Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:31, 11 May 2006

BrownHairedGirl

(53/14/7) ending 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Misplaced Pages for several months, and in that time I have performed over 7900 edits, and participated in a few dozen RfD and CfD discussions. I have not been involved in any major disputes: the few times that I seemed to get into trouble were early on, when I made mistakes which appeared on first appearance to be vandalism, although the warning tags were all withdrawn after discussion. I believe that I have enough experience of wikipedia to be able to make a useful admin, and would particularly welcome the ability to access the tools which would allow me to help combat vandalism. I am aware that some people dislike self-nominations for adminship (for reasons which i respect), and I will quite understand if this counts against me. BrownHairedGirl 19:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Not sure if I need to accept a self-nomination, but just in case, I do accept. --BrownHairedGirl 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support on WHEELS!!! Looks good to me! --D-Day) 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I find nothing wrong in self-nominating. I am concerned, though, about your lack of edits on talk and user talkpages, plus comparatively lack of edits to projectspace. Nevertheless, I'm happy to support a positive and experienced editor. Rama's Arrow 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Looks good to me also. --Tone 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I am a person who's not too keen on self-noms, but BHG looks good to me. -lethe 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Looks alright. No sign that they would abuse admin tools. Nephron  T|C 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Experienced. RadioKirk talk to me 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Jaranda 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Great user and I'm sure that she will use the mop correctly. DarthVader 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Great, hard-working user, should be a good admin too abakharev 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Kimchi.sg 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Conditional support: Has only been there since the start of the year, but it looks like she's ready. --Slgrandson 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. The candidate's commitment to the project is clear. Although I can see the force of the objections made by JoshZ and others, I'm willing to make a leap of faith here. Bucketsofg✐ 00:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Dedicated member of the project. Looks like good admin material. Srikeit 01:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
14. While it's true that candidate doesn't have a lot of project space contribs, remember that we are writing an encyclopedia first here. She seems to have a clear grasp of policy, as evidenced in handling speedy deletions she doesn't agree with tactfully and properly, etc. She seems extremely polite in talking to other editors, even when correcting them. Her new articles are great and seem to comply with every policy imaginable, which shows that even if she doesn't post to the project space heavilly, she's certainly read a lot of it. So I'll go out on a limb here too and support. --W.marsh 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Support. I'll make a leap of faith here due to your OUTSTANDING article contributions. But if this RFA fails, I highly suggest you join us at AfD and do a little Newpage/Recent Changes patrol. AfD is relatively easy to do and gets you a high profile with the community and direct experience with WP policy. I'd be very happy to nominate you myself in a few months then. Grandmasterka 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    Has also demonstrated a lot of familiarity with WP policy recently. Grandmasterka 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

16. Support, she will be fine but I still like to see more project space edits. --Terence Ong 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
17. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, I'll echo W.marsh here. Lectonar 13:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support It is time to give this user the mop. An experienced editor as well. --Siva1979 15:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. She should have a good chance to use tools well.--Jusjih 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Need more admins. Haukur 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support with enthusiasm, have seen this user's name crop up repeatedly on my watchlist lately and it's all good. Also, a lot of her work is the sort of very useful but unexciting (to me, anyway) stuff which suggests she would be likely to make a dedicated admin in the areas she proposes. Palmiro | Talk 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I like her attitude, she might not be a super-sysop straight-out-of-the-box, I have no doubt she will be soon, with some admin-experience. --Eivind 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
24. No Big Deal Support. We need more admins, and really, I do trust BHG. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Support BrownHairedGirl has been working in a professional manner, and has all the qualifications required by an efficient Administrator. Good luck ! TammamS 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Very Strong Support BHG has an excellent track record. I strongly support nomination for Administratorship. Best, Fares S 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. I'll take on good faith that she'll read up on relevant policies she might have missed. Low Wikispace edits don't concern me too much. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 01:24 UTC
28. Support. I like what I've seen. After reading both sides of this discussion and her User page, I'm satisfied. Fluit 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - competent and extremely active user. Should be an effective administrator. Warofdreams talk 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. I think she will use the tools wisely. -- DS1953 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support as likely to use admin tools constructively and unlikely to abuse admin tools and inasmuch as Adminship is no big deal. Joe 05:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Support there's no reason not too --Robdurbar 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Answers to questions, excellent contributions and other reasons already stated above make me trust her for adminisphip despite not having a massive number of project edits. Afonso Silva 10:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. I had considered nominating her myself. It looks like this might not make it, but judging from the opposes it will a month from now. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Support.  Grue  17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support This member is now ready to become an admin. Good luck to you! Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
38. Support I'm not going to hold early mistakes (or the fact that "assisting" is spelled wrong in the first answer to the questions below) against her. Great user, ready for adminship. Steveo2 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support These oppose votes are such b******* KI 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    Be civil in your zeal. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 00:31 UTC

40. Support - Ultra active user QuakeRanger 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
41. Support Active in AfD, takes note of issues when they arise even if they are outside of her area of focus --Lakhim 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support but lets see more edits in the project space! Good Luck! OSU80 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support PageantUpdater 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Sarge Baldy 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Seems like a very worthy candidate. Brisvegas 09:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support convinced me. Also very active in wikipedia discussions such as Afd, Cfd and so on. --Arnzy 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Support I came to your user page to give you a Barnstar (which I have; it's well deserved) and saw the RfA. I like what I've seen of your contributions, and am not convinced by the oppose votes. Colonel Tom 15:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
49. Support A levelheaded editor asking for tools to help improve this project is fine with me. --hydnjo talk 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Seems to be a sensible lady. Should be ready enough. -MrFizyx 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Initially I was going to oppose for the good reasons stated below, but I think this editor 1)can be trusted 2) will learn sensibly on the job. Tyrenius 02:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - like Tyrenius, I was tempted to oppose, but I've satisfied myself that Misplaced Pages will be better off with her as an admin. —Whouk (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. --Bhadani 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose with a heavy heart. I don't think the that the user has the necessary experience yet beyond article space nor am I convinced that she needs the tools. She states that "The two tasks which I have in mind are reverting vandalism, and asisting in the AfD/RfD/CFD process" but I see almost no vandalism reversions or warnings to users and I see zero edits to WP:AIV. Furthermore, although there are a fair number of edits to CfD, there are almost no edits to AfD and RfD. JoshuaZ 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   I take your point, and maybe you are right, but I did try vandalism patrolling a few months ago (e.g. on

2. Most Reluctant Oppose Ever - I'm so sorry, but I have to oppose per JoshuaZ. "Average edits per day (current): 185.87" over the last 2000 edits was unbeleive, but outweighing that was that only 0.75% of those were to the Misplaced Pages space and there was almost no talk or user talk edits. I'm really sorry, just come back in a little while (at your edit rate in a couple of weeks) with some more Misplaced Pages space edits to learn more about the Misplaced Pages policies. Once again, sorry. We really can't afford to lose someone as active as you as an editor, but I just don't see you as needing admin tools. —Mets501 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

   Please rest assured that whatever the outcome of this RFA discussion, you won't lose me as editor! I am just seeking the chance to do a bit more, in a more efficient way than I can do it at the moment, and I have learnt a lot from this process. --BrownHairedGirl 09:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Weak, veeery weak oppose. I'm a declared enemy of editcountitis and similar non-representative ways of measuring a user's involvement in the project; I believe BHG's wiki-enthusiasm is out of question here, and I am very impressed with the work she has performed here so far. A few things concern me here tho, namely: a) the extremely low levels of participation in Misplaced Pages space (compared to her enormous activity in namespace), which makes me wonder about her knowledge of WP policies and procedures. b) very little contact-talk-interaction with other users raises questions about how she will manage when confronted with potential conflict. c) almost no involvement in admin-related tasks. d) nearly 7,000 edits in two months only (fantastic!) raises however concern about potential burnout. With all this in mind, allow me to congratulate you on your amazing levels of participation and your contributions, and in the unlikely case this fails, I encourage you to nominate yourself again in a while... I might even do it for you myself! Kisses, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose At present, the low number of wikispace edits cause me concern. There is not yet sufficient evidence that editor has a grasp of policy and process, though her devotion to the project is impressive. Hang around project-space a bit more, and I will gladly support in a few months. Xoloz 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. 7900 edits is good, but not so good when only 100 or so are in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Royboycrashfan 01:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Very reluctant oppose for all of the reasons above. I do hope you'll try again in a few months, when I'll likely support. Keep up the good work, which is most impressive! Sandy 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, you need to balance out your edits, need more project and defintely more user talk space edits.--Kungfu Adam 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Reluctant oppose. Edit count and time with Misplaced Pages more than sufficient. But needs more time with things like RCPatrol, AfD, etc. I sense a reluctance to confront. RCPatrolling and AIV can be VERY confrontational. At the ame time you need to distinguish those who nee help from those who need blocking. Needs more experience.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Lop-sided contributions to Main namespace, most of which is category sorting; very little in discussion of policy or on talk pages, scant participation on any deletion pages where one can lose one's nerve very quickly. Impressive edit count though. --Knucmo2 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think it's fair to count my contributions as category-sorting: nearly all of the articles to which I have added categories are also ones to which I have added substantive content, in some cases significant amounts, and/or copyedited to assert notability in a clear introductory paragraph. --BrownHairedGirl 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose lack of project edits. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
11. So weak that I can't lift a penny oppose; really nice editor and amazing rate of editing, but not well balanced enough. Sorry. Mopper 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Reluctant but firm Oppose. I've had some recent dealings with this editor, and she's very nice. She's also a great article writer. However, I very much think she isn't ready for the mop and it would be better for her to wait than to be thrown into the deep end too soon. I'm confident I'll be able to support next time, when she has more project space involvement under her belt. --kingboyk 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose don't need more admins. Ardenn 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose - a little more experience wouldn't go amiss. --Doc 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user BrownHairedGirl (over the 2000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 11 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 08, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 27, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 98.31% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 98.89% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day (current): 186.46
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 39.65%
Unique pages edited: 1089 | Average edits per page: 1.84 | Edits on top: 45.55%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 43.15%
Minor edits (non reverts): 55.5%
Marked reverts: 0.6%
Unmarked edits: 0.75%
Edits by Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 91.6% | Article talk: 0.8%
User: 2.35% | User talk: 0.5%
Misplaced Pages: 0.75% | Misplaced Pages talk: 0%
Image: 0%
Template: 0.45%
Category: 3.45%
Portal: 0%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0%