Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lyrl


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

Lyrl
'''Final (52/9/1); Scheduled to end 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful --Deskana (banana) 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)'''

- is a diligent editor since September 2005 who has steadily continued editing and contributing to the sometimes controversial articles of contraception, abortion and miscarriage. Her's is a voice of calm discussion which has helped foster a collaborative approach amongst sometimes strongly opinioned editors. Attention to NPOV and careful citing (without the trap of selectively interpreting primary sources and thus generate original research) has made her an outstanding editor on these topics (examples of balanced editing style,  and talk page discussion , of generating consensus ). Where others disagree strongly, Lyrl's responses are measured and seek to build consensus and will apologise if there are any misunderstandings. Her approach in the "front line" in these often disputed articles, is I feel, good experience & training for when us admins need take action: we need be decisive in ensuring the project continues to advance, but must do so impartially, adhering to our rules and with good grace - Lyrl has demonstrated all these qualities. She has some past involvement in AfD (nominating, commenting) and use of speedy delete tags, also has requested both protection and unprotection for articles. (Indeed probably more admin space awareness than I ever had). I don't claim Lyrl will jump in for huge onslaught at WP:AN/I or single-handedly clear the backlogs, but having a solid editor able to wield the mop when required can only strengthen wikipedia. David Ruben Talk 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks! LyrlTalk C 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: When I have more time on my hands, I become involved in AfD and spend time with the random article button, tagging speedies and prods and nominating for AfD articles that seem to need it. If I were an admin, on occasions when I have more free time I see myself helping with the closing backlog on AfD and at CAT:CSD.  These days when I have hours of extra free time are sporadic, however, and I still have a lot of goals as an editor (for example, not even one of the contraception articles is GA or FA, and I plan to help fix that). So I see my admin work in these areas being limited.


 * I am excited about the possibility of being able to help clear the images backlogs such as untagged images that need to be deleted after 7 days. Most untagged images ready for deletion can be dealt with very quickly, if I have a limited amount of time on my hands and want to contribute - but don't have enough time and/or energy to do the research and citation formatting required for article expansion.  I see working with the speedy-deletion image backlogs as being the main way I would use admin tools.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: For examples of my writing style, an article I wrote from scratch is early pregnancy factor, and I greatly expanded diaphragm (contraceptive). Other articles I feel I've contributed to importantly are listed on my user page.  I don't feel that my writing is brilliant, but I believe I am good at citing sources and presenting information in an NPOV way.  These skills don't by themselves make articles great, but it has been very fulfilling to see articles I've contributed to grow and improve at the hands of other editors, and know that part of the value of the article is because of me.


 * I enjoy improving the accuracy of articles. After this distressing comment on a talk page, I modified dilation and evacuation, dilation and curettage, and vacuum aspiration to reflect these procedures' use in treating miscarriage - they had previously all only described induced abortion.  I also corrected an image in menstrual cycle after several inaccuracies were pointed out on the talk page.


 * 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: My earliest conflicts were with Cindery, first at IntraUterine System, then at emergency contraception (EC debate continued), which spun into an off-topic discussion on my talk page. Becoming an eventualist helped me through that (there's no rush to change things I disagree with, if they're actually as bad as I think they are someone will eventually get around to fixing them), and also seeing some of the good uncontroversial work that editor did such as writing menstrual extraction.  In addition to the Golden Rule of treating other editors as I want to be treated, keeping in mind that these people I disagree with on the topic at hand are valuable assets to Wikipedia who I do not want to alienate from the project motivates me to stay civil and work on resolving the dispute rather than escalating.


 * I have had multiple conflicts with Joie de Vivre over a few topics but mostly the definition of "fertility awareness" and "natural family planning" (1 2 3 4 are the main examples). As was the case with Cindery, I believe this user is a valuable contributer to Wikipedia (although JdV is worlds more polite than Cindery!), and there are other articles we have both worked on without clashing.  Despite strong feelings aroused by these conflicts, I really attempt to keep discussion moving forward in a constructive way, and encourage other editors to keep a positive attitude about each other (diff).  I'm not always successful (one run-in ended up with the page being protected), but I hope I have improved and will continue to improve with time.


 * Other conflicts are with the author(s) of Menstruation and the origins of culture, and with anonymous editor(s) at Stitch 'n Bitch. This last dispute seemed to have fizzled out with no activity for five days after a two-week protection expired, but has re-started.
 * In the discussion on the latter article, you commented re speedy for spam, "I don't see how advertising applies, since the groups have no dues and sell no products." Do you think speedy criterion G11 applies only to commercial organizations? DGG (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I think it was exactly the "groups do not charge dues or fees" line that was viewed as advertising. When I rewrote the article, I was careful to not include language like that in order to avoid appearing advertorial.  No, G11 does not only apply to commercial organizations - it was a mistake on my part to try to argue that it didn't. LyrlTalk C 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak
 * 4. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?
 * I have a Bachelor's degree in Metallurgical Engineering and work at a heat treating company. Is that what you were looking for? LyrlTalk C 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of incidental interest, User:Vodak is an indefblocked sockpuppet of User:Malber --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:LessHeard vanU
 * 5. From both your own statements, and a quick review of your edit count, it is fairly obvious that you operate within a fairly narrow (and, IMO, important) area of subject matter. Given that it is generally understood that the use of admin privileges within the areas one edits is not a good thing, how do you feel you will be able to reconcile your duties as an admin with regard to the community and your personal opinions in regard to your contibutions? Please note, I have no problems with people editing toward a certain viewpoint - providing that they are amenable to allowing a conflicting one within an article. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: My use of admin tools on articles would be rare - only when I have the extra time and become involved in AfD and random article patrol. Leebo was kind enough to look up my deleted edits, and I've only tagged about 25 articles for speedy deletion; I believe my first such tag was in January 2007.  If I were promoted, I would not expect to delete any more than 25 articles in the next six months.  As stated in the answer to question one, I plan on using admin tools almost exclusively to help out with image backlogs.  If I have the time to dedicate to article improvement and expansion, I'd rather work as an editor.  On the other hand, if I have only a small amount of time, or am feeling too drained to do research for articles, working on something where most of the work is done by OrphanBot is appealing. LyrlTalk C 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any conflicts on articles I work on as an editor I would have to deal with as an editor. Because of the focus I have had on these articles, even content disputes I was not involved in I would most likely approach with a POV.  If I felt administrator intervention was required to resolve any dispute on articles I work on, but especially a dispute regarding one of my contributions, I would have to go through the appropriate request page (WP:RPP, WP:AN/I, etc.) just like I would have to now. On the other hand, obvious and repeated vandalism (nonsense, profanity, blanking) not deterred by a series of warnings would warrant a block, or if consensus on a talk page requested an edit to a protected article I could carry out the consensus.  LyrlTalk C 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great answers. I will support. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Jusjih
 * 6. How would you think of images considered copyrighted in the USA even if now in the public domain in their source countries due to American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term?
 * A: Wikimedia and Wikipedia do not seem to have policies on this issue, although the linked page had its "essay" tag removed six months ago, so it seems to be the closest thing to policy available. The section Why is this a major problem? leans toward treating these images as copyrighted: "Should a work be legally copyrighted in the USA without valid fair use claim, administrators may have to reluctantly delete it."  The Wikipedia article, which can not be used to determine policy, but seems a relevant source of information, also currently implies such works are copyrighted in the U.S.  Because these images are likely to be considered copyrighted in the U.S., if there is not a valid fair use claim (fair use is allowed on the English Wikipedia), the image must be deleted.  Also, like all fair use images, these images of debatable copyright status must remain on Wikipedia and cannot be moved to Commons: "...they must be uploaded to each Wiki site eligible to claim fair use but never Wikimedia Commons."
 * I don't believe dealing with fair use rationales or disputed copyright status is something I would intentionally get involved with: I feel it would take away from the editing areas in which I wish to remain active. But one never knows what will come up, especially since I would like to work in the related areas of images without copyright tags or unknown copyright information.  Should I become involved with such an image, the unclear nature of policy and my own lack of experience in this area mean I would not be able to judge whether the image should be deleted on my own.  I believe the best option would be to put it up on WP:IFD, offer my !vote based on currently available policies and information, and let the community make the decision as a group.  Good question! LyrlTalk C 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for Lyrl:
 * Has fewer than 50 deleted contributions, the oldest of which is from 2005, and 17 of which are from 2007. No obvious patterns.  GRBerry 20:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lyrl before commenting.''

Discussion
Support
 * 1) Support No big deal. No reason to oppose. A.Z. 23:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – obvious demonstrated need for the tools (AfD participation, WP:AIV reports, etc...), and an excellent track record for civil communication between other users. Looks good! Best of luck :) Cheers, Anthøny  00:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support Not absoulutely sure if this user can handle some disputes, but no reason to not give him the mop. Adminship is no big deal. --H| H irohisat  Talk 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Very Weak support Per Hirohisat. Politics rule 00:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I was a little concerned about lack of interaction, but the contributions this user has made to talk/user talk space show me that she can interact well enough, even if there aren't many of them. Therefore I shall shrug off the temptation to be sucked in by editcountitis and support. - Zeibura (Talk) 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support - as per my nom :-) David Ruben Talk 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I have looked at many of your user talk discussions and find you to be calm and professional. I am happy to support. JodyByak, yak, yak 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support leaning on Neutral per Jmlk17 and Giggy. I really like what I see from this editor, but I really would like to see both a larger quantity and larger variety of project space work. But at the same time I feel that the good work this user already does makes it hard for me not to support. Trusilver 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, a calm composed editor who can resolve conflicts of controversy.  Marlith  T / C  04:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Absolutely. The most important qualities for an admin are maturity, cool-headedness, and commitment to the project. Lyrl has demonstrated all three in very impressive fashion. She hasn't shied away from controversial topics and has handled conflict admirably. We've got plenty of admin candidates with the perfect blend of project-space and template talk edits. We don't have enough candidates with a proven track record of handling themselves well in the sort of tough situations that adminship will present. Lyrl is such a candidate, and I'm confident that whatever use she makes of the tools will benefit Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 04:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No major concerns here. Would make a fine admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support! Of course! Seems to be a solid editor, I would certainly trust this user with the mop! --SQL$\color{Red} \oplus$ 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support User seems to know her stuff, also seems like a mature and trustworthy person (Plus, she drinks tea! But I didn't base this just on that... *giggles* ). Would handle the responsibility well. Scar ian  Talk  11:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Would be good with the 'mop'. - Lemonflash (chat)  13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per MastCell and David Ruben. I have interacted with this user on a number of occasions and been involved in some of the content disputes mentioned in #3, and felt this user did a remarkable job of handling stressful situations. Lyrl contributes well sourced content to articles, has a proven maturity and knowledge of wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sysop is not a big deal, and I believe Lyrl is more than qualified to responsibly use the tools.-Andrew c [talk] 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Lyrl seems to be cool-headed enough to handle any tough administrative decisions. I imagine that her main area of administrative activity will be with images, and she'll probably do fine there. She hasn't done much speedy deletion tagging (only about 25 total deleted edits) and some of her AfD comments are a bit brief, but she also said her activity in these areas would be minimal. I don't seen any reasons to oppose.  Leebo  T / C  14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Clearly to be trusted.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support No red flags here. Seems like a great candidate, although I agree that I could see more talk edits. hmwith  talk  19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Thorough and methodical - ideal attributes for the scientific side of Wikipedia. I don't see namespace participation as a make-or-break issue here; effective consensus-seeking on talk pages is definitely more important here. JFW |  T@lk  20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support No reason not to. She has a good amount of article-talk edits, as well as some edits to Category-talk, Template-talk, and even some MediaWiki-talk too. Acalamari 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support. With apologies to the nom: "...having a solid editor able to wield [how about "utilize" instead, as wielding can be dangerous, Ed.] the mop when required can only strengthen Wikipedia."   u s e r :j  21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Errm, I think I'll stand by my spelling (dyslexic with my spelling as I can be). From Concise Oxford Dictionary - "wield - control, command, hold and use" vs. "weld - unite (pieces of metal, esp. iron) into homogenous mass by hammering or pressure (usu. when iron is softened by heat but not melted), or by fusion with electric arc etc." So yes I seek her to be able to wield control and use mop functions, not to bash and weld the tools together into one unified mediawiki programming mess :-)David Ruben Talk 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. She made strong answers to the questions, has had a good edit history, and displayed candor when answering regarding disputes.  She is trustworthy enough to be an admin. Bearian 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No reservations. Solid editor. What is the issue here? I think, there is a little too much reading meaning into categories of edits. ~ Infrangible 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Low first-hand WP space experience is a bit of a concern, but I'm confident the candidate can master the challenge. —AldeBaer 05:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Don't see any problems with the editor. --Irpen 06:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Enemies of Joie de Vivre are my friends. Da Masta 10:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User has very few edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Support per Bearian. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. No concerns. I am opposed to joie de vivre, but not the user. I'm just curmudgeonly. Neil   ╦  11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per good history of contributions.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Looks good. — um  drums  16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. No major issues for me, should be a great admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support I am loath to support with so few Wikipedia edits, but there are no other issues so I think that I will support. Captain   panda  22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be "in order" as far as I'm concerned. --HollywoodHeart 03:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Banned user Encyclopedist -  Mi r a n da   17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Normally I'd like to see a little bit more familiarity in the Wikipedia space too. But I urge the users who have opposed on these grounds to consider: this is not a normal case.  If you review Lyrl's contributions to WP: they have been uniformly measured and reasonable.  It is clear from her contribution record that she carefully reads policies and that she acts with great caution.  Her incredible two-year record of serenity editing difficult subjects (would you ever have believed an editor with that many edits to a subject like emergency contraception or partial-birth abortion could have avoided edit wars?  I flee in terror from those talk pages!) demonstrates to me that we have an exceptionally qualified candidate.  Her calm temperament and patient approach will more than compensate for any newness to policies. --JayHenry 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User has a history of making high-quality, unbiased, evidence-based contributions and is level-headed when working with others. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Excellent answers to Q5. Obviously knows how to separate the roles of editor and admin, and very civil and considered response. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per no big deal; hard-working, productive, rational editors should have the tools. TomTheHand 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Good candidate. gidonb 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Good enough to be an admin -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support - Ideal candidate. Ryan4314 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support after answering my question.--Jusjih 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - It seems that Lyrl is a very productive editor with nothing but good intentions. I especially like her respect toward the community's consensus, and her willingness to concede the occasional minor error. The narrow scope of her edit history can be seen as a negative as others have pointed out, but I think it also shows her dedication to substantively improving articles she is knowledgeable about. It seems no one has had notable conflicts with her in the past, so I trust that she will exercise administrative tools with adequate reservation where appropriate. — xDanielx Talk 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Edits do not diplay POV good track and good editor. Harlowraman 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support for being able to do excellent constructive work in a very difficult area, and holding your own politely here as well. The contributions to substantial editing are significant and show knowledge of policy.DGG (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support ~   Wi ki  her mit  16:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Opposers' comments don't raise any serious concerns; candidate has sufficient experience IMO, and "will not use the tools often enough" is an inadequate reason to deny adminship. Nothing to suggest that this user will misuse the admin tools in any way. Waltonalternate account 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Anthøny  18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're also vote number two. One vote per person, please. :-) --Deskana (banana) 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that :) forgot I'd already voted. Apologies, Anthøny  11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No reason to oppose. Has a good number of project space edits, along with article work. No concerns here.  Majorly  (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support John254 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We need a dedicated admin to help clear out the backlogs. They are getting out of hand.   •Malinaccier•   T / C  18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Solid experience, no significant concerns that I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose A reluctant one at that, but still an oppose. You are quite lacking in the Wikipedia edit skills, and, while I'm not really giving in to editcountitis, I would prefer you to work on your overall experience first.  Broaden your range of editing, and get more involved outside of mainspace.  Jmlk  1  7  02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also not giving in to editcountitis, doesn't this user have 2,632 mainspace edits?  u s e r :j  03:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed they do, but as I said, a variety and wider range is what I was looking for. Jmlk  1  7  03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any particular areas that you feel are lacking? --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMESPACE most likely. Giggy  Talk 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose, sorry. Although I acknowledge and commend this user's dedication, I think that more evidence of experience in the project space is needed.-- Hús  ö  nd  23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) With all due respect, I've had to change to oppose. I'm sorry, but the project space participation is just too much of a concern.  Respectfully,  Giggy  Talk 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Inexperience in project-space, home of many admin-related tasks, is a real concern. Xoloz 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Supposedly spends time tagging speedy candidates and prodding articles, but has fewer than 50 deleted contributions. This activity appears not to be taking place, as I also failed to find (though it might be there) any significant number of edit summaries related to speedy deletion in the last 2,000 mainspace edits (back to summer 2006).  Project space experience is limited but somewhat relevant (and I appreciate the WP:HEY effort at Articles for deletion/Kodiak tobacco).  Ultimately, the contributions don't validate the claimed experience in an area the editor expressed an intention of using the tools, and this is too troubling for me to ignore.  GRBerry 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per GRBerry, user wishes to work with areas that they are not experienced with, CSD and Images.  T Rex  | talk  22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per GRBerry, and I believe that there isn't enough motivation to use admin tools effectively. It also seems that there are an increasing number of RfAs that have users who will not be using the tools often enough, even though they are applying for sysop rights. Elenseel 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wont try argue your views for opposing this candidate (your politely expressed views are your own in this discussion), but of the second sentance's observation of wider policy: so should we now be trying to second guess how much admin work an editor might undertake ? Given the huge backlogs, I'd have thought any help by an potential admin should be encouraged (accepting of course that the editor has to have gained the trust of the community). As Administrators in its first paragraph notes: "Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community", or are we to start ignoring Jimbo's No big deal statement? David Ruben Talk 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No -- more Wikipedia project space needed to evidence experience in these areas. If you can do this, I should be able to change my position next time. Regards -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I think people need to start taking RfA seriously. Some folk here have obviously not looked at Kate's tool or his contribs. There is not enough experience here, especially in Wikipedia space (less than 200). More experience needed all round, but especially Wikipedia space. Not really active in any Wikiproject / activity.  Lra drama 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only did I look at Kates Tool, etc. I also read and understood the responses to the questions (including mine); this editor requires the use of tools within the area they edit in, and may also use them if the needs arise elsewhere. There is nothing in RfA that demands that admins use the tools throughout WP space, or indeed at all, but only that the community has confidence that the buttons will not be misused.
 * You may not have the confidence to wish to allow this editor access to the mop owing to the lack of edits in mainspace, which is of course your right, but I find your comments that others are not taking RfA seriously since they are using criteria different to that you do astonishingly arrogant and ignorant. Please do not assume the intent or application of other individuals for deciding differently to yourself. LessHeard vanU 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My good fellow, I was referring more towards those who simply put Support followed by only a signature, or else those who just put Support, per nom. It indicates a lack of an in-depth assessment. Fair-enough, some folk maybe a bit lazy, or feel they're repetitive, but some are just doing it to brighten their Wikipedia-image it seems, because I can't see the thought put in. Anyway, I just didn't want RfA to become a corrupt system. Thanks for your reply.  Lra drama 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I went back and counted five supports that didn't refer to a criteria by which they made their decision, although two mentioned the arguments provided by others. I would not, however, assume that they voted as they did without some consideration of the statistics and answers provided - absence of proof not being proof of absence.
 * I also went back and reviewed my earlier comments. I now realise that I was being improperly harsh in both tone and language, and I wish to apologise for that. I maintain that most partipants do take RfA seriously, but I could and should have expressed myself far more civilly. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only a single category of granting admin tools - the whole lot. Aside from a few features such as Checkuser, that means one has to trust the potential admin with all the tools, yet I both doubt that most admins do partake in all admin namespace activities or that they can recite from memory all the policies and user-tag warning templates from memory; we trust that having been granted the mop, a new admin will then take due care in the future if they venture into wider namespace/admin areas (hence even an admin with wide experience in AN/I & AfD, needs be careful if entering unfamiliar territory of say CfD etc). The issue therefore is does one trust a candidate. Now were she to have stated that she wished to be proactive and focus admin work on all possible areas, then yes a wider degree of experience in "all possible areas" would not be unreasonable before letting the bull loose in the whole china shop, but her sensible approach to focus on a small area initially should be of immense reassurance to us all.
 * I think that we have here a candidate whose work in highly contentious topics has shown civility, NPOV and an approach that has managed to diffuse or resolve conflicts and fostered a collaboration amongst editors. If you agree to that, then has not their work to date (at 2 years this seems rather more than Administrators's "at least a few months") earned the trust of the community that once off the yoke she will merely carefully tip-toe around ? Rather than candidates who promise to fight off all vandals, disruption and GNU licensing problems, she has been quite specific in indicating a rather limited initial area of initial focus – an admirable meekness. Indeed so what if that were all she ever did as an admin – can you alone clear the 4000 images backlogs ?
 * Whilst only over time could she build up edit numbers in namespace that you feel is lacking, is not "More experience needed all round" a little harsh, as that would also seem to demean her article space/discussion/NPOV/citing etc work. What additional experience is needed in these areas above 2 years, 2632 mainspace & 950 talk, with 4166 total bits of activity in wikipedia? Is becoming an admin to become a restrictive cabal ? David Ruben Talk 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * The very low user talk count - indicating possible communication flaws, combined with not so much project space participation (I'm a hardcore metapedianist when it comes to RfA), means I just can't support. I'm not opposing for now...the most likely outcome is that I'll stay neutral.  Giggy  Talk 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (Gone to oppose)
 * Fair points, oh hardcorist :-) She tends to direct her discussions on article talk pages, and thus keeps debates open, rather than 1-on-1 user-talk. I suppose it's a question (as always at RfA) of what do we want admins for: just meta-actions in project space, or help at the coal-face of mainspace (of which she has more than "not so much") :-) David Ruben Talk 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is how I get disliked, but it would be unfair to just support when I've opposed others for this non-metapedianism. I suppose it's a question (as always at RfA) of what do we want admins for: just meta-actions in project space... - I bet you can guess my answer.  Anyway, I'll take another look, think about it, and probably switch to support. If I don't, stab me :P  Giggy  Talk 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, you probably don't want to hear any more on the matter, so, I'll keep this brief... Lyril has 950 edits to the Talk: space alone... your concern, that there may be 'communications flaws', may not have taken that into consideration... appx 25% of the user's nearly 4200 contribs, are to various Talk: spaces, in fact... IMO, an impressive feat, indeed! BTW -- I don't think anyone would dislike you, based on an RfA... :) --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but user talk is different to talk...anyways, I'm sure I have plenty of people who dislike me :P Giggy  Talk 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral - Per Jmlk17 and Giggy. You wrote in your answers that you have limited time and really want to contribute&mdash;in looking over your contribs, I think you make very constructive edits to the encyclopedia and have improved it. Your area of focus, in my opinion, is very important. However, I would like to see you broaden your focus to other areas of the encyclopedia and gain some additional experience. Lara  ♥Love  05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, are there any specific areas that you think the candidate should focus on? --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NAMESPACE most likely. Giggy  Talk 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to that page. I don't think it links where you think it links.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Giggy simply meant WP namespace, without the link. The part of WP where AdDs and policy discussions take place., and the links are prefaced by "WP" as in WP:AFD.  . DGG (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (←) I'm sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. I hadn't checked back, my apologies. I don't refer to anything specific. In looking over the count page, it's a very narrow focus to article writing for articles in one category (albeit a very important one, in my opinion) and AfD, however, many appear to be relating to articles in forementioned category. I would just like to see a broader focus, but where to go is a matter of ones personal interests. There's no lack of places to help however. Community_Portal has lots to choose from. Lara  ♥Love  02:48, 10 August 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.