Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Meganmccarty

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, request for checkusership, or request for oversightship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Withdrawn by candidate. EhJJ^TALK 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Meganmccarty

Meganmccarty (talk · contribs)

End date: 15 January 2010, 19:21

Fellow users, I believe that it is time that Megan got the extra tool set. Megan is a very civil, and helpful editor whose contributions since registering (Feb 23, 2009) consistently impress me. Out of a total of 1,930 edits, 1,590 (or 82.4%) are to the main article space. She is also active in areas where the extra bit would come in handy, specifically requests for deletion. And while she is not the most active editor in new page patrolling, a quick review of her deleted contributions (sorry, sysops only) shows an understanding of the quick deletion process. All this added together equals a classic net positive and I'm sure that you will agree. ···Katerenka (討論) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom - During the time Megan has been on WP, she has been an extremely productive and active user and would benefit the community greatly from the addition of the admin tools. During all of my encounters with her she has always shown civilty and a willingness to help and improve. After evaluating her contributions I believe she will do fine as an addition to the admin team. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Thank you very much for your kind nominations and compliments, Kate and Max.

Support

1. As nom. ···Katerenka (討論) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Support  Kaltxì Na'vi!  21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Sock of User:Pickbothmanlol. Majorly talk 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Support - as nom. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
3. WTF support. The opposes are, with all due respect, ludicrous; she's plenty active, clearly knows her way around the wiki, and is a content builder. We need far more content builders are far less projectspace-dramamongerers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   We have a "content builder" already. Adminship won't assist that. Adminship assists dealing with vandals, deleting pages etc. The candidate is simply inexperienced in those areas. It's not ludicrous to expect a bit of experience. Majorly talk 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

4. No need is not a valid argument! fr33kman ^talk 08:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   But en:WP:NOTNOW is. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

5. IMO, she knows her way round and is a content builder. Enough for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - Why not. Yottie ^=talk= 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - has been assisting new editors, agree with noms. --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I know I am probably going to get flack for this, she is a great contributer and I don't question that at all. But what I want to see from an administrator is the ability to collaborate and has a use for the tools. Megan has less than 20 edits to Wikipedia space I think only 2 to Wikipedia talk space. I see very little vandal reverting or AIV reporting so I can't tell if she knows when to revert/block vandals. I also see little to no participation in requests for deletion which doesn't help me see if they know when an article should be deleted. Almost all their edits come from stub sorting which speaks of edit count hunting which worries me as its been a way others in the past have tried to get adminship. With so much talk lately about ways we can make it harder to become an admin and to limit numbers, I just don't see this candidate as ready yet. Please take part in the community more in some of the areas mentioned above and I will be happy to support. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments, Djsasso. I will try harder to improve in these areas. Megan McCarty|^talk_changes 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Administrators should be familiar with all aspects of Wikipedia. Out of c.2,420 edits (which, in itself, is a low number), less than 500 are from other namespaces -- and 104 of them are editing User:Meganmccarty/Status. Of projectspace, your most edited page is this RfA subpage, with just two changes to WP:ST, one saying "Happy Christmas", and the other "agree with above"; sixteen projectspace edits overall, with one edit to VIP, which means that you have no use for the block tool. Edits Access to the delete tool is unrequired: six edits to RFD; only one of which is delete -- and only three show any independent thought. Edits to accompanying talk pages is extremely limited, with three edits to Nymphalidae, which is unacceptable. It shows that you have no experience in (V)GA, and the only article you have edited more than thrice is Monarch (butterfly), which worries me: we should concentrate on expanding articles, not adding one line stubs, which would be more suited to wikispecies: (you have 165 contributions there, you might wish to participate further); and, indeed, no recent edit to any Wikimedia project is about anything other than insect related. You have created 80 articles, and a random sample shows that many are one-liners + infobox: unacceptable. 119 creations are redirects; which add little value to the encyclopaedia other than accessibility; and you have only been considerably active for less than three months, which effectively bypasses one of the criteria for adminship. Sixteen namespaces; eight used; three used properly. I fail to see how this candidate is ready for adminship, and will not support in the future unless most of these are addressed. I strongly suggest that the candidate withdraw. — μ 20:43, Friday January 8 2010 (UTC)

   Isn't content what Wikipedia is for? Maybe I'm being naive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Yep, that's what Wikipedia is for. But it's not what adminship is for. You don't make more articles because you are an administrator. Giving the buttons to a user that wouldn't use them is pointless. — μ 22:43, Friday January 8 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah I'm not to concerned about the edit counts... That is more edits than admins User:Katerenka, User:PeterSymonds, and more that I'm not going to go and find. (Sorry about singling you guys out)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Not qualified to be a sysop. —§ stay (sic)! 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Whilst Megan is a good contributor, we cannot give the mop to people unless they show the need for the tools. The lack of consistent participation in WP:VIP, and in recent changes patrolling suggests little use for block or rollback tools. A few deleted edits may show a slight need for page deletion, but nothing major, and that alone is not enough to make me support. This is a not a vote against Megan, an excellent contributor as far as I can tell, but unfourtunately the user shows no need for the tools at this time. FSM ^Noodly? 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Pretty much per Flying Spaghetti Monster. A great contributor, just not quite active enough in the admin areas. Become active there and come back in a few months please!!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Not ready yet, not every person needs to be an admin. Come back soon with more experience in admin areas. Majorly talk 21:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
7. I was going to hold off and ask some optional questions first as I felt I was alone in thinking this, but it appears not and so it's a regretful "not now" oppose. Sorry, Goblin 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
8. After looking through her contributions in these few months, there's been a lot of minor, stub-sorting edits, making 'external references' to 'other websites', a few redirects and creating articles with simplification from en. There has been little reverts of vandalism in betweem the contibutions, and only a few, (or rarely) edits are not minor or part of creating a new article. While she's been active in the namespace part of Wikipedia, I don't remember seeing her at PGA or WP:PVG, which she could do with a little more efforts in the articles she edits/creates. I don't mind the stub sorting/other minor edits in namespace but she could do with more recent changes/new page patrolling, QD tagging and more reverts, seeing she hasn't had much contributions targeting those areas (which is hard to see whether this editor is going to be efficient with the tools and vandalism, not judging by the little anti-vandal edits meaning she has little or not experience). Nifky^{^} 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What is the difference between Razorflame and Meganmccarthy? Both only edit stubs; both are snipped from other 'pedias. Razor's were deleted, Megan's aren't. Razorflame is shot down after several RfAs, yet the same people are supporting an almost identical candidate. I do not understand. — μ 15:57, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Razorflame has other issues, such as his numerous retirements. Majorly talk 16:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He does have a point though. Some of the supports have called her a content builder, but the majority of her edits were to switch a stub from one stub to another. And those articles she did create were straight copy pastes from other wikis. Something we have hounded Razor about for awhile. Going as far as to delete all his articles that he copy pasted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has a point. But, so do I. I'd probably support RF some day if his RFAs weren't so ridiculously close together. Majorly talk 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw: First, I'd like to thank those that nominated and supported me for adminship. After much thought and consideration, I have regretfully decided to withdraw my nomination. While I love being active in creating articles/content building, reverting vandalism, and tagging pages with QD, I realized, after reading the opposing comments, that the expectations and requirements of admin would be too much for me at this time, as I am only 14. I do hope, though, that at some point down the road, I will have the privilege of being nominated and considered for admin once again. For now, I will be taking a short wikibreak but will be back soon. Again, thank you to all. Megan McCarty|^talk_changes 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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.