The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MelanieN[edit]

Final (171/5/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 15:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Nomination from Kudpung:

MelanieN (talk · contribs) – As most of you know, or at least those who take an active interest in RfA, I very rarely make nominations, preferring to work in the background on adminship issues. To use a hackneyed phrase, I really did think she was already an admin. Probably because I‘ve !voted on so many RfA that I couldn’t remember if she was or not. Discovering by chance in December that she in fact is not, this nomination is one I simply could not resist making.

On nominating her for Editor of the Week in April 2014, user Jim Carter said ‘’An editor with more than 80 articles, 27 DYKs, 2 Good articles and more than 313 rescued articles. She deserves to become an Editor of the Week. Not only this, she has been on Wikipedia for more than 5 years and has 27000+ edits. A constructive editor with the patience of eternity; I have never seen her in any conflict. She has never refused to help anyone (One can see it on her talk page). […] She is a true wikipedian, yet her qualities are "behind the scene" so I want to nominate her because, again, she deserves it. Thank you. ’’

You’d think there’s nothing one could add to that, but this wouldn’t be an RfA nom without mentioning an extraordinary experience in almost all areas including CSD and AfD (over 3,500) with with one of the highest rates of accuracy I have ever come across (85.8%), 33 votes at RfA with 84.8% accuracy, four GAs, a raft of barnstars for all the right reasons from all the right people, and an edit count analysis that actually says it all anyway.

This is not a user who has been working towards adminship, this is a user who simply ‘’works’’ - and cares. Naturally, knowing that RfA can invite some unpleasant comments Melanie was at first reticent. Well, a) RfA isn’t any longer the totally ‘’Horrible and broken process’’ it was when Jimbo Wales made that comment nearly 4 years ago, and b) with a Wiki career like this we don’t owe it to Melanie to give her the bit, she owes it to us to be an admin, so I am asking the community to prove me right on both counts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination from Harry Mitchell:

Kudpung's statement articulately summarises Melanie's experience, so I will endeavour to keep my co-nomination brief and to the point. There is a myth that has been circulating on Wikipedia for a long time that we do not need more admins. This is, in part, born out of the fact that administrators mostly operate behind the scenes, so most of their work goes unnoticed. What we need is more admins who quietly get on with keeping the place tidy and free from loonies who would do the encyclopaedia harm. Melanie would, I believe, be exactly that sort of admin. She's been around for a long time and has amply demonstrated her clue. Hers is a name I associate only with sensible things, an impression backed up by perusing her talk page—which shows nothing but friendly, productive collaboration—and further backed up by our most recent interaction (now archived), where Melanie spotted a coordinated spree of vandalism to a school article and quickly brought it to the attention of two admins (coincidentally Kudpung and I) who had each blocked one of the accounts involved and raised it at ANI. Melanie, of course, knew exactly what needed to be done but lacked the tools to do it. Given her experience and her obvious clue, I'd say there's no harm—and an awful lot of good—that could come from giving her those tools. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, I think. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've been contributing to AfD discussions for years. So for starters I would work on AfD, PROD, and CSD. I think I could also be helpful with technical moves (RM) and page protection (RPP). Later, as I gain more experience, I might help out at AIV and UAA. And there are times in the course of normal editing when I could find the tools useful - times when I know what needs to be done, but have to ask an admin or take it to a request board to make it happen.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best and favorite work is in article creation and improvement. I have especially worked on articles about San Diego, four of which have been brought to Good Article status. And I like biography; about half the articles I have created are biographies, often of scientists or doctors. I also enjoy article rescue - by which I mean, finding articles that are about notable subjects but are in poor shape or in danger of deletion, and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards by rewriting and better sourcing. I find these articles mostly by patrolling Unreferenced BLPs; sometimes while patrolling New Pages; and occasionally at AfD or the PROD categories. This doesn't mean I'm an "inclusionist"; I strongly believe in maintaining standards for inclusion here, and most of my AfD !votes are "delete". But it means I always have an eye out for a way to retain valuable material through improvement or merger.
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: About conflicts: I have twice been complained of at AN or ANI. Those discussions are here and here. I once took a complaint about someone to AN; that discussion is here. Other than that, I have not been in serious conflicts that I recall.
About stress: I don't tend to get stressed about Wikipedia, partly because I don't take things that are said here personally - even if they are meant that way. And partly because I rarely take part in the drama boards or contentious subject discussions. I know I will attract some flak if I become an administrator, since I may be doing things that upset people, but I believe I can respond to their upset with calmness and (when appropriate) kindness. I am generally pretty even-tempered. I have a tendency to get amused (rather than angry) when someone calls me names or accuses me of stuff, and that helps me keep my cool.

Additional optional questions from Addshore

4. What do you enjoy about being an editor on Wikipedia? Why?
A: I am a former teacher and I loved teaching. And I have always loved writing, mostly for free or as a hobby, occasionally for money. Wikipedia gives me a chance to do both; it's a hobby that adds to the sum (or at least the availability) of human knowledge. I also enjoy the collaboration with people around the world that is possible here, where barriers like age, gender, profession, and even geography are irrelevant. (My two nominators and I are about as widely separated in time zones as it is possible to be.)
I should add, since I see that my wording above leaves it open to question: I have never edited Wikipedia for money.
5. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: I would say that only autoconfirmed users could create articles. Anyone who does New Pages Patrol knows that the most obviously unsuitable articles are almost always created by brand-new editors with brand-new user names. If the requirement was not merely to register, but to wait a few days and make a few edits, they might gain a bit of clue how this place works, where to get help, and basically what we are about. It might also create a partial barrier to spur-of-the-moment hoaxers and vandals. I also suspect that allowing brand-spanking-new users to create articles is bad for editor retention. My hunch is that someone who creates an article as their very first contribution very rarely stays to become a regular contributing editor. For one thing, there is a significant likelihood that their article will be deleted, a highly negative experience for them, after which they leave and never come back
6. If selected, would you add yourself to the Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If not, then why not, and if you would, then what would your criteria be?
A: I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point of asking for a mop; do you think I am going to fight to retain it? 0;-D Seriously, I know that many people have laid out elaborate criteria and processes for their own recall; more power to them. My approach would be much less formalized: if two or three respected admins told me I should resign my tools, I would do so.
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
7. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
A: The question assumes that outcome B is the "correct" outcome (because it is based on policies, guidelines, and common sense). My preferred action would be to cast a !vote for outcome B in the discussion, rather than close it. Since my arguments will be strong and policy-based (of course), that will make it relatively easy for the next closer to make a decision in favor of outcome B. However, your question also assumes that the discussion MUST be closed, right then, by me. This is not a situation that occurs in real life, particularly not in a case like this where the discussion is clearly not ready to be closed. We are supposed to work by consensus, and it is hard to see any "consensus" in the situation you describe. But OK, let's assume that for some reason I MUST make the call, and that neither relisting nor !voting is an option: I would probably not be brave enough to close this as "B". I might go for "no consensus". I would certainly not close it as "A" despite its four-to-one numerical advantage.
Additional question from Ritchie333
8. You recently nominated University of minnesota hospital for speedy deletion. [1] Can you explain the rationale for the nomination, and what other possible actions could have been taken?
A: Actually I can't, because I can't see the article. My recollection is that it was a very brief article, maybe a single sentence. (I seem to recall something along the lines of "The university of minnesota hospital is a hospital in minnesota, my mother works there" - but that could be way off base.) The deleting administrator concurred in calling it a test page. I did consider a redirect to University of Minnesota, but I found no mention of such a hospital at that page. Now that I do a more extensive search through the links from U of M, I find that there is a University of Minnesota Medical Center as well as a University of Minnesota Children's Hospital, so a redirect could have been created to one of them. The U of M Medical Center might be the more appropriate target, but that's a judgment call, since it is not called "hospital" and the Children's Hospital is. I guess an alternative would have been 1) move the article to the correct capitalization and then 2) convert it to a DAB page listing the two hospitals. Seems like less work to delete the article (which had no history worth preserving) and create a University of Minnesota Hospital DAB page de novo if one is desired.
Note: I've restored the article (temporarily) so that the candidate can answer the question. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, regentspark. The article is even briefer than I remembered, consisting in its entirety of "is a hospital in the u of m." The phrase "my mother works there" must have come from some other article I tagged. My comments above stand. BTW I see that the same user created two other test pages: Dag nabit which I also tagged for G2 (the entire article consisted of "dag nabit"), and How to eat, which was tagged A10 by somebody else, and was then redirected to the article Eating.
Additional questions from TomStar81
9. In your own words, explain WP:AGF.
A: "Assume good faith." I love this motto, and I try to follow it in my daily life as well as here. An awful lot of strife and misunderstanding results from people assuming the worst of other people's motives - starting a quarrel where there didn't have to be one, or making accusations that turn out to be false. At Wikipedia it means: start from the assumption that other people are here for good reasons and that they mean well. Don't jump to a conclusion that they must be biased, or paid, or out to harm the encyclopedia. AGF doesn't mean we should ignore evidence that they ARE biased, or paid, or out to harm the encyclopedia; "AGF is not a suicide pact". But try to start out on a good footing, treating them as a well-intentioned person - just as you expect them to treat you.
10. In your own words, explain WP:IAR.
A: "Ignore all rules" sounds like it means anarchy, but it doesn't. It's a catchy exaggeration, meaning that although we do have rules here, and a lot of them, we should not follow them slavishly. If a rule gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, we should improve the encyclopedia rather than follow the rule. IAR is not invoked very often, and shouldn't be. But it can be useful, particularly when a rule seems to conflict with another rule or with common sense. Note that IAR must work in combination with consensus. One person cannot simply impose IAR over the objections of others. There has to be general agreement that ignoring the rule in this particular case would be a good thing.
11. In your own words, explain WP:BOLD.
A: WP:BOLD encourages people to contribute to the encyclopedia. Since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit (see below), WP:BOLD tells people to go ahead and edit it. Most people are hesitant at first - afraid of messing up, or doubtful that they really are allowed to edit here. We often see a test edit from a new person, followed by an immediate revert; they were simply checking to see if it's really true that they can edit. You can almost hear them saying "Omigod, it worked!" Yes, it did. Now come and help us build an encyclopedia.
12. In your own words, explain WP:BITE.
A: "Don't bite the newcomers." Ideally, the rule should be "don't bite anybody." But newbies don't understand how things work here, and so they may feel hurt about something that would not bother a regular editor. And they don't know about AGF; they may think you are acting out of hostility toward them or their subject. It's important, if we must take an adverse action, that we explain it clearly and as kindly as possible, and without a bunch of acronyms like RS and GNG and AfD. Actually I think the standard templates (e.g. Twinkle's) are very well written for that purpose. If we have the time and inclination to add a personal note or an offer of help, that's nice, but not required; I think most of the time the newcomer never even sees it. On the other hand, if they do respond to something we said (hopefully we have watchlisted their page), we should respond as gently and completely as possible. As for talk page discussions - where we might accidentally bite a newcomer - the problem is that we usually don't know who the other participants are. They are just a username. They might be a newbie or a regular editor or an admin - we don't know unless we take the trouble to research them. (That's also the problem with "Don't template the regulars.")
Melanie, just to point out, if you have enabled WP:Tools/Navigation popups you can hover your pointer over any username in a talk thread and it will show you a box including the first few lines of their userpage and, along the bottom, (in your case) "autoreviewer, reviewer, 31096 edits since: 2006-07-10". For you it will probably soon say "sysop" as well - (that's Latin for "admin"): Noyster (talk), 11:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. In your own words, explain how you interpret the phrase "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
A: It really should say "the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." There actually are limits; for example, most people can't edit a protected page. And we have ways of preventing disruptive individuals from editing at all. But it's very close to true, and IMO it's Wikipedia's greatest strength. Yes, it means that those of us who care about the encyclopedia have to spend a lot of our time removing or fixing inappropriate edits. But most of the time, people add their little incremental bits of knowledge in good faith to make Wikipedia the great resource it is. Somehow, and against all expectation, it works. I love this quote: "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work."[2]
14. What would you do for a Klondike Bar?
A: I guess I would spend my Saturday morning answering a bunch of questions about Wikipedia. Or no, wait - that's what I'd do for a mop. Can I get a Klondike Bar thrown into the deal?
Additional question from Ottawahitech
15. Are AfDs with little or no discussion a problem in your opinion? If yes, what can be done to improve the situation? If not, how should those AFDs be closed?
A: I have noticed a decrease in participation at AfD. I see quite a few nominations nowadays that after two relistings have received no comment, or only one. For that matter, my own participation has decreased over the last few months; I have been busy, on- and off-line, and that may be the case with other people who usually participate. When I see a case like this, I try to cast a !vote so as to make it easier to determine consensus. It would be nice to have more participation at AfD, but it's not a major problem IMO. As for how to close such discussions, I have seen several opinions. One is that they should be closed as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR). Another is that they should be treated like an uncontested PROD, that is, given a WP:Soft delete. A soft deletion can be immediately restored on request by the closing admin or at WP:UNDELETE. I tend to favor the "soft deletion" approach. In effect, this IS an uncontested proposal for deletion - one that ran for three weeks rather than the traditional one week for a PROD. If nobody has objected to deletion in all that time, the result is the same as an uncontested PROD.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, absolutely! ;) --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Tutting passive-aggressively at Amaryllis for beating me to the top spot! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support; very strong candidate, clueful and competent. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support I don't recall any previous problems with this user; and if both Kudpung and HJ Mitchell have nominated, that's good enough for me. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I'm truly honored that my Editor of the Week nomination statement about Melanie is quoted here by one of the most respected admins on Wikipedia. I support her admin nomination for more reasons than I can say here, but you can read them here! Jim Carter 15:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jim Carter: is here really the page you meant to link to? --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's most probably intended to be here, see immediately above this section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support A remarkable record of contributions, an ideal attitude and way of going about things. Adminship is a heavy burden so I feel almost feel guilty in supporting, but you can handle it! Regards Irondome (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Jianhui67 T★C 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Yep.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Strong support I have recently come across MelanieN through collaborative work with Beer in San Diego County, California and Ika Hügel-Marshall and found her to be a strong and productive article collaborator full of patience and understanding. Her ability to rescue articles from AfD such as Emil Frei is excellent, and she has a good track record at AfD otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support votes at RfA don't cover as much ground as opposes, so let me address the balance a little. I like rescuing articles from AfD; I haven't done as many as Melanie, but I know enough to believe she knows article inclusion policies inside out and back to front. Often I am disappointed to discover than when I have !voted "keep" on an AfD, or have watched others do so, the article seldom gets touched, let alone improved. This is a shame, as it makes me feel the AfD wasn't really worth all the hassle. Anyone who is prepared to improve an article on pretty much any possible topic is going to have good skills with improvisation and adapting to circumstances; an essential skill for facing whatever the mop and bucket throws at them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. I've deleted a number of this user's prod and speedy noms over the past few days, and have inspected a sample of her other deleted contribs. She interprets the speedy deletion criteria accurately and narrowly - most admins, including me, would have A3'd Alumni of Nalanda (Boys') Central College instead of prodding it, for example - and she's not afraid to improve marginal articles instead of slapping on a questionable deletion tag or just moving on to another target. She's ready for a delete button. —Cryptic 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Wow, two top-notch nominations in a row. I absolutely support Melanie and am happy to see such great editors requesting adminship recently. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support, great editor. Cavarrone 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support per noms. Trustworthy and prolific editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Strong support, oh yes! I've seen Melanie around quite often, and in fact watched the mentoring that Jim mentions in that sandbox. A very exceptional Wikipedian. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support I thought this editor was already a sysop... Mkdwtalk 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Great candidate for adminship - good luck! — sparklism hey! 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Per nom and Long Term User trustworthy with good temperament and policy knowledge.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Fantastic candidate for the mop.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support -- KTC (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. Clueful candidate. gobonobo + c 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Of course! --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - Absolutely no concerns; MelanieN is one of the best editors that I've ever seen here. She would use the administrative tools very well. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support – BethNaught (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support - I love it when the occasional nomination comes up that I don't even have to research because the contributor is well known over a long term, stable, and perfectly trustworthy. One of those "I thought this nominee was already an administrator"' moments... Carrite (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Strong Support - Have seen the user around doing good works, mostly helping out new users. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support - excellent candidate, surprised this didn't happen years ago. Good luck --nonsense ferret 20:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. At some point I mentioned that MelanieN would easily pass an RFA, and I still stick to my opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. I can't even imagine what a problem with this nom would look like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't tempt me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. ///EuroCarGT 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support. Extremely well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support This has to be one of the better RfA for a while. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. An easy decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. A very easy decision. Ca2james (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support Thank you for volunteering to take on this extra role on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support – Seen her around, excellent to work with, and with these two nominators there's very little to worry about :) — MusikAnimal talk 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support, strong candidate. — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support - This is a first-rate user, who has put so much hard work into the project. This is a straightforward YES for me. Orphan Wiki 22:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. I'm surprised to see that MelanieN has not already been granted the sysop flag. She should have gotten it quite some time ago. I can't imagine her being anything less than a benefit to this site as an administrator, and I'm pleased to support. Kurtis (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support - honestly thought she already was. No concerns about formalising that impression. St★lwart111 22:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Trusted editor, trustworthy noms. Thought she had the mop already! Miniapolis 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Highly experienced, would be an even stronger asset to the encyclopedia as an admin. Altamel (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Have seen Melanie around at several RFAs and she always gave clueful and insightful comments that showed good knowledge of procedures. No hesitation in supporting. Valenciano (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support I would trust Melanie as admin more than I trust myself. Wish I could have been around to nominate you, but I will certainly make the time to come back and support you. Thank you for volunteering, as Wikipedia needs more people exactly like you to accept the responsibility. Dennis - 2¢ 23:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support Melanie seems like a great editor and is someone I would definitely trust with the tools. Both the nomination and Jim Carter's write up are very persuasive. Sam Walton (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Jim Carter's testimony is enough reason all by itself. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Strong Support ·addshore· talk to me! 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support For many of the reasons already noted. Gaff (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support as nominator. Late to the party, it's 08:30 a.m. here and all this was going on while I was in bed. Apologies for sleeping on the job. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (tlk) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Of course. Connormah (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose. Should have run for rfa earlier given obvious aptitude for the job. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support Perhaps as close to the ideal Wikipedian as one can get. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support No issues, great candidate. My interactions with this editor have been positive and constructive. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support. Strong candidate. APerson (talk!) 02:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support without hesitation. All my interactions with MelanieN have been positive, and she is knowledgeable and helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support - I've seen Melanie around, and always been highly impressed. A worthy addition to the janitorial corps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support I've seen this user around wiki and am very impressed. HalfGig talk 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. Glrx (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Rschen7754 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Always been very impressed with MelanieN's contributions and have no qualms whatsoever regarding her suitability for adminship. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support, no reservations whatsoever. Seems like a rather ideal admin, who will not comment on something without doing research. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support - Always been impressed by her editing and interactions. --NeilN talk to me 04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support: Due diligence turns up no reasons not to support the candidate for the mop. Thoughtful, clueful, and rational editor. Best of luck, Deadbeef 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Stephen 05:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support - From what I've seen I'm actually surprised MelanieN wasn't already an admin, no concerns. PaleAqua (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support Widr (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support, with little to no doubt. Having met the editor in person, and been on pages where we have edited together, the subject of this RfA has show impartiality, an ability to create superior content, and what is generally called around these parts, WP:CLUE. While I would like to see more admins who were center or right of the U.S. center of the political spectrum overall, that is not an issue here. The editor has done great work in improving articles within the scope of WP:SAN, and would do well to have the mop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support. Excellent candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,HJ Mitchell and Jim Carter have said all that is needed here. Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support - she recently collaborated with a new user to produce a viable article from something that was originally speedied. Amazing patience and would make a superb admin. Would be an asset to WP. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 09:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support The candidate handles disagreements with grace, and can hold her own in lengthy complex debates - like this AfD, facing arguments like "the statement that so-and-so isn't reliably sourced isn't reliably sourced"!: Noyster (talk), 11:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support – I honestly thought she had been made an admin years ago. Let's make it so now! Graham87 12:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support 31.224 edits with 90% using summary, although I find many of those summary came from twinkle but I have no problem with it. Based on Wikichecker you are also reasonably active.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support- From what I've seen, this candidate is an excellent editor with a more than adequate knowledge of policy. Reyk YO! 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Yes! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support, A definite asset for WikiP and should do well with the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Strong support I've seen a lot of Melanie's work here. I've always been impressed with her calmness and politeness in explaining to newbies that their article doesn't stand a chance of passing anything, or in finding references for things that I regarded as lost causes. She's got a good knowledge of where things are and how they work. I almost opposed on the grounds that I'll have to find another rescuer now to dump seemingly impossible cases onto, but decided that that might be the silliest oppose anyone's posted, and wouldn't work anyway... The oppose over recall looks to me like a bit of a Catch 22 (or a "Why did you stop beating your wife?") thing. As to the other one - I think Melanie showed the true spirit of Wikipedia in calling for an extension to allow further research. AfD does enable article rescue, and I think it should be renamed 'Articles for Discussion' to widen this aspect (and stop people complaining when something gets taken there to avoid a speedy fate...). Peridon (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Thought she already was an admin. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support – Excellent, even-tempered candidate with strong record of contributions. With such a good approach to participating in AfDs, I trust her to do the right thing in closing them. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Excellent candidate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support – Mlpearc (open channel) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Would make a great admin.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Anyone who was active at AFD at, well, anytime in recent memory knows the name, and the level of competence this editor brings. Courcelles 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support You're not already one? What were we thinking? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support My personal observations have been that Melanie is a very level-headed editor. I see no genuine issues whatsoever here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Content creators need the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support with pleasure. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support User has an edit count in the tens of thousands, is a significant content and article creator, has extensive participation in AfDs and lacks a block record. I'm confident she will make a good admin. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. I've intersected with the work of MelanieN for several years now and it's not just neutral, objective and thorough, it's also tireless. Her understanding of BLP is tops: check out the edit history of difficult biographies such as politicians Alison Lundergan Grimes and Darrell Issa. Her work on various California cities, parks and the state's general history is excellent. Got my vote! Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support No worries whatsoever. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support No concerns. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support, qualified candidate, no concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support Candidate seems like they would make a good admin. I found the reasoning of oppose 1 and 2 to be most uncompelling. Chillum 22:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support The nomination statements are excellent and win me over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support – Well-rounded, trustworthy, knowledgeable candidate with significant experience on Wikipedia. Egads, another excellent admin candidate! NORTH AMERICA1000 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support Per noms and my own experience of seeing the candidate contribute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support—Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support: Excellent editor. The candidate has been here for a long time now. I have checked their edito count, contribs too. Candidate's answer to question #6 shows they want to do more (thankless?) tasks. Go on. I believe that MelanieN is going to be a very active and helpful admin in future. Good wishes and regards. --Tito☸Dutta 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Per nominators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Great editor, loads of experience. I've seen her around for years, and recently encountered her responding with kindness and encouragement to a kind of mixed up new editor at an AfD, something that doesn't happen enough around here. So I don't think she will abuse the tools. And I'm always glad to strongly support candidates who are content editors. Valfontis (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support excellent nomination, no reservations. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support per nominators. She's not an admin already?!?! — kikichugirl speak up! 00:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support My first instinct was an "of course!", but my second was "wants to work in AfD? and the last two nominations she made were withdrawn, one of which was a clear keep!". Further investigation suggests hose were the exception, not the rule, but I would still caution the candidate to avoid closing close cases until she has a bit more experience. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support --DHeyward (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Given the issues which have been raised regarding deletion I'd suggest to the candidate that they take care in this area and err towards PROD and AfD rather than CSD (especially for things like A7s), and also to be cautious in assessing consensus at AfD. Other than that, which is no where near enough for me to oppose, I've got no other issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support --ChristopheT (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support An early (if not first encounter) of mine with MelanieN was at an AfD where I !voted merge and she, keep. After it closed as no consensus, I have nothing but fond memories of collaborating with her to improve the article. Yes, it remained a standalone! She'll undoubtedly ensure that Wikipedia stays classy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support Precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Thanks for volunteering. Ben Moore (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support The noms are two of the Wikimedians whose judgement I respect most, and I'm pleased they persuaded MelanieN to stand. I have no doubt that she will become an excellent admin. My only quibble is with her answer to Q5 as it would create a stumbling block for me to train new editors if they couldn't create articles until confirmed, although I fully understand her reasoning in that answer. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support Can't see any reason to oppose. (Yes, I think admin recall is broken and silly but that's not a good enough reason to take that out on the candidate.) Positive contributor, likely to not do anything stupid, reasonable answers to questions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support An excellent collaborator and a fine choice for administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Great candidate. I was unaware of this RFA until notified from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MelanieN#AfD tracking. On what I think matters most important for administrator candidates: MelanieN has been collegial and respectful with editors in AFDs and in California-related articles where I've overlapped with her. She has been polite and sensitive to newish editors, and patient as needed/appropriate in face of occasional uninformed criticism directed at her. Her attention to, and reasonable application of, policy and guidelines is great; I have no concern that she would use admin powers irresponsibly. I believe MelanieN is sensitive to how damaging AFDs often are to contributors and to the fabric of Wikipedia community; she's been really very receptive to alternative outcomes such as redirects to list-articles of not-yet-well-enough-documented topics. I encourage her to take that further, and help in actually reducing the occurrence of AFDs, which by their nature are negative. (Happy to talk elsewhere about how AFDs might be reduced.) --doncram 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support - Satisfied with our few encounters at RM. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support Out of many admins giving AfD, CSD, and PROD as their answer to question one, the candidate really shines out. HelloThereMinions t 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support, with the highest of enthusiasm. One of the easiest RfA decisions I've ever made, having seen the candidate around many times before. One of the strongest RfA candidates, where I really have no faults to find, and some of the weakest reasons given in the oppose section that I've ever seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support - This is an exceedingly easy vote because she is an extremely competent and composed editor. My apologies for being late to the party. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support - late FWIW support for what looks like an excellent candidate. Once you've got your feet wet at AFD etc, please consider helping out at places like ANI, where more complicated issues tend to fester for lack of prompt attention. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support - I see no problems. I am sure MelanieN will make an excellent admin. -- Marek.69 talk 02:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support. Great noms, breezes through my criteria, no concerns. Good luck! :) --Biblioworm 05:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support. Seen her around, respect her greatly. Agree with answer to Q5. Agree that this opinion is unrelated to adminship. Very much agree with answer to Q7. Admins should not close per their opinion of correctness, but per the discussion, and if the discussion needs more input, provide it. Absolutely no fear of abuse of the tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Yes. Anyone who likes beer enough to create and build an article to GA status gets my vote! SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Strong support -- this is WAY overdue. Go Phightins! 15:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support --Pratyya (Hello!) 15:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support You can do it! There is Heythereboy!!! Finish IT, bro — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support Per nom's and most of the above. After digging through contribs, I found no reason to oppose and plenty of reasons to support. She has my trust. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 16:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support - All that anyone could look for in a candidate. She's trustworthy, active, and just an all-round excellent candidate. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support We definitely need more admins like MelanieN around :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support it sounds like the only reason to oppose this user is that she doesn't want unconfirmed users creating articles. Since very few brand new users are ready to be creating articles, I don't think her position is at all unreasonable and it's definitely not 'gross'. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support. While I dislike "open to recall" on principle (basically per Hip's oppose), I see no indication that MelanieN would abuse any of the tools. Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support Melanie has excellent chops with regard to articles for deletion; she has clear experience in discerning when they need work (and actually doing it), and when they need to go. That's an extremely valuable skill. Very happy with the sentiment in Q3 that she does not take things said personally, even if there is an intention to condescend or harass behind it. I am not convinced that Melanie's behavior with regard to deletion or attitudes about new article creation are in violation of the spirit of not biting new editors. And I could not care less about whether candidates are open to recall or not. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support I don't agree with the answer to Q.5, but it's a respectable opinion. An admin doesn't have to actually agree with the wisdom of all WP policies--they just have to be willing to properly enforce them. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support. Will do fine. Risker (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support Just recalled from my talk page running across you at the former Polygraph examiner article. Just from that short interaction I have confidence you'll be a good admin. Trust this RFA has been a more pleasant experience than a polygraph exam ;-) and good luck using the tools. Wbm1058 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support. Very good record at AfD and a positive temperament. I don't see any problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support with no caveats or worries; level-headed user won't break WP. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support - No problems, overall. AfD vote accuracy is actually quite above the average of the latest promoted candidates, the few votes that were cited as "mistakes" don't worry me. Kraxler (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support Very strong candidate with an excellent record. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support - "nothing but friendly, productive collaboration" says it all for me. It's nice to see another Editor of the Week start makin' the "Big Money" around here. Good luck, MelanieN. Buster Seven Talk 15:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support A strong all-around editor.--TMD Talk Page. 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Experienced and sensible candidate with a clean block log. I agree with one or two people in the oppose section that we shouldn't prevent newbies from creating articles, but I don't agree with opposing RFA candidates because we disagree on a possible change to wiki policy. Admins are appointed to use our tools in accordance with policy, we have no more status in making policy than other editors. If we had decided to create a Wiki Council to decide on such policy matters then my disagreement with the candidate over article creation might be enough for me to vote against her for such a position. But I consider it moot at RFA. However I did notice in just the last week, one uber speedy A1 tag by the candidate. I'm hoping that this was an isolated mistake, but I would remind people not to use A1 and A3 tags in the first few minutes after an article is started ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support Sensible, well-thought answers. Admins need not all be clones.– Gilliam (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support - NQ (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. The longer "support"-s above sum up better anything I could write. Though MelanieN has questioned my grasp of the American English language, and <off-topic digression about Gilbert and Sullivan> and <off-topic digression about Cricket>, she is the very model of what would be expected of a Wikipedia administrator in 2015, and most probably in any years. Support with no reservations whatsoever. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support Obvious admin is obvious. I don't always agree with the editor, but when I don't, I find it a reason to double-check my own thinking. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support - MelanieN is one of the most polite and helpful editors I've ever come across. It would be great to have more users like her around. No concerns at all. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support Excellent candidate. And though it's a minor matter, I should note that the attitude towards adminship displayed in reply to Q6 is exactly the right one IMO. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support per answer to Q5. We're way too lenient with IPs and brand new users. Wizardman 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support You've done great work on Wikipedia, Melanie. Just make sure you don't delete the main page. MJ94 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support Perfect example of someone who should have been an admin years ago. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  160. Support - Great overall editor. Having done New Page Patrolling for some time, I wholeheartedly agree with the candidate's answer to Q5; if we allowed new contributors to become acquainted with editing before submitting new articles, their initial article submissions might just be of higher quality. I have seen passable submissions by new editors before, but those I tag for something number far more than those I pass over. Alright, I've rambled on enough now. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 06:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. Support per nom. --John (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support Jim Carter's link clearly shows how good a person she is. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support. Good work with rescuing articles nominated for deletion. is a 18:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support yet another "thought they were already" candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. Support Great candidate. The oppose rationales are frankly pretty ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. 166th support vote. Well, it's worth it. Epicgenius (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Looks good to me. NW (Talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support A look through the deletion nominations shows that mistakes are the exception, not the rule. The declined speedies often seem to be cases of the article being deletion-worthy (or nearly so) at first but improved after the tag was placed; as for AFD, it's natural to expect some amount of failed nominations and/or !votes that didn't match the result, considering that it's by definition not for the cases in which everyone agrees; and the withdrawn nominations suggests that she's not the kind of person who takes a wrong position and defends it to the death. The answer to Q5 is also encouraging, as I've noted near the end of the oppose section. ekips39 05:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support I don't know why he shouldn't become administrator. Wikipedian 2 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support I haven't had much interaction with the candidate, maybe none, but I have been keeping a look at her and I can say with fair ease that she is a fully legible and deserving one. I don't agree with her answer to question 5, not completely atleast, but its just her thoughts, any such thing would have to be done by a wide consensus. And anyways, her absolutely superb answer to Question 7 more than covers for it. King Of The Wise (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support. Good contributions, especially at AfD. With this nomination, MelanieN remained polite despite an angry retort by the article's creator. MelanieN also graciously withdrew the nomination when evidence for notability was brought forward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose I like the sound of what's said above — that the candidate is prepared to rescue articles, for example. But when I go to check this for myself, the first case I find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen. The candidate commendably says that they searched for information about the subject but couldn't find anything much. But when I search myself, I have no difficulty finding entries in encyclopaedias of the time such as Britannica: "ALLEN, William Sullivant Vanderbilt, an American painter, and illustrator in black and white. He was born Oct. 8, 1860, in New York City; was a pupil, in France, of Gerome and Claude Monet, and adopted the style of the impressionist school, ..." I suppose that the candidate made an exact search on the article title, not realising that such a long name might be rendered in a variety of ways. This seems to be an elementary mistake and I expect better in an admin. And, given the nature of the topic, which seems quite respectable, why was it even being considered for deletion in the first place? The candidate didn't just nominate it once; they did so twice, starting with a PROD. This was a fresh article creation and so the use of PROD in this case was an abuse of process, as "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". The effect of these repeated nominations, which placed hostile templates upon the new editor's talk page, seems to have been to drive them off. Such activity is quite contrary to our behavioural guidelines and so is unacceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I promised someone that I will not argue with anyone at RfA but I can't stop my fingers to address this particular !vote. Firstly ignore this baseless !vote. Andrew has been opposing candidates for similar awkward reasons for sometime. He recently did it at Tito's RfA. Only because of few !votes like this, people call RfA "a broken process". Jim Carter 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, Jim Carter, you kept your promise: you didn't argue with Andrew D. Instead you questioned his good faith, although the !voters are not under scrutiny here, the candidate is. If you disagree with anybody's !vote or rationale, then discuss the merit of the !vote, answering the argument. Please do not cite a !vote in a different RfA as a reason to make you exempt from WP:AGF. Besides, I'm quite certain that RfA is not called "a broken process" because some !voters raise concerns. Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was just checking the copyright status of the askart.com source in that article before tagging as ((db-copyvio)), only I noticed somebody else has already deleted it. Even so, I see MelanieN assumed good faith somebody else could improve the article and requested the AfD remained open longer so they had more time to do so. That is a pretty rare quality, most people who !vote delete seem to want the article gone yesterday. PS: I wouldn't ignore this vote, I've opposed at other RfAs and Andrew's done good work with me on Denmark Street (and I met him for a drink just before Christmas), so I wouldn't write him off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As supporters have rushed to speedy delete the first evidence provided, here's another fresh example discovered by another editor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White. The pattern seems similar - prodding a notable topic while someone is working on it, so enraging the new editor. When the prod is reverted, the candidate immediately escalates to AFD. When it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing, the candidate then withdraws, which is good, but they fail to apologise for the disruption. My impression is that the candidate sees prod as a substitute for ordinary cleanup tags and AFD as a substitute for ordinary talk-page discussion and development. This attitude does not sufficiently allow for the chilling effect of a deletion proposal and so still seems too bitey. Andrew D. (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgaris and are unenforceable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Answer to Q5 is terrible, flying right in the face of what Wikipedia stands for. Sorry candidate, but IP new volunteers are often valuable contributors to this project. I've been around long enough to see the issues at NPP candidate is talking about, but that doesn't excuse the attitude. Townlake (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Amended rationale to address responses below. My concern remains the same, but I acknowledge that my original language was imprecise. Thanks for the input everyone.Reply[reply]
    I'm not going to argue with you, I just want to say that I've seen several admins that think that IPs shouldn't be able to contribute, period. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comment has no relevance to evaluating this candidate, so I'm not sure why you posted it other than to, you know, argue. Townlake (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: Another supporter came directly to my talk page to quibble with my vote. How polite. Townlake (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is entirely appropriate for someone the take a contrary point of view or even try to convince you to change your point of view. I would not call it quibbling as you did or badgering as others have said. It is an important part of intelligent discourse. Chillum 06:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, this is badgering, not "intelligent discourse." A good friend of the candidate came to my talk page[why?] incorrectly claiming that I had misread something in candidate's Q5 answer. When I removed the friend's post, as my talk page says quite clearly I will do, he complained through a second post that I was rude because I removed it through a revert. Pointless harassment, this. Townlake (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I apologize for his actions. I have spoken to him. It will not happen again.--MelanieN (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I must say I'm impressed with your temperament, and I thank you for your efforts here. I wish you well as an admin. Townlake (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Q5 doesn't discuss IP users. Just for the record, Townlake, the community reached a very clear consensus in a major RfC participated by hundreds of editors to restrict the creation of new articles to autoconfirmed users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Last time I checked, you had to have an account to create an article, which makes this vote inaccurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It might be more productive to explain to Townlake the issue that is actually under discussion: IPs can't create articles and confirmed users can; MelanieN has not argued with those cases. What she advocates in her answer to Q5 is that unconfirmed users (normally newly-registered users with less than 4 days and 10 edits experience) should not be allowed to create articles, which they presently can. Her arguments in favour of such a change are cogent and do not contradict Wikipedia's principles: after all, many newly registered editors will not have the skills to create new articles that meet our notability standards, and the subsequent deletion of their work is likely to be off-putting - a net loss to the encyclopedia. Perhaps bearing this in mind, Townlake can review his opposition? It's not necessary to entirely agree with a candidate to support them, one just has to respect the views they have expressed in good-faith. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now I got confused. In Q5 Melanie advocates that only autoconfirmed users should be able to create articles. Kudpung says that "the community reached a very clear consensus in a major RfC participated by hundreds of editors to restrict the creation of new articles to autoconfirmed users." Can newly registered ("unconfirmed") editors still create articles? If there's consensus, to enable only autoconfirmed users, why wasn't it implemented? Or was it? Could somebody enlighten me? Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think they need a couple dozen edits in mainspace to prove that they will be constructive members, and not just create a new article or go to the boards as their first editing experience. Irondome (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Irondome: I would agree with that, if it wouldn't be that my second edit was an article creation. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lol Irondome (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kraxler: There was a bit of a kerfuffle about this in 2011, a six-month trial period was proposed but not implemented: Noyster (talk), 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To clarify, the community wanted to carry it out but the WMF refused to implement it (I'm still more than a bit sore over it, personally...). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. The long and short of the answer to Q5 is then that Melanie would wish that the broad consensus would be implemented, even against the wishes of the WMF. IMO there's nothing wrong with dreaming of a better world, even if the powers-that-be have their reasons to prevent it from happening. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose The answer to Q5 is gross. This is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit and contribute to. This is the kind of attitude that turns new people off of the project. I am can not be on the team someone who would lock fresh ideas out.--Adam in MO Talk 05:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd suggest spending ten to twenty days doing new pages patrol. That might change your mind. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do a lot of new page patrol, and I also strongly disagree with Melanie about needing to be confirmed to create new pages. But it has little to do with her ability to be a good admin. It's a discussions that doesn't belong here, but at the village pump. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Adamfinmo: It has already been mentioned above, but see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. At least two-thirds of the ~500 editors commenting there supported restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users. If the WMF hadn't vetoed the proposal, it would be in force on this wiki right now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. I'll check out the link and read through the discussion when I have the opportunity. Perhaps there is something in there that could change my mind. I doubt it, but I am open to being wrong here.--Adam in MO Talk 04:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I dunno -- this seems like one of those things that could be indicative of an attitude problem if there were more evidence, but otherwise pretty harmless. It's not like she'd become able to actually disable autoconfirmed page creation herself, and besides there's always AFC so it's not an absolute lockout on new ideas. Also, 10 edits and 4 days isn't that much (is it?). Separately, I find it interesting that at the end of her answer she says that it would be better for new editors if they hung around a bit longer before creating articles; this IMHO shows a level of concern for new editors that helps to reduce the "bitey" impression that she might initially seem to project. ekips39 05:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as above ChristopheT (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I'm immensely disturbed by your answer to question 5, however you've provided reasonable answers to questions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. I wish I had more time to get to know you before this closed, as more interaction with you may have better helped me interpret your #5 answer, but I feel as those I can not in good faith support your RFA request. Despite my neutrality, I will keep my good cheer and wish you luck with your rfa, and should you pass, good luck with the mop. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With respect, Tom, if Q5 was a dealbreaker for you, why didn't you just say so instead of wasting Melanie's time with a series of silly questions? Sure, candidates should be prepared to spend some time answering questions, but asking for more tools does not man their time is without value. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell:I originally strongly opposed for the Q5 reason, penning the following for my reason:
    "I would say that only autoconfirmed users could create articles. Anyone who does New Pages Patrol knows that the most obviously unsuitable articles are almost always created by brand-new editors with brand-new user names." This is very disconcerting to me. We were once hailed as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and in my opinion that has changed over the years to a model that now more closely resembles a gated community. Do you have any knowledge of AGF? of BOLD? of IAR? of BITE? Do these guidelines mean anything to you? Or has your heart been so hardened by your time here that you no longer feel the need to extend to the new editors a help hand in the spirit of these guidelines? I admit that it is irritating to deal with the new people, and yet as an administrator I also recognize that part of the job is helping the new people learn the ropes, or at the very least leaving them in the capable hands of others who have both the time and in the inclination to help them grow into value members of the community. [...]"
    After reading the comments I had made I came to realize that I was also guilty of not assuming good faith, so I decided that it would be better to ask some question and feel out the candidates position on points of importance to me, then make an informed decision rather than acting under the influence of my emotions. After reading the answers I have a better idea about how to interpret the answer to number five, hence the neutrality; if I had perceived that Melanie had been more aggressive about limiting or prohibiting the new people from editing I likely would have stuck to strong oppose for the reasons others have listed above. Moreover, you've missed a fundamental point about the questions asked here: no candidate is obliged to answer them, so it was entirely within her capability to ignore or decline to answer. Do keep in mind that it was entirely her decision to answer, so if she did then obviously it wasn't a waste of anyone's time. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In order to keep this RfA as drama free as possible, I already voiced my opinion on this vote here earlier today. Moreover, if the candidate had declined to answer the questions, that would obviously also have risked being met with a neutral or an oppose. It's all happened before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category