Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena 2

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

Lady Aleena

FINAL (28/31/10); Withdrawn at 06:35, 8 July 2008 and closed by — _Maggot^Syn 06:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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!

Addressing concerns

IRC: When I use IRC, it is mostly to get quick answers to smallish questions which are not policy related. Any policy discussions I participate in through IRC are mostly sounding boards prior to writing a proposal to be placed on Wikipedia to gain consensus. I firmly understand that any policy related issue discussed on IRC is not final since there is no way to permanently show the consensus there. The only place where policy can be finalized is on Wikipedia where consensus can be noted through the history page of that policy and it's accompanying talk pages and talk archives.

When I am on IRC; I, along with everyone else that uses it, help people with problems such as formatting issues, and directing editors to the various policies which would govern what the editors want to do. I basically just answer questions or give advice of where to find answers to problems when the conversation isn't completely off-topic.

What I have done and will do on Wiki: My edits are primarily in the Template and User namespaces, since I have little to contribute to Article space except making lists and cleaning up. I am not a person with an array of material around me with which to write articles, unless you want me to write extensive plot summaries to all the books and films I own which are all fiction (which I know is against WP:PLOT, so I won't do it). I could open up my AD&D game books and write articles on the game mechanics of the outdated system (which I know is against WP:GAMEGUIDE, so a no go to that too). I do not own a single piece of material for which an article doesn't already exist, at least as a redirect to a larger article. I have already had one article I wrote severely derided, so since then I have not even tried to write another if that is how the subjects for which I am interested are going to be treated.

I will work where I am the most comfortable, and that is in templates. Most of the template work I do, these days, is not that controversial. Sure, around 2 years ago I made waves with my work with user templates, by merging over 100 of them into about 25, but I have decided to stay out of that area for now. I may get back into it in the future, but I am not sure.

Currently, I am working with MBisanz and others on merging all of the {{Sockpuppet}} templates, some of which are edit protected, making editing them slow. I tried to get a merged {{Globalize}} template going, but no one seemed interested, so I dropped it.

Along with featured articles and lists, I wish there were featured templates. (I know that's probably never going to happen.)

Other areas in which I have worked are mostly in media. I co-created Films based on books with Pegship. I was part of the change of WikiProject Fictional series to WikiProject Media franchises with John Carter. I started the WikiProject Doctor Who assessment committee and got all of the Doctor Who pages assessed in about a week with the help of others in the project. Also as part of WikiProject Doctor Who, I got WikiProject Torchwood made into a task force of Doctor Who to keep all Doctor Who related project under one "roof." I helped SteveCrossin set up the WikiProject 24 assessment committee, though I am not part of it. I have also helped WikiProject Time and WikiProject Maryland get their pages assessed, though not as thoroughly as Doctor Who.

I started the numerated film series lists to bring some order to them a while back. I cleaned up both List of disaster films and List of eco-horror films.

I have written two proposals, Locations in fiction and Genre and media categories user categories, though neither has been adopted. I wrote the latter proposal in response to the deletionist attitudes that prevail against user categories of this type.

I pushed for the PAGESINCATEGORY magic word, which is very handy to have for various projects.

My short answers to questions 1-3: I didn't think that it was a bad thing to just refer you back to my previous nomination. It was thought that repeating myself would actually be a bad thing, and just lifting the previous answers and putting them here would be worse. So, I gave the linkage to prompt those in the current discussion to read the previous request.

Answering the rest: Those answers will come within the next day or two. Please be patient as I give them some thought.

Reminder: There will be no thankspam after this nomination closes. I have learned my lesson. :)

Candidate withdraws

I am withdrawing this request for adminship, due to the overwhelming resistance to it. - LA @ 06:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. I have not worked on any Featured articles, Good articles, or Do you knows with the aim to make them Featured, Good, or DYK. Any work I may have done on any them was because I had an interest in the subject of the article not the article's assessment status. My area is in the deep dark recesses of Wikipedia where very few others really care about. If I were given the tools of an administrator, they would be placed in my backpack as I go spelunking into those deep, dark, and dusty areas which are either little known about or no one else cares about. I will leave article content improvement to those who are better suited to that work. I know that I am not suited to work on making an article Featured or Good, and I wouldn't know what a good blurb for a good DYK looks like. I was never good at writing papers and essays for school; only being good at giving the whos, whats, whens, and wheres but the whys always killed my grades especially when the whys came from some dusty academicians who bored me so much that I could not stay awake to read what they said. Most of the time that area is just too intense for me as I have seen editors torn down for even the littlest mistake. I would help out only as a proofreader for grammar and spelling but not content. Sorry, that is not for me. I prefer to stay in templates away from the battle zone which is FA, GA, and DYK.

If Omen III: The Final Conflict ever gets GA or better status, I could glow a little bit since I was one who took over a dozen trivia items and made them into sections reducing the amount of trivia to four items which were also merged from several. A more recent edit was to Copperhead where I took a dreadful article which had bad wikicode, even worse grammar, and was named improperly and fixed what was there; and if that ever gets (though not likely) GA or better status, then I could say that I got the foundation rebuilt. I came across those two articles by chance and on a whim decided to make them a little better, a small step closer to a better assessment status. I mostly do gnomish things here and there, wherever the WikiWinds take me, but not to better my WikiResume.

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

A. Original research should be removed from articles relating to a living person until a reliable third party source can be found.

Optional question from User:TaborL

8. In your own words, why do you believe your first request for adminship failed, and what have you learned since that request?

A. There are a few reasons that the first request failed. The biggest problem other editors had, and some still do, was that I gave short answers to the questions showing my style which is to learn as I go. It is not as if I have not read the policies, I have. I just did not feel up to writing long drawn out essays on what I know, especialy towards the end when I started feeling poorly. It is like the last request was an open book examination. I do not do well on tests and seems that I still do not do well given the opposition to me so far.

I also am known to disagree with consensus and work to change it. When I disagree with consensus, there are times I stridently state my opinions. Even when I am having alphabet soup (which could use some help) dumped on my head, I still hold my ground. Some do not like that about me so were against my getting administrative tools thinking that I would use them towards my own agenda. That is not the case. Until consensus changes, I will follow consensus, however I will try to stay away from areas where I admitmantly disagree with consensus.

I have learned that this process has not changed which means I am still making a mess of it.

Anti-fence-sitting question from User:Kmweber

9. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?

A. No, never, not unless consensus changes. I would suggest to heated editors to chill.

General comments

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

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)[reply]
Several questions that I believe were relevant were unilaterally removed by User:Splash without discussion. Is there a consensus for this? VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think all of those should have been removed. Especially because the candidate's grasp of policies and guidelines seemed to be the breaking point of the last RFA. –xenocidic (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Optional question from Tabor~~_{ignore this question}

8. When would you use a cool down block?

This is an entirely formulaic question. The answer can be found at WP:CDB. Splash - tk 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to answer along current policy lines... –xenocidic (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what I should have said is: An answer which will not of itself cause your RfA to fail on the spot can be found at WP:CDB and there is therefore no reason not use it. Splash - tk 00:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time that area is just too intense for me as I have seen editors torn down for even the littlest mistake. I would help out only as a proofreader for grammar and spelling but not content. Sorry, that is not for me. I prefer to stay in templates away from the battle zone which is FA, GA, and DYK.

First, DYK is not a battleground. It's a process which you independently research something new and notable. The article gets on the main page for being new and/or possibly interesting. GAs and FAs can be collaborated on with other editors, as with DYK. If you aren't here for improving content other than templates or categories, then I suggest you rethink where your edits should be. I do believe that interacting more with mainspace and adding content to certain articles improves your chances of understanding core policies. miranda 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clear the air about this IRC issue and this RfA. Giggy, would you permit me to paste the log of all of our conversations to date, without editing it so that the other editors can see just how little we discussed this RfA on IRC? - LA @ 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Per Giggy's excellent nomination. —Giggy 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good editor.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes. — CharlotteWebb 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per reasons in the last RFA. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had this watchlisted. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator the first time 'round. Keegan^talk 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everything good you could bring to the project. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong Support. As previous co-nominator. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Support -- Best of luck! --Cameron * 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Finally! MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Giggy's terrible nomination. :P Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support Uses IRC to discuss improving the encyclopedia. BradV 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues suggesting the user is untrustworthy have yet appeared. If Giggy is satisfied with the user's policy knowledge - the only significant issue last time - I am satisfied too. Dean B (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the user's personality from IRC, and the user meets all of what I consider good traits in a candidate. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-5-2008 • 23:21:17
Support -- not perfect, but shows willingness to learn, which is very important for the position.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sarek. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as I'm happy to assume good faith instead of making assumptions about a person's character based on one's personal opinions regarding IRC. User appears perfectly trustworthy. -Rushyo (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for good arguments in the AfDs I have seen her at and for making my list of nice wikipedians. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was fairly emphatic in my support for you last time based on a long history of demonstrated good judgement, hard work, and valuable contributions. I still feel that way. I looked over the dif provided in the oppose section regarding IRC, and don't see the problem. Taking things off-wiki to avoid situations that will just cause wiki-drama doesn't strike me as a big deal (and indeed, she could have had that conversation via email or telephone, and we'd have no clue). It also strikes me that fighting to protect a category isn't exactly egregious behavior, and the fact that the dif provided precedes your last RfA makes it rather irrelevant. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IRC. Wizardman 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. NOTE: this candidate's high edit count in userspace very likely has much to do with Wikipedians looking for help activity. See also: User:Ral315/WTHN. — Athaenara ✉ 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe this editor has great potential. Plus, last supporter made a great point in User:Ral315/WTHN. Meis funny Gab 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - a valued editor, I trust she'd make a great admin. krimpet ✽ 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but this is a dealbreaker for me. – ırıdescent 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose ... this is what changed my mind. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose, per iridescent and VanTucky. Also, it is really too soon after the previous RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see some solid article for the next RFA, not just little cleanups, even if you don't get it recognised, expand it or create it.--Serviam (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have a deep distrust of IRC users, and to have that confirmed by seeing evidence that there was an apparent attempt to cover up an onwiki situation leaves me with rather a bad taste in my mouth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but VanTucky has a great point. Nothing you're proud of since April? Think of something, and I might be swayed to neutral. LittleMountain5 00:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the way questions were responded to which I feel wasn't much of a response. I get the feeling you are just not into this nomination as much as you should be. tabor-^{drop me a line} 00:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't trust the user with the tools; it's pretty clear that the user is interested more in removing content than adding content. Furthermore, a lack of understanding about the basic fundamentals about how wikipedia operates indicates that they aren't ready. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Diligent Terrier. --A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I havn't seen anything to change my opinion from the last RFA. For someone editing since April 2005, I find plenty to concern me about behaviour up to the last RFA four months ago. Has there been a marked change in the last four monts? The bit about "a tad more self-conscious of my edits" since then being an explanation for why there isn't any good material to point to for Q2 just kind of underwhelms. I still see no evidence of familiarity with adminly matters, and plenty of evidence of a tin ear for the tone and rhythm of Wikipedia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a support !voter cited "Strong support for good arguments in the AfDs" so I went back to check to see if I had overlooked strong evidence of adminly judgements. First I notice that the candidate has not participated i AfD at all since the last nom. Earlier in 2008 this participation in the AfD of an article of their own creation seems neutral to the issue of whether WP:V is satisfied, and refers more to how long pages take to download via dial up, and write etc. this is also neutral with respect to WP policies and guidelines and not terrible inspiring for an admin candidate. this is similarly neutral with respect to demonstration of notability guidelines. The fourth (and final) contribution to AfD in 2008 here barely rises above the level of "per above". Going back further for evidence of relating well to the ways of WP, I personally find this contribution to a rather lengthy AfD raises questions for me. There are 17 !votes from other wikipedians, and considerable debate on the page, to !vote "temporary keep for now. I have placed my recommendation on what to do with this on [article's talk page]. If the interested parties don't act on it, then re-AFD it" is really an unusual request. In essence it asks for everyone else's reasoning, time and effort in the present AfD to be set aside. I think it demonstrates a very poor sense for the functioning of the AfD process. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dilligent. --Eric (mailbox) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The IRC issue is a problem for me. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many concerns here. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The candidate doesn't appear to be making Wikipedia any better by their actions, and leads me to believe that there would be a possibility of deliberate misuse of the administrator tools. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wisdom89. A premature nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the IRC concerns. And stemming from that whole dark underbelly of off-Wiki drama, I have a hard time trusting anyone nominated by Giggy, after the circus that was DHMO 3. His judgment was proven to be very poor. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does being nominated by Giggy make someone harder to trust? Lady Aleena may not even be aware that the RfA exists (not everyone follows all RfAs), and in addition, she was nominated by Keegan and RyanGerbil10 in her first RfA, showing that other users had confidence in her abilities before Giggy did. Acalamari 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much like Kurt Weber and self-noms, I will now and forever have a skeptical view of those who engage in off-wiki stuff. Let's not forget why DHMO 3 was blanked and closed in the first place, despite the massive support. And I'd guess anyone who has ever paid any attention to RfAs is intimately familiar with what went down there. I don't so much care if a 'crat gives this no weight, but I am entitled to my opinion, and will stick to it. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - too soon, and my attitude towards IRC is in the same vein as Email. Best to keep wiki thinks on wiki. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - miniscule answers to questions, which lack depth and show lack of effort. Is that because it's so soon after the last attempt? May well be...it needs time yet... I know I supported last time, but I can see no improvement since then, and, infact this RfA is in worse condition than the last one. I regret to vote this, but I do believe, if you give it time, you stand a much better chance. Lra drama 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. User cannot be trusted with sysop tools. --- RockMFR 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm still not comfortable with the user's thoughts on consensus. That and I feel it was too soon since the last RFA. --Kbdank71 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my discussion above and per VT. miranda 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my neutral statement below and uninspiring answers to questions (even the required ones). Tan | 39 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – even after some of the questions that weren't summarily deleted were answered, I'm still unconvinced (per my neutral below). The fact that I was unable to find any on-wiki discussions between the candidate and the nominator regarding this nomination (except this, when it was already created) strengthens my concerns about the IRC use (or if this wasn't discussed in IRC, off-wiki stuff in general). –xenocidic (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per what I see is Slap Dash Question Answering raises questions about aptitude for adminship «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the evidence brought to light by Iridescent. I need to trust admins will act and discuss their actions in the open. That left me too uneasy to support, and it is an issue of trust, so I am afraid I must oppose. I am sorry. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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. _{Changed to oppose} tabor-^{drop me a line} 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The link Rudget put is for Admins only. America69 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted; it linked to this – ırıdescent 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (now leaning oppose, based upon no attempt to answer additional questions.) on this one, per further perusal of this user's contributions. S. Dean Jameson 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Waiting for my questions to be answered. miranda 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Switch to oppose. miranda 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ switched to oppose - 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)[reply]
Waiting for more Q&A...well more A at this stage ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I appreciate the candidate's sincerity in wanting to assist Wikipedia at a greater depth, but at this time I do not believe the candidate is ready to assume additional responsibilities. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Changed to oppose per Q8. Normally I feel neutral !votes are silly, especially with no explanation - why bother, right? I initially wanted to oppose this; it feels like it's been about fifteen minutes since the last RfA. The answers to the questions, which was most of the reason I opposed the first RfA, are still completely substandard. While my personal requirements are not candidate perfection or an agreement with inclusion/deletion tendencies, I must see that the candidate at least has the capability to express themselves in a thorough, coherent, knowledgeable manner about any given facet of Wikipedia. Right now, this isn't at all apparent. My neutral !vote is pending the answer to question 8 - and, at the risk of sounding pretentious or condescending, it better be a damn good one. Tan | 39 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I respect the candidate and the nominator here, but the things brought up in the 'Oppose' section are simply too troubling for me to out-and-out support. That said, I believe this user is a good-faith contributor who has been a net positive to the project, if they actually rolled their sleeves up and did some dirty, menial project-space work (XfD, etc), then they'd probably deservedly breeze through this whole process. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
More of a comment I just find it kind of low to undelete something from April just to devastate an RfA. It is slightly nauseating. Yanksox (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The diffs are a bit worrisome. But I think you're a hardworking and a nice editor. --Kaaveh (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.