English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2

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

FlyingToaster

Final (126/32/5); Ended 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) — Ladies and Gentlemen, Users, Crats and Admins (and Jimbo of course but I doubt he reads this), it is my pleasure to nominate FlyingToaster (to IRC people known as Boriss (for reasons that are beyond me)) for adminship.

Her first RFA was approximately three months ago and I'm afraid it's no exaggeration to claim that my personal opinions and !vote have been essential in its unsuccessfulness. But even at that time, when I was against her adminship, I knew she would make a great admin, she made only mistakes in the area that I hold dear on Wikipedia, which is WP:CSD. So, as she is doing a great work everywhere else, I will refer to neuro's nomination from the last time for a basic overview that is still valid today.

Now, some of you might wonder why I am nominating a user whose previous RFA I was essential in "derailing" (as Tan39 put it last time). Well, I'm a great believer that people can in fact change and learn from their mistakes. And FT has shown to be capable of it beyond my wildest dreams. I knew she would be ready for adminship sooner or later but I can honestly say that she seems to have learned from my previous reasons to oppose rather quickly. If one remembers my oppose from last time, she has made mistakes in the past that were really bad. A dozen grave mis-taggings in a week where a common sight. At her request, I have reviewed her taggings again these days and her taggings since the last RFA show none of those mistakes which last time were reason to oppose for me and many others who followed my reasoning.

I am convinced that FT has not only stopped to make mistakes but realized the very problem of those mistakes, i.e. that every speedy deletion tag might BITE a newcomer and that every article should be handled in another way if somehow possible. Her work in that area now reflects a much more careful approach to the issue and thus I feel I can honestly claim that she has matured from the last RFA already and is now ready to wield the mop. Regards So Why 12:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Acalamari:

I'm delighted to have been given the chance to co-nominate FlyingToaster for her second request for adminship. First off, as SoWhy mentiones above, her CSD work has improved greatly since her first request, though in addition to her good CSD work, she is experienced in both vandal-fighting and in article-writing. This is evidenced by both her AIV/UAA reports (all the ones I reviewed were accurate, and she has over 150 reports to AIV) and her work in creating articles, and copyediting, sourcing, and keeping clean existing pages. People like to see candidates have experience in both those areas of Wikipedia, and FlyingToaster meets that standard.

As well as mentioning the good work she does, I'd also like to cover her behavior. I supported FlyingToaster's first RfA on the basis that I liked her positive attitude. FlyingToaster has not let me down since then, and in fact, she has impressed me with her seeking of feedback, her willingness to learn, and genuine good nature. I also understand that she has a sense of humor too, and that, as I've said in past, is an important trait for admins (and people in general) to have.

In short, FlyingToaster is a hard-working and friendly Wikipedian. She has been a great editor, and giving her the tools will be a benefit for us all. Acalamari 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Neurolysis

A little belated, I know, but I'm doing it all the same.

Boriss has experience all over Wikipedia, in content creation, maintenance, behind the scenes work, and communal interaction both on collaborative and personal levels. I find her judgment to be great at even the worst of times, and she is never slow to help out people that need it. As has been stated by SoWhy, she has rectified the issues that were brought up at her previous RfA, and with great speed too. I suggest that this speed indicates that she is not afraid to admit to and learn from her mistakes.

And yes, she has a sense of humour. I know that such a thing is not allowed, but nevertheless I strongly endorse this candidate's request for the bit. — neuro^(talk) 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and thank my nominators for their very kind words. Flying Toaster 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As with my first RfA, the main areas I'd like to jump right into are CSD and AIV. After that, I'd gradually widen the scope of my contributions (probably hitting UAA next), only using admin privileges in areas where I felt I had a thorough understanding of policy and practice. My ultimate goal is to be an admin that is competent and knowledgeable in most areas on Wikipedia, so I can be "on call" to deal with problems and backlogs as needed.

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

A: I'm proud of the span of my edits, which generally fall into two categories; content protection and content creation. On the content protection side, I've been Twinkling, new page and recent edit patrolling, wikignoming, and reporting vandals and sockpuppets. On the content creation side, I've been creating requested articles, adding disambiguation pages, making bold edits, fixing redirects, editing images, and taking photos for articles. While lately I've been getting involved in a few projects such as WikiProject Northern Ireland, I see myself as editing for Wikipedia as a whole rather than any part specifically.

Since my first RfA failed essentially because of mistakes made while new page patrolling, I've been especially focusing on improving in this area. To that end, I've done some new page patrolling nearly every day since my last RfA and have regularly sought the feedback of experienced editors. Because that feedback has been increasingly positive, I am also proud of the improvement I've made and continue to make in this area.

Edit: I have also created 156 articles, listed here. Flying Toaster 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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: As at the time of my last RfA, I don't believe I've been in a serious conflict with an experienced editor. While I don't feel I particularly avoid conflict, I'm fairly low-controversy because my edits tend to arise from either vandalism, obvious article problems, missing information/citations, or requests. Certainly, conflict is more likely to occur as an admin. I don't generally lose my cool in a stressful situation, and my tack would be the same as I deal with conflicts in real life: keep emotion and anger out of the problem and focus on what is relevant to resolving the conflict peacefully.

Most of my conflicts on Wikipedia arise when newer editors are upset because an article they created has been marked for deletion. They often feel singled out or insulted if their topic has been marked not notable. In these instances, I aim to AGF and explain Wikipedia's policies for notability, NPOV, what WP is not, etc. Often, these early editors are far from vandals, but simply unaware that articles need to meet certain criteria. Plenty of them go on to be valuable editors, so we have every reason to err on the side of not biting. After the feedback from my first RfA, I have also tried to prevent even speedy deletion from being bitey where possible. For instance, I avoid a vandalism rationale where a notability rationale will do instead, and give editors enough time to add content before marking a page for deletion as content-less.

Optional questions from Skomorokh: 4a. How would you describe the concerns raised in your previous request for administratorship?

A. I’d summarize the concerns of my last RfA as concern over my errors in tagging pages for speedy deletion. Like many, I got involved in new page patrolling fairly gradually, by watching the edits of other new page patrollers. However, I would’ve done better to wrack the brain of an experienced admin - marking pages for deletion too quickly and with the wrong rationale is very common on Wikipedia, and can certainly be biting to new users. Because I stated then, as now, that I was interested in patrolling new pages as an admin, the mistakes I made were the cause of legitimate concern.

4b. Why do you think editors who opposed last time should no longer be concerned?

A. I suppose I’d say “look at my record.” I’ve worked to become a much better new page patroller, and for one of my tags to be declined is now extremely rare - usually done because the editor decided to rewrite the article rather than because the rationale was incorrect. To make sure I was on the right path, I asked many editors for feedback on my new page patrolling, and also did an editor review. As J.delanoy said in that review, my speedy deletion accuracy rate is now just over 99.5%. Also, the fact that SoWhy (my main opposer last time) so kindly offered to nominate me this time I hope will give editors confidence that I have genuinely improved.

Optional question from S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

5. Scenario: You're closing a contentious AfD for a BLP. The subject is the bassist for a marginally-notable, but bluelinked, rock band, and there are thirty !votes to take account of. The article has exactly one reliable source, which is a fairly in-depth interview with the band members (including the subject) in a music magazine.

The nominator states: "Delete--the band may be notable, but the article subject is not because notability is not inherited." Nine editors agree.

An administrator states: "Merge and redirect to the band name--while the subject is not notable enough for an article, reliably-sourced material should not be deleted outright." Seven editors agree.

The other fourteen users have !voted "Keep", mainly on the basis of WP:PRESERVE.

In your judgment, the "Keep" !voters are generally less experienced Wikipedians than the "Delete" or "Merge" ones, but you find no evidence of sockpuppetry.

Please explain how you would close this debate, giving details of your view on the interplay of policies that support each position.

A. From the details you provided and assuming I had given my own careful assessment of the discussion, I would merge the bassist’s information with the main article for the band and redirect there. Since many newer users are weighing in on this AfD and may not be aware that AfD’s are not a pure vote, and many would argue that the discussion should be closed as ‘’no consensus,’’ I would also be sure to carefully explain my reasoning and be available to answer questions.

My reasoning is that while on the surface my decision might seem contentious, actually I believe a merge is the best way to reflect both consensus and policy.

Reflection of consensus:

The fourteen keep !votes did so on the basis of WP:PRESERVE, meaning they feel that information should not be deleted if there is a viable reason for it to stay. Merging is, until the bassist is notable in his own right, the best way to preserve this information until he is independently notable. What the keep !votes seem to be objecting to is not a separate article for the bassist, but the deletion of information about him. Thus, I would be sure to preserve the relevant, sourced information in the main article, and be clear in my closure about where the information is.

Reflection of policy:

The administrator above is correct in that notability is independent and not inherited by subordinate topics. The subject must satisfy the notability criteria individually, which in an interview ostensibly about the band does not seem to be satisfied. It is the case, according to WP:BAND, that a musician can be notable if they have been the member of two or more notable bands or a band which has two notable members. Assuming this was not found to be true within the interview, the musician's membership alone would not be enough to assert notability.

I should note that many administrators would likely close the discussion as no consensus and delete the article as a BLP of a relatively unknown, non-public figure. While I feel this is an acceptable interpretation, I personally see no need to delete reliably-sourced material when a merge would work while preserving the information.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Unless the page was obvious vandalism, and assuming the user had been properly notified, I would not delete the page for a full week. I know that’s a bit longer than many admins would keep such a page, but I don’t feel there’s much to lose by giving what’s likely a newer editor as much time as the under construction tag would allow for anywhere else in Wikipedia. That said, I would watch the under construction page, and in all likelihood, if the subject were notable, turn it into a stub to give the user something to start with.

Edit: Since I didn't specify originally, I would not let the page stay if the subject were obviously not notable. A web-based or web-related company is fairly easy to do a source check on, which is precisely what I'd do before either deleting or stub-ifying and keeping. Pages with no content about companies that are not clearly notable I would delete after about five minutes, as evidenced by the fact that I mark such pages for speedy deletion currently. I would disagree that a page that's empty except for an "under construction" tag is providing a company with any significant advertising value.

I also want to point out that in my experience, the case of leaving a page empty for days except for an "under construction" tag is fairly rare. Many users start out with this tag, partially because external websites about "How to create a Wikipedia page" recommend it, but then they do tend to add content. This is why I would wait longer than the customary five minutes if I saw such a tag.

6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: My answer would be the same in this case.

6c. Given a choice, should Wikipedia(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?

A: I don’t think I can or would want to answer this for every Wikipedian, because I think retaining newer users and longer-term users require different skills that different people people possess. For instance, we have a very active welcoming committee full of people who are excellent at being a friendly face to new users. Our newest administrator, Rosiestep, is an example of a person who is very good at welcoming newbies. For me personally, while I enjoy helping new users, I find that I’m better at retaining longer-term contributors. That’s because I very much enjoy building working relationships with other Wikipedians, through vehicles such as project collaboration and adoption. I would hope to continue to do this as an administrator, and would try to make myself as available as possible to help both new and old users.

6d. In closing an AFD, all the comments and analyses of regular AFD participants and long time editors more weighty than those of newbies and anons?

A: I would try not to give any extra weight to experienced users simply by virtue of them being experienced users. An AfD closure is an assessment of the consensus of the discussion, so weighting “consensus” towards experienced users seems both an unfair and opaque practice. A large concern I see in weighting is that it seems to nod to some of the worst criticisms of Wikipedia: that we have the appearance of openness while in reality are caballing in the shadows.

That said, in assessing an AfD discussion, I would look at the strength of arguments presented. While I wouldn't give experienced users extra weight for being experienced, their extra experience should serve to make them better assessors of a subject’s notability. If an admin recommends a keep because of reliable sources presented and a newer user recommends deletion because “lol they suck,” I would judge the admin’s argument with more weight - but because of its content, not its author.

And, as much as I would try to assume good faith, AfDs can unfortunately attract canvassing and sockpuppets, so I would always try to assess that the newer users coming to the discussion were doing so of their own volition.

6e. If an athlete biography is nominated for deletion and the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE but fails WP:BIO, which governs? Is your answer the same if the athlete passes WP:BIO but fails WP:ATHLETE - assuming no other notability except sport?

A: In both cases, I would keep the article. I like to default to keeping content if it can be justified, and passing either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE is enough for me.

Optional questions from User:Apoc2400

7a. What articles have you written or significantly expanded?

A: I've created 156 articles and thrown them up here. I'll expand this answer later with highlights (some of those created are stubs) and examples of significant expansion to existing articles.

Edit: Here’s a few examples of articles I’ve created: Wild Rover Productions, Morgan "Bill" Evans, Irving Morrow, Isuien Garden, Six Magics, Canal City Hakata, Pardo's Push, Just for Laughs (UK TV series), John Morrow (peace activist), Pat Finucane Centre, Trevor Williams (bishop), Irish School of Ecumenics, Francis Maginn, Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation, Anne Kronenberg, Harold Blauer, Mortality salience, Homer A. Jack, Zhao Puchu, and Etai Yamada. As I said in my introduction, rather than writing very long, epic GAs and FAs, I enjoy creating shorter requested articles which can be expanded in time by those passionate about the subject. Unfortunately, finding articles that I’ve significantly expanded to I’m finding extremely time consuming. Unlike created articles, there is no way to get an easy list, and I haven’t been keeping track on my own. I do thank iridescent for pointing out that Corrymeela Community is an example, but I’m afraid finding more examples would simply take too long.

7b. You say you want to work at Usernames for administrator attention. Why is that? Disclosure: I think UAA should be abolished.

A: My interest in UAA is a reflection of my desire for Wikipedia to be an environment that fosters cooperative editing. I believe that usernames should generally be a platform of free speech, and as a result I think you'll find that I'm fairly liberal about what names I find acceptable. The reason I feel UAA can be useful is in preventing names that are outright attacks on other editors and blatant advertising. Just as a vandalism edit which attacks a particular editor is harmful to harmonious editing, so is a username which attacks a particular editor. I do understand your point of view, which is probably that if a user is here to vandalize it will be clear within four edits anyway. However, I don't feel a particular need for User:J.delanoy_eats_babies to be given that chance.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

8. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?

A: The first thing I would do is ignore all rules and contact the editor directly as fast as possible. Suicide threats, which should always be taken seriously, are potentially a ticking time bomb. If I'm the first one that saw the threat, I'm the one that can respond the fastest (Note: I've had some experience with suicide prevention and feel confident being in this situation). Where appropriate, I don't have qualms about giving my contact information or making a phone call. It also would likely be appropriate to direct the user to a professional hotline, such as World Suicide Crisis hotline.

What I wouldn't do is use the suicide response template, and I'd be extremely unlikely to block/lock their pages. If someone is threatening suicide online, there's a good chance they feel isolated and lonely and require a human response. I find the template approach to be cold, and perhaps a reminder of how dehumanizing online life can be. If the user was being aggravated by interaction and attempts to help, I would contact those trying to help and politely tell them to hold it.

I would also alert WP:AN of the situation, and contact the user's local authorities and tell them everything I know. For this, I'd first do some Googling to see if I could find information about their location and identity, and perhaps utilize CheckUser.

9. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: I would contact law enforcement if I saw an intent to commit violence. At worst, it's a hoax and someone's wasted their time. At best, a tragedy could be prevented. There's been enough instances of violent acts being described online first for most law enforcement agencies to take such threats seriously. As far as under what circumstances - I'd apply common sense here. For instance, I would report "My life sucks and I plan on gunning down everyone in geography class" but not "lol i'm gunna make sausages out of rush limbaugh."

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I’m not sure “rights” is quite the right word (if I’m wrong and you want to debate Rawlsian ethics vs utilitarianism, we should totally throw down on my talk page)... maybe a way to frame this is to ask what protections users of Wikipedia should expect and what they should not. There’s many of these, so I’ll point to a few that I find personally meaningful:

Editors should expect:

That they will be able to edit free of harassment and attacks (WP:ATTACK)
That their actions will be assumed to be made in good faith (WP:AGF)
That they will be judged by their actions and edits, not their age/nationality/gender/browser of choice (WP:USERS...ish)

Editors should not expect:

That any subject will be protected from criticism or made to reflect their point of view (WP:NPOV)
That an editor’s personal/cultural/religious sensitivities will be catered to, or that material they find offensive will be removed (WP:CENSORED)
That Wikipedia articles can be used as an advertisement, soapbox, personal ad, in-joke, etc (WP:NOT)

I see administrative tools as useful for protecting Wikipedia content, but also protecting Wikipedia users. For instance, personal attacks often lead to the offender being blocked. However, I try to also keep in mind that everything we can rattle off about Wikipedia's policies and protections are unknown to most users. That’s why in instances when a policy is violated, it’s best to explain the policy and the problem kindly well before going anywhere near the block hammer.

Additional (optional) questions from Gggh:

11a. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you disagree with? If so, what is an example and how do you think it might be improved?

A: I can’t think of any policies I think are blatantly wrong. A minor one is that I think the speedy deletion criteria has a few inconsistencies that could be fixed. For instance, a non-notable person can be marked for deletion (A7), but not a non-notable tree. Most admins delete such articles anyway under an existing criteria, but I’ve found that what technically qualifies can sometimes feel a bit arbitrary.

Other than that, I think Wikipedia could use a community consensus-driven system for desyoping. I’m not sure exactly what that would look like - certainly it would run into difficulties since admins need to make difficult decisions that especially newer users may not like.

11b. How do you identify pages that need semi-protection?

A: For temporary semi-protection, I’d look for continuous, heavy vandalism from multiple unregistered users. If the subject had recently gotten some media attention, I might especially monitor that page for such vandalism. I would also consider temporary semi-protection if edit-warring was going on between users who are all unregistered.

Indefinite semi-protection I would consider if a page had been the target of persistent, blatant vandalism, and previous temporary semi-protections were not enough to stop the problem.

Optional question from Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox}

12. If this RfA passes, and you are sysopped, do you plan on arming yourself with the AbuseFilter userright?

A: Not right away, but yes, I'd likely try it. I'm a big fan of Werdna's time-saving and effective filter work and have done some testing for him in the past, so I'm happy to see some of these tools getting rolled out. Of course, before using any filter in the real world, I'd be sure to test it thoroughly in log only mode.

Optional question from GARDEN

13. (lucky for some...) If you were performing an admin action (that is, blocking, deleting, closing AfD or anything else) you weren't 100% sure of, which of the following would you do, and in which order: Leave to another patrolling admin; ask in #wikipedia-en-admins; ask in #wikipedia-en; ask another admin on-wiki; open a new thread at AN/I; open a new thread at whichever noticeboard is appropriate; perform action.

A:

General comments

Links for FlyingToaster: FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for FlyingToaster can be found here.

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

Discussion

Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro^(talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to a portion of the opposition: "Too much chatting"? Maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to see solid evidence to support the claims that FlyingToaster uses IRC irresponsibly. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Julian, the very first sentence of the nomination includes the term "IRC". – iridescent 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but IRC can be a very useful vehicle for communication when used properly and responsibly. Jimbo uses IRC; a handful of arbitrators use IRC; most of the current stewards use IRC: it's really not bad. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is when we have a candidiate who has barely made any proper edits to mainspace at all. If she wants to chat on IRC - fine, but don't come here wanting to be an admin on the strength of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giano II (talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to remember that we're all on the same team here; trying to build a free encyclopedia. I see no valid evidence of the "two groups" scenario being presented (IRC vs. Wikipedia). Keep in mind that there's many ways Wikipedians can communicate off-wiki including email, forums such as Wikipedia Review, and so on. FlyingToaster should be evaluated based on her contributions to Wikipedia, not having a mindset of "IRC is evil, I must oppose" (see Guilt by association), especially since no evidence has been effectively shown that IRC is being misused here. Killiondude (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has only once taken a quick peek at IRC I suppose I still count in the non IRC camp, but I honestly don't understand why an editors use or non-use of IRC should be relevant to RFA; let alone comparable to Public flatulence (this should be a discussion, fellow non-IRCers who do think IRC users would make poor admins are welcome to explain why, here or elsewhere). Ϣere SpielChequers 11:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to be accountable and transparent. IRC actively discourages these things, amongst other methods by (attempting to) forbid logging. There is a subset of users on IRC who prefer IRC to Wikipedia:Talk, precisely because no history is kept of their actions. This is a mindset which may be necessary for a particular type of vandal fighting or high-level management of wikipedia, but avoiding scrutiny for everyday matters is contrary to what most of us believe in. This is not to say that IRC is bad, but there is a recurring systematic rottenness in the way some users use IRC which many find unsettling. AKAF (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation AKAF, I accept your argument against use of IRC to avoid "scrutiny for everyday matters"; but how would one differentiate between candidates who make appropriate or inappropriate use of IRC? I see plenty of opposes that cite this candidates openly declared status as an IRC user, but I don't see anything to imply that this candidate misuses IRC. To use a parallel, at another recent RFA the candidate was also active on Wikipedia Review, but those who opposed that candidate for this were asserting that that candidate was acting inappropriately there, with "incivil and slanderous" being one allegation. Unless I've missed it this candidate seems to be being opposed for participation in IRC, without any allegations of their misusing IRC. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FlyingToaster is not an admin and not involved in any of the kind of activities which would cause problems if conducted on talk pages. To use a parallel, carrying housebreaking tools by night might be all right for a locksmith, but if a random pedestrian dressed in black has them, then one might have some reasonable suspicion. AKAF (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an oversighter, but I've Emailed more than one report to Oversight of things that I've spotted that IMHO merited oversight without discussion on talkpages. No-one in my RFA criticised me for having Email enabled or even asked me under what circumstances I would use Email instead of talk, and no-one in this RFA has asked the candidate when they would use IRC and when they would use talk, or given examples of their alleged misuse of IRC. Unless I'm missing something we seem to have a number of opposes on the principle of the candidate participating in certain IRC channels as if any such activity was bad. If some editors want to classify IRC channel participation as a bad thing per se, then I would have thought it would be better to have that as a separate discussion, rather than raise it Dougstech style within an individual RFA. Quite apart from the inappropriateness of assessing an RFA candidate on something that is currently allowed and in which some admins apparently partake, the risk is that opposing RFA candidates who admit IRC participation would simply discourage future RFA candidates from mentioning their IRC participation, and I don't think that would be a positive development. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support - as nominator. Regards So Why 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. In addition to all the great things people said about her last time, and the new information above, I can testify that she's been one of the most reliable CSD taggers over the past few months. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
We use to fight often (I'm not around anymore) and I am 99% sure she hates me, but she always seems to do a great job, gets involved a lot, helps out when people need it, etc. So, personally feelings pushed aside, she seems like she is quite capable and would be a good addition. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure you're being facetious, but nonetheless of course I don't hate you. :P Thanks for the support, Ottava. Flying Toaster 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, we did fight -a lot-. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Took a sizeable sample of speedy deletion tags, AIV reports, and UAA reports. Found nothing of concern. She has improved since her last RFA, and I think she'll do fine as an admin. Useight (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - supported last time, nothing has changed to make me change my mind. //roux 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it matters how long it has been since the most recent RfA, but whether the candidate has learned since then. I believe the candidate has, so I support. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support seen her around, she's always polite and helpful. Looking at her editing stats, she seems to do good work at WP:Usernames for administrator attention and I've seen her doing new page patrolling. If this passes I'm sure she will make a great admin - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent user who will make a great admin. Majorly talk 16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The correct time to run for adminship again after an unsuccessful bid is "after you have rectified the concerns of most of the opposers". This has most definitely happened. I wasn't convinced either way last time; but with the great contributions continuing and the deletion problems clearly solved, I am happy to support. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Why the hell not? I don't much care about the time between consecutive RfAs, as long as you have improved significantly, which you have. A v N 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per above - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Like last time, a good candidate that has the right attitude and can learn from mistakes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Would-have-happily-nommed-again support - You bitch, starting the party without me. — neuro^(talk) 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. She's okay. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support due to marked improvement in the areas which plagued her last time. Also, the 3 months time frame is a guideline, and as it's been almost three months (just shy of it by about 10 days), I think that's long enough. There is nothing anywhere that says you must wait 3 months to try again. I see no evidence the tools would be abused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Supported before, support again. I just miss the dragon story... But seriously, I didn't see CSD a problem last time and it has improved even more. I also want to note that it took 3 edit conflicts for me to submit my !vote. Valley2city^‽ 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Supported before, support again. I stand by what I said the first time, which is why I'll just copy and paste that opinion. I'm not happy about the sloppy tagging but I still believe sysoping would be a net positive. I know this may be a weak excuse but FT does a lot of newpage patrol and mistakes are inevitable. I also trust that she understands that speedy tagging and speedy deleting are different things. Sloppy tagging is basically newbie biting. Sloppy deleting is newbie biting, chewing and spitting out. Pascal.Tesson (talk)
Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate helps out new users as an adopter in the adopt a user program (being helpful and a mentor is a great asset for admins whom editors regularly turn to for assistance and experience) and as the candidate has never been blocked, not even accidentally! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I thought she was ready before, and I think she's even more ready now. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support From the I already thought she was an admin. Good luck! America69 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Concerns alleviated from last time - unless there's a bunch of admin links I can't see. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support no worries here, fly high little toaster. Nice mix of contributions and vandalfighting and great behaviour in this RFA Ϣere SpielChequers 20:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support No reason to believe she'd abuse the tools. Tim meh ! 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support User has been around since March 2006 and checked the track and find the concerns of the previous RFA have been overcame.The user has overcame the concerns like in deletion tagging and further the conerns raised by User Sowhy which made the previous RFA fail is the nom of this RFA shows the user has worked extremely positively towards overcaming the concerns .Further fully trust the judgement of Acaramari who is the co nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support-Supported the 1st RFA, can't see why I shouldn't support the user's 2nd attempt.Smallman12q (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Sure, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs)
Strong support A strong record of good judgement, collegiality and a willingness to help out. Will be an excellent administrator. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I feel comfortable offering my support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per the answer to my question (number 5). This candidate displays a subtle, nuanced and clueful understanding of policy and consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I thought you already was an admin. Lucifer (Talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I supported last time and nothing has changed since then.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Good editor. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per my criteria and per my !vote last time around. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Definitely! I still think you'll be a great admin. LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Learned something about Disneyland, thanks to the candidate. Great contributions, Friendly and drama free. The community told FlyingToaster to work on her skills at her first RfA; She has convinced her nominator and meets my opinion of what it takes. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Sounds good, we need sysops like flying toaster. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per SoWhy, and my comments at her recent editor review. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong support - FlyingToaster's edits are praiseworthy. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per arguments above. meets my standards. need more qualified, civil, helpful sysops. recall positive encounters in past. Dloh cierekim 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Step hen 03:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Absolutely - Fastily (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong support. Wizardman 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support this time around. Improved where she needed to be. I'm glad I had not discouraged her. DGG (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I'd have been an oppose in the last one, in which I didn't !vote, the RfA's being not too close, but, per, most prominently, SoWhy, I now conclude that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Just like last time. Keegan^talk 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You should have bloody told me you were running! Strong Support. User needs to work on her communications skills in future, though :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well excuuuse me for not WP:CANVASing, woman. :D Flying Toaster 05:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I've looked at your recent edits and previous RfA; I think you should be speedily promoted PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support FlyingToaster is by far one of the best CSD taggers I have seen. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support--T'Shael MindMeld 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete, clearly nn :) Stifle (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support this time. No lingering concerns. I believe she'll use the tools well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: As my WP:ADOPTive parent FT has been unfailingly knowledgeable, kind, wise, and good-looking. In all sincerity, through the adoption program I've benefited from her excellent policy understanding and very clear style (a great bonus in communicating with all users), boundless energy and good will, and the proven resilience and adaptability that her recovery from those CSD objections demonstrates. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Per last time. GARDEN 13:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Might I add that I believe the whole IRC thing is an absolute Catch-22. Yes, she has become friendly with users on the communication system. This is not good if the user is in some sort of !vote or discussion as it means suddenly one user becomes ten or perhaps more and is borderline meatpuppeting. However, what we must take into account is whether this is deliberate. We shouldn't all lynch her simply because she's friendly (surely that's a good thing for an administrator to be?) nor should we lynch her simply because some of those she is friendly with start supporting. I mean, seriously; the only way she can "undo" these friendships is to be one hell of an uncivil prick, and then that would be frowned upon too, no? What's done is done, and from pretty much everyone's experience, friendships are harder to get rid of then you think. GARDEN 11:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Notable improvement since the last RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support — R ² 14:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support mainly due to being impressed with answers to questions 5, 7b, and 10. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support — Jake Wartenberg 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly: and no, I hadn't forgotten to support earlier. :) Acalamari 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
But of course, Support - How could I not? FT will be an excellent addition to the admin corps and will only benefit en.wiki. Skinny87 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Good answers to the questions, no reason not to trust this user with the tools.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - If Moonriddengirl sees no CSD problems, then there's likely no problems. She has a knack for uncovering these things... ;> –xeno ^talk 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support My support from last time carries over. Intelligent, strong reasoning skills, thoughtful, excellent researcher, and incredibly trustworthy. Everything one wants in an admin. burnte (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support But of course. Don't know how I missed RfA #1!) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support We need more good looking admins for WikiMania, among other things. TIB (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
~~If this passes, my first abuse of power will be blocking you.~~ Thanks for the support! Flying Toaster 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support: Solid. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, obviously. Deb (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support—concerns from the last RfA seem to have been alleviated. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Great user; demonstrates good understanding of policy in the questions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I am impressed by alot of the responses the user made. I am paticularily impressed by the personal touch the user describes when addressing users in trouble rather than using a template. best of luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Oui. Steven Walling (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, per the testimonials about improved CSD work (the reason I opposed last time).--ragesoss (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
But of course! Master&Expert (Talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
E/c'ed Support - seriously per Camaron (talk · contribs) and sort-of-not-really-jokingly per The Inedible Bulk (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. TIB). ;D —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- High five! --96.238.90.202 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
~~I'm fine with this user becoming an admin. AniMate^draw 05:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)~~
Yep, I find this users attitude confident in many aspects and I belive that her attitude towards to the Wikimedia foundation positive and genuine. all thumbs up from here :D James'ööders 10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
Pretty Weak Support Would allow a user to make sausages out of Rush Limbaugh. Keepscases (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to comment on this one, but as someone who ripped a large chunk out of FT last time round, I think I ought to. While there are a lot of people I respect in the oppose section (and a fair few people I don't respect in the support section, supporting for what I'd consider the wrong reasons), I think a lot of the concerns are misconceptions based on the fact that FT hasn't given a long list of contributions in the answer to Q2 above, and unless someone's prepared to go ferreting through histories, she looks more inactive than she actually is. Yes, she hasn't written any sprawling-epic Featured Articles, but contributions like John Morrow (peace activist), Corrymeela Community (which is I think the first time I saw her), Trevor Williams (bishop) etc show that she does understand the principles behind article creation and what is and isn't appropriate. My concerns last time round weren't about lack of activity, but on inappropriate deletion tagging, and I think deletion tagging is something it is possible to learn in such a short time. I do agree with Geogre's point – I'm a firm believer that the default for all Wikipedia discussions should be to the status quo ("keep" at AFD, "don't promote" at FAC/GAC, "oppose" at RFA) and that the onus on anyone wanting change is on the proposers to explain why the change would be a benefit, and I also think the nomination statement in this RFA does a very poor job of selling the candidate – but if she'd asked me, I could and would have written a better nomination and would have been willing to do so. – iridescent 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm striking this. I still don't see enough reason to oppose, but the behaviour of some of the supporters – and more significantly, the fact that the candidate doesn't appear to see anything wrong with it – means I'm not comfortable being among those supporting. – iridescent 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I respect your decision, but wanted to mention that the reason for my silence is that I'm trying to comment on as few of the oppose comments as possible. I'm sad to say that I think there's been regrettable breaches of civility on both sides on this RfA. Also, even though it's struck, I wanted to thank you for the thoughtful (ex)!vote and the thorough research behind it. Flying Toaster 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I'm glad to be able to move out of the oppose column I was in last time.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support -down load ׀ sign! 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Answers quite well thought out. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Per [1] diversity among decision makers is needed. In wikipedia we need more female administrators [2] so that diverse viewpoints can be understood. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention, females and female-enablers! Support this candidate and help balance out the decision makers. You'll make USA Today very happy with us by assauging centuries of global discrimination. And seeing as I've got an X chromosone and diverse viewpoints all over the shop which need to be understood, I want adminship and all. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Hey! He makes constructive edits, so it's no big deal :) --Mr. Mentil (Goldblattster) (talk!) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support, without a doubt. -- Luk ^talk 08:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Everything looks good; no problems. Them From Space 09:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support All of my experience with Flying Toaster has been positive. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Beat me to reverting some vandalism about 15 minutes ago. Can't think of anything bad... --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
But more importantly, we both beat SoxBot. Where's your machine revolution against humanity now?! Flying Toaster 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Every reason to believe she would be a good administrator. I also liked her answers to some of the questions above. Killiondude (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Kittybrewster ☎ 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Support seen him here, there, and everywhere on deletion areas and AIV. He's qualified, definitely. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support – Good user, opposes are unconvincing. American Eagle (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support there are a few nominators who I truly trust, but the combo above does the trick---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Great user. And I do trust SoWhy. Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Pmlinediter ^Talk 07:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wanted to be #100 but damn it I missed strong support - Supported the last RfA, support again. --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 09:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm #100 now! --Dylan 620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I trust FlyingToaster with the mop as: (a) I like the answers to the questions; (b) her deletion tagging has improved since her last RfA; (c) her new article examples demonstrate content building; and (d) the opposes aren't convincing. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support by default. Have seen some of the work, all positive in regards to making WP a better site. I trust the noms. Looked through the oppose section, can't find enough there to sway me. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You really shouldn't have a default with RfA votes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support is generally regarded as the default position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Answers to the questions seem sound and appears to have a good amount of mainspace edits. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Mild support seems somewhat clued and reasonable amount of content work. Opposes seem mainly to be petty political score settling based on her support of someone who'd pissed off some powerful people - wikipolitics at it worst.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support convinced me. Hobartimus (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support No problems here. An excellent user. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Never had any problems with FT. I believe that she is a good wikipedia editor, and will make a fantastic admin. --Ono (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Rami R 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Expand on my support: I opposed the previous RfA mainly due poor speedy deletion tagging. FlyingToater appears to have learned his lesson, and has corrected his approach. The last RfA may have been not that long ago, but I noticed that it is SoWhy that is nominating him now, him being the primary reason the last RfA failed and an administer who's opinion I respect. Therefor the little time that has passed since that RfA does not bother me. I am expanding on my support mostly because of the ridiculous conspiracy theory opposes regarding IRC. May it be known that I do not use IRC, never used IRC before, have no intention of starting to use IRC, did not know (prior to this RfA) that FlyingToaster uses IRC and do not know or care who else uses IRC. Rami R 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Support is the default position for those Ive encountered before who have made good edits. This editor is strong support as the user seems to have rare good nature. Also she's clearly a learner who responds well to criticism, so her judgment will likely continue to improve and is already easily good enough to be an admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Expand on my support: per Rami Im surprised some seem to be buying the IRC theory. Ive not used IRC but have used Instant Messaging for collaboration at work and its a medium where folk tend to be less guarded than email or other formats with a more permanent record. It gives you a better chance to assess someones character, which is probably why FT asked for her IRC handle to be included on the Nom. If shed been actively soliciting support on IRC, she'd have been crazy to draw attention to it. I havent communicated with this user by any other form either, my assessment is from reviewing a few of her edits, a read of the last RFA, and whats been said on this one; especially the users answers to questions, and the comments of sowhy and DGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes, ready now :) --Ged UK 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Yessir... ready to go. Until It Sleeps 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Fine candidate, will not abuse tools, previous principal opposer is now nom, answer to Q5 is absolutely brilliant, and great answers to the rest. No reason to oppose here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldlaptop321 (talk • contribs)
CABAL! CABAL! CABAL! I have never spoken to Boriss through the Internet Relay Cabal protocol but based on the responses to the questions I will support this candidate. Seddσn ^talk 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support- S D 5 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Someone who communicates too much? I've been accused of the same and much worse - if that's the worst thing to be said about a prospective admin then Wikipedia will be lucky to have someone willing to discuss issues. -- Banjeboi 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - I find the IRC based objections not very convincing and think a cross-section of this user's edits suggest a very competent and civil editor. I do think there's some primping for RfA but that's a pretty hollow accusation. The focus should be on quality. LH (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyking (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
support - appears to have the correct enemies William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your support, but I don't consider anyone commenting here or anywhere on Wikipedia to be an enemy. Flying Toaster 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support FlyingToaster has always been enthusiastic and helpful when I or someone else has needed help. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Excellent responses to questions. Well argued. He will make a good admin. I think I supported him in his first RFA. Marlith (Talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong support. Excellent responses to the questions, thoughtful and thorough, really impressive. Particular strengths: grokking that this collaborative encyclopedia is more than a cluster of fiefdoms; being firm with new editors without driving them away. (Note: I did not participate in the previous RfA and have no comment on it. I don't hang out on IRC and have no comment on that, either.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:22 & 04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support again I don't know or care what happens on IRC, this is a solid editor and I see no convincing reasons in the oppose section. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support I did last time, I'm pretty sure. Nothing new has come up. Ray^Talk 12:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Responsible and productive edits, nothing particularily concerning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Good answers and plenty of experience. I've read the opinions of the opposition, and they do not convince me that she would make a poor admin. AlexiusHoratius 13:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Last RfA was less than three months ago, almost half of this user's edits are to User talk, and although registered for over three years this editor only really became active towards the end of last year, presumably in preparation for his/her first RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually (from my knowledge) she became active towards the end of last year because she started involving herself with many people (Julian Colton as an example) that encouraged her to be more active. I think she went from a casual user to a dedicated user based on their encouragement, and not necessarily because she wanted adminship. (She also started attending Wiki events and the rest after that point, and there are pictures somewhere on Wiki with her in them, heh). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You may well be right, but I'd also like to see a bit more interest from the candidate in building content instead of deleting it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you and DGG could be great friends with that philosophy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I like to see an interest in both, just as i try to do both myself. Alas, it's inevitable that an Admin will do more deleting than writing, as with myself. DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually she does a lot of content work, although on some fairly bizarre articles. You seem to be grasping at straws - "Oppose per X. X isn't good enough? Fine, also Y" and so on. Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit what your opinion is. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds - well, what I tend to do if someone contradicts or makes my stance weaker is to look and see if there was anything else. Normally, I don't put everything out, or I tend to stop when I find one thing that is a problem. It is standard to do this, so Malleus's providing another reason is just to verify his original belief. I am sure that if he found nothing he would have changed his mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, but mainly because it's been so soon since the last RfA. Provided that this user's good activity continues (which I don't doubt that it will), I'd gladly support in another couple of months. One (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Changed to neutral. One (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why the last RfA, which was a couple of months ago was too soon (and is why you're Opposing), and why you would support another RfA in a couple of month. Nick (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
After I nominated Boriss the first time, we discussed the possibility of another run once the issues brought up had been sorted. The only issue that was really pointed out were CSD issues, and if it is evident that she has corrected the issue, I see no reason why needless bureaucracy should stop her from doing so. — neuro^(talk) 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has tried to stop her from doing so. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
After considering the supports and everything a bit more, I've decided to switch to Neutral. One (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Little in the way of audited content work, WPspace editing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A very poor idea. This editor is naive, uniformed and has an appalling record regarding content. One wonders why these people come here, any fool can sit and talk all day, and many do. Giano (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? If true, they would be indeed concerning. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Before someone quotes this as an example of how WP:CIVILITY doesn't apply at RFA, you should know that Giano has been around a long time, does a lot of work, and has ~~powerful~~ many supporters. The reason no one is "doing anything" about comments like this is that people have tried and failed in the past, not because such comments are routine at RFA, or generally considered acceptable. And before someone shouts "Hypocrisy! Unfair!", remember that Wikipedia is a workplace, not a social club. Co-workers who say irritating things but do good work often don't get fired. So, I can live with this, but it still makes me cringe. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
To Juliancolton: I suspect this may be regarding my nomination of Neurolysis for adminship a month ago. But as Dank said, I'd encourage people to just let it be. Certainly I can live with it. :) Flying Toaster 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You are only partially correct Flying Toaster, you error of judgement in nominating Neurolysis amd insistence on facts which you either knew to be untrue or just did not bother to check does not bode well for your future career as an Admin - does it? Quite frankly, a person too idle to do their homework and check facts and too busy chatting on talk pages (and no doubt elsewhere) to make mainspace contibutions - should not be an Admin. I think people should editors first and Admins second. You appear to be neither. That you feel you should be an Admin is evidence of an ego larger than your output or wiki-worth. Giano (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Giano, reading some of the articles that the candidate mentioned in their answer to 7a, and checking their history to see what part was contributed by Flying toaster; I have to confess I don't understand what you meant by an "appalling record regarding content". Could you give diffs explaining that comment? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This user doesn't seem overly qualified or extensively engaged in serious editing. Just my 2 cents. Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify why you feel that a user's experience in content contribution is relevant to this assessment of whether they will properly use the administrative tools, if granted? Stifle (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose misunderstands the WP:CSD criteria - many of our "no content" or "no context" deletions are one-liners or no-liners with or without under construction or hangon tags - if you want the mop, you need to help clean the floors, not let people have a week's free advertising here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this has any relation to her understanding of the criteria at all. She is stating that she would make a judgment call based upon the criteria — I fail to see how that constitutes any sort of misunderstanding. — neuro^(talk) 00:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any physical evidence in the form of diffs on the candidate's CSD problems? I know it was an issue last time, which makes it that much more important to substantiate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read her answer to my question, rather than robotically badger all opposers for "evidence" you would find such evidence manifest.
[My question]: A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

[Candidate's response; emphasis mine]: Unless the page was obvious vandalism, and assuming the user had been properly notified, I would not delete the page for a full week. I know that’s a bit longer than many admins would keep such a page, but I don’t feel there’s much to lose by giving what’s likely a newer editor as much time as the under construction tag would allow for anywhere else in Wikipedia. That said, I would watch the under construction page, and in all likelihood, if the subject were notable, turn it into a stub to give the user something to start with.

AFD gives a rotten article a week's worth of glory and its editor free advertising, CSD means what it says - its a quicker way to delete trash - to clean up stains with our mops. If the candidate cannot or will not use the mop in this manner, and this is where the candidate intends on working per answers above, we really don't need to give the candidate the tools. Once again, badgering of opposes reflects poorly on the candidate, especially when the badgerers cannot discern the obvious from the candidate's own answers right here on this page. If he/she wants to let advertising and CSD-deletable material hang around for a full week, that's his/her choice - the same effect s/he'd have as a non-admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, no one is required to delete anything. I think every admin has areas where they are uncomfortable with an immediate deletion (well, I hope they do). Not trying to badger you, just trying to give a different perspective to others reading this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You are entirely correct that no one is required to do anything here; but asking for special tools to deal with CSD yet indicating an unwillingness to follow CSD is problematic. Apparently, you don't think so; suffice to say, we disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: I get a sense of why the person thinks, "why not," but not "why?" Why now? Why RFA again so soon? What is the need for the project and the candidate? CSD always lags, of course, but CSD isn't really a very compelling argument. The "powers" of being an admin are relatively few, and there was more of a need in past years than today. Therefore, I simply do not see a good argument put forward for promotion. This is not to say that I see a reason to deny, except that the default for all users is to deny (to not go forward to RFA). It's getting weird around here, when RFA is somehow expected to be a normal part of any user's life cycle at Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Your oppose confuses me slightly. If I'm reading it right; the default position is oppose, since RfA is not a needed thing. The arguments for good CSD work are not enough to persuade you to support, because another admin to handle CSD isn't required. Exactly what area does need admins, under the rule that "a backlog isn't something that requires more admins"? Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you trust this user to use the tools responsibly? If so, then support is the default position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there is a timer that begins ticking the moment a person starts editing and, unless there is something shifty, there is an automatic promotion? Hey, everyone's an administrator! "Show me something horrible, or we promote" is pretty weird, in my view. I want to know why someone wants to change his or her status. What is it about being an editor that's onerous? What is it that we need you to do for us? Don't tell me why you want to do something for yourself. If it's about you, then I oppose. You're supposed to serve. People like to talk about "no big deal" and "mop and bucket," well, "mop and bucket" is servitude. What need is it that isn't being met properly? That said, if you demand that I cast aspersions to have the right to oppose a candidate, I will: no one should be running and running and running. Desultory apologies and lip service to formalities in order to get the shiny badge makes me think that this is a prize to be won, and, every time I have seen someone approach RFA that way and pass, the result has been bad. Now, please do not demand that people who oppose politely go on to do so impolitely. Let people oppose on the grounds they choose and trust them to be doing so out of their own judgment, unless you have some reason to doubt the franchise of someone like me. I haven't been here long, after all, or done very much. Geogre (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons above, mainly no visible content contribution. Peter Damian (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please clarify for us why you feel content contribution is a necessary attribute for an administrator? Stifle (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well we are trying to create a decent encyclopedia and it helps if those who are policing the place can distinguish between vandalism and good content, Stifle. For example, if I created a new article and was working on it and an admin who could not distinguish between content and non-content nominated it for deletion, that would be a bad thing. The analogy I often give is of a workplace which is entirely run by the security staff. That probably wouldn't work, don't you agree? Peter Damian (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It worked in the university I went to, but that may have been a bad example. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Judgement concerns, per previous RFA and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neurolysis. I can't figure out why this RFA is going so different than previous one.. Maybe this editor has been hanging out in a chat room, making friends? Friday (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about that too. Giano (talk)
It is going differently because she alleviated the concerns brought up. I don't know how you can't see that, it is plastered all over the nomination. — neuro^(talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think the concerns have been addressed. You lied, she supported your lies to get you elected. What more is there to say? Giano (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about the concerns of the community that were brought up at the prior RfA. As far as I am aware, no concerns over that were brought up (not least since it had not occurred at the time). — neuro^(talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about my concerns, which are that we have a prosective Admin who is prepared to say black is white reather than lose face and see her chosen candidate defeated. As an Admin, she will say and do what best suits her pride while popping in and out of chats to do a bit of blocking and opining. Obviously a lot of people don't mind that, I do! Now you made a very full and frank appology on my page which I appreciated, is Flying Hamster still ignorant of it or complicit.Giano (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
To clarify what’s going on to people who aren’t aware: last month I nominated Neurolysis to be an administrator. I nominated him for the reasons I gave in my nomination statement, all of which I stand by: he’s a valuable contributor with a long history of excellent work in Wikipedia who I personally respect. During the course of the RfA, someone brought to light comments that Neuro had made to a newspaper’s blog post. The comments on that blog post were frankly out of order, wrong, and immature (actions that Neuro has since sincerely apologized for). When these comments came out, Neuro and I had a frank discussion and decided it would be best to close the RfA. To address the accusation brought here - I did not know these blog comments existed, and when they came out I never tried to “lie” about them nor defend them. Since diffs speak louder than words, here are Giano’s comments on the matter back then [3], [4], [5], and my response to him [6], and his followup [7], so that people may draw their own conclusions. Flying "Hamster" 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Too little too late Flying Toaster, you said to my oppose "As Neuro pointed out, he has apologized several times for what he did and quite explicitly said it was a mistake. After someone has gone so far as to ask for forgiveness for their actions, I feel it is in the best interest of not only the project, but of yourself." Well that was a lie Flying Toaster, you lied then and you seem to be distorting the truth now. No matter how many chatting friends you have, you cannot disguise the truth, which is that you will say anything to get what you want. So her you are distorting now. Giano (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but how much time needs to pass before she is no longer connected to Neurolysis's bad actions in regards to you? Or does she need to wipe herself clean of Neurolysis? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah Ottava, so you are supporting here too! let's just say the second the belated apology landed on my doorstep I wondered why. Always expect the worst inpeople and one is never dissapointed. Giano (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm supporting, even though she happens to be someone that I've fought with quite a bit. But anyway, are you saying that the belated apology was because of the RfA? or is the wondered why disconnected from that? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ottava I appreciate the attempt to engage, but this is not your RFA is is Flying Toaster's, so why not but out? Giano (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly mind that if I believed such a thing to be the case, and I'm sure our rodent friend would too. — neuro^(talk) 18:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Friday – I can't speak for the others, but as one of the noisiest opposers last time round I've given a detailed reasoning for my change (currently #85). – iride scent 19:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Friday, chatrooms aren't at fault for everything... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per my oppose in the first RFA. Although It appears those concerns have been addressed, I'd like to see a longer time pass to be sure.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per User:Friday.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a long enough track record, per Cube lurker. Too much chatting, per several other editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
weak oppose Most things look good but concerns in the previous AfD especially in regard to CSD issues have not been adequately dealt with. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per the reason I stated in the last RfA. Like Cube Lurker, I think the candidate needs a bit more time. Majoreditor (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Another sysop from a chat room? No, thanks, we have enough of them. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Another IRC buddy buddy is about as welcome as a fart in a hot-tub. Normally I'd just let these go, but the unseemly barracking of the opposers from the other IRC buddies compels me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with Geogre and she seems to have a lot of chat buddie barracking friends hunting in packs.I also feel that when candidates come to Rfa they should come clear of any contraversy as that tension makes me nervous and makes me want to say , wait some more time and two or three months between requests is imo also not long enough for any real change.I would like to see good strong well rounded admins with plenty of article writing experiance and perhaps some experiance of conflict resolution and the maturity to tell her friends when they are wrong. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
The crats will no doubt discount this, but switching to oppose. Nothing particularly against the candidate, but this will at least cancel out some of the inane "support as default" comments in the support percentages. – iride scent 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The IRC effect and the spin-off from the more belligerent contingent is predictable and unpleasant but incidental. Candidate lacks appropriate focus on article content e.g. this, listed by Flying Toaster above, was created six months ago but remains poorly written (despite a ~~bot~~ visit to fix a link just 4 days ago). The answers to Q.8 and Q.9 confidently asserting unilateral tracing and interventionist actions based upon a one-size-fits-all personal perception template (and with the contradictory/covering the bases WP:AN alert at the end of 8), where subjective touchy-feely supercedes the recommendations of the collective experience of several years and numerous incidents (imperfect as these things always will be, its the nature of the problem...). I'm not wanting to find out where else the candidate may feel she knows best and so acts accordingly: concerns over problem-solving having been raised already. Plutonium27 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The IRC concerns me too and I am not happy with what appears to be pack attacks on any oppose that is listed. BigDunc^Talk 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Not thrilled about IRC-related drama. --B (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm not at all supportive of a user that lacks article contributions, and one that is only seeking RFA through this IRC buddies. No thanks, we can do without your drama. seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Semi-Weak Oppose per Friday, Plutonium and the fact that it has only been 3 months since last RfA. I think she needs a little bit more time before I can support her. Good luck though! Tavix | Talk 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Serious concerns over non-transparent communication methods. It should not be this easy for the IRC crowd to promote one of their own. Skinwalker (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Too soon after the last RFA, and not enough experience of content work. Yes, I want to see hands-on article-writing experience from any admin who is going to work with edit warriors and vandals; not just admins who know rules. It's not the same thing. Please note that I'm here on this page to give my opinion about FlyingToaster, not to squabble with the candidate's friends, who are kindly requested not to argufy or badger below my Oppose. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC).
Oppose Has not done much of substance and spends way too much time chatterin' away. Jtrainor (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Very reluctant oppose With more work on content and less time spent on IRC, I can see no reason not support later should this RfA fail. AniMate^draw 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Friday. Nakon 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Giano -- Tex (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So oppose per "This editor is naive, uninformed and has an appalling record regarding content"? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the dozens of articles FT has created amount to an appalling record? Or that she is naive/uninformed? Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Cut it out, Ironholds. Per my own experience, above, people who oppose politely should not be poked. The results are never good. It increases acrimony, and if the person does respond with a fuller rationale, as I did, it often results in further oppose votes. I.e. you're not helping the candidate, and you're not helping the atmosphere. I understand not liking "per X" as a rationale, but being nice never hurt anyone, and being nasty has rarely helped anyone. Geogre (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
RfA is a discussion; engaging in said discussion is perfectly acceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite right Julian. I noticed this at another RfA , some seem to want the freedom to post negative comments without counter. Many opposes probably should be left alone, but some are bordering on character assassination (not in this RfA) and some are just senseless – at least when set alongside the relevant facts by a good comment. We cant have negative editors being given a free hand by this absurd "badger" ploy. Or for us to be forced to miss the chance to advise good faith opposers of relevant info. Well done to Ironholds and others for highlighting the flimsy pretexts for some of the opposes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ironholds, I don't believe we have ever interacted before. I'm not sure why you chose me to pick on, but whatever. I can list any number of reasons why I don't believe Flying Toaster should be an admin, but I chose to keep most of them to myself. Do I believe that this person should spend much more time on content and less on talking to other people? Yes I do. Do I believe this person should delete IRC from their computer and only conduct wiki business on wiki? Yes I do. Do I think this person should have waited longer since the last RFA to try again? Yes I do. Do I think this person needs to get new friends that don't badger people when they don't believe he/she should be an admin? Yes I do. Do I think Giano provided enough reason that this person should not be an admin? Yes I do. Do I believe whatever you say to me is not going to change my mind? Yes I do. How many more reasons would you like? Tex (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Giano. AKAF (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
See immediately above. Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine, then oppose re Malleus, Bishonen and Seicer. Oppose also because of Ironholds' badgering. With friends like these FlyingToaster doesn't need enemies. AKAF (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
if you must badger every oppose, then take this (mentioned above)"this, listed by Flying Toaster above, was created six months ago but remains poorly written (despite a ~~bot~~ visit to fix a link just 4 days ago). " It's sad than someone can wonder in off the street (IRC if you prefer) and immediatly have 100+ automatic supports for Adminship. Many don't like it - accept it and stop badgering! Giano (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm glad FT sees a role as content protection (Q2), rather than simply anti-vandalism. Doing content protection well takes an understanding of how articles are built, from creation to development to sourcing to fine-tuning. While FT has good experience creating articles, I don't see enough of the rest yet. At this point in time FT only has 20 or more edits to four articles (max 27). I would hope for more depth in a couple articles. Coupled with really only nine months of activity, less than three months since a previous RFA, and what seems to be 40% automatic edits[8], and I can't support at this time. It would have been better if FT waited a couple months and spent that time helping to get an article to WP:GA. I would also suggest taking a few new articles to WP:DYK; the feedback would be valuable, I think. Kudos for a couple classy responses here. Gimmetrow 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Gimmetrow - I've actually seen you on my watchlist lately, making solid improvements to old articles I created. So I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the level of research you did as well as those improvements. I couldn't ask for a better oppose. :) Flying Toaster 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Giano and Seicer. --Peter Andersen (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral This second RfA seems too early given that the first one was just held 2 months and a half ago. SoWhy's long opposing rationale at that time was undoubtedly a hammering factor to fail FryingToaster's adminship, but he is the nominator this time. That is a very positive sign that FlyingToaster has improved herself. I have no doubt that FryingToaster is a good editor, but is she changed in such the short time? I would like see some visible evidences from the nominators.--Caspian blue 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted to present evidence but the problem is that the good taggings are deleted and thus not visible to non-admins anymore. I can only point out to check how many of her requests for speedy deletion (as she uses Twinkle, they all have the same edit summary) still exist and then compare how many of those few which still exist were really bad taggings. Unfortunately it's always easier to present evidence for bad actions than for good actions, at least when it comes to CSD. Regards So Why 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Awaiting answers to questions. I worry that FlyingToaster is too much of a "button-pusher" --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral per Caspian blue. One (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Awaiting answers.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 13:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Good answers to the questions, no reason not to trust this user with the tools. Switch to support.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. I would lose sleep if I opposed but, from what I can see from FT's contributions and MediaWiki edit counter I can;t support unreservedly, either. My main concern is the lack of constructive content building. I like what I see in the vandal patrolling but an average of less than 2 edit per page combined with the sizeable majority of edits being to user talk designations. The improvement in CSD tagging is good to see- having taken the time to review FT's contributions, there are a lot or red links with the Twinkle edit summary. However, this feeds in to my next point, which is the large quantity of edits made using Twinkle. It's an excellent tool and very useful in time saving and vandal patrolling but it's not designed to aid in constructive content building. There are just too many edit summaries with the (HotCat) and (TW) marks and not enough of the expanding stubs, wikifying and other, time consuming tasks which are equally important, if not more so. Sorry. HJMitchell You rang? 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutral The timing of Neuro's apology to Giano strike's me as slightly suspect. I think FT will make a fine administrator, and I'm certain this will pass. That being said... there's something slightly off here. Certainly nothing to make me oppose, but I can't quite support any longer. FlyingToaster, please just keep all of your actions on-Wiki, and I'm sure all doubts will be quelled. AniMate^draw 09:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn’t ask for the support of anyone uncomfortable giving it, I do ask that I’m judged by my own actions and not Neuro’s. Flying Toaster 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You aregued black was white knowing it was black just to ensure your candidate succeeded. If that us an exampe of your behaviour then you are unfit to be an Admin. Now you can be supported by entire chatrooms, but nothing will change that. Giano (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Giano, if you’re hoping you can get me to snap in this RfA, I can promise you it won’t work. Flying Toaster 17:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, you have put yourself up for this, no one has asked you. You must expect your actions and failings to be questioned. Giano (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said I'm uncomfortable because less than two months ago you nominated Neuro for adminship. That and IRC concerns really, really give me pause. AniMate^draw 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was aware that FT was going in for another RfA, but I was not aware that it would be so soon after my apology to Giano. The two things are entirely unrelated. — neuro^(talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And yes, my actions are my actions, not hers. This RfA should be about whether Boriss would make a good administrator -- I might point out that it took RfA !voters a good few days to find that incident (which I would have mentioned if I had remembered it, for obvious reasons I did not want to remember it). I hardly think it shows anything that she could not find an off-site comment from several months prior to her nomination which she had never seen nor heard about before. She has commented to the effect that she believes that my comments were wrong, and I agree. I do not see why she is being judged based on my actions. — neuro^(talk) 17:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

replied on talk — Ched : ? 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Scary IRC cabal vs equally-scary anti-IRC cabal = Daniel scared. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the issues are plainer than all that. It's just that these are new costumes for old ghosts and ghouls. At an RFA, if any candidate gets an immediate rush of 100+ supports, and those people have no seeming connection, it raises questions. The usual answer is, "This person works all over Wikipedia and is well known." You see all sorts of people in the "oppose" referring to the lack of article work, and that's because, without saying it so formally, they're refuting that point. So, not a lot of work on the project. That then leaves one of many extra-Wikipedia sources of support. A person active at one of the Wikipedia portals or projects or assassment drives or something might have little/no article work and yet be "famous" to 100 accounts, but we don't see that. The next logical step would be "illicit support" via a third party web site -- some Slashdotting effect. If that were the case, the whole thing would go stale, no doubt. The end. However, what if the "outside" venue where the person is known is, in fact, the "Wikipedia" IRC? Is that an external website and therefore illicit support and canvassing? Is that part of Wikipedia and therefore fine? If you feel one way, you go into oppose. If you feel another way, you don't. Then there is yet another group that says, "IRC schmiyarcee, what has the guy done to qualify as an admin?" Those people follow their usual principles. (I'd like to see the IRC channels unlinked from Wikipedia entirely, but my oppose was based on the candidate not having done enough to be an admin.) Geogre (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Now would be a poignant moment to point out my overly-simplistic neutral was a parody of the oversimplification of this RfA as IRC v anti-IRC, which some are doing (both above and on IRC). Daniel (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah its also about whether an editors 156 articles created can be dismissed as invisible or appalling (not criticising Dougstech's politely and pointlessly anarchistic get rd of all admins or those who want admins to all have FAs). I've read several of the articles that the candidate created and even tweaked a couple of them, and I genuinely don't understand how they can be described as invisible or appalling or the candidate as lacking in contributions. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:56, 18 May 2009

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.