Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dina

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Dina[edit]

Final (98/1/2); Ended 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dina (talk · contribs) – Dina has been with us an awfully long time, becoming active 5½ months ago. She is an excellent low key user, dedicated to the project and not a stranger to gruntwork. There's a tremendous amount of vandalism reversion (always with a warning, of course), many WP:AIAV reports, and a limited amount of XfD participation. Dina is also a valuable contributor in the mainspace, reflecting her occupation and meatspace interests. Best of all, unlike myself, Dina is always polite and uncontroversial in her approach. She will be a welcome moderating influence in the sysop corps, her maturity and poise radiating all over the place and rubbing off on some of our rasher colleagues. That's as good a reason as any to overlook any deficiencies in edit counts, especially since she will not be focusing on deletions if elected. Thank you. - crz crztalk 15:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Dina 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I expect at first I’d primarily use the tools in those areas with which I am most familiar, and as an addition to my regular work. My learning curve on Wikipedia has been slow, but steady and I anticipate approaching the tools cautiously. Most of what I learned about Wikipedia I learned by watching the actions and judgments of other editors, and I expect to learn about adminship in the same way.
I have the most experience at this point with vandalism fighting, some in Afd and tagging CSD’s and I believe that my contributions to those areas have refined over time. I also anticipate looking to the buttons in situations I seem to find myself in more lately – a user asking for help with Marc Lepine, (a good candidate for sprotection), a vandal devoted to quickly inserting an image into dozens of pages that needed blocking as soon as possible, an attack page so vile and full of slander and personal details that I actually felt compelled to blank it while tagging it (something I’ve never done before, as I know it adds work for the deleting admin, but in this case I felt was justified), or a redirect created by userfying a page created in namespace that needs to be deleted – in all of these cases I could have acted, instead of requesting help.
Xfd’s are an area where I only tend to contribute when I feel I have something to add to the discussion, however I do read them quite a lot. I expect I’ll start by closing the uncontroversial ones, until I have my sea legs and my judgment is more widely trusted. I lurk on AN/I, and AIV presently, so that I know what’s going on in those areas, and now I’ll feel empowered to act on some of what I find there. I'll check the backlogs on AIV, and I expect to be largely uncontroversial there as I am something of a stickler for the proper warnings being issued in all but the most extreme cases. I probably need some more experience tagging speedy candidates before going to town on the CSD backlogs, but I intend to work on that, and ask questions ("why did you do that instead of that?" asked of non-critically of another editor is always educational) until I am up to speed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, perhaps counterintuitively, I think the article I’m proudest of is this rather pathetic stub I created in June 2004 and promptly forgot about. When I did check it again, literally years later, it has become Propagandhi. Check the edit history (I have in depth) and it’s a great illustration of how Wikipedia works when it does work. My sad little stub could certainly have been speedied (it didn’t assert notability) or Afd’ed (Propaghandi are a notable band, though not particularly famous) but instead the little stub thrived – the stub sorters, and cat adders, the info-boxers and image finders, and of course, that great Wikipedia resource, the interested writers transformed it into a pretty damn good article on a subject that is dear to me. If I could reconstruct what I thought I was trying to start when I created that stub as a newbie, well, this is pretty much it. It’s something I try and keep in mind when other new users create questionable stubs.
All that said, my article writing has improved and I’ve learned to work on things before tossing them into the mainspace. I created The Class of 1959 Chapel and took all the photos in the article. I also created Harvard Film Archive (still need to take a good photo). Other articles I've worked on include Glass Flowers and Gregory Mosher – I also took this stub about Marie St. Fleur while it was up for Afd and worked on it (because I live in the region I just happened to know that the subject was more notable than what was being asserted) and rewrote it, adding sources with the ultimate outcome of the nominator withdrawing the Afd (always a nice consensus outcome, when possible.)
I’ve also banged around on a few smaller self-assigned projects – taking photos for some Boston/Cambridge articles (and uploading them on commons, where I am User Dsmack, trying to organize and expand articles related to the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (still working on that, I have some books on the subject on my holiday wish list), trying to organize and expand Wikipedia’s coverage of Museology topics (I expect some merging and some new articles to come out of it.) I also enjoy a lot of gnomelike activies – I random article edit, trying to find articles that need stubbing, catting, wikifying or to be "unorphaned". I check out the new pages list for promising stubs that need help to survive. I’ve spent a fair amount of time disambiguating, either projects listed on Wikiproject disambig (I’m pretty proud of my work on Gothic, it wasn’t easy) or tiny self-assigned ones, like Peabody Museum which needed a lot of disambiguation from Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Generally speaking, I'm not here to engage in conflict. However, acting boldly, whether editing, removing bad content, reverting, or speedy tagging is invariably going to lead to some disagreement with other editors. When an editor brings to my attention that they disagree with my action, I generally try to approach the content of the disagreement and ignore any unnecessary roughness they may use to get their point across, with the exception of outright vandalism or “attacks” – those I try to ignore. I do believe that even while assuming good faith, occasionally a stern word is necessary, but it shouldn’t be motivated by emotions and if that's not possible in a given circumstance, action is better left to more disinterested editors.
The only situation I can point to that caused me some "stress" was my interactions with IP Range 62.147.39.XXX. I reverted this user's edit here and placed this warning on his talk page. That was the extent of my interaction with this user that evening, resulting in this dispute on AN/I, this complaint on AmiDaniel's talkpage, and a fair amount of discussion and unfortunate characterizations of my person, intentions and intelligence. It was frustrating, because I think my action was justifiable, but if he had approached me civilly, I certainly would have been happy to talk about it. It did teach me that in some situations, even though VandalProof makes some non-vandal-related editing tasks easier, it’s a better idea to do the revert manually, even if performing the identical actions. I suspect if I had not done the revert using VP, the editor would not have been quite so pissed off. I responded here and here, the redlink was stubbed by User:Dweller and sent to Afd (an Afd in which I studiously avoided participating) and the matter seems to have died. I think I would take the same path in conflicts like that in the future (where the focus is completely on me) by essentially stepping back a bit, letting others handle it and agreeing to abide by whatever they decided. Because of this experience, when I feel another editor is being attacked, and trying to step back from it themselves, I sometimes jump in and try to help, as the other editors involved in this situation did for me.
Optional questions
Dear candidate, I would like it if you could take the time to answer these following questions. Admins should be prepared to deal with all situations, taking the time to answer these questions may help other people to decide on their consensus votes. Cheers! Yuser31415 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the asking of these questions -- I realize that "optional" questions have often requested opinions on very constructed situations in the past, but this is just one step too far. Jimbo using sockpuppets? Do forcibly-invented answers to these ultra-hypothetical situations really help anyone decide? -- Renesis (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording from 'Jimbo Wales' to 'experienced and well-liked editor'. Thanks, Yuser31415 07:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) *reads through again* And I have changed the third question to one more reasonable. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. What would you do if you discovered that an experienced and well-liked editor had been using sockpuppets abusively?
I apologize if this answer lacks imagination -- it is honestly quite hard to picture a situation in which I would discover definitive evidence of that sort about another user without having participated in some process including lots of other editors (RFC, RFCU, etc.). In the unlikely event that I found myself in sole possession of this information, the truth is I would probably go immediately to AN/I to share and discuss the troubling revelation before taking any action.
5. In a heated debate, whose opinion would you respect the most: the opinion of a new admin, or an anonymous IP who had been actively editing on Wikipedia for twice the length of time the admin had, having high quality edits?
In a heated debate I would respect anyone who made good arguments and kept their cool, regardless of previous experience.
6. What is your understanding of WP:IAR?
I understand WP:IAR as an exhortation to the community as a whole to remember that nearly all existing policies and guidelines were created by consensus and can be altered, amended or replaced by a new consensus at any time. I don't see it as an excuse for going against consensus, or failing to build a new one. It's not a get-out-of-jail free card and the rationale for an action, particularly a controversial one, should always include why it is best for the encyclopedia and attempt to build a consensus based on that argument.


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nom support - crz crztalk 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes — Seadog 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support User will make a good sysop: no reason to oppose, and seems to avoid conflict! --SunStar Nettalk 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Prolific contributor, provided detailed answers to the standard questions and seems to understand policy. SuperMachine 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DVD+ R/W 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Looks good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I wish I'd answered the questions as fully. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A good user. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Majorly 18:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good answers, good user. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- Good luck. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems good :-) ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - came across Dina way back in early September when she thanked me for adding something to an article she was working on (the Gang Green article, I do believe). I'd only been with the project a couple of weeks and such contact is very encouraging. Nice to see she is still around and doing well! Support not a problem. Nice one, crz. Bubba hotep 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no comment. Anom8trw8 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Definitely, =). Nishkid64 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-11 21:16Z
  17. Support with no hesitation whatsoever. Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as she appears to be both an excellent editor and an outstanding admin candidate. Sandstein 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. --SonicChao talk 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above-no problems here; excellent user.--teh tennisman 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problem here - start swabbing the decks! (aeropagitica) 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - should be a great addition to the admin corps. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support --W.marsh 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per all above - fully qualified, no issues. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support great work. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support; has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin. --TBCΦtalk? 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support like what I see. Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Very good editor, will do good for Wikipedia. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I agree with the above. (Radiant) 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
  32. Support Good answers to my questions, a strong and well balanced admin. Mopping time. Yuser31415 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support good answers.-- danntm T C 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I'd like to see more wiki-space edits. I ould say that of almost anyone though. The answers to your questions are pretty much ideal though. --Wizardman 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support have seen Dina around and she seems like admin material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support If she's not an admin already, now is the time to promote her. Scobell302 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weakish support Dina seems to be a great contributor; my support is somewhat weakened by a very low number of talk edits on articles (76) and in the Wikipedia-space (12). I never look at editcounts except in regards to talk pages (I feel that it helps me see how someone can interact with the community and/or amidst a contentious issue), and I would definitely prefer to see more interaction from Dina. With that said, I'm still, obviously, supporting. -- Kicking222 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. For sure. Mikker (...) 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Jaranda wat's sup 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support looks good -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Knows how to use the tools well, and good candidate. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Terence Ong 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Been-waiting-for-this-one-Support Riana 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Whatever post I have seen from this user was good ones. Hence Support --- ALM 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Impressed by her conduct in the dispute I helped to resolve (see Q2 above). A cool head - unlikely to misuse admin powers. --Dweller 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak Support I see no problems other than the low talk and WPtalk edits (hence the weak). Apart from that, great. James086Talk | Contribs 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Cool user. Looks responsible and I like her answers above. - Darwinek 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Just ran into her work fixing an AfD/prod botched by another user. I liked the way she explained things in her edit summaries and that she was careful/considerate at the AfD to add an extra comment about what had happened, to reduce any possible confusion. John Broughton | Talk 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Weak Support Answers are convincing, and very good edit summaries. However she needs to contribute more in project/project talk space. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- I was going to support anyway, but I think your answers to the optional questions are excellent. -- Renesis (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nom, answers to questions and my own positive observance of user's activity. Accurizer 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. I'm a little hesitant about the low talk page edit count, and that she's only been active since July. But her answers and record are very good. --Fang Aili talk 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Great candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Boring, unnecessary support - I don't do RFAs much, but I'm perusing RFAs and this one looks good. Wikipedia needs less bureaucratic admins IMO. I've seen too much arguing going on already. Milto LOL pia 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support: Plenty of edits, plenty of experience, good question answers. Should be a good admin.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support seems very even-headed despite the conflicts mentioned and would most likely not abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - we need more admins, and she's certainly qualified. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I like the way she describes her easing her way into admin duties instead of recklessly diving into them. I also like the detailed answers to the questions. --210physicq (c) 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support ..without any hesitation! All the best with the tools. ← ANAS Talk? 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Communismo or muerte support That's what everyone does when they see Crz — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support-When I ran the edit counnt using Interiot's tool I was surprised at the low number of eidts up until I saw the number of edits in the last 5 months and my jaw hit the floor! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support per experience/answers.--Húsönd 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, per nom. --Carioca 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, sound candidate --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per nom. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Dina seems like a trustworthy user. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per nom. She looks like an excellent candidate to me. Best of luck, - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support She looks to be what it takes to make a good admin Somitho 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Looks like excellent candidate. - Yaf 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per above. Just H 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Good answers to questions. More talk-page would be nice. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No problems to be seen. Sharkface217 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support Obvious experience with Wikipedia demonstrated. --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support --HappyCamper 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Michael 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Why not? --WinHunter (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. No reservations. A Train take the 14:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - vandals beware. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Sad that Dina's low key. We need more outstanding Wikipedians like her. bibliomaniac15 02:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. SupportGood dispute resolution; hard-worker. King Toadsworth The Princess is in another Castle! 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I see no reason to oppose Dina. Dionyseus 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Weak Support - Good reply to questions, that dispute with 62.147.39.XXX was not your fault. I guess he/she overreacted a bit. Insanephantom 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support- Needs admin tools to fight vandalism. Good Editor. --Natl1 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. You're good at what you do. yandman 13:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Good answers to the questions. E104421 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Shlomke 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Suppport Yanksox 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support A good candidate, will make a good admin. Canadian-Bacon 18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Fiance support Feel free not to count this vote -- I'm a reader not an editor, but I know how good an admin she'll be and how hard she's worked for it. Drboggs 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. Just H 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, it looks like you voted twice. Considering the vote directly above you is my "meatpuppet" I'm going to indent this one. I'll leave it to someone else to indent the other, because, well, I personally find it kind of endearing. ;) Dina 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, thanks for the catch there. Don't worry, I think consensus has been reached even without your "meatpuppet" :-) Just H 04:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per nom and the above reaction. Agathoclea 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support per nom. Seems like a good, level-headed editor. Coemgenus 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Wow, almost missed it, great editor. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. No sorry, if just becoming active, just on sometimes doesn't see good. How long has she been on? Reply and maybe It'll change but for now No WikiMan53 T/C My editcounter 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Information on how long the candidate has been active on Wikipedia is available on the talk (discussion) page to this page, here. From the comments so far, her activity length and level seems to be sufficient for everyone's purposes. If this oppose vote is based on the comment on your talkpage that you do not yet have enough experience to be an administrator, I would urge you to reconsider it, as the consensus is the candidate does have such experience. If the oppose vote is based on something else, I frankly do not understand it. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this supposed to be for finding consensus, rather than expecting others to follow consensus? This "vote" just seems like a part of that. Besides, there's no way this person won't be promoted. Milto LOL pia 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. If someone is able to make a cogent argument, with supporting evidence, against this candidate becoming an admin, they quite possibly won't become one. But rattling off an oppose that really makes no sense and has no grounding in evidence won't do it. Sarah Ewart 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The !voter asked for information and I provided it, while gently suggesting that the vote might (or might not) be a WP:POINT violation, and if so could stand rethinking. Obviously the !voter is equally free to stand by his or her earlier decision. Beyond that, sometimes, even in a clearly successful RfA, an oppose or neutral commenter mades an observation that can helpfully guide the admin-to-be in the future, so it doesn't automatically follow that negative comments on such an RfA should just be ignored. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To try and answer the question: I first registered in February of 2004 and made one edit (to an article talk page, which is a little funny...) I had a few tiny spates of editing over the next two years, (I was a devoted Wikipedia reader, actually - we are elusive, shy animals, but we do exist! - and used it often as a resource for a project I was working on) but really didn't start contributing substantially until July of this year, which makes it about 5 1/2 months now. I think most people have my sort of history, they just tend to do it as an anon, but for some reason, I'm the kind of girl who given the opportunity to create a log in, tends to. Cheers. Dina 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just like me. Logged in March 05, didn't get active till January 06 - crz crztalk 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's kind of neat. I've always assumed most people made their first edit as an anon. The main reason I'm really happy about it is that I doubt my username would have been available if I'd registered this summer. It wasn't on Commons and I was a bit disappointed, though not surprised. Dina 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Too few project/project talk space contributions. I really don't feel comfortable supporting admins who only plan on doing vandalism stuff. -Amarkov blahedits 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A well-deserved wait. However, she'll have to do a lot of WP maintenance in due time. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dina&oldid=1089066422"