be very nice. :) · AndonicO Talk 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support. Sarah 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support John254 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. Phaedriel - 00:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support Never hurts to have more vandal fighters. I don't see any problems. James086Talk | Email 10:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. Seen her around, good editor. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. PeaceNT 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support yippie-i-o yeah! --Infrangible 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Oppose. Essentially for not being well-rounded. I rapidly reviewed this user's edits in 2007. While there are a large number of vandal reverts + warnings, I couldn't find any real substantive article edits (such as adding content, references, etc). About the best I could find was this [1]. Her primary contribution to the article she cited in the questions - Nick Vujicic - dates to Nov. 2006. I also didn't see any evidence of participation in policy discussions/ pages. I expect more from prospective admins. --JJay 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hi, JJay, and thanks for the comment, I definitely see where you're coming from.
    One of my favourite things to do on Wikipedia is, as obviously seen from my contributions lately, vandal fighting, so a large percentage of my total edits are going to be that.
    On terms of article building, the reason I mentioned Nick Vujicic is just what I said- it was the first thing that sprang to mind when I thought of contributions I was proud of. For more recent edits, my talk page shows conversations with various users involved in agricultural area, most of the time Sawyer12477, as we are completely re-writing the Romney (sheep) article. Most of the article is written by him (this is mostly in a word document- sorry about the lack of availability on the internet), except I have gradually rephrased the paragraphs and formatted, included the references, which I am continuing to do as we speak. This is probably the most recent re-write I've done.
    Other than that, I am still struggling to find some reliable references for various alternative articles, usually members of My Chemical Romance and Panic! at the Disco.
    My use of policy is found in various XFD debates.
    As an editor, I do tend to focus mainly on behind the scenes work- such as vandal fighting, wikifying, monitoring talk pages, etc, and for a few days being devoted to a particular backlog.
    Once again, thank you for the comment- I'm note trying to convince you to change your !vote, but just to show where I stand in my contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers- CattleGirl talk | sign! 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Changed to support#Neutral You are a great user nad you are on the right track but many of your comments at WP:TFD are just saying per nom, XFD is meant to be a place for discussions not just saying per nom. Here a some diffs [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; yes other users wrote per nom and it is acceptable but it would be better if you had explained why in more detail you think it should be deleted. Your vandalism reverting and warning users is excellent and so is your welcoming nerw users, it would be nice to see a bit more article work but except for that your doing good! The Sunshine Man 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It seams to me that there are a lot of XfD's where she gives great commentary; [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12]. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Sunshine Man. Usually I reserve the "per nom" comments for when I feel that the nominator has summed it up in a nutshell, but I'll definitely be more specific in the future. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Low Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits. Captain panda 13:18, 12 May 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.