Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KyraVixen

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


KyraVixen[edit]

Final (41/17/4); Ended 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

KyraVixen (talk · contribs) - Kyra, who's first edit was in March of 2006, has come a long way in her editing career. Dropping into hibernation for about four months, she resurfaced in September of 2006, and has since shown a great skill for reverting vandalism, as well as contributing other small, though beneficial changes when she can. She seems to be one to always keep her cool, as she has not lashed out at any editor for any disagreements, especially when she occasionally becomes the victim of personal attacks during her routine recent changes patrols. Despite the lack of a large amount of Wikipedia space edits, she appears to have a firm grasp of both policy and guidelines alike. She is also not afraid to admit her mistakes, and will readily clean up after herself when needed. Always willing to assist editors with questions that they might have, as well as having a rather level head upon her shoulders, she appears to be a fine candidate to bestow the mop and bucket upon. Kyra~(talk) 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I hereby accept this nomination Kyra~(talk) 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I do operate a bot, VixDaemon. Referencing the text above, I did indeed slip up once, and I quickly discovered the error I made and fixed it. Since that error occured, I have gotten into the habit of testing the changes I am going to make before hand in a sandbox so that no errors occur when I do decide to run the bot.


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 participants:

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'd be more than happy and willing to assist in keeping the speedy deletion backlog clear, as more often than not there are a ton of pages in there, as well as with the proposed deletion category. The administrative intervention against vandalism noticeboard is another area that I'd be most willing to assist in, as well assisting to keep the often massive backlog of images with no fair use rationale and an unknown source under control. Requests for unblock and requests for page protection are two other areas that I would enjoy working in, as well as generally helping to clear any administrative backlogs that might arise. Additionally, while not specific to the English Wikipedia, I'd be quite willing to help with the OTRS queue on Meta.
Regardless of what process I'd occupy myself with in addition to my normal editing work, I'd use the tools with restraint and respect, as the mop and bucket are not to be taken lightly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am not really proud of any contribution in particular, as each edit made to the project helps to improve it, however small it may be. However, by the same token, I am proud of all of them. If I had to choose however, I'd say running into a few persistent linkspammers and reverting all the pages that they added their links to; even though I had to sift through over 50+ pages, I still kept my cool and eventually reported them to AIV when they did not heed the final warning; even so, it's nothing huge in my eyes, I simply enjoy keeping the project free of vandalism and spam.
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: The only conflict I can recall was over one editor persistently trying to include information within the Alpental article that was not allowed under the policy of what Wikipedia is not. I assumed good faith on the part of the editor and I explained, rather calmly, to the editor three times that the information they were including did not comply with WP:NOT. In the end, the editor in question was blocked for two days, while a different editor eventually came along and picked up with reverting to the non-compliant version; that editor was blocked for a 3RR violation.
As for stress, I cannot say that I have been terribly worked up by anything that has happened during my time here, even when personal attacks were made against me by anonymous editors who took offense by my reverting of their vandalistic edits during a few of my patrols of the recent changes. However if I do encounter a situation that did cause me stress (which I certainly hope does not happen), I would immediately walk away from the computer to calm down, and not even think of using any of the administrative rights to resolve the dispute, only returning when my proverbial 'jets' have cooled off. Conflicts between editors are best solved with calm, rational thinking, and making compromises and forming consensus, the administrative side doesn't even come into play for me. Besides, working in a stressed state is not conducive to the optimal editing environment anyway.

Optional question from Eli Falk

4. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
A:


General comments
  • See KyraVixen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I would ask the closing bureaucrat to consider that several of the oppose reasons in this RfA have been strongly contested (though not in reference to this specific nomination) on WT:RFA. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that the closing bureaucrat would take this into account, but I was just browsing the site and noticed that there have been edits to the page since the scheduled close time of 0240 UTC. The last revision before the close time passed was this one, at 0109 UTC. Just thought I should point this out. 72.196.192.45 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Cliche #1 Support - I thought you already were an admin? --BigDT 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Screwing User:Titoxd/RfA standards for a while, Kyra always asks about things that she is unsure about. That is probably the *most* critical factor that makes a candidate suitable for adminship: "Do I decide to ram through something, or do I check first and observe how to do it right?" All my interactions with her have been excellent. No reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Super duper Phage support!. ViridaeTalk 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Opposing for self-noms is harmful. So it's unconventional. That doesn't mean it's bad. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that anyone has opposed her candidacy solely (or even partly) for her self-nomination gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Your self-nom sounded a lot like a user nomination. bibliomaniac15 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support changed from neutral per discussion. John Reaves (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Anas Talk? 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, except for the nom, everything is OK. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Appears to have a good grasp of the project and is ready for greater responsibility. No problem with the nom, it's apparent from the sig that it's a self-nom and does not diminish or take away from her qualifications. Agent 86 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Longtime and prolific vandal fighter. Dragomiloff 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support While I understand the opposers concern about a lack of direct article content, Kyra's edits indicate a good understanding of policy, a substantial commitment to the project, and the patience and reserve to use the admin tools appropriately. JoshuaZ 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak support Good vandal revert/warn behavior, but pretty rare that you actually report them to WP:AIV. —Dgiest c 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You already voted above, at #7. --ais523 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Terence Ong 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support We always need a vandal fighting admin --St.daniel 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support looks alright, good policy experience.-- danntm T C 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Solid contributor. Trust she'd use the tools well. Shimeru 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Hemmingsen 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Despite the psychologically and stylistically odd first person perspective of the self-nom statement, seems to have good grasp of policy. Favourably impressed am I. PigmanTalk to me 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Three Reasons: Vandal Fighter, Strong Contributor, and really original name ;^)! §†SupaSoldier†§ 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Definitely support. I am happy especially about her vandalism reverting edits. This is important. --Meno25 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support..Been here a long time and over 4000 Edits..why not..--Cometstyles 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, because I believe you really have come a long way. Of course, I could be mistaken c.c — CharlotteWebb 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Good candidate, the nom statement is fine by me. PeaceNT 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Why The Hell Not? Ral315 also finds the objections with her third-person self-nom absurd; he found it humorous, and he thinks given that she signed the nom as herself, that it was an obvious joke. Ral315 » 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you see the joke in the nomination? I found no humor and no obvious evidence that the no was a joke. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dry humor - either you get it or you don't. Ral315 » 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support have seen many positive contributions from this user. I would like to see more Wikitalk edits, but then as Shimeru suggested below, she may just prefer to communicate through Usertalk. Either way, ahe's not getting an oppose from me. James086Talk 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, opposition raises 0 meaningful concerns, edit history looks solid. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support- Would make a good admin, with all her vandalism reverts. Personally, I don't see much wrong about her nom statement. Is there a law against making a nom comment sound third person? I highly doubt it. It wasn't meant to deceive anyone, more like a harmless joke. And before someone points out that admins can't make "jokes", see this. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Will put sysop tools to good use, methinks.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I've no problems with the nom, and the candidate looks good. Slight concerns over inexperience in certain areas, but she sounds level-headed enough not to jump into anything controversial. Trebor 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. The faux-third-person nom wasn't the best move, but there was no attempt at deception since she properly signed the self-nom. I've seen her around and am convinced she'll be an active and effective admin. Let's put her to work! Raymond Arritt 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support John254 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Michael 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Trebor. Concerns about a lack of well-roundedness (my spelling checker thinks this really is a word) are fair enough, but the experience KyraVixen has seems to be quite enough to start mopping with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Suppport. I recently did a detailed editor review of this user, so I'm quite familiar with her work. I was largely very impressed by her friendliness and helpfulness with new users and by her other good work on the project, especially with her willingness to take a lot of time to help show new users around. I did have one concern, which I asked her about and which she addressed quite well on my talk page. I'm convinced this user will make a fine admin. I also think that when contributing to RfA discussions, we should take time to look thoroughly at the contributor's work, looking beyond just the nomination itself or edit count. If she was trying to be deceptive in this nom, it's likely that she would have showed that behavior elsewhere, too. I found no evidence of that. delldot talk 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, although not very active but possesses a good bot. Appleworm 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, obviously. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination - she signed it clearly, so there was no attempt at deception. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per the fairly accuate third person self-nom as well as DelldotJoshuaZ 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate support vote, see 12 Jaranda wat's sup 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support It's patent absurdity to oppose on the grounds of insufficient image space edits or the writing of a slick self-nom. We need admins to help maintain the encyclopedia, not upload images and not write articles. Please. alphachimp 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak support (edit conflicted one too). It's hard to overlook the lack of general experience, but adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, which is really what saves you from a neutral vote in my case.--Wizardman 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support (changed from neutral). My concerns noted in my neutral vote below still hold, but I'm changing to support simply to counter some of the ridiculous oppose reasons. The nominee's calm demeanor and reasoned responses on this RfA are enough to convince me that any issues with inexperience will soon be overcome without breaking anything. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the nominating statement. Many people in such instances use third-person when describing themselves and nothing negative should be read into that. —Doug Bell talk 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support My thinking here evolved not dissimilarly from that of Doug Bell, and, per, inter al., JoshuaZ and Delldot, I think it rather clear that the candidate is possessed of good judgment and a cordial demeanor and is relatively conversant with policy, such that I think it reasonable to conclude that the net effect on the project of KV's becoming a sysop should be positive. I should note that, as Dekimasu, I was a bit troubled by the several grammatical errors present in the self-nom; the presence of such errors, though, should militate against a candidacy only where it evidences an infirmity likely to impair a candidate's ability to communicate and collaborate with other users on .en or to understand and apply policy, and neither case presents itself here. Joe 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Garion96 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose Lack of significant article contributions in the way of adding content is a bit disconcerting, as I'd like to see the candidate exhibit a bit more well-roundedness (if that's even a word). gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Gaillimh. Also, I would like to know about your personal policy against copyright images. According to your log, you have uploaded fewer than five ten images. Currently, there is a backlog of images which need to be deleted by admins. An admin needs to know which copyright certain images fall into before deletion. Also, what about WP:BIO? What about WP:AFD? Real96 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:3RR? What about FA/GA/Stub? What about WP:NOR? Real96 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does every admin need to know everything? For example, I probably have zero career edits to WP:AN3 and anything having to do with featured articles. Plenty of admins know nothing about our image use policy and as long as they don't show up at IFD and start closing things based on head counts instead of policy that's not a problem. Not every admin works in every area of Wikipedia. --BigDT 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, images must be attributed to the source if they are to be included in the first place. Of course free use (Creative Commons, Public Domain, GFDL and the like) are preferred over fair use images. If fair use images must be used, they must be low resolution, and only be used in article space to comply with the fair use criteria. Images lacking a fair use rationale, per Wikipedia's fair use criteria, all images must have a fair use criteria if they are uploaded after May 4 2006, or they are able to be deleted under criterion I6 after being tagged for a week with {{nrd}}. However, an exception to this is that images uploaded before July 13 2006 may not be deleted without notifying uploader and waiting a week for the editor to provide the fair use claim, and after such time is deletable under I7.
    Images with no source; without the source, it is unknown if the image is copyrighted, as we are not sure who the actual source of the image is, as such creating an ambiguous copyright status. If the source is not provided within seven days, these types of images are deletable under criterion I4.
    Notability of people; of course, the article must first and foremost satisfy the primary notability criterion. Also, notability is defined as "worthy of being noted", or "attracting notice", not "fame" or "importance". WP:BIO essentially adds some special cases, certain types of people as outlined in the criteria more than likely have verifiable information out there, as well as having a good deal of public interest, however they are not catch-alls or an absolute indicator of notability, as each article within the encyclopedia must stand on its own merits.
    The Articles for Deletion process is where the community decides what to do with problematic articles that have either been prod'ed before (and they cannot be prodded twice), or those that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If there is not enough (under a certain amount of !votes) consensus on what to do, the article is relisted so that an accurate consensus can be developed. Keeping and deletions are based on consensus and discussion, not arguments such as liking the article or disliking the article. If there is no consensus, the decision defaults to keep.
    The three revert rule - No editor may make a fourth revert to a single article within the span of a 24 hour period. This prevents edit warring. Additionally, this does not only apply to complete reversions, but also partial reversions, or any edits intended to restore the article to the same revision. Also consistently reverting three times a day can be blocked as gaming the system. Initially, a 24 hour block is given for the first offense and then it goes up from there.
    FA/GA/Stub... not quite administrative tasks; however, in a nutshell, a Featured Article is what the community considers to be the best articles in Wikipedia, Good Articles are those that are, well, good, but unlikely to reach FA status, and a stub is a very short article with useful information, and that can blossom into an article with nurturing and care.
    Attribution now combines both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It is also one of Wikipedia's core content policies, the other one being WP:NPOV. Essentially, all material included within Wikipedia must have a source as, as WP:V said before it was marked as historical (however it still carries through to the combined policy), "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Now, if you are asking solely about WP:NOR, the material cannot be attributed to a reliable source, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
    I believe that is all you requested. However, please know that if I was at all in doubt about something, I would ask before doing the action in question. I am not afraid to ask for assistance, as I believe that nothing is worse than charging into a situation headlong without knowing what you are doing. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire conversation is ridiculous. The notion that since we need more admins to do one type of work we should oppose candidates not interested in that area has no basis in logic at all. JoshuaZ 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Wow, what a glowing self-nom. While according to her she is totally great in every way anyone who self-noms with only 5 (yes f-i-v-e) project talkspace edits and such a sketchy contribution history (in usage not quality) is a no-go in my book. Very little process work or discussion and with only 45 user talk edits she is also lacking in interaction with other editors, another required admin quality. Also, lambast me all you want but anyone that thinks they are a fox I wouldn't give the keys to a kennel so much as wikipedia. NeoFreak 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's 1595 user talk edits, actually. 45 article talk edits, though. Not sure that's a reason to oppose, really; all it shows is that she prefers user talk to communicate, over article talk. Shimeru 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I'm sorry to do this, but I must. When I read the nomination I thought someone was nominating her. Now I realise that she wrote it in third person narrative in order to intentionally mislead me. This is rather akin to what a politician or a multi-national corporation might do. While it's fair game to mislead people in political/commercial environments, I'm not in a mood to tolerate it here. - Richardcavell 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    How about we assume good faith an accept it was probobly a joke... ViridaeTalk 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because beinig an admin is a joke right? NeoFreak 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, NeoFreak, I don't think it's fair to say that if someone makes jokes in their RfA that they consider adminship a joke, not that you are necessarily saying this. delldot talk 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, yes it does and yes I am. NeoFreak 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While your opinion is your own, and as such, valid, I would like to say I did not write my nomination in the third person in order to mislead anyone. Misleading people is something I don't like doing. Kyra~(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Inexperience in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Little participation in Talk or Wikipedia; most recent edits are mechanical. Levelheadedness and trustworthiness is gauged by looking at interactions with other users, but there is none of that to see here. —Centrx→talk • 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry, oppose. Has only really been active for two months, and has only five project talkspace edits. The self-recommendation is not a reason for my oppose, but it does bother me, as do the grammar errors within it. Dekimasuよ! 12:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Gaillimh and Xoloz - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for Wikipedia edits and especially talk page inexperience. Seems like a wonderful contributor, but not quite ready. --Dweller 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I acknowledge the value of the editor's contributions; however, I see Wikipedia as a largely collaborative effort where an in-depth knowledge of the discursive practices of the community is necessary to succeed as an administrator. The candidate has spent a lot of time in "tasks" but not so much time in writing and collaborating. I think that creates a deficit in the category of understanding the community. --Mus Musculus 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Experience too narrow for now Johnbod 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Very little Talk: interaction, and really has only edited for a brief period, not long enough to feel confident she has a good feel for policy and the community. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is 1500 user talk edits very little talk interaction? As someone else has pointed out the limited edits to article talk pages probably means she prefers to use user talk pages. I know I do, you get a quicker response. ViridaeTalk 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of KyraVixen's user talk edits appear to be vandalism warnings and the like, often on the Talk: pages of IP addresses. That's hardly the kind of interaction that indicates experience in how to work with the community to build articles. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose. I have no quarrel with the third person nom statement. I believe this user is committed to fighting vandalism. However, two things give me pause here. First, the answer to Q2; the general lack of article writing already noted by others. Alone, that wouldn't be enough for me to oppose, however. Second, the user really only began editing about six months ago. During that six month period, the user edited a moderate amount for four months, and has had a burst of editing activity over the last two. The lack of article writing combined with the relatively short period of intense editing tells me that the user might lack the true commitment to the encyclopedia that administrators need to have. I'm not saying the user does not have this commitment, there's just not sufficient available evidence of such imo. I suggest trying again in a few months if this doesn't pass; I would support at that time if at least moderate editing continues and barring any unforeseen problems. Oh, and please, try creating an article, you might like it! · j e r s y k o talk · 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose Not enough article experience. I'll be happy to support in the near future if KyraVixen contributes more to article writing. Dionyseus 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, needs to write more articles, should do more article writing since WP is an encyclopedia. Should socialise more on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I applaud your anti-vandalism efforts, but you've never written a single article? Not even so much as a stub? This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Kafziel Talk 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I would like to see a bit more experience please. Would likely support next time if the above concerns are addressed. --After Midnight 0001 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I want to vote support, but the nomination worries me. It is a self-nomination that reads like a nomination made by an ardent supporter. It uses the third person and gives great praise to KyraVixen. Since that was in a self-nom, I consider it to be advertising and for now will avoid voting support. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not intend for the text of my self-nomination to be construed as an advertisement; I would have said the same things about myself albeit in the first person with only minor variations to the text to make it read fluently if I had done so. I was merely attempting to highlight my activities here; I was not attempting to cast myself in a light that is not my own. I just wanted to try and keep out all the 'I's for some odd reason. Either way, I do respect your opinion, I just thought I should let my reason for writing in the tense that I did be known. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Shouldn't the bot name contain "bot'? Although the third-person nom bothers me, it's not enough for an oppose. John Reaves (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a daemon is a background process, and is also listed under the username policy as implying a bot account; that, coupled with there being no policy that I can locate that designates that 'Bot' must be used along with bot accounts, is why I decided to use 'daemon' instead of 'bot'. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOT states "Usernames for new bots should incorporate the word "bot" so that editors realize they are dealing with an automaton" but thanks for clairifying (I'm not very techno-literate). A misnamed bot really isn't enough reason for an oppose, so I'm changing to "support". John Reaves (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The self-nomination is written like another user has nominated you, this worries me a little of your intentions, the posting to article talk pages is a little low but that could be overlooked and yes you mentioned in your nomination that your wikipedia talk edits are lacking, well I agree - there is only 5? I think maybe you should work on that and your article talk pages, and maybe slightly inrease your overall edit count, even though it quite good! Good luck.Tellyaddict 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I have to agree with the above points. I don't like the third-person self-nom. It worries me. Will you misrepresent yourself in other ways, too? Coupled with the four-month hibernation, I have to vote neutral. Come back in a few months and I'll be happy to support. ♠PMC♠ 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not misrepresent myself in other ways, nor was it my intention for my self-nomination to come off as misrepresentation in the first place. Kyra~(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't be neutral just because someone took a WikiBreak. That's getting a bit picky if you ask me. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I read over the oppose voters' concerns and didn't see anything major. However, I would prefer to support candidates who have done more article-writing (it doesn't have to be featured articles, as some say) and who have participated more on Talk pages. I think Kyra's a good candidate, but I would like to see a wider variety of participation. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I really like the response to the oppose by real69. On balance, I think will probably make a good admin, but the low participation in project space keeps me from supporting at this time. —Doug Bell talk 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to support. —Doug Bell talk 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  1. Have you ever created an article? --– Dakota 06:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, no, I have not created an article yet. I might in the future if I discover a topic that Wikipedia is lacking an article on that interests me, making sure any article that I submit complies with policies and guidelines, of course. I have no qualms about editing current articles to improve them, but actual creation is not something that has particularly interested me up to this point, but as I said, I am not adverse to creating them if I see a gap that needs filling. Kyra~(talk) 06:32, 5 March 2007 (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/KyraVixen&oldid=1207763618"