Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L'Aquatique

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

L'Aquatique

Final (87/9/4); Closed by Rlevse at 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique (talk · contribs) - We seem to be having a run of good candidates here at RFA recently so I just thought I might throw another excellent user into the mix. L'Aquatique is a user of nearly two years tenure with a solid edit count. She is active in many diverse areas from WP:ACC (see log) to the more conventional realms of administrator work such as anti-vandalism, she has even helped found the active WikiProject Accessibility. Any reading of the many discussions in which she has been involved will show impeccable civility and good communication skills.

I first came across L'Aquatique at her editor review about a month back where I and several other editors expressed concern that she might not have the breadth of experience and knowledge required for an administrator. Over the intervening month she has gone a long way towards addressing those concerns, becoming much more active in the articles for deletion process and even doing research on our various policies thoroughly and then writing semi-essays on them. The results can be found here.

Finally it should be noted that L'Aquatique is truly here to build the encyclopedia. Many well written articles have her username plastered across there edit histories, the best of which are listed at User:L'Aquatique/WPA. She does have an unusually high userspace editcount but this is in part because she builds articles on subpages before she publishes them.

In short, I have unshakable trust in her commitment to the encyclopedia and her ability to use the tools in a way that will only benefit Wikipedia! - Icewedge (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank you for the wonderful nomination statement! L'Aquatique[review] 08:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say for my opening statement, simply because I'd like to think that my actions during my time here speak for themselves. As Icewedge noted, my userspace edit count is a bit on the high side, and this is mostly because of my article-writing style and also because during my tenure with WikiProject Accessibility I have had the pleasure of working with a ton load of really neat people, and a lot of our discussions about policies have been conducted in userspace, hence, lots of userspace edits.
I guess the only other thing I have to say is, I really, really appreciate all comments here, whether you're supporting or opposing. I hope that I can learn from all the advice I am sure to receive. However, I will not be sending out RFA thankspam, no matter how this goes. I've never really seen the purpose of it other than to suck up bandwidth and raise false "oh my G-d it's the glorious orange bar" hopes. So, if you're interested in finding out whether or not I pass, you should probably watchlist this page. Thanks again for reading!

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have a wide-range of interests and a tendency to wake up one morning thinking, “hmm, I should do this today.” At the current time, I think the admin area that needs me the most is WP:ACC- account creation requests. I’ve been working with the tool and group for the last couple of months (I’m S.A., for those of you on the accounts-enwiki email list) and at this point there are very few admins on the team. Just for those who don’t know, at this time there is a function called anti-spoof that automatically stops non-admin users who are trying to create accounts similar to existing ones, which is the reason 99% of potential users end up having to request an account from us. However, it is generally accepted that if the existing account has not edited in over a year, the new account can be created, so we almost always have a backlog of admin needed requests. I spend a lot of time on-wiki, so if I am given admin tools, I will be able to keep that backlog clear and make requests faster and less painful for all parties involved.

I also participate in AFDs, and would be willing to help close them. I also noticed there are alarmingly large backlogs at Candidates for SD (104 at the time I write this), requested moves, old PRODs etc, and of course I will help out there whenever I can. I also would like to work at UAA, since I already have mucho experience working with usernames and I have the policy down pat.

I usually try to spend about an hour a week doing mindless-huggle-vandal fighting- I find it mellows me out (weird, I know). I also keep a careful eye on articles that matter to me most; specifically those related to Alaska, South Park, and Judaism. Anyway, I would also like to do some work with the admin-side of vandal-fighting; blocking vandals, protecting pages, etc.

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

A: You mean I have to... decide!? Well, I'm a metapedian and so most of my really good work as been not in article space, but in project space or userspace. I have to say I'm quite proud of helping to found WikiProject Accessibility- not only because I get the chance to work with some great people and pick up a ton of information about web accessibility, but also because it's very rewarding to help editors who might not otherwise be able to contribute to their full potential. I've also done a fair amount of work for WikiProject Judaism, right now my pet project for them is writing the monthly newsletter. I know a lot of people will say that this sort of stuff doesn't necessarily improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but I think that it does- by working with editors I help improve the atmosphere and make it a better environment for the people who have the patience and skills to spend weeks elevating an article from mere sub-stub to FA. I personally, don't have what it takes to do that. But if I can help someone who does, then I consider it a net gain for the encyclopedia. If I had to pick an article that constitutes my best work, I'd have to say MDV3100. Oh, it's a stub, I know, but when I found it by browsing through newpage patrol it was about to be speedily deleted as nonsense, since it consisted of a few incoherant words. A quick google search revealed the importance of the topic, and off I went! Now, it's a well-referenced and complete stub, which is the sort of stub a girl can be proud of.

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: Well, I’m a member of medcab and I work on RFCs and AFDs, so hell yeah I’ve been involved in editing conflicts (not to be confused with the ever horrifying edit conflict, familiar to all who venture onto WP:AN/I)! However, it’s my job as a mediator or sometimes just the voice of reason to stay chill and not get too stressed. It’s only Wikipedia after all! That being said, I can honestly say that I probably could have handled a certain relatively recent incident better... I was co-mediating a medcab case and one of the involved editors started making personal attacks against my fellow mediator, even threatening to take him to Arbcom. I came to his defense on the editor’s talk page and very explicitly (but civilly) explained that such behavior, if continued, would lead to trouble. He demanded that I apologize for my slander, and I lost my cool a bit and said ‘it will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for being honest’. I probably could have phrased that better!! Anyway, the editor in question is currently in RfC for incivility and edit warring, so I was right, the question was, was I tactful? I’m ashamed to admit the answer is probably not.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: Now see here, Xeno, you had me all ready to read something horribly offensive, there! As any vandal fighter will tell you, that was actually pretty mild.

Now, out of some 15 edits, 14 were vandalism, and not testing vandalism (i.e. "dsfdsgfrw") but quite disruptive vandalism. So I'd be fairly wary of a promise from the user to stop. The clincher for me is that he vandalised again after his constructive edit. I would not unblock him, but I would shorten the block, maybe 24 hours, and keep a very close eye on him after his block expired. I know there's a fairly good chance he'll vandalise again, but the chance to have another constructive editor seems worth the risk. Vandalism can always be reverted, after all, but good editors cannot be recruited by the mere push of a button.

Optional question from miranda

5. What is 3RR and when do you block? Should you block people if they are edit warring on a BLP?

A. 3RR is a fundamental policy which states that an editor- any editor- cannot make more than three reverts to a single page within a 24 hour period. The 24 hour period part is important because I find that a lot of the time people will make three reverts within a day and then come back after that day, for them, is done, and revert again, when in reality it's still in the 24 hour period.

As far as blocking- your question is somewhat ambiguous. Are we talking about someone who is repeatedly adding a BLP violation or removing one? Removing an obvious BLP violation is considered similarly to removing vandalism- it doesn't come under the aegis of 3RR. Adding an obvious BLP violation is another story, and if you do it repeatedly it may lead to a block.

6. If you see original research in a BLP, what should you do?

A. Remove it, immediately. It is up to the contributor of material to cite their sources, and if they don't the material can, and in the case of BLP should, be removed at any time. I would of course explain this in the edit summary, and if the original contributor can add verifiable sources he or she is welcome to add the information back.

Optional question from Keepscases

7. A quote in your user profile states, "Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice to the act." While this quote likely had to do with injustices somewhat more serious than what would be found on Wikipedia, do you think it is applicable here? Why or why not?

A: Well, that particular quote (indeed, all of the ones except the main page one) is from the Talmud, which is one of the most important pieces of the Halakha- Jewish law. But that isn't the main reason I consider it one of the central tenets of my ethical make-up. The concept of justice is very important to me, not justice in the vengeful "get what you deserve" sense, but justice in a sense of valuing fairness and honesty. Part of that is that if I see something I believe is unethical, I'm going to stand against it. Apathy has no place in modern society.

Now, how does this apply to Wikipedia? We are a community, a microcosm of a greater world and just like in the real world, people don't always choose to do the right thing, because it's easier to just ignore the problem. Of course, I'm not suggesting here that people who don't protest injustices actually be punished for their inaction, but merely that this is something we need to consider when making decisions. I hope that made sense.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

8. Because Kurt will want to know: Your opinion on cool down blocks is..."

A.They should be used only when... users try to trip up admin hopefuls with trick questions at RFA.

I’m kidding of course. I strongly support the policy of discouraging cool down blocks. If a user is so upset that he or she is violating policy- i.e. making personal attacks, legal threats, etc, after being warned repeatedly (or, in extreme cases, without being warned at all) then I would block him/her for that, but never simply to get him/her to “cool down”. Now, that’s not to say I wouldn’t strongly suggest that they stop editing for a while, take a tea break maybe, until their head clears, lest they say or do something they will regret later. But I wouldn’t force the issue with a block unless it got into the realm of serious policy violations. I know Kurt won't like it, but it's my opinion and I'm not selling out for a support vote.

9.Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answer..

A. This one might take some time, but I will post a response as soon as I've answered it fully.

1.Several Christian sects which are proponents of Christian naturism claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis means that it is forbidden by God to wear clothes, unless required as protection from the elements. One prominent sect, the Starkerites, have become more and more prominent in the UK in the last few decades. They are famous for their radio and television sermons promising that everyone who wears clothes is an affront to God and is going straight to hell. Some of the more extreme varieties of Starkerites, such as the Nakedites, even preach that people who wear clothes indoors should be summarily killed for their blasphemy. The Nakedites have tried to get laws passed requiring that all children attending government schools doff their clothes indoors. This measure is meant to avoid offending any Nakedite children. There have been some well publicized lawsuits trying to impose Nakedite requirements on various commercial enterprises and public institutions, which the Nakedites have always lost.

Lately a contingent of Nakedites have joined Wikipedia and are changing all the articles on Christianity to reflect Nakedite teachings. Huge edit wars break out, since Nakedites regard all those who do not follow indoor nudity and Nakedite philosophy as not real Christians and infidels. They therefore demand that the Wikipedia articles be written accordingly. Any efforts to stop them or slow them down are met with angry responses and a claim that they have a right to their religious freedom, which Wikipedia is suppressing.

What should Wikipedia do? Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? Do they have the right to not be offended? Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshiping in churches from all articles on Christianity? Should Wikipedia remove all pictures of all clothed people indoors to try to assuage the Nakedites? Should anyone from any FRINGE movement be allowed to show up on Wikipedia and demand to be able to dictate how all articles in some area are written? What if they decry the definition of WP:FRINGE and try to rewrite WP:FRINGE and other policies to let them do whatever they want? How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? I shudder to think that a similar solution actually happened.

Okay, I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible: Wikipedia. Is. Not. Congress. I remember reading a thread somewhere- AN/I, VP/P, something like that, about an editor complaining that WP:CIVIL violated his constitutional right to free speech, and the response to him was: Wikimedia is a private organization, users here don't have a right to anything. Do they deserve a lot of stuff, like the ability to express their opinions, or the ability to practice a religion without persecution, etc? Absolutely. But you cannot just run rampant on the Wiki and tell anyone who opposes you that they're violating your right to religious freedom, free speech, et al. That's called gaming the system.

THAT being said, it's not that I don't think these Nakedites don't deserve some mention. Regardless how far out they are, most Fringe theories and beliefs have entered into our culture and are thus notable enough to be included. But WP:FRINGE makes it very clear that we should be careful not to give undue weight to non-scientific/commonly held beliefs lest we give the impression that they should be considered on the same plane as more mainstream beliefs. These fringe theories might be right, after all, it used to be mainstream thought that the earth was flat. But we're not in the business of being a crystal ball around here. 'Nuff said.


2.A commercially-available DVD is part of the evidence in a trial. The trial transcripts list the DVD as being 75 minutes in length. Amazon.com and several other sites that sell this DVD list it as 75 minutes in length. An editor appears on Wikipedia and claims that the copy he has in his possession is 51 minutes in length, and that Wikipedia must change its article accordingly.

When other editors on Wikipedia disagree with him, he becomes quite adamant about his demands and even combative. When people resist him, this becomes a major complaint at Wikipedia Review about the unfairness of Wikipedia and the bias of Wikipedia and the lack of ethics on Wikipedia.

What should Wikipedia do? How should Wikipedia describe the length of this DVD? What is most reasonable and fair? What is encyclopedic? What policies are involved here? Should anyone be allowed to edit Wikipedia according to what they have asserted is The TRUTH^TM? Is it a violation of WP:IAR to require that a WP:RS for this editor's claim of 51 minutes before it can be included in the article? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

I think the number one thing that people do not realize is that Wikipedia is not necessarily the actual truth. We do not deal in truths because the perception of truth can vary from person to person. Instead, we deal in what is verifiable. His tape may well be 51 minutes, but it also might not be, whereas we have concrete evidence from several third party sources that the length of the tape is 75 minutes. Our readers come to Wikipedia to learn, it would be disingenuous of us, as content writers, to provide them with anything other than something we can back up with tangible evidence. While the user may be acting in good faith, simple good faith is not enough to justify inclusion into the article. I would recommend that the user enter into Adopt a User so hopefully he can be gently taught about our policies. Futhermore, IAR is not the sort of thing that you can violate, per se, but a last resort designed for when policies shouldn’t apply to an individual situation. I can think of no instance, offhand, where IAR would be used to justify adding material contrary to reliable sources.

Finally, what is said and done at Wikipedia Review should be of no concern to us. They will ALWAYS find something about us they don’t like- that’s their job! As for us, it’s not our job to try to please them, so why bother?:

Additional question from miranda

10. Since you have little experience in mainspace areas and admin areas, will you place yourself on a fair recall agreement?

I think AOR is fundamentally a good idea, and while there have been conflicts and controversies regarding it, I do plan to add myself (I haven’t really thought about criteria, I’ll cross that hurdle when I get to it). The community gave me the tools, they deserve to take them away if I am acting in a manner contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Question from Sceptre

11. What was the last media file you played, and would you contribute to Wikipedia about it?

Well, let me see. I'm listening to music right now, but I don't tend to contribute a bunch about music, no reason really just never felt inclined to. I did however just watch a few episodes of South Park, and yes I contribute a lot to South Park Episodes- one of my long-term projects has been cleanup and addition of material to all the South Park episode articles (i.e. [1], [2], etc), along with trying- rather unsucessfully, mind you- to get Eric Cartman to GA status. It's the thought that counts, right? Okay, maybe not. But as I have mentioned numerous times, I'm not an article writer, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure I understand why that's a bad thing- after all you don't need the extra tools to write a good article.

General comments

• See L'Aquatique's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for L'Aquatique: L'Aquatique (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• Albeit, the opposition is in good faith, I get that. It is my thinking that the bar in the opposition is set entirely too high. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's their decision to make. Everyone makes their !voting decisions based on a complex set of rules that are often quite personal. No one here has provided anything other than constructive criticisms, which is the best kind of criticism. : ) L'Aquatique[talk] 01:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Right, I've got to run in a moment, but here it goes. I've read through a good bit of your latest contributions, as well as User:L'Aquatique/RFA FAQ, and you've got the right idea. I like your work at MedCab and with your various WikiProjects; this shows me that you clearly realize that peaceful and civil collaboration is absolutely number one for this project. I don't entirely agree with all of your answers on your RFA FAQ page, though. In the "If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article" question, keep in mind that blocking is preventative, not punitive. You could likely solve the problem by merely blocking the two or three IPs for a short period of time, even just a few hours. That way, you wouldn't have to protect the article at all, leaving it open for potentially constructive contributions. You should also have a bit of a think more on the role of admins on the project. While we do need to be police/mediators sometimes, we should by and large not think of ourselves as somehow above other members; we need to work really hard on dispelling this air of grandeur that admins think they have. These are just some hopefully helpful suggestions from me that you might think over. As I said, you very clearly have the right idea with what Wikipedia is trying to do as a whole, you do fantastic work here, and you demonstrate a clear need for the extra buttons. I wish you the very best of luck, and please feel free to ask me if you ever have any questions. Here is my trust. GlassCobra 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   This is excellent advice and just the sort I was hoping to get when I decided to accept this RFA. Thank you! L'Aquatique[review] 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Support I like the answers at User:L'Aquatique/RFA FAQ, they show me she put a lot of thought in it. I think someone who puts those into practice will make a fine admin. (I reserve the right to change my vote though when I see her answer to the questions here, after all, you never know ;-) Also, I think the contributions are quite good as far as I looked now. So#Why 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Sure. Good luck! —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 17:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Based on what I know about this editor, I have no reason to believe they would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support — appears willing to work with those who may one day be potential contributors even if they start off on the wrong foot. In addition to lowering the block length, consider extending them a {{2nd chance}} template. Other than that, general cluefulness has been displayed. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support as nothing serious jumped out at me to cause me to oppose. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sure the French username helps too. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   It can't hurt! L'Aquatique[talk] 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Support per Tan 39's neutral, Le Grand. SashaNein (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - Very good user, per the people above and her answers. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support GlassCobra said it the best ("It's been seen.... it can't be unseen!") Leonard^(Bloom) 19:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Dlohcierekim 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Support A fine candidate who knows the difference between right and wrong. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Will make a good admin. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen this user around, and I think they'll make a good admin. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Have seen L'Aquatique around doing good stuff, no qualms here. --Rodhullandemu 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I have two concerns: one is the lack of edits; I'm not sure you have enough edits, however, I do believe you will not abuse your powers, and will use them in an effective manner. The second: templating the regulars (see my talk) is something which really gets my goat. However, this user responded admirably to the whole situation (including my tongue in cheek response), which leads me to believe he has the proper temperament, intelligence, and knowledge to make an ideal administrator. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Even though L'Aquatique doesn't have an insane amount of edits like some other users do, her edits are well spaced out across the Wiki. I think she will be able to handle her tools responsibly. I believe that L'Aquatique can continue to improve herself here on the Wiki, but I think right now she deserves to be granted adminship. I have seen L'Aquatique around a little, and from what I can see, she is very civil and responsible. Best of luck, IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Why the hell not --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - Oh, yes. Definitely. And yes again. Apart from the purple/green user logo (argh, my EYES! ;-) no problems at all.  Channel ®   01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    Note: I removed the user logo- I've found that my screen is really bright compared to most others and so some things that look fine to me are blinding to others. I'd encourage anyone who has a problem with something I've made in this way to let me know ASAP so I can fix it. L'Aquatique[review] 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    You did notice the ;-) in my message, yes? I wasn't suggesting you should really change your page, I just hate purple and green. Matter of personal taste, nothing more.  Channel ®   08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Support She's headed down the right path, they can't know everything in the beginning. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - Dedicated to the project, has a clue. Soxπed93^(blag) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Knowledgable and civil user, trustworthy. Also great attempt at helping during the Hopiakuta messes last year, IIRC. Keegan^talk 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Weak support - I'm seriously concerned by the low edit count, but opposing for that reason would be hypocritical of me. Oren0 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Looks good. WP:WTHN.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - definitely has what it takes. She'll be just fine - Alison ^❤ 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    support I've read the oppose and the neutral comments and I think that while they bring up good points none of them are strong enough to make me oppose. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

28. Support She has a rare combination of intelligence, empathy, civility under pressure, and level-headedness, and she understands both letter and spirit of WP policies and guidelines. I'm confident she will make an excellent administrator. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Does great work on the account tool. No problems here! SQL^{Query me!} 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. She will make a fine admin. nancy ^(talk) 10:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - shows strong communication skills and working in dispute resolution is in my opinion always a sound foundation for adminship. WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - as the opposition point out, you don't have much experience in the administrator areas just yet (the types of which are also described in the opposes below) but as shown above you have excellent skills in discussion, good answers, you're communicative and you have experience in dispute resolution. That's a winner for me. Rudget 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Looks good to me. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. Too much common sense and Wiki know-how for me to continue being neutral. Tan ǀ 39 11:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Can't have too many sensible admins :)
    —Apis (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Dedicated and smart user. She'll certainly make an excellent admin, I have no reservations. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Weak support - a little more experience here and there, but the answers to the questions are impressive. You have good communication skills, and what you have done seems good. Lradrama 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Support, though as Wisdom89 says your edits in some areas you wish to work in as an administrator are quite lacking. However, it's obvious you're a very sensible person who can be trusted not to go racing in flailing admin tools at inappropriate things. Your general contributions as well as your communication skills seem excellent, and you seem to know all the relevant policies pretty well. Your answers to the questions, in particular, were excellent - I never thought those (in my opinion) kinda pointless AGF Challenge questions would ever have any effect on my vote in an RfA, but your answers were very switched-on and well written, and you can call me impressed. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I fully support you in this. It seems you are fully deserving of adminship. Your contributions may be within a certain limited scope, but they are of excellent quality. J.T Pearson (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Weak support Not the most experienced candidate I've ever seen, but certainly seems thoughtful, trustworthy and willing to learn. Good luck! Keepscases (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support...yep...yep...yep. Good luck! --Cameron* 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Weak Support I do understand some of the qualms that others have - low number of mainspace edits likely means this candidate hasn't run into enough edit conflicts where policy experience is necessary. However, from the questions given, it certainly seems like L'Aquatique knows his/her stuff and would an excellent administrator. NuclearWarfare (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - User has a solid level of clue. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Should be fine: UAA, AIV, and RFPP aren't too difficult to learn. I only had two edits (and only one request) to requests for page protection when I became an admin. Acalamari 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    Have you seen anything in project space that is "too difficult to learn"? I mean I realize a case could be made for article-writing, but... — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    Nothing's too difficult: most things in the project-space can be learned easily, just as long as you possess the interest and the desire to learn. Evidently some places are more complicated than others, but they too can be learned. I agree that none of them are "too difficult", otherwise no one would help out in those areas. Acalamari 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

45. Support I see no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Everything looks good. Adminship is not big deal. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support per the fact that she meets my criteria for supporting a candidate for adminship. S. Dean Jameson 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Strong support - exceeds my standards, by far. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Support per anser to Q6. And, honestly, I generally never even read the "optional" questions, or the first three, or the nom statement, for that matter. But you nailed it. Also, I've seen you around and have no negative "vibes" from your contribs. Good luck with the mop! Keeper ǀ 76 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Seems to be a fine candidate: ready, willing, and able to address ACC, UAA, and RM backlogs, demonstrates a good understanding of the role of the AFD process, and excellent vandal-fighting and article experience (building articles in userspace = good, btw; no thankspam = good as well ;-). — Athaenara ✉ 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Weak support per below. Please contribute more mainspace content instead of userspace content, because we have enough no writing content contributors, already. First and foremost, this is an encyclopedia, and the community must know that first and foremost before XFDs, AfDs, and even TfDs occur. miranda 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - Net Plus. Her answer to the Kurt Question showed a sense of humor and poise that one cannot fake. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Support I couldn't find any reason to oppose her. Good luck! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
54. User:L'Aquatique has demonstrated the ability to relax on Wikipedia, which is quite a valuable trait when all about you are losing their heads. :-) Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility is important work; in particular, she has tried to get User:hopiakuta involved properly in the encyclopaedia, which is commendable. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Je ne sais quoi support. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    Is that different from a Je sais quoi mais je veux montrer les autres que je suis plus raffinée support? L'Aquatique[talk] 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    For those who don't speak cheese-eating-surrender-monkey frog, those were "I don't know what" [support] and "I know what but I want to show the others that I am refined" [support]. — Athaenara ✉ 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    Basically, yeah. Je ne sais quoi is sort of an idiom, although it literally translates to I don't know what, the best way to put it in English is "something I just can't put my finger on". L'Aquatique[talk] 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    In all fairness, I must credit the influence of that certain quelque chose* of Rex Stout's irreverent Archie Goodwin for my use of the term "frog" in this context. — Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (*which in the form quelquechosenikov I found hilarious as a child)

56. Support Impressive candidate indeed. WJBscribe, among several other users here have voiced my opinion on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. Good answers. Solid contributions. I'm impressed that you made the effort to answer the tedious "AGF challenge" questions. Axl (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Support, seems extremely sane. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
59. Weak Support I have been assured that the user would use the tools, with an admin backing up the statement. Changing from neutral to weak support.--LAAFan 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Support: Mainspace edit count is more than acceptable, and adminhood is no big deal. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Intelligent, polite and helpful, what else does anyone need in an admin? Nick mallory (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
62. naerii 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
63. Support, user seems good to me. Wizardman 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
64. Support from neutral, you actually gave (very good) answers to the AGF answers. I'm impressed. You have a decent knowledge of WP policy, you know how to build articles and deal with anti-vandalism. WikiProject work is good, too. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR)

    Also per brilliant answer to Q8. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

65. Support. Good participation throught many aspects of Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. How could I ever forget my Alaskan fish buddy? bibliomaniac15 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    I am difficult to forget. It's yet to be determined if that is a good thing, though. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

67. Support Per Xeno. America69 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
68. Support. should be fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Great user. LittleMountain5 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Another strong candidate who can obviously learn anything remaining to be learned. Mr. IP (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - answer to Q11 suggest that in the case of burnout, he won't explode spectacularly and speedy delete CSD. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    You know, I was only planning to delete AFD in my explosive-burnout midlife crisis thingy, but speedying CSD would be much more amusing an ironic. Thank you for the suggestion! L'Aquatique[talk] 03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

72. Definitely ——RyanLupin • (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
73. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
74. Strong support per nom, answers to all questions thus far, and apparently pleasant, down-to-earth personality. (Extra weight on the personality factors, as per my eventual support for another candidate.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
76. Support No reason not to! Juppiter (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Nothing I can see is particularly alarming. I loved your answer to question #7, btw. Scintillating and succinct. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    You know scintillating is my favorite word? I can't even describe to you how happy I was when I learned there is actually such thing as a Scintillator. That's neither here nor there, of course, just thought I'd throw it out there... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

78. Strong support: Let's leave aside any other consideration while we gaze at the Oppose voters. Gentlefolk, have you read over this lady's thoughtful and reasoned answers above (she had me at "Wikipedia. Is. Not. Congress.")? Seen anything of her style and work? So may I ask you this: what about any admin work with which you think she's inexperienced are you figuring she's incapable of learning? Swear to god, there's nothing about any of this that's brain surgery.  RGTraynor  07:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
79. Strong Support: Can't say no, active contributer to wiki, and can use the tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patman21 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - definitely. Strong contributions, great answers. We can't all rack up a thousand edits per month, and not every editor needs 5,000 to show she has a clue.  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
81. Support Both candidate and community will benefit from tools. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
82. Surely. Your answers above make a great impression, but your work speaks for itself. If the litmus test is trust, you seem to have the community's. Do great things!   user:j    (aka justen)   01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
83. Honestly, I think this is a little premature and I would rather see wider and broader experience but my observations of L'Aquatique have always been positive so I'm happy to support. Sarah 04:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
84. Support : Weak contributions as per 'my' standards :) ... But now seeing people opposing RFA for no real and tangible reasons - Bad signature, 'Myspacey' userpages etc..( WoW !) , I am leaning to support people who has a decent behaviour history and good attitude.. WP:WTHN ? Keep up the trust we have in you... Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Good answers and trustworthy editor --Badgernet ^Talk 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
86. Support Good experienced user. No need for the tools is not a good reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
87. Support MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - User wishes to work at UAA, AIV, and RFPP according to statements made in the answer to question 1 (wants to block, protect etc..etc..) Yet, I see a paucity of contributions (if any) to those areas. So, I'm going to have to oppose this request per lack of experience. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   Eh, is "paucity" less or more serious than "infelicity"? — CharlotteWebb 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Umm, I know the meaning of both words, but I'm not understanding your question at all. Can you clarify? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose Though the editor seems well-intended and seems to make constructive edits, he/she also looks way too inexperienced and a bit too meta-wiki for my tastes. Just call me grumpy. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   What exactly us a meta-wiki contributor? I know we have a meta wiki, are you saying this editor contributes too much to meta? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think Ling refers to metapedianism (as in, the project space), not to meta-wiki. —Giggy 08:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I am referring to m:metapedianism. The candidate has repeatedly stated that she is not an article writer, and that she does not see this as a problem. I do see it as a problem, but respect her POV on the question. That's all. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Wisdom89 and due to low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits, which indicates to me a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   Instead of opposing on a "likely" lack of policy usage, why not throw some policy questions up there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose You've got little to no experience in the admin areas you want to work in. What exactly are you going to do--wing it? As far as I see, you've done nothing that makes me trust your ability to work there as an admin.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   You'll have to excuse me, I'm not entirely clear on what I'm supposed to respond to and not. Was this a rhetorical question or are you looking for an answer? I do have one. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   L, I'm sure it was rhetorical. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   It was rhetorical, but an answer couldn't hurt. What's the worst I can do, switch to Strong Oppose? :-) --KojiDude ^(C) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Very true. Okay, so basically, I haven't necessarily contributed in these areas, but I have spent extended periods of time watching the process and studying the policies. For example, I've been going onto the AN and read a case, think about what I would do, and then compare my "decision" to what actually happens. Same with UAA. Through this I believe I have gained an appreciation of the factors that weigh into an admin's decision to block, not block, delete/not delete. In addition, I am thankfully blessed with at least a smattering of common sense, which I happen to believe is the most important trait you can have when you are in the position of having to make difficult decisions. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's pretty much exactly how I handled AIV for the first few days except in the really clear cases. –xeno (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   And to be discouraging (sarcastically anyway) here, you'll still screw up L'A. We all do. My first 10 or 15 "AFD closes" were "mind-closes". I read through them all 10, made a "decision", and then watchlisted to see how they were closed. Once my "closes" matched the real closes, I started closing them. It was only a matter of days (coulda even been hours :-) before I got flamed on my talk page for my "horrible close". Heh. Learning by doing is the best kind of learning, you'll do just fine :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Little to no experience in sysop areas.  Asenine  22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Wisdom. The candidate needs more experience in sysop-related areas. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Q2, and the above. —Giggy 08:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per proposing a stub as an example of best work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Hmm. I've been pondering on and off about this for several days now. The thing is that even with the above opposes, there is no real deal-breaker. Yet I feel a bit eery about handing this candidate the tools. Cannot pinpoint any particular reason, so don't ask, but my opinion that this is a bad idea is weirdly strong. user:Everyme 11:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I agree with Wisdom (in the oppose section) in that there is a little lack of experience, however, I've seen this editor around here and there and they've demonstrated a seemingly good knowledge of how everything works. A bit more userspace edits (proportionally) than I would like, and a bit more Huggling recently than I would like. I'll take an extra close look and come back to this one. Useight (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   If they were good Huggle edits (legit vandalism) then I don't see a problem with that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   Editors may weigh the candidate on whatever basis they desire. I personally consider it very important that a candidate do their own work instead of relying on automated tools, especially immediately before an RFA. You'll see that I find this quite important, as I've used this in my rationale many times; I found these after a quick glance: [3], [4], and [5]. There will be a ton more if you take a look through User:Useight/RFA Participation. Excessively using Huggle isn't a deal breaker, so I'm neutral for now, but I want to see an editor do their own work manually before and RFA. Useight (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   This neutral moved to top to preserve numbering. –xeno (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral I have seen this user around. However, I think she needs more time to be acquainted with Wikipedia and policies, as well as article writing. miranda 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Switch to weak support. miranda 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   NeutralChanging to support due to the answers to the AGF challenge questions. This is going to seem petty and petulant, but this oppose to a recent block of mine is going to prevent me from supporting. It wasn't the fact that she opposed; it was the manner in which it was done. "spectacularly bad", "very bad". It was a messy situation that ended up getting overturned, but in a good way and endorsed by myself (per LessHeard VanU). This opinion was way over the top, mostly off-base, and even a little off the actual reason of why I blocked the user (who, as I predicted, didn't contest the block and hasn't edited since). Anyways, realize I'm not opposing so no need to flame me here. Tan ǀ 39 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards Support- Seems overall like a good editor, however, I think more time to become more used to WP policies, only 300 out of 3500 (8%) are WP edits. 800 userpage edits also concern me. Keep up the good work, and definitely go for it again in a couple months in the slim chance this RfA fails. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Change to support.

   Well, she did explain that she usually writes articles in the User-space before pasting them into the article-namespace which should explain that. So#Why 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   I've also done quite a bit of work with Adopt a User which has resulted in a lot of user talk edits. : ) L'Aquatique[review] 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   Talking to other editors is a vital part of being an admin. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards support I would support, but the lack of edits for two months concerns me.--LAAFan 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Changed opinion to Weak support.--LAAFan 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Could you clarify a little on this? We are a volunteer project, after all, and people are allowed to take breaks. Besides, since her return, L'Aquatique has had more edits than all her previous months combined. I'm not trying to badger here, just looking for a little more detail as to why this is a concern. GlassCobra 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

   The lack of edits concerns me too! I'm a college student, trust me if I could I would have spent all that time editing, I absolutely would have. But, and I really hope this doesn't weigh against me- some things in real life- like my grades, are more important than Wikipedia. When they are examining your application to med school, number of edits doesn't count for a whole lot. I hope this makes sense and I'm not badgering the witness. L'Aquatique[review] 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I said oppose because I am a little concerned about how active the user is. I am leaning towards support, but I would need more of a push to change my opinion. My concern is that the user would be given the tools, but wouldn't really be using them. If I could be assured the user would use the tools, I would change my !vote.--LAAFan 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   I can promise you that absolutely I will use the tools. As I said, clearing backlogs is something I would really like to do and these admin tools will help me. I cannot, however, promise that I will always be [hyper]active. I am a wikipedia editor, but I am also a real life human being and I have obligations outside Wikipedia, like my friends and family, my schoolwork, etc, that have to come first. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

   Can't support as the user has done little to no mainspace work. Nothing massively wrong has come up yet, though. I simply disagree with many of the assertions in Q2. —Giggy 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral — Can't support due to disagreement over philosophy on cool-down blocks, but can recognize a respectable and meaningful answer that at least takes a side. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
3. neutral (from support) over concerns about experience levels. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Fence sitting: I normally don't vote neutral if I am, but I was hoping for a response to change my mind...
   • I like your responses to the challenge, and to some of the questions. I don't agree with your philosophy on cool down blocks unless you mean they should only be instigated if the person in question has violated another rule (in which case it is not a cool-down block anymore). Could you please elaborate on your stance?
   • Please, please, pick another article in namespace you have contributed to significantly. I understand what you are saying, that you focus on more administrative / support type tasks and leave the actual article writing to others. And I know that those are exactly the types of things you would be doing as an admin, so it is a bonus to you that that is your forte. But, I would need to see something more than a stub to know that you knew what was involved in making a good article before you could secure my vote. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 10:08, 29 July 2008 (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.