Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valfontis

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

Valfontis

Final (63/1/0); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 21:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Valfontis (talk · contribs) – It's about time to make Valfontis—a prolific Wikipedia editor—an administrator, don't you think? 58,000+ edits and almost 5 years of dedicated activity should satisfy even the most discriminating editcountophile. Valfontis is quite busy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, has done good work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and is plenty familiar with AfD and reporting vandals to AIV. Valfontis has also wielded a fine-pointed copy editing pen to help promote five articles to GA status, and a FA, Oregon State Capitol. See for yourself the range of Valfontis's quality work...this site could benefit from giving an editor of her experience and leadership a few extra tools. Her clean blocklog, recognition from other editors, and collegial demeanor should seal this no-brainer. — Scientizzle 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination from Pete (talk) I am very pleased to second the nomination of Valfontis, who is one of the most prolific editors, and possesses some of the best judgment, of anyone I've encountered in my two five years of active editing.

• At WikiProject Oregon, Valfontis has played a leading role in welcoming newcomers, and in helping them understand the lay of the land.
• Valfontis monitors numerous articles, and is quick to revert or discuss problematic edits, acknowledge good edits, and make the best of marginal ones. This consistently results in better articles, and newcomers who feel emboldened to step up their contributions.
• Because of her diligence in engaging with new contributors, Valfontis sometimes encounters people who are very adamant or defensive about their efforts to do things that are not in line with policy. When things heat up, Valfontis avoids contributing to the escalation, and doesn't hesitate to seek the input of trusted colleagues.

Valfontis is among the best we've got, and can be trusted to wield the mop with the humility and discretion appropriate to the task. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, thank you both very much for nominating me!

In the interests of full disclosure, I previously edited under the username Katr67 and most of my edits were originally made under that name. I changed it for privacy and personal safety reasons, thanks for understanding.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:

At first, I intend to do the kind of day-to-day administrative tasks that come up in the normal course of editing. As a content creator, for example, I often find the need to move pages to create disambiguations, but some page moves need admin rights; although it's no big deal to tag a page and wait for an admin to fix it, or ask an admin who I know is online, I could be much more efficient if I could do the moves myself.

I also monitor the various watchlists set up by WikiProject Oregon, such as this one that contains every article tagged with the project tag (over 10,000 at last count!). Naturally, many of the articles are vandalized on a regular basis, especially those that seem to coincide with a school's unit on "The American West", such as Oregon Trail, Lewis and Clark Expedition, Sacagawea, etc. These pages are often semi-protected for weeks at a time. It would be an asset to the Wikipedia project if I could help block these student vandals and monitor the protection levels of various pages, including lowering protection levels when it's clear the page is no longer in need of protection.

Other issues I encounter for which the ability to block would be helpful are gross BLP violations, vandalism-only accounts, high-volume spammers, and certain long-term vandals/sockpuppets familiar to WP:ORE (who thankfully seem to have stopped for a while now). Cut and paste moves and the attendant history merges are also something that comes up regularly.

I'd also like to repay my debt to AIV and for my requests for speedies, edits to protected pages, and page moves, by helping out with straightforward blocks, deletions, edits, and moves in the backlog. As I develop greater familiarity with the tools and their usage guidelines, I'd take on admin tasks that are more complex.

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

A:

Overall, content creation is my best contribution, with copy editing (including "building the web") a close second. Although many of the articles I start begin as stubs, I make an effort to consistently make those stubs high quality, fully researched, properly formatted and completely cited. In addition, because of my familiarity with all things Oregon-related, I'm able to see when wikilinks to existing articles should be added to others' contributions, or when others' contributions that may appear non-notable (for good reason!) can actually be fleshed out into a fully sourced article. Several articles I've created were actually rescues of good faith attempts at writing about some place in Oregon that at first glance looked like (or was!) nonsense or non-notability. I do write longer articles, such as Christmas flood of 1964, which was a major event in Oregon history that I was surprised to see had no article—I'd like to think I’m helping reverse the bias toward recentism in the overall project. I'm quite proud that I've help raise the general quality of Oregon-related articles to a high standard. And to give a non-Oregon example, Frank W. Lewis is an article I started that is essentially unchanged and shows the standard at which I currently write. In fact, none of the articles I've created have been deleted, and only a few have been merged.

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:

With the amount of time and edits I've put in, it's inevitable that I'd be involved in a few conflicts. Some early ones involved new editors who did not appreciate my edits to “their” articles, such as edits aimed at removing POV or even cleaning up grammar. Early on I've learned that some people interpret just about any suggestion, no matter how personally and nicely worded as being bitey. In these cases, I would ask a trusted colleague or two how they would have handled things, because I want to identify and learn how to avoid doing things that elicit negative reactions. Most of the time it turns out I handled things just fine, I just had to learn how not to get stressed about it. After offering suggestions and encouraging second, third, fourth opinions, I just walk away, especially when I cannot see a clear path to resolving an issue with that editor.

Other conflicts have mostly involved editors with a clear conflict of interest and an interest in self-promotion. I have learned, that as passionate as I am about the project, and protecting it from being used for advertising, nothing about it is so important that I can't step back from a conflict, take some time to think it over, and offer a measured response that aims to de-escalate the situation rather than inflame it.

Additional question from Doh5678

4. An IP is vandalizing a page frequently. You notice it, revert the vandalism, block him/her. Next day a different IP vandalizes the same page in the same way as the first one. You revert it and give him/her a block. Over the next 5 days, different IPs vandalize the same page in the same way as the first two. What would you do?

A:

Yes, this happens all the time. Note that before blocking an IP I'd make sure it had been properly warned with the full series of four warnings before blocking, depending on its past history of vandalism. Sometimes it only takes two or three warnings before a vandal stops on his/her own. I think it's important to remember that this is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I think it depends on the frequency and the source of the vandalism. On an article like Chaba River (Canada), there was (likely) a single vandal using a dynamic Comcast IP, but s/he was only vandalizing every few days, in spurts over three years. Blocking the IPs slowed the vandal down a bit until s/he got a new IP. The vandalism was infrequent enough that those of us watching the page could keep up with the reverts, however it was concluded that semi-protection would be the best move, since no other edits were being made but vandalism and reverts.

Now, what happens more frequently is on an article like Sacagawea, which, as I mentioned above, gets vandalized all the time when school is in session. Of course, the vandalism wouldn't be the next day, it would be in the next minute. So this is at the other extreme from the Chaba River example--one IP [person] over years, vs. several IPs [people] over minutes. In this extreme case, I would temporarily semi-protect the article immediately for a short amount of time. In the meantime, I also routinely check an IP's other edits for other vandalism, revert other vandalism if necessary, issue warnings as needed, and, not being an admin, report the vandal(s) at AIV when appropriate, and check the WhoIs, and if it is a school IP, I use {{SharedIPEDU}} as well.

Since your hypothetical example is in the middle ground, I can't say for sure what I would do. Does it appear to be one vandal using a dynamic IP? Or several vandals using a range of IPs, such as from a school? Of course I would warn, tag, and block as needed. What I would do with the page as far as protection would depend on how well I could keep up with the vandalism. If it is a few edits every day for several days, I imagine the vandal would get bored and go away after a while. That's what usually happens. So there wouldn't be a need for any level of protection. And I needn't do this on my own. I often give a heads up in the appropriate venue (friends' talk pages, WP:ORE, or even WP:ANI) for others to help keep an eye on the page as needed. I don't think it's good for a new admin (or anyone for that matter) to work in isolation.

Additional question from Beeblebrox

5. First off let me say that no matter what happens here you are obviously a great content editor and a valuable asset to this project. However, I am not seeing an awful lot of experience in administrative areas, and you recently had a period of ten months or so of almost complete inactivity. Could you elaborate on these issues please?

A:

Thank you.

As far as my work in administrative areas, it's true that I don't spend much time at noticeboards, patrolling, and the like. But I think I have become quite familiar with the type of work administrators do, such as page protection, page deletion, restoration and moves, hiding and deleting page revisions, and blocking of other editors, etc., in my 5 years here, through my day-to-work in content areas, my watchlist watching, as well as my work with colleagues who are admins. I know often people like to see a familiarity with AIV in an admin candidate. I was thinking about why I make fewer reports at AIV these days. I believe the primary reason is that I am no longer doing much editing from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Pacific) for work-related reasons, which is the time that schoolkid vandals are most active. And, I think it's entirely possible that the tide has turned, and with all of our tools, bots and vigilance, there is actually less vandalism on the articles I watch than there used to be. I hope that's the case. Another thing people like to see is participation in XFD discussions. Here are some recent ones I participated in or initiated: 1, 2, 3, 4. Also, here is an SPI I started: 1. Here is an ANI report in which I participated: 1 (my contribs are under my old username). And I believe a look at my deleted contribs will reveal a familiarity with the criteria for article deletion.

The wikibreak was for several reasons. One, the project stopped being fun. I was taking things far too seriously, tempted to be far to "owny" on "my" articles, and I was grouchy more often than contributing happily. I definitely needed some R&R (both senses), especially when you see how high my monthly edit counts were before my break. Couple that with some stuff going on in my personal life, the above-mentioned work reasons, and as the wiki-addicted probably know, the importance of remembering such real life concepts as: friends and family, eating proper meals, keeping the house clean and going outside. ::smile:: I found other things to do besides work on Wikipedia, and it was very good for me. I've returned refreshed and with an improved perspective, once again focusing on the area I love--writing articles about Oregon history, and not spreading myself too thin by getting involved in every single Oregon-related thing that comes along. Though I anticipate my contributions will decrease again in the summer (experiencing Oregon and not just writing about it), it's doubtful I will need to take a complete break again.

Additional question from Lambanog

6. What is the purpose of banners and tags? What Wikipedia policies or guidelines govern their application or removal?

A:

I'll go with the assumption that you are asking about WikiProject banners and clean up templates ("tags"). If you mean copyright tags, prod tags, deletion tags, edit filter tags, or something else, let me know.

Everything on Wikipedia is guided by our policies but there are no specific policies regarding clean up tags and WikiProject banners. Like any other text written in Wikipedia, one shouldn't use tags and banners to attack, own, edit war, vandalize, etc., etc.

The guidelines for WikiProject banners can be found here. These banners are used for several purposes, including related-changes tracking and quality tracking, article alerts, and several other automated processes, for notifying editors where they can get advice about a particular topic, as well as for alerting interested editors about the WikiProject itself, its collaborations of the week, and other project-related items, depending on the layout of the template. More specifically, the guidelines deal with overtagging, scope, and article ownership, and especially when these matters are under dispute, as in any other area of Wikipedia, the application and removal of banners should be governed by common sense, civility and communication.

The guidelines for template messages can be found here, those specific to clean up tags can be found here, and a few among the many essays regarding the use of these tags can be found here and here. Clean up tags are used to alert other editors and casual readers of problems with an article, with the ultimate aim of producing a reliable encyclopedia. Tags encourage article authors to improve their articles, allow specialists in particular kinds of clean up to find things that need fixing, and allow readers to know when they perhaps shouldn't take a Wikipedia article as the final word on a particular subject. The tags should be as specific as possible, e.g. {{lead missing}} vs. the generic {{cleanup}}. Again, the application and removal of these tags should be governed by common sense, clear communication, and consensus. Clean up tags should never be used to prove a point or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. And like anything else, it's best to assume good faith in matters of tagging and untagging.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong, enthusiastic support as nom. -Pete (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Depth and breadth of contributions is impressive, as are the comments and research in this recent AfD. (I also quite like the tips and tricks page.) 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Appending a "strong" to my support after reading question 5 and the links it contains. In particular, this AfD, in which the candidate !votes "Strong keep", but nonetheless challenges another "keep" !voter to provide a policy-based rationale. 28bytes (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Support More than qualified and obviously trustworthy. Steven Walling 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. Good attitude, impressive editing. No reason not to give her the tools. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support as nom. I've been bugging her about an RFA for 3 years and I think it's a privilege to offer my support. — Scientizzle 21:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
7. I think looks like another good editor, so I'll give my support as well. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support The fact that she is primarily an article-space contributor does not hide the fact that she has made significant numbers of edits across the whole range of the project. And the rationale for needing the tools is reasonable. If she continues to create the encyclopedia as well as maintain it that can only be to her and our advantage.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. Satisfactory contentent creation and calm (please keep it calm, when you have the buttons) interaction in content disputes. Basis: scanning the articles you started, looking at your discussions on talk page, and then the interaction we had on an article title.TCO (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Longterm user, clean blocklog, deleted edits look fine and I admire you for having an FA. I note the relatively low editing levels for much of last year that were raised by one of the questioners, but consider that no bar to adminship, especially in regard to your recent four months of activity. ϢereSpielChequers 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Strong Support I concur. SunCountryGuy 01 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
12. I'm unfamiliar with your work but some research has yielded that you do a lot of good things. The Oregon WikiProject is a great group of editors, and I trust the nominators, so I have no reservations whatsoever. ceranthor 01:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Ceranthor's right. Valfontis seems like a clueful and sensible user, although I've never seen the username before today. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Support What they said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Support Per nominator. WayneSlam 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Strong support I've been struggling to find a weakness in this candidate's body of work but cannot. Strong content portfolio, civil, cerebral — should make a top-drawer sysop.--Hokeman (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Support – Excellent editor. —mc10 (t/c) 05:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Strong communicator, excellent contributions, looks good to me. Townlake (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Extreme, no reservations, Support Valfontis is the model Wikipedia contributor, always fact based, with a higher standard than most for reliable sources. After at least three years of being uninterested in the mop, I'm delighted to see her pursuing adminship. She will be a great asset! —EncMstr (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Support - long time coming. Do note that although editor does not have "experience in administrative areas", who cares? Seriously, who cares? Nobody had experience editing Wikipedia until they started editing Wikipedia. Nobody had experience being an admin until they became an admin. Being an admin is simply applying our various rules in the proper way, but with extra buttons. And each and every action that an admin makes can be undone, as there is a level or two above. We simply look at a user's experience/contributions and judge how we think they can handle the role of being an admin. Are they hot headed, not such a good choice. Are they vindictive, not such a good choice. Do they fail to understand what a reliable source is, not such a good choice. Do they not know the precise way in which to submit an AIV report, who cares, as that they can learn. The tools and process can be learned; the temperament, intelligence, and character are what are far more important qualities in an admin. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
22. WP:OREGON is a great project, and if they love her, I do too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Nothing wrong here. She is experienced and can be trusted with the tools. Minimac (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Excellent Oregon-related work: I have seen Valfontis in the past, and I am sure she'll make a great admin. Acalamari 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - All looks good here. Clear support Worm^TT · (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
26. Happy to Support this well-qualified candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Strong Support - Satisfied with Q5 answer, but I'm wholeheartedly convinced by EncMstr. Swarm ^X 09:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Fully meets my criteria Pol430 talk to me 11:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Support I see huge amounts of exceptionally good work here, and not even a hint of anything that would cause me concern. A quiet spell for a few months? With the explanation given in Q5, I see that as a sign of good judgment - much better to step back for a short while than to burn out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Support No red flags. --Banana (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support Tireless contributor, has always been cheerful with other editors and definitely knows how to build an encyclopedia. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Support No reservations. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - without a doubt. Orphan Wiki 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support While I primarily ended up on this page out of curiosity, I was sufficiently impressed by the candidate that I decided to weigh in. I can only hope my level of competence and familiarity with various policies will approach those of Valfontis if I'm ever in a similar position. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
35. Support Good content contributor, trustworthy user. No problems from me. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:54am • 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support—knows what they're doing. I can trust him with the mop at his fingertips. Airplaneman ✈ 03:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    For the record, I'm a "she". Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    Oops. Thank you for correcting me :). Airplaneman ✈ 23:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

37. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. Based primarily on the strength of the editing history. Answer to my question didn't address all concerns I had and her comment "one shouldn't use tags and banners to attack, own, edit war, vandalize, etc." in my view gives a strong inkling to what policies perhaps have the most applicability and should have been cited directly. Still if an editor as experienced as Valfontis cannot point to a specific unambiguous policy covering the use of such cleanup tags I think it is an indication of the inadequate state of Wikipedia policy and guidelines on the topic. Lambanog (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Support. She is a great candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. -- œ^™ 11:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Support The gap in the editing raises a little concern, but I am pleased with the answer the candidate gave, when asked about it. That, plus a bit of common sense (I believe) in regard to their overall experience, makes this candidate clearly a net positive.Strikerforce (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
42. Strong Support Absolutely. Valfontis is an amazing editor not only at WikiProject Oregon but everwhere else as well, and I trust her 100 percent with the admin tools. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
43. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
44. Support Not seeing anything wrong with her. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
45. Full Support Brilliant user who has many edits. Answered my question brilliantly, in my view. Doh5678 (Talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
46. Support slam dunk candidate. --Daniel 20:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
47. Support (moved from neutral) Without narrating the many reasons; I fully support this candidate. My76Strat (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

    Was there ever any need to go neutral? In future perhaps you could do your research and then post a comment, rather than giving us a running commentary? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    There was never a need for anything of my hand to appear on this document. Moving forward, I will hold close, this admonition. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

48. Support after a review of contributions, including a few from various bits of Oregon I've had occasion to visit. Looks like a fine candidate. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
49. Support - Great candidate. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. Outstanding PassaMethod talk 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
51. Support. Simply awesome work, no doubts about this. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
52. Support per above. One two three... 18:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
53. Support Good answers, I think she deserves a nice new mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
54. Support -- No concerns. I skimmed her talk archive and contribution history and did not find a single thing to dislike. She contributed to at least one sockpuppet case and did all the correct things. Writes well. I suggest that we accept general cluefulness as a substitute for a record of experience in the admin areas. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
55. Strong support Per nom. A model candidate. --Esprqii (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
56. Strong support Deserves the mop. The contributions are great, the creations are not bad too. Also, the answers are well explained . Novice7 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
57. Strong support. It's about time. --Tesscass (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Almost didn't recognize her under her new username. -- llywrch (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
59. This should have happened a while ago. Courcelles 11:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
60. Valfontis is a hoopy frood who really knows where her towel is. tedder (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
61. Support. No problems that I can see, and I like the tips for new users linked from your user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
62. Tons of SUPPORT Has lots of potential. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
63. Support could probably spoon-feed me clue for hours. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  I'm new to this process, but given how close this is to closing, I wish to make a response.  In my brief experience with the nominee, I have seen an ineffectiveness at first identifying the available facts, and then using the inductive process to limit his/her opinions to those that fit the available facts.  two diffs available on request  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Question: Please post the diffs. —EncMstr (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   All my interactions with Unscintillating can be found here, here, and here. Additional background here and here. I hope this helps. Valfontis (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Comment Thanks. It appears Unscintillating isn't up to speed with the Wikipedia community. He or she appears to be acting in good faith and, if anything, being overly sensitive to copyright violation allegations. —EncMstr (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   My one interaction with Valfontis was not 100% positive either. But I still think it was sufficiently positive to promote. And we have to realize that not every user will agree with us on every content decision, and that she is thoughtful. I think that is good enough...and really a positive over the norm on WP, which seems to be more shoot from the hip and dig in to protect yourself. I had made a list, changed the name (had made it at a page I did not want). Vf changed it back to the more customary nameage (but IMHO not as effective). I gave her the reasons for it, and she let it stand. She was maybe a little taken aback by my bulleted reasons and told me not to template the regulars (which I find inaccurate, as my comments were pretty considered and particular to the situation content points, not some WP policy bromide). All that said, I can see how she might have been taken aback by my stachatto rationale. So, she's not 100% perfect. But she easily clears my 90% gets an A "bar". (Even on that one incident, and then all of her other achievements...which I find substantial.)TCO (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   Although I'm not changing my support, because Valfontis is positive and mature, I don't have a problem with the opposer's rationale and he should be allowed his point. The arguments seem borderline and this feels a little different than when we have some enraged person from an AFD. All that said, I can support even if not agreeing with every judgment call made (and not sure that I disagree, seemed borderline and even V acknowleged that...so not bad.) (Cut some evil threadjacking of mine.) TCO (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   TCO, thank you for the carefully considered comments. On your last point, I want to point out: this RfA should concentrate on Valfontis' suitability for adminship. There are other venues for discussing other people. -Pete (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   As requested here are two diffs.  [Reference 1] Nominee doesn't seem to be familiar with WP:COI where it says, "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested."  I thought the personal testimony was fine, even if unreferenced, but calling my documentation "sleuthing" was an escalation.  The escalation IMO was at a minimum unwise and potentially of harm to Wikimedia.  [Reference 2]  Nominee doesn't seem to consider that his/her {{sofixit}} proposal will delete the lede of the article–response also does not consider WP:V and WP:RS.  The nominee was possibly only trying to be helpful, but the nominee did not consider the issue I brought to the Talk page which was the impending need to delete certain parts of the article.  I believe that both of these diffs support the position taken in my "oppose" statement above.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   Note: I am female and I prefer to be addressed as "she" and "her". I'm sorry if my actions seemed to contribute to escalation or were unhelpful. That was not my intention, although these things do happen when one is working on a project one is passionate about. As far as my assessment of the COI situation, it was based on my familiarity with the quality of Steven's work after years of working with him. I believe my assumption that he acted appropriately is borne out by the facts as they were uncovered. As far as the other concerns, I think it's always appropriate to encourage other users to address one another in a collegial manner and assume good faith, to go ahead and be bold and make appropriate changes to articles, and to seek out neutral third opinions. Although I disagree with Unscintillating's assessment of the situation, s/he has a point and has every right to oppose my candidacy based on his/her experience. Having never worked with him/her before, I hope this recent encounter will seem minor in hindsight and that in the future we will have more productive interactions. I'll take away from this thread ways I can improve my collaboration skills as I go forward. Valfontis (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

#:Pending Q5 answer. Moving to support Swarm ^X 09:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The result of that ten month sabbatical is a refreshed and productive, highly qualified candidate who sees that value in making life more difficult for vandals and easier for helpful contributors. —EncMstr (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very reassuring, as is your comment in the support section, and both are well noted. Swarm ^X 16:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Moved to support) I join this discussion with a neutral bias. When information gives good reason, I will enunciate that reason under the appropriate header to the regards engendered. My76Strat (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My initial observations are positive of this candidate. My inclination is leaning towards support. I expect to append regards under that header upon satisfaction of a few remaining criteria. My76Strat (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I own a thesaurus too, they're fun aren't they? I expect you to allude to my aforementioned remark in an expeditious manner upon the receipt of the full bearing of it's felicitous nature. To elect to do otherwise would indicate a level of parsimony that I would find inconsistent with your established paradigm. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly debate the finer points another time, But you have enticed, that I move to this "aforementioned remark", implying I should endeavor upon significant expectation. With earnestness, I hope to find the relevance you invite me to share. I am eager to look. My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So I did observe your "aforementioned remark", and had observed. I may have missed the fuller significance. In general it appears as a fine question, with answer. I am curious to regards you might expand to that answer. Or if it is your manner to expand the answer beneath the appropriate header. I suspect you would agree support appears most appropriate. Otherwise I'd have to ask that you kindly clarify where I may have missed your intentions entirely. My76Strat (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs. You have indeed missed my intention entirely, while at the same time answering an unspoken question. Have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (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.