Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yngvadottir

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

Yngvadottir

Final (72/22/8); ended 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) – Yngvadottir is an experienced clean-up editor, who I've been nagging to run for admin for the past year or so. She's got a long history of rescuing/improving bad articles, often taking articles from AFD to the front page (DYK)... when the topic is notable, but the article itself was a miserable stub, or full of copyvios, or just plain incoherent. Where others are inclined to just say what should be fixed, she rolls up her sleeves and fixes it.

Her English is excellent, and she's got a proofreader's eye; everything she touches comes out looking great. Her eagle eyes can spot copyvios from miles away. She's also created a lot of her own content, on a wide variety of subjects. As a bonus she reads most European languages, and routinely uses sources most English speaking editors can't read, as well as translating non-English articles which somehow made it onto English Wikipedia.

She's very active at DYK, where having admin rights would allow her to contribute still more effectively. She also really needs to be able to see (and move to user space) deleted articles. Unfortunately she refuses to run, insisting that her technical skills aren't up to the job, not being a "computer person". So I'm nominating her - for real - on the one day where I feel OK violating the rule about candidate acceptance. Maybe if enough people support her she'll accept, or at least consider running for real some day. I don't think one needs to be able to maintain PCs or program them in order to be an effective admin. And she certainly knows Wikipedia, and its policies extremely well.

Kobnach (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: !

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: OMGs. Well it would be useful to be able to fix the grammar of DYK hooks that are already in a queue ... and extremely useful to be able to see deleted articles to judge whether the topic can be rescued (it's hard enough to find the deletion discussions, and sometimes there is valuable info on the now deleted talk pages). I think I might also be a good judge of when semi-protection would be helpful.

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

A: I write stuff? I continue to think that's what it's about.

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: Yes, and I expect it will keep on happening. It's a massive project, not all of us are good at explaining things, and I find the forensic debate model of interaction that many users have internalised to be problematic. I think the civility rule is vastly under-respected. I try to always look at the specific circumstances rather than making assumptions. I try to be more concise than I naturally am. I don't archive my talkpage, so that anyone seeking to find out about me can easily do so; I think that kind of openness helps people communicate. [Edit to above: In response to comments here as well as on the talkpage itself making it clear that much of the community disagrees with this, I separated the DYK templates into a thematic archive, and was intending to re-evaluate whether to also set up bot archiving after all, when I found someone had already done it for me. So after the bot runs we'll find out whether it is indeed 6 archives' worth.] I'm not sure Wikipedia's consensus model scales to the levels the project is currently at . . . but beyond that people better at writing essays than I am have written many essays, so I'll stop and let anyone who cares to, research me. (For the non-admins: my deleted edits are all, I believe, from attempting to improve articles that have since been deleted.)

Additional question from Beeblebrox

4. Your answer to Q1 is, shall we say, a bit thin. Since you mention WP:PP, let's say there is an edit war going on on a particular article. Three users are involved. Two are repeatedly reverting the third. The third user is in breach of 3RR, but the other two users, having split the reverting, are not. The third user asks at WP:RPP for restoration of their revisions and prolonged full protection to "stop the other users from edit warring". What do you do?

A: Argh. Someone asked me below about Ignore All Rules; this gets rather close to that. 3RR is supposed to be a bright line - and not in the sense that you "get" 3 reverts, either. It's not supposed to matter that the other 2 are tag-teaming. It's not even supposed to matter who's on the side of the angels in the dispute, which is why we have the bromide that admins always protect The Wrong Version™. The person requesting lengthy full protection and describing only the others as edit warring is clearly overstating their case. And this kind of situation is why I said semi-protection :-) I like to hang out at Recent Changes - keeps the old synapses tuned, even if ClueBot and the Twinklers often beat me to the obvious reversions, and I see articles on the weirdest things, some of which I can then copyedit, apart from going back to zap earlier vandalism. What I see there is overwhelmingly IPs playing a silly game, and presumably they will find something else to play with if the page is protected for a little while. The situation you describe is far more complex because it implies all 3 editors are invested in the changes they are making and reverting. It therefore actually does matter whether the changes get made, and in what form. I'd advocate talkpage use. If it was a topic I could halfway understand, I might wade in at the talkpage myself. But I do not think at this point that I would be comfortable blocking people, and you have described a situation where not to block the complainant for 3RR is IAR. Which should not become a predictable habit. So short answer: I'd avoid the noticeboard, or only look at requests for semi, or situations where semi seemed adequate. Long answer: I'd judge it on the merits. If I get given a mop, I am not going to say I will continue to be averse to blocking (and deleting). I've morphed into a strange wiki-gryphon already; who knows what new appendages I might develop. But right now, I don't see myself policing the wiki so much as unblocking its toilets and helping someone find its stairs when they're late for class and the elevator's out of action. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Beeblebrox

5. In your reply to Q1 you state that deletion discussions are hard to find. I... well... I really don't know how to ask this, you want to be an admin but you don't know how to find an AFD for a deleted article? Is that what you are saying? I don't mean to be rude and maybe I am misinterpreting what you have said, but I would expect an administrator or any other user with your level of experience to be able to figure out why an article was deleted.

A: It's one of the hardest areas to search, especially if you don't know exactly what the title was. Of course who created it is a massive clue, and so is knowing the timeframe (unless it was way back then when the database was differently organised or has fallen into the Great Gap). But I admit to being a bit technically incompetent so maybe I am unaware of something. (Although I've heard people say our search function is poor, for articles that still exist I've found it to be pretty good.) Or maybe you're assuming I am looking at the notice on the talkpage of the article creator? I'm thinking in particular of the first step situation where - to give an example I was confronted with - I wanted to know how many times Techno Viking had been deleted, whether it had usually been hyphenated, one word, or two words, and what the problems were that I should avoid. But I've also had trouble when I am pretty sure I knew how it had been spelled; it was still a needle in a haystack. For me, at any rate :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 6a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

• A: Blocked to forestall damage to the encyclopedia; unblocked either when their unblock request makes it likely that danger has passed (they not only understand what they were blocked for, they undertake not to do it again) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• 6b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

• A: In the case of a biography of a living person, or the special case of a recently deceased person, in response to repeated or serious vandalism, with a pretty low threshhold of implementation, but practice appears to be that it starts at a week and that lengthier protection only occurs in severe cases. Similarly, semi-protection is preferred both as being less severe - autoconfirmed editors can still edit the article, and those who are willing to register (something we encourage anyway) can do so after a few days. For non-BLP, not recently deceased articles, the bar is higher because we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit (and because consensus about what the article should say can change), but the issue remains the same: vandalism is happening, there is a danger of its not stopping, the lowest level/shortest time of protection is to be preferred. The alternative approach is to stop the person(s) doing the vandalism, so a block may be better if it's one person; but best is deterring them without blocking. (Basically the BRD cycle, though it may take a while to get to "discuss" and one way of explaining the need for page protection is to get warring factions talking on the talk page.) ... And it may not always be vandalism, which implies deliberate destructiveness; larking around, POV pushing, even simple disagreements can be destructive. But the criterion remains whether it's necessary to protect the encyclopedia .... hence it's called protection. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• 6c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

• A: I reviewed the list again (I'm bad at remembering disconnected items) and there are more speedy deletion criteria than I had thought. The ones that stand out and to some extent subsume the others are to my mind: attack, hoax, incomprehensible, pure copyvio, makes no claim of notability (except that inherently encyclopedic items such as species are exempt from this requirement), duplicates something that was previously deleted or that exists elsewhere (for example a foreign-language page on the Wikipedia in that language, a dictionary definition already at Wiktionary, or a topic on which there is an existing article), and empty or without context. (There's also requested by the article creator.) Some of these are a bit problematic insofar as these criteria are applied to new pages and they may represent unorthodox first steps towards creating a valid article. I've seen people translate a foreign-language article by first reproducing it and then replacing it bit by bit with English, for example. This is unwise but not criminal. Similarly, some writers work in the manner Stanley Fish used to advocate, starting with whatever writes itself first. Again, unfortunate in a context of instant publication, but not necessarily indicative of the intended end product. Also, it's possible not to recognise the claim of significance in an unfamiliar topic - one could view the finished article as an argument for the significance of the topic. Such concerns would be grounds for speedy undeletion - by which I presume is meant the reversal without a formal deletion review discussion of articles deleted out of process which is referred to here - although I note the suggestion there that it might be better just to begin a new and better article at the same title. I believe that when an editor asks, with the argument that the page was still in very early stages of creation, the normal solution is to userfy it, and that seems wise, although wiser yet would be either waiting a bit longer (10 minutes doesn't seem long enough to me) or of course for people to think of Wikipedia as publication rather than a drafting medium. It's daunting to have a barely begun article deleted, and I doubt many authors have the chutzpah to request the deleting admin to undelete it, still less to restart it and write more this time before pressing "save." And user-page messages are not much help in this context because you have to switch pages - i.e., finish the edit you're doing, or preview it - to see the yellow bar. On the other hand all of these are nethods of work that we want to discourage, and the copyvio one is a serious legal matter. (Blanking by CorenSearchbot does at least get the editor's attention.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• 6d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: Tempting to reply "just because" :-) In practice though, IAR is like crying wolf - do it more than very occasionally and you've established a personal standard at odds with community norms and will be treated accordingly. I'm glad we have such a policy, at least in theory. Particularly since the project has become weighted down with rules and bureaucracy (probably inevitably - not only because of its size but to mediate between differing norms and expectations. For example, the Manual of Style is terrifying, but with all the different varieties of English as well as written conventions in different fields, it's needed) - IAR is a safety valve. Policy is: if the rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, break it. (I note that we also have a lot of flexibility built into many rules. Two examples: one can request early confirmation, and one can use pretty much any citation format in an article, provided it's consistent.) The trouble is, your improvement may be my "fancruft" and my improvement may be your POV/fringe/undue. It's a collaborative project. You have to decide what matters enough to stick your neck out, and work with those who disagree to produce a blended version of the content. Those are, effectively, the unbreakable rules.
  

Take Kobnach's decision to create this RfA, and my decision to accept, and not to pretend it wasn't a shock, as examples. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• 7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: In theory: the participants in the discussion hammer out some reasonable compromise or solution; no one is still heftily disagreeing. XfD is a special case because deletion cannot be simply reverted, so in the case of XfD, we fall back on the status quo - it stays - if consensus is not reached; however, since notability is a fundamental principle (we may have theoretically unlimited resources, but in practice no website can be infinite in extent, and the encyclopedia would become unwieldy and less useful if large numbers of truly trivial articles remained in it), in practice consensus is usually interpreted to mean the preponderance of policy-based opinions expressed (at AfD, overwhelmingly arguments concerning notability, because an article on a notable topic can always be improved). Also in practice on talk pages, if it gets down to - or continues to be - one person, or in a large discussion one small group, simply digging in their heels, their opinion can be overridden. In practice this is messy in the extreme and it's a very good thing we have Deletion Review, although the bar is higher for getting something undeleted than for getting it saved at a deletion discussion, since the presumption is that the issues got a fair hearing (especially since most deletion discussions appear to get relisted to allow longer than 7 days). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• 8. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Go and see what the situation is. Edit warring is frowned upon, and the lazy response would be to refer JohnQ to the relevant noticeboard, but that is of course an admins' noticeboard; he would have come to me as a more personal way to report it. I would want to see whether they were in fact simple reverts - sometimes one or both sides are actually trying to modify their edits to reach an acceptable compromise, but the back and forth looks bad, they're not making edit summaries that demonstrate that, or only one of them is trying - whether there were any significant policy issues, such as lack of/inadequate refs or a BLP issue - and whether anyone had tried to engage on the talk page. Sometimes someone reports something without fully appreciating the issues (I've done it myself with what I thought was spam and turned out to be very rapid replacement of spam) or prematurely (again, I believe I did that to someone who was at 3 reverts and hadn't actually exceeded 3). I'd probably wade in with a compromise edit of my own with both a mention of the talkpage and a rationale for my edit in the edit summary and start a talkpage thread. But it would depend on what I actually saw. Part of assuming good faith in my view is not regarding every dispute as ipso facto a transgression against collaboration. If what I saw was just a regrettable edit war - if it looked like reverting without considering the merits of the other's version, which is what JohnQ's complaint paints it as - or if either editor was clearly in the wrong (smearing a BLP with inadequate or absent sources, for example; but also misinterpretation of wording sometimes causes such things) I'd warn one or both as well as editing the article and the talkpage. But I don't believe such situations automatically require administrative tool use. A satisfactory compromise and/or explanation to the person who's misinterpreting, relying on a poor source, etc. is very often possible. ... And JohnQ would have been consulting me because admins are identifiable experienced and trusted, levelheaded users, not necessarily because admins can block people and protect articles. Of course my preference for engagement within the article and its talkpage would mean I'd need to post at the edit warring noticeboard myself if the edit warring then continued, because I'd be involved. But I'd rather take the risk of that hassle and extra time than fail to AGF and try reason and rolled-up shirtsleeves first. If it were clear that JaneDoe and/or JohnRoe were editing in bad faith, JohnQ would probably have put it in different terms, such as vandalism. They probably both mean well and at least one probably knows the topic well. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• 9. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: a If the community decides they want me as one, then I want to go along with that consensus. I've had to do several things I didn't at first want to do, here. For example, judge the worth of articles and hooks for Did You Know under the quid pro quo requirement. Although I hate judging people's work when I haven't been responsible for assigning them the task and giving them the necessary information and guidance to succeed, and although I still think that was a bad decision, I don't have a better suggestion, and my academic experience and fairly broad interests equip me relatively well to do it - and I've been able to find some enjoyment in it, mainly in working with the creator/nominator to get the article over the last hurdles. On a smaller scale, some articles are already referenced using templates that output the refs in the ass-backwards Harvard style with the absolutely least significant piece of information boldfaced, or identified bibliography items in mini-templates (whatever you officially call that style), and although both of those make me personally gag, it's kind of like doing the New York Times Sunday crossword, I figure out how to fit the references I am adding or the info to identify the bare URL into the format someone chose, and the result is consistent in appearance, gives (most of) the reference info, and doesn't make the person with different referencing tastes from mine feel slighted. (I'll stop there with the examples unless asked more about collaboration.) I view adminship the same way. If you collectively want to give me a set of tools, fair enough, I'll accept them and find personal satisfaction in weird nerdy ways in using some of them to help out :-)
  

b In pretty much every job I have had, I have wound up unblocking the toilet. Perhaps best not to speculate on why this is, but the analogy is fairly impossible to miss.

c I expected someone to have asked me by now why I didn't want to be an admin. So I will answer that here. I have an incredible ability to mess up computers. I got my IBM Selectric PC printing in machine symbols when I first attempted to use WordPerfect. A friend who worked at Microsoft tried to get me a job as a tester there. My go-to computer person is utterly scathing about my LUser-tude. I am afraid I might delete the Main Page or something. Seriously. I will probably fail admin training in innovative and wacky ways. So I really really don't want to get into blocking or deletion and would be white-knuckled for a long while - I still am when editing a table. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

10. The Beatles asserted that "in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make". Do you find this to be true on Wikipedia? Why or why not?

A: Flippant answer: "Let It Be" seems more apposite :-) Longer answer - yes and no. It may to a great extent come down to how broadly you define "love". The Beatles were disciples of Mahesh Yogi so I presume were using the word in a very broad non-dualistic sense. In that sense, yes of course - everything you give comes back to you, and all the notes of thanks I've been thrilled and embarrassed to get on my talkpage for just gnoming on an article are illustrations of that. I got autopatrolled, something I'd really wanted but hadn't dared to ask for (I saw people being turned down for it who had created twice as many articles as I had, and the threshhold number seemed to be increasing faster than I could create articles, because I don't like to create little stubs and depend on others to give them context and references - I think this is the essay about house-building that sums up my view, though there may be another one) because I added a variable to a template :-) However, it takes a yogic view to see the amounts as equal. IMO it's more like chaos theory - waves of influence spread from my actions on the project and interact with others' actions. In many ways, the distinction doesn't really matter. For example, I was a bit put off by the WikiLove programme, which seemed to crystallise a view of editors as driven by rewards and strokes. I hoped no one would think I needed a bunny or a kitty on my talkpage to encourage me to write and improve articles. But then creative people, particularly Sharktopus, started putting giant Monty Python feet, artfully faceted jewels, and so forth on there, and that led to fruitful collaborations on articles for Bastille Day and on palaces in Dresden and on zoological and botanical species - a fractal unfolding rather than a seesaw relationship or even a geometric progression. And when I've tried to help out a newbie, or seen something at ANI or Recent changes or most obviously AfD, it's led to both fruitful relationships with other editors and weird and wonderful article development. I'll give just 2 examples: like many editors, I first encountered the AfD process when an article of mine was nominated for deletion. But a bit later, I was looking at Recent changes and saw an edit summary that led me to this discussion and because I'm outside Norway, I had access via Google Books to sources that enabled me to save two articles - at the eleventh hour. The discussion was closed as we were discussing the sources. I then watchlisted several deletion discussions lists, and that has led me to improving, saving, and often taking to Did You Know articles about things which I would otherwise have had no idea even existed. It's changed my editing pattern quite a bit and made my already broad focus even broader. The second example is more recent. I was lurking on ANI (I rarely speak there, but I think I was reading it before I registered my account) and saw a mention of someone being blocked indefinitely for creating articles with copyvio and uploading pictures to Commons from Flickr in violation of their licencing and falsely claiming to be the Flickr account holder. So I looked at their contributions and found three articles on Chicago public housing complexes that had already been scrubbed of copyvio text but were pretty badly put together - however, checking the URLs provided in order to make them into proper refs and looking for additional sources, I was impressed by how well chosen they were for notability. So I had fun expanding them and taking them to Did You Know (and named the blocked editor as article creator in each case - I think s/he deserves credit for good taste and there's a small chance the DYK templates will interest him/her in returning to Wikipedia and doing a better job on the articles themselves in future). I do not think this kind of thing can be quantified, and I'm not sure I 'love' that blocked editor, or botflies that sometimes shoot their eggs into people's eyes, and I'm not here because I love barnstars. But if you take it as a way of saying the encyclopedia and the editing community both grow out of people giving and interacting, then yes (to make another allusion to 20th-century high culture :-) ). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Yasht101

11. You have been answering the questions in very details. But it doesnt make any difference now as the first three answers were not proper. I see the seeing the oppose counter go up, you may be doing this. Anyways, this kind of answers to newcomers may confuse them, so i'd like to know that if a user asks you to give a copy to them of a page created by them which was speedy deleted, then what would be your prompt reply to the user? And would you give the copy in their userspace of the speedy deleted page or not? If you give or don't give, what would be the reason for it? (Please, Answer in brief)

A: Hmm. Almost always yes. The exception would be an attack page on a living person. But I might require them to copy it to their own computer and then re-delete it, say, 24 hours later; Wikipedia isn't a free web host for articles about your band, for example, even in user-space. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to get clarified as you didn't state it in the answer. What in case of a G12? Yasht101 :) 03:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, copyvio, good question. If it got deleted, it will have been a straightforward cut and paste job; in that case why would they ask me? I'd politely refer them to the original web page :-) In less clear cases, like where only some of the text was copyvio, the page isn't deleted; the copyvio text is blanked. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Lear's Fool

11. Do you intend to be open to recall?

A: That sounds sensible, yes :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Yngvadottir: Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Yngvadottir 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 on talk page. -- Luke (Talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• A small point but you have answered the standard questions but not officially accepted the nomination at the bottom of the nom statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going for most succinct nomination response, in keeping with the nomination statement. Should I sign it? --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally you would, but since it is obvious you have accepted it it's just a technicality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Although one has to question the professionalism of anyone that starts the answer to a question on an RfA with "OMGs", this is a contributor in good standing since 2008 with a clean block log, and no negatives in recent history that I can see on a quick glance at the contribution history. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Support; you've addressed my concerns well. You've got my support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - This editor has a long history of significant article contributions (which led me to grant her autopatrolled last year), a clean block log, a good understanding of policies around deletion (at least as demonstrated by AfD participation), a civil manner, and a plausible use for the delete/view delete/undelete tools. I've made an additional review of contributions again today, and believe that the encyclopedia would benefit from her having access to the tools. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Strong Support - I nominated her. Kobnach (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Like PCHS, I'm not impressed with the answers to question one and two. Otherwise, the editor seems to be a good candidate. MJ94 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
6. This is a rather unusual RfA, in several ways. I share Anthony's view that she lacks experience in the traditional admin areas. However, from what I can see on her talk page, I expect her use of the tools to be very much uncontroversial. After looking at the candidate for a short while, I gladly support: Use for tools was shown, and since I believe adminship truly is "no big deal" for her, it's in my opinion also no big deal to grant it. Amalthea 20:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Adminship is no big deal. Rcsprinter (orate) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Why not? Also, props for doing this on April 1st. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Support -- Fantastic editor who's done much work for the project. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Lowish edit count but great editor. Happy to support. Bmusician 00:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
11. Though the answers to the first 3 questions sound amaturish, they show the sense of humour that would go a long way in helping this editor cope with any future conficts he or she might have. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
12. No concerns from me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. This is definitely an unusual RfA, with a slightly unusual candidate. But I kind of like that. We need lots of different kinds of people to be admins. I like her question answers too. At this stage in the game the answers to the typical questions are almost "canned" in a sense, we've all seen it before. I find her relaxed, honest answers quite refreshing. The candidate knows the policies of the areas she works in, she's certainly not a drama magnet, clean record, hard working so why not? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
14. Support longterm sensible editor with her heart in the right place. The dif showing that she has a low opinion of some admins does not seem to me to be a good reason to oppose, even if like me you don't agree with the particular solution that she supported. If anything a candidate who is offering to be an admin but does not intend to be part of some power hungry clique is a good thing, whether or not you believe that such a clique exists. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
15. Support: For creating actual researched articles of value, e.g., recently Theodor Rowehl and Bernhard Kummer, this is why the project exists. Seems level headed enough to handle the ministerial tasks of having admin tools.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Support -- opposes are simply unconvincing and candidate's contributions look great. Lord Roem (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
17. Support per WereSpielChequers and Amalthea. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Sensible user, good knowledge of content creation, and a demonstrated need for tools in area she works (DYK queue maintenance). No red flags. The Interior (Talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
19. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - high-quality article work, and three-plus years' safe editing. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
20. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
21. Support, seen this editor around. No reason not to support, am confident that she will take things steady to start with. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - Clearly knows her limits, and as such I'm unconcerned by lack of broad admin practice; low probability of going rouge. Trips none of the criteria indicative of failure, trips one of the criteria indicative of sucess but that's fine because she's planning on a narrow range of administrative tool use. Thoughtful replies to RfA questions. Josh Parris 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
23. Support - Not swayed by the opposes. At the end of the day, you're a knowledgeable and dedicated user. You'd put the tools to good use, I have no doubt. You never know, access to these tools may open doors to other areas of Wikipedia you may like to branch into. Orphan Wiki (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. While you're not the most knowledgeable in some fields, you know what you're doing in many other places, and you seem to know your limits like Socrates is said to have done. Confident that you'll use the tools responsibly and capably. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
25. Support per Amalthea. --John (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - I was watching this RfA since April 1, when I thought it was just another hoax for a while, but Yngvadottir's additional answers have won me over completely. She not only seems to be passionate about what she does, looking through her history, but she is unique and has a real sense of humor which is lacking these days. I like her humility and the fact she isn't shy to say, "Hey, this looks like a challenge for me," but still promises to give it her best. It's important for an admin to be able to admit his/her mistakes, if and when a mistake is made, and I feel this editor is more than willing to do that. She is mature, her English is excellent (she has a real flair with words), and I am looking forward to seeing her promoted. ~dee^(talk?) 07:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. It's not a strong support, but much more of a "why not". The candidate managed to get through the WP:LAME fights at Yoghurt by actually making reasoned responses, has done a lot of good at DYK and is generally clueful. Something's not sitting quite right with me, and I think it's that the candidate doesn't actually appear to want to be an admin. Still, I think they will do a decent job with the tools, even if infrequently, and am willing to support here. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Great content work, sufficient competence, creative attitude. I see someone who contributes to and has sufficient experience with the actual encyclopedic content, and that's what counts. I don't think this candidate will damage encyclopedia as an admin. Yngvadottir wants to help with DYK and protection ... Why not? I'm an admin and I know almost nothing about the article protection, which means that I don't work in that area. Yngvadottir could help there and improve the encyclopedia :) I admit that some of the answers are a bit strange (sometimes it is difficult to find an old AfD discussion, but the admin tool can't help in searching, as far as I know). Another thing is the "anti-admin" link by Nikkimaria. You should not speak like that about any group of people, Yngvadottir. It might be unfair to some honest individuals among them. Be specific, do not generalize. ...But I understand that we all have weak moments and sometimes we don't realize that our rhetoric may be offensive and unjust. I wish you good luck. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. I see someone who thinks carefully, doesn't get into drama, and is going to limit herself to the things she feels confident about. And that's all good with me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Looks to be an exceptionally skilled, perceptive and collegial editor, almost too perfect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - why not? Plus, she seems to be too scared to do any real damage. ;) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Good content creation and seems to know her own limits. Having more DYK savvy admins is a good thing and the reluctance to become an admin is in my opinion a bonus. AIRcorn (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
33. Support, more than enough experience (a lot more edits and a lot more content creation than I had when I became an admin). Also per Achowat (who is in the oppose section): we need admins that have clue, not admins that quote policy. —Kusma (t·c) 07:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
34. Support As per WTT, I see no reason why adminship should not be given here. In the hands of an experienced, mature editor, adminship really is WP:NOBIGDEAL and I can only see Yngvadottir as a net positive to the project. My sole misgiving, that of talk page archiving, has been addressed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Keepscases (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Net positive. Yngvadottir definitely has a clue and appears to have the right temperament. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Definite net positive. Has been here long enough to know what's going on. Her edit count pie chart looks great, 76% article space edits and the other 24% split up among other name spaces! She will tread lightly until she understands how to use the admin tools. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Good content editor, and a reluctant admin is more likely to make wise use of the tools. Plus, we need more female admins and here we have someone who seems to fit the bill. Add worm's yoghurt rationale and the erudite response to keepscases question and this should be a no-brainer. For once I'm flummoxed by the opposes. :) --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

    inappropriate comment indented Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Support I feel that the candidate is a worthy Wikipedian, quite capable of handling the duties offered to her. Also, speaking frankly and with all due respect, she's drop dead sexy, has fantastic gams and a lovely turn of ankle. Finally, she's friskily wicked at the hurly-burly sport of British Conkers. I say, yes... yes... yes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standinlake (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

39. Support per Nikkimaria's diff: Yngesdottir wrote "Admins do indeed band together to defend each other, especially at AN/I" and "we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around." Honesty, intelligence, and self-criticism are needed in administrators.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Based on recent answers. Mythio (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. I was leaning towards neutral - more thought about what being an admin will involve and why they want to be one, and a bit of reading round the relevant guidance pages would probably have resulted in answers to questions that would have satisfied a greater number of people - but I like the honesty in the answers (particularly Q2 - too many forget why the project exists), and don't feel that Yngvadottir is likely to abuse the tools. I don't find the diff criticising (some) admins troubling - this is how many admins are perceived, sometimes accurately, and an admin who knows how not to come across to other editors is likely to be a benefit to the project. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
42. Support. Strong content contributions, good policy knowledge, multilingual bonus. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
43. While some of the opposes make valid concerns, she won't abuse the tools and per Kiefer Secret ^account 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
44. I doubt this user will break Wikipedia if given the tools. Seriously, this seems like a great candidate. AniMate 04:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
45. Support I'll take ambivalence over over-eagerness anyday....net chance of being net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
46. I've finally decided to go here and support. I think that most of the issues concerning Yngvadottir appearing to not be taking this seriously simply stem from a lack of a strong desire. And that's a good thing, since he will be far less likely to jump into with things he doesn't understand. I also do not care about having "only" 9000 edits, or the comment that Nikkimaria pointed out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
47. While there are other things we can do with them, fundamentally admin tools are editing tools, and her activity at DYK alone seems to justify a need for the tools. As for the rest - I've seen no evidence to suggest that she would misuse the tools, and a fair bit to suggest that should wouldn't. So support. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
48. Support - I examined this RFA nominee and found: a long history of nothing but constructive contributions, an openness to discuss answers and ideas, a mature ability to self-evaluate and to understand their limitations, and a lack of desire to use admin tools outside of their expertise -- all of these are positives. And I find nothing to lead me to distrust Yngvadottir with administrator tools. Their sense of humor -- an often necessary attribute here-- is also appreciated. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Been waiting to see how things were going (and to let people do the digging...). I also waited for an answer to Keepscases' question. I know some people don't like his questions, but I do. All in all, there's some room for expansion of YD's knowledge of admin stuff. (Hell's teeth, there's room for expansion in mine...) Doesn't worry me - she'll be cautious and learn (as I'm trying to). I see no cause for worry that she'll wreck the place, and feel that her refreshingly humorous attitude covers serious depths. To those that think she didn't accept the nomination, she did. Said "!", which covers the way I felt at the start of my week hanging on the tree pretty well. Otherwise per Ooh Bunnies and WSC. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
50. Support: Per Guettarda and CactusWriter. Additionally, we criticise editors for been too keen to become an admin, but to oppose them for not coming across as keen enough is ridiculous. I see a long term content writer with a clean block log who I don't think will do anything daft with the tools on the fewer (in comparison to other admins) occasions she will use them, and therefore it is the quintessence of WP:NOBIGDEAL that this editor should be granted +sysop. WilliamH (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
51. Per Casliber. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
52. I'm supporting on the basis that Yngvadottir doesn't really seem to be bothered whether she's an administrator or not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    My fantasy is that with a name like Yngvadottir she's one of those foxy Icelandic ladies ... maybe I ought not to have said that ... Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    I thought the name was Gaelic. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    Most Icelandic females have names ending in -dóttir - even Björk who is Björk Guðmundsdóttir. (Of course, this doesn't mean she IS Icelandic; sorry, Malleus...) Peridon (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

53. Support - Why not. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - Long-term, trusted editor who has given no indication that she would use the tools inappropriately.  -- Lear's Fool 07:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - We have worked together on a few small things, and I remember Yngvadottir as clueful and levelheaded. I think this is the kind of editor who will, as administrator, first ask, and only then shoot. --Pgallert (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. I have worked with this editor and think they're fine. Also, per Malleus, item 2. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
57. Support – level-headed, experienced, and intelligent; the mop will only help. Airplaneman ✈ 06:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    Strong Support.he/she has made unique edits Khan810 ^talk 07:02, 7 April 2012

    Thomas young sockpuppet blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

58. Support no real reason to object. mabdul 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. This is possibly the most unconventional RfA I have ever seen. For me, something that I care about very much in administrator candidates is "first, do no harm". It seems to me that this is a candidate who well understands what goes into content creation, and who is very much not hungering to grab power. We have enough of a track record to know that she isn't a trouble-maker. In large part, she will probably end up being able simply to be more helpful at DYK, and she is unlikely to break RFPP. I could agree with opposition on the basis of a lack of dedication to the intricacies of admin policies and procedures, if a candidate were planning to use those procedures the ways most admins do. But I don't see opposing a candidate simply because they haven't supplicated sufficiently. Anyone who freely admits to their lack of self-confidence in using computer technology is unlikely to go on a power rampage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
60. Support- Leap of Faith; prolific user working an area where the tools would alleviate unproductive waiting. Unlikely to misuse the tools deliberately. Even computers can have personality, per Signet 14. Dru of Id (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
61. Support per PCHS-NJROTC, Worm That Turned, Malleus, Rcsprinter and others. (basically I'm too lazy to write all my reasons out) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
62. Support; adminship should be no big deal. Can't see any reason to say no, and anyone getting a support vote from Malleus deserves a chance. A new admin with a healthy scepticism about the powers and role of the corps would be a good thing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
63. Support I dont think we should oppose her simply because it was a "surprise" nomination. ☮Soap☮ 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
64. Support - Knowledgeable, hard working and valued Wikipedian. Opposers are unconvincing. Net plus for community to grant extra buttons. Jusdafax 04:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. Wow, an actual content contributor! Love your answer to question number 2. Your quote in Oppose vote number 2 cinched it for me. PMA all the way! Draco^E 12:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
66. I think that Yngvadottir will make a fine admin. I really don't see her being an abusive administrator, and I have been impressed with her conduct throughout this nomination. I don't consider her edit count or the fact she hasn't sought adminship to be important: 9000 edits is more than enough to help judge someone's experience for adminship, and that she isn't bothered if she is an admin or not is a plus to me. Acalamari 13:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
67. Support - Looks fine overall. Many of those opposing are focusing on some of the more unorthodox aspects of this RfA. Those don't concern me at all. AlexiusHoratius 15:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
68. Support − A seemingly nice and knowledgeable editor who has spent a lot of time at the coal face making Wikipedia a better place. Good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. Excellent article contributions. Most of the things said by the opposers seem to me like endorsements of the candidate. Wikipedia needs friendly and helpful administrators who see research and writing as their main calling here, not people who see administratorship as something particularly desirable or as a vocation in itself apart from writing. --Hegvald (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Trawled through quite some of the editor's contributions and have pleasantly found troves of impressive and classy edits. Helpful, trustworthy, and diligently committed to the project, Yngvadottir is an editor who simply is more used to communicating informally than push a serious image to the people around. The fantastic part is the honesty involved in her communication and actions. Especially within an RfA, unfortunately, this may give off a flippant image - which clearly is neither her intention nor what must be construed. I can imagine her using her now trademarked OMGs and smileys with newbies and can vouch that perhaps that may be more effective in creating a sparkling and welcoming dialogue for new editors than do some of our inveterate welcome/warning tags. There is of course the question of the opposes below. In summary, these widely touch the following areas: her RfA answers are non-serious (too short/too long/too delayed/informal), she has once left a partly negative statement of her view on administration, her talk page is not archived, she took long to sign the RfA and that her experience is lacking in admin-related areas. Leave the last reasoning (which is a credible and perfectly competent reason the community holds), the other reasons provided in the opposes can be improved by the editor in perhaps just a day. Yngvadottir has also already committed to initially not close discussions where consensus has to be fathomed. Given all that, I'm sure the closing bureaucrat would consider it proper to convey a guiding advice to the editor while closing this RfA, which I do expect to be closed as successful. It'll be good to have Yngvadottir with us handling administration. Wifione ^Message 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. Converting my initial "O" to "S" in light of responses throughout RFA. Leaky Caldron 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
72. Strong support. A deserving candidate.--Berig (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This editor has a very acceptable total edit count of nearly 9000 edits, but there is in my view a deficit of edits in admin-related activities. I am, however, prepared to be convinced by reasoned argument. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

   Are you speaking of things like RFPP & AFD discussions? Candidate seems interested in doing protections. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Total edit count is very acceptable at 8795; AfD count is 26. I cannot find any edits at CSD or UAA, for example. If I have failed to detect edits please let me know. Granting the tools includes freedom to work in these areas, and it appears that there is little experience of them.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   SW's AfD tool indicates this user has participated in a bit over 100, [1] (rather than 26) AfDs, or were you referring to just ones she initiated? I didn't find CSD work either, for what it's worth. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I think Yngvadottir is a good editor, particularly around DYK, but there are some issues here. The answers to questions (as of now) are not great. The lack of talk-page archiving I would actually see as a negative: at a whopping 357kB the talk page is absolutely huge, and so both daunting for newer editors and potentially problematic for those with slower computers or poor internet connections. Also, while I would have no problem with Yngvadottir being able to edit through protection on queues, adminship grants a whole host of other abilities that I'm not sure would be appropriate to this editor, particularly around blocking or deletion. Perhaps most importantly: "we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Sometimes you just have to let the candidate's behaviour speak for itself. As the saying goes: Actions speak louder than words. Over the last 5 years as an experianced editor, I've witnessed bully admins losing their access after long painful Arbcom cases. But I doubt this person is capable of falling into such a level. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Nikki. That linked diff was particularly serious, and it's disturbing to see such contempt of adminship and administrators from someone who just a month later claims to want to be one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   2 clarifications: first, someone is attempting to get me drafted; and second, I've encountered some downright nice and helpful admins on this project, but it remains the case that the more the position is seen as a prefect's badge rather than a set of janitor's keys, the more it will attract those who like to boss people about . . . and ANI on any given day is mostly a sad demonstration of what that looks like. I don't see that as contempt for those who are able to wield both words and buttons for the betterment of the project; if it were easier to rein in those who are being rampantly authoritarian, it would raise respect and understanding for the job the rest do which is why I bothered to speak up. In any case, there will always be ambitious and authoritarian people around. In a project of this size and scope, I'd better be able to deal with 'em, though I don't understand 'em. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

4. Regretful and Weak Oppose - User's content creation is great, a real asset to the project. But going through her contributions to the WP and WT namespaces, there seems to be a much stronger reliance on what feels like the correct course of action than what policy says. In an arbitrary sampling of her contributions to the various noticeboards and a few AFDs, I saw no instance of the user referring explictly to a policy, guideline, or essay. As such, it's very hard to demonstrate an understanding of the policies and procedures that need to guide an Admin's actions. Particularly spectacular answers to questions may sway me though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achowat (talk • contribs)
5. Oppose Per BuickCentury Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Did you notice that BuickCentury is in the support section? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   I interpret this to mean that the concerns mentioned by the other ed., respecting which that ed. is nonetheless willing to support, are seen by this ed. as sufficiently serious to warrant an oppose. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   That was my guess as well, but I couldn't find anything BuickCentury said that fit that criteria. Eh, maybe I'm just missing something (it wouldn't be the first time). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose The candidate appears to be reluctant (per nom. and reply to #3 above "someone is attempting to get me drafted".) I've heard of over-eager candidates, but if a candidate is genuinely reluctant then I see no reason to be anything other than disinclined to support. Leaky Caldron 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Sorry. I applaud the candidate's content creation and wholeheartedly endorse the viewpoint that they are an asset to Wikipedia. I am slightly concerned about their apparent lack of experience in the core admin areas (AIV, RPP, XfD etc.), though I may have been prepared to overlook this, due to the candidates stated desire to mostly use the mop for DYK work. What is more concerning to me, is the lack of response to the additional questions asked by Beeblebrox and Jc37. Whilst I appreciate that the questions are 'optional' the apparent lack of interest in answering them strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. The candidate has had plenty of time to answer those questions and has responded to other points at this RfA since then. I am also concerned about the response to Starblind, when the candidate said: "In any case, there will always be ambitious and authoritarian people around. In a project of this size and scope, I'd better be able to deal with 'em, though I don't understand 'em.". Deal with them how? Pol430 talk to me 16:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Just to let you know: I've just completed answering the questions. I was at work with limited time and an intermittent connection when I made the personal responses here that you noticed, and I've not stopped gnoming around and had a DYK deadline with Schlußakkord, the article I was working on when I unexpectedly got nominated. I'm not neglecting this, but it isn't my only priority . . . and I didn't want to slight the questioners (or lose my job!) (And I also worked on the thematic archiving of my talkpage, as promised.) Regarding "deal with them", I meant it in the sense of "Shut up and deal" - we have to work with all the disparate editors here - rather than of "to crush your enemies—see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" Yngvadottir (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose I think this is going to be one of those RFAs where nearly every person who opposes you prefaces it with an apology or remarks that you seem like a great editor. You do, by the way, seem like a great editor. But "great editor" and "decent administrator" do not require the exact same set of skills. The minute you have the tools, you have them all. The reason for that is that generally you need them all, or at least most of them, to be effective as an admin. When confronted with a situation where protection is requested, the admin needs to be able to decide if semi protection, full protection, blocking some users, or no action at all is the correct response. (FYI getting involved in the dispute yourself is not an administrative action, and once you've done so you can't act as an admin in that situation per WP:INVOLVED) I don't think you have much experience in admin related areas, and I think part of the reason for that is that you don't want to. That's fine, not everyone needs to be an admin, we can use all the good content editors we can get. If you decide you actually want to do this, I'm sure you could acquire the needed experience in admin-related areas over the next few months. I'm not entirely opposed to specialist admins but handing out a mop to a user with little experience in policy matters so that they can correct grammar on one particular protected page is asking a bit much. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I entirely understand your position. And I'm aware of WP:INVOLVED; but I don't think disciplining people and protecting things are always either required or the best solution; for one thing, they interrupt the process of reaching consensus. As I understand it, sometimes you need to use the shock paddles on the patient's heart, but not always. I do have my doubts about scaling the consensus/collaborative interaction model this massively, but it's still what we've all more or less heartily endorsed, so I would not be the kind of admin who uses tools without first examining whether there's another solution, slower though that might be. (In fact the admins who've struck me most forcibly as good admins are the ones who've impressed me with their diplomatic abilities. Not that there aren't others, like those who respond lightning-fast to BLP violations, or those (mostly but not all admins) who code bots. But yup, I tend to start at the level of the screwdriver and the bar of soap before trying power tools.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   There's nothing wrong with that approach, but if you don't plan to use the tools and don't really understand how they are supposed to be used there's no compelling reason to give them to you. If wanting to peep at deleted articles and fixing grammar errors on one particular protected page were enough of a reason to make someone an admin we'd have thousands more of them. Not to belabor the point, but I also don't think you really answered my question about finding deletion reasons, in that you failed to explain why you believe being an admin would make it easier to find them. Just to be sure I wasn't imagining things I logged out and tried to find the reasons for a few articles I knew to be redlinks currently, and I found them just fine. To clarify I will give you some examples: Why was Alaska Seaplane Service deleted? What about Mascot names or Talk:ScribbleLive? Three different reasons, but the answers are right there for anyone to see, you don't need admin tools so I am still wondering what you thought they would do for you in this regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   They all show the box with the statement that it's been deleted and link to the deletion discussion. It's lovely when that comes up, although I still wonder what might have been on the article talk page - it's recommended practice to put sources there for others to use. I may have been being dense in the past, or clicking on redlinks with a different spelling from the AfDs, or maybe the articles were old enough that they went to VfD. Or that trace may have been overridden by a move. Who knows, it's probably in large part my ineptitude - and the odd things I want to find out whether we ever had an article on. For example, the father and grandfather of Harald Hardrada. Thanks for the lesson, though I'd still love to be able to see deleted articles and their talk pages. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Strong oppose I am so sorry to oppose, but there may be isssues like:

   • This user's talk page is so long and yet it isn't archived (There may be a need for six archives, estimated).
   • Although this user had made over 9000 contributions, these may not be enough for a trustable admin.
   • This candidate has not yet answered two questions (questions 8 and 10, above) which are very helpful in knowing the people's trust for the candidate.

   So sorry, candidate, I'll give you a strong oppose. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 07:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   I do not understand issue 2. "Although this user had (has) made over 9000 contributions, these may not be enough for a trustable admin." There are plenty of admins with less than 9,000 contributions that are "trustable admins". How is nine thousand contributions "not enough for a trustable admin"? Bmusician 10:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   It's an "eye of the beholder" situation. For some users 3,000 edits and no blocks is all they ask, others want to see 15,000 edits with a couple of GA articles thrown in. Personally I like to see a clean recent block log, a year or more of experience, and demonstrable knowledge of how admin tools are meant to be used. This candidate easily fulfills the first two of those but it is my opinion that they don't even come close to the third. As can be seen in the support section, others aren't concerned with the obvious wide gaps in policy knowledge. RFAs are largely a matter of perception. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Jedd Raynier: Letting you know that I just finished answering the questions. Sorry, but I didn't want to slight the questioners by giving only cursory answers, and I'm still doing other stuff on Wikipedia - as well as off, including work :-) Also, I made a thematic talkpage archive for my DYKs and was planning on re-evaluating this morning my time whether I should also implement automated archiving, leaning towards doing so because a number of people have raised this concern here - but I found someone had done it for me, so that is done and we get to find out how many archives it will need :-) On my edit count, maybe I should point out that I tend to make massive edits with a lot of previewing, rather than fixing one thing at a time and saving each time. It's just the way my mind works, that I tend to see changes as related, so I prefer to make them all at once. Plus as has been pointed out by others, I don't use automated tools. You're perfectly welcome to consider my edit count too low, and I am aware that I'm way behind the curve on that, but that's the context - my editing style is unusual. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   It's all right; it's my own opinion about the candidate, and we don't do personal attacks here. Sorry for any arguements I've caused due to my vote, but I'm trying to do better next time. No worries! Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 03:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

   Not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here, but goodness, you have absolutely the right to express your opinion based on your own criteria! Yngvadottir (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

   Note that "Jedd Raynier" has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, including the "Honda Civic and City" and "Hyundai Tucson Lover" accounts which he used to triple-vote in this RfA. 28bytes (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Yngvadottir has not formally accepted the nomination. Also, the reasons for adminship are unconvincing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Comment - Perhaps you missed this made the day before you !voted, where the candidate asked if the ! was sufficient, or if she sound sign it. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose on the basis of not really wanting it. This I feel means there is a lack of interest in understanding the relevant policies but, more importantly, learning what the buttons are for and how to use them properly. It is possible to do damage with the admin tools and all admins must therefore have a desire to learn how to use them. I don't believe the candidate has this interest and there is a risk of clicking the wrong button. Yes, I know all actions can be reversed but knowing how to reverse them yourself is vital. In summary I don't believe the candidate can be trusted with the tools not because they will wilfully misuse them but because they don't know and don't want to know how to. QU ^TalkQu 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   I see where you're coming from, but would like to reassure you that I'm only too aware that admin tools can really muck things up if wielded incompetently. That's been my primary reason for not seeking adminship. If the community decides to entrust me with them, I will be very careful indeed, including doing my utmost to learn how, first. Not being ambitious doesn't make me careless; unfortunately, I'm also a klutz of the first order, so as I say, I understand your concern! Yngvadottir (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

10. From the answer to Q7, I don't think this candidate quite understands how to close contentious discussions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose (and as Beeblebrox suggests, somewhat unfortunately). You appear to be a good contributor. Your knowledge of the admin-ish aspects of the project are extremely weak. Deletion discussions, determining consensus...wow, if you don't have an idea long before now, then becoming an admin should not be your next step. The most important thing for me, however, is to NOT lose you as a contributor! You have much to give to the project, yet much to learn (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose. A valuable contributor, but your answers to some of the questions above clearly show that you probably should keep your focus on the editorial side of things. I don't think, as Bwilkins and ErikHaugen and others have said, you should be closing certain discussions, based on your answers. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

    To ErikHaugen, BWilkins and Strange Passerby: ok, I appreciate the pointer. As I've mentioned, I'm a bit dubious about consensus-driven decision making scaling to this level, and I've seen some things that struck me as unfortunate in terms of determining it. Possibly that was because I've failed to fully understand how it works. I'll take that on board, and if this RfA is successful, that's an area I'll specifically avoid until I'm told I "get it". [I forgot to sign this one. Yngvadottir

    This is what is giving so many of us pause and leading to so many neutrals and reluctant opposes. You are obviously a great content editor and have made a lot of excellent contributions to content here, but you seem like you you have little need for admin tools and are afraid to use them if they were granted to you. Don't get me wrong, I was super nervous the first time I blocked somebody, but in the end I did it, because I had taken the time to become familiar with the relevant policies and had experience reporting users to admins for blockable offenses. If all you can do is sit back and watch, waiting for the day when you can actually use the tools and fell like you have some idea what you are doing you aren't ready yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose - I was okay with support after going through your contributions, but your answers to questions were not satisfying. I don't think that you are taking this RfA seriously as in the start, you used ! as accepting the nomination. About answers, like you used 'OMGs' in your ans 1. Even I would like to use it but still it is not at all a good thing for a RfA candidate as it creates a doubt about your working abilities. And your answer to question 2 cleared my doubts. This kind of behavior is not a thing that I look in an admin. I don't want to sound rude, but I think you are not eligible for Adminship right now. Sorry, but have to oppose. Yasht101 :) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose - I'm sorry, but this seems pretty clear to me. As great as your work has been, your answer to Q1 seriously sounds like something you just breezed out without actually thinking about all that an admin can do ... I'm just concerned that you, if given the tools, would be using some of them with little to no prior knowledge (and almost a lack of interest). Now, nothing against Keepscases, but when your answer to him is the longest by far, I feel a little odd. The fact that other answers appear a bit neglected only exacerbates the issue. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

    I saved two of the hardest ones for last; apologies for the longwindedness responding to Keepscases' question, but it was a philosophical one and I guess I flipped back into Liberal Arts student mode. Conversely, Q1 is an honest response to "OMGs I got nominated for admin!" If it helps, I could and probably should also have said that DYK keeps running into a problem when the queues are all empty and only an admin can move the next prep set into the next empty queue so that the bot can update that section of the Main Page, but the admins who help out at DYK are all busy elsewhere. I had two reasons for not mentioning that in my answer: first, I'd be scared of messing it up, at first, and second, DYK is unpopular among many editors and I didn't want to draw down more wrath upon it. (No one at DYK put either Kobnach or me up to this, and if I am not made an admin, the admins who do help out there will continue managing the updates as they have been doing.) Fact is, I would indeed go slowly until I could be pretty sure I wouldn't break stuff, but I accepted this nomination because if people think I would be useful as an admin, I'm willing to work hard at being useful as an admin. I've wound up doing all sorts of things to help out at Wikipedia; I'm sure I would wind up doing a variety of admin things, not just DYK housekeeping and not just things I can imagine right now. Not making excuses, thought you deserved a response. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

    And I appreciate the response :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

15. Oppose - per Yasht101's comment. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose - I feel strongly that adminship is no big deal and with that said, I think Yngvadottir is a great editor who has made greatly appreciated contributions to the project; but, in reducing this matter to basic simplicity, I believe that based on her interactions on this page, I'm skeptical about the type of attitude she would have with the tools. The best admins are those who make no "splash" and don't turn anybody off to Wikipedia. After all, new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia--and, given the data about new users, I'm cautious about this RFA having the needed humility for treating the next generation of potential great editors. Skimming this page, it appears that Yngvadottir would be a toss-up outcome--on one hand, she might continue producing great article content... yet, I'm fearful she might belong to the "go along to get along" type of admins who feel vetted/confirmed/credentialed to treat others with impatience, indifference, or arrogance. Admin personality is of second importance (behind admin competence, which goes without saying) which is why I reluctantly oppose; and, I generally agree with the overall argument behind most of my fellow !oppose voters. Lastly, I hope to be proven wrong if this RFA passes. 완젬스 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

    My gods, I hope I will never turn off newbies! We were all new once; one of the wonderful (and embarrassing) things about the internet is that a person could be anyone - I know Wikipedia is crawling with lawyers, professors, schoolkids, taxi drivers, housewives, shut-ins and retirees (including combinations). I've always tried to help new editors, and was recently rather hurt and worried that the Teahouse didn't want me to plunge in there. I don't hang out at the Help desks largely because I know my expertise pales in comparison to that of those who do; but when I asked for help I tried to give a little, too. I'll remember you were afraid I would be a bitey admin and try to figure out what I'm doing that triggers such fears, because I agree, that's really important. We need everybody, and that includes the new people (and all the kinds of new people, including the experts and the less than computer savvy). ... On continuing to create content, both new and improved, I've intentionally responded to that concern with deeds rather than with words here. I am on Wikipedia to write stuff, and this caught me unawares when I had a DYK deadline coming up, and I have more articles I need to write, not least because I have interlibrary loan books due back soon and a couple more on order. If the community decides to have me serve as an admin, it will be additional. I'm not going to stop writing (and copyediting). I haven't for this RfA, and I think Kobnach would be upset, too, if that were to be the result of the nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose I don't feel that this user is ready to take the mop. Honda Civic and City (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose I agree with this user above; this candidate isn't ready. Hyundai Tucson Lover (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

    SPI filed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

    Given the result, I presume Jedd Raynier's vote should be struck? Josh Parris 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

17. Oppose - dragging someone into adminship who really doesn't want to, but will if the community will choose.... No. Either they want to be an admin or not. I don't think this is a gaming of the system with a faux "I don't want to serve - wink wink - but if you ask...". So then taking this at face value, I don't like the idea of pressuring someone into being an admin by starting an RfA. The place for this discussion is a talk page, and an RfA shouldn't start til they do agree. I will admit I have aggressively asked several editors to take on adminship. But I'd like to hope I would never do this, well meant though this seems to be. - jc37 22:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Jc37 expresses my own thoughts very well. Seems to be a good editor from what little I've looked at, and I can even understand (and agree in some instances) with their views about adminship linked to by Nikkimaria; but I'm not sure about the timing of the remark and this RfA. Adminship can carry a heavy weight for those who take it seriously, and depending upon the areas they are active in. If the users feels "dragged" then I'd worry about burnout in the future. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    jc37, Ched and others: Yes, I appreciate the concern. But I did accept the nomination; I could have not done so. I'm unusually un-ambitious - and scared stiff of messing up - so let me assure you I have no intention, if the community entrusts me with admin tools, of using them recklessly or even adminning to the detriment of my gnoming and writing activities here. If I had planned to run, I would probably have muzzled myself in policy-related discussions for months in advance, written on some safer article topics - and taken a week off work. One advantage of the bit of April Fool's weirdness with which this started is that you see me surprised as I truly am. For good or ill '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

    Until this assertion, no, not that I have seen. (But please point me to a time stamp I'm missing.) And typing "!" isn't accepting. It's presumably merely expressing an emotion ("surprised" in this case, as you note).

    That aside, the way (context) in which you keep saying this "if the community decides" stuff to me is coming across as fooforah. And is not inclining me to support. Sorry. - jc37 05:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

19. Oppose per ched --Guerillero | My Talk 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
20. Per ched and Beeblebrox, as well as the OMG response and the diff. The diff bothers me not because of criticism of admins - there is certainly plenty of room for that - but because the belief expressed that Admins "band together" for political reasons betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how ANI works. When there is a dispute, you will often see admins arguing vociferously - if you see them agreeing and supporting one another, it is because they agree. And they often agree because of the simple fact that they, as experienced admins, understand policy and editor behavior patterns better than the average user. If we did not work towards agreement and consensus, we would never get anything done. To call consensus among Admins some sort of cabal like behavior is to insult every admin who has ever piled on and agreed with a difficult decision. I must oppose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
21. I question whether the candidate is taking this seriously. "OMGs"? What is that? Is this person 14 years old? Answers to Q1-3 are severely lacking, as is experience in admin areas. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose basically per Ched and Beeblebrox. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

I think I'm neutral for now. Not archiving your talk page is somewhat concerning; as an admin, you'll be interacting with editors a lot more, and over time your talk page will build up to the point where people with slower Internet connections won't be able to load your talk page. Also, you cite article work as your best contributions, but I see no GAs or FAs; however, these reasons aren't enough to push me into the "oppose" section. I may consider changing my vote as this RfA continues. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if I get a mop shoved into my hands (OMGs), my talkpage would need to be archived in short order. On your other point, I frankly don't understand why my articles are almost always classified start class or C-class. (I think 2 are B-class.) I've looked at a few project criteria and other than lack of sections (I do that on a case by case basis) and shortness (again very much case by case; policy is that it should bear some relation to significance of the topic, but more important in practice, I find, is that I can't find much info about some topics - and that conversely, some things take longer to explain) I'm left suspecting it's a combination of reaction to the topic (I don't create or expand articles on many things seen by projects as high importance, mainly because others have already got those pretty well covered) and my preference for an MLA-type referencing style that's unfashionable. Also, I'm not here to collect accolades; I think it's very nice we have Good Articles and especially Featured Articles, but my wish to bask in the limelight goes no further than wanting to share cool stuff for a few hours via Did You Know. Others are always welcome to take articles I have started or rescued to GA or FA; that area of effort just doesn't float my boat. I'd rather start or rescue another article, if that makes any sense? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Moving to support now. :) The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support Talk page archiving needs to be addressed before being given the mop, not after. Otherwise, I like what I've seen so far. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Moved to support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I haven't reviewed the candidate, and frankly this is an awful day to choose to start a serious nomination, but with 200+ items, it's a pain to load the candidate's talk page. That's not a make or break issue, but I'd like to see it fixed. Archiving is really easy to do, and dosen't detract from people's ability to find information, especially if it's done right. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see several people here saying I should archive my talk page, so although I don't really understand the issue (in response to the first complaint on my talk page a few weeks ago, I asked two friends with smartphones to load it and tell me how much of a strain it was and they both said not to worry; maybe it's worse if one tries to edit it from a smartphone?) I've started the process of shunting my DYK templates onto a subpage. As I expected it's taking me a while, so I'll resume with that when I get home from work, where I have a hinky connection and limited break time. But could I ask what the issue is with April Fool's? My (entirely off-wiki) revenge on Kobnach will be all the sweeter for being served very cold. And I quite understand if you consider the cat a better candidate. But I think Kobnach stated their rationale quite well, and there is potentially another 6 days or more for this to be serious. Well, mostly; I won't promise not to crack wise in some responses. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the lack of archiving is that your talk page is a medium for other people to interact with you... some of these people may be accessing from a dial-up connection in rural Zimbabwe and have difficulty simply accessing/editing your talk page. Others may just have difficulty navigating it or keeping up with/finding a reply to a question. All you have to do is set up a bot to auto-archive it as has been suggested on your talk page...

I don't really see the problem with being nominated on April 1, but I have to ask, did Kobnach nominate you as a prank? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

More like a Sadie Hawkins Day thing, I think :-) Yes, I do understand about dial-up (often use it myself); I've just had no problems getting my talkpage to load, as opposed to say, Architecture of the Night :-) So I'm working on it. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified you.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1. An intelligent user who I'd rather not distract from content creation work, and although helping at DYK seems like a relevant task for her, I would like to see more depth/breadth of admin-related activities rather than promoting "specialized" admins. Although, I think in this case that wouldn't hurt. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   Agree with Sven that starting a serious RfA on April Fool's Day shows a lack of judgement that places me here in neutral. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Moving to oppose. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Note that Yngvadottir was nominated by User:Kobnach who is apparently her roommate, but not the same person. I don't believe any conclusions can be made on Yngvadottir's judgement on this basis. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   On the contrary, I do. She could've waited till April 2 to accept. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   From what I see, it's the evening of April 2 (UTC), and Yngvadottir still hasn't accepted. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

   I'm waiting for an answer to question nine. Airplaneman ✈ 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral: Not confident to support or oppose at this time. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral: I don't know whether I can vote. I think less than 9000 edits isn't enough to be a sysop on such a big wikipedia, maybe a bit strict? --Makecat_Talk 06:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Really a bit strict. These edits were all made without any tools/programs. mabdul 13:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

4. I am unhappy with the discussions around.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
5. - I very much like the shape of her CONTRIBS pie chart — apparently a content creator all the way. I'm utterly at a loss as to why this candidate seeks the mop, however. Nothing to suggest a reason to oppose, but what's the point here? Keep writing content, that's what the project needs, leave the janitorial tasks for the janitors... Carrite (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I have put off commenting on this RfA for a few days now because I really don't know. Cntent contributions look very good and the candidate has a steady record - I doubt they'll cause any problems. Having said that, the lack of experience with admin related tasks (coupled with the strange reluctance to be an admin) are cause for concern. Although admins need solid content contributions, they also need understanding & experience of admin areas; I am not convinced of that here. Having said that, this user does seem sensible enough not to fiddle with things they don't understand; however, I cannot support a candidate who has little experience, however trustworthy they seem to be. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral I decided to wait on this one based off of the first three answers I saw. I would vote support based off of your contributions however would vote oppose based on your answers. What is up with those answers. So this leaves me dead in the middle.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral Similarly to the editors above me, you seem to be reluctant to become an administrator. Somehow convincing me and others that you actually want to take on the task of being an administrator will result in my support. Mythio (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

   Going to change to support based on the recent answers to questions. Mythio (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - Wanting to Support. While it's almost obvious your RfA will be unsuccessful this time I admire your whole outlook of the process and love your responses to the opposes. the reason I'm not supporting is I have the same concerns as Beeblebrox, so I guess I'm one of those editors who have excuses and apologizes but, I will be there on your next go. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

   Took a second look and there might not need to be a next run. Moving to support. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

   No reason strong to support but no strong reason to oppose. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) moved to oppose --Guerillero | My Talk 23:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Neutral A nice and hard working editor for over 3 years with more than 9000 edits. Knows how to work in those areas where they are experienced. No doubt that they have many great contributions in the article mainspace. But as many users and they themselves have said that they do not have much experience in many of the administrative areas of the project where an administrator at least needs to have a basic know how and experience before being given Adminship. Wikipedia and the whole community is really proud to have such users working here for the main objective which is building the best free content knowledge online encyclopedia for the world. And even if you succeed or do not succeed this RfA, remember that you are a great user and will always be :) Best wishes from me and all the best for the future! TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2012 (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.