Project:Requests for adminship/Nifky?

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

It looks like the community has voted unanimously in support of Nifky?'s adminship. So far, 29 in support (when you include the comment at the bottom... and me!) and no opposes. No new notes in two days and no new comment in the past one day means this discussion is over. Congrats! EhJJ^TALK 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nifky?

Nifky? (talk · contribs)

End date: 08:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I'm here to nominate Nifky? (talk · contribs) for adminship. Nifky? has been here for over a year but became active about three months back. Till now, she has amassed 1.4k edits, including over 55% to the mainspace. She has nearly 200(!) QDs and several reverts. Apart from this, she is also active in RfD. She has also requested several admin actions through IRC. I am sure that she can help with the extra tools and hope that you will agree. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Nifky^{^} 09:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Optional from NonvocalScream

Q: What are our attribution requirements?
A: Generally for articles, text should not be directly copy pasted from enwikipedia. If this text were to be used in an article, I'd develop it in userspace to simplify it and add appropriate links and minor finishes before I merge it into the current revision in Simple. In an article's talk page I would say that certain content has been based from the en wikipedia article using the {{enwp based}} or just type it in manually. As I have no experience with importing revisions from another project (transwikiing) I would still expect they'd be appropriately edited and attributed as when done manually to be saved as the latest revision of the article. I also understand that text not simplified or modified may be able to be deleted, but I think this would be appropriate if sufficient time and warning of the user has happened and they have not been able to 'fix' the article efficiently to remain in the article.

Q:In reference to blocks, they are preventative. So, if a user edit wars, you block him for 24 hours, the editor has no prior history and states that it will not repeat. Is another admin able to unblock and leave you a note later? Would you unblock if you were online? When are punishment blocks acceptable?
A: I have no problems with admins adjusting blocks I have done, provided there is a good reason. I would consider an unblock if it was only a minor edit war and if the user promises not to engage in a future edit war, but as it's a 24 hour block it would be not a big deal if I denied them; the block would only last a day. However if they were unblocked I'd closely monitor their edits up to a week after that event, and if necessary issue another block.

Punishment blocks are acceptable if the user has failed to abide by what they promised to do (or agreed to) repeatedly. I would issue each subsequent block with a longer varied time depending if the user repeats the same thing over and over again. However if the user does a POV-push which they have no history of and were continously moving pages with bad titles in it in the past, I would consider this a different situation so a punishment block may or may not happen.

Q: We all edit Wikipedia for many reasons. What drives you?
A: Reading minor details on an article I want to know more about interests me. Along with this, I make sure the layout of the article is correct, along with spelling, grammar and other general things. The fact that you can also add information that is relevant makes it even more convenient to make the article more informative to prospective readers.

Support

1. As nom. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Trustworthy user; consistently impressive. Lauryn (u • t • c) 09:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
3. +1 why not? --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
4. At long last... :-) --Mercy (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
5. File:Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Part of me wants to glare at you for not agreeing when I offered to nominate you, and part of me jumps for joy that finally your RFA is taking place! I've been continually impressed by your admirable work, Nifky? and when I first came, I thought you were an admin. :P Well, Pmlineditor is a much better nominator than me...so there's no need to say this long and tedious speech, but merely repeat, you're a great user, and I'm sure you'll be a great admin! Classical Esther^♣ 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
6. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Pmlineditor. She always keeps her cool, is calm, quick, swift, smart, and has brilliant solutions. Also, she did a really good job on vandal fighting. Her article work is wonderful, she is so friendly, and most of all, I'm her petit poodle. :P ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Would be a good admin, and we could use another admin in that time zone. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Responsible user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
9. I wanted to nom you. :-p -- Mentifisto 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - Trusted :) Yottie ^=talk= 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
11. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support – why not? Airplaneman ^talk 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Of course.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
13. A favor ¡Que levante la mano!, quien no lloró un adiós. (Of course) Diego (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
14. Support --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
15. fr33kman 00:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Awesome. SS✞^(Kay) 01:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
17. I'm usually trailing in Nifky?'s wake when identifying vandalism. She will make excellent use of the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Support: an active editor who will be able to make good use of the extra tools. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Punishment blocks are never done. Once the block has served it's purpose (the project is no longer in danger, or the editor no longer has bad behaviour) those preventative blocks are removed, so they never become punishment. I know you are able to take criticism, so after seeing me type all that, I know that this will not be an issue and thus, I trust you with the tools. Good luck, and thank you for offering to help in this way. (If you have more questions about this, come to my talk page) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Sure Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Support Kansan (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
23. File:Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought you were an admin. You sure act like one. So, yes. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
24. One of the people who will help to keep up the wiki with the mop. Trustworthy and competent, has clue. Fine by me. Barras ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
25. why not? —§ stay (sic)! 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
26. Chenzw  Talk  08:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
27. --Sinbad (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm very new here, and I definitely don't regard myself member of this community yet, so I will just comment, if I'm allowed to do so. My little comment is that while monitoring this wiki I really thought Nifky? was one of the admins, doing many good admin jobs. This means imho that Nifky? would be a good admin. --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  I'm quite confident that you can vote. ;) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that Nifky? declined running for administrator herself for such a long time despite having several assurances of her long qualifying for it, reflects clearly on her modesty - or delicacy - or good judgment. :p Classical Esther^♣ 03:01, 19 March 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.