Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AngelOfSadness

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

AngelOfSadness

Final: (81/0/1); ended 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you my next candidate for administratorship, AngelOfSadness.

AngelOfSadness, originally known as HappiestCamper, joined Wikipedia back in May of 2007, but in early July of the same year, I had the privilege of welcoming her after I saw her name show up on my watchlist when she edited the Kelly Clarkson article. Since those days, however, she has made over 14,000 edits, done a significant amount of article and anti-vandal work, become familiar with relevant policies, rollback rights granted by me, and has a kind reputation.

She does do a lot of vandal-fighting, but a review of her contributions shows that in addition to her vandal-fighting, she does a substantial amount of article-work too, on subjects such as Tokio Hotel, HIM (Finnish band), Evanescence, and, as I mentioned above, Kelly Clarkson. She has not limited herself to those articles, however, and has worked on other topics, and she has also contributed to images, and has done a little bit of work in the template namespace.

Her personality is just perfect for an administrator as well: she is constantly nice to other users, and never resorts to incivility or disruption when under pressure. AngelOfSadness has good communication skills, and it’s a pleasure interacting with her. Plus, she has not been in a hurry to become an administrator: a look through her archives will reveal times when other users (myself included) encouraged her (in a friendly way) to run for adminship, but she preferred to wait some more before deciding to accept a nomination.

Overall, AngelOfSadness is an excellent, experienced, patient, and friendly Wikipedian. I am confident that she would make great use of the tools if they are granted to her. Acalamari 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by User:Rlevse

AoS says I was the first person to approach her about being an admin. That ways about 7-9 months ago. I don't recall what we were working on, but I do recall her skill was so great I asked her about adminship. She says she wasn't ready at that time. To sum it up, she's a well-rounded wikian whose strongest point, IMHO, is her great skill at handling tense situations. She will undoubtedly be an asset to the admin corps. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Nishkid64

Acalamari has covered everything I would like to say about this user. Oh well, I'll say my spiel. I offered to nominate AngelofSadness for adminship in December 2007, but she politely declined. In her time on Wikipedia, I believe AoS has done an amazing job in both fighting vandals and editing the encyclopedia. She's a model Wikipedian: she's polite to other users, never bites the noobies, and always expresses herself in a civilized and diligent manner. She has participated in CSD tagging, AfD discussion, AIV and UAA reporting, and SSP reports. I believe her excellence in these admin-related fields is demonstrative of what a wonderful addition she would be to admin team. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and sincerly thank the nominators for their comments. AngelOfSadness talk 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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 would begin with admin work that does not stray too much from the non-admin work that I have done in the last few months. A fair amount of my contributions to Wikipedia are those of a vandal fighter and so I think I would start in areas such as AIV, UAA and CSD and branch out from there.

I would also like to take part in closing Xfd debates but, at the beginning, mainly ones where consensus is clear otherwise I would leave it until consensus is clear. I would also like to help in WP:SSP as I have some past experience in that field and it does tend to be backlogged from time to time. Also a recent conversation on my talkpage has inspired me to become involved with processes such as WP:ACC.

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

A: I have made many contributions to Wikipedia which a good chunk of them would fall under the "vandalism fighter" and "wikignome" categories. But when I come across articles in dire need of attention, I do what I can to improve the articles as much as I can. For example, when I found the articles Escape (Enrique Iglesias song) and Not in Love, both could have been easily redirected to the album articles for asserting importance/significance. But I did what I could and now both articles not only provide more information but are also are not red links or redirects right now. I have also improved the articles Dangerous (Busta Rhymes song) and Sitting Down Here.

Along with improving existing articles I have also created articles such as My Favourite Game (the article I'm most proud of have written), Erase/Rewind and Cradle of Love. With the first two articles, I knew a lot about the subjects so writing those was no problem. But with the third article, I found it red linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs and so I spent the day researching and writing the article. I have also created templates such as Template:Lene Marlin, Template:Enrique Iglesias and Template:Billy Idol aswell as improving existing templates such as Template:Tokio Hotel.

While I don't make many major content contributions, I have spent some of my time improving the sources and reliablibity of the content in many articles including Venus Doom and a few of the singles articles of Craig David, HIM (Finnish band) and Tokio Hotel. To me, I find that the reliablility of content is very important as many people use Wikipedia as their primary source of information so the content they read may as well be well sourced or at least factually correct. That may be the reason why amongst my many vandalism reverts there are also reverts with "rev addition of unsourced content" as the edit summary. Such revert explainations are necessary, especially when dealing with articles that have subjects of high public interest such as Blackout (Britney Spears album) (as it did particularly before its release) where much of it's content has to be discussed on the talkpage.

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: To date, I haven't been in any major editing conflicts except for the genre changing (without sources, explaination or discussion) sockpuppets of their puppetmaster, who I encountered back in July when, at that time I was an active Wikipedian for a whole three weeks. Because of that stressful three day conflict, I was almost blocked for edit warring but I learned a whole load of what Wikipedia is really about such as: lame edit wars are simply not worth it and that Wikipedia is an ongoing collaboraive effort so communication is always better than edit warring.

For present and future similiar situations, I think it's best to write a friendly note on the editor in question's talkpage in an attempt to begin a discussion about the edits and how to improve them instead of reverting the edits. If the editor in question is a suspected sockpuppet, it's always better to assume good faith and be civil were possible which can be hard to do if there were dealings with the puppetmaster and several other sockpuppets previously.

I have had my fair share conflict with persistant vandals and other editors but these conflicts have been relatively minor in comparision to the conflict mentioned above. But the minor conflicts might have been caused by simple misunderstandings. I have always found it's best to review the situation and try to understand what happened in the views of both parties involved before pressing the "save page" button on the other party's talkpage.

Although about two months ago I found what appeared to be a dynamic IP making BLP violations on the Jason Goldberg and Soleil Moon Frye articles. Of course I reverted countless edits of the IP between the filed report and the block, meanwhile trying to make the page protection reports for the two articles and revert the vandalism from my user talkpage from a new sockpuppet every minute. Unfortunately, my account got accidentally blocked (the blocking admin was of course trying to block the sockpuppet) and was unblocked but my IP remained autoblocked so the page protections went unreported and eventually the sockpuppets and IP address were blocked and the pages were protected. This definately caused a lot of stress and that the thing I really should have done and will do in future is to make sure that those page protection reports are filed early and don't revert except for truly blantant vandalism.

Questions from Razorflame:

4. These questions are designed to see how well you know the policies relevant to administrators:

4a. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A ban is when a user's editing priviledges (which can relate to all or only a part of Wikipedia such as (a) specific article(s)) have been formally evoked for a temporary or fixed duration or even indefinate or permanent. A bans are enacted by the Wikipedia community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. Bans can be overturned by the entity or a higher entity than one which implemented the ban.

Whereas a block is a technincal mechanism used to prevent an IP adress or account from editing. Blocks, which can be used to enforce bans, are used also with disruptive editors, vandalism, 3RR violations and blatantly inappriopraite usernames. Blocks are only to be used to prevent disruption or damage to Wikipedia not to punish users with, for example, "cool down blocks". A block, unlike a ban, can be overturned by another admin but usually best overtuned after discussion instead of wheel-warring.

4b. What is the purpose of a block?

A. Blocks are only to be used to prevent disruption or damage to Wikipedia not to punish users with, for example, "cool down blocks".

4c. What is the purpose of protection?

A. Protection is used to restrict the editing, moving or creating of a page after occurances such edit warring in content disputes, repeated vandalism and copyright violations. In the case of edit warring, it encourages the involved parties to use the talkapge to help solve the dispute.

1. Full protection disables editing for everyone (on that particluar page of course) except administrators, particularly to help solve a content dispute after edit warring. (Used for a very limited duration such as a few days)
2. Semi-protection disables editing for non-autoconfirmed users such as IP addresses and new accounts (which are under four days old). It is used usually to prevent vandalism, BLP violations, NPOV violations, heavy vandalism on userpages and heavy vandalism on policy pages. (Used usually with a time limit set but can be used for indefinate amounts of time)
3. Creation protection is used to prevent a previously deleted page from being re-created.
4. Move protection prevents the page for page moves

4d. What defines an inappropriate username?

A. I think defining an inappropriate username can be difficult considering the current critera for an inappropriate username can leave quite a lot up to interpretation.

Some cases can be quite obvious like for a promotional username where a username appears it has been named after a particular company/organisation etc. and then create an article on that company/organisation which may not uphold a NPOV (can appear very much to be an advertisement) and that of course could point to the user contributing just to promote. In such a situation, it's best to assume good faith as much as possible and not jump the gun by reporting the username if the account has not made any edits.

With offensive, disruptive and misleading usernames, it can depend on the indiviual admin what they find offensive, disruptive or misleading. But when reporting such names, it is usually best to point out what is offensive, disruptive or misleading about the username if it is not easily found for example if it references something that is offensive,disrputive or may mislead users into thinking the reported useraccount has undue authority etc.

When unsure about a username's inappropriateness, this is when a discussion at WP:RFCNwould happen but only after the user has been notified and given a chance to discuss their username.

But with all cases, it's always best to wait until to see if the user uses the account before notifying them and/or reporting them to WP:UAA or WP:RFCN and to assume as much good faith as possible.

4e. What defines a vandalism-only account?

A. A vandalism-only account is an account which has made only vandalism (usually blantant vandalism like repeated malicous page moves/redirects, "replace page with ~" vandalism and page blanking etc.) contributions to the project even after numerous attempts have been made to ask them to cease vandlism-activity and it seems that the user is unlikely to contribute constructively to the project. Although vandalism-only accounts can be blocked without warning, I believe in sufficently warning them and then reporting them to WP:AIV.

5. How would you proceed if a user continuously attacks you through your talk page?

A. I would write them a civil customised message refering to the particular situation and then I would try to reach a comprimise by seeing the situation from their perspective. If that fails and the attacks are non-disruptive but personal, I would proceed to try and resolve the situation throught the dispute resolution process. But that's only in the case that a heated debate over an article didn't start the confrontation. But if it was over an article, I would then seek informal mediation or a third party opinion.

But in the case of the attack being particularly offensive or disruptive such as serious threats (both physical or legal), I would then bring it to the attention of WP:AN.

6. Why is wheel warring a bad thing? What can you do to prevent it?

A. Well, a wheel war is when two or more administrators undo each other's administrative actions as they have a disagreement over a particular issue and it's a bad thing as it causes disruption and ultimately creates an uneasy atmostphere which would make communication efforts and possible dispute resolvement very difficult.

All that I can think of to prevent it, is if I have a a difference of opinion over an administrative action with another admin(s), I would try to communicate with the other involved admins and try to find a solution for the issue. If a conclusion/solution can't be found, the issue should then be brought to WP:AN for outside views and possible intervention.

7. A user requests semi-protection of a page, but you fully protect it. Why?

A. I'm guessing the user possibily requested semi-protection as they might feel the dispute is over believed-to-be vandalism by a number of new users and IP addresses but to other uninvolved parties, it's actually a content dispute through edit warring in which calls for full protection of the page until the dispute is resolved.

Kind of silly, yet legitimate question from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

8. Do you agree that it's about time that this is closed under WP:SNOW? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A. Well my silly answer would be "Lets close this and crack open a bottle of champale :)" but my more meaningful and serious answer to this legitimate question is that this Rfa has been running about a day and a quarter of the seven day process and that it would be best to let it run for the seven days. It's not exactly like a nosensical/elaborate hoax article in an AfD or even a premature Rfa where the !votes build up and say pretty much the same thing as everyone knows/assumes that there's no chance of any new revelations occuring to turn around such a snowball. But with more prosperous Rfas, things could happen in those few days which could change the minds of many people and that's why, seriously, I don't agree with closing as per WP:SNOW.

Question from Dusti

9. In question 4a and 4b you mention "Cool Down Blocks". When should those be used and why?

A. Really "cool down blocks" should never be used for the only purpose to "cool down" a hostile/angry user as the block could make that situation significantly worse. Like I said in 4b, blocks should only be used to prevent disruption and damage to Wikipedia not to punish users. However, if a user's anger is causing so much disruption that it causes it to be more difficult for others to edit, then that would fall into the category of when blocking may be used because in that particluar situation the user would be blocked for disruption not to "cool down".

Optional question from InDeBiz1

10. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A. I do believe it is possible for users that were blocked, other than 3RR, to be trusted again (I mean we have {{unblock}} to give users a second chance among other things :D). But it really depends on what they were blocked for which depends on how soon trust is regained. Like, just say, a user was just generally incivil to other editors even though the other editors did something was against policy and so the user was actually correct in questioning them about their actions but not for being incivil and so got blocked for incivility. The user would probably need a lot more time to prove they can be trusted as that kind of thing can't really be fixed overnight. While a situation like if a user was blocked for repeatedly posting believed-to-be correct misinformation to an article would need less time for trust to be regained.

But I don't think that it's a matter of after a certain amount of time or even after a certain amount of successful edits, but more like after the user has shown that they can communicate with "a cool head" to other users (that of course refers to users blocked for incivility to others). Or, in the other situation, after the user has shown they can discuss the content they have found with other editors or that they can be bold and add the content to the article along the relevent sources.

Well, really, such a situation isn't exactly possible with banned users as administrators are not allowed to simply re-instate the account of a banned user, even if convinced, as it was at least the Wikipedia community based decision where consensus was reached, if not a decision made by ArbCom, Jimmy Wales or even the Wikimedia Foundation, to ban the user in the first place. So an appeal would have to be made to the ArbCom by e-mail, or can be unblocked to only appeal the decision, and then another discussion would take place to find consensus whether to unban that particluar user from the project.

General comments

• Links for AngelOfSadness: AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• See AngelOfSadness's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/AngelOfSadness may be worth reading too, as she did a good job on that page proving her experience here. Acalamari 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support as co-nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I belive she will have a great use of these tools. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Yes. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Solid nomination, trustworthy, competent, and will use the tools. Good luck! Anthøny 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, seems like she'll be a good admin. Bob talk 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, per above Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, will make a great admin. --Oxymoron⁸³ 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Good editor, fairly good balance of edits, although I'd like to see more Wikipedia talk edits. Vandal fighters are always appreciated! Good luck. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per above and more. Dlohcierekim 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I strongly support this nomination, being AngelOfSadness' nominator. In response to the communication concerns, I can honestly say that AngelOfSadness is a fine communicator: a look through her talk page and her archives will show that she is good at talking to people (and that includes vandals and trolls), and that I have never found any problems with her communication. With "a lot of her user talk edits are templates", that's only because, in addition to her article-writing, she has done a lot of vandal-fighting, and the fact that she's warning vandals after she's reverted them is a good thing and should not be held against her. Finally in response to her low WT count, in my 11 months as an admin, I've found that it's actually not a high priority to edit those pages: the actual Wikipedia-namespace is more important to edit, and she has plenty of activity there. She'll be excellent. Acalamari 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
13. YES FINALLY Nuff' said. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - After carefully looking at the user's special contributions, I've decided there exists ample evidence that the candidate will be nothing less than a benefit to Wikipedia. Yes, there are few WT edits, but there are plenty of instances in the article space that shows how they interact and communicate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support WT edits? There's enough evidence that the user communicates well. Would there be 3 noms if she didn't? Vishnava _talk 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    It was a temporary neutral stance, see below. I'm not going to cast a meaningful vote based on a short gloss over. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

16. Weak Support (changed from Neutral). After a deeper look, your contribs are good enough and after going through your user talk edits, I think you'll be communicative enough. Your work in User Talk makes up for the little work in Wikipedia Talk. I, like Wisdom89, want to give my !vote meaning, so I can add to the discussion. Useight (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
17. naerii - talk 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Supportgood 'pedia builder. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - I knew you wouldn't let me nom you. I should totally oppose just based on that! -.- You are a marvellous editor; you're funny, bright, and enthusiastic about Wikipedia. I'm really happy that I'm writing Support here. You're a great vandal hunter and you keep the music articles in my watchlist clean ;-) - You've also got a great taste in music which is always awesome in an admin. You won't abuse the tools... 1) You're a girl and you're mature. 2) You like rock music. 3) You're awesome. 4) You're exceptionally trustworthy and I know you'll make an awesome administrator. Take care my friend, and good luck! Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Sure, good candidate, slightly worried by the lack of WP talk but hey, what you gonna do? ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support - Kind, thoughtful and very helpful editor. Knows what she is doing. Has rescued my userpage from vandal attacks many times. :-) Lradrama 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Admin coaching, coupled with good experience leads me to believe you will be a great admin. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
24. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support No reservations or doubts here - this is a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Support The answers to every one of the questions that I asked were superb and they show that this user definitely understands the policies that administrators need to know in order to do their job correctly. The only thing I have to say is that when you are in a wheel war, the most important thing is to stop reverting the other admin's changes. The rest of your answer was perfect. Razorflame 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per Malinaccier P! Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - per nom. Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here — and she's using a userbox I created! :P J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
30. Per Rlevse, Acalamari and Nishkid64. Rudget (Help?) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support No major reasons for concern, candidate will be a net benefit to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Shapiros10 WuzHere  22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Support per everyone above. The only fault, insufficient communication at Wikipedia Talk: Pages, isn't an issue for me - as noted, the candidate's talk page shows ample evidence of good communication. In short, per the Pedro Test, candidate would be a net positive if granted the tools. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong Support; I thought you were already an admin. AngelOfSadness is an experienced vandal fighter and should be trusted with the tools. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Definitely. Strong editor, does good work around here. GlassCobra 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Prodego ^talk 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support because you have so few edits in WT. Means you're building the encyclopedia and not getting too caught up in policy-wonkery. Purviewing your contribs, you are civil, patient, thorough. Purviewing your article contribs, you are accurate, detailed, and thorough. Support without hesitation - good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - per my criteria. --Chetblong (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - excellent candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. All is good except the sig (personal preference, though, so don't mind me). ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Support per good reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry potter and the order of the pheonix, although I hope with the whole name change thing, you are still happy, too. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I don't think I have ever come across her, but I'm not seeing any issues. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Support, no problems here. No reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
46. Support per most support comments suggest a good candidate - SatuSuro 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. A good editor and candidate. Good luck AoS. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Wouldn't dare oppose Great answers and if I were to oppose, god only knows what would happen to me :D. Good luck Angel Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Stunning! Stunning!--Habashia (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - of course! She looks like a great editor and should make a super admin :) - Alison ^❤ 18:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support obviously. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
52. Support reminds me of me, and I mean that in a good way. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Support No concerns about editor having the tools. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support Well it's about time. BoL (Talk) 02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Great answers to questions, plenty of experience, and level-headed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. Reminds me of DEA, and not in a good way. </jokes> — _Maggot^Syn 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Support No concerns here. :) Midorihana みどりはな 07:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
58. Support and huggles -- Gurch (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Strong support Great vandal fighter and other edits; I was waiting for AngelOfSadness to accept an RfA, but I didn't have time to ask her if I can nominate for. Great user and it's time for being an admin. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
60. Support I'm a new editor and I've only just found out about RfA but even to me this looks like a good editor.--Whipmaster (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Absolute Support How did I miss this one? — Dorvaq (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. I have watched this editor for a long time and wondered when someone would nominate her. She is an excellent asset to the community and giving her the mop would only make her more so. When I'm monitoring WP:AIV and vandal hunting, seeing her also at work makes me comfortable knowing that an experienced vandal whacker is also on the job. Trusilver 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Support, seen this editor many times; she is dedicated, trustworthy and consistent. Accurizer (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Support I have had a number of interactions with this user, all positive. Clearly has a good grasp of wikipedia fundamentals, and will make an excellent admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - definitely. This user seems to be great admin material, and I don't really have any concerns. Until just recently, I honestly thought that she was an admin already from how she acted. She seems to have good judgment with handling things, as well as a nice balance of vandal-fighting and encyclopedia-building. I believe that she'd be a good administrator, and it certainly wouldn't be a net negative. :) --JamieS93 13:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Support limited direct interaction with AngelOfSadness but I looked through her contribs and she seems to be a high quality editor and will benefit the project as an Admin. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support For some reason (support number 2) :) I thought I'd already commented here. Highly competent user who is already a major asset without the buttons and can only be more so with them. Pedro :  Chat  15:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Don't know this editor but checked her edits and concluded that she's trustworthy, civil and has a need for the tools.— Ѕandahl 15:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
69. Support, one of the best and most level-headed editors around. Very smart, polite and knowledgeable. Will weild the mop wisely. Dreadstar † 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
70. strong support Hurra! Finally! —DerHexer (Talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
71. Support yeah, of course. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
72. 'Support per WP:WTHN - BG7even 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. I have no concerns with this editor. MrPrada (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
75. Why not? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
76. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
77. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
78. Seen this user around. She'll be fine. Spellcast (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
79. Changed to support per this. She's the first person to do that. And again. Spencer^T♦C 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, I need to revert user page vandalism more often. ;) –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

80. A good user, although it would be nice to see a "major content contribution". –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
81. Oppose Useless. Psyche!, its a support. Sexy Sea Bassist 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

#Support unconditionally Tiggerjay (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Indenting duplicate vote - already voted @ #43, 06:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC). xenocidic (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

(moved to support) Neutral for now. I'm going to spend some more time looking into this one. So far, in weighing the pros and cons, her work seems pretty good, but she only has 11 edits to Wikipedia Talk and a lot of her User Talk edits were automated via Twinkle. I find communication between editors to be a very important trait in an administrator. Useight (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral for now as well and basically per Useight. From my cursory glances, nothing really seems to leap out at me as alarming, however, talking and communication are vital to administrative duties. I shall return and formulate my permanent stance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Changing to Support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral The lack of edits to the WT space concerns me, as does the support of BLP1E, although that not as much, since I understand the need for administrators from multiple policy standpoints, even ones that I don't believe are in line with the goal of producing a quality encyclopedia. Communication is one of the most important duties of being an admin, and I just don't see anything that demonstrates the ability of the user to do that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Though I see a good user, my gut makes me unsure. Spencer^T♦C 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   What do you mean by that? Acalamari 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   My gut is unsure about this user. Personally, my gut is usually right, though sometimes its wrong. Hopefully it's wrong this time. Spencer^T♦C 00:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Is there anything specific you're concerned about? It's rather vague that you'd be neutral just because of a 'gut feeling'. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support (see reasoning there)

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.