Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena 2: Difference between revisions

Lady Aleena

Voice your opinion (talk page) (16/8/8); Scheduled to end 17:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) - I opposed LA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena, but today I am nominating her. Why? Because she's a darn good user. Last RfA I opposed over some issues of not respecting consensus, plus some other rambling thoughts I threw in. I've been observing LA for the last 2.5 months and haven't seen any such issues recur; indeed, looking over her edits since then I have seen nothing that will indicate she won't improve the project with the admin tools. She is helpful, civil, and hard working.

An example of this; shortly after her last RfA, a discussion came up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 128#RfA Related message on various user's talk pages, in relation to messages such as the one at User talk:Giggy/Archive/May 2008#Lady Aleena's future. As soon as she was informed that some people disagreed with what she was doing, she apologised, explained her (good) intentions, and promised not to make the "mistake" again. Exactly the right attitude from an admin, in my opinion. We need more like her, so let's give her the mop. —Giggy 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Giggy's nomination. - LA @ 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate opening statement

I intend to work on a small scale, since I am only on dial-up. Running bots takes a lot of bandwidth which I just do not have. I have tried it once a very long time ago, and it was still extremely slow. That means that I will more than likely not remove categories and templates from massive amounts of pages. For categories which are to be deleted, if there are a few articles or pages, sure I would go in and remove the category. For templates which are to be deleted, as long as the transclusion list is short (20-30 or fewer), sure I will remove the template. If hundreds of pages are in need of changing, I will leave that to those with the tools and bandwidth to do so.

During my last nomination, I gave extremely short answers to several of the questions due to being hit with that first nomination out of the blue. It was a surprise, and I didn't know how to respond to some of the questions. If you would like to know how I would decide a case, I am sure that you can come up with a actual case that is in question instead of a hypothetical one.

I will shy away from long standing issues that have taken on a life of their own unless asked to give my input. A long standing issue is one that has lasted at least a month and possibly been discussed in multiple stages across multiple talk pages. I will also try to stay out of the way of the Biographies of living people editors. They are doing a great job.

I think that is it for now. Let's give this one a go and see what happens. Knowing that looking over my contributions is a bit much, I want to thank you all in advance. Please take a flower with you on your way out in appreciation of participating in this, my second nomination for adminship with my thanks and to avoid the thankspam that usually goes with the end of a request for adminship. Have a very nice day!

Questions for the candidate

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: On top of what I said in my previous nomination, I will patrol Wikipedians looking for help and Wikipedia protected edit requests mostly.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I wish that I could say that I did something more brilliant since my last nomination, but I really haven't. Actually, since my last nomination, I have been a tad more self-conscious of my edits.

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: Thankfully, the former hasn't changed much since my last nomination. I did have the incident that Giggy has mentioned above in his nomination. For the latter, I will walk away from my computer for a little bit to calm down before diving back into the fray.

Optional questions from User:Filll

4. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

Optional question from miranda

5. What do you think BLP means?

A.

6. Have you worked with any GAs/FAs/DYK or new pages lately?

A.

7. If you see original research in a BLP, what should you do?

A.

General comments

• See Lady Aleena's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena
• Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena 2

• Links for Lady Aleena: Lady Aleena (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I suggest expanding the answers to the questions; they appear to mostly relate back to the last RFA, which not everyone is necessarily familiar with, including myself. If the answers could be typed up here again, and probably updated to include anything that has changed since then, it would be appreciated. (And yes, I have clicked back to the previous RFA, but this is for the benefit of those who choose not to :) ) Gary King (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Per Giggy's excellent nomination. —Giggy 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Good editor.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, per reasoning last time: valued contributor, has a load of "clue", and won't misuse the tools. this time though, I promise not to badger any opposers... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes. — CharlotteWebb 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per reasons in the last RFA. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. I had this watchlisted. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7. As the nominator the first time 'round. Keegan^talk 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support per everything good you could bring to the project. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Zomg the cantidate may use IRC?. Well, that aside, I think the cantidate will do just fine. SQL^{Query me!} 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. As previous co-nominator. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Stong Support -- Best of luck! --Cameron* 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - adminship isn't a big deal. In my humble opinion, giving short answers to the questions is perfectly ok - this isn't supposed to be an exam. PhilKnight (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Finally! MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Despite Giggy's terrible nomination. :P Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I don't fully understand what iridecent's link means (or what you did wrong) but that happened in like, April. That's like, 4 months ago or something. 4 months is a while. I'd bet my bottom dollar that you've learned your lesson there.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
16. An erratic contribution history, a shocking diff about fighting a CfD deletion and an unsightly number of categories on your user page leads me to Support RMHED (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I remember being very unimpressed with her understanding of the goals of Wikipedia when I came across User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers. We can't have admins who don't understand what original research is. Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose for now I really don't like any of the answers to the questions. I will be happy to support if she adds more to each of the questions, espically Q1. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Sorry, but this is a dealbreaker for me. – ırıdescent 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Should this (or the broader concerns the presence of which it might suggest) become an issue (as well and properly it might), it might be useful to undelete the history of Category talk:Wikipedians interested in television by genre, in order that the diff that Jc37 references in the discussion to which you refer, and in the UCfD that followed, as perhaps reflective of a failure to understand an aspect or two of policy and practice might be viewed by all (I should say that I may mistake Jc37's meaning, which I don't mean to represent as suggesting that the "misunderstanding" was particularly grand or significant, and that I don't take any position on the substance or significance of the several genre and media categories discussions with which the candidate has been involved; this is purely a[n unnecessarily long] procedural suggestion). Joe 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Never mind; I had a tab of this section open in Firefox for a rather long time, and in the meanwhile America69 raised the issue infra (and with nine-tenths fewer words...but also fewer exciting [though useless] parenthetical observations). Joe 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) Agree with undelete and I've temporarily undeleted it. It's unfair on all those involved not to; especially since LA may not herself remember what she said so wouldn't be in a position to defend/explain it. – ırıdescent 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I actually have a twin issue here; both what appears to be an attempt to game the system by recreating a deleted category under another name, and apparently trying to discuss it via IRC deliberately to keep the discussion "hidden". – ırıdescent 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Sorry, no. Understanding of policy appears to still be a concern and the answers aren't reassuring either. Everyme 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I see no distinctive differences between this nom and last time, which I opposed. Too soon to run again. You should have declined and then accepted later, which would have impressed me with editorial humility. Your answers are again lackluster. So, unfortunately, per the above. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose ... this is what changed my mind. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Having duly referred back to previous noms, answers then and now are unsatisfactory and I'm concerned that these are presented as sufficient. Not impressed with candidate's overall application. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose While short answers are not necessarily bad in RFA, your answer to Q2, combined with a look at your last several hundred edits, leads to me think that you're not ready to be an admin. To become an administrator, you need to demonstrate that you're an active member of the project who is dedicated to our goals and capable of dealing with the responsibilities that the tools entail. Appallingly lackluster answers here, combined with a contribution history overwhelming dominated by edits in the user and template namespaces does not show me that you are a sufficiently dedicated and experienced editor to merit support. Don't expect to pass RFA with sufficient support if you can't even summon up a single example of a positive contribution to the project since April. Additionally, your failure to convey (in words and actions) a change of heart since your recent failed attempt at RFA is disappointing. However, I will say that the IRC related diff doesn't mean squat to me. I really don't get what the big deal is there. VanTucky 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral at this stage. Although I've never heard of you, I came with the intention of supporting as Giggy's not usually wrong (no, really); however, on first skim I saw a "per IRC" on your talkpage, which generally earns an instant oppose from me. I'll change this to either support or oppose once I've looked at you more closely. – ırıdescent 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC) changed to Oppose

1. Related to Iridescent's oppose, I feel this is slightly concerning, but I do have to learn of the context. If you could clarify that particular incident, that'd help. :) Rudget (logs) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   The link Rudget put is for Admins only. America69 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Undeleted; it linked to this – ırıdescent 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral Not enough time has passed since the previous RfA for me to be able to support. I'm somewhat concerned by some of the issues that have been raised in the oppose section, but I'm not sure - without diving deeper into the edits and/or the situations around them - that they would be enough for me to oppose. Should this RfA succeed, I wish the candidate the very best of luck and will support their decisions around the project. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Diffs above are a bit worrisome. Nonetheless you're a nice editor, I will wait for something to move me to change my !vote to support. Until then, good luck. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Lady Alena and I butted heads in the past over what I viewed was her propensity for contributing original research and material with dubious merit - but that was a long time ago, and not a good reason to oppose now. I am, however, concerned about her edit counts. Of her over 17,000 undeleted contributions, fewer than 3,400 are in the mainspace. Well over a third of her contributions are in the user namespace. I don't think I like what that says about her priorities. - Eureka Lott 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I can't oppose based solely on use of IRC, but from what I've read about it, I don't like it. With some of the serious concerns raised about this candidate above--particularly the sentiment ("fighting" any attempt at CFD) expressed in the link Iridescent undeleted--I also can not support at this time. Remaining neutral on this one, per further perusal of this user's contributions. S. Dean Jameson 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Waiting for my questions to be answered. miranda 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning towards oppose. Waiting on questions to be responded to. Also, there seems to be too much "my last nom this, my last nom that". No offense, but this isn't your last nom. This is a new nom. tabor-^{drop me a line} 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - I've had a look over the "previous nomination" and at the present time, I'm unconvinced. The short answers referring back to the last RFA displays poor judgment - it failed, after all. Taking the answers from the last RFA, and improving upon them would've been a far better idea. A tendency to rely on IRC is also troubling as it greatly reduces transparency in my opinion. Perhaps once the optional questions are answered, my opinion will be swayed. I would also advise expanding on the initial questions. –xenocidic (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)