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

Final (91/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs) - I am honored to be able to nominate User:Seraphim Whipp for adminship. Seraphim has been a wikipedia editor since the end of January 2007, and in her 13 months with wikipedia has amassed over 7500 edits spanning almost every area of wikipedia. Seraphim is a committed vandal fighter; my first interactions with her related to performing range blocks to cover recidivist banned trolls. Be it through WP:AIV, admin talk pages, or otherwise, she has proven to be a strong resource protecting the project, and will be greatly helped in this endeavor with the admin tools. Seraphim has contributed to the project in many other ways as well. She has submitted a number of images, and understands our free and fair use image policies—another area in which she can help the project. She has contributed at various AfD's, demonstrating an understanding of that process as well. Lastly, but certainly not leastly, she is admirably civil, actually, downright friendly, a pleasure to work with, and an example of how editors should behave. I think she would make a wonderful admin, one who would defend the project in a manner that is polite, respectful, but firm, and I am honored to submit her name for adminship. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Rudget - I am sincerely pleased to present Seraphim Whipp up for your approval for the administrative tools. I have now crossed paths with her on many occasions and I am consistently impressed with Whipp's (which is being used as an alternative for convenience) demeanour, knowledge, diligence, clue and overall grace - on par with ArielGold or Nancy. She has improved the average edits per month recently and has become more involved and enthusiastic about the project as a whole, with a sincere regard for what the community stands for. Her overall character is encouraging and as for the reports made to AIV - it has now got to the point where we can be overly confident about the process that she has processed them through, applying the correct level of warning, user is active now etc. I am mostly in agreement with Avraham here, because to be honest, he puts it best. I have recognised her importance as an important mainspace contributor and a vandal-fighter, with the term taking on a new definition here. I too, am honoured to submit my 12th candidate for consideration and am in eager anticipation for the outcome of this RFA. Regards, Rudget. 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Sceptre - I was going to nominate her myself in a few weeks. I can't really say anything bad about the candidate - she's commited to vandalwhacking, she's got experience in articles, has an extensive knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and overall, I am utterly convinced that she will do the right thing™ if she gets the tools, like she does now, and with a massive air of civility that is normally mutually exclusive with cluebatting users. Will ^(talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you all. I accept. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: As an editor in good standing, I follow the process set out at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and so take part in some admin work already, such as closing AfD's and MfD's; having the technical ability to delete a page will be extremely useful. I also intend to put the tools to good use at WP:AIV, although I might be a bit slow at it at first :).

After watching the activity at WP:RFPP and WP:AN/I, I feel confident that I could put admin tools to good use in those places. I also deal with images so I hope to be a useful resource over there. There are also areas like WP:AN/3RR and other areas in CAT:AB that I'd work on after gaining a bit more experience by watching other admins.

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

A: In terms of content, I would say that some of the renovations to album articles are among my best contributions, such as Walk It Off, which I initially speedied for lack of context. The article I consider the best of my contributions is the article, Made in the Dark, which I expanded fivefold for DYK and got to GA status. I've also mediated a few disputes and I think those contributions are very worthwhile because I'm contributing towards a peaceful and harmonious environment. I think mediation also allows me to learn lessons from other people's disputes.

Finally, reverting vandalism, welcoming users and helping to mentor new editors are also among the contributions I've made that I value.

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: I've been in few conflicts in my time here. In my first months here I was blocked for 3RR. It's a year on from that dispute and whilst I deeply regret that incident and the way I behaved, I think it was the most valuable lesson in civility. I believe that gaining knowledge from a conflict and then putting it behind you is vital. Also if it's viable, make amends with the person you were in a dispute with. Generally speaking, if I find a situation stressful, I just try to stay calm and logical. I won't click “save page” unless I'm sure that that what I've said is civil. In the future, I would maintain this response.

Optional Questions from - Milk's Favorite Cookie

4. When should you apply a cool-down block?

A: Never :), that's specifically defined at WP:BLOCK. Cool down blocks cause the opposite of what they are intended for as they inflame a situation.

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A A ban revokes an editor's right to edit and is imposed either by Arbcom or community consensus.

A block is where a technical restriction is placed and the ability of editor to edit is removed.

6. Would you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?

A I would enter myself into that category because I believe it promotes accountability. I am very responsive to criticism or advice given and value it highly.

Question from Maxim_(talk)

7. Any relation to User:Seraphimblade? I thought it was you (renamed) and I was throughly surprised to see you at RfA? A coincidence perhaps (just wanting to clarify, and frankly a few laughs never hurt (except the ribs, if you laugh too hard :D ))

A: :D. Nope, no relation to Seraphimblade. There are specific reasons why I chose my username, so I was surprised to see such a similar name! A Seraph is an angel, (Seraphim being the plural) whilst the word Whipp can be seen as an alternate spelling of Whip, which is a weapon. The second part of Seraphimblade's name is also...a weapon! Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 08:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ursasapien (talk)

8. What is your opinion of the proposed decision in Requests for arbitration: Episodes and characters 2 and what do you anticipate your response to be?

A: There is lots of evidence to show that TTN and other parties have not acted collaboratively and the sanctions given have been based on that. I haven't been party to the editing of tv episodes but have contributed to working out a consensus, such as in the diffs provided by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I do stand by those views provided but I will point out that I have neither an inclusionist nor deletionist stance and even if I did, it would have absolutely no weight on how I interpret consensus in closing afds. If I had an opinion, I would participate in that afd and not close.

Optional question from Sceptre regarding consensus in the Articles for deletion process.

9. Please read this AFD. As of that revision, there was an even split in numbers of those in favour of keeping the article and those in favour of deleting it. How, though, would you close the AFD, and why? (For reference, the AFD closed as delete) Will ^(talk) 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.: I assume you mean how would I have closed the debate at that revision? Although a large quantity of the keep votes did not provide a reason to keep that was founded in policy, one person did make an excellent comment and provided a source, "a real-world notability argument could be made, since so much of the pre-release publicity for Deathly Hallows focused on the question of who will die" -- Josiah Rowe. Despite this, the information he provided could easily have been merged more appropriately into the main article and balanced against a greater consenus to delete (where many delete rationales were based on multiple policies), I would have deleted. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Majorly

10. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A.

11. Why do you think that?

A.

12. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A.

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

• Links for Seraphim Whipp: Seraphim Whipp (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/Seraphim Whipp before commenting.

1. Support as nominator. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per co-nom. Rudget. 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Co-nom support Will ^(talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. She looks great to me. Acalamari 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Excellent contributor and will use the tools well. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support yep. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Absolutely. Meets my criteria of balance and versatility almost perfectly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - Consistent contributions to articles, vandal fighting, ANI, etc. Looks trustworthy, too. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support good editor; I thought she was already an admin.   jj137 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. MrPrada (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support good contribs...good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support: I've seen good things from this user. I don't see any reason for concern, and I think she'll do good work with the tools. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Looked at some contributions and can't see any problems. Davewild (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Per Q2 - excellent article work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. After reviewing Seraphim.'s contributions, I'm confident that she is an ideal candidate for adminship, and that the project as a whole will benefit from her being mopped. To that end, I am happy to offer my support—best of luck! AGK (contact) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support meets my standards. Talk page has a calm, patient, helpful response to pressure. Trust the nominators. Dlohcierekim 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support very worthy candidate who has been ready for this role for quite some time. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Well, my metasense ain't tingling. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - she deserves it :) ...--Cometstyles 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Aye. Excellent candidate. Black Kite 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - looking forward to you having the tools and continuing your good work. Gwernol 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Though I am slightly concerned about the block for 3RR, this user has no other concerns and deserves the mop. Xenon⁵⁴ 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. No problem. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Nice experience, with almost 3500 edits to the mainspace, and 100% edit summary usage. I don't see why not? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - very deserving of the tools. Will use the tools well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support definitely. — Zerida☥ 01:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. I am enthused to support Seraphim Whipp. She is an excellent editor. The oppose rationale does not concern me in the least. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Easy call here. As far as the block mentioned below goes, I looked back at what happened and found that it actually bolstered my reasons for supporting. Essentially, Seraphim called out an administrator for a personal attack, took it to their talk page, and was blocked per 3RR for re-adding her comment multiple times after the admin removed it. She contested the block on her talk page, but eventually accepted the reasoning and was back to work almost immediately after it expired. In other words, she displayed characteristics vital to a successful admin--a willingness to engage in difficult conflicts as well as an ability to recognize and learn from one's mistakes--nearly a year before trying to get the tools herself. That's as clear a sign of her quality as an editor now and her potential ability as an admin as I could ask for. --jonny-mt 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Friendly and civil, nothing to suggest they will abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Excellent mediaton skills in my only interaction with her (requested WP:THIRD over on Need for Speed 11. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Excellent editing, shows evidence of working well during disputes and thinking before acting - all things I love to see in an admin candidate. Shell ^babelfish 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support not thrilled about edits highlighted below in the whole TV episode arbcom, but I am happy to see article writing, which is the best way to see things from the 'article creator' POV. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support First, I agree that the fact that she learned from her previous block is a plus. Second, Ms. Whipp has always been polite and thoughtful in her reponses to me. She has a good handle on civility, even in difficult situation. Third, although I do not share her precise view when it comes to our coverage of fiction, I accept her answer that she would not be biased and where she had an opinion she would participate in the AfD. I have found her to be an editor of integrity, who abides by her word. I had previously hinted at nominating her myself. I think Ms. Whipp would make a fine addition. Ursasapien (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support — no concern about misuse of buttons; I actually thought she was an admin already. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: I don't think I have to explain my rationale. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, of course, given that I offered her my nomination (which apparently seems to be just a few hours before someone actually created this page, that certainly meant more than just coincidence!) I've encountered Seraph here and there, and though our viewpoints almost always differ, I've always found her to be nothing if not shrewd, patient and kind. Excellent candidate. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Terrific vandal fighter, shows great judgement, no outstanding concerns. скоморохъ 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. – Steel 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Didn't know...etc. John Reaves 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oh my... even the end of the name is weapon, this is such a blatant sock. ;-) Support Maxim_(talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - Good candidate. :-) Guess what? I only started editing Wikipedia 5 days before yourself! Lradrama 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong support. Looks like one of the best candidates recently. Meets all my standards, and is fantastically involved. LeRoi has the right to his opinion, and I understand his concern, but on the overwhelming balance, this user should become a sysop. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong Support - Her responsible and conscientious edits have led several to believe she was an admin already, which is always a good sign. I looked through the arbitration below, and I see nothing to indicate that she would not be a good admin. Prolific vandal-fighter, good humored, civil in all the interactions I've seen, and excellent answers to the questions above. I was happy to see her mention the 3RR block, and her actions and edits since then indicate that she's learned from it. That's the ultimate goal of a block anyway. I can't say enough good things about this editor and I'm honored to support her for adminship. Enigma ^msg! 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per nominator. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support As per nom and track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I must say the 20 against 1 battle in the oppose section is pretty amusing. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Good user, will be a good admin. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Looks fine. :) GlassCobra 05:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Majorly (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Cautious Support. I thought she already was one, and not just because she has a similar name to Seraphimblade. Seems like a pretty good editor, although I would be cautious with so flippantly dismissing large amounts of sock-puppetry evidence (i.e. Jack Merridew--see diff in oppose section below) when this information is presented by a long-term and respected contributor. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a comment on the talk page that explains my reasoning in that situation :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

56. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - appears to be a good editor! While I can't say that I have crossed paths on many occasions, I have seen this editor at work, and see no reason why they should abuse the tools. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support per nominations and no indication the user will not make a great admin. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Solid editor and good record re: vandalism. siarach (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Excellent vandal fighter, good contribs. Spencer^T♦C 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Weak support I don't like the block, but it was almost a year ago, and the editor seems to have matured. нмŵוτнτ 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Trustworthy editor.--TBC!?! 22:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Slade (TheJoker) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support all friendly, experient, trustworthy users who can't stand rap/hip hop. Húsönd 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - All looks good here. Tiptoety ^talk 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Sensible and reliable. Axl (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. I am sure than many very reliable and experienced editors on Wikipedia have a block somewhere in their past. A fantastic editor, who has no doubt reformed. Two thumbs up. FusionMix 15:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Fine to me, minor concerns. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support definately a case where the nominators played a factor.Balloonman (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Mild support - looks reasonable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support a recent encounter with Seraphim_Whipp at WP:AIV demonstrated her willingness to assume good faith with an anon user who was reported there, but might likely be just confused. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - looks just fine :) - Alison ^❤ 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. No question. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, I thought she was an admin already... J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Don't see any current issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support -Dureo (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Happy to support anyone nominated by this particular nominator. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Pile on Support, per answers to Majorly's questions. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, she's very helpful and looks reasonable. KS«...» 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. A recent situation demonstrated that Seraphim understands the necessity of communication and discussion. Gimmetrow 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - No problem here. -WarthogDemon 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Jmlk17 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support looks a goodie to me. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. The only issue I had was the block, however it was not out and out vandalism and Seraphim Whipp states that she has learned from the situation. In the end I have no problems with supporting. According to my RfA criteria v1.0, Seraphim Whipp gets a score of 79%. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Ka Pai Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Good editor, she will be a good admin. Rockpocket 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support ready for the mop. Royalbroil 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. WP:90's not WP:100, but close enough. Wizardman 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - Absolutely. The block was a long time ago. Great answers, excellent editor with more than enough experience. - Neparis (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeWeak oppose per weak arguments made in arbitration case: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], i.e. too exclusionary. Seems like a prolific vandalism fighter though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her arguments are weak because they're backed by consensus and policy? Forgive me, but an oppose based on divergent views on such a subject seems inappropriate. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are weak because they are overly exclusionary and involve items that are not backed by consensus (if they were, there would not be the ArbCom case, Request for Comment, and other divisive discussions). I cannot support someone to have deletion tools who seems overly exclusive on a contentious matter. The block for revert warring is also cause for concern. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The block was more than 10 months ago. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a block that the blocking admin later unblocked, then I think it would be invalidated. Most admins that I have encountered have never been blocked before. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Since when were WP:V and WP:NOT not policy? All of her arguments are derived from the aforementioned pair, and simply dismissing them as a weak argument does nothing other than to show an inclusionist bias on your part. The fact that we have RfCs and recent ArbCom cases does not change the fact that both policies are currently backed by consensus and as such, enforceable. Saying that she will stand by current consensus on the matter only confirms your bias on the matter. In any case, her edits do not indicate that she will not be circumspect with her usage of the tools, and thus use them to back up her own viewpoints on the matter. As for the block, it was nearly a year ago, and her subsequent action demonstrates it can be safely disregarded. Despite this, I feel further discussion here will lead to a train of thought that will ultimately become not relevant to this RfA, and I will halt here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the interpretation of policies that does not sit well with me. As being an admin is "no big deal", then opposing someone who wants to be an admin, because I am not confident in her interpretation of the policies is also "no big deal." The fact that we have RfCs and ArbCom cases demonstrates that there is widespread difference of opinions and lack of consensus regading the interpretation of these policies. If she will be fair and not close AfDs based on her personal opinion or if say she does not plan to focus on AfDs at all, but instead will work on vandal fighting, then I do not oppose her in that regard and would be willing to overlook the block. But it is of the utmost importance to me that no editors feel discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia due to having their good faith articles deleted or that editors are prevented from building articles, because a handful of other editors do not like those articles. The opinions expressed in the ArbCom and RfC seem to fall on the side of a minority opinion that has been exclusive to other editors' contributions and that is where my concern lies. We need to make sure that we err on the side of being inclusive of our contributors and their work. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't hold blocks against a candidate forever. 6 months is long enough to see if the lesson took. Candidate says that it was a valuable lesson. I can't oppose over it. Maybe they'll think twice before blocking someone-- be less likely to misuse the button. Dlohcierekim 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to forgive one block, but I am somewhat turned off by sarcastic support that prevent me from feeling comfortable to allowing for a weak oppose or neutral vote. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your prerogative, but are you saying that you are, in effect, voting against a candidate because of the comments of one of her supporters? -- Avi (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confident in the candidate's objectivity with regards to article inclusion based on her participation concerning the episode and character debate. I am always open-minded to fair and polite discussion about differences of opinion and again if being an admin is "not a big deal" than being opposed for adminship is hardly anything people should ever get upset over. Were someone to ever hope to persuade me to change my mind or to convince me that the candidate will be fair, I am always open to friendly discussion, but the snide remark I linked to above are not what accomplishes such a decision, especially when I am incredibly unlikely to ever make as an initial oppose vote a commentary on someone's support vote. Imagine if I went through challenging all of the support votes! If editors want to support or oppose a candidate, the votes of others in those discussions should not concern them. So, no, I am still not convinced of the candidate's reasoning in certain discussions regarding article inclusion, although I encourage her to continue to fight vandalism and hopefully help build articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is an increasing trend for supporters' comments to influence the RfA negatively! XD Grand Roi, my comment was not sarcastic. Something I make a point to do in my comments is address the opposition if I am supporting. I was indicating that the opposing comment (in this case, yours) does not concern me enough to oppose Seraphim Whipp. There was no sarcasm in the statement at all. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; thank you for taking the time and having the patience to explain your reasoning, and thanks for taking part in the process! -- Avi (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and thank you for the kind response. And as an aside, just because I do not support the candidate as an admin, because of our disagreement over the value of episode and character articles, that does not mean that I feel any ill will toward her or that I hope any interactions we have in the future would not be respectful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are my most recent comments in xfd. In each, the vote I gave was the same as the result [7], [8], [9], [10]. I can't see that Seresin's vote seems sarcastic. My interpretation of it is, "the concerns raised by the opposing editor are not ones that would stop me from supporting". Everyone's standard's are different. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could buy it just being a matter of standards from Seresin if it were not for not being the only time I opposed a candidate recently and he made it a point to comment on the opposers' stances (see, for example, here) beginning with my opposition to his own RfA (see his stance here). My concern with the views expressed with regard to the episodes and characters dispute is that if we keep the articles, we have the possibility of eventual improvement to them and anyone who does not like the articles can still work on what they like with no problems. If we delete the articles, we make it that much harder to restore and improve them when they do exist and maybe even end up turning away some of our readers and contributors. With regards to your answer to the question pertaining to the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, even if AfDs are not votes that so many editors would argue in good faith that the article is worthwhile to keep suggests a no consensus, because a good deal of editors had not come to a "general agreement". Note that the discussion was closed by a member of this group who in a now deleted version of his current userpage, which I unfortuantely can no longer link to, claimed that he in effect after leaving the project under a previous username wants to be an admin again under a new username "to delete crap", i.e. what he feels is "crap." I would therefore hardly take such a closer as this one as being clearly unbiased. Thus, just because an AfD closed a certain way does not necessarily reflect the "right" decision. Otherwise, we would not have Deletion Review. I do see, however, that you do not just vote delete and are willing to express keep arguments, which I will take into consideration as this RfA progresses. If nothing else, considering the current tally, I don't think you have to worry about this RfA not ultimately going your way. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no way that this can be verified, I did make a point to myself to answer Sceptre's question before reading the closer's rationale, so my answer would be unaffected by the original closer. I would like to ask not to be judged by other people's behaviour. I haven't been sarcastic. I don't think I've ever referred to any of wikipedia's content as "crap" and I have never been a member of a deletionist group. In regards to the afd mentioned above, although we may have arrived at the same decision, the reasons why I decided to delete are detailed above and differ quite alot from the closer's rationale. Even if our views differ and you feel like you can't support me, that's absolutely fine; I'm appreciative of the time you have taken to comment. I would also like to extend that thanks to everyone who has commented :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the polite reply and so will at least change from an "Oppose" to a "Weak oppose" for now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I'll go into the minority and voice an oppose, because I just feel rubbed the wrong way. Sf46 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This would be the comment that you are referring to? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. Switching to neutral since she was nice to me and Seresin clarified. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will weigh in as neutral, for now. I am curious about her response to my question. Ursasapien (talk) 06:21, 5 March 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.