Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Purplefeltangel 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:50, 23 October 2005 editTheda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,969 edits →[]: reply to applicant statement← Previous edit Revision as of 21:02, 23 October 2005 edit undoBoothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,616 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 64: Line 64:
#: Um I don't know if you're suggesting that I'm younger than fourteen, but I'm definitely fourteen and will turn fifteen next month just so you know. :) {{User:Purplefeltangel/sig}} 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC) #: Um I don't know if you're suggesting that I'm younger than fourteen, but I'm definitely fourteen and will turn fifteen next month just so you know. :) {{User:Purplefeltangel/sig}} 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
*It was not stated in a derogatory sense and I did not mean to hurt you. I said I thought your picture looked younger but didn't say you were. Apologies if that was the case. Like I said, it was the Harry Potter thing. You will in time no doubt make a good administrator but it's too soon on the vandalism issue. The language used in that vandalism was probably seen by children many of whom see that article .--] 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC) *It was not stated in a derogatory sense and I did not mean to hurt you. I said I thought your picture looked younger but didn't say you were. Apologies if that was the case. Like I said, it was the Harry Potter thing. You will in time no doubt make a good administrator but it's too soon on the vandalism issue. The language used in that vandalism was probably seen by children many of whom see that article .--] 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
#--] | ] 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

'''Neutral''' '''Neutral'''
:<s>'''Neutral'''. She might be ready, so I won't vote "oppose", but that vandalism is to recent, it makes my too queezy to support.<s>] <sup><small>]<font color="black">'''|'''</font>]<font color="black">|]</sup></Sup></font></font> 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC) :<s>'''Neutral'''. She might be ready, so I won't vote "oppose", but that vandalism is to recent, it makes my too queezy to support.<s>] <sup><small>]<font color="black">'''|'''</font>]<font color="black">|]</sup></Sup></font></font> 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:02, 23 October 2005

Purplefeltangel

Requests_for_adminship/Purplefeltangel2|action=edit}} Vote here (21/15/3) ending 02:21 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Purplefeltangel (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Purplefeltangel for adminship. She has been a user in Misplaced Pages since May 2005 I think and was nominatined before in a bad faith nomination by User:Rainbowwarrior1977 in which it was delisted and she learned from that experience after. She is very active and has racked up more than 1600 edits. She is a dedicated editor who knows what she is doing and also useful in AFD and also avoids conflicts.I think she deserves the extra admin tools and would make a good admin. JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator --JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC) but please, mark less stuff as minor...
  3. Support, considered nominating her myself, actually! --Phroziac 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support yupsiree. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support recognizes her mistakes and has corrected her demeanor and actions. Great editor, and easy to get along with. «»Who?¿? 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support I saw some potential during the last RFA, but then the vandalisms and such were too recent. Now, it's been longer and the user seems to have learned. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support I was thinking of nominating her as well a few days ago, but she wanted to wait a little bit. Apparently, the demand was too great considering that a few people have wanted to nominate. She is the epitome of Wikilove from my dealings with her, if anything she's too nice and will need to thicken her skin a bit, but i'd much rather have an admin who needs to be a little less nice than a alot more nice. This is a perfect opportunity for anyone who claims editcountitis to be a problem to rectify that situation. Her experience far exceeds her edits in my opinion, but if that doesn't count, I think I'd have to go harder onto the 2,000 edit minimum. Comment on the vandalism and previous RFA situation below. Karmafist 04:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Weak Support. She is a bit young, and the 2 month old vandalism did happen, but she probably is ready. But please make sure you always use edit summaries for non-minor articles changes. Some people even demand 100% edit summary use, although that is often unecessary.Voice of All 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. This user shows all the signs of having learned from her actions - come, now, worse vandals than her have been forgiven. Mike Garcia anyone? As far as I can see, her actions lately have been civil, constructive, and definitely worthy of administrative powers. ] 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support - more and more I'm seeing people on RfA who I've interacted with/seen about the place doing good work and 2 months is definately, in my opinion, long enough in the past. --Celestianpower 11:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I liked her contributions to Pro-ana a lot, and encouraged her to keep up the good work when she felt it was unworthy and submitted it herself to AfD, which was an act of intellectual honesty I had hardly seen before. She deserves the chance, and her past history of vandalism is long gone. Please, guys and girls... we have a nice and dedicated person here, let's act from our feelings for once. We'll never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy! Shauri smile! 12:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. FireFox 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. I believe Purplefeltangel has learned from her mistakes and that they do not negate her overwhelming number of good contributions. Thatdog 15:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support I think that, in the spirit of no-big-deal-adminship, that this user deserves a good faith vote. Echoing Shauri... Bratsche 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. I don't see her abusing admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. This RFA would have been an easy promotion for Purplefeltangel if not for her actions on a single day. She's a mature, useful and friendly editor.-gadfium 18:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Strong support This person is doing an excellent job here. Those oppose votes really piss me off. V/M
    19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. A good lass, she'll go far. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. She has made a good impression on me.--Wiglaf 19:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. I'm willing to give PFA a vote of confidence here. — Phil Welch 20:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. A display of vandalism as newbie is not enough to convince me that she won't do good work as an admin. Ral315 (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose Vandalized too recently here. Nominee even strong opposed her own rfa saying "I am the nominee and I have never met this person before. I have no idea who he is and why he's referring to me as a "gentleman." I think this was not a good-faith nomination. And Cryptic is absolutely right; I have vandalized a page, so why should I be an admin? ♥purplefeltangel 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)". User talk space could use a little more activity. Jobe6 03:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    More vandalism which is way too recent to support , , , , . Jobe6 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    That was back in July not recently,than and that RFA came from a banned user as a bad faith nom also. She learned from those mistakes --JAranda | watz sup 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    (after Aranda56 edit conflict) That vandalism was addressed at her first RfA, please don't bring up the same past action on multiple RfA's as it pretty much bans anyone who's ever messed up from adminship. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well then what was recently? I was rejected as an admin because I had vandalised as much as she had 10 months before my RFA. I see a double standard here. Jobe6 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about your nomination. But maybe you can help make things better for other users by forgiving past mistakes. :) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Jobe6, you also voted no for my RfA because I "called someone a troll", which I did not, and because I am an Encyclopedic Merit member. I believe that you should put more consideration into your votes with respect to how the nominee actually is and not by glancing at a few past actions or just by your dislike of wikigroups. I am sorry about your RfA, and if I see that you are a trustworthy contributor, I will gladly vote for you inspite of past vandalism.Voice of All 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    I dont think that the above statemetn belongs here. Jobe6 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. No, sorry. Vandalism too recent. Andre (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Vandalizsed a high profile article right after the book came out this does she know how many people might have seen that? If this person can be an admin so cann I since I never "vandalized" any pages like not alttering their contenxts with malfeasance (I just learned that word in English). I swear if this goes through she must repay me the favor and nomminate me for admin I think I have about 1200 edits (I think).Wiki brah 05:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, you have 384. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose; the vandalism kills it for me. As for the counter-argument that this "pretty much bans anyone who's ever messed up from adminship", I agree; Misplaced Pages has hundreds of admins, and hundreds more waiting to take their place. As for Wiki brah's vote above, this can be disregarded; the user is a waste. The last I heard it was a sockpuppet of the banner user Rainbowwarrior1977, although in the non-transparent way that Misplaced Pages tends to do this kind of thing it's not apparent if this is still the general opinion. Should be banned anyway, and will never, ever be an admin.-Ashley Pomeroy 06:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually wiki brah is not rainbowwarior aka brandonfarb aka musasachado aka kismaayo. --Jobe6 07:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose she has been a decent editor as of late, but still not enough time passed. Also template used for a signature is a Bad Thing. I endorse her dislike for Harry Potter though.  Grue  06:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose. I hate to do this but I have to agree that this vandalism is not that good... it kinda makes me question the maturity of purplefeltangel (though I still think she's an awesome person from what I've seen on the Wiki and on IRC). Anyways, I dislike Harry Potter three =) But just try not to let your personal opinions dictate what you do on the Wiki and that'll be enough for me. Sasquatcht|c 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose per Grue. -- NSLE (Communicate!) 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Doesn't seem to be serious about the project. --Ryan Delaney 08:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose - sorry, from 'poacher to game-keeper' in two months is just too much for me. But keep up the good work (and you are going great work) for another couple of months, and I'll be delighted to change this to a strong support. --Doc (?) 13:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose The vandalism was just too blantant, and done to a rather popular page. It does not matter how long ago it was to me. People who have vandalized and then "learned from their mistakes" should set up a new account. Turnstep 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    I vandalised (more like a newbie test) a page for my first ever edit on a AFD tag on Britney Spears so when my RFA comes up will u oppose me as well cause of that and not to my contibutions? Vandalism is a big problem in Misplaced Pages nowadays but just like Redwolf24 said that insitent was a issue on her 1 RFC on July and I don't know why people are still worried about it. She had learned from those mistakes. Tell me 1 insident of vandalism she did after that Harry Poter thing and I will oppose this canditate I nominated but I know there isn't another one --JAranda | watz sup 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. So you'd like me to give up my edit count and a username I like and my reputation as a good user because of something stupid I did in July. Makes perfect sense. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    ...like me to give up my edit count... Frankly, yes. Attaching an importance to edit counts is not healthy anyway, and what better way to show true repentance? The fact that your first reaction to my idea is to mention a loss of edit counts worries me. Turnstep 17:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I think true repentance is getting on with my time at Misplaced Pages and never doing it again. I like my username, I have friends, I have a good reputation (as strange as that may seem) and I'm not going to change that two months after the fact because of something I shouldn't have done and will never do again. I wasn't even blocked for this vandalism. Please don't start in on editcountitis, either. You cannot deny that losing 1700+ edits and starting over from 0 would be a bit depressing, and that people do tend to respect Wikipedians who have been around a long time with high edit counts. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose vandalism too recent. freestylefrappe 16:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose There are plenty of good editors who would love to be admins that haven't vandalized. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Too soon. To me there is a statute of limitations for vandalism, but not yet. Maybe you could ask Santa Claus for adminship for Christmas --Rogerd 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Gee Rogerd, that is not a kind thing to say, especially after you just lost an RfA. Since I have just lost one, I am pretty liberal on them - I always have been. This comment is an insult - or atleast I am quite sure she doesn't believe in Santa Claus. V/M
    19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Rogerd, she is not that young, we do not need sour grapes here. So Please stop flamming and read WP:NPA...unless you want an RfC.Voice of All 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose The Harry Potter thing did it for me. She said she did because she was bored. She is 14 but looks younger in her page picture. Let her have more experience and try again.--Dakota 20:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Um I don't know if you're suggesting that I'm younger than fourteen, but I'm definitely fourteen and will turn fifteen next month just so you know. :) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It was not stated in a derogatory sense and I did not mean to hurt you. I said I thought your picture looked younger but didn't say you were. Apologies if that was the case. Like I said, it was the Harry Potter thing. You will in time no doubt make a good administrator but it's too soon on the vandalism issue. The language used in that vandalism was probably seen by children many of whom see that article .--Dakota 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. She might be ready, so I won't vote "oppose", but that vandalism is to recent, it makes my too queezy to support.Voice of All 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
(After edit conflict with Splash) Response to what Voice of All said on my talk page: Mostly, I vandalised the HBP article because I was bored and I don't like Harry Potter. Yeah, I know, so mature, right? But since then I have become more dedicated to Misplaced Pages. I have combatted vandals and learned how annoying and frustrating they can be. I can honestly say that I would never again knowingly do anything that would compromise the integrity of the Misplaced Pages project. I have also made several constructive edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article since then, in case you're questioning whether I can conduct myself responsibly around that article. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 04:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutral while I consider. I need a very good reason why someone who vandalised because they were bored might not find themselves bored at some point in the future, but have some more entertaining buttons to de-bore themselves with. On the other hand, the nominee does seem to make good edits in a variety of places (though a little thin in User talk:, and yes I am allowed to look at edit count numbers), so perhaps that was a one-off. -Splash 04:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. This editor seems to have a strong dislike for Harry Potter (thats not why Im opposing, though :)). Anyway, I really can't support a person who is a recurrent vandal. If it was once ,I would say, "OK lets forgive and forget", but this has happened repeatedly. I think she might be a little immature to be a SySop. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for voting. I'd just like to point out that all the vandalisms in question occured on the same day and that there were no others before or after. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    So PFA (hope you dont mind me calling you that), didnt it bother you (even slightly) after the first attempt, even if it was on the same day? Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    Call me whatever you want. At first, it didn't bother me, even when I received my first few warnings, but when I got the last one I was just hit with this overwhelming feeling of "oh my god, I'm a moron," so I stopped. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I've been reasonably impressed with this user lately, so I'm not going to oppose; however, her vandalistic efforts were a little too recent for my tastes. A dead cert next year, for what it's worth. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

    • Thanks for voting. I realize that this incident seems unreasonably recent to be so soon participating in an RfA, but I really think I have learned a lot more about Misplaced Pages since then and started to take it much more seriously. Since my last nomination I have gained about 1200 edits, none of which have been vandalism in any sense. I will try to improve my User talk space though; thanks for the advice. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Her last RFA : It was fairly obvious that it was a bad faith nom by an indefinately blocked user, her vote against it was an attempt at WP:AGF in my view, just as using it as a point against her now is against WP:AGF. 12 other nominees have declined nomination for adminship, she was just an awkward 13th member of that list.
Vandalism at Harry Potter : Let's see some of the earlier edits in the day of the section that she "vandalized".

  1. And then they all fuck themselves, and die.
  2. Harry ejaculates over Snapes chest aka his "tomb".

I think her edit was a case of Maoririder vandalism (a good faith edit that's actually pretty much a place holder and may be construed as vandalism by some) rather than actual vandalism compared to those two edits above. In addition to this, she made 13 earlier in that day on that article some of which Jobe talked about above, but another here where she actually puts in a vandalism notice before vandalizing! I honestly can't think of another vandal on Misplaced Pages who is anywhere close to that polite, but that's just PFA -- she's insanely nice even when she's doing things that may be construed as nasty. And this was back when she didn't understand the rules(remember WP:BITE), she's grown alot since thenKarmafist 05:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

and this was back when she didn't understand the rules (remember WP:BITE). She herself said that she joined in 2004, not May 2005...ergo she was a yearish veteran of wikipedia at the time of the vandalism. She herself said when she got the last warning she said 'omg i'm a moron'. Both of those show that she did indeed know the rules. The vandalism warning she gave before vandalizing is not a compelling point either, in my opinion. Oh to have polite vandals who put in edit summaries of 'added p3nis, vand' when they vandalize. :) --Syrthiss 13:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, wouldn't that be great? There'd be no more need for WP:CDVF, and we'd all be a little less stressed ;-) As for the "beginner" status, at the time that the Harry Potter flurry, he was around her 500th edit, after infrequent edits over a good chunk of time. In my eyes, beginnership usually lasts from around anywhere between 100 and 1000 edits, depending on frequency and support from other users. The frequency didn't pick up to more than a trickle until after July, and I saw very little support on her talk page back in those days. Karmafist 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is just silly to oppose her for some minute vandalism, which - to me - has happened a long time ago. The problem here, in my opinion, is that you all are focusing more on petty cases of vandalism than the countless times she has reverted it. The user is just short of 2,000 contributions, and I can only hope that she builds more of them. Comments and actions like these are NOT an incintive to want to stay. V/M
19:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I can see myself doing speedy deletions, closing AfDs, RC patrol, etc. I tend to do things in fits and starts -- that is, I spend a long time on one thing, don't do anything for a while, then spend a long time on another thing. So I can't really predict with much accuracy what I would do, but whatever I did do with my admin powers, I would do it well. :)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, recently, I have rid Misplaced Pages of ~250 recieve/receive typos. I have also contributed extensively to Pro-ana and Woburn Collegiate Institute, participated in tons of AfDs, and categorized a lot of articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been in conflicts before and like anyone, I'm not perfect at dealing with it. The first real conflict I ever had was with the "F5" vandal, who seemed innocent enough at first -- created a stupid article which was AfD'd, made a bunch of sockpuppets to try to keep it, etc. Then he started getting nasty and vandalising the AfD page, my userpage, etc. The whole thing ended in his article getting speedy deleted and the user getting blocked. I think I handled it rather well, remaining civil to the contributor even as he pelted my talk page with personal attacks and asking him on his talk page to consider coming back after his block and making better contributions to Misplaced Pages.
I have also had conflicts with users Prodego and DannyWilde, both of which ended civilly and during which I kept my head, although being accused of vandalism. I did need intervention in my conflict with Prodego, though.