Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gonzonoir

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

Gonzonoir

Final (86/0/0); Closed as successful by Dweller (talk) at 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Gonzonoir (talk · contribs) – I have only crossed paths with Gonzonoir a few times in the past years, as far as I remember we only talked once, and I've now stumbled across her quite by chance. But after taking a long look into her edits I find her to be a very qualified candidate for the administrative tools: a diligent, helpful, clueful, educated, friendly editor.

Checklist:

• Clean block log
• Respectable article work (Three Good Articles)
• Understands the purpose of Wikipedia
• New-page patrol as it's supposed to be done: copyediting, adding sources, wikifying per MOS, POV-cleaning, marking as patrolled, de-orphaning, categorizing, stub-tagging, WikiProject-tagging, notifying relevant WikiProjects where needed, welcoming and informing users where appropriate, nominating for SD where necessary
• Excellent CSD work
• Clerks the help desk and answers politely, to the point, with precise policy knowledge, and additional information as appropriate -- sometimes in more than one language
• Helps and educates new users elsewhere as well
• Actively works on cleanup backlogs
• Understands the problems of close paraphrasing and rewrites accordingly when she becomes aware of it during NPP
• Excellent edit summary usage
• Always polite, always civil

I expect her to be a largely low-key admin gnome/sloth who will focus on productive and uncontroversial use of the tools.

Usually I find overly rhapsodic RfA nominations rather weird, but I fear I can't help myself in my first nomination either. Gonzonoir is already more useful to the project than I currently am, and if I could just give her my bit I would; but alas, I ask the community: Please have a look at the candidate and join me in my enthusiasm.
Amalthea 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I heartily disagree that it would be preferable for Amalthea to give his bit to me, but am grateful for the nomination and delighted to accept. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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: I'm interested in deletion, and would like to close AfDs, handle expired PRODs, and review and act on speedy deletion taggings. I've already spent some time reviewing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and have declined obviously wrong speedies as a non-admin. There's a list of AfDs in which I've participated here. In time I'd like to help out at DYK too, though I would read up first on the admin side of that area. I'm also interested in learning to fix copy-and-paste pagemoves via history merges, having reported a number of these.

What I won't do: I am not well versed in image use policy, and plan to avoid work in that area. Though I've made reports, I consider myself too inexperienced to work yet at AIV. I would avoid that area unless a dearth of admins interested in it developed. In all areas, I'd go slowly to begin with - I trust my own judgement, but think it's wise to take your time with any new toolkit at first.

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

A: I'm quite pleased with Robert Keable, which I created and took successfully to GA, having first come across the subject in a listing at Requested Articles. (The day it got its Good Article button I tried to track down the request's originator, so s/he could share the imaginary champagne: turns out that the listing was created by a bot identifying articles present in the DNB and absent from Wikipedia. Even though no one ever asked for it, I think the encyclopedia's more complete for covering this interesting person, and I enjoyed having such Boy's-Own-Adventure-type material on which to learn the finer points of content work.) A list of all my article creations can be found here.

I think my involvement in the early, informal BLP sourcing drive arranged by User:The_Wordsmith was also worthwhile. I reviewed ~150 articles in two months -- a very small figure compared to some participants' achievements, but I believe the work done on that and similar drives showed that the unsourced BLP backlog could be tackled meaningfully. That, in turn, helped enable the better, more robust approach to BLPs the project has now. My part in it all was small-scale and prosaic, but that's how I like to approach Wikipedia: you're likelier to find me entrenched in backlog grunt work than leading the charge. As Amalthea says, that's the kind of admin I'd intend to be too.

Lastly, I like to think my responses at the Help Desk and New Contributors' Help Page are useful. I don't pretend I always get it right, or that I know how to answer every question. For my money, though, supporting and welcoming novice (as well as more established) users are among the most critical factors for Wikipedia's continued success.

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: On the whole, I find Wikipedia pretty low-stress. I have a long fuse, and take the view that this is a volunteer knowledge project where most conflict can be resolved by maintaining a professional tone, avoiding investing too personally in the outcome of any process, and seeking the input of uninvolved cooler heads wherever possible. The one time I can recall my blood pressure creeping upwards concerned the article Team touchdown (and many variant titles) in November 2009. This was a page about a junior amateur sports team that was repeatedly speedied and recreated; having made several of the deletion taggings (see my talk page archive), I attracted the vandalistic attention of a group of editors who were later identified as a sock farm and blocked. Recognising that I'd got a little stressed by the vandalism on my user and user talk pages, I refrained from re-adding CSD tags or responding to the vandals (since other editors had stepped in to revert them). When another editor took the article to AfD I acknowledged there that my recent involvement with the editors meant my judgement was potentially clouded. Another editor took the case to AN/I, where the titles were salted and the socks blocked, and that was the end of it.

Lessons learned? It was useful to experience first-hand how userpage/user talk vandalism can feel stressful, even though it's easy to fix. That's helped me to empathise when others are losing their cool. In a future such incident I'd disengage sooner - both to ensure I avoided WP:BITE-ing anyone (this was snarky and my saying it didn't help) and conversely, once it becomes clear that straight-up vandalism is underway, to keep from feeding the troll. I also recognise the value of having other, neutral editors involved as soon as possible: Favonian's undramatic vandalism reversion and Phantom Steve's calm reporting at AN/I (plus the SPI investigators' and blocking admins' efficiency) were what got the situation resolved.

Additional question from Keepscases

4. You were adopted by FlyingToaster. What have you learned from her?

A: Practically, FlyingToaster taught me many technical aspects of Wikipedia editing and how to navigate the jargon used in the project. By example, she taught me that patience and a welcoming attitude with novice editors can turn casual users into motivated, productive ones. Indirectly, she taught me that good intentions aren't enough when it comes to areas of policy like copyright infringement: it's imperative to adhere scrupulously to the letter of the law (not least because in this area, it literally is a law). The copyright problems affair that prompted her to leave Wikipedia taught me to be vigilant about copyright and close paraphrase, and to approach users who appear to have violated copyright with the same assumption of good faith we should extend to all editors: it's an easier area to slip up on than one might assume. ("Assuming good faith" does not mean "looking the other way" here. Where I encounter copyright violations I follow the steps at WP:COPYVIO.) I regret that she left the project, though I understand why she did, and will always be grateful for the support and encouragement she gave me as a new editor. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Madrid 2020

5. What were the good articles you edited (not mentioned on your user page) and what was the extent of your participation in those articles?

A:I've created three articles that now hold GA status - as well as Robert Keable, mentioned above, there's Satan's Harvest Home and Operation Irma. (They're listed at User:Gonzonoir/Created.) For these three, I was the original creator and I believe the most substantial contributor, though all received cleanup edits from other users too.

Or, if you're asking what Good Articles I've edited other than these, my involvement has been chiefly as a copy editor during the run-up for a GA nomination. Off the top of my head I can think of Croatia national football team, Brad Pitt, Ethan Hawke (that was actually for FA), Phineas and Ferb, and Phineas Flynn. I've also carried out a Good Article Review for Themistocles. I'm sure I'll have edited other GAs as part of the general course of editing, but these are the ones where I've made a concerted review. Does this answer your question? I'm not sure whether I've interpreted it correctly. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it some more I also did whole-article copy edits of A Rugrats Passover and A Rugrats Chanukah to support the work of taking those to GA and FA respectively. I don't keep a list of these, so let me know if there was anything more specific you're looking for. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Sven Manguard

6. Please elaborate on the statement you made in Q1, "I am not well versed in image use policy." As you have clearly stated that this is not an area you work in, I am not looking for elaborate answers and policy citations, however, I would like to know how you would assess your knowledge on, and if you're willing, offer a short answer for each of the following topics:

• What is and is not applicable for use on Wikipedia under a fair use claim.
• How to handle files (and the users that upload them) when those files appear to be copyrighted and incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}} or another Public Domain tag.
• Who to forward users to when they claim to own a copyrighted work and want to release it for use on Wikipedia.

Just in case anyone wants to know my reasoning behind this line of questioning, I am of the belief that anyone who intends on working with new content of any type, especially DYKs, needs to know these basics, because they inevitably will come up from time to time.

A: Sure, that's a sensible concern. So:

• Wikipedia's definition of "fair use" begins (and complies) with that used in US law, but also applies further restrictions. Specifically, a non-free content item (one that is copyrighted) may be used only where no free equivalent exists or even could be created (which is why, in the canonical example, it's hard to justify the use of a non-free image of most living persons - generally the fact that they're alive makes it plausible that a free version could be created). It can be used only if it substantially adds to the comprehensibility of the encyclopedia article - you can't gratuitously fill an article about a movie with dozens of screencaps, for example. Additionally, non-free content use must avoid harming the commercial opportunities that the copyrighted version creates (so, for example, you can't simply reproduce a whole comic book online, because it could damage the saleability of the original). Non-free material must be used on at least one page to justify its presence in Wikipedia, but the smallest portion (or e.g. lowest-resolution version) of the copyrighted work adequate to the purpose should be used. It must have a file description page acknowledging its source, identifying it as copyright, and presenting a valid rationale for each of its uses in Wikipedia. And it can only be used in certain parts of the encyclopedia - and since you're asking in context of DYK, I'll note that I know that fair use images are not acceptable for use with DYK hooks.
• Copyright files erroneously or dubiously identified as PD need to be removed, like any other apparent copyright infringement. Files where the uploader claims (without initial evidence) that the copyright holder is giving permission are eligible for speedy deletion tagging as F11s ("no evidence of permission"). The process then is, I believe, very comparable to what happens when copyrighted text in an article is identified and the contributing user claims to hold the copyright. In text cases, the content is replaced with {{article-cv}} til either valid permission is confirmed (via OTRS or the placing of suitable licensing information on the original source) or a week elapses and the content is deleted. With images, the F11 tag is placed on the page for the same period; if valid permission is not received the file is then deleted. The uploader needs to be notified when such a tag is applied, e.g. via {{subst:di-no permission-notice}}. There's a simpler deletion criterion (F9) for obvious copyright infringements, but since you asked about files that "appear to be" copyright I assume this is the kind of case you were imagining. Let me know if I'm wrong.
• Similarly, users who claim to own a copyrighted image and to want to donate it should be directed to the OTRS permissions team at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. They'll need to send a message verifiably from the copyright holder confirming they're releasing the image under terms compatible with Wikipedia's license. All of this is set out at WP:IOWN, which is a link I often give to users inserting copyrighted text they say is from a site they own. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Groomtech

7. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: No, for both technical and philosophical reasons. Technically, "orders" aren't a concept with a formal meaning on Wikipedia, so were an admin to decide to start issuing them they'd be doing so without a conceptual framework, consensus backing, or enforcement mechanism behind them. In the specific cases you mention, we already have mechanisms for applying editing restrictions, via ArbCom ruling or community consensus; such restrictions are enforced by admins, but are not and should not be issued by administrator fiat. Philosophically, admins are not supposed to be autocrats, or to outweigh others' voices in discussions and debates. I see their role as implementing consensus, not imposing commandments (as "issuing orders") implies. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Gonzonoir: Gonzonoir (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Gonzonoir can be found here.
• I hope this is a suitable place for me to declare this: I originally edited with another account, User:Molly Doonesbury, which I've identified on my user page and on that account's user page (and which made nothing but novice gnome edits before my original interest waned). This is the only other account under which I have edited. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Editing statistics posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Got my support. Been waiting for this. No real issues I'm aware of. GedUK  13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I'm pleased to see this nomination: Gonzonoir is a very valuable and civil editor with a great personality. I've come across quite a bit of the work that Amalthea has mentioned in his nomination statement, such as her help desk work, CSD work, and her article creations (the other day I was surprised to see that she did not already have autopatrolled). In addition, I was impressed with her comments here on her talk page to a new user, which I thought were helpful and kind: her talk page and archives show a good pattern of similar responses to other users; she also has a decent sense of humor, which, as I've stated for years, is an important quality for admins to have. I have complete confidence that Gonzonoir will make an excellent admin, and am happy to strongly support her nomination. Acalamari 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
3. I have had a quick look through the contributions and everything looks okay to me - an experienced editor that seems to communicate well and I'm sure will do a good job as an admin. Camw (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
4. UAA work has been solid. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Model Citizen and the kind we need more of The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
6. I offered to nominate back in October based on Gonzonoir's well-rounded and even-keeled Wikipedia contributions. This one's a no-brainer. — Scientizzle 15:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Support A name with which I'm familiar and have seen do solid work. TNXMan 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Help desk work is admirable, will support. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
11. (edit conflict) Support - Definitely a very qualified candidate. Please invoke... the... ...snow close? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
12. No obvious issues and seems competent and trustworthy. Support. AGK [•] 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - a worthy candidate. Great nomination as well, and one that has me convinced on the face of it. I wish this candidate all the best. Jusdafax 16:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Support She's only just recently got the autopatrolled right but still that's not enough for me to change my vote. I don't think she'll cause any concerns. Minimac (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Support per nom. Also the deleted contributions looked good to me. ϢereSpielChequers 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support. Strong content contributions; positive, helpful attitude at the help desk and elsewhere; whenever I see a support or oppose from Gonzonoir in someone's RfA I can always count on it being thoughtful and well-reasoned, even if I don't agree with the conclusion. No worries at all here. 28bytes (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
17. AfD contributions look good. No other red flags as I can see. —WFC— 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Support - wonderful attitude, strong work=exactly what we need in a sysop. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support Spot on answers to my questions, obvious clue in other areas, and no history of mayhem. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
20. Support -- I reviewed Gonzonoir's talk page history as well as their NPP patrol (the decision to tag for CSD, to PROD, or to improve) and was impressed. Their calm well-reasoned approach to editing is apparent. The modesty and humor is a bonus. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
21. More, please. Courcelles 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Strong support - excellent user. My only worry is why this hasn't already happened. Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - No concerns. Net positive. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Support - Good contributions including balanced contributions at AFD that give me confidence that Gonzonoir can be trusted with the extra tools.--Michig (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. Great content creator, clearly with very good understanding of the project, and a very collegial and civil attitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
27. Support The GA created are good proving that this administrator is capable of writing so he/she is probably capable of managing a project which consists of writing. Madrid 2020 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
28. Support. Top-notch admin material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
29. Support. Great candidate. Fully qualified, enthusiastic, and helpful. I'm happy to support. -- œ^™ 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Had this pre-watchlisted for a long time, will be a great admin. Regards SoWhy 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Support, it was a while ago now, but I enjoyed working with Gonzonoir while Brad Pitt was going through FAC. Another helpful, clueful Wikipedian. It's been a while since I supported two RfAs in the space of one day (much less one hour), but I have no hesitations about doing so in this case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
32. Support. Seems like a pretty good candidate. Fences&Windows 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
33. support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Support - calm, civil, thoughtful and willing to help out. SilkTork *^YES! 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
35. Support -- Excellent Candidate, good content work. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Thoughtful answers, modest intentions, acknowledges his own limitations, and clearly here to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
37. Strong support - An excellent candidate: clueful, collaborative, trustworthy, strong content portfolio (includes 51 article creations and 198 redirects), always civil and collegial--Hokeman (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
38. Why not? Oh, and the userpage is a nice touch, although personally, I'd have gone with class=plainlinks and color:black for the links :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

    Heh, that's User:Roux's awesome handiwork (unfortunately he deleted the template attributing it to him). I can assure you that the blue links are the part that make it gonzo ;) Gonzonoir (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

39. Secret ^account 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Support She's a nice user since she assumes good faith according to what the nominator put. WayneSlam 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
41. Support No issues that I can see.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 01:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
42. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
43. Of course. I had indicated in the past I would write the (co) nom, but I find there is nothing to add to Amalthea's statement. → ROUX ₪ 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
44. Yes NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - Great candidate who is ready for the mop. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
46. T. Canens (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - Good content contributions, clean block log, I can recall positive interactions somewhere, and if the example you cite is as hard as you can bite, then you should certainly have the mop. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
48. Support - worth a go with the mop. Likely a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
49. Support - edit record and experience speaks for itself (positively). Third easy support for a future admin today! --Quartermaster (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. Solid record of constructive and thoughtful editing, and impressed by the commendably cautious answer to Q1. There are so many policies and guidelines that it's hard for any admin to be fully-versed in all of them, and we'd avoid a lot of drama if more admins were willing to say "dunno about that area" rather than diving in headfirst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
51. Support An excellent candidate. And a willingness to work in WP:CSD, where I spend much of my time, is a bonus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. Looks good.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
53. Excellent contributions in deletion areas. Lack of DRV experience leaves me wondering a bit about the candidate's approach to closing AfDs but the cluefulness in all other deletion forums makes me presume she'll do a good job.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
54. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. FWIW, I really like your answer to question #4. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
56. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
57. Stephen 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Indubitably, outstanding member of the community. Would be a fine addition to the admin corp. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:04pm • 02:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
60. Support: persona grata. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
61. Support. Not someone I've come across, but reading the answers above, I'm happy with this candidate. Worm 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - Great candidate. I can trust her with the tools without a doubt. Orphan Wiki 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
63. Support I've seen the candidate around a bit, and nothing that a quick look at her contributions and history would give me any reason to believe that she cannot be trusted with the tools PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
64. Support In view of review of contributions, a couple created articles and AfD history. (While I did find a place we had weakly disagreed on an AfD !vote, I think, in retrospect, given the information available at the time, you made the stronger argument, which adds to my desire to support here.) --j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
65. Support I see no problem with another mop being given out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
66. Seems fine. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
67. Support per nom.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
68. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - see below, moved in from oppose. BarkingFish 14:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
70. Risker (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
71. Support Looks good to me. ThemFromSpace 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
72. SupportDarkJak495 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
73. Support. Quarl ^(talk) 03:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
74. Support I like constructive and calm editors working on articles and related content instead of focusing on the social side of Wikipedia. Gonzonoir is one of them and has my full support. Good luck. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
75. Support Another candidate who knows their strengths and weaknesses and how best to apply themselves to improving Wikipedia. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Good answers to question, good content work, have seen extensively at help desk, which I view as a good way to learn about policies.--SPhilbrickT 22:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
77. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling 05:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
78. Support—I can trust her with the tools :). Airplaneman ✈ 05:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
79. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - almost 14,000 edits (including about 6,500 article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. Seems to be classy. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
80. Support No issues that I can see. – SMasters (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
81. per nomination, obviously. Amalthea 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
82. Support From what I have seen a good choice...Modernist (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
83. Support: A great choice for Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Actually, I'd prefer to see more experience on article talk pages, but nonetheless nothing raises alarms for me, and I see a lot of good work. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
85. Support – looks good to me. –MuZemike 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
86. Support Great track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

# Weak oppose - I am only opposing based on Gonzonoir's answer to question 6, posed by Sven Manguard - they state it's "hard to justify use of a non-free image of a living person" - that's true, I don't dispute that. But it's also exceptionally difficult to use a non-free image of a recently dead one, too, since there is the thought that a free image almost always exists. I know the user doesn't work images much, and I'd like to see a little more depth reading of the policies - which is why this is only a weak oppose, and may get changed to a support. BarkingFish 04:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In keeping with the long tradition of badgering oppose voters, I am going to implore you to reconsider. I'd like to point out that in my opinion, the candidate's knowledge of image policy actually exceeds that of the vast majority of editors I've come across, or at the very least, the candidate's coherent explanation of said policy, combined with a number of incidents where I have come across experienced editors that have demonstrated less knowledge in this area, creates the appearance that she exceeds average. Either way, she knows her s***, and she happens to be right in her statement of the policy. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. RfA's are nasty business of late, and I get along with BarkingFish quite well. This is in no way an outcome swinging vote, and I seriously doubt BarkingFish is being malicious in it, so let's all please not rush in and pile on additional comments. BarkingFish will either reconsider, or he won't, and there is absolutely no need for us to grab pitchforks and torches over this. Please, let's just leave this one alone for now. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'd just like to chip in that BarkingFish's comment about recently-deceased subjects strikes me as a fair observation, doesn't read as remotely malicious, and I take the point. No harm, no foul here. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reconsidered, I accept that the original question I based this on referred to fair use, and Gonzo's good natured understanding of the reference I made leads me to believe this is an editor who can be open to ideas and thoughts. Moved to Support, but not because of the badgering :) I make my own decisions. BarkingFish 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it's cliche, but I have to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5AwGitZbs Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha :) You did to me what I did to S Philbrick for badgering on my talk page. Mushrooms, anyone? BarkingFish 21:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I accept that offer depends entirely on the type of mushroom. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

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.