Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maurreen

Maurreen

final (5/5/3) ending 03:01, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen has been with us for about three months, and in that time has racked up over 4400 edits. In addition to the main namespace, she has been active on the Wikipedia namespace as well, contributing significantly to policy discussion and the like. I can think of few more suitable for adminship. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 03:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 03:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. Support. Ram-Man - Minor edits are great. Doing simple tasks is a thankless job sometimes. I also only use my sysop abilities somewhat infrequently, but when I do it is quite useful. (such as when I need to delete a vandals page).
3. Strongly support - Maurreen has been doing a lot of important household chores for Wikipedia, and these are often thankless tasks, like tightening up policy pages, for example on original research; exploring ways of improving the quality of content through the enclyopedic standards and Wikipedia 1.0 initiatives; and developing consistency in the Style Manual. Whether it's a policy page or an article, a text is always improved by Maurreen editing it, both in terms of quality and consistency of content, and in terms of the writing itself. Slim 21:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
4. Strong support. The comment below from jguk seems to be motivated by some run-ins with Maurreen. I did quite a bit of looking around the pages he mentioned and I can find no Wikiquette issues. Maurreen does quite a bit of discussion, chores, etc. She uses logic and doesn't appear to be hostile. She's not afraid of confrontation and when faced with it I found her to be very civil. Talk pages look good, contributions look good. CryptoDerk 18:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
5. Strong support. I thought being an admin wasn't that big of a deal? Maurreen has taken a very hands on and practical approach to working on both articles and on ways to deal with the issues that come up when editing those articles, and she even re-started work on a "1.0" project when many other editors were still hemming and hawing and only "thinking about it". Please give her the tools to do the job right.

Oppose

1. Weak oppose.Dr Zen 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. Unfortunately this editor does not understand Wikiquette. There are numerous instances of her not assuming good faith. Where debates are not going the way she wishes, she overreacts - always taking the debate further rather than stepping back and moving on (see the history of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style). She deliberately increases the heat in a discussion, even arguing strongly about the omission of the word "good" in an article [1]. In a discussion on the Manual of Style she even proposed deleting all the comments in favour of a proposal (which outnumbered those taking the "oppose" stance she strongly believed in), whilst implying later on in the page that since there was not any support for that proposal it should be dropped. She also promotes alternative policies: such as (in my words) "consensus is necessary for textual changes to an article"; "let's fix some 'good' articles on the version they are now on". She also places "NPOV" tags onto articles without explaining why. Taken as a whole, it is clear this editor is not ready to be trusted as a sysop. jguk 18:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Oppose now, but might support later. Not clearly a 'bad' candidate, just needs a little more polish and more work on 'admin chores'. Would support this candidate if Maurreen demonstrates a better understanding that wikipedia needs more lubrication and less friction. (bear in mind that I myself do not meet my own standards for admins) Maurreen is generally a good editor. Pedant 20:04, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Far too soon for adminship. Moreover, those things which she has done would not be enhanced by adminship. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Account is too young. Would prefer to see more Wikitime under their belt. --Improv 05:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. From what I've seen here... I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe another time. --Lst27 (talk) 00:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. What Lst27 said. Maurreen's a good editor, but could brush up on her etiquette a little. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Let's give it another month or two. Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• I think I should acknowledge that many of my edits are minor. Also, there appear to be two views on how big a deal adminship is. I'm not sure I am prepared for whatever work might be expected of me. Maurreen 07:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)