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

Nikki311[edit]

Final (42/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki311 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you Nikki311. She has been with us for one year, and is very active in editing and maintaining our Professional Wrestling articles. Right off the bat, people are going to notice that, proportionally to her 16,300+ edits, she does not have that many Wikipedia Namespace edits. For many this may be a deal breaker, but allow me to try to persuade you otherwise...

As noted, she frequently deals with articles dealing with Professional Wrestling and, without hyperbole, we desperately need administrators in that area. As a preface, let me explain why: Our professional wrestling articles are very high traffic. They are frequent targets for vandalism and trolling. Many of the edits are from hit-and-run editors that don't care about the goals of our Project, that are more concerned with adding rumors and speculation and opinion than they are with keeping articles neutral, verifiable, sourced, and copyvio free. Professional Wrestling articles frequently need semi-protection and protection from editing because of these hit-and-run edits, and also frequently have images and other media on them violate are non-free content policies; indeed, anecdotally, Wrestling articles are second only to articles on musicians and bands in terms of abuse of non-free media and outright copyright violation. This is not indicative of all our regular Wrestling editors, who lately have really begun to step up to an impressive degree, its just that the bad outweighs the good and its a hard fight.

So why Nikki? Scrolling through her edits, certain things become immediately clear: she has a track record of quality editing (including major contributions to one featured article). She understands and appreciates the goals of our Project first, and can evidently identify and excise misinformation. While adminship is not needed to continue doing this, her pre-existing knowledge of the subject and proven ability to identify vandalism and, more importantly, misinformation and rumors, gives her a leg up on protecting pages where needed and blocking trolls and vandals where needed. She also has a keen understanding of our image policies, which is also desperately needed.

So, unlike many candidates who have very general experience in vandal fighting or participating in various processes, Nikki311 has very specific experience in a very specific area of editing that desperately needs administrators who have knowledge of the subject and a willingness and a desire to use the necessary tools to maintain the quality and integrity of our Project. Thank you for your consideration. Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Nahallac Silverwinds

Well Jeffrey just about took all the words out of my mouth! To start off by echoing what Jeffrey has said, the Pro Wrestling area of Wikipedia sorely needs more admins, especially due to the constant vandalism, trolling and image copyvio issues it has. Regardless of issues this area of Wikipedia has, Nikki is an excellent, experienced Wikipedian who has shown time and time again that she understands Wikipedia policy as it relates to verifiable accurate information, quality sources, citations, trolling, vandalism, article protection, image policies, GA and FA processes and just about anything else that I've ever seen cross her path. She has earned this Rfa in her own right.

When she is not overly familiar with something, Nikki will do her best to learn about it and help others understand the issue as well. She explains things thoroughly and always tackles heated debates (between other people, because I've never once seen her start or even propel an inappropriate conversation/flame fest/etc.) with an open mind, clear and rational thought, sound reasoning and never a cross word - she is always civil.

Nikki is a huge proponent of referencing and citations and has been instrumental in getting a myriad of pro wrestling-related articles sourced and cited. In addition to the prose re-writes, and the spelling and grammar enhancements that she also performs regularly, the amount and quality of referencing that Nikki has brought to these articles has greatly increased their value to Wikipedia. What's even better is that I've seen her strive-for-excellence attitude seemingly rub off on a number of people in the Pro-Wrestling WikiProject, myself included. This has definitely aided in the complete turn-around of WP:PW to a project we can be proud of.

While Nikki is quite capable of turning an article around on her own, she works extremely well with other editors in collaboration projects and always has ideas and pointers to assist other people with their own article improvements. In this way, she has not only been a driving force behind several GAs that she has personally edited (Candice Michelle, Nora Greenwald, Trish Stratus to name a few), but also in quite a few that she has given constructive criticism to in a peer-review manner.

I know I'm forgetting something I was thinking about last night because there are just so many good things to say about this editor. While Nikki is already an example Wikipedian, she will be that much more valuable and the Wikipedia community will only be enhanced by promoting her to admin. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you so much for the kind words! I accept. Nikki311 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will continue editing the professional wrestling articles, using the admin tools to help with some of the obvious problems. As mentioned in my nomination, the professional wrestling articles are very high traffic, with editors adding week by week events, non-notable details, and vandalism. Recent examples that come to mind are the Chris Benoit double murder and suicide and Vince McMahon faking his death. If I had admin tools, I'd be able to help in these areas where I am highly knowledgeable and can protect pages before an admin who isn't aware of the circumstances. Another problem with the wrestling articles is the large number of banned users, socks, meat puppets, and indefinite block evaders. I have some experience in this area, and I hope to become more able to help deal with these issues in the future. Lastly, I do a lot of work tagging non-notable wrestlers, backyard wrestling federations, vanity projects, and pictures (with copyright or rationale issues) with prods or for speedy deletion, so I know that these areas sometimes experience backlog, and I would love to help with that, as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done a lot of work bringing the wrestling related articles up to par. My biggest concern when I first joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling was that there were few Good and Featured Articles. So, I began sourcing and fixing some of the articles and have brought the following up to Good Article status: Candice Michelle, John Cena, Kurt Angle, Nora Greenwald, Shawn Michaels, Shelton Benjamin, Triple H, and Trish Stratus. I also did a little reworking of Benjamin's article after it passed GA, and it has recently been promoted to Featured Article status. I have one Featured List: NWA World Women's Championship. Also, I was instrumental in creating the current method of writing the articles out-of-universe after it was pointed out to me during Benjamin's GA review that it needs to be 100% clear that wrestling is scripted, which is the major factor in getting the articles promoted to GA status.
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: I think everyone has minor disagreements every now and then. I've never been in any major edit wars, and I have never committed 3RR or been anything other than civil. However, I do give a lot of warnings for vandalism and the like, which may result in a few angry vandals. :) That doesn't really stress me out, though. Another thing I do is assessment for Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), which I find relaxing, and I find myself doing a lot assessment when I'm stressed. As of right now, if users don't listen to and/or follow my advice, I will report them to whatever noticeboard is appropriate. If I were to become an admin, I would continue with warnings and only block those who are deliberately vandalizing articles, committing 3RR violations, etc. despite my (or others') warnings to stop.

More optional questions

4. What is Vandalism? Do you think this was vandalism or a content dispute? - TwoOars (Rev) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Vandalism is repeatedly making unconstructive edits. The diff you provided was a content dispute. However, after explaining that they were making incorrect edits and providing examples as how to properly write the information, they intentionally and unconstructively continued to write it the other way, despite myself and others reverting them. I should point out, though, that MoS violations are not vandalism, so the only real problem here is ignoring constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki311 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Malinaccier:

5. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend on particularly admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks, Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I plan to spend the majority of my time editing the encyclopedia, as that is what I love doing. I can't for certain give a percentage of time I'll spend on admin related duties, but I do plan to start small and work my way up as a I become more familiar with everything. I'd imagine there will be times when I don't need to use the tools at all for awhile (especially at first) or times I'll need to use them quite a bit to cut down on backlogs and the like. It'll probably fluctuate, with the majority of my time spent on general editing. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but I hope this answers your question. Nikki311 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The full policy is located at Wikipedia:Wheel war. Here's my take on it: don't undo an administrative action without consulting him/her first...so step one is talking to the blocking admin and trying to come to some sort of agreement first. If that doesn't work and there is still disagreement, a third opinion or dispute resolution might be needed. What I would do: I would assume good faith that the blocked user really deserved it and that I was unaware of some circumstance. I would never unblock without discussing it first. Then, I'd only do it if consensus was reached that the block was unnecessary. Nikki311 20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lid

7. In regards to professional wrestling articles, a taped event occurs and the results are posted on the internet on professional wrestling fan news sites that reveal a championship belt has changed hands. There are arguments that the news sites are unreliable in certain aspects, largely to do with backstage gossip, however their event reports are usually always accurate. What action would you perform if users came to you complaining about a content dispute over the inclusion or exclusion of these spoilers?
A: This is a major debate over at WPT:PW which I was trying to stay out of because I sort of see the issue from both sides. With that said, I have no issues with the insertion of spoilers as some people call them, especially because the Wikipedia guideline states they should be included. For example, should we not add pay-per-view results as they air because someone might not have seen the event and wanted to be surprised when they tuned into Raw the next day? No. In my opinion, it is more an issue of reliable sources. Although, dirtsheets (or pro-wrestling news sites) have event reports that are "usually always accurate", I still consider them unreliable in every aspect. I never use them and urge others not to use them. It isn't an issue if it is posted on reliable web sites, such as WWE.com, SLAM!, wrestlingtitles.com, or solie.org and should obviously be included in the articles despite whether the event in question has aired. If users came to me, I would tell them that it can be included as soon as a reliable source is found. If the only sites reporting it are dirtsheets, I would tell them to wait until the title change airs. To me, it isn't a big deal as it would only be a matter of days before the match aired anyway. The only course of action I would take is blocking those who violate WP:3RR by continually adding or removing the information. Nikki311 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nikki311 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, as nominator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as nominator. --Naha|(talk) 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, highly unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Davnel03 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — definitely needs the mop. Don't forget to continue your excellent work with the Wrestling articles! --Agüeybaná 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Looks good. —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per him being a very constructive editor. NHRHS2010 talk 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "him" is a "her". :) - TwoOars (Rev) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't notice that, I was just rushing. NHRHS2010 talk 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Nothing terribly wrong from what I saw. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per tag-team nomination. Tim Vickers 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was very witty ;) --Naha|(talk) 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wit I'm afraid - it's all scripted. Tim Vickers 22:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL ok you can stop there :P --Naha|(talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support My criteria for adminship is quite simple. If a user is for the most part civil, has at least 4 months active, and is not likely to abuse the tools, then I will support. Since this candidate 100% fits my criteria, then I will support. Good luck!--SJP 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the candidate has shown exceptional knowledge of policy and guidelines, then I would support someone with less than 4 months experience, but the chances of that happening are not to high. Experience is worth more than gold.--SJP 22:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A good user. Although I would like to see more experience in vandal-fighting. Not enough to oppose, though. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I'm not sure I've actually worked with this editor, but I have worked extensively with the PW project in regards to GA. Wonderfully pleasant group of editors. In looking over her contribs, she fits that description. Very strong editor who I don't believe will abuse the tools. Lara❤Love 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like a great editor, and the tools will only further help her in her dedicated work. --krimpet⟲ 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Browsing through your 500 last edits, I noticed a lot of good work rating articles importance. Also, thanks for answering my question. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Endless work at WP:PW is incredible, highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Bmg916Speak 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I am sure that anyone nominated by Jeffrey O. Gustafson will make a good administrator. Acalamari 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - her being an admin will benefit the project. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - excellent edits; can readily be trusted with the mop. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Has experience in the right areas. --DarkFalls talk 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I've not crossed paths with this editor before but everything looks to be in order. Super nom and appears knowledgeable and civil to all. She should be just fine! - Alison ❤ 07:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, gladly. Superb user. PeaceNT 13:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. One of the few likeable members of the WP:PW riff-raff.--Endless Dan 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? Many of the project members are extremely dedicated to the project and the talk page gets a half dozen new topics every day. How is that riff-raff? -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support based on her experience, the need for more mops at WP:PW, and excellent answers to questions. Bearian 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support great editor. Answers to questions are great. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 17:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, she knows her way through Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support She seems like a dedicated user and would probably be a good admin. -- Scorpion0422 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Everything looks fine to me.--MONGO 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support She's been here a long time. Not to mention her edit summary is above excellent, I also don't see any block log's. After studying the answers, I see a reason for strong support. --businessman332211 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support - dedicated, consistent editor who is experienced in all the right areas. :-) Lradrama 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. -- LAX 06:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support As per Lradrama and Scorpion0422.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. - Philippe | Talk 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - A very dedicated expirienced user whom I feel will not abuse the tools. The Chronic 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Rudget.talk 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Dedicated user in an area that usually requires admin attention ... Absolutely!-MBK004 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Appears to be trustworthy based on contributions and comments here. • Lawrence Cohen 00:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Undisputed Heavyweight Support. The Candidate seems to have mastered some of the more subtle nuances of quality editing. I like her response to question 4 particularly, as that's a distinction many of us don't always make. I appreciate her contributions to Pro Wrestling articles, and - while I hope to see that continue, especially with the mop in hand - I also believe that her mad skillz could benefit the project in other areas as well. Good luck, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support – nominators won me over, contributions confirmed, and by the 6th question I was reaching for my sockpuppet to support more than confident of this user's ability. Cheers, GracenotesT § 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, Clear that she understands how to use Wiki sensibly. WOuld make a good admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs)
  41. Support, Agree with the nominator's comments, Heights(Want to talk?) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - great editor, definitely deserves the tools.   jj137 (Talk) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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