[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Purplefeltangel 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Purplefeltangel

edit

Final (33/31/7) ended 20:50 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Purplefeltangel (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Purplefeltangel for adminship. She has been a user in Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Acceptance withdrawn. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As nominator --JAranda | watz sup 02:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC) but please, mark less stuff as minor...[reply]
  3. Support, considered nominating her myself, actually! --Phroziac(talk)  02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support yupsiree. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support recognizes her mistakes and has corrected her demeanor and actions. Great editor, and easy to get along with. «»Who?¿?meta 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 @|Esperanza|E M 04:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 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 háblame 11:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  12. FireFox 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support I think that, in the spirit of no-big-deal-adminship, that this user deserves a good faith vote. Echoing Shauri... Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I don't see her abusing admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  17. Strong support This person is doing an excellent job here. Those oppose votes purturb me. V/M
    19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. A good lass, she'll go far. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. She has made a good impression on me.--Wiglaf 19:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I'm willing to give PFA a vote of confidence here. — Phil Welch 20:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  22. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, that vandalism was more than three months ago. In that time, she's made good edits, as Shauri points out. Everyone is a newbie once, and is allowed a bad day in my opinion. Titoxd(?!?) 01:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support this good editor.  BD2412 talk 01:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Robert 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Per above. Very kind editor. Banes 05:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Agreee with the nomination. A newbie test/vandalism early on in the career should not mean a life sentence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Support, although I like mathematics and anime. Comparing this here with other nominations for example on this page, I have to say that there seems to be an obvious double-standard for votes. --Kefalonia 10:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. the wub "?!" 14:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support without reservation. I don't think this will pass now, but I'm more than willing to let some fleeting vandalism go in this case.--Scimitar parley 15:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. She has always been fair and bright in AfDs in which I have seen her involvment and I forgive her vandalism. She potentially could be a good admin on wikipedia for the next 60 years. Youngamerican 02:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Per everybody above. Wonderful user.--Sean Black Talk 04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. S♥pport. Flowerparty■ 16:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
    More vandalism which is way too recent to support [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Jobe6   03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 @|Esperanza|E M 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont think that the above statemetn belongs here. Jobe6   04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, sorry. Vandalism too recent. Andre (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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; Wikipedia 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, [6] although in the non-transparent way that Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    Actually wiki brah is not rainbowwarior aka brandonfarb aka musasachado aka kismaayo. --Jobe6   07:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose per Grue. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Doesn't seem to be serious about the project. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sorry, but I think true repentance is getting on with my time at Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 @|Esperanza|E M 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold it. I strongly doubt that Roger thinks she believes in Santa, it was just a joke, you don't have to yell at him just yet. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Threatening an RfC over a single comment in an RfA is ridiculous, not to mention chilling. You just made admin, right? So drop the use of the inflammatory red ink and the heavy-handed threats. -Splashtalk 22:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    ??Huh? At the time of my comment, I had no idea of her age. I did not mean it infer anything about her age. I have no opinion one way or another about her beliefs in anything. It was a joke. Lighten up. I merely meant that by December, the community may have forgiven her for her earlier vandalism. Please, if you feel like doing an RfC, please do so. --Rogerd 01:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it was taken zealously at the time. Forgive my overreaction - I just lost an RfA and have a tendency to lean toward the underdog - however, I did believe the "Santa Claus" comment was rude sarcasm at the time. V/M
    01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that if he keeps doing it, he would get an RfC, I clearly never said "one comment warrants and RfC". There is a difference. Anyway, Rogerd dropped me a note explaining that it was a joke. Well, making such a comment next to an oppose was very rude sarcasm, but at least he was just joking, so I crossed out the red text. Bold red text is used my moderators at almost every forum site, I will use darkred instead from now on though. I just can't stand personal attacks, even if it is actually just careless joking.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 01:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is his vote even counted in RFAs? --JAranda | watz sup 21:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Don't pick fights. freestylefrappe 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Better reapplying a little bit later. Fadix 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I find the vandalism to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince particularly bothersome, as that has been a page very heavily vandalized lately, and one that I personally have been involved in trying to protect, so I do find it a little annoying that that was her selected target. However, I might be willing to look past that, however some of the comments I have seen in this RfA to other users has demonstrated to me a level of maturity that I do not personally feel suits adminship. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I personally feel that anyone using a transcluded signature hasn't taken the time to appreciate the drain it puts on our servers. I'm afraid that, reading through all the comments so far, I find Purplefeltangels' editcountitis to be far too extreme. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. The vandalism is troubling, but not the only problem I have supporting this nomination. Purplefeltangel seems to be overly emotional. I like to poke fun at other wikipedians from time to time, but she seemed to take any sarcastic comment about others as if she was personally insulted. Add to that the fact that she's only 14 and I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. Don't take it personally Purplefeltangel. AngryParsley 03:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. The vandalism really destroyed her chances, showed that she needs more experience.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Without comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: the statutue of limitations, as it were, on vandalism may toll with enough experience and time. Not yet. Jonathunder 07:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose for the reasons I stated above for User:Anonymous Editor. As a new person, I'd like admins to be here a while longer before they are admins. Joaquin Murietta 09:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose: I worked on the Harry Potter page she messed up. If she only did that once you could call it an experiment, but she kept doing it after she was warned and asked to stop. That was only a few weeks ago. She needs to grow a bit and undo more vandalism before being given admin powers, in my opinion. Tree&Leaf 17:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose — while Purplefeltangel does good work around here, the vandalism thing is too recent. Though we must all forgive and forget, less than three months, in my opinion, is insufficient time, given that there were multiple vandalisms that occured even after warnings. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - a dislike of Harry Potter is certainly not a bad thing, vandalising the article however within recent editing history is unforgiveable. -- Francs2000   21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. oppose Cannot support sucha recent vandal. Type O Spud 01:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. While promoting this editor might prove to be an interesting investment, the timing for the nomination is clearly not the best. Also, while I do not have any particular qualms concerning the age of editors in general, it is of my belief that it does not act as a pro in this case. Maturity is a highly relative concept, but regardless of how mature one is, emotional maturity does depend a lot on age and life experience, and that's generally the kind of maturity an active admin needs. To put it in a clearer manner, I do not fully believe that she would be able to deal calmly with a highly stressful situation. Why rush things over? Try again in half-a-dozen months (I'm certain you'll be re-nominated earlier than that, though). --Sn0wflake 05:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Extreme Oppose Recent vandal, dosen't help new users (see: trade secret), and that was after our argument ended peacefully, however she forgave me for my argument with her so I have to say Weak Oppose (this is not based at all on my past argument with purplefeltangel) Edit:She entered what! 8 year olds read that article! Changing to extreme oppose Prodego talk 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, NOT weakly. Only weeks ago this candidate repeatedly inserted penis into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince because she doesn't like them. She continued to do this after FOUR separate talk page warnings and only stopped when told she was going to be blocked. She had been here over a year when she did this recent vandalism, much more than long enough to know this is not OK. She picked an article especially popular with young people to vandalize in this way, knowing other children would see it. I could support a 14 year-old editor who acts more mature than her years, but we have enough admins who act less than their ages already. CDThieme 17:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 @|Esperanza|E M 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. -Splashtalk 04:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  4. Neutral Certainly a very nice person. And while it's no bad thing for an admin to not be entirely too uptight, edits like her "wickerpedia" addition to What Wikipedia is Not have me a bit concerned at the moment regarding too much lack of seriousness. I'm going to abstain from expressing support or opposition for the moment. The Literate Engineer 23:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A fairly positive neutral. She's good value, impassioned about the project, will be ideal with a bit more seasoning. A near-certainty in another three to six months. Seeing how she takes the comments on this RFA will be key to her success next time around - David Gerard 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. A few more months of good editing should clear the air. Just needs to become a bit more serious. Carbonite | Talk 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Needs a couple more months of experience to redeem herself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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[7] some of which Jobe talked about above, but another here[8] where she actually puts in a vandalism notice before vandalizing! I honestly can't think of another vandal on Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't think that comparing her vandalism of the Harry Potter pages to other vandalism on that day serves any point. Vandalism is still vandalism, regardless of the emotional state of the vandal (bored, as she explains in her case), and she did engage in vandalism. I also don't think that asserting that she might have intended her edits to serve as "placeholders" holds up well either, adding the word "penis" to a page is by no means a good edit or a good placeholder. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I still stand by this, but replaced "pissed off" with "perturb" due to request of some other editor (forgot his name). V/M
21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way. Imagine I have a pitcher of Sprite. Now imagine I have a glass of dirty toilet bowl water. Now imagine I take an eyedropper, stick it into the dirty toilet bowl water, and *plonk* goes a drop into that Sprite. Would you want to drink that Sprite? To some people, vandalism is just as bad as that dirty toilet bowl water, and the fact that it is even there in a user's record, even a small amount, is not going to sit well with some people. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that Sprite goes in the toilet straight from that pitcher or from, well, you know, eventually that toilet water changes. If you drank it right the toilet, that would be disgusting. However, if you flush that toilet, let the water go through the plumbing into a waste managment plant eventually going into some body of water somewhere, which at one point evaporates until it comes down as rain in the source of water which Coca Cola uses to make Sprite. Everything purifies over time given the right circumstances, and Purple has gone through that process regarding Vandalism in my opinion. Karmafist 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Agree, however, let me give a scenario. Take a society where NOTHING is forgiven, and people are held back for a petty theft they may have commited at 14 - and this stops them from being a politician at 40, even though they obviously qualify for the position. I say such leads to RUIN V/M
01:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, recently, I have rid Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
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.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Purplefeltangel_2&oldid=1257456875"