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

Shanel

final (36/1/1) ending 05:40 December 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shanel ( talk · contribs) – I was nominated about 2 months ago, and most of my oppose votes were because of my lack of experience. I have 2135 edits now according to Iteriot's tool, and almost 600 deleted edits the last time I checked with Kate's tool. My contributions lately have been reverting and image tagging, but I also help out with things like translating, disambig pages with links, the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, stub sorting, wikifikation, copyediting, AfD noms, and welcoming new users. I think having the mop and bucket would be rather useful to me. Shanel 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my own nomination :)-- Shanel 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support edit history looks trustworthy enough to support.-- MONGO 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support Looks to be more than capable. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 06:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Need more vandal fighters. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 06:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Would be a good help. NSLE _{( T+ C+ CVU)} 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Good vandal fighter. -- A dam1213 Talk + 09:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Merovingian 12:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
7. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support Martin 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Very strong support -- Francs 2000 02:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Support - No changes made to my prior vote around 2 months ago. I see Shanel very active with her mop w/o injuring or leaving any wet liquid on the floor or any victim behind her. Applies WP rules gently! -- Svest 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™} reply
11. Support Good job fighting vandals, ability to block and rollback would be VERY helpful. xaosflux ^T/ _C 04:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12. I saw you on fr: :) Korg ( talk) 06:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13. Support; good work; at first I even confused her with Shanes. Antandrus (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
14. support as her nominator last time -- Wonderfool 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support Great candidate for admin - Wezzo 21:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support Nice range of activity, great example for other potential nominees. Rx StrangeLove 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. El_C 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Support.Good history and can use the extra tools.-- Dakota ^{t e} 09:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Straightforward support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
20. Support Strong vandal-fighter/fastidious record. Xoloz 17:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
21. Support, excellent vandal-whacker. Tito xd^{( ?!? - did you read this?)} 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
22. Support, a few teething errors easily outweighed by demonstrated involvement and commitment to the project.-- cjllw | TALK 23:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
23. Support, HGB 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC). reply
24. Support. Rob e rt 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
25. East Support great editor will be great admin. Gator (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
26. Support Izehar ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
27. Support. A look at her contribs shows lots of welcoming new users, reverting vandalism, and the like. Always friendly in all discussion I looked at. delldot | talk 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
28. Support Sounds like a good vandal fighter. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
29. Support. JFW |  T@lk 13:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
30. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Good vandal fighter. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
32. Strong Bandwaggoning Support will use the tools well... -- Alf ^melmac 00:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
33. Support. -- DS1953 02:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
34. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
35. Support. the wub "?!" 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
36. Levelheaded and trustworthy. Dmcdevit· t 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose - total newbie. Wait a bit longer. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutal. I am wondering why she has 600 deleted edits. That's not necessarily a good thing. Has she been writing bad articles that get deleted, or has she been doing AFD noms and tagging articles as CSDs? - R. fiend 15:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Looking through her deleted edits using Kate's tool shows that almost all edit summaries have {{db-...}} tags in them (db-bio, nonsense, and so on) and a very small number have afd, copyvio, rvv, stub, or minor cleanup-related things in the edit summary. I chose a few entries at random to be sure the edit summaries were'nt misleading or anything. They showed, judging by afd pages and edit summaries of the admins that deleted the articles, that she had placed the afd and speedy tags just as her edit summaries said. None of the edit summaries suggested that she had created the articles, and none of the entries I chose at random showed her as the first contributor. Hope this helps! delldot | talk 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This is true. Perhaps I should have clarified this before. Most of my deleted edits are things I tagged for speedy deletion or for AFD. There are a few things that I wikified or edited that were later deleted for whatever reason, but I think most of these were from my newbie days :)-- Shanel 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It looks like my memory was a bit off...I had close to 500, not 600 deleted edits when I last checked (curently at 519).-- Shanel 04:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm probably not going to change my vote, however, just because I very rarely vote in these, and only vote to support when I have substantial first hand interaction with or knowledge of the candidate, and in this case I simply don't. I'm certainly not going to oppose, anyway. Good luck. - R. fiend 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I think I would probably help out most with reverting vandalism, since that's what I'm mostly doing now. I could also see myself closing AfD noms, protecting pages, and blocking and unblocking IP adresses.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am proud of the translations I've done in Breton nationalism, because some of them were really challenging, and they're definitely not perfect, but I did it.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I really haven't been in any conflicts over editing, since most of my edits tend to be things like wikification or reverting vandalism, which aren't really controversial. The closest I came though, was when I reverted the changes made by Terry Oldberg to Signal (information theory) when he was editing as an IP address. Since I opened the link to the diff from Wikipedia-en-vandalism, I didn't get to see the justification he put on the talk page. However, he contacted me, explained, and I changed it back.

If I ever do get into a real edit conflict, I would take some time of of Wikipedia first. I would try to work it out with the user(s) first before moving on to mediation RfC, or ArbCom.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.