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

Final (94/1/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Nikkimaria for adminship. As to y not sure were to begin - most of you i would guess know her for all the GA reviews that she has done over the years - I have been here on Wikipedia coming close to 5 years now and have seen and been involved with Nikkimaria over the past few years. She is "by-far" one of the best mannered and policy versed persons i have seen. My first major involvement with her was during a GA review back in Oct 2009. Since then we have encountered each other in a few more major reviews of large articles like WWII GA and Canada FA and again her focus on the details and willingness to wait it out impressed me to no end. What i am hoping for is that this attention she has to details, her patience and calm manner can be utilized by Wikipedia in an adminship capacity. She has agreed to under go this intrusive and stressful process.

So the primary question i asked myself as per the norm here is "Can we trust her with the tools/responsibilities?" She has been involved starting in 2006 in various Wikipedia projects and from what i see has shown a natural willingness to help and collaborate on many areas of Wikipedia. Besides all the reviews she has been involved in she has also used SQL's tools and has jumped in on RFA's. Although her edit count is not that high (10,000+) i an editor of (30,000+) have turned to her for advice and recommendations on how to preceded with volatile edits and editors. I see no history of any abuse or conflicts. She has a strong history of positive material contributions to articles and has a very good user interaction history. Her assumption of good faith and patience to deal with editors has no end. Moxy (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Moxy for his sincere and touching nomination statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially, I plan to use the tools to better deal with situations that I encounter as part of my everyday activities, to defend high-quality articles from disruption, to evaluate deleted articles potentially worthy of re-creation without having to flag down a passing sysop, and to perform the maintenance tasks associated with article creation, development, and review. As I become more comfortable with a myriad of administrative tasks, I hope to become more involved in things like {{editprotected}} requests, where I hope my content and review experience will serve me in good stead. I hope also to become involved in reducing the administrative backlog, but I pledge not to leap into any tasks until I feel confident in my ability to perform them correctly.

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

A: My first FA, Manitoba, is in my opinion one of my best contributions to Wikipedia; I was immensely proud to have it featured on the Main Page during the celebration of Manitoba Homecoming 2010. The GAN, PR and FAC process for that article was long and at times exhausting, and I owe a great deal of thanks to the able assistance of several other editors and reviewers. My experience with that article also taught me the immense value of good content reviewers at all levels. Since then, I have become increasing involved with GAN and FAC (with occasional forays into DYK and PR). In that arena, I feel that my best contributions are those that enable articles to improve, even if the process is long. The WWII GA review, for example, was months beyond the usual one-week hold at GAN, but the fact that it resulted in a new GA on an important topic made it completely worthwhile. I have several times now seen an article that I reviewed at some point appear on the Main Page, and that experience always makes me feel like I'm making a difference to the core value of the project: the encyclopedia, the sum of human knowledge - the one that we as a community are building. Re-reading that last sentence, I realize I sound either naive or very optimistic and cheerful. I'm not, really, but I do believe that admins and editors alike, from vandalism patrollers to template writers and beyond, contribute to the success of the community and the project, and act when necessary to solve problems and to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.

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: Like most editors, I have been involved in a few minor conflicts during my 5ish years on the project, the worst of which resulted in a brief block for edit-warring. In that case, an IP removed material from an article which I had recently promoted to GA status; I reverted and left a detailed note explaining why. Several hours later, they repeated the action without responding to my request for discussion; a minor revert-war arose from our combined actions. After I was unblocked, we were able to resolve the situation amicably on the talk page of the article in question. While I'm sure anyone who follows politics will be rolling their eyes at the following statement, in my case it is completely honest: I learned from my mistake in that case, and from other mistakes I made as I became more experienced with Wikipedia. My experience in general, and that block in particular, taught me the value of reasoned discussion. Moxy above offered generous praise for my patience; though he may be exaggerating somewhat (I am human, after all), I believe that my current and future approach to conflict is and will be moderated by my understanding of the value of reasoned discussion where possible, and formal dispute-resolution processes where necessary.

Additional optional questions from Noraft

4. What is your opinion of WP:AOR?

A: A good concept, but the details/application have thus far been less than impressive. The theory is that the community (or a sub-set thereof) should have the right to decide to de-admin someone if they have proven themselves a detriment to the project through their use of the tools; I fully support that idea as an unfortunate necessity in some cases. However, AOR as it exists now is a crippled process: it is completely voluntary (meaning that it affects only admins who would likely be open to requesting their own de-flagging in the face of lack of community trust), the process is sometimes bureaucratic and often inconsistent between individual admins (which can be confusing to those attempting to initiate the process, in particular new users), and despite safeguards it is open to gaming on both sides. I have not yet decided whether I will make myself open to that formalized recall process; however, if a situation arises where recall would seem necessary I suspect that I would request my own de-flagging anyway. I have enough respect for both myself and the community to know that I have no right to the flag if I use it, even unintentionally, to the serious detriment of the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. User:Joobaloob is editing an article about a Chinese church that was ruined during the Cultural Revolution. The article has a photo taken before the Cultural Revolution of the church that shows a statue of Jesus in the courtyard. Another photo taken after the Cultural Revolution shows that the statue has been removed, and that all the stained glass windows of the church are broken. The article narrative talks about the damage to the church, and states that the Red Guards (China) destroyed the statue and the windows. However, this statement is unsourced.

User:RunOff, who has never edited the article before, reverts the unsourced statement. On the talk page he states that the statement is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. Joobaloob quotes policies that appear to be relevant such as Wikipedia:Attribution#What_is_not_original_research.3F and WP:OI, but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight. Joobaloob brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and implies (without stating overtly) that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF, he states that editors must "earn good faith."

How would you analyze this situation? Is it Original research? Does it constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should Joobaloob do when he encounters an editor or admin like RunOff?

A: The image itself is not inherently OR (assuming it has not been manipulated), but may be OR in the context of this article - the image shows that the church was damaged during the period of the Cultural Revolution, but without further information we can't link the damage of the church to the revolution itself beyond the overlap in time period. More problematic is the unsourced text, which in conjunction with the image "introduce[s] unpublished ideas or arguments" (WP:OI). Without a reliable source linking the damage of the church to the revolution in general, the image should not be included; without a reliable source attributing the damage to the Red Guards, including that statement is a violation of WP:NOR. The article as Joobaloob wrote it does violate WP:SYNTH because it correlates the damage to the church with the actions of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution without citing a reliable source to support that correlation. Joobaloob's best option is thus to find reliable sources to support the image and statement before attempting to defend his position through policy. In the argument of policy, Joobaloob is wrong and RunOff is right; however, RunOff's behaviour is also problematic because he disregards AGF and implicitly uses his admin status in a dispute (although depending on how overt the threat is, that is open to interpretation). Joobaloob's actions will depend on the existence of reliable sources to support his position. If he cannot find such a source, Joobaloob should back down; he may ask another contributor or a relevant WikiProject to try to find sources, and he may want to leave a note on RunOff's talk emphasizing the importance of AGF for editors that are not intentionally disruptive. If he does find a reliable source, he should present it in the relevant discussion on the article's talk page and allow time for responses before re-adding the disputed material to the article. If RunOff and other contributors accept the source, the dispute is resolved (and Joobaloob likely should still leave a note on RunOff's talk regarding AGF, or find a more neutral party to do so); if RunOff still disputes the material, Joobaloob should refrain from re-adding the material and seek WP:DR through WP:RSN, WP:RFC, or a similar venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

6. You removed certain userboxes from your userpage earlier this year...can you explain why you did this?

A: Sure. I had not overhauled my userboxes in a while, and I decided to pare down on the overall number while also updating those that I kept. Some of those that I removed are simply no longer applicable to me (for example, I have not been a regular newspaper reader for almost a year); others were removed simply to neaten my page and cut down on the huge number of userboxes I had, and are still applicable despite their absence (for example, I'm pretty sure I remain a resident of Earth). Hopefully that answers your questions; if there's a particular userbox (removed or still present) that you're curious about, feel free to ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It raised an eyebrow that you removed userboxes dealing with racial equality and religious harmony. Has there been any change in your position regarding these issues? Keepscases (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! I wondered where you were going with that...anyways, no, I can't say there has been any change in my position on those issues, although I tend not to be too vocal about my views except to denounce racial slurs. Removing those infoboxes was part of the reduction in total userbox number rather than a reflection of my opinion. Hope that clears up the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I was initially vague because I didn't want to seem accusatory. Keepscases (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, and thanks for your consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Bwrs

7. Have any articles that you started become Good, A-Class, or Featured? Which ones?

A: Not yet. For many of the articles I've started, the sources just don't exist for an article of that caliber. However, as of September I'm gaining access to a number of high-quality of literature-related sources, so I'm hoping to develop Montage of a Dream Deferred through GAN and potentially FAC. As many an article creator has lamented, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked, but I think I can find some as-yet-unwritten literary gems worthy of the FA star. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Groomtech

8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: Admins are not dictators to issue unilateral "orders", nor do they have the authority to unilaterally impose a ban unless ArbCom has implemented relevant discretionary sanctions (per WP:BAN: "Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings."). Thus, my actions on this front would be twofold: if no relevant discretionary sanctions exist, then I would suggest a user refrain from posting in a certain area to avoid escalating a dispute, but I would not use technical measures like blocking to enforce my suggestion unless the editor's actions are otherwise deserving of a block (for example, if they were making threats or blatantly vandalizing). If problems persist, I might either initiate a dispute-resolution process or request discussion of a potential community topic ban at WP:AN. If relevant discretionary sanctions do exist, I would refer to the relevant ArbCom rulings for guidance on how to proceed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Gimmetoo

9. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.

A: While using the admin account to add {{User alternate acct }} is good practice and is strongly recommended by WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, in practice less stringent identification methods have been accepted so long as the link between the accounts is established. Thus, my actions in this case would largely depend on the behaviour of the non-admin account. If the non-admin account was behaving disruptively, I would block as an imposter. If the non-admin account was violating one or more provisions of WP:SOCK (for example, evading a topic ban or seeking adminship while the admin account retains its flag), I would block the account as an illegitimate sock. If the non-admin account was behaving appropriately and in accordance with policy, I would monitor it without blocking and seek to confirm its identity, either by requesting that the admin account confirm the non-admin account's legitimacy or by e-mailing the admin account. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Nikkimaria: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nikkimaria can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

1. Ucucha 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Excellent content contributor. The block doesn't worry me; as far as edit wars go, it was pretty tame, and I can understand Nikki's position. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as per my nomination.Moxy (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. If we have to have administrators then at least they should be content-oriented rather than virtual policemen. The block is, of course, a bonus. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Great long-term content creator who certainly seems to understand what makes the whole thing tick. And the block? It's only a short one from a year ago, and it stems from the candidate's passion for good content, so I don't see it as a problem at all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Going to get shit for the block, but the other contribs easily outweigh that.  f o x  14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support because she escaped the 24hr block back in July! Minimac (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to clarify for people who might misread, that would be July 2009, or over a year ago. NW (Talk) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support What i like is the DYK creations the author has worked on. Theres a broad range of activity for article devlopment and maintenance. I do not think the Block (being over one year old) is recent enough to deter. So plus one Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. A brief concern about the block, and the opening statement only really talks about non-administrative stuff, but she doesn't look like she's going to be anything rash, and we need to assume good faith in these cases. Esteffect (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support Well-qualified--Hokeman (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support – I'm not seeing much a problem following that block over a year ago. All the contribs after doing a spot-check seem to be outstanding. –MuZemike 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Definitely qualified. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Another great candidate. Connormah 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support – Seems like a great content writer. Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Great content editor and reviewer, lots of clue. Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Contributions look good, and I do not believe this user would abuse the tools. Shimeru 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per the candidates outstanding content contributions. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - This editor is clearly a longtime content asset to the encyclopedia. Having a mop will help keep Wikipedia clean. Best wishes, Jusdafax 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Good editor, will be a good admin. Resolute 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I don't say this often, and despite that I flagged you with reviewer, I would have said you already were an admin. Absolutely no concerns. Courcelles 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. A very clear case. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Familiar with this user's civil, clueful approach to editing. No worries about their handling of the tools. ceranthor 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Clueful, hardworking, good writer. Per nom. —fetch·comms 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support From all appearances a level-headed user who can do a lot for the encyclopedia given the tools. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support No problems here. Everything points that XYZ will make a good admin. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support One of the best and calmest contributors I've had the pleasure to interact with. The circumstances of the block speak more in her favour than against. Very happy to see her here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Yup. Handled the troll well too. Tommy! [message] 00:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Should be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Yeah, Nikkimaria would be a great admin! Also, 11k contributions, that's amazing! Endofskull (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Over 7,000 article edits certainly meets my wishes for an admin to be familiar with content work. I'm very impressed by her attitude of making use of the tools to extend the work she's most familiar with first. I have no reason to doubt Nikkimaria will have the community's trust as an admin. Good luck with the GANs! --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - her GA Review of George Washington was impressive and very detailed, I must apologise for not requesting peer review first though. I can think of no reason why she is not deserving of the mop. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support Time for real contributors. Stand up for Wikipedia. Real Action YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Strong editor who can really use the tools to help Wikipedia.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support – Contributions look good; I'm not seeing anything that might suggest she would abuse or misuse the admin tools. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - Answers to questions demonstrate someone who thinks things through in a logical and reasoned manner. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Excellent content contributor with a sufficient understanding of policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - No problems, seems like she'd make a good admin. (WOW over 70% of your contributions are to the mainspace, Good job!) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support as there is no reason to oppose. MtD (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, work so far looks good to me, and I have no major concerns. I'm surprised that "10,000+" edits needs to be hedged as "not that high", especially since FAs, GA reviews &c are all about quality rather than quantity of edits.
45. Support The candidate has made many very valuable contributions, clearly understands the project very well indeed, appears pleasant and helpful and would, I am sure, make positive and considered use of the tools.  Begoon^talk 12:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. No red flags, one block back in the day really doesn't bother me. My only concern is that the candidate's content work may decrease, but that's really no reason to do anything other than Support. TFOWR 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support—no doubts that this user will make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, looks good to me. --Avenue (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support A helpful and thoughtful editor who I trust with the tools. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support I've only had wonderful experience working with Nikkimaria here and the chance of abuse or even misguided use of the tools here is about nil. Great content contributor and an even better overall editor whom I trust.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Long term content creator with no major problems that I can see. Any minor concerns I had about lack of experience in administrative areas is offset by the reasoned and well-thought-out answers to the optional questions. NW (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Dlohcierekim 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Q8 impressed me. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Great contributions, a reasonable amount of experience in project space, wonderful answers to questions, excellent communication skills, no concerns. -- Atama頭 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. No problems supporting. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support seems like an exeperienced user. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Why not? BigDom 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 00:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Risker (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - Per above. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Level-headed; good quality contributions. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Tiderolls 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Yes SilkTork *^YES! 09:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Yup, no alarms here. GedUK  12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support No reason not to. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - an excellent content contributor across a range of areas, indicating a good knowledge of guidelines, etc. Looks trustworthy, and should be a benefit as an admin. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Appreciate the respectful way the candidate dealt with the 2nd oppose, and her thoughtful answer to question 1. The candidate does not come to RfA with a set list of what she needs the tools for, but there's a good explanation of where she will start and how she might expand her use of admin functions, once she surveys the lay of the land. And I've never met a Manitoban I haven't liked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Swarm^Talk 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - I've seen the candidate around at the Manitoba article, and they seem to know what they're doing. Plenty of experience in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - more than enough content creation and contributions of the right kind to demonstrate this candidate's empirical knowledge of policy.--Kudpung (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Seems like this should work out...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. - filelakeshoe 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Strong Support, not only are this user's GA reviews thorough and of a universally high quality, they've also developed a lot of great content themselves. I was very impressed with this user while I was GA reviewing one of their articles. No hesitation whatsoever. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
77. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. Bwrs (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Quality contributions, good answers to questions. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support so you're the one who wrote the Manitoba article! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Here to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL, if that is the only requirement for users in order to apply for adminship, then probably all nominated users would've gotten the admin tools. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

82. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. Good contributions, good experience, see no significant concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. No concerns whatsoever! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. Good content/reviewing editor and unlikely to do anything precipitate with the tools.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Great contributions. --Banana (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Strong Support: Another great candidate - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Having looked over contributions and interactions, I'm happy to support, as I can find no concerns. Answers here, and discursive contribs elsewhere, demonstrate thoughtfulness, consideration and knowledge of Wikipedia goals and principles.  Chzz  ►  14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support With such knowledge of content editing how could she go wrong? Jay-Sebastos (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. Fine to me. — Xcalizorz (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92. Not that you need it, by the looks of things, but support, just to edge this towards WP:100. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
93. Weak support meh. AfD hero (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Good constructive editor. Polargeo (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not impressed; may chance opposition to support if convinced. --A3RO (mailbox) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) User blocked[reply]

"Not impressed" is a bit vague. Could you elabourate a little? --WFC-- 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A3RO has morphed from a good, friendly editor into a meanness-troll. I wouldn't worry about him nor his oppose. Keepscases (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impression: To affect strongly, often favorably --A3RO (mailbox) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO@Keepscases, haterzzz! --A3RO (mailbox) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, his !vote is still valid. Only banned users may be indented. (X! · talk)  · @188  ·  03:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote re-indented to achieve consistency, please see my comment here. –xeno^talk 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose – Not enough recent activity. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You have the right person here?? Her recent activity....Moxy (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   How is recent activity a sign of a good potential admin? Perhaps she does not have much "recent activity" because Nikkimaria is busy spending several days simply writing up GA reviews such as my nomination of World War II. The article clearly was a speedy-fail candidate but Nikkimaria actually took the time to do it (and eventually pass it) anyway! Anyone who takes a look at this or the other GA/FA reviews should realize that work like this certainly outweighs a certain amount of edits or time spent here right?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the defence guys, but Heymid is correct: my recent activity levels (August prior to the 16th) were quite low. However, I should point out to Heymid (in case he was not aware) that I was actually on vacation for much of the past month, and spent August 1 - 15 at a cabin without internet access. That kind of inactivity for me is usually only a once-per-year occurrence. Does that assuage your concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That is not an excuse; you've failed to make 200 edits every month, since April 2010, and I don't know if you were on vacation also at that time. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I was not - whenever I'm on vacation, I note it on my talk page for the benefit of those who may try to contact me. I'm not trying to make excuses - if your standard is 200 edits per month, you are perfectly correct in saying I have not met it in the past few months. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Your average number of edits every month has dropped significantly during the last few months. In fact, in April 2009, you had 2,195 edits (!) which has now been going down to <200 edits, which is way less. I think it's too late for me to change my mind, but I already know my oppose wouldn't have changed the outcome of this RFA. But I've changed to support anyway, just to be respectful. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree Heymid, we should dock her pay 10% for every month this year she failed to make <arbitrary number> edits. NW (Talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   When you live in Florida, every day's like a vacation. Accept for the oil and the Ric Scott ads, of course. ;) Dlohcierekim 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Except. WP:TROUT. (X! · talk)  · @203  ·  03:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Why change your vote when it's how you feel? Don't change it just to be respectful; that's more arbitrary then the original oppose. Jmlk17 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   1. My choice to oppose have gotten unexpected reactions.

   2. I felt I was a little too quick to judge Nikkimaria, and I don't want to be the only opposer (together with an obvious troll).

   3. My oppose wouldn't have done anything but drop the 100% success ball, if my oppose ends up being the only legitimate. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   (refactored) Why should you require 200 edits per month? Connormah 01:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean, this user has not even reached 200 edits per month since April 2010 (which basically anyone can do in just a few days). His small amount of recent activity makes me wonder whether this user really needs the admin-tools. /HeyMid (contributions) 10:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Concerns about the level of activity is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. The amount of bitching that is going on about this oppose is unnecessary. Swarm^Talk 18:55, 19 August 2010 (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.