Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lourdes


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

Lourdes
Final (20/26/4); ended 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination
– Hello everybody. I am Lourdes, presenting my request for adminship, and I believe the season’s first self-nomination. At Wikipedia, I have gained experience writing and editing articles, contributing to the AfD/CSD desks, and chipping in at the UAA/AIV/RFP desks too. During my tenure here, I have gained in my editing experience contributing to a couple of Featured Lists, four Good Articles and seven DYKs. I have a fair exposure to AfDs, !voting in a few AfDs, closing and relisting some. At the CSD desk, in all the articles I have nominated till date, a couple of my noms have been rejected, which were eventually deleted. In all my UAA/AIV/RFP reports till date, I think around two may have been rejected at each desk in all. I also contribute significantly to the Help Desk, helping editors clarify issues, and occasionally, asking my own queries.

I have also written a few scripts for the benefit of editors. The most used is perhaps the Page Curation script; other scripts that I have contributed support the AfD and TFA desks. Occasionally, I also try and contribute to our policies and guidelines to my best capacity. In user accounts, I maintain a bot account, a wikilove account, apart from my original user account, which was renamed to my current username. With these words, my fellow editors, I place my request for adminship across to you. Thank you. Lourdes 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. First of all, thank you all for the comments. I thank the supporters for the affirmation; that's quite encouraging. Honestly, and this is not for the sake of being politically correct, I think I owe an equal thanks to the opposers and to those in the neutral section. Normally, I've seen Rfas being at the killing-edge for the noms. I've noticed that almost every opposer at this Rfa (and those in the neutral section) has described their comments with compelling logic, and perhaps most importantly, a level of softness I did not expect. Thanks to all of you for a thorough and sincere review... Well, not all, I still hate you :) I would be pleased to respond to any further comments, suggestions, questions on my talk page. I withdraw this nomination and request any editor to please close the same. Cheers.  Lourdes  02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL <3, and best of luck to you. Jerk. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:29, 9 February 2017 (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: The main areas that I believe I would participate in are the AfD and CSD desks. I would take care to handle the non-complicated and non-controversial cases initially, and then, as time progresses, increase my exposure. Although I have experience at the UAA and AIV desks, I believe it requires quite some experience and judgement to understand nuances in blocking – something I hope to gain slowly over the next six months, post which I may also frequent those desks.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have gained in knowledge and enjoyed working on articles across Wikipedia. That’s one reason I think that my best contributions have been the DYKs, GAs, and FLs I have contributed to. Equally, I would also consider my Help Desk contributions as being amongst my best contributions – I have cherished assisting new editors and guiding experienced ones on queries of various types; I hope to continue doing that for a long time.


 * 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: Yes, I have been in conflicts over editing in the past. While in the initial weeks and months at Wikipedia, I have generally ended up embarrassing myself duelling over inconsequential issues, these interactions were the very ones which, over time, taught me the importance of empathy – or rather, looking at an issue from the other person’s point of view. I have realized that we all come from different cultures – and words being the only tools of communication, have to be used absolutely with empathy. In any conflict now, if I feel I’m at fault, I’ve just gone up ahead and apologized. And if the other person’s at fault, I’ve still tried to extend the olive branch before pointing out the mistakes. Thankfully, this approach seems to have helped me find many more friends than foes out here. For those who may be interested, User:Lourdes/Conversations has a few significant interactions/contributions involving me over my tenure here. I would tend to think these are all the skeletons/barnstars in my cupboard, and a mirror to my behaviour in positive and negative situations. Hope it helps interested editors.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional question from Chris troutman
 * 4. I'm curious why you didn't take a run at our Optional RfA candidate poll (ORCP). You've commented there more than once so I'd like to know why you didn't visit there before this self-nom.
 * A: Hi Chris. I think ORCP is a great place to get feedback from some of the experienced regulars there. My personal preference was to reach out to the overall community for their feedback, as that's the actual set of editors who decide on the Rfa. I also think another reason has been that I consider Rfa an absolutely comfortable process; in the perspective that if editors believe one ought to be an admin, they support, else they oppose. At least in my view, that's as simple as it can get. I'm absolutely appreciative of the process, the honesty and speed of feedback here, and that's why I would rather choose an Rfa over ORCP.


 * Additional question from Chris troutman
 * 5. In preparation for today, what was your biggest take-away from WP:RFAADVICE?
 * A: While the "Relax - it's over" did bring the expected smile, I think the biggest takeaway the page had given to me was that adminship is viewed by the community as a combination of various factors. In the sense that it's not just about the statistical ticks on the chart (number of Afds, edit counts etc), but a combination of behavioral, editorial, procedural et al contributions that an editor makes, which build his or her profile in the eyes of the community. It's important to not consider adminship as a way to a higher post; adminship should be considered as an access to additional tools, which can allow an editor to help the project in sensitive and important areas. Let me also add that what I found brilliant also was the effort put into the page to protect sensitive or unprepared editors; I think that's one side of our community that I appreciate quite a lot. Hope this reply is enough. Do ask me any additional query if you wish (and quickly, given the trend :)). Thanks.

Discussion

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

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

Support

 * 1) Support – Yay! First support! I have no doubt that she will make a great admin; a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the community. Has an over 94% AfD rate. Yet another bot operator! The opposes don't convince me; they're looking at the bad side of things. Lourdes will make a great admin and help with the project significantly,although a few mistakes will be made along the way. i honestly think that the opposers are trying to slow down the project and therefore I give a enthusiastic support for her.  J  947  19:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, net positive by a large margin, one of those "I thought you were an admin already" sort of thing.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I've seen Lourdes around, and I am confident she will make a good administrator. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Yes; an excellent candidate. I believe we have directly interacted only a few times, but on those occassions, has demonstrated nothing but the most professional approach, demonstrating three of the most important qualities: calmness, thoroughness, and a sound knowledge and application of policy and procedure. We could, in short, do far worse.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support fine editor who is BOLD in improving the encyclopedia. Firm WP:NETPOSITIVE. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Having someone who has made this many contributions in the past and is willing to step forward to take on greater responsibilities in the community is always a good thing.  Willingness and motivation will go a long way. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support 14 months editing experience, just over 11,000 edits, 44% of them to articles, and a self-nom. Can do it. Nick (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - seems clueful from what I've seen of them. 11000 edits in 14 months of experience?? That's some dedication right there. I also appreciate the self-nom; when volunteering for these roles, it's always the candidate that best knows when they are willing to take on these extra unpaid responsibilities. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I have no concerns, and every interaction I've had has been of the quality I expect to see in an admin. Lourdes definitely can be trusted with the tools. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 19:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Contributions and demeanor look fine. Good candidate. ValarianB (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Self-nom shows initiative. One of my first interactions with the candidate demonstrates a strong commitment and awareness of BLP issues, which is always a plus. Seems like a net positive.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Clear net positive. If 14 months tenure and 11K edits isn't enough, then I need to go mark WP:NOBIGDEAL as historical.  Tazerdadog (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. WP:NOBIGDEAL is historical, and clearly no longer relevant. Wikipedia is obviously not what it was back then, and the policing of it (yes, "policing", the janitor metaphor is also much less applicable then it once was) carries responsibilities that were probably unimaginable at the time. The day is well past when we toss the bit to anyone who asks for it, and it is now incumbent on the community to make sure that the people we make admins are qualified for the job.  Not everyone is, not even very good editors.  It takes a combination of abilities and qualities that not everyone has.  There's no magic equation to insure that we pick the right people, but having every editor do their level best to evaluate candidates is a good start. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Lourdes is plenty qualified to be an administrator. I find the opposing points unpersuasive. Kurtis (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Lourdes has shown dedication and good thinking. She'll be a great admin.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to question her dedication to the project, but can you point to some examples of what you mean by "good thinking", as I'm not sure what you mean by it, exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 95% favorable AFD votes is indicative of good thinking. I'll make sure to place greater scrutiny on Lourdes if she ever decides to run for office or if we are ever deciding what smoke color to send up the chimney. [;)]-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 23:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "95% favorable AfD" really indicative of good thinking? It's been pointed out below that many of those !votes came near the end of the AfD, so they may have been safe "piling on" !votes.  And, in any case, even if they weren't, they don't necessarily show "good thinking" as much as they might indicate "group thinking".  I'd much rather have a candidate who has used their best judgment at AfD, even if their judgment isn't always the same as that of the community.And, BTW, I'm not so silly as to equate being an admin to being POTUS or the Pope, but even dogcatchers (or janitors!) should be qualified to to their job well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) SupportThe length of time working on the project and the number of edits are sufficient in my view. Should be a help to the project as an administrator. Nothing raised by the opposers is convincing. Edison (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) 14 months and 10,000 edits are plenty, thanks. We're talking about a handful of extra buttons on a website here. User is competent, trustworthy, and exceedingly unlikely to do anything untoward with the tools. Suggestions to wait several years before reapplying are a bit absurd. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Overall, I think the user would be a net positive. I have no major concerns, and the answers to the questions thus far are satisfactory.  I don't find that the oppose !votes raise very significant points of concern. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, very helpful at AfD. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sneak in a support for whom I think is a qualified candidate. Pity this wont pass. Full Rune Speak, child of Guthix 02:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support- Tremendous candidate, Yuuuugggeeee net positive for the community, Those Opposers; Bad!, Just terrible....-- Stemoc 02:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Needs more experience. Leave it a year or two. Bmcln1 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Only 14 months editing experience, just over 11,000 edits, only 44% of them to articles, and a self-nom. Can't do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I regretfully oppose this candidate. (My first ever oppose at RFA too.) A number of things. I don't think there's enough experience - they've only been here a little over a year. Secondly, I've kind of been rubbed the wrong way with some of their interactions. A few editors in the past, myself included, have expressed concerns with their badgering of people at WP:RFA. I don't feel its a one off situation either. A number of the the conversations tracked here show some concerning situations. For example, look at bullet point #7, where Lourdes has been denied rollbacker rights twice under bizarre situations in 2016. This discussion about blocking policy, from September 2016, doesn't instill confidence either. I'm sorry, I just can't support.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you point to a specific instance of RfA badgering? I have followed a handful of the last batch of RfAs, and I recall Lourdes asking questions; in some cases I didn't see the point, in others they seemed pertinent -- a question about what a candidate considered reliable sources turned out surprising answers, and it's a good thing it was asked. None of the questions struck me as badgering. The rollback conversations are... strange, though.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. At User:Ferret's RFA, Lourdes went well over the allotted "2 question limit", and then badgered him for responses mere hours later. Even after I made mention of the fact that responses aren't required to be done in the term of hours, Lourdes again spoke again of expecting answers in the next couple hours. They were notified that the question were too many and didn't require response in a certain timeframe, and Lourdes just kind of kept going. If you browse through some of the links at the "Conversations" page in my first comment, you almost get a hint of a passive WP:IDHT trend in some of Lourde's responses at time - experienced editors inform of rules and norms, and if you read closely, while not overtly combative, oftentimes they keep going without conceding the points at hand. As others have since mentioned below, I get the same vibe in this conversation as well. Sergecross73   msg me  21:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Self-nom; only two years and 11,000 edits; adopting a superior and patronizing tone with admins and more experienced editors (some of which is viewable in these conversations). A month ago even Kudpung told her to wait at least a year or two . In addition, the issues brought up by Sergecross73 above. No prejudice against a re-application after at least two years (assuming she follows the advice in the two links Kudpung provided to her), with someone else doing the nomination. I recommend hanging out at ANI and seeing how complex disputes get resolved and policies get applied, rather than trying to rely on the letter of the law and calling admins and more experienced editors "mistaken". As it is, this is too soon for my tastes. Edited to add: The more I read, and the more closely I read, her conversations with administrators, the more I feel this editor does not have the temperament to be an admin. Constant and misinformed and belligerent refutation of sensible admin advice and explanations, the refusal to hear or to drop the stick or back off or down, and the insistence on being right and having the last word, and on telling admins how to do their jobs. And even edit-warring with an admin on WP:PERM. The form seems superficially polite, but the content is insidious. Something just isn't right. I now personally recommend that the candidate stick to doing what they like best on Wikipedia, and forget about adminship. And most of all stop arguing with admins and more experienced editors. Softlavender (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC); edited 00:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sad to say, but I don't think a 14-month experience is enough. I'd be happy to support in the future.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Unfortunately, no. The diff provided by Sergecross leads me to believe two things: 1. The candidate may be impetuous when it comes to blocking and 2. He/she appears entirely too concerned with what is stated verbatim in policies or guidelines. They are not prescriptions. Wisdom89 ♦talk 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose I appreciate you stepping forward to volunteer as an administrator, and admire your decision to self-nominate - you've done a lot in the fourteen months you've been here, and you should be proud of yourself. Regretfully Sergecross73 has hit a nail on the head for me with this discussion - our administrators should be a number of things, one of which is possessing and demonstrating the ability to take criticism and advice. I know for a fact that the learning curve is a lot steeper than it seems, and have always been appreciative of the advice experienced editors have given me - seeing you leave messages such as "Now that I have been proven right, and you're feeling dismally apologetic and are ready to give up your bit for the mistake committed, I feel much better" does not instill me with the confidence that you will, at this time, be a suitable administrator. This is something you can work on easily, and I hope to see and support you at a future RfA -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 20:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think that line was just a jocular line left at the end of a long discussion. It was not meant to be demeaning. The lyoutube link left in the statement alludes to that. This is just for clarification and not intended to debate your !vote. Thanks. Lourdes  21:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth giving that quotation in context--as a lighthearted, non-serious, joking form of banter. --Joshualouie711talk 21:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Context is available at the link above, which is why I included it. I don't personally read that as a lighthearted, non-serious, joking form of banter - even if it was, I don't believe it was appropriate in context there. I'm keen to point out that Lourdes is an outstanding editor and that this RfA is a tad too early -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 21:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then what was with the Minions Youtube video at the end? --Joshualouie711talk 21:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "dismally apologetic" sentence is clearly meant light-heartedly and is not - in my opinion- a reason to oppose this RfA. Lourdes, I'm a bit more concerned at the rest of that conversation, which doesn't reflect much familiarity with standard blocking practice. The issue was whether to block a one-edit account where that edit was obvious vandalism, and how to interpret the "may be blocked" wording in the policy. It'd be good if you could offer further opinions on this (and in passing, if you'd prefer I made this a formal question at the top of the RfA please let me know). -- Euryalus (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I would be withdrawing this nom soon, it would be good to have your query on my talk page, if that's alright with you. Thanks. Lourdes  02:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to, but if you're withdrawing the nomination then you have nothing to explain, at least as far as my query is concerned. All the best with editing, and hopefully you will be back at RfA in due course. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry but simply not enough experience. Come back in 2-3 years. GiantSnowman 21:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2-3 years? I don't think your suggestion is a bad one or anything, but that's quite a long time to wait for another RfA. Kurtis (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been around for 8 years and haven't asked for adminship, though I'd give it to you in 4 heartbeats. I'd prefer admins to have been around for at least 3 years, as coutn does ntyo experience make. Exp is hard to measure, in my 50 days of vandal policing I've learned a lot, but generally the more time the more experience. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 00:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the vote of confidence, but actually... although I suppose that was five years ago now. Maybe someday I'll give it another go. 😏 I guess I just have more lenient standards than most other editors these days. Like you said, I've been here for eight years (actually closer to ten, counting my IP edits from March 2007); I guess you could say that things were different back then. Adminship wasn't anywhere near as hard to get as it is now. Kurtis (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think 14 months is enough experience, but I'm concerned by the tone that Lourdes has taken in numerous discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing to a couple of examples of this? Tazerdadog (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. For one thing, I'm uncomfortable with this discussion, in which I think the candidate made an issue out of a non-issue. Furthermore, this request for administrator privileges comes too quickly on the heels of the candidate requesting to have user permissions revoked because other users did not trust him. Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet Tenure and edit count are okay by me, but like BMK above I'd really like to see more work in article space. I don't understand using RfA as WP:ORCP; wish it had been around in 2013 when I ran the gauntlet made my request.  Mini  apolis  21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I prefer not to post my reasoning here, because I do not want to have a pointless debate about this vote. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per what Kudpung said a month ago about waiting a year or two and what the discussion on User talk:Oshwah that Samtar brought up above. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Softlavendar & Wisdom98. – The Bounder (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak oppose, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Frankly, I'm confused by this RfA; lots of it is outside the norm. The tenure is low, but sufficient if there are other strengths; I'm not sure there are those strengths. The 4K article edits give me pause when somebody says CSD. With a CSD background, I expect lots of automated edits, but there are few. CSD without tools; I don't know what to make of that. Normally, I'd subtract half of the auto edits from the article space number. The edit distribution is also not one that I expect from a new editor. On the plus side, there are several articles that have received a substantial number of edits. Also surprising is large number of edits in WP space for AfD and RfA topics; that suggests continued engagement rather than state an opinion and leave for the closer. I looked at some high-count AfDs, but didn't see anything too excessive. Commenting at but skipping WP:ORCP is a twist, but by itself is not a stumbling block. The AfD percentage is unbelievably high. I usually peruse the disagreeing AfDs and judge the candidate's debate (looking for policy arguments), but here I sampled several agreeing votes and found Lourdes voted last in all of them. The rollback saga is not a good thing. Q1 is too tentative and too safe (also, there are plenty of AIV reports). Q2 and the nom sound good, but Q2 is vague and does not link to meat. In Q3, I'm OK with conflicts gone badly but with lessons were learned, but I don't get that sense here. Instead of pointing to something specific, the candidate points to a page full of conversations. I'm just not sure that the candidate understands the audience here or has the necessary perspective for the mop. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per Sergecross73 and Glrx, who have covered most of what I was going to say. I'm particularly bothered by bullet #7 on the conversation subpage, which covers repeated requests for Rollback, attempting to alter the rollback instructions (Note this diff reverting, which Lourdes does not link on her subpage.) then apply under the text she edited, her interactions with Iridescent and Katie, giving up the rights subsequently. In addition, once she had the rights, I feel I see a very minimum usage of them. I also noted a large uptick in AFD voting since January, and like Glrx, checking several at random from the last month, found her to be a safe "last vote" in almost every case, many of them within 12 hours of the debate closing. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose As much as I hate do it, I am going to have to oppose this. 14 months experience is not nearly enough to become a sysop, and 11,000 edits, although a mesmerizing number to a budding Wikipedian, just doesn't cut it in an RfA.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Lourdes' opposition to this RfA, which showed both poor research into the background circumstances and (as the opposition was never revised or withdrawn) a lack of understanding of how an admin should deal with harassment of Wikipedia contributors. It's one thing to extend latitude to inexperienced but well-meaning new users, but it is quite another to object to someone taking steps to protect another user from persisting harassment and trolling. Based on the oppose comment in that recent RfA, I don't think Lourdes can tell the difference. WJBscribe (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. After more careful reading of several conversations involving her, in particular conversations related to user rights, such as her rollback requests (who edits the policy page while requesting the rights? (edit: actually between her two requests; not much better) How is that not obviously a terrible idea?), her dramatic renouncement of her reviewer and auto patrolled rights, her pointless closure argument w/ Czar, etc, I cannot bring myself to support. From what I have seen Lourdes is (almost) always warm and polite in her choice of words but the content and subtext are sometimes exasperating, e.g. the parting shot of the linked conversation; what pertinent suggestions were there for Czar to take on board? My general impression is of excessive youthful enthusiasm for user rights (those are not fearsome tribal tattoos that warrant dramatic renunciations for the unworthy and impure-of-heart) and the letter of policy, along with the occasional bout of immovable obstinacy. I'm sure she'll have a slam-dunk RfA in a couple of years, but perhaps not today.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Slam-dunk sounds good :) Thanks for the other feedback too. Will take it on board. Lourdes  02:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Too soon. Almost supported per "thought she was already", but the diffs provided herein give me sufficient pause. If Lourdes continues her fine work and to build trust, I will happily support hers as the first nom of 2018. — ATS &#128406;  talk  23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose unfortunately. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge.  Would definitely be open supporting in the future.  -  F ASTILY   23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose My first ever oppose. Due ot the lack of experience, I am skeptical of the skills of Lourdes at being an admin. Do we need an admin specifically for AfD (read: deletionist)? Also disturbing me is the fact that you self nominated. I see that you have a handful of user rights, but not the full lot, includign Mover, and Template editor. There are tools admins have, and just ebcause you don't plan on using them, doesn't mean they should be ignored. Come back in a year and then I'll vote yes.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Agreeing with Sergecross73 here...&mdash; JJ Be  rs  01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Sad Oppose - for now, at least. I'll be honest... I'm not happy to be on this side of your RFA. I like you, Lourdes. I like you a lot... Your AFD record shows that you have a basic knowledge of notability, your CSD record appears quite accurate when looking at the number of notifications you've left, and your GAs/FAs look good too. However, as pointed out above, the discussion we had a few months ago (here) does show that you have more learning to achieve before you are trusted to use the tools correctly and with an impartial mindset that isn't jarred by frustration or emotion. As you obviously know, I hold no grudge against you for coming to me with concerns about any admin decision I make. I appreciated your honest thoughts, and I laughed when I saw your joke about giving up my bit (along with the youtube vid)... :-). However, more than anything, the biggest halt for me regarding that discussion was how it appeared that the templated response that I left regarding your report at AIV bothered you, and that you were looking for something, may I say, softer? If something as small as being given a templated response in AIV gets to you and enough for a discussion like that to come as a result, then you're not ready for the mop. Successful administrators who are genuinely looked up to by others and have the true respect of the community are those that know and understand admin policies like nobody's business, err toward being "too lenient" rather than "too strict", demonstrate leadership to the community and use the tools to serve... but above all else... you must have thick skin, and allow nothing that any troll, uncivil editor, LTA, or even a group of editors throw at you to get underneath it. I more than anything felt that I was 100% ready at the time, and that transitioning to the role of an admin would be a piece of cake; it isn't. During my first month, I was double-checking and triple-checking policy, uneasy about what to do (even though as an editor I knew 100% how the situation should be handled). You will make mistakes, you will get crapped on and be trolled, harassed, criticized, disagreed with, put under the microscope, ridiculed, and you'll need to know how to take action (or not take action) in these different situations. I know I'm going wayyy in depth here with this; I feel that your edits are there, your knowledge of editor policy is there, but I feel like I need to see more of your ability to "take a punch in the nose" and respond as if you didn't feel it. This is an important trait that's critical to being a successful administrator, and I think that coming back next year after you've received some more "battle scars" will show that you're truly ready. Best of luck, Lourdes. You're awesome, dude!  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose- I'm with the majority here. Your 11,000+ edits is outstanding. Tenure of 14 months? Well, not so much. Give it another year or two with a third-party nom and I'm sure you'll breeze through. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  01:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I usually do not comment or even less vote in RFAs, but I've noticed this discussion. This denotes a thorough misunderstanding of the purpose of warnings and blocks by the candidate, which is unfortunately quite common, though most of those who don't understand it still follow the practice because it's what they're told to do: for regular vandals, proceed with a series of escalating warnings before requesting a block. Some may say it's too "lenient" and such, that "warnings should be escalated faster", that "blocks should come much earlier in the process, even at first sight". Basically, that we should treat ordinary vandals like long term abusers. This is so completely absurd, that if we were going to go that way, the whole system would collapse. On a wiki like ours, the most efficient way to deal with ordinary vandalism is to revert and warn. It is way more efficient than to revert and block. Why? Because the vast majority of vandals stop after their first edit, even if not warned, many more stop if they are warned. A small minority will perform a second vandalism edit, be warned, and an even smaller minority will do a third edit, so on until we get at the last, now blockable edit, which happens very rarely in proportion. Ok so we block here, it's done, end of the road. But some will say: "See, we could have blocked earlier, omg, it's a waste of time, we're too lenient on those bad faith vandals!!![...]". What this person didn't consider is that if we were to block at first sight, as we do with long term abusers, it would result in an absolutely massive number of blocks, at least an order of magnitude higher than currently. Could we handle this? Obviously not, AIV would have weeks of backlog, weeks, ok maybe we could reduce this to days if all available admins massively redirected their duties to AIV. Ah but sadly this would leave some other, equally important areas of administration unattended... like protections, deletions, actually dealing with sockpuppets and long term abuses, and so much more. And all that for what? The stated objective was to block vandals earlier on in the process. Let's just say that when you have a backlog of several days at AIV you might have kind of missed the goal here. Even more so when you realize that the huge backlog allows the persistent and exceptionally bad vandals to keep up their disruption for much longer because it's harder to spot them in the mass of block requests to proceed. The system would collapse pretty quickly since everyone would realize that the old way of doing things, i.e. revert, warn, repeat with escalation, block, was undoubtedly the best way to do these things. Yeah, as a matter of fact we don't have an unlimited number of admins so admins should justly only concern themselves with the persistent vandals, the exceptionally bad vandals (there's 4im for a reason) and the long term abusers. Although I verged into the apocalyptic here, any attempt to go into that direction, even if more reasonable, would be very risky and surface to AIV a lot of stuff that wouldn't warrant admin attention, and as a consequence be a distraction to stuff that actually needs admin attention. Seeing the linked discussion, it must have resulted in hours of editor time waisted for an edit that was live for only a couple of seconds, made by a user that has never editing again. Sorry, but priorities matter. An admin candidate must know where the priorities lay on this project. The priorities are the content and editor time. We need to make it so that article writers can edit in as much peace as possible, and we need to avoid wasting other volunteer's time. We certainly should not aim to block as much as we can regardless of the long term consequences, or wasting volunteer time on such futility. Finally, overreliance on policy is bad, because policy is often flawed in that it doesn't reflect accepted practices and community norms, that is to say, consensus (even though it's supposed to). Other than that I'm sure Lourdes has many qualities that could allow her to achieve success at RFA in the future, but these points mean I have to oppose this request. Cenarium (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) While I appreciate the transparency with the conversations page, and the level of experience looks fine to me, I am voting here after reviewing some of the links on said page, as well as recent AFD participation (a noted area of interest for the candidate), and to be honest I am leaning towards the opposing arguments. That said I am curious to see what others think and I will be keeping an eye on this, as well as looking more in-depth myself, if this RFA continues.
 * Also a minor point regarding the answer to Q4 and the reason I am saying something now instead of later - I am concerned the candidate has not fully considered the impact that a failed RFA can have on future RFAs. The boldness is admirable, but I think OCRP would have been particularly useful in this case to get feedback on said conversations page and a more critical analysis on strengths and weaknesses before making an official run. It could have made for stronger initial responses to the first three questions and been helpful on handling any additional questions that may arise due to the conversations page. Something a nominator also could have assisted with. ZettaComposer (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) While I note the WP:NOTNOW comments above, I don't think they are relevant as she has enormous experience at AfD and CSD as well as in other areas of importance to admins. Also, it would be good to have another female admin. However, the comments about impetuousness 'might be relevant and the complains by some admins about behaviour need to be properly addressed. I don't personally think she has crossed any lines but good standing among other editors and especially admins is important in RfA. Perhaps if these issues are dealt with, she would be an excellent admin. For now, I think she needs to wait and learn the best way to approach disputes without annoying admins... — Iadmc  ♫ talk  21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) It looks to me like this RfA is unlikely to pass (and if that changes, I'll return and make a different comment), so I would like to offer moral support. Thank you for offering your service, for having the courage to do a self-nom, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Tryptofish. You're a valuable editor but I don't think you're quite ready for administrator rights just yet. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * 11,000 edits is not enough now? The official guidance is 3,000, and 14 months is no short time either, frankly. I had only around 16,000 edits when I put up my RfA and I had been here 7 years. This user's putting up nearly 1,000 edits a month and already participating in admin areas. Surely some editors could make more thoughtful opposes? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree (particularly as I passed RfA after 4 months with about 7,000 edits - but that was a long time ago!) Although I oppose the candidate, I really don't see any issue with the length of tenure or number of contributions. WJBscribe (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said (and see my Neutral above) — Iadmc  ♫ talk  23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's nuts. There are legitimate reasons to oppose this candidate, but opposing because the person doesn't have a very large amount of edits isn't one of them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen a number of people claim that arbitrary things like edit count or length of Wiki service are a barrier to being an Admin. Maybe a quick look at the top of the page would be of use to people who apply that fictional rule. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2017 (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.