Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Katerenka

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

Katerenka

Final (48/43/18); Closed by Rlevse at 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Katerenka (talk · contribs) – Hi everyone. This is a request from me, Katerenka, to you, the community to ask that you entrust me with a few extra buttons to help out with on-Wiki maintenance. I've been a member of Wikipedia since April 29, 2009 as user:Javert. So, if you're not familiar with my history or wonder why I'm asking for your trust with less than 1,000 edits, please review my prior account's contributions. Additionally, admins can view my old account's deleted contributions here –Katerenka ^☆ 12:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

co-nomination by delirious & lost

Fellow users, I will make this a short co-nomination / seconding. Katerenka, who I wish to present here, is one of those people who work behind the scenes to ensure the integrity of English Wikipedia rollingback vandalism using Huggle. She is also a dedicated contributor to DYK, an important but unfortunately not-well-visited niché of our project. I have worked with her on the account creation team and come to respect and trust her as a colleague.

In her six months with this project, Katerenka has done valuable jobs behind the scenes but has also been a friendly, helpful editor in various other areas and has shown civility and calmness when dealing with other users and difficult situations. She is, self-admittedly, not an article creator. I feel that we need admins from all facets of the project. I myself am more an actual user of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia above all else. Having come to know Katerenka and reviewed her contribution I think she has demonstrated with her many great edits that she can be trusted with the admin tools and responsibilities and as such I ask you, our community, to grant this candidate the tools which would allow her to work more effectively. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 14:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-transclusion co-nomination by Dylan620: This is my sixth nomination. Katerenka is easily one of our most valuable editors, and one of the most impressive I've seen in my editing career. I adopted her while she was still editing under the Javert account, and I was almost tempted to decline because she already had quite a level of experience. However, I decided to accept the offer anyway, to see what she would have liked help with. From then on, I was tremendously impressed with her. Katerenka was a magnificent vandal fighter, and toward the end of her career under the Javert account, she was also an excellent DYK reviewer – she even has contributed a few hooks herself!

Yes, there is the matter of the concerns brought up by Majorly in the "oppose" section. In general, I believe that Katerenka did not mean to attract attention, rather she felt like she needed to get something off her chest. Given the details at User:Javert, I can fully understand why Katerenka wanted to switch accounts. In summary, Katerenka is an extraordinarily helpful, civil, ans valuable Wikipedian. I hope you will agree with me that Katerenka will be an excellent admin. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional Co-Nomination by Vicenarian: I, too, understand the concerns of many of those who oppose. However, Katerenka has a demonstrated level of cluefulness and good judgement as a user that garner my absolute confidence, and transcend any concerns about identity. From DYK, to article creation, to vandalism fighting, to clerking at WP:CHU, to helping with WP:ACC... she has done it all, done it well and proven her dedication and effectiveness, civility and camaraderie. Thus I am proud to add my signature as an additional co-nominator after-the-fact. Regards, The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 06:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Mainly I intend to help clear backlogs. Specifically the CSD back log (deleting obvious candidates, declining and expanding articles that don't fit the criteria) as well as helping out in Category:Requests for unblock and WP:RFPP. Additionally, with the vacancy left by Law's departure it seems that WP:DYK is lacking admins to move the approved hooks from the prep areas to the queues, so I would also help with that. I would also help with various XfD discussions when the opportunity presents itself.

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

A: I'm not much of a content creator, regretfully, however I have created several articles and have three Did you know? credits. I'm more into the maintenance tasks as I said earlier. I'm a relatively active participant at DYK as well as helping the 'crats out by clerking at WP:CHU and WP:USURP. I also volunteer my time with the Account creation team. Basically, I help anywhere I think that I can be useful or my opinion will be helpful. :)

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 actually didn't have an answer for this question until I came back under this name. This was probably the most stressful situation that I've had on-wiki, and I believe that I handled the situation as best that I could. If, as an admin, I were faced with a similar situation where, as opposed to being the party accused of something, I were the party that the accused came to for assistance, I would approach the situation much the same way. Calm, rational discussion of an issue between editors usually results in what is best for the encyclopedia. I would listen to both sides, weigh their arguments and then make my decision based on that as well as the evidence. If it's a situation that I'm involved in as well, as opposed to one where I'm one whose opinion is sought, then involving a third party to get another view of the situation would be the route that I would take. Additionally, I would like to direct your attention to this explanation of my abandoning of my previous account.

Optional question from IMatthew (talk · contribs)

4. Can you please list all of the usernames that you've edited under?

A:Sure, Matthew, and I hope this clears up your confusion somewhat. I registered user:MrExcitement on April 29, 2009 and used it to make two edits to my userpage. I then abandoned that account in favor of user:ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds which was eventually renamed to user:Javert.

And I assume this one too? iMatthew ^talk at 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That was the intermediate account between ThoseStars and Javert. –Katerenka ^☆ 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please list all of the accounts you have used, as Matthew has asked? GTD 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record: ThoseStars, T'Shael, and Javert are the same account, as evident from page histories. The account went through two renames. There have only been three accounts involved. See my note below. JamieS93 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Tanthalas39

5. Can you expand on your abandoning of your previous account? I'm not concerned about the situation itself; I'm concerned about why you felt it was necessary to divulge so much personal information to the community. Thanks!

A:Certainly, Tan. :) I had originally intended to simply leave the account and start over. When I decided to do this, I created this account and emailed the Arbitration Committee from both accounts confirming that they were related and that I was abandoning Javert and starting anew with this account. However, this didn't work out as an editor came to suspect that I was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user circumventing their ban and they started a thread at WP:AN concerning it. Both Wizardman (talk · contribs) and Risker (talk · contribs) confirmed at AN that I was not who I was thought to be. This thread was a stressful time in my Wiki career, so at the conclusion of it, and after talking with several others through email and on IRC, I decided that the community deserved my honesty. So, that statement that I wrote on my old user page was the result. Yes, it's very personal information that I gave to a bunch of people that I don't know on a anonymous website. But if we are to work in a collaborative environment effectively we need to be able to trust each other. So, I told you who I was, to help facilitate that trust. Hope this answers your question, if not feel free to ask for clarification.

Additional optional questions from Rschen7754

6. Explain in your own words what a 3RR violation is and how 3RR should be enforced.

A:The three-revert rule is a rule that says no user may make more than three reverts to any page in a 24-hour period, so a violation of the 3RR rule is the fourth revert in a 24-hour period. As to how it should be enforced varies on the situation. If a user makes a fourth revert and then reverts him/herself, I wouldn't block them because blocks are preventative and not punitive and they've ceased their disruptive behavior. If, however, a user continues to revert war on an article, after having been appropriately notified on their talk page a 24-hour block would be in order. If they had made four reverts and then stopped, but not reverted themselves, I would most likely not block them as they had ceased their disruptive behavior. A dialogue between editors is important, so I would raise one on their talk page, as they may not have been aware of 3RR.

7. What is your position regarding poor edits that are not vandalism?

A:Poor edits that are not vandalism usually stem from the user's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's markup-style, policies, or just plain tests edits. I don't believe that removing good faith edits that are not vandalism is the appropriate action (unless of course the edit was a violation of the biographies of living persons policy). It's best to contact the editor on their talk page to explain whatever it is they are not understanding (be it NPOV, wiki-markup, etc) and ask them to remove the edit themselves. I must admit to being a tad confused as to what exactly this question was asking, so if I totally missed the mark, please clarify your question and I will readdress it. :) Thanks.

Can you clarify a little on this. In your own words how would you deal with a POV edit that appears in good faith to a non-BLP article that is non-sourced? To an article in which the editor has added something that is erroneous to the article? ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 11:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

8. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A:

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

A:

10. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• I posted the editing stats of both accounts on the talk page. –Katerenka ^☆ 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Quick history: MrExcitement [quit usage]. ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds → T'Shael → Javert [quit usage]. New account created, renamed to Katerenka to avoid using RL name. JamieS93 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm trying hard not to assume bad faith, but there seem to be a few supporters here who i)haven't been to RfA much and ii)have been blocked / investigated for being sock-puppets or open proxies etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm seeing the same curious pattern at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spongefrog. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry NotAnIP, but your accusation seems unfounded. I just checked all of the supporters, and only a few are not active RfA participants: Coldplay, Spongefrog, December21st, NotedGrant, Rkr1991 and Midnight Comet (and Doc Quintana, but he !voted after you posted). At least a couple of those are part of a particular group of friends that you may have encountered, whom Kat knows. Only one on that list has ever been blocked for using multiple accounts/IPs. If you think Kat's a sock of somebody, that's fine. I'm just putting the data out there. JamieS93 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jamie, a few of those you mentioned have also !voted on my RfA. Off hand I remember Spongefrog, Midnight Coment, and Doc.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is more or less a null edit to prove that I have both accounts. I understand that accusations of meatpuppetry could be made, so if this edit doesn't satisfy you, I can have this accounts committed identity.css undeleted and tell you the phrase that generates that hash. Granted, this isn't the reason that most of the opposers are using, but I did want to make that offer for anyone that wants it. :) Yours, Javért ^☆ 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment to all the Opposes and Supporters I have been hearing things like "less than 6 months old", "your schizophrenic history is worrying", "Integrity and openness are key in a sysop's work" and lets not forget the classic and baseless "per Majorly" Well last time I checked, there is no qualifications for adminship. And the amount of time spent on wikipedia has nothing to do with whether your ready or not for the mop. What does count is trustworthyness and the ability to carry out the tasks that admins need to do. Now the next comment is just plain wrong. You dont tell someone that their "...schizophrenic history is worrying" How is that helpfull? Total violation of WP:CIVIL. Not only that but Kat's history is'nt even "schizophrenic" since when did changeing your name X amount of times become a reason to worry? The next comment I already answered to above. Now the last one is a joke. "per Majorly" wow, that really shows what Kat is doing wrong and how she can fix it. People, I have been here for only 3 months and yet half of the !votes consist of these two words. Has anyone here even read the WP:AAAD one of the examples is "Oppose – as per most of what they said above" Now this also applies to what the supporters have to say, Support "Per above" once again this has no substance and as a result, should not even be counted. Now if Kat were to fail this RFA then we need to tell her WHY and HOW she can do better, and if she were to pass then we need to tell her WHY she passed.--Coldplay Expert 14:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Agree, but please move this paragraph somewhere else, because the software is counting it as a !vote, and you can't !vote twice. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  sorry about that soap, ill move it.--Coldplay Expert 14:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Given the concerns about WP:MYSPACE and game-playing, adding a co-nom so long after the RFA has opened doesn't strike me as very wise at all, and could easily go against the candidate GTD 21:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This isnt a co-nom it was a comment under the oppose section but I moved it up here and how does this hurt her chances? It proves that about 80-90% of the opposes have no substance? I am only reminding the reviewers of WP:AAAD--Coldplay Expert 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the co-nom by Dylan, which came more than a day after the RFA opened. Odd GTD 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you were talking about my really long message. Sorry :0--Coldplay Expert 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And now another co-nom a long time after the RFA opened? What's going on? GTD 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see whats happening, you see Dylan and V-Man were on a wikibreak during most of the nomination so now that their back, they want to co-nom Kat.--Coldplay Expert 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed the case. I have long expressed interest in nominating Javert/Kat for adminship when she decided she was ready, and did not notice this RfA open up as I have been on break - though I am not sure how one could see an additional nomination as suspicious or having negative effect? I believe it simply shows that Kat has earned the trust and respect of many of her peers, which is crucial for any administrator. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has the appearance of someone trying to give a "super strong support" in a slightly disingenuous manner. A nomination is a proposal of a candidate; clearly after several days and much discussion below this proposal has already been made. I'm not saying you were trying to circumvent the system, and you could have been planning a nomination all along. I'm merely explaining why many editors look upon late co-noms negatively. Tan | 39 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and I apologize for any appearance of impropriety and assure you that I have had the intent to nominate Kat for quite some time. Had I been around when this was being planned, I would've cast my hat into the nominator's ring at the appropriate time. In any case, please do not hold this against Kat, and try to see it as intended - an indication of trust and respect that goes back quite some time. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 13:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Vicenarian and Dylan: Was the candidate consulted on/off-wiki before the late co-noms were added ? Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not consult the candidate before adding my late co-nomination, no. However, I had expressed interest in nominating her (back in her "Javert" days) for adminship, at a point when she felt she was ready to accept the mop. And frankly, the changing of identities doesn't bother me, as it was not done to evade community sanction or leave behind a spotty record. I would have preferred if Kat had announced herself as the successor to Javert without being asked to do so, but I understand her reasons for not doing so, and those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with betraying the community trust. As for the MYSPACE arguments, given Kat/Javert's record of excellent contributions across the project, I find these specious best. Any good contributor is going to make "friends" on-project; this is helpful to the project as a whole, as it helps facilitate collaboration and, yes, allows us to have a little fun... important given the stress we often come under and the fact that we're all volunteers (and perhaps a little crazy). In my view, MYSPACE exists to discourage those who use Wikipedia ONLY or PRIMARILY for socializing, without contributing to the encyclopedia, which is certainly not the case here. Well-respected and valuable contributors should be given leeway to make a joke or two with on-Wiki friends on her talk page without being penalized. Just my two cents. Thanks, The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 16:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support While the whole thing about the previous account is kind of strange to me, and this account only has two months of editing... I feel as though there isn't much concern to the point where I think you would abuse the tools. Good luck. ~ Arjun 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - I have followed Javert/Katerenka's contributions over the two accounts, and have consistently been impressed. Even though her editing time has been shorter than normal, Kat has thorough experience in administrative areas and has shown the ability to remain calm and be helpful. I'm confident that she will make a good administrator. JamieS93 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per below. Nice userpage. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, I've been very impressed by Katerenka and her previous accounts' edits. She is kind and helpful to others, takes part in a number of admin areas, especially DYK, CHU and CSD. I can only recall seeing any nontrivial mistake in these two areas when she first joined. A well as that, she does take the time to create/expand articles, and is clearly dedicated to the project. She responds appropriately to put-out newbies, as well as established users. Excellent candidate, trustworthy, and will do great with the mop :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Per above. Abce2|This isnot a test 14:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Excellent candidate; can certainly be trusted with the tools. Good luck! --[midnight comet] [contribs] 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - I've known J/Kat for a long time and I think Katerenka will make a good admin--NotedGrant Talk 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong support – absolutely. – B.hotep •talk• 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support Has my full trust, very good work in different areas of the project. Opposers don't concern me. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Trusted you as Javert and thought you'd make a great admin, nothing has changed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - I knew this user since s/he was T'Shael. She is always, always, civil, and her knowledge of policy is beyond her years...or in this case months. You know what I mean. As someone said "A great man can achieve more in one day than a fool can in an entire lifetime". I can't imagine a situation that Kat couldn't handle. Solid contributor in almost all areas of the project. I always thought Javert would be a great candidate, and nothing's changed, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I have followed the contributions of (formerly) T'Shael, Javert and Katerenka and been impressed. I trust this user. It doesn't matter to me how many edits the user has made or the no. of months old he/she is. All that matters is a good knowledge of WP policies and guidelines, a willingness to help, and above all, trust. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I've looked at your entire edit history and don't see anything that makes you look untrustworthy or incompetent. You handle stressful situations well. You're dedicated to doing good. While some opposers seem to think you spend too much time socializing with other editors, I see that you are eager to help people and don't run away from them when they find themselves in trouble. I wish you the best of luck in this RfA. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I would've supported her as Javert and I absolutely will now. Definite use for the tools and a proven calm head. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Excellent candidate. December21st2012Freak ^chat 17:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Open, honest and trustworthy. Have no reservations with giving her a few extra buttons. Everyone's off-wiki lives are different and these differing circumstances sometimes affect what happens on wiki, despite all that this user displays an attitude of wanting to help improve Wikipedia and that's what matters the most. Net positive. -- œ^™ 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Strongest Support Possible this user is a VERY civil erperianced and inteligent person. Has proved time and time again that she can be trusted with the tools. Very helpfull to several new or semi-new users like myself even in the simplest of ways. (like helping me out with my signature). I have full confidence that Kat is Javert. I cannot see any other candidate that is more qualified for this job. Based off of the comment left on User:Javert I would assume that most people would have left wikipedia forever. However she did not and on the same day as retireing from javert, she created Katerenka. This proves that this user is deticated to WP.--Coldplay Expert 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support: Comes down to whether you trust Katerenka or not. I do, so I support. She is a good, helpful editor and is not likely to misuse the tools. I don't see any violation of WP:SOCK, and as this says ArbCom had been informed about the old and new accounts. Unless ArbCom is covering up any unconstructive edits made with a previous account (in which case I really don't see any point in holding RFAs or anything else anymore ;)), that is good enough for me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support Seems like a solid contributor and is trustworthy despite the change in name, although more edits would be preferrable. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to Neutral. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

20. Weak support Pending a look at the old account's contributions. Renames (whatever the motivations) aren't nefarious and it isn't unheard of that editors botch renames or misjudge how much or how little they might like to participate on wikipedia. That said, the concerns listed in the oppose section are not vacant. Good or bad, there is considerable gravity associated with names and personas and judgment doesn't transfer over seamlessly. Good luck. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong support She has my full trust, does quality work throughout the project, and is friendly to work with. With approximately 6000 edits excluding user talk [1] [2] she has experience. As to the user name changes they are not a concern. Everything was done through proper channels and is available to anyone should they look at the various page histories and edit summaries. I spent about ten hours reviewing everything about Javert's & Katerenka's contributions and interactions that are accessible to a user before co-nominating her. I am confident in my decision. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I think this user would be a great admin. she is helpful, cares about wikipedia, and is a nice person. I trust her, and think she will do a great job as an admin. regards --Orangesodakid 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I agree with all of the above. You are so full of potential, and the opposes are mostly baseless. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support I think this user would make a good admin. RP459 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Having known Katerenka almost since their very first edits (under ThoseStarsBurnsLikeDiamonds), I feel that they are fully trustworthy and competent to be an administrator. decltype (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. Overall, it would be a net positive to have her as admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Weak Support A nice mix of protecting the wiki and building it, weak because you have less than 6 months tenure, and I think that some lessons take experience of how this place and the moods and fads of the community change over time. PS plz don't change your username for a few months. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Now, yes, I am confused here! However I think changing of usernames is fine and to oppose over this is a bit pendantic IMO, and other than this issue there is nothing that leads me to oppose. I also like the way giants put it, great as Javert, still great now! AtheWeatherman 11:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support! Very helpful. A8UDI talk 12:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Support (move from neutral) With this edit, my paranoia has been addressed enough to convince me that Javert = Katerenka is indeed the case. I think Katerenka is a helpful user who wants the best for the project and has shown to have a decent level of clue and policy knowledge as well as the right the temper to handle problems. While the constant changes of usernames might indicate a lack of stability, the reasoning is imho good enough to justify them. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
31. As per my co-nom. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Strongest Support. As per my co-nom. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 06:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Moral Support Not nearly enough experience. Also more focus on ConstEdits would be good. I hope you have a thick skin and persevere. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Support I trust this user. Yes from me.  Ilyushka88  talk  13:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I find the quality of article writing satisfactory, and I am supporting primarily on that basis. There is good work on Jonathan Edwards and his various writings , including The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners & more recently A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World, and The Nature of True Virtue; there is also good work on unrelated substantial topics, such as Scott Boerma & Ruthie Henshall I need to infer her knowledge of policy from the many corrections & reverts she has made, and it seems satisfactory, though additional specific experience discussing policy would be helpful. It might have been wiser to have foreseen the complications and planned better how to handle them, but I see nothing wrong, merely an exceedingly awkward situation. I have greatest respect for someone resolving such a difficulty by straightforward courageous honesty -- though given the nature of Wikipedia, I was somewhat disconcerted to see it--it's so rare around here. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
37.  Support Good Luck. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support per JamieS93, OlEnglish, DGG et al. Net positive. The renames do not concern me. Tim Song (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong Support Useful mix of contributions, good attention to detail. Has the excellent helpful and friendly attitude which I associate with successful projects, both professional and voluntary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - was surprised when I saw Javert's abrupt exit; I'm glad that they are back. It looks like this RFA is a little too early after the rename, but would encourage the user to stand again in the future. –xeno^talk 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - the username history is a bit confusing, and the candidate could use some refinement (answers to questions a bit weak, could use more evidence of collaborative editing) but these are niggling issues that do not reflect on the candidate's trustworthiness. I have no reason to suspect they would misuse the mop. If anything, their extremely open nature regarding the username issue is a sign of implicit trustworthiness ... Shereth 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, good editor, and the candid explanation is something to be appreciated. If you exclude the honest people and the bad liars, the only people you're left with are the good liars. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Have had brief interactions with Javert, generally helpful editor and see nothing that will change with the new user name. -SpacemanSpiff 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - seems trustworthy, honest, and has a record of good contributions. No reason to oppose. Robofish (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. Helpful and trustworthy, and patient enough to do gruntwork (as evidenced by clerking). bibliomaniac15 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Support I was a little torn on this, not so much based on the account name issue. I do think that you should have gone through the proper rename channels, especially since you were open to disclosing your previous account here and are familiar with the rename process. But all that is beside the point, and I get the gist of why you were doing it, que sera, sera. My primary concern would be the time as a registered user here, (since May), which is somewhat less than what I would normally require for support, however I am familiar with the work that you do, and am comfortable enough with your overall experience with the project to believe that you will be a net positive with the tools.--kelapstick (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - I trust you, a net positive and good editor. Yotcmdr (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that I am reluctant to oppose anyone on Halloween (favorite holiday!), the user has received at least eight barnstars, the user has rollback rights, a sound wiki philosophy, and has never been blocked. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Assuming Javert was your first account, you've only been here a few months. We really don't need more inexperienced admins. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - I feel a good knowledge of WP policies and guidelines would be more important than the number or edits the user has made, or the number of months he has been in the project. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   True enough, but I think Closedmouth is talking about experience, and not about quantitative measurements like edit count. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

2. The type of personality I'd like to see from an administrator is a calm and confident, even slightly boring demeanor. If I'm not mistaken, you've edited under at least 5 different account names in 6 months, have fairly few content edits and seems to be a bit too focused on the social aspects of Wikipedia rather than it's core mission and seem fairly keen on getting administratorship. I'm sorry to say that this doesn't fill me with confidence, and thus I must oppose at this time. Best of luck though, henrik•talk 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't trust this user because I don't believe this user. If your story is true, I commend you and wish you the best in a tough social transition. However, I see signs of immaturity, specifically concerning a MySpace approach to the project, which leads me to believe you do not have the maturity for the mop. I need to see signs that you can handle scrutiny and often very personal criticisms before I lend my support. I also need to see signs that you can avoid changing your user name every few months, regardless of the reasons for the change. You've only been here since April, and it took some detective work to confirm that, even though you said as much, because you failed to disclose all of your other account names. There is nothing wrong with the way you used multiple accounts, however, the amount of real life personal information that you gave up willingly contrasts sharply with the amount of Wikipedia personal information that you appeared initially hesitant to disclose, which makes it very difficult to trust you at this point. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Per the two above me. NW (Talk) 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose per answer to Q4. The answer doesn't seem to tell the whole truth, as a quick check shows. Serious trust issues here GTD 15:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   As a follow-up, following Jamie's comment, I would also oppose due to poor judgement. Abandoning an account for personal reasons then starting a new account with a real name, then realising that may not be a good idea? Doesn't strike me as the most sensible, well-thought-out decision-making GTD 17:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Sure. I just wanted to make sure everybody is on the same page. JamieS93 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Sorry, too many issues here. The whole vanishing and coming back thing and attracting attention to yourself was a really bad idea. If you had stayed as Javert, I probably wouldn't be inclined this way. I am troubled that you went out of your way to abandon your old account, and then come back and immediately dive into discussions that new users obviously wouldn't care about, not just here but on Meta and Simple WP too. It just seemed like attention seeking for no good reason. Majorly talk 16:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Also concerned with answer to Q4. According to the user, they had one account before Javert, MrExcitement. This account has three edits. Moving on to Javert, its first edit was to enable Huggle. I am struggling to believe a brand new user would immediately start using Huggle from almost the start (minus a sandbox test and userpage edits). I try to assume good faith, but I've had to deal with a problematic admin earlier this year whose early edits clearly indicate prior knowledge/experience. This combined with the multiple renames and the secretive nature of the whole business makes me very concerned indeed. Majorly talk 16:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Hi there Majorly, while I can see where you are coming from, I wanted to let you know my own thoughts, so you too get two views on the situation; Katerenka has previously said that she had been "watching" Wikipedia since 2005 as an anon, but only registered in 2009. As vandalism is a part of Wikipedia which she specifically said she had noticed, it's fairly likely that she would have found out about Huggle a long time before registering, and since she originally registered with the aim of helping combat vandalism (and, I don't know, but maybe the whole reason she registered was because you need an account to use Huggle), it's not to far to presume that it's one of the first things she attempted to use. Anyhow, having previous accounts is within policy, and certainly shouldn't be a reason against adminship, IMO. Unnecessary drama, and abuse of multiple accounts, naturally should be, but I'm convinced that Katerenka had good reasons to "vanish", and I think it's a good thing she choose to "come back". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose. There was a recent case that briefly touched on the concerns presented by the use of social interfaces prefered by some editors. That tendency, togther with your "schizophrenic" history is worrying. Leaky Caldron 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Majorly -- Deville (Talk) 17:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Majorly (ha!). The coy attitude of "I've had a previous account, but I won't tell you what it is" is obnoxious and inspires no confidence in this editor's potential adminship. If you're making a clean start, don't brag in public places about your previous exploits. This is just needless drama. Skinwalker (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Too many recent usernames. WP's administrative side has too much unintelligible goofydrama as it is. Townlake (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Agree with much of the above. Learn from this, work hard, keep a clean nose, and come back next spring with work on GA/FA articles, and more experience in general, and I think you will have a much higher percentage of support. Sincere best wishes, Jusdafax 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Substantially more time needed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose Due to question 4, I don't know if I could trust you. You need to be honest all of the time. I agree with much of the above opposes, too.  Btilm  19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. per the above. Too many recent usernames and serious trust issues with Q4. Integrity and openness are key in a sysop's work. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment if "openness" is a qualification for adminship then Kat should have been given adminship the second that she posted this--Coldplay Expert 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm agreeing with Coldplay Expert here; Katerenka did reveal (as I understand) all the accounts she has previously used, she just didn't go through the renames that the accounts have had. The question was, after all, which accounts she's used, not what screen names she's edited under. And as for the numerous renames, I completely fail to see how that reflects at all on how Kat would use the tools. I cannot understand these opposes - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Question 4 did specifically ask for "user names". -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    So how can renameing your username be counted as another user? Like what Kingpin said the reasons that have been put forward for an oppose are not only ridiculous but have no substance on whether or not Kat can be trusted with the tools. Who cares if she renamed her account several times. What does that have to do with adminship?--Coldplay Expert 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Meh, mybad, I see you are correct, must have misread it, as a lot of people up there are writing "accounts", my apologies. I presume this is what Katerenka (and GTD made the same mistake) thought as well, as that seems to be what Katerrenka is addressing in her reply. However, I still don't think a small misunderstanding such as this is basis for an oppose. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    (@ Coldplay) When someone changes their username, they are not changing their personality. Judging someone on how they've behaved since they were renamed isn't a good way to decide if they'd be able to handle the admin tools. You'd want to judge them on how they behaved when they were User:X and how they behave now that they're User:Y. iMatthew ^talk at 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    @iMatthew. Well has there been any change in personality or behavior? No, Javert has/d the same personality that Kat does. (and it is a very good one) Now if Kat were not Javert then I would have to oppose but however she has given me sufficient reasoning to be Javert. remember WP:AGF.--Coldplay Expert 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Majorly. If you really wanted to run for adminship, I would've suggested that you wait a while longer, because of the fact that vanishing and reappearing seems to show that you lack stability, as well as judgement. I would be more comfortable with you requesting the tools at a later point in time, but currently, I do not trust you enough to grant you the tools. Razorflame 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Needs more experience and a longer record of stability before I can support. Nathan ^T 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose I find myself slightly ashamed to be in the same section as such tactless and insensitive people as have weighed in thus far. I do believe this user's explanation, and the facts have been verified by ArbCom; so in truth, many of the opposes here are invalid. To characterize this fine user as "schizophrenic" or dramamongering is rude and absolutely untrue, and quite needlessly hostile. Katerenka has shared personal details about her situation, including precisely why she has abandoned her previous account, and we are condemning her for it? So what if she's changed her name a few times? Now, that being said, I do believe that Katerenka is not yet qualified to be an admin at this time. I have checked the contributions of Javert, and notice that there is a heavy skew towards the user talk space. These consist mostly of warnings for CSDs and vandalism reversions, but what is left can mostly be categorized as socialization. Further, there are over a thousand edits to the namespace, but once the reports to AIV, UAA, the Huggle whitelist, and the clerking at CHU are all removed, that number becomes quite small. I do not mean to belittle Katerenka's contributions, but merely suggest that we have yet to truly "meet" this user, as there is not much in the way of examples of collaborative editing or participation in policy discussions. Indeed, she is having a "meet"ing problem of her own as she struggles with her identity. She is still in the middle of an extremely volatile period of her life, and I believe that the inherent stress that comes with the tools may not be good for her personal health. Katerenka, you are very obviously a helpful and exemplary editor who will one day be a fine addition to the admin corps, but I would ask you to branch out a little more and gain experience in other areas of the encyclopedia. I hope to see you back here in a few months. GlassCobra 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    I characterised her as "schizophrenic" as a jibe at her multiple WP Ids. It was therefore in quotes. Had I intended to suggest they were schizophrenic I would have omitted the quotes. That's English for you. Of course if they really are schizophrenic then I apologise for any offense my "joke" caused. Leaky Caldron 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well said Glass Cobra. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

18. The amount of switching between accounts and names makes me uncomfortable.  Sandstein  22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Per Closedmouth and Sandstein. Both the worries about inexperience and the whole account switching thing make me uncomfortable. Killiondude (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Per some of the above. miranda 03:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
21. per Trust issue.--Caspian blue 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - not at this time. GlassCobra has the goods on this one. Crafty (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per several above, too many issues, too much going on here.--Crossmr (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose No brainer. I can only judge on Katerenka and there is just completely insufficient evidence to judge one way or the other. The previous username was even less tham 6 months old. No way Jose. Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Needs time to really settle down. Gaining more experience and then coming back doesn't hurt here. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose As has been commented here, the user appears to be part of a group that treats Wikipedia as some kind of social networking or personal web host site. I'm concerned that if the focus isn't on the encyclopedia, it will instead be on non-encyclopedic interpersonal drama. Extra buttons to someone involved in those kind of activities is asking for trouble. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose I would've supported - probably even nominated you as Javert, but it's clear you are going through some trying times and don't need the added stress of having a contentious RfA passing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose - I very rarely cast an oppose vote, but admins need to be "dull and unexciting". Your dramatic past can be overcome by putting your head down and staying off the drama radar for 6+ months, at which point another RFA would be worthwhile. Manning (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose - Too little experience.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose - Too little experience (on both user names). No prejudice against future RfA's after you've gained more experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose (moved to neutral) - The answer to question 7 troubles me. As an administrator or even as an editor, good faith poor edits should be undone or corrected if possible when come upon. The edit summary should be adaquite to explain the reason why. Many pages are updated and read frequently and there is unfortunately not enough time to inform and wait for a responces in all cases. An editor can always be informed after the fact if warrented. I beleive your contributions have been favorable and a net positive; however, a little more time editing with this account should provide comfort towards a support in the future. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 09:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

31. Oppose for now. Experience somewhat on the low side, convoluted recent series of accounts and renames, unusual after-the-fact conominations, answers to questions that aren't necessarily bad but don't inspire confidence either. None of these is a dealbreaker, but together it suggests getting a few more months trajectory before considering for the mop again. Martinp (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose Lack of experience coupled with a MySpace approach to Wikipedia drives me to oppose. Astronominov 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
33. I don't believe you have enough experience for the role, sorry.  GARDEN  15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Strong Oppose Keepscases (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose - I don't have a problem with the username changes, Katarenka has been totally up-front about that, in fact even more transparent than she should be in my opinion (giving out personal info). But the experience issues that GlassCobra brought up are troubling. Consider this a suggestion to retry again in the future after more contributions. -- Atama頭 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose. The fact that 40% of this account's contributions - and 58% of the previous account's contributions -are to user talk pages bothers me quite a bit. You need to demonstrate a much greater knowledge of mainspace than has been shown so far. You also need to better demonstrate how you've dealt with conflict with other Wikipedia users, and how you can collaborate with others. Take 6 months or more to build these skills and then come back. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose – While I do sympathize with the users who do support you, a few things raise red flags in my view. First, the rapid username changes which I think have already been driven into the ground by the other opposers above. Second, I'm not seeing much in mainspace work (unless I'm missing something), also noted above in the percent-wise contributions across namespaces and after a quick spot-check in your user contribs. Try to build some experience by working on making good articles and improving those that are not so good. This will give valuable experience in how the wiki-process works, which will allow you to more competently handle disputes that admins normally deal with. MuZemike 23:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose. More experience needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose. I don't believe that this and other immediately seen accounts of this person (by the way, not disclosed here, hence questionable integrity) are the only ones. user:Javert's first several hundreds (or may be thousands; I didn't bother to look at all) are reverts. I find it difficult to believe that this is a pattern for a new wikipedian. Even if it is not a doppelganger of someone else, but a really new one, I don't believe that admin powers must be entrusted to a person whose primary purpose is not creating content, but rather policing others. Judging from recent screams in media, wikipedia is in dire need of quality content growth, not in more peace officers. - Altenmann >t 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    As I understand it, the tools are meant for "behind the scenes" work, involving tasks such as reverting and blocking users. They should, IMO, have very little to do with content. Also, ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds specifically stated when they first joined that they had been "watching" Wikipedia for a long time before registering. It's unreasonably to except Katerenka to release the IP address she used before creating an account. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    How much disclosure is enough? One person demands personal disclosure. Another person scolds for disclosing. Both result in Oppose votes being cast. Now the need for her IP address with a second round of implications of being a sock! At what point did we do away with WP:CIVIL? Sadly, this is reading more and more like McCarthyism.delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 06:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    I mentioned the same thing on my long comment at the top of the page. what ever happened to WP:CIVL and WP:AGF? these are two of the most important rules of the encyclopedia. Without these rules, wikipedia would not function the way it does and would eventually collapse.--Coldplay Expert 17:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

40. Oppose Per Majorly. Sorry. America69 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose I have been conflicted, weighing the good contributions of the user (under various accounts) against the relative inexperience and the events surrounding the changing account identity. However I am pushed to oppose by the fact that the user has not edited for the last 5 days while this RFA has been open, and has not even responded to several RFA questions. I realize that there may be various real-life circumstances justifying this absence, but this suggests to me that adminship (with its associated pressure and responsibilities) is not a good fit for Katerenka at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose per GlassCobra, but moral support. Hope you are seen back in some months with more experience in other areas and not so much userspace edits 龗 (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose per answer to my second question. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm so confused. iMatthew ^talk at 13:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Me too. I may join you, i'm in between neutral and support on this one. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Slightly too low on experience for me. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
3. per iMatthew. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Per iMatthew--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (move to support) I would have supported Javert, no question and I think Katerenka has shown a great level of clue in her short time here but as long as I have no proof that she was Javert, call me paranoid but I cannot support this request with a good conscience. If such proof is brought forward, for example an edit as "Javert" confirming it, I might reconsider my !vote though and I think a number of people who are "confused" or fence-sitting at the moment might take such a proof into account as well. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   I already contacted Katerenka asking for such an edit :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   An edit to be done from the Javert account to prove association would violate the ArbComm member's statemet here that they are satisfied so long as no further editing from that account occurs. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   I doubt that they meant such an edit, otherwise they would have blocked the account. A single edit to confirm the account's identity is imho not a violation of these provisions since its only purpose is to confirm the other account, not to make any contributions whatsoever. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   IMHO ArbComm was simple and clear, but assuming ONE edit for this purpose wouldn't be viewed as a violation i am thinking you are looking for Javert to create a confirmed identity page and then (publicly?) disclose the string. This is where my ignorance in the matter arises. Can that be done with the user page fully protected? That question brings me back to my thoughts - is not the granting of the protection of User:Javert as requested by Katerenka and approved by User:Wizardman [3] not proof of the association in and of itself? delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   SoWhy, are you supporting or neutral? - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   How many edits are there, is it possible to look at this users contributions? Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Indented because this is more of a question and the user later !voted below (also neutral)  7  06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

   See this page's talk for the contributions. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   There are nearly 15000 edits but review specifics from here. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Per iMatthew. When I'm confused at RfA, I find it best to be a neutral here. If I haven't got certainty to warrant a support, it's not worth the risk. Sorry. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral - looks like some good contributions, however, possible/likely alternate accounts keep coming in, as GTD pointed out, which makes me quite wary. While changing as username is perfectly acceptable (I myself usurped this name) the frequent changes over a relatively short period of time strikes me as problematic. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't pass in the future, though. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning Support, the account renaming and the reasons behind it don't bother me, but I'd like to see some more actual contributions to the encyclopaedia itself before taking the plunge and supporting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

   I found things like this and that met my requirements for actual contributions. But I would agree that the nominator and candidate should have made more of them given more detail about the candidates contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

   If this were my RfA then i could understand why you are commenting on my contributions. I've been around for over 3 years now but as i stated in my nomination i am a reader of the project more than anything else. That includes reading policy and previous RfAs. For two years i contributed anonymously from whatever unsecured wifi connexion i could get. If i had any interest in becoming an admin it's good to know i don't have your vote, but this is not my RfA. I really did read about 80% of all of Katerenka's contributions from all of her accounts before i co-nominated her. It is true i can't read the any of the deleted contributions as i am not an admin. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 05:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Crossed wires I fear. I haven't looked at your contributions other than this nomination and am not disputing your right to nominate a candidate. I'm merely pointing out that neither you nor the candidate have given as much detail of the candidates contributions as you could have done. To avoid any ambiguity I've struck and rephrased that sentence ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Moved to Neutral. I want to see Katerenka become an administrator, but I think too many concerns have been given to justify a supporting vote at this time. I hope Katerenka comes back in a few months so I can offer a support vote then. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Not enough experience yet, I think, but I don't think opposing would be good. I disagree with many of the "reasons" given by opposers. If you come back in a few months after having done a broad spectrum of work across the mainspace and such, I would likely support at that time. Too much confusion, though, to support at this time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral (move from oppose) AGF that Katerenka she did not fully understood question 7. Also, 'poor' as a very general subjective term that could encompase a large variety of edits. Found edits in the user's contributions that show user has indeed undid edits that needed addressed with appropriate edit summaries. User has showed sound judgement, knowledgement of rules, and the ability to inact them with DYK. Would ask you to expand on how you would deal with non-vandalism edits not meeting wikipedia's five pillars to the main space in general to Question 7. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 11:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral In my interactions with her, I've alwayas found Katerenka helpful, friendly, and enthusiastic about the project. But unfortunately, a few of the oppose votes raise legitimate concerns (but certainly not all of the oppose votes! don't take them to heart), especially GlassCobra and Karanacs. I would probably support 3ish months from now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral, both supporters and opposers raise good points. LovesMacs (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Per iMatthew. Also, I'm shocked at the tone of some of the opposes, which leave me with a dark cloud hanging over my head. I've interacted with Katerenka at least once before under her Javert account and she was helpful and friendly as well as knowledgeable. Although I am nowhere close to opposing, I do not think Katerenka is ready for the role of adminship due to the many legitimate concerns raised by some of the opposers (especially GlassCobra) as well as the neutral voters. Given time, say, three or four months, I think you'll make a great administrator, Katerenka. Best of luck, Airplaneman ^talk 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Katerenka might make a good admin, but honestly, I don't know yet. I think that several months of stable, productive contribution including mainspace and demonstration of understanding of policy, would be sufficient to allay most concerns--hope to see you again. Shanata (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
15. avoiding pile-on. Give it some more time and more contributions demonstrating policy knowledge and stability, and I will support. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Neutral. I don't think that shortly after posting that one is going through an incredibly tough time in her life is the best time to be taking on being an admin. You are quite likely to face situations where angry users can be abusive. Come back in a few months when you feel more settled with how the rest of your life is going.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Neutral. I like this editor, and I like her edits. Carry on editing the way you are going and there will be a lot more support in a few months. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Neutral until my questions are answered. Was inclined to oppose due to not answering my questions, especially since the candidate hasn't edited on the RFA in 5 days (unusual?), but feel that wouldn't have been a fair oppose, but I cannot support. ArcAngel (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent the candidate isn't inclined to answer any more quetions, so I struck part of my comment above. However, it's also apparent the RFA won't pass, so my !vote will stay as is. ArcAngel (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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.