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

Rosiestep[edit]

Voice your opinion (talk page) (75/2/1); Closed Mon, 11 May 2009 21:03:11 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Nomination[edit]

Rosiestep (talk · contribs) – Hello all, for my fourth nomination, I'd like to present Rosiestep. Rosie is a dedicated editor who has had her account since June 2007, and has racked up an extremely impressive 22000 edits, with over 17000 of those in the mainspace. Rosie is one of our most prolific article creators, with an astonishing 1,849 articles (167 in 2007, 850 in 2008, and 832 so far in 2009), 74 of which have been featured on our main page at DYK. Rosie does a large amount of work at DYK besides her submissions, including aiding other editors and verifying hooks for accuracy. Though she is most passionate about mainspace work and ventures less frequently into namespace, her contributions at AfD are always backed by a clear understanding of policy and large amounts of evidence, such as here, here, and here.

Rosie does a great amount of maintenance work: copyediting, tagging articles with ((coord missing)), using Nickj's link suggestion tool to reduce the number of orphaned articles and increase connectivity, categorizing articles, as well as placing appropriate templates on talk pages for the various WikiProjects that she works with. She also does a lot of helpful interwiki work; she has working knowledge of both French and Spanish, and frequently translates articles from both the French and Spanish wikis, as well as the Asturian and German wikis, to here to fill gaps in our compendium. She also imports various details from those wikis to expand articles that already exist on this wiki, including information and images, such as here and here. On top of everything, she also has never been blocked, and has a 100% edit summary rate for both major and minor edits.

Rosie is a member of WikiProjects Anthroponymy, Arctic, Biography, Canadian Territories, Geography, and Military history; however, her work allows her to interact with many other projects as well. She participated in MILHIST's article assessment drive last year, and currently has 25 articles entered in their quality contest. She is a selfless, friendly user who has given a large amount of time and energy to this project, and would only benefit from gaining the tools to continue enabling this site to run more smoothly. GlassCobra 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by FlyingToaster - As GlassCobra has said, Rosiestep is an excellent all-around editor. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that she does not draw attention to herself; Rosiestep contributes consistently and prolifically without a need for praise. In fact, many people (such as myself) have been trying to get her to RfA for some time now.

What comes from Rosiestep's experience is a solid understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. While Rosie focuses mainly in the mainspace, her many interactions with other users are consistently polite, positive, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of policy.

Rosie's experience, selfless mainspace works, and important edits in the many thankless tasks which keep Wikipedia together make her an excellent candidate for adminship. FlyingToaster 01:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination; I accept. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: After WP:NAS, initially, I expect to work in two areas. My participation at WP:DYK? will expand from article review, comment, and verification to also include assisting with the queue process. In addition to commenting and voting at WP:AfD, I'll also close uncontentious nominations. In the future, I'll consider supporting other community needs bearing in mind that I won't use a new tool without studying it first... and note, I'm not bashful about asking for instructions or assistance if I don't understand something.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are a body of work: the approximately 1000 geography articles I created. These are concentrated in Canada, Greece, and Spain. Article examples include bays (Darnley Bay/Franklin Bay), capes (Cape Hay/Cape Graham Moore), civil parishes (Caleao/Puerto de Vega), hills (Gold Hill (Nevada County, California)), inlets (Berlinguet Inlet, islands (Clarence Islands/Dorset Island, Grey Goose Island), lakes (Qamanirjuaq Lake/Garry Lake), parks (Natural Park of Fuentes del Narcea, Degaña, and Ibias/Redes Natural Park), peninsulas (Bell Peninsula/Kent Peninsula), plains (Great Plain of the Koukdjuak), rivers (Hornaday River/Navia River), roads (Foote's Crossing Road), ice shelves (Markham Ice Shelf/M'Clintock Ice Shelf), sounds (Smith Sound (Trinity Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador), Digges Sound), straits (Barrow Strait, Simpson Strait), villages (Brooman Point Village), and wildlife sanctuaries (Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary, McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary}. I'm also of my DYK contribution variety.
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 haven't had much conflict, but recently, I encountered some differences of opinion while creating Spanish civil parish articles: an issue regarding notability with User talk:Auslli#Asturian parishes, as well as an issue regarding alternate Asturian language village name spellings with User talk:Orhere#Please stop removing Asturian language that I took to WT:SPAIN#Asturian language name for clarification. In general, I tend not to stress over others' edits -- I write and "let go". If there are several editors involved, I'll repond more commonly on the article's Talk page (such as here Talk:Arctic shrinkage#Title?). In the future, I'll continue to be respectful with fellow editors when dealing with conflicts and other stressful situations.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: I do not do a lot of work with BLPs; this is not my area of expertise. I'm aware there are many discussion strings about the BLP situation: I've read a few, but not most, of them. That said, my view of the current BLP situation is that there are legal and ethical issues with BLPs making it a unique area within wikipedia. It appears that there are three BLP subsets which need varying degrees of attention and maintenance. Subset1 (e.g. a head of state from an English speaking country): requires high vigilance; they require constant maintenance; there are significant and constant problems, and we're aware of them. Subset2 (e.g. an almost unknown retired player on an almost unknown pro team from a non-English speaking country): we’re doing a sufficient job in their maintenance and protection; there are no problems. Subset3 (those who fall somewhere in between): can be the biggest concern as we’re not always sure who they are; because they aren't on the main radar, they can either be a minor issue or a major problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: Flagged revisions: I'm not ready to support them. Flagged protection and Patrolled revisions: cautiously optimistic about a 2 month trial on a small subset of BLPs. Semi-protection: should be applied judiciously, rather than across-the-board for all BLPs. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
A: Sorry, neither: I don’t believe defaulting (to keep or to delete) is appropriate for BLP AFDs resulting in “no consensus”. Instead, I believe the particular circumstances of each BLP AFD should determine the decision of keep vs. delete in “no consensus” situations. Some of the reasons that stall me from a default decision have to do with: Is the BLP on a minor, or a victim of a crime, or an accused person who has not come yet to trial? Has notability been established on a transwiki? Did we check all variations of how the name might be spelled? Is there a spoiler(s), a sockpuppet(s), or someone with a "personal agenda" !voting? And what don't I know about this particular AFD, that I should know, and if I knew it, I would decide differently? So, imagining that I’m an admin, I will not initially close these types of AFDs, but I will discuss them with trusted admins in order to shape my understanding of this particular subgroup. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A: A lot, especially during my “inexperienced admin” phase. But no matter how experienced I am, I believe the importance of handling BLPs with respect and integrity can’t be over-stated (without regard to how marginally notable the person may be). As this would be one of those contentious AFDs, I’d initially seek input from trusted, experienced admins before I would take action on closing this AFD subset. At the least, I would want to have the following information: Did the individual address the citations within the article that support the false claims? Is there an issue with language that can be resolved through appropriate translation (for example, does he think the “claim” states one thing, when it actually says something else)? Does he have concerns with only parts of the article, and they aren’t well-sourced, and he wants these removed, vs. the entire article?

Additional question from Toddst1:

5. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do and why? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).
A: I’d treat the claim seriously and as an emergency. I’d re-review WP:SUICIDE for guidance and I’d follow its recommendations which currently are: place ((Suicide response)) on the editor’s talk page, post a notice at WP:AN, and contact WMF. I'd discuss "Block user, lock pages" with other admins before taking action. In conjunction with other admins/editors/the Foundation, I’d assure an authority was contacted. I would do these things because the rationale for following these instructions seems logical, and, as I’m not a trained mental health professional, I’m not in a position to assess the user’s state of mind. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Good article work; will make a good admin. However, I have concerns that most of your recent edits are adding ((coord missing)) and notices to talk pages. -download ׀ sign! 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen Rosiestep around a lot. I think that she's a great user and I'm pleased she's running for adminship. Acalamari 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Will make good admin. --Abce2|Howdy! 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support She has excellent contributions and I am positive the tools would be put to good use. Tavix |  Talk  01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no reason she'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 02:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Don't step on my roses. :( — neuro(talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support--Giants27 T/C 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as nom. GlassCobra 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good contributions. Looks like a trustworthy candidate for adminship. Good Luck. -- Marek.69 talk 02:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Holy ****... looking through his contributions, he is the best mainspace contributor I have seen in a long, long while.  Marlith (Talk)  02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate is female. :) GlassCobra 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in the candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I don't feel like being extensive so I'm just gonna give you a link: Why the hell not.--(NGG) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. From looking at their contributions, I see no problems, and I am very impressed by his contributions. I've never had any negative experiences, and I'm happy to support. Xclamation point 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. So far, this looks very solid; the AfD arguments (in the nom and below) seem fine to me, and the article work is overwhelming. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as co-nom. FlyingToaster 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Prolific content creation and DYK (even though the latter is something I am rarely impressed by). This is coupled with a solid knowledge of policy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Article creation is quite impressive. I looked at a sampling and she has created not stubs but substantial articles. I support your candidacy but please keep building the encyclopedia aspect if your RfA passes. Valley2city‽ 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Net positive. We need more admins. Dlohcierekim 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. 1849 new articles? Extensive content contributions? Lots of DYK work? Yes, please. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  22. Support. Skilled editor with good understanding of WP policies. - Darwinek (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support GO! GO! GO! PirateSmackKArrrr! 11:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I've always found Rosie to be friendly, helpful and sensible, with a good grasp of policy, but I didn't know until now about her prolific content creation, and that's another plus in her favor. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Article work is A+. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support; solid contributions. One (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Why the hell not?--Unionhawk Talk 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per GlassCobra and FlyingToaster nomination. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support; very impressed with her work at DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hell yeah Clueful, hardworking, diplomatic, creates great content and polite and friendly to boot. Too good for adminhood, but let's do it to her anyway. Paxse (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Looks good I checked out the AfD diffs below and they seemed okay. Pointing to policy pages is okay with me if the logic is reasonable and it's not just knee jerk (which happens way too off and often shows a misunderstanding of what the policies actually say). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per GC and Flying. Also, I'd like to point out that Fuchs' view on AfDs and RfA candidates is amiss. Judging someone on how they participate in an AfD does not give you an idea on how they would close them. They are obvious distinctions not relevant to a candidate (much like a crat commenting as an editor, it doesn't provide a detailed rationale to suggest they would be impartial to closing). Synergy 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've seen this editor's work in Canadian geography and think she will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support 1849 articles created? 74 DYKs? Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. You're a great editor, so I have no problem supporting, but I encourage you to take into account David Fuch's oppose and see if you can better yourself at AfD. But through your work, I see clue, and have no problem supporting. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No reason not to. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. WP:AGF--Caspian blue 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No reason not to. We need more admins who've actually created lots of articles on real subjects and helped build the project. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Spotted Rosiestep as potential admin material as early as July of last year and suggested the idea on her talk, so naturally I support. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - good article work, has grasp of policy, does not seem like the candidate to rush into areas where she has not much experience. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I remember, she used to give cookies out to everyone who created a legitimate page. She appears to me as extremely kind, and her work otherwise seems stellar. Ceranthor 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Other than the fact that Flying toaster had to fix a misspelled word in one of Rosiestep's articles in 2008...I see a picture perfect editor. Responsible, polite, productive, drama free, with a valid need for Sysop tools.--Preceding unsigned comment 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Nothing wrong with this candidate at all. I looked at the diffs brought up by David Fuchs, but they were nothing terribly bad, so I can see no reason not to support. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 'Support -love this editor. She is as kind and thoughtful as one gets. I have no concerns about her. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 'Support clear net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support - one of the best I've seen in a while; huge number of high-quality edits, safe. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support as an editor with a strong grasp of what Wikipedia is all about. She works well with others, does nothing but improve the coverage of the encyclopedia, and there is no indication the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit! :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Great Editor as per track and see no concerns the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. No reason given anywhere not to, so why not? Majorly talk 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support Along with Jamie, Rosiestep is also a very good canidate, and i would not hesitate to vote for her. Good mainspace work, and should make a great sysop. Good luck. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Great editor. DYK admin help is always needed because it frequently gets delayed when no admins are around. Royalbroil 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, no major concerns. Nakon 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Strong user, steady contributions, probably won't go nuts with the extra buttons, more than ready for adminship. -- Gggh (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've had plenty of interact with this editor in Milhist and have seen nothing but good. I'm also sure that she's got enough common sense to recongnise controversial actions in AfD, CSD etc a mile off and will avoid tackling tackling them until she feels comfortable that she has the experience to do so.  Roger Davies talk 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. Wizardman 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support should do fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Levelheaded and calm will make a fine administrator. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support. Wow (on the content). DYK will benefit greatly. --candle•wicke 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. DVD 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I sense that Rosie is expedient, but careful, which explains the possible "alphabet soup" answers in AfDs. If there is a clear policy or guideline about something, and that article doesn't match, why waste time restating the obvious, when there is so much more work to still be done. Am I right, Rosie? Alphabet soup doesn't bother me, as long as they are linked to so that newbies can easily follow them, and even for experienced editors who occasionally forget what a particular combination means. :-) As to too many DYKers (or admins in general)… That's like saying there are too many templaters, FfDers, etc. Until every queue is regularly empty and admins start getting in trouble for not having enough to do, I don't think there can be "too many" if they are of the right mettle. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, quite right. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I don't understand these objections either. We frequently have RFA opposes on the basis that the nominee has not cited policy when participating in AFD's - but to oppose because they have cited policy? Seems like it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
    The fact is that some AFD's are very straightforward and require only a nod to policy. I went through quite a few of Rosie's AFD contributions and she clearly adds more commentary when necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. A definite net positive. — Σxplicit 00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No problems here and a net positive. Razorflame 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Prolific, willing to get second opinions and plays nice with others. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Having spent the last year learning mediawiki as a collaborative tool, I understand the complexities of managing content administration. User:Rosiestep will be an invaluable administrator. I request User:Rosiestep for adminship. --Michaelmmillican (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC) user:Michaelmmillican[reply]
    Indenting: user has made only two edits. FlyingToaster 07:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Rosie would make a great admin. Seanplusplus Seanplusplus (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)\>[reply]
    Indenting: user has made very few edits. FlyingToaster 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Holy Shit, a user with more DYKs than me who isn't Ecoleetage. Seriously though, looks excellent. Strong support. FT, you are not to indent my post :PIronholds (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting: user is British. FlyingToaster 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support, a highly experience user, tons of edits, deserves admin rights, good luck to you Arctic Fox 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - candidate is thoughtful and has clue. لennavecia 13:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Judging by contributions, would be good admin. SD5 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Looks like a strong candidate. AlexiusHoratius 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support clean block log, good CSD tagging civil and experienced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Parker1297 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here --DougsTech (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure you didn't mean too many trolls currently? Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is entirely unnecessary. Mind your backhanded offense, and consider relevant essays regarding dealing with what you perceive to be trolling and how to deal with it. Keegantalk 07:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking the comment and sorry about it; I had not gotten any sleep the night before, and I was a bit grouchy (though this is no excuse). I do feel that it is trolling, but it's no excuse for me to be incivil. Sorry again. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Keegantalk 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't help noting that there are 1 admin to 582 users, another interesting fact for the people who think we don't have enough administrators Arctic Fox 11:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my general wish for more audited content work in candidates, as well as other concerns. Her supposed areas for admin work will be DYK and AfD... I dunno, it just seems like lots of DYK people have been coming through here chomping for the bit, but it's just not striking me as an area we really need people. I wouldn't oppose over that (I'm sure we can always use one more), I'm just not exactly enthused by her AfD comments, which don't strike me as the most thoughtful [1][2][3][4]. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate is female. :) — neuro(talk) 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I swear I read and recognized that, and still typed in 'he'. Stupid misogynist me :) refactored, my apologies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. My interactions with the nominee have always been positive and I think she is clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia. But the AfD diffs David Fuchs pointed out do concern me a little, there seems to be an over-reliance on alphabet soup in a lot of the !votes. I personally am not a fan of "fails/meets WP:___" !votes, but RfA is not the right place for me to push my beliefs on that kind of stuff, and I haven't looked super-closely at the nominee's AfD activity other than the diffs from David Fuchs, so staying neutral for now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:11, 5 May 2009 (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.
Category