Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lady Aleena

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 (66/35/6); Originally scheduled to end 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) - I am more than happy to nominate Lady Aleena for adminship.

Lady Aleena has been with us since 2005. Her editing has been sporadic, she even spent a year without a contribution (September 2006 to September 2007). She has still managed 17,000 edits, 9,000+ to unique pages. Lady Aleena works primarily on Wikiprojects and Templates, with over 1,400 Template space contributions.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that Lady Aleena has little experience in page deletion and blocking. She spends little time in that regard to the project, and the answers to the questions will probably reflect that. This nomination is based on my belief that Lady Aleena can be trusted to use the tools in maintenance of the encyclopedia, primarily in editing protected pages, templates, and moving pages protected against moves.

Lady Aleena is civil, has never been blocked or even warned about anything, really, and is an asset to the project. Spend some time reading over her contributions, and then decide. If adminship is to not be a big deal or a golden ticket, I trust the user to not misuse the tools and I urge the community to support her nomination. Keegantalk 17:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by RyanGerbil10: As one of the top closers at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, I have found Lady Aleena's work in the template namespace to be exemplary. I have always found her nominations of templates for deletion to be spot on, and her opinions in TfD debates to be invariarbly well-reasoned and firmly grounded in policy. I also urge the community to support her nomination as administrator, it would be of great benefit to the community. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Keegan's nomination. - LA @ 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a basic understanding of the tools available to sysops since I am one on a small non-Wikimedia project called Abulafia Random Generators. They don't have all of the processes that are here being so small.

Let's give this a go, and see where it leads.

Further information from Lady Aleena
A few of those who are neutral or oppose my nomination for adminship are concerned about my lack of content edits. The reason that I have not added that much to content is the fact that the things I know about are pretty much covered and have been since I have become a member. I am not a student with easy access to a library. I am a homemaker who would have to go to the next town over to get resources to write any appreciable content, unless the material can be easily accessed on the internet. Easy access means that the pages the material is on does not take an extreme amount of time to load. I am still using the dark-ages dial-up, there are times when I give up on loading a web site due to lengthy load times, no matter how much I would like to read the material. There are even articles on Wikipedia which need to be split to help decrease load times for those still stuck with dial-up.
My answers to the questions posed by other users were from the hip. They were quickly written to so that they did not remain blank as I researched the items which I had not read.
Items in this section have been moved to their relevant questions. (08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
My nomination came out of the blue. I was not expecting it, so I was like a deer mesmerized by headlights of an oncoming vehicle. I still am to a certain extent. Since I do not believe in self nomination, I thought it unlikely that I would ever be nominated. I was unprepared for it actually happening.
Thank you to those who support me. For those who do not, I hope that this will illuminate things for you. If you still require further information, just ask.
One last thing from Lady Aleena
I know I said that I would expand some of my answers in section 4, however, due to feeling rather poorly the last several days, I wasn't able to get to it. Still feeling a bit off, but an explanation is needed as to why I didn't do it. It is a bit late now, as this is going to wrap up in less than an hour.

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: I will work mostly with WikiProjects to help them run smoother. Until I am totally comfortable with the various processes, I will take my time getting into renames and deletions and other administrative duties. I will gladly take questions on my talk page to help new users and, in the beginning, any advice of where my help is most needed. I will be available on several IRC channels for quick help, though I believe that any policy related discussions should happen on Wiki.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I do not have a best contribution, just a lot of little ones that are mostly the clean-up of articles fixing mostly bad formatting such as unfinished Wiki code. I started the Films based on books project which Pegship is now coordinating. One of the biggest tasks I had undertaken was a over a year ago when I organized the User templates (which is now called Userboxes) by categorizing them all. Another more recent task was getting all of the WikiProject Doctor Who articles and other pages assessed by and creating an assessment committee page for that project.
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: Yes, one was over the naming of the Disaster film, List of disaster films, and Category:Disaster films. I was trying to bring them inline with the WikiProject Films naming conventions, but there was some resistance. I eventually let it lie and others got them renamed to suit the naming convention later after I went on an unannounced sabbatical. For other issues I have taken the same route by letting them lie for a while taking a cool off period before going back into the issues.
Optional questions from jc37
4. In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:
A: The questions in this section are extraordinarily vague. I did not think it would be possible to answer any of them well enough to encompass the entirety of each of the policies which were covered. Had I been given current examples where those policies were to be imposed, such as an active Cfd or a page protection request, the answers would have given you my current level of understanding of those policies. If you really wish for me to come up with every possible permutation of when and how those policies are to be used or not used, this nomination could become extraordinarily long. I promise to have those policies which I have not read prior to my nomination grokked before acting on them. (Posted @ 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC), moved to this section and even further expanded @ 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Prior to posting the following answers, I scanned through the policies. I typed up my answers very quickly to get something on the page to show activity thinking that it is better to fill in the blanks with something, then to leave them blank for an extended amount of time. I will, over the next day or two, put more encompassing answers in each of the sections below.
4a. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?
A: A user should be blocked for edits that are against policy, such as vandalism, and does not respond to or ignores talk page warnings about it. I will read the block document thoroughly before placing one.
4b. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?
A: When it meets the required criteria for protection.
4c. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?
A: Upon a user request as long as the page meets the speedy deletion requirements.
4d. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.
A: That is one of the things that I will look into as soon as I become an admin.
4e. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
A: First, thank JohnQ. Second, leave messages on User talk:JohnDoe and User talk:JaneRoe to see if they would like me to informally mediate their dispute. Third, if both agree on my informal mediation, Wunderbar! If they don't, I would post a message on the article's talk page that their dispute has be brought to my attention and ask for other editors of the article to tell me what they think on the article's talk page to keep the discussion in one place. (Don't you hate it when discussion get fragmented all over the place?) Hopefully, the fact that an admin is involved will stop the revert war, but I know that realistically that may not happen. Once I have been involved with admining for a while, I will have all of the levels of dispute resolution down pat. At the moment I don't so, in the beginning, I will get advice from other more established admins.
Optional question from DarkAudit
5. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
A: As this is a long standing issue, I would follow any policies put in place by those who have been with this from the beginning. I am against such groups, since they would disrupt the project with their bias.
Optional Question from Dominik92
6: What is your opinion on "myspace" activity on Wikipedia, such as secret pages, guestbooks etc.?
A: To me there is no such thing as a secret page. If a user wants to truly keep something secret, the user should not put it on Wikipedia. Special:PrefixIndex can find any subpage. Guest books or signature pages really don't bother me as long as they don't get out of hand, though I find them a bit silly.
Optional Question from VegaDark
7: You have repeatedly reverted editors that remove or change user categories on your user page who are performing standard UCFD closures. While re-adding deleted categories to one's user page is not currently against any Wikipedia policy, under what reasoning can you justify this, keeping in mind that some editors feel this is disrespecting consensus, and considering such categories show up in Special:Wantedcategories if enough editors follow suit (substantially increasing the likelihood that such categories will be re-created against consensus)?
A: See Consensus can change, and if consensus changes because I leave a red linked category on my user page, then so be it.
I guess that I needed to have added a smilie to the end of this answer to make it as friendly as it was meant to be. Sometimes it is easy to forget that humor does not translate well in the plain written word. I guess that my answering the Sith question was not a good indicator that I was in a humorous mood when typing my answers. Red linked categories are still great organizational tools, as only the content of the category (categorization and category information) not the users listed is deleted. If all of the editors who edit barefoot wish to group themselves accordingly, I see no reason why they should not be given that opportunity. However, if the category goes from a red to blue link, then there is a problem due to the fact that the category was discussed and returned to a red link for a reason. I would have no problem with someone categorizing themselves as a Wikipedian who actually gave an apple to a teacher as long as the category is not "created." There could be a thousand people who put that on their user pages, but it still should remain red linked until a general discussion can take place about the creation of the category. (Posted @ 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC), moved to this section and even further expanded @ 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Optional Quesion from Balloonman
8: I want to be able to support, but before I do so, I need to know why you took a year off from working on the project?
A: Real life and burnout, I had to take a break then slowly work myself back into the mix.
My absence is another concern. My absence began after doing a lot of work with user templates. There were a lot of fierce discussions surrounding my work on them. Those discussions were draining. I was even being attacked on IRC for my opinions. It was steadily burning me out of editing, actually getting to the point where I did not want to look at another edit box. I probably shut the Wikipedia window, got up from my computer and walked away, getting into something around the house. When I came back, I do not think that I could look at a Wikipedia page without feeling a sense of dread. I had to do something else for a while outside of Wikipedia. In January of 2007, I came back to add a comment to a deletion discussion. Though I didn't stay around long, it was a start to bring me back. I made a few edits in the following months off and on, then for some reason in October of 2007 I came back with renewed will. (Posted @ 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC), moved to this section and even further expanded @ 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Where is the tally? I cannot possible !vote without it! Majorly (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many users who have an issue with the answer to question 7. I fail to see why.
    Wikipedia is built upon redlinks, and deletion discussions do not mean that things cannot be redlinked. Deletion discussions mean that the article/image/cat etc is not welcome at this time. Consensus can change, and users have every right to put a redlink on their page. I'm sorry if, in the wording of the question, "some editors feel that this is disrespecting consensus," they can get off their high horse as this has nothing to do with policy. Not at all. And this is why I hate the additional questions people keep placing on RfAs- they have nothing to do with WP:ADMIN. Not a thing. Which makes me wonder even further if users are reviewing contributions, which is what this process is about, or simply skimming questions and reading opposes. That is no way to make an informed decision. Keegantalk 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia may be built on redlinks, but retaining user categories which have been deleted after discussion is disregarding process, which is very much an important consideration when assessing the fitness of a candidate for the tools. And thank you for your failure to assume good faith upon the part of the editor who asked the question (who is one of the handful of active participants at WP:UCFD) and each of the editors who cited the candidate's answer in their oppose statements. Horologium (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retaining redlinked categories spills out of user space into category space, and also creates an entry on Special:Wantedcategories. Horologium (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we allowed to do whatever we want with our user space?--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. While a fair amount of latitude is often given, userspace is not "yours". Please see: Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. - jc37 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in the question posed, there is no policy against retaining redlinked categories. And consensus can change. The question does not have to do with an assumption of good faith, I think my track record on civility speaks for itself. My issue is that the question has nothing to do with trust of admin tools. I have no issue with q4, which she was obviously unprepared for (and I did nominate her out of the blue). If the issue is that some editors don't like that, and you must respect that, then that is not of the spirit of a wiki. The losing half does not give up rights to the winning half in a debate, this is not a democracy. Being disrespected on Wikipedia because a user disagrees with you on the outcome of a debate and expresses it should never happen (ref:User:Badlydrawnjeff). I do apologize if my phrasing came of as a slam at VegasDark. That was not intended. My issue is with the question itself. Keegantalk 04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue with Q7 was not about consensus being changeable—I'd probably oppose someone who said it can't change. My issue is that LA has reverted these UCFD actions, rather than simply adding random red categories to her userpage. She's not just advocating a change in consensus—a good thing—she's acting against a very newly formed consensus, fresh out of the debate. That comes across as somewhat for a disregard for consensus formed in discussions in which the user may have had the result go against them, and that is my main concern. It's nice to see an expanded answer, however, I am still leaning towards opposing because first impressions, if you will, can count for a lot, and because I would still like to have seen LA make some mention of what I've just rambled about—consensus. Hopefully next time, if there is one. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Wonderful editor: I gave her rollback, as I trust her with it. I am happy to be the first to support. Acalamari 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Good mainspace contributions with templates, Wikiprojects and categories. Applause. I can't see a reason to oppose as you've indicated in your questions how you'll approach Wiki with the tools. Recommend going slow and WP:NAS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Changing to neutral. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Seems to be one of those editors who gets on and edits rather than attracts drama - ie exactly the sort of editor we need as an admin. A good all-rounder and I have no worries the tools will be misused. Adminship is not a big deal, or a level-up, and this user appears to tick the right boxes. Good luck George The Dragon (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support No problem :) -- P.B. Pilhet 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. A proliferation of solid contribs, a general feel that you mean only the best for Wikipedia, and a general feel that you would use the extra tools well and within bounds. A specialist is welcome! Happy to support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. To counteract the ridiculous oppose. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seresin, it would be much better to !vote based on your evaluation of the candidate and not your evaluation of the other !voters. After all, he did say he may switch his opinion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. !Oppose - will not make requisite 50 deletions, blockings and page protections every day. Contributions are of good quality, and the tools will not be abused. EJF (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My first experience of her was when she removed some categories from my userpage when I was a n00b. Anyway, now the tally is back, I feel comfortable in supporting this user, although the oppose is very concerning (well, not really.) Majorly (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Not much article-writing or admin-related experience, but her template and category knowledge is good. Epbr123 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why the heck not? No warnings, no blocks, a good history of communication and contributions. Yngvarr (c) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Inactivity isn't a problem for me. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Has been around since April 2005 and has a period of inactivity but plans to get more involved.Track is okay no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - sure, what the heck. Tiptoety talk 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support. Rarely do I consider this, but I had thought, more than once, to nominate Lady Aleena for adminship. I have seen her work with templates, and it is exemplary, enough to convince me that she would be an excellent administrator. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I am confident that this user will not misuse administrative functions out of ill-intent or ill-judgement, and that once they feel comfortable with the tools, they will be an even more valuabel contributor to the project. Skomorokh 01:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support a valuable contributor, seems trustworthy and civil. Polly (Parrot) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Was inactive there for a while, but the past is in the past, she's definitely active now. Does a lot of mainspace work, experienced in the Wikipedia namespace, sounds good to me. Useight (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The nominator shows up. Keegantalk 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: Fine for me. --Bhadani (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A good wikipedian who will make a fine sysop. --SharkfaceT/C 05:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. She doesn't seem to have any terribly ambitious plans for the tools once she gets them, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it a reason to withhold the mop from her. She has been around a long time, she knows what she is doing. I would surmise that the odds of her accidentally deleting either the main page or Jimbo's userpage are quite low. I see absolutely zero reason to think she would abuse the tools, so what the hell. Trusilver 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    —Dark talk 08:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I'm in that sorta mood tonight. X Marx The Spot (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Support. Start slow, visit WP:ARL, WP:NAS, and check and re-check everything if you get the mop. I'm slightly worried because of short answers to questions especially like that to 4b. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support no evidence that this editor will abuse the tools. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Not much trouble with this one. Seems to have a cool head. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - trustworthy editor. Answer to Q4b is especially impressive. PhilKnight (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it appeared to be: "To do whatever it says on that page you linked to, that I couldn't be bothered to read, much less summarise as requested." - jc37 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also what I thought, hence my "Weak Support". Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, seen her before and she can definitely be trusted, but check the school before you do anything, to avoid mistakes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support Everyone has periods of inactivity, so that concern is moot for me. Candidate has a solid background. Also am supporting because of the unrelated-to-RfA Q5. ArcAngel (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Garion96 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, nothing but good from her contribs. Sceptre (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Nothing amiss here, and I haven't seen Revenge of the Sith either. ;) --Bedford 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Can't see any problems. Except maybe that you've never seen Revenge of the Sith. Classic story of power hunger, could be educational for ya.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. per Ryan's nom. Lmao @ your answers to the questions. -- Naerii 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support...Wow. I have not seen you in a long time, LA! The last time was, what, back at the WP: GUS userbox "crisis"...well, maybe not a crisis, but still. Anyway, of course I will support you. the_ed17 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was on 22 July 2006. I checked. =D Good luck! the_ed17 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per reasonable arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Centaur family of Xanth and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture. Plus, cool username. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support per Boniface College, her score of 7813 on the Wikipediholic test and her "Edit philosophy" of Merging. (The Master wonders If the Lady thinks Batman and Bruce Wayne can actually co-exist?) Master Redyva ♠ 21:56, April 23, 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Great work Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I don't quite see what the fuss is about question 4. Every admin learns on the job and there's no indication whatsoever that Lady Aleena will use the tools carelessly without taking the time to understand the processes. It's not rocket science. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support She will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I think the issues raised are good ones. That being said, I still can't oppose this RfA. I think that the honesty from this candidate is enough to make me believe that the tools would not be abused. She has already shown that she would read first when coming across something unfamiliar. She's also sincere and courteous, which doesn't meet my criteria for adminship, but I will overlook it, just this once (joke). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, no good reasons to oppose. Neıl ☎ 11:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support, the answer to Q7 is very troubling, but despite this I still think this user could do good with the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  44. Support I think answers to Q4 were ok. - TwoOars 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, from what I've seen she's done good work, and there's no reason to believe she'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. weak support I'm not convinced that she needs the tools and I hope that she familiarizes herself in more detail with relevant policies but I can't see any compelling reason to oppose. I'm particularly perplexed by people who object to her answer to question 7 which frankly seems utterly irrelevant to her ability to use her admin tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support — I can't find any compelling reason to oppose. I've only ever known LA to be a very dedicated and helpful user, and her gnoming skills would make a fine addition to our admin corps. --Michael Billington (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support on the basis of 'no big deal'. Some of the answers are unquestionably weak, but (to continue with the Oxfam shop analogy that begins below) I'd rather hire someone who is diligent, expresses a willingness to learn and who has track record of civility than someone who spouts all the right acronyms, but who I fear may patronise the customers rather then the reverse. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I see no problems here. Keepscases (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I see plenty of experience and valuable contributions to suggest that Lady Aleena is a wise person capable of using the admin tools responsibly where she is practised, as well as seeking assistance in areas unfamiliar to her, for that matter. I also do not think "demonstrated need for the tools" is a relevant criterion; experienced and trusted users should be given the tools, regardless of whether they may need them often or not.--PeaceNT (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    indenting unsigned RfA !vote, will notify voter to come and sign post.Balloonman (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - she meets my standards, has rollback, and I have no major concerns. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Periods of inactivity mean nothing to me - it does not mean she does not have the ability to become an admin really. Answers to questions are fine, although some points were raised about question 4 - well, as she said, the questions were rather vague... Lradrama 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Advocates for Lady Aleena. High Standards; Plenty of Experience; Valuable Contributions. "Make it so!" SameDayService (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - I think she's a trusted user who would make a fine admin. krimpet✽ 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. She is a trustworthy, honest and civil user who will make a great administrator. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: No reason necessary, other than that I'm comfortable with her sincerity, directness and lack of dependence on sarcasm when dealing with others. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Yes. — CharlotteWebb 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Adminship is about being clueful and being willing to learn from mistakes. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Hooper (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weak Support I dont want to go to oppose because i think he should get a chance, but im not sure if this would be the time. For my vote i go with support! Good luck.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Like... OMG! This editor clearly has not been admin-coached... OMG! COME ON PEOPLE! This is mean girls at its worst folks. Yet another really pathetic display of crushing a good candidate. Lady Aleena clearly demonstrates she will not abuse the tools or act impulsively in areas she does not understand.If anything, the surprise of being nominated, and the genuine response to being nominated further demonstrates an honest humility sorely lacking around these parts. That she has not coveted this position and lurked here for months learning to game the system speaks better of her than her years of contributing responsibly to Wikipedia. Lets just get some focus on our priorities, and move this one over the bar folks.Hiberniantears (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Fine User --Megapen (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Civil, never been blocked. One can expect a reasonable approach to admin issues. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support No problems here. If you have look at admin coaching that'd be great! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do. Oh, and same as above.-- Barkjon  21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support as per most things already stated. No major concerns. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose - Lengthy inactivity. And while a good editor, I don't see a wont or need for the tools. Question one in particular indicates a lack of - really - anything. Interest or desire. That said, depending on responses to questions, I may shift position. - jc37 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Please leave this section in palce, as others have now referenced it.[reply]
Isn't the fact that the editor in question accepted a nomination an indication of desire? (zOMG, if it is, I'm sure there will be some power hunger opposes to follow....:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm supporting based on power hunger too then. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Keeper76) - Yes and no. (Note that this was one of the several reasons Kelly Martin's last RfA failed.) That aside, I was more indicating no "specific" wont or need. CfD? AfD? RM? Vandalism patrol? Editing protected templates? Now, after the fact, she could list these as options, but I just don't see such in the current answers, and now would like to see more than a listing of typical admin-tasks, and instead would like to see something explaining how and why she would choose to help in those areas, her experience with such things in the past, etc. And her inactivity works against her here also - Is she "up-to-date" on policy and process? There have been constant "updates", and we have several rather important new ones - such as BLP - and as she is active in film-related articles, ascertaining that she understands that policy might just be valid. - jc37 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(response to others) If you feel that this oppose is "way off-base", please take a moment to read User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria. I wrote it a while back during a discussion, and decided to make it a sub-page. It should (hopefully) clarify the above. If not, please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Jc37. Actually, I really like your subpage! Very clear, yet at the same time very precise and uncomplicated. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about this particular candidate though, as I see a candidate that has a very precise need for the tools (and while specialized, also very unlikely to be abused). I see a trustworthy candidate, that has been around for a long time, is currently active, and will not misuse tools, and likely will not use tools that she is not familiar with without prior consultation. Thanks for your civil response, Jc37. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "precise need" you see? I don't see it in any of the introduction or question answers. What did I miss? - jc37 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Jc37. In the nomination I mentioned editing protected templates, as well as protected pages as uses for the tools. I didn't mention in the nomination but I could add that Lady Aleena could use the tools in closing TfD debates, where she has experience, and in merging page histories to clean up templates and Wikiproject pages. You are free to opine how you choose, my apologizes if I was missive in not adding that information in the nomination. Keegantalk 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but (in my opinion) while it's great that you introduce her, and even suggest how she may use the tools, the whole point of the first question is to give her the forum and opportunity to tell us all specifically. She didn't. Her answer doesn't indicate any need (or wont) for the tools. Everything she mentioned can be done as a regular editor. But thank you for your clarification and pointing it out for me. Re-reading my comments, I can see how it could appear that I might have missed it in your nomination. (And I always appreciate clarification - a distinct must in a text-based forum such as this). - jc37 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now I find I must stay "opposed". Her "light" (non-descriptive) answers to the questions (and in particular, her answers to 4d and 4e), leave much to be desired. Especially if she intends to close TfD discussions, as the nominator suggests. TfDs have notoriously low turnout (even worse than CFD/UCFD) and if one doesn't have a handle on consensus now, I have concerns about their closures after becoming an admin. "Counting votes" just won't do in such situations.
And question 4e. Too many concerns to list, but the main is about her apparent belief about what being an admin is, and about how such a "title" should affect a discussion. Quoting the sentence that seems indicative of this: "Hopefully, the fact that an admin is involved will stop the revert war, but I know that realistically that may not happen." - An admin is "just another editor". How about: "Hopefully, with the assistance of someone as a third party opinion (who needen't be an admin), the warring factions will come to an understanding. If not, then steps a, b, c, etc."
All that said, it seems clear from the numbers that she'll be granted adminship. I sincerely hope that she does do the reading that she suggests that she will, (albeit after-the fact). And does learn from it. - jc37 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than attempt to thread under the candidate's statement above (which would likely be inappropriate), I'll comment here on the section that applied to the questions I posted:
  • "The questions in section 4 are extraordinarily vague." - Yes, that's intentional. No specifics. Just a simple request to describe/summarise. How you choose to answer is up to you. And how your answers are interpreted are up to the "voters".
  • "I did not think it would be possible to answer any of them well enough to encompass the entirety of each of the policies which were covered. [etc.]" - Specifics equals the answers getting lost in tangents about the specific events. Again, this was a request to describe/summarise. (Though how they are answered may also be relevant.) And, I'll note that such questions have not been uncommon in the past. (And are all concerning things an admin may encounter.)
  • " I promise to have those policies which I have not read prior to my nomination grokked before acting on them." - (If I am elected...) If it was something obscure, or one or two of the points, maybe. But these are fairly core: Blocking, page protection, speedy deletion, consensus, and interaction with others. I'd personally like to see some indications of understanding of policies/process. But so far, it's been example after example of not understanding each of the above. In some cases, critically so.
In the end result, people just want to know that they can trust the candidate with use of the tools, and trust the candidate's judgement in tasks in relation to the tools. And no, I agree, it's not rocket science. It's about the ability to research, analyse, and communicate. And atm, it appears noticeably lacking. - jc37 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose.
You know, honestly I've always thought you were a good Wikipedian. I doubt few if any in this discussion will know it, but one of the things that "sunk" my first nomination for adminship was that I "canvassed" a small group of people to come comment. (You'll have to read my statement tere to more fully understand.) I had no idea what they would say, and most either didn't show up, or stayed neutral. But I'll note that Lady Aleena was one of those whose opinion I trusted enough that I had asked her to comment in my RfA. (Though she was apparently on Wikibreak at the time.) Indeed, one of my opposers linked to the notice on her page. I also recall going through innumerable userbox debates where often we were the minority facing (at the time) a general opinion that "userboxes must go". Her combining all of the Monty Python userboxes, for example. I was and am impressed with her organisational skills. My main concerns now are that in several ways, she just sometimes really doesn't seem to "get" Wikipedia. Consensus, appropriate application of policy or IAR, interaction with others in a contentious situation, and the usefullness of reservation of action. She keeps saying she'll learn. I hope she does. Because even if this nom is unsuccessful, I have no doubt that there will be future noms. And I hope by then she has become more adaptable, and understanding of the community. In any case, while I'm sure you'll probably never fully understand, this whole thing has just been gut-wrenching for me. And watching your dismal responses to the questions (and not just mine) was more than disenheartening. But in the end, I just can't bring myself to oppose. So consider this a "Neutral" (Please leave these sections here. No sense in moving it all, Bureaucrats can read : ) - I wish you well. - jc37 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Not enough content contributions, so don't feel safe giving her deletion and blocking buttons. User is productive elsewhere, so if any positive substantial answers [to questions posted] are forthcoming I could change my vote. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not exactly comfortable with her question to answer 7. It seems like she is saying she can go against consensus because consensus can change. One person going against consensus does not mean it has changed. --Kbdank71 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm sorry, I've gone back and forth on this, but Q4a-e is just not right for me. The candidate's whole stance seems to me to be "I'll find out when I come to it", or "I'll ask someone else" or "I'll learn that later". No, I'm sorry, I'd like you to learn it before requesting the tools. I appreciate your honesty, but if I went for a role at Oxfam I wouldn't think it unreasonable that they expect me to know how to organise the books or put the clothing in order before they ask me to help out. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really though Pedro, there is a fundamental difference between job qualifications, and job skills. Am I qualified to work at Oxfam? Can I be trusted to work at Oxfam? Yes or no. Once working at Oxfam, will I know how to "put the clothing in order?" Perhaps not. I'd best ask else I do it wrong. I'm not exactly thrilled with the answers to the questions either, made me groan a bit, partly for the lack of clarity, but also partly because it means I'll hafta rely on the users contributions instead of the user's RfA to determine the job qualifications. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Keeps. As you no doubt recognised I deliberately kept my "job references" to a charity organisation, to keep them more relevant. However my analogy is still weak. Fundamentaly, as you know, I lean to support as a standard. However I'm simply nervous with regards this candidate. My net positive essay refers here. We can't grant the tools bit-by-bit (well, not yet!) and we can't totally assume that they will for certain take it easy. We have to assume that a given candidate will do far more good than harm with the tools. I would like some indication that they know the impact of what can happen with ill-advised deletes / blocks / protections. The answers to the questions, coupled with recent inactivity, implies the candidate may be out of touch with current process and guidleines - and these concerns push me to oppose. I expect this RFA to pass. If it fails, I also expect that the community will be indulgent in not expecting a great time lapse before re-application. But at the moment I remain unconvinced that the candidate will be assured of not mis-using the bit. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your civil response (as if I would expect anything less:-). Hoping the candidate, which obviously I feel is a good candidate, will see this little discussion and revise/expand the answers to the questions above to allay concerns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to re-evaluate on expanded answers, of course. But I'd have prefered the candidate has "fleshed out" their answers in the first place. A tricky one, here, probably really a weak oppose from me, but I'm distinctly nervous about accidental misuse causing more harm than help. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who went to work at Oxfam, I can assure you that you pretty much go to work first and then figure out how to put the clothes on the rack later. The Oxfam analogy is a good one because (1) the work is unpaid, (2) they pretty much trust you not to misuse your position, and (3) you've pretty much gotta figure stuff out on your own. Somewhat like an admin at wikipedia! --RegentsPark (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Nah, I agree with Pedro here. My stance about the contributions being stellar still stands, but, based on the extremely short lackluster answers to questions, I felt compelled to change as the user clearly hasn't bothered to study anything before or during this RfA. Yes, you learn as you go when you're an admin, but a little understanding of policy would have been nice to see, especially with regards to consensus, something that should be easily apprehended by a general editor. Initially I was referring to questions 4 through 7 in my neutral. However, the answers to the rest also leave much to be desired. Too many references to deference. Administrators are not dispute resolution mediators. I'm sorry, but I just don't think this user understands the role of an administrator. Read WP:ADMIN. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Question 4 worries me, really. The answers seem somewhat vague and give me the impression that the user doesn't quite understand what she'll do when she becomes an admin. Best of luck in your future applications (assuming this one does actually fail, which is certainly not decided yet!) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Cyclonenim. miranda 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am bothered by insufficient interest in content writing. I elaborated elsewhere. --Irpen 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Irpen and highly disagreeable Q7 answer. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per answers to Question 4 and Question 7, both are laughable. Nick (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per policy' wow the answers to those questions particularly 4 and 7 (but I'm not sure I understand question 7 to myself, but 4 was awful.) People want to know that you know the answer to the questions or know how to find them. answering with "per policy" isn't sufficient---and that's basically what you did. You didn't answer them, you didn't even tell us where the answer was, you simply punted.Balloonman (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Good editor, but some of the answers to the questions leave a bad taste in my mouth. Jmlk17 03:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose an excellent editor but no basic knowledge of administrative roles. Everything that she wants to do in #1 can be done right now without the mop, and she'll do them very well. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. oppose Answers to Q4 & 7 are really underwelming, doesn't give the impression of having adequate experience in matters of importance to mop-wielding. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Im sorry about this but i agree with the above comments in regard to qs 4 and 7. Question 4 especially, admins are supposed to have a thorough knowledge of the rules and policies without just saying 'if it meets the requirements' then i will do this. I will be happy to support once you fix this up. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I have no problem with the period of inactivity. Some of us have lives that demand periods away from Wikipedia. That's life and family and they ought to come first since this is a volunteer organization. But when seeking adminship there is, in my judgment, a certain floor or threshold of knowledge that the community can and should demand. There will always be some level of on the job training but you need a solid basis to begin. I am afraid Aleena isn't ready today. Her answers to the optional questions either reflect a lack of knowledge or (and I do not think this is the case) a certain lack of seriousness. In either case I just can't give her the nod. A month or so of studying and activity and I will gladly reconsider and almost certainly support then. -JodyB talk 12:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Answer 4 and those views expressed above. Rudget 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Per many questions especially 4 and also 7, but in general I felt that the answers were rather slim. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Poor answers to optional questions suggest current lack of understanding of admin-related policies. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Not particularly due to the answer to my question (there are several editors I respect and who I think make good admins that have done the same thing, although it is obvious I disagree with the practice, see Category:Rouge admins. I asked simply because I was curious.) but mainly due to the answers to Q4. Most of them amounted to "I will do the action when policy says I should do the action" which seems like a non-answer to me. Prospective admins should be able to answer all those questions citing specific scenerios and policy. VegaDark (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Periods of inactivity aren't an issue, but the answers to Q4 are, and this shows a worrying persistence in pursuing own agenda in the face of consensus against. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per answers to questions 4, 6, and 7. The answers to question 4, in particular, are troubling, and reflect a lack of understanding about the issues around which tool use revolve. I see few problems with her editing so far, and would likely support another RFA held in the future, if she familiarizes herself with admin functions. Horologium (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No. per Q7. Nakon 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: I know this editor well, but her answer to questions 4b, c, d, and question 7 really concern me. Sorry. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose. I respect your contributions, and appreciate that everyone is entitled to ask things be clarified for them, but I must admit, I don't think I feel comfortable with some of the responses, they do strike me as a little "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it". I think the candidate means well but I really don't think this is quite the right approach. WilliamH (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. While I am not particularly bothered by your inactivity, I feel that your answers to question 4 suggest a certain unfamiliarity with policies that I think administrators should know. For example, pages can and should be speedily deleted if they are obviously attack pages or copyright violations--an administrator needn't wait for a user to request deletion. Please understand that I don't think you are inherently unsuitable to be an admin; I merely feel that you are not ready at this time. I encourage you to study Wikipedia's policies, and should this RfA prove unsuccessful, you will be better prepared for next time. --Kyoko 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, don't like Q7 answer at all, and Q4 answers are weak, sorry. Black Kite 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. A7 is a killer. Only tells us she is willing to disrupt to illustrate a point OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, after this, I will refrain from commenting further in this RfA.
    You are really going to say that Lady Aleena would disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? The ultimate breach in trust? Question 7 explicitly states that there is no policy regarding Cat redlinks. There can be no doubt that Lady Aleena is not here to disrupt or politicize Wikipedia. Having a redlink cat on you page is not some sort of rebellion. OhanaUnited, I greatly respect your opinions but I cannot see how any of the issues relating to q7 have to do with being an administrator. Being a sysop yourself, consider how much this has to do with the bit and trust. Happy editing to all. Keegantalk 05:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins close XfD's. To do that, you need to understand consensus, and from A7, Lady Aleena either a) doesn't, or b) isn't taking this seriously (based upon her "should have used a smiley" comment). --Kbdank71 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what Kbdank said. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose My sincere apologies, but the answers to #4 were disheartening. I personally require anyone who is applying for adminship to be throughly and absolutely well versed in policies before they even consider applying to be an admin. Again, sorry. Bstone (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - (changed from support), the concerns raised are bothersome. Answers to questions are weak, and I am not sure you are taking the "right approach" to adminship. Sorry, Tiptoety talk 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - lots of good points raised above, enough to offer the standard try again in (x) months oppose. In addition to that, though, I'd like to throw in a petty (or at least of rather tangled relevance) issue of my own: Humor translates incredibly well to the written word. A pity that those who happen to have trouble discerning humor when not explicitly told what it is are usually those who are also the most belligerently hot-headed in their moments of confusion. Minor point, but this particular meme is depressingly prevalent around here, a project that, at its core, is about the combination of writers and knowledge. Bottoms up -- Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Insufficient mainspace editing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - "That is one of the things that I will look into as soon as I become an admin." What? Tan | 39 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - Some of her reasons seem to make me wonder whether she needs the tools at all. If it is simply because she has made lots of edits then I will completely ignore that (seems somebody has contracted editcountitis), and if it is to show that she is an exemplary edit I will point you to WP:NBD. Also, the user's stance of "It'll be alright on the night" worries me. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Low mainspace contribution rate, and a lack of consistent recent activity (beyond the last couple of months). Zaxem (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per DGG and Horologium. I wish you luck in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Aleena is a helpful editor whom I feel could go beyond her capabilities if she was granted Admin powers. However, the long periods of inactivity and her lack of content editing are swaying me from voting Support. However, if you are granted Adminship, congratulations. And if you aren't, you are a great editor anyway. Either way, if you show more activity and content, I will be very happy to change my vote to support. Cheers! -ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as to why inactivity is a concern, would you mind explaining if it's not too much trouble? Skomorokh 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I will check back later on when the questions are answered. miranda 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose. miranda 21:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Leaning towards a support, but I need a while to really check through the contributions. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral lean oppose Candidate's LONG extended leave with a generic explanation is of concern. Not enough to get me to oppose, but enought that I can't support.Balloonman (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Changing to oppose per answers.Balloonman (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Based on the extremely short lackluster answers to questions. I felt compelled to change as the user clearly hasn't bothered to study anything before or during this RfA. Yes, you learn as you go when you're an admin, but a little understanding of policy would have been nice to see, especially with regards to consensus, something that should be easily apprehended by a general editor. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to change my mind again. Very unlike me, but the answers are just terrible. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the truth, you just want to get your edit count up... I mean voting support, neutral, AND oppose on the same RfA, that has to be some record Balloonman (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear! It seems he didn't even read it the first time. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that was a joke. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I was in somewhat of a funny mood at the time of writing that. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Candidate looks good overall, but the opposes are slightly worrisome. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't mind the questions and inactivity too much, but from what I have seen from you I'm reluctant to support. Wizardman 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral -- per scetoaux...particularly question four worries me! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. User is far too nice to be an administrator Gurch (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You came out of "retirement" for that? Sounds like a support to me. (and welcome back, if you're back:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Sometimes one just doesn't feel comfortable either way, even after waiting and investigating. -- Avi (talk) 12:45, 28 April 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lady_Aleena