Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/January


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

January
'''Final (91/1/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 12:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I first ran into January; then known as about nine months ago at UAA. I quickly noticed there her anti-spam efforts, both in reporting usernames and dealing with the edits, were accurate, well-done, and plentiful. Her efforts quickly caught my eye as a potential administrator due to her maintenance work, and in the time since, I haven't had reason to question that assessment. In her time here, she has been active in handling copyright violations, anti-vandalism work, and several other areas where having the admin tools would be of benefit. More than the maintenance work that adminship consists of lots of, she has 12 DYK's and a GA to her credit; she understands not only the back-end copyright and spam cleanup, but also the sweat and frustration that go into producing the quality content that is our face. I hope you'll see the same things that I've been seeing for a months now. Courcelles 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I’m delighted to finally get to co-nom January for adminship. I first noticed her when she began showing up routinely at the copyright problems board. The quality of her contributions stood out; she had good sense in what she tagged and in how she handled the issues, in her documenting problems and in her consistent attention to providing proper notification. (I first voiced my appreciation to her after her work at this day) I have long felt that giving her the tools would be an improvement to Wikipedia.
 * Co-nomination from User:Moonriddengirl

January does great article work; she has 12 quality DYKs and helped to improve Madge Syers to GA status. She knows her way around Wikipedia and understands our policies (certainly, she’s on top of the copyright issue): she contributes to WP:BLP issues (1, 2, 3); WP:USERNAME investigations, non-free content evaluation , and sock puppetry investigation. A quick glance at her contribs will show a conscientious approach to vandalism and spam. Her deleted contribs show plenty of properly applied speedy tags. Most of all, what I like about January is that she brings little drama and lots of sense. I think these are ideal qualities in an admin, and I think she will use the tools well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, I accept.


 * Just a quick note about usernames – as Courcelles mentions I started out as Cassandra 73 when I joined (in September 2009), my account was renamed in September 2010. I have not edited from any other username, I have a handful of IP edits from just before I created my account. January  ( talk ) 11:59, 29 May 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: Initially I would focus on the areas I'm experienced in as a patroller, which are speedy deletion, usernames for administrator attention (dealing mainly with promotional usernames, the most frequently reported problem) and copyright problems. I would also occasionally make use of the page protection and revision deletion tools where appropriate (for example in the event of serious BLP violations).


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Of my article contributions, I would definitely pick out Madge Syers, an article I expanded from start-class which recently became my first GA. I also do quite a bit of gnoming, such as categorising articles and fixing problems with the layout, in the course of which I keep an eye out for problems. I've picked up quite a few copyright problems, and occasionally where the article history didn't have a clean version that could be reverted to I have created new stubs to prevent the articles from being deleted altogether (e.g. Grace Nono, Larry Cox (Amnesty International)).


 * 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've had occasional disagreements with other editors, my approach has generally been to seek outside input. One of the examples at the BLP noticeboard Moonriddengirl mentions came about when my removal of a subject's full name was challenged on my talk page by the editor who added it, so I sought input to check if my understanding of the relevant policy was correct. I've sought assistance and second opinions there quite a few times, and also used the WP:RFC process (example). I would say the most stressful situations I've encountered have been instances where people who seem or claim to have personal knowledge/involvement with a BLP subject have been editing their articles to attack them or add sensitive private information. Such edits are usually clear BLP violations so the courses of action are obvious, the important thing I've learned (although it sounds obvious) is to stay calm in these situations.

Question from  Skomorokh  :
 * 4. Which Wikipedia policy do you disagree with most strongly, and why?
 * A: I have to admit that there wasn't a particular policy that occured to me when I first read the question, there isn't one I've been wanting to get rid of or rewrite, and having thought about it I still don't have one that I think I would disagree with; on the whole I think our policies are well-developed and were put in place for good reasons. There have been some interesting discussions about companies that print books of Wikipedia articles and sell them for profit (here, more recently here) and I understand the concerns raised about why our reuse policy allows this in view of some of the concerns raised over the pricing, quality and marketing of their output but ultimately this isn't something we can legislate against, the goal of the project is to be a free encyclopaedia which includes commercial use.


 * Additional question from The Utahraptor
 * 5. If I were to oppose this RfA, how would you respond? Why?
 * A: I couldn't say for sure without knowing what the reason for the oppose, but I think I would only consider responding directly (in terms of replying) to an oppose if I thought clarification would be helpful or I thought it would be relevant to clarify reasons for an action of mine that had been raised. In terms of how it would affect me, I hope I'll be able to take any feedback and constructive criticism I receive from opposes on board.
 * Follow-up question from The Utahraptor
 * 6. Do you have a response for (currently) the only person who opposes this RfA? If so, what is it, and if not, why not?
 * A: I see there's already been some comment. I get the reason for the oppose, so I'll stay true to what I said earlier and won't respond directly myself.


 * Additional question from Keepscases
 * 7. You may give a very large cash prize, enthusiastically provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, to any one Wikipedia user you wish, for any reason you wish. The only caveats are: the money can never get back to you or your family in any way, and you must publicly disclose your actual reasoning.  Do you award the prize?  If so, to whom, and why?
 * A: I might be taking this question more seriously than it was intended, but I wouldn't award the prize, we're a volunteer community so cash prizes seem kind of inappropriate, and if it was coming from the WMF it would be partly funded from donations which also seems inappropriate.


 * Additional question from GreatOrangePumpkin
 * 8. Which of these usernames are against the username policy and why: RoboCop, WhitePower4155623, abudbaudbbu, CocaCola©, FatWhore, PooBot, Anos1995. Which of these are not? And why?
 * RoboCop – could possibly be promotional if the edits are clearly promoting products relating to the Robocop franchise, but otherwise, being named after a fictional character is not a problem.
 * WhitePower4155623 – this should be disallowed an offensive username.
 * abudbaudbbu – I don't see a problem, some lengthy random character strings as usernames are considered confusing but I don't think this one is.
 * CocaCola© - similar to RoboCop, this would only be a problem if the edits were promoting or clearly indicated a connection with CocoCola. The subject of trademarks in usernames has come up in discussions (1, 2), and the general consensus has been that this is not trademark infringement.
 * FatWhore – again this should be disallowed as an offensive/disruptive username.
 * PooBot – the suffix -bot should only be used by legitimate bot accounts, so if it isn't a bot it should be disallowed. If it is, then bearing in mind other language uses of Poo it would be borderline and possibly one for WP:RFC/NAME.
 * Anos1995 – I don't see a problem with that, unless there's a possibly offensive translation I'm unaware of (I ran it through Google translate, anos is Spanish for 'years').


 * Additional question from NSH001
 * 9. To what extent will you rely on Google translate? Would you modify your answer to the previous question in view of the actual meaning of "anos"? (see my !vote below)
 * A: I tried Google translate on that name because I was trying to get an indication of what the issue might be and the only possibility seemed to be what it might mean in another language, but I wouldn't rely on the result and I certainly wouldn't block a username based only on what it came up with.


 * Reconsidering the question now that I know the correct Spanish meaning, I think this username is ambiguous and it shouldn't be an instant block based on the name alone. As well as the similarity to años, Anos is the name of a place in France and from searching it seems it can also be a surname. If the edits from this account are clearly vandalism it should be blocked as a vandalism-only account, if they are constructive any concerns about the name should be discussed with the user as a first step, with WP:RFC/NAME an option if concerns can't be resolved through discussion.

General comments

 * Links for January:
 * Edit summary usage for January can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to talk. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As other wikis have been mentioned, I'd just like to clarify that I've had the SUL for User:January since September 2010, there were pre-existing accounts on frwiki, ruwiki and thwiki which show up on my global contributions but are not mine. Commons is the only other project I've edited with this username. January  ( talk ) 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Nominated by both Courcelles and MRG, wow. Overly qualified candidate. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Mtking (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Everything checks out for me. I'm almost willing to support because User:Moonriddengirl nominated alone.  But honestly, checking random contribs, created articles, edit count, edit summary usage, automated edits and it all checks out.  Great candidate.--v/r - TP 12:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as co-nom. ( Oh, we're live! :D ) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support - Willing and able to deal with copyright issues, and capable in other admin areas. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Certainly. 狐 Déan rolla bairille!   12:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per noms. — Ched : ?  12:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support January is a very friendly person who has an amazing knowledge in the matter of copyright. She also helped to rescue one of the best tennis player nowadays, Svetlana Kuznetsova, which GA nomination was quick failed due to copyright infringement. She explained why this can not be a copyright violation on its talk page. That was absolutely amazing, since she wasn't asked to review it. She just jumped in an began to review it! She absolutely deserves the tool!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support The tandem strength of your nomination is intriguing. The quality of your contributions coupled with sensibility and a mature regard for propriety transform that intrigue into staunch support. My76Strat talk  13:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Impressive nom and co-nom support, and from what I've seen, she should make a fine admin. —DoRD (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support She should have no problems at all. Minima ©  ( talk ) 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Seen around, should be fine (though running in January would have been more appropriate, even though the weather (here at least) is basically like January!) AD 13:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Absolutely no reason why not, a great candidate for adminship. Per above, though, what are you doing being nominated in May? :P Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Yep, all-round very knowledgeable and friendly contributor - such skills and experience are greatly needed in the Copyright and BLP fields -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Somewhat researched support. Checked out her GA and the DYKs.  I looked at the article talk with most contribs (Richard Littlejohn) and also snooped her use talk.  Articles seem pretty short in general, but there is a decent number of them.  Has a very calm tone dealing with users who are going to get a vanity article deleted or some POV-pushing text pulled from a BLP they want to savage.  Basically is a credit to the project and has the tone that will work well dealing with problems.  TCO (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) No problem, Cass. –BuickCenturyDriver 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support I remember seeing her around as Cassandra 73 and have nothing but the highest opinion of her communication skills and general common sense. She'll wield the mop well. --bonadea contributions talk 15:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Glad to support. Impressed by your UAA reports and CSD taggings (and by your nominators' statements). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Candidate has demonstrated impressive copyright work and a broad understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I also give great weight to the two top-drawer nom's in this instance.--Hokeman (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. A rare combination of writing skills, policy knowledge, calm dialogue, and common sense makes January an ideal candidate for the mop.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support based on a review of contributions, which evidenced deep understanding of a range of policies and excellent communication skills. --joe deckertalk to me 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - will do just fine in the areas she intends to work in from what I've seen --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support — I trust the nominators, as well as the candidate. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) We definitely need more admins to work in copyright, and there's quite possibly no one whose weight carries more weight than Moonriddengirl when it comes to coptright issues. If MRG trusts you to do that job, by all means we should make sure you can take up the mop and do that job.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Seems like a great candidate, don't see any problems. Monty  845  18:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - Everything I have looked at says that January will be a great admin. I see no problems.  GB fan (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Big noms, no concerns  Jebus989 ✰ 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Let's see ... two of the best nominators possible, one of the awesomest usernames out there, some excellent writing, and experience dealing with copyvios. The only issue I have with this whole RfA was Courcelles' misuse of an apostrophe in his nomination ("12 DYK's"). :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what Courcelles wrote is technically correct English grammar. However, the Manual of Style disapproves for some reason. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some other style guides will disagree (e.g., the AP Stylebook), saying that an apostrophe should only be used for clarity with single letters ("p's and q's", "Oakland A's") and not multiple letters ("CDs", "ABCs", and even "A to Zs"). As the DYKs are not possessing anything, it seems more reasonable not to include the apostrophe. But YMMV :) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Happy to support this well-qualified candidate. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems to be clueful and qualified for the mop. A check of the candidate's contributions revealed no problems that would let me believe they were not qualified to be a good admin. Regards  So Why  19:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I see no reason not to.  maucho eagle   (c) 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing crat: MauchoEagle has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This !vote has been struck. Eagles  24/7  (C)  23:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I did not recognize the January username, but absolutely recognized Cassandra 73 as one of our best content contributors. She is an excellent Wikipedian, very knowledgable about our policies and well respected by others. She will be an excellent addition to our admin corps. Being nominated by two of our best is just icing on the cake. I'll be very happy to see her with the additional tools and look forward to her participation in the admin areas. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support deleted contributions look good, concentrating on advertising and copyright violation, with a few pagemove requests, prods and AFDs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I was familiar with this editor under her prior name, where I saw her doing good work in anti-vandalism and other areas. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Initially I was like "who's January"? But I've seen Cassandra 73 around, and she doing pretty good work. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Stephen 00:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Good work! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin -- Marek  .  69   talk  00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Trusted and knowledgeable candidate, no problems here. Will do a good job.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support – I see no issues here. — mc10 ( t / c ) 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I trust Moonriddengirl's judgement.James500 (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - as per the nomminee's comments and clueful and the apparent mature and common sense attitude of the candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good contributions.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Well rounded candidate, plenty of experience, mature, should do well.  Catfish  Jim  (ex-soapdish)  14:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No problems, will make a good admin. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 16:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Looks like a fantastic candidate - support.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) T. Canens (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support More copyright-savvy admins are needed. The content work and understanding is also a big plus. First Light (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:30, May 30, 2011
 * 17) At long effing last! ;) Easily fits into that "should have been an admin ages ago" category and I can think of few editors as qualified or as clueful as January. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Done some good work.  ceran  thor 20:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Will make an excellent admin.  sonia ♫  21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) We need people who understand copyright well. Kansan (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Appears to be communicative and clueful.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support No reason not to and she'd be useful with the mop  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 10:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - seems like a thoroughly decent and highly capable user. Orphan Wiki  12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Actually, that was a perfect answer to my question. Keepscases (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Clearly more than qualified. Answers to questions are fairly impressive.  PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Baseball   Watcher  15:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Having had a look over your answers to the questions here and your efforts at UAA. You demomstrate clue, and I don't see any issues, that's enough for me to support. Wield the mop well. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) I went and checked almost everything: random contribs, some articles they created, edit count, edit summary usage, ect., ant everything checked out to my tastes. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Can't see any reason why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N5iln (talk • contribs)
 * 31) Support January seems to have ample qualifications for adminship.  Swarm   X 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Appears to be a very good candidate, and impressive answers to the questions, except for one point: don't rely on Google Translate ("anos" is Spanish for "anuses" (plural of "anus") - the Spanish for "years" is "años"). --NSH001 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Why not? L&#39;etats C&#39;est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Seems completely unnecessary to add my two cents here, but the candidate appears to have very solid qualifications in copyright and an excellent, non-confrontational attitude. We could do with more of both. — Chromancer  talk/cont 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, overdue, Cassandra January is effective and awesome. – SJ<font style="color:#f90;"> +  00:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) Support - Fully qualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) Mens sana in corpore sano — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:46pm • 08:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) Support good chance will be a net positive Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) Certainly. Neutralitytalk 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - Certainly seems qualified.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 41) Support, perfect answers - frankie (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Good communication skills, good answers to RfA questions, great contributions including to Wikipedia space. --  At am a  頭 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 44) This candidate has all of the qualifications necessary to be a great administrator. That said, I place my vote in the support section. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 45) Looks good, can be trusted with the extra tools. - <font face="Century Gothic" color="#2B65EC" size="2">Dwayne  was here!   &#9835;  00:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 46) many fine reasons above. Dloh  cierekim  02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 47) Support I can't find any concerns, and user clearly demonstrates good knowledge of policy, good sense, and polite, diplomatic communication skills.  Chzz  ► 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 48) Support, good candidate and having someone like MRG as a nom is rather helpful. @Question 7, you did take that way too seriously, but I liked your answer nonetheless. Enjoy the extra tools and feel free to ask me for help anytime. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was meant to be taken seriously. Keepscases (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad then and kudos to (what I thought was) a good answer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Perfect answer to Q7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Samir 04:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Clueful at UAA. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Seen this user around in copyright-related areas, and I'm sure they'll make a good admin. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) More admins working in copyright issues is always a great thing.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support any month of the year! Maybe not that much experience, but enough, and very consistently clueful and will contribute in useful areas. Two great nominators. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support You should go with "WP:RIGHTNOW"!  EBE123  talkContribs 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Absolutely! I have no concerns. Theleftorium (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Wait...isn't it June at the moment? Shouldn't this be a New Year Nom? :) Ah well. Seriously though, January is a name I am familiar with, and her content, anti-vandalism, and copyright work are excellent: I'm sure she'll make a good admin. Acalamari 21:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No reason not to. Striker force Talk  Review me! 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose  Has little experience  with contentious situations.  Will be incapable like most of the recent batch of admins, who all they want is the glory, but not really do anything.  Unimpressed by this nomination.  But the RfA process is nothing more than a beauty contest where big smiles count more than real competence.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't staying out of drama ... a good thing? I thought people didn't like admins who are only drama-mongerers. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a non-sequitur Fetchcomms, and you know it. Experience with contentious situations is not restricted to drama-mongerers, and it's almost mandatory for dealing with them capably as an administrator. One could reasonably object to Orangemarlin's oppose on the grounds that January is unlikely to involve themselves in socially difficult decisions without getting experience first, but yours is not a reasonable objection.  Skomorokh   21:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was meant as humor ... but I have to say that I always tried to stay out of major disputes before I became an admin, and I prefer avoiding them now. However, when I do choose to involve myself in a dispute, I've been accused (at least once or twice) of trying to cause drama. People will accuse anyone of being a drama mongerer, regardless of how much of little experience he/she has in contentious situations. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a reasonable argument in concept (know how to handle the fight from having been in conflict). The only thing is I researched her and found several places where she had to deal with conflict in terms of content debates, deletions, etc.  She seems to handle them very calmly and sweetly (which is probably the way to go on Wiki).  For instance, at Richard Littlejohn, she is in the right about some user who just wants to "fix" the article by using it for pretty weak negative OR-synthy aspersions.  She handles the illogical objector well.  I'm not too worried that she can't handle the average internet drama queen.  Now some of these tough guys at RFA...well heck, they'd make Thor scared.    TCO (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's anyone that's incapable Orangemarlin, it's you... incapable of restraining yourself from making brutal comments about a whole batch of recent admins, that will only cause conflict and stir-ups. Congratulations. Orphan Wiki  12:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we please not turn discussing this oppose into a snipe-fest? No one is likely to change OrangeMarlin's mind by being snarky, and there's no need to engage in it. Courcelles 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sir. (Stomps sulkily to the sandpit while it's vacated with the dumper truck finally free). Orphan Wiki  12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Extended discussion of a withdrawn !vote moved to the talk page.
 * 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.