Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Athaenara


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

Athaenara
'''Final (50/8/0); Originally scheduled to end 09:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)'''

- Athaenara has been with us since October last year, making over 11,000 quality edits. By providing third opinions, resolving BLP and COI disputes at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN respectively and other quality mainspace contributions, Athaenara has demonstrated dedication towards the project. She has proven that she can deal with the stress of imparting clue with respect to WP:BLP and WP:COI. Has clue and will not abuse the tools. MER-C 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept, thank you. — Athaenara  ✉  10:07, 26 October 2007 (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:  When I was first asked to consider it (see User talk:Athaenara/Archive 000) six months ago, I thought the prod backlog needed some attention; it still does.  I'm not eager to protect articles or block users, but the need for people with the tools to fulfill such duties is obvious.  I don't use bots or scripts, and I don't intend to.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I participate here in the vocation of amateur scholarship.  I simply try to do my best and let what I create become part of the community editorial process.  I've written some articles (which I try to remember to log in Athaenara/Entries—I think this, this, this, and this aren't half bad).  A year ago, I thought inline citation format was too much trouble—not only to add but to read!—but I do a lot of that now.  I've been part of the third opinion project since January.  I helped out a lot on COI/N and BLP/N until some computer issues slowed me down enough to notice that I'd been overdosing on the characteristic antagonism of some users with conflicts of interest.


 * 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: I don't find it stressful to disagree with other editors who do as I do: read, understand and comply with this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and observe wikiquette.  I do find disruptive editing and violations of civility, no personal attacks and ownership of articles policies very stressful, however.  Helpful venues include BLP/N, COI/N, RS/N, AN/I, AIV, RFC and RFC/USER.


 * A half-dozen examples of conflict/stress/deal:
 * (talk archive) came to my attention via EdJohnston. The article, plagued by a few rather nasty socks, was eventually posted on COI/N; the socks have popped in only once or twice since January.  (Note:  I was new and more long-winded then.)
 * (talk archives 2 & 3) came to my attention via BLP/N . I was an outsider when it went to mediation.  I still watch over it.
 * — one editor was rather possessive; I was one of the other editors who simply backed away from it.
 * came to my attention via WP:3O. I don't consider it resolved, unless full article protection to stop one editor from padding the article with stuff from the organisation's webpages is resolution, and maybe it is: the currently protected version is at least neutral.
 * Requests for comment/Badmonkey — another which appeared on the WP:3O radar; in stasis.
 * Requests for comment/Geoeg — WP:3O again; current; needs additional outside input.

Optional question from User:Justanother
 * 4. Athaenara, I would like to draw your attention to a rather interesting, IMO, example of your behavior under conflict. I refer to your accusing me of being mentally ill for nominating an article for deletion, a nomination that garnered quite a bit of support, I might add, although it did close as "Keep". I found that quite an insulting and totally unwarranted personal attack. I invite the community to look at your post and my reply on this thread as they evaluate your response to my query: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). Athaenara, I would like you to explain your behavior in that instance and, if you defend it still, how such behavior is consistent with the qualities we look for in an admin on this project. --Justanother 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I drew an analogy [in logic, “a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects” (New Oxford American Dictionary) ] about activities which I viewed as wp:point-ish.
 * It was not a personal accusation. — Athaenara  ✉  06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Avruch
 * 5. Would you add yourself to WP:Administrators open to recall?


 * 6. Can you evaluate the utility of quoting behavior policies to editors during a content dispute? Does it contribute to dispute resolution, harden opposing positions, etc.?


 * 7. In the context of your answer to No. 6, can you evaluate your involvement in the subtlety/entrement dispute you provided as an example of your conflict experience?

General comments

 * See Athaenara's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Athaenara:

These diffs demonstrate the candidate's suitability for adminship: I hope this helps. - Jehochman Talk 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Politely helping an editor who wants to add links to articles:
 * Willing to mop up big messes:
 * Cleans up COI article and requests page protection:
 * Helping a newcomer:
 * Dealing firmly with a COI editor:

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

Support

 * 1) Support - Sure. --Tikiwont 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per your excellent answers to the questions. I particularly like the fact that you don't use bots and intend to work "old-school style". A review of contribs looks all good to me. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat  10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - flicking through the contributions, I can find absolutely nothing to oppose. Good answers to questions, and although it would be wrong of me to base my support on edit count, 11,000 edits has undoubtedly changed this user's interpretation of Wikipedia and the effect they've had on the community, which has been excellent. Well done. Rudget Contributions 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Why the hell not? Good luck, have fun. Moreschi Talk 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - of course. Addhoc 11:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - looks like a very good candidate, -- Herby talk thyme 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - I have had only positive experiences in all my interactions with Athaenara, I know of no one else so clearly deserving of the mop. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, yep. Neil   ☎  11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Smile, I've waited a long time for Athaenara to accept. Her dilligency, fairness, and thoroughness are legendary. - Jehochman  Talk 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, I think I'm ready to be, and you're a great deal more ready than I am. All the best! -- linca linca  13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I know Athaenara's work at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. She has helped clean up many unbalanced problem articles by simply rewriting them so they are shorter and more neutral. She's also a regular at Third opinion where she has helped to moderate disputes. Take a look at the article she created on the American architect Martin Stern, Jr. as evidence of her abilities as an article-writer. I have no concerns at all about her becoming an admin and believe it is a well-deserved step. EdJohnston 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support An excellent candidate. It is time to give her the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Clearly a decent candidate. Acalamari 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support trustworthy, experienced, good answers. No doubts you need the tools. Carlosguitar 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) This vote is NOT an oppose Good user. NHRHS2010  talk  19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support a fine candidate. Good luck. IrishGuy talk 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - A large amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. Tiddly - Tom  20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support More than qualified. -- Shark face  217  03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support why not??  Pat Politics rule!  03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Better late than never. MER-C 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support I had actually thought you already had the mop. No worries here: Athaenara's got strong contributions, knows policy, and I've only had positive encounters with this editor. -- B figura (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) 'Support, fine with me. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support with enthusiasm. Superb contributor, especially on WP:BLP-related articles.  Having the mop can only make her an even better contributor, to the great advantage of the project. CWC 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support One of the best editors I've encountered. I'm sure she will make a great admin. Avb 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support My first encounter with this user was troubling, but it was the result of manipulation by a now permabanned sockpuppeteer, and she was a noob, so I set that aside and watched/waited for some other misbehavior upon which to pounce. None ever occurred. She has proven herself to be hard working, dedicated, and willing to do the tedious and time-consuming chores on BLPN and COIN. No reservations here. I do disagree with her about the Barbara Schwarz article, but a lot of people disagree with me on that one. (In fact, now that I am reminded, I may nom that one yet again.) - Crockspot 12:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support until Bishonen's concerns are more adequately addressed. - Crockspot 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)  Switch to oppose, see below. - Crockspot 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  east . 718  at 20:03, 10/27/2007
 * 3) Support In my dealings with Athaenara she has been level headed, fair, detail oriented and well versed on WP policies and guidelines. She has no problem taking on the often very tricky situations of COI and BLP issues that others avoid.  She most certainly deserves the tools and would use them well to better WP. Russeasby 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support John254 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support As per Crockspot and this :* Comment: Justanother has a right to oppose this or any Rfa.  I don't think it helps the encyclopedia to put his opposition under a microscope or spotlight.  Clearly shows that the user even with tools will not misuse them.Track is good .Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Per the nom. There is a dirth of Administrators on the project that have a good grasp of WP:COI and WP:COIN, and the danger this can pose to neutrality on the project.  I don't mean to say a dirth out of the current Admins, just that we need even more Admins who have shown to be specifically cognizant of conflict of interest issues.   Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 7) Support - Good work at BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Need more users who are willing to spend time with BLPs. Phgao 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Jmlk  1  7  07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - excellent work in undermanned areas. Give the lady a broom mop (the slip must be because it's October).  Durova Charge! 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) It's about time, get her the tools already! Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I see no compelling reason that the candidate couldn't be trusted. Good work so far! Van Tucky  Talk 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, because of all the work I have seen at WP:3O. User:Krator (t c) 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support thanks for all the great work you're doing, and I'm sure you'll do more as an admin -- Pump  me  up  04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, helping the 'pedia grow..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - especially regarding her response to justanother's oppose. More level headedness, and politeness, not less.  --Rocksanddirt 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - careful, respectful, polite, smart, organized; cool under pressure; with a history of effective volunteering at project-stress-points like COI, BLP, and 3O. And most importantly, proven to be worthy of community trust.  --Parsifal Hello 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Looks like this user could be trusted with admin tools, but I would feel more at ease if she were subject to recall, as I think all admins should be as a matter of policy.--Fahrenheit451 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 23:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. No significant concerns for me. All my interactions with this editor have been positive. -- Satori Son 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. A. is a strong contributor who will no doubt find creative applications of the mop and pail. Sunray 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Although I agree with George that the exchange he posted in his neutral vote is disturbing, it happened five months ago. I hope this isn't the kind of behavior we'll see if adminship is granted; I expect not.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I took some time to consider this candidate and the opposition. After reading over the links and surrounding context, I can accept that explanation that the mental illness analogy was just that ... an analogy. There are broad generic behaviors associated with the illness that in Anthaenara's view matched up with behavioral/editing patterns. At worst, I might say she's a little quick to pull out the spade when sitting at the table. I do not believe the sysop bit would be abused, nor that the net effect of giving her the sysop bit would be negative. Quite the contrary, I think Anthaenara groks policy and our goals perfectly well, including what admins should and shouldn't do. All in all, she fits my standards. Vassyana 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) yes.--Snakese 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I am reinstating a previously striken support. I think the Bishonen issue was a combination of a bit of misunderstanding, coupled with the clashing of strong personalities. The candidate has a tendency to get her hackles up when rubbed the wrong way, which I cannot really fault too badly, as I tend to react similarly. I do not think that she will abuse the tools, but I will caution her to try to be more patient and humble with editors, especially in situations where she will be using the admin tools. - Crockspot 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. She won't abuse the tools, and has a very high edit count. User: (talk • contribs • count ) 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I had hoped that Athaenara would have had the grace to apologize for her graceless "analogy" but she apparently does not. By her own admission, she finds dealing with what strikes her as problematic "very stressful, however." In my case I found that she attacked me without having, as far as I could see, any previous interaction with me, any familiarity with my editing, and no great experience with the article or the subject area, a complex one (Scientology) fraught with POV and other problems. I had hoped that she had the ability to make peace when it would cost little to make peace. Instead she acted the pedant . . . again. To put it colloquially, she is wound too tight and too quick on the trigger to be trusted with the admin powers. Based on my experience and her response here, I must oppose. I had actually hoped to do otherwise. --Justanother 12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, you certainly have been involved in many controversies due to your desire to protect Wikipedia from anti-Scientology POV pushing. Athaenara is extremely reasonable and doesn't get excited.  Even though she criticized you, perhaps deservedly, you should realize that she  would also protect you from the unfair abuse you have experienced from time to time. She represents what Wikipedia is supposed to be.- Jehochman  Talk 14:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, do you have an example of a page or talk page (a specific edit would be even better) to substantiate this? I'm not denying you, but I want to know the gravity of your claims before I continue my support, and whether I believe there's enough weight in your argument. -- linca linca  14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my optional question (or here is the link). She floated this mental illness analogy on WP:BLPN and I tried to defuse it there by making light in a friendly fashion as I had very little, if any, contact with her previously and did not suppose that she was going to start insulting me but then she repeated it in the midst of a very contentious AfD, effectively drawing attention away from the subject at hand and putting it on me personally. That sort of activity has a chilling effect and is something I would expect from a POV-pusher, not an experienced and supposedly "reasonable and intelligent" editor and admin-hopeful. It is of note that her "Munchausen syndrome" insult was picked up and continued (here) by a POV-pushing WP:SPA, User:Orsini, in what I can only liken to schoolyard bullying where one bully comes up with a "really good put-down" and the other bullies take up the chant, complete with calling me and others that supported the AfD "the Munchies" in true schoolyard fashion (here). Athaenara was involved in that Orsini talk page thread and so was aware of what use her words were being put to yet she made no effort to moderate. I gave her the opportunity here to make peace with me here as I was obviously insulted and concerned but she chose to be obstinate. I do not think we need more obstinate self-righteous admins around here. --Justanother 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you go directly to her and make her aware of how her words had been taken up to bully you? I think that if you had, she would have told the other editor to knock it off.  Consider that as an editor with 10,000 edits, she does a lot of editing and may not remember each and every word she uses, so she might not have recognized things as well as you did. - Jehochman  Talk 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, my displeasure with that mental illness remark was evident on the AfD talk page and, as far as I could tell, she had joined the bullies. That self-same AfD talk thread, further on, illustrates how I deal with mistakes on my part. I feel very strongly that if you make a mistake then you admit it and if you come on too strong then you apologize and back down. Rigidity, an inability to admit an error, an inability to reconsider and perhaps back away from a position taken are, IMO, disqualifying qualities for an admin candidate. No matter how intelligent the editor. --Justanother 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot about this: I actually extended an olive branch to her after the AfD was over (here) but she refused my peace offering here. Speaks very succinctly to my concerns about her. Self-righteous. Obstinate. --Justanother 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd take this offline, but I believe it needs to be addressed here in defence of Athaenara: I don't think that either of you treated the matter "ideally", however accepting an apology isn't a requirement of civility. She didn't abrupty turn and violate anything like that, she didn't bite your head off. She politely removed your addition of your apology, and I understand why she did: you didn't actually apologise. You refered for her to look at a disclaimer as a substitute for giving her an adequate (i.e. human) apology. Please don't take offence to this, but I'd be much inclined to respond in kind (maybe not delete the post, but I would ignore it). Her comments on the Conflict of Interest boards don't strike me as being salacious. Your response could, however, be seen as being either arrogant, flippant or simply rude. I know your intent (based on what you've said before) was to try to lighten the mood. I do that too, but I would suggest approaching diong this with caution and all sense of tact intact, as I'm certain it wasn't seen by others as lighthearted. In short, though not "ideal" I don't see her actions as not being civil or fair. Your actions I do see as being easily able to be construed as rude, irrespective of your intent. I do wish you the best with your editing, but based on what I've seen here today, I do hope our paths don't cross too frequently, personally. -- linca linca  15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My peace offering was just that, an offering. A clear invitation to "bury the hatchet". That she refused to open a dialogue with me speaks to her personality and, barring some visible change, as far as I am concerned, earns her an oppose vote. As far as my attitude in general and whether you would want to cross paths with me, well let me simply point out that I edit generally in what I call the Master's Series of Tendentious Editing and it takes a thick skin. Much much more in the past like during that AfD than now, for which I credit my persistence and the interest of neutral editors and admins. Back then I had endured bullying and harassment from my initial appearance here and at the time of the AfD was being hit hard by at least 6-7 bullies as I was AfD'ing the insulting article on their alt.religion.scientology nemesis. My temper was short and I was generally intolerant of insults directed at me. Following the AfD I changed my behavior as regarded rising to bait and apologized to the non-bullies. My offering to Athaenara was an acknowledgement that she was probably not a bully but might have been put off by my response to what I still see as a totally inappropriate personal attack "analogy". Cheers. --Justanother 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Justanother has a right to oppose this or any Rfa.  I don't think it helps the encyclopedia to put his opposition under a microscope or spotlight.  — Athaenara  ✉  17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Not that the sideshow is really helping, either ;-) — Athaenara  ✉  14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to defame Justanother, I just thought I'd point out how I construe the situation. I don't believe he (or she) is a poor editor. On the contrary, I'm quite impressed by JA's edits, but I don't want to be trying to cross the street when he's driving by. And JA, you're exactly right in that WP:TE is a very touchy area and it requires something of a juxtaposition to be able to write the article carefully and also to be able to accept that many will be dissatisfied with what you do because they have their own views and opinions, but you state that you require thick skin, and I'm just say you might want to work on your calluses in some areas. Otherwise, I think your contributions are magnificent. -- linca linca  04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lincalinca confuse Justanother with JustaHulk. Justanother total pussycat. JustaHulk NOT BAD. JustaHulk too busy to edit much now. --JustaHulk 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I've checked out the Justanother issue—see Justanother's Oppose just above, and the Optional Question 4—and Athaenara's post on Justanother actually looks like a personal, un-adminlike, and nasty attack to me, despite her statement that it was a mere analogy. I hope you'll all look for yourselves at Athaenara's comment in the thread Justanother links to—this one—and form your own opinions. Note also User:Orsini's comment in the same brief thread, in support of "Athaenara's assessment and comments". Orsini clearly takes Athenara's assessment to be that Justanother suffers from the Munchausen syndrome ("I also hope the Munchausen syndrome passes away quickly"). Athaenara, if you had had any problem with Orsini endorsing you in such a way, I assume you would have protested against his post, somehow, wouldn't you? But you didn't comment further.
 * Also, I've checked out most of the diffs you posted in response to Standard Question 3—the more recent examples, starting with the the Geoeg RFC at the bottom and working upwards, running out of steam around the Subtlety issue. Thanks for posting such an ample collection, it made it easier to make a good check of your claims to personal wikiquette and dispute resolution skills. I have to report, though, that I don't really see any very admin-like "dealing" in those examples, any more than I do in the Justanother conflict. Here's my list, reversing the order of yours, so as to get the most recent stuff first:
 * 1. Requests for comment/Geoeg The evidence from you of conflict resolution at the Geoeg RFC consists overwhelmingly of a) policy citations, and b) very hostile posts. Now b), your hostility, may be very well deserved by Geoeg, as that editor seems highly unconstructive, but does either a) or b) ever actually work towards dispute resolution, in your experience? It was bona fide dispute resolution that you were supposed to give examples of at that RFC, and it's DR I'm interested in at this RFA. I clicked on all your diffs at the Geoeg RFC, and can see no bona fide attempt at reaching out. Instead, this is a typical post.
 * 2. Requests for comment/Badmonkey. Either I'm missing something, or else there isn't really any input by you worth mentioning here.
 * 3. As you point out yourself, there is also very little to this.
 * 4. Subtlety. I'm sorry, here's that reliance on policy citations again. I can only agree with your opponent Peter Isotalo— the editor you call "rather possessive"— that You're supposed to make an attempt to argue your case before you start bonking people over the head with policy citations.. I'm a little surprised to see you post this talkpage discussion as an example of how well you deal with disagreement.
 * Many of the examples above give me pause, especially your over-reliance on telling people they're breaching some policy—you obviously know a lot of policies—but do you ever actually find it helpful to simply refer your opponent to WP:OWN, WP:CIV, and other perennial favorites? Especially with experienced editors, who have probably already heard of them? Plus, the one thing that really tips the scales for me is this rejection of Justanother's apology. Coming from a would-be admin, that is one terrible diff. Strong oppose at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC). PS. Dammit, could somebody please fix the formatting of the above discussion so the automatic count works?
 * Formatting fixed! You need to start every paragraph with a "#". Neil   ☎  14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in the interest of full disclosure: my only previous encounter with Bishonen is archived here.  — Athaenara  ✉  14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was looking for that—I knew we'd met! There's so little context to the exchange you link to, though, that even I, who was involved in it, can't make a lot of sense of it any more. If you want people to understand what we were talking about, you'd probably better explain it to them. Is that the whole of your comment on my oppose, though? I did ask you some questions above. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) Oppose. It seems I once made this edit concerning the candidiate "Your rhetoric (if that is what you wanted it to be) was misplaced and misguided. Your speculation as to whether I was working alone or in collusion was offensive and totally missed the point which is to improve wikipedia's standards. That is my goal - I sincerely hope that is also your aim. In short do not make clever snide little comments unless you want them addressed and are sure of your facts. Giano 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)" Since that date I have yet to see anything to alter my opinion that the candidate is far too naive and inexperienced to be an admin. Her inexperience and naivity would cause mayhem. Giano 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It brings me no pleasure to switch to oppose, but the inadequate and/or nonexistent response to legitimate concerns is troubling. I do appreciate the hard work she has done, but as we all know, hard work is not an entitlement to adminship. Attitude, humility, the ability to deal effectively with opposition, and the ability to weather and address criticism are all just as important. There are a few days left, and I can still be swayed back. - Crockspot 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Civility concerns; comparing Wikipedia processes with mental illness, and referring to policy instead of engaging in real debate, are not automatically show-stoppers for me but they do give me pause. Per Crockspot above I can probably still potentially be swayed, but on the evidence presented I have to oppose. Sorry. --John 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Opppose I have a really hard time with this edit, blowing off an apology like this is bad form for an editor and unacceptable in an admin. (No - RV'd)?? RxS 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per [].  The habit of throwing acronyms in lieu of discussion is the very definition of a power trip.  Cooperative editing is cooperative, not petulant, and the matter at talk:Subtlety, which the candidate still has not seen the error of, betrays a really fundamental misunderstanding.  I fear that, without changing her mind about how to cooperate with authors, we will end up with some trouble.  No one needs abasement from the candidate, but no one needs another administrator attempting to rule, either.  Geogre 11:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Athaenara barged into the subtlety/entremet conflict and for the most part played only a ruleslawyering game. The only thing resembling a factual argument from Athaenara was this along with a citation of an online article on medieval cuisine written by an amateur scholar belonging to an American Richard III Society. Though somewhat useful, it was still full of errors and hardly an appropriate piece of literature to pit against the multiple print sources cited at the time. Simply making oneself heard in a discussion doesn't grant you the right to revert and obstruct at will. And after seeing this I seriously doubt Athaenera's ability and willingness to compromise. With only one day to go it appears that Athaenera has enough support votes to make an admin anyway, and this behavior smacks of politicking rather than any honest attempts to smooth things over. Peter Isotalo 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose based on the subtlety/entremet affair and concerns per Bishonen. Athaenara seems to be a very good editor, but she clearly has dispute resolution difficulties and trouble dealing with direct and civil opposition. I don't think it is appropriate to accuse someone of WP:OWN for reverting their own text in favor of a newer version that reflects a more accurate understanding of the subject. I'm especially disturbed by the fact that she made no substantive contributions on the topic itself, only quoting supposed policy violations. That isn't the attitude Wikipedia needs in admins, even with the coming November flood. Avruch Talk 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Hey, people, please look at this, []. I didn't do it as a hidden thingie.  I find her behavior pretty reprehensible, here.  One person says, "You're taking an insupportable position," and the other says, "WP:OWN."  The first person patiently comes back with, "Can you please talk about your position?"  The other comes back with, "Ha ha OWN."  The first again says, "Why do you want to make this change?"  The other again comes back with....  It's positively weird.  One person is researching like mad, and the other is hurling a pot of alphabet soup.  What's more, there is, so far from an explanation or apology or promise to do better, an offering of this as proof of how good she is?  Eeek.  I've already experienced this stuff, myself -- hand full of research notes, screens of material, carefully writing, and then someone with a wild hair starts telling me that it must be that person's way (i.e. that person should get to own it) or I'm trying to own it.  Bah.  Geogre 10:35, 30 October 2007 (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.