Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aleta

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

Aleta

Voice your opinion (talk page) (73/3/1); Scheduled to end 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta (talk · contribs) - Since I began editing two months ago, I have found Aleta to be someone who is always friendly, offering NPOV advice and willing to help users in any way she knows how. She is a great asset to the LGBT project and always seems to have a neutral solution to many issues. There is no doubt in my mind that Aleta would be a fair and helpful admin, and I'm happy to be the person to nominate her. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I appreciate the nomination and am pleased to accept it. Aleta ^Sing 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: While continuing with general editing, I want to participate in more vandal-fighting. I would work to block vandal-only accounts or IPs temporarily to prevent further damage to the project. I would be glad to step in to increase page protection temporarily if vandalism was particularly bad on it, or to decrease it again when it seemed appropriate.

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

A: I do a lot of wiki-gnome type work. I like to help with things such as grammar, categorizing articles, cleaning up repeated citations, and so forth. These things are necessary to keep the quality of articles as high as possible and sometimes go otherwise overlooked. Some of my most important work in on the talk pages of articles and users, discussing the best way to improve an article - how can we make sure it remains neutral of point of view, what additions does it need? I also have been trying to mentor new users, not in any official capacity, but just by answering questions, offering advice, and pointing out information - basically I try to be a friend and good colleague to fellow editors, established or new. I have started a few articles, and I think they are useful contributions, but that is probably not my greatest strength as an editor.

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: Certainly. I've been involved in the Matt Sanchez article, one of the more contentious places on Wikipedia. There and elsewhere, I have tried to stay as neutral as possible while making my opinions known. I try hard to assume good faith as much as possible. I discuss my view of what should be said with others, and be reasonable about it. Sometimes I will take a step back and not edit at a particular article for a while. While I have not previously been involved in mediation, that process has just begun for another article in which I'm involved (Peter Yarrow), and I am happy to listen to opinions from other editors.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. You state that you've tried to stay neutral on the Matt Sanchez article whilst making your opinions known--that's admirable--but reading over the talk page, at least as it stands now, I don't see any current evidence of that. What are your personal opinions regarding the guy or his article?

A: I think he personally has been very disruptive here on Wikipedia, and I support the block that has been enacted. As for the article, I think it is important that we follow WP:BLP strictly. Certain accusations have been made against him that since we are without reliable sources I don't think should be in the article (and I therefore will not repeat here). Information for which we do have reliable sources such as his adult entertainment career, aspects of his military career, etc., should be discussed neutrally in the article. I don't think Sanchez is a nice person, but that should be irrelevant to whether we write an article with a neutral point of view. Does this answer your question, or would you like me to say more? Aleta ^Sing 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "accusations" are true--but I have no desire to go looking for sources, and I respect your attempts at neutrality. You've answered my question, thank you. Keepscases (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from caknuck

5. I noticed a period of inactivity last summer. Were you on a wikibreak?

A:Essentially - I didn't officially state I was taking a wikibreak, but that is in effect what I did. Aleta ^Sing 00:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

6. If you had to block someone for vandalizing someone's userpage, how long would you block that user?

A: I would want to start out slowly, warning the vandal first. If the vandal persisted, I would probably block for something like 24 hours to stop them for that day. If the editor had a history of prior blocks for vandalism, especially recent history, I might increase the length of the block. Aleta ^Sing 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Would it make any difference whether the user was an IP editor or registered under a user name? Would the nature of the vandalism make any difference? Would it make any difference if the vandalised page was your user or talk page? Jay*Jay (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up A: It might make a difference if the user, whether IP or registered, appeared to be an otherwise constructive editor. The nature of the vandalism could make some difference in how quickly I decided to block - more malicious edits I might be less willing to warn on. It might also make a difference to the length of time blocked - an obvious joke should not be treated the same way as a personal attack. I don't think it would matter if it were my page or someone else's. If I was unsure of whether my planned response were appropriate, I would certainly consult with another admin. I anticipate doing just that, especially as I learn the position. Aleta ^Sing 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Aleta: Aleta (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - For reasons stated above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. I think Aleta has the necessary experience and temperament to make a good administrator. She has handled tough situations - like with the Matt Sanchez article - very well and has shown a good ability at resolving BLP-type problems. She is involved in content writing, warns vandals appropriately and her involvement in projectspace - AfDs, noticeboard discussions etc. - show a sound understanding of policy. Won't abuse the tools and I believe she knows what she's doing. WjBscribe 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Aleta's contribs are of great quality. I've not once seen her violate any policy and I suggest her block log reflects this. She's always a calm, reasoning voice when things get stressful. Definitely one of the more pleasant people to interact with around here. I feel she would do just as wonderful as an Admin and noway would abuse the tools. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - of course! I've had dealings with Aleta in the past and she's been great. Should make a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 04:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Ideally there would be a bit more experience in admin-related areas, but everything looks good. Should be fine. faithless (^speak) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support All my dealings with Aleta have been supportive to the aims of the encyclopedia. Sie's been good at dealing with tough issues and is not likely to abuse the tools. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Surprising Strong Support When I read you nom earlier tonight (BEFORE ANYBODY had !voted) I thought this would be an easy vote---'Oppose'." Instead, I found a person who has a nice breadth of experiences and is very level headed. Has made numerous contributions all over the place. She has participated in numerous projects and activities. Her exposure to some traditional admin tasks may be limited, but you have an attribute missing in most candidates----you act like an administrator. I think this is a key that many candidates are missing---you don't have to be an administrator to act like one. If you act like one, then people will see you as one, and handing over the mop becomes no big deal. You already are an administrator, now we just have to make it official. IMHO this is probably the easiest support I've ever made for somebody I don't personally know!Balloonman (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment This was my first time nominating someone and I wasn't sure of what to say. I just knew (what you now know) that she acts like an admin already and has always helped me. So IMHO, I don't really think your comment about my nomination was that necessary and it came across as very rude. I think WP:BITE should apply to users that are new to this side of WP, not just the ones new to editing. Also, I may have only been editing for 2 months but I have almost as many mainspace edits as you, so that counts for something. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   You are of course right, and I do apologize. Revised support per below.Balloonman (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   No problem. Thanks for changing it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you Balloonman. :] - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 13:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Concur with AgnosticPreachersKid. I think the attack on the nom is out of order. This is his first ever nom, and as we all know, we all have to have a first in each area of Wikipedia. Give the guy a break and please consider rewording your comment Balloonman. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

9. Support contributions suggest Aleta can be trusted with the tools. Would be nice to see a GA or something but no matter. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
10. 2 words; Matt Sanchez. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support per WJBScribe and Balloonman. This user's clearly got clue, and knows how to handle herself in tough situations. GlassCobra 06:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
12. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support As per WJBScribe.The commitment of the user is unquestionable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

    Unsurprising Strong Support Not so much a net positive as an outright positive. Pedro :  Chat  12:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Support perUser:Dlohcierekim/On RfA, DHMO, Glass, Pedro.(eek. Before he went neutral) The nominee's other experiences convince me that she will not misuse/abuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 12:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
15. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Daniel (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support User seems to be dedicated, hard working and civil. Certainly trustworthy. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - I don't see her much on "~ for deletion" pages, but not every admin. needs to do all jobs; good user and will be a very good administrator. ◄Zahakiel► 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. No worries here, good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I've seen her around (somewhere), and she has been helpful to many other users. Spencer^T♦C 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
21. AHA!. I just figured out why I recognized your name! You worked so graciously a few months ago (I found it in your Archive 3 with DrAlanSun and I remember being extremely impressed by your patience and graciousness towards a new editor that just "didn't get it" when his article(s) were deleted. Sheesh, I thought you were an admin! I was indrectly involved in the same incoherent talkpage diatribes from him (there isn't a nicer way to say that, they were diatribes) You stood out though. some editors ignored him, others brushed him off or replied on his talkpage with bluelinks (me=guilty), but you responded politely, you bent over backwards to be helpful and non-bitey. I'm sure you remember him. You thoroughly impressed me then, and my only regret is that I didn't realize you weren't an admin then to nominate you myself. (I wasn't an admin then either). Anyways, I'm rambling. All this to say, Unquestionably strong support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - capable editor demonstrating no areas over which to be concerned. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Looking through a considerable number of contributions, Pedro's diffs appear to be the only aberrations, and are only slight; in my opinion, the other edits outweigh them. Even so, it's best to keep the edit summaries clean and to be as polite as possible. I trust Aleta with the mop, but I think reverting, blocking, and ignoring would be preferable to killing vandals :) EJF (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Looks good to me. Good luck. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Excellent candidate. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Article writing is something I look highly upon. --Sharkface217 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Strong support Excellent candidate, trustworthy, hard-working, knows her way around... No brainer, folks. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong support. Not going to abuse powers, and is currently a great editor. Basketball110 04:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Seems a solid editor and very civil. A couple offhanded comments are not enough to outweigh a solid history of civility. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Pedro is the only one thus far who has brought up concerns, and the concerns he has brought up are not major for me. Good luck!—Preceding unsigned comment added by SJP (talk • contribs)
32. Strong support brilliant hard working user. It's just too easy to support the good ones! Best of luck! --Camaeron (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. I have reviewed Aleta's contributions to a reasonable degree, and I am confident that she meets the standards expected of project administrators. Aleta maintains civility and top-notch communication at all times (for the record, I wouldn't interpret "crappy" as a WP:NPA violation, nor as a shortfall of ettiquette expected from administrators, although I would say it would be prudent if Aleta watched her word choice in the future, considering it concerns a few of the neutral editors). I was pleasantly surprised to see Aleta's contributions at the administrators' noticeboards: I very much get the impression that she is a "mainspace" administrator, and indications that she is prepared to get involved out with her current comfort zone are encouraging. All things considered, I see no problems with Aleta's nomination—I think she will be a great administrator—and to that end, I am happy to support. AGK § 12:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Per Keeper76. Rudget. 14:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. All my encounters with Aleta have been very positive.--ragesoss (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Keepscases (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Although I respect Wisdom89 - who I think should be an admin - I have to support. Aleta is an asset to wiki and I feel is a prime example of a user who will not abuse the tools.Thright (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support -- Tawker (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Looking over this user's user talk and article talk edits, I find that, in general, the user demonstrates civility and politeness in inter-editor interactions. We do not expect perfection from our sysops, only superhuman self-control . The user's edits span most of wiki-space and based on my investigation, I am reasonably comfortable that anything the user does not know immediately, she can find out soon enough. A lack of knowledge is easily rectifiable, a lack of a willingness to lean and admit ignorance when necessary is much less so. Not that I think this user is ignorant of the necessary wiki policies and guidelines, otherwise I would not be so willing to support, but the concerns raised about a lack of admin related areas do not concern me with this user enough to oppose or sit this one out, and I believe that the user is worthy of the community's trust. Although I would counsel a less colorful approach to discussing vandal-whacking in the future. We want to reform vandals, not kill them :) Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support One of the most telling comments I've seen is that several editors thought Aleta was an admin. That says a lot to me, and I think she can be trusted to continue to be fair and civil and to make good judgment calls with the tools. She has sufficient experience all around, anything else can be learned. What can't be learned so easily is the temperament and good judgment needed to apply policy fairly and appropriately, especially in the really tough calls, and all my experiences with her have been positive and have convinced me she has that without question. I don't see anything in the expressed concerns so far that seem significant to me, especially after her responses. She has my trust, and that's the primary necessary and sufficient reason to support here. — Becksguy (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support, solid candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
42. Support - an easy one. Having also spent time on the Sanchez article, I have seen Aleta's abilities in action. I have also seen a lot of APK, and I think he is both an appropriate nominator and a pretty good judge of character. Aleta, enjoy the mop. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support with out a doubt. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support will without a doubt be an excellent admin. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - very good user, will be a further asset to Wikipedia as an admin. I am confident that she has learnt from the points raised by Pedro below.--BelovedFreak 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Relatively low wikispace contributions offset by sensible decisions made @ AfD & strong contributions elsewhere. caknuck _° is kinda hungry 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support per above. :) Midorihana^~iidesune? 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Per above. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support per WjBscribe and above ~ LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Because good users are hard to find. As a sidenote, I'd prefer that the user familiarize themself with AfD, AIV and other areas that are crucial to any admin. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. But of course, it never hurts to have one more. Even if the candidate rarely participates in "admin-related areas", still a great user that can be trusted and will use the tools when they find something they need to be used on. MrPrada (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support I mistakenly referred to this user as an admin during an arbitration case three months ago, with good reason. Highly qualified. Horologium (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Qualities far outweigh the experience/areas issues raised. Re Pedro's points (language): this editor has consistently demonstrated civility and communication skills to a degree which IMO make these two examples of no concern to likely future etiquette. A rare and real asset to the project Plutonium27 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
54. I've seen Aleta around on a handful of AFDs, and found her comments more sensible than most. She looks like an excellent candidate all-around and I see no reason not to support. The opposes below aren't very convincing and the neutrals are too crappy shitty fucked up to take seriously. Support. — CharlotteWebb 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Mr. Hendry. 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Seems sensible, little evidence tools would be abused. Ronnotel (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
57. I see no counterarguments. Support. --Abrech (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. Experience in admin areas can come with time, but common-sense and good judgement can't be taught; this candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders and I believe they will use the tools well. Shell ^babelfish 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - a very useful editor, working across several wiki-projects, she has real potential as an admin. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support per Wisdom89 unfortunately. Candidate has demonstrated competence, and I think we need less admins who spend their time in project space. I think such admins are increasingly a net negative to our project. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - Wikipedia is lucky to have Aleta. Benjiboi 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - Very luck. =] iMatthew 2008 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Crappy Potatoes :-) Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Not to do so would be crap. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support All around I think that this user would be a wonderful new sysop! --Mifter (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Looks like a clean and steady person. SilkTork *^YES! 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support I found her to be extremely helpful and always willing to help and guide, going to great extent to help new editors. She may not have experience, but she knows her way around wikipedia, and is definitely more professional than several other editors with more experience in terms of time. (Masculinity (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
69. Support Would make a good sysops best of luck Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
70. No problems here. Acalamari 02:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - Generally a good set of contributions. Great article work, great interaction with other users, both on their / article talk pages. Wikipedia-count is a little low, but it isn't bad, and I've seen enough to give my support. Lradrama 10:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Why not? NimiTize 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Aleta's cool head and unfailing politeness, even when provoked, has impressed me. Her arguments are always grounded with one foot in WP policy and one in common sense. WP would be lucky to have her as an Admin. David in DC (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't see enough experience in the admin-related areas - Afc, AfD, RfC, AIV, AN, etc. ArcAngel (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment As a note, AfC does not require administrative tools, unless you're referring to a different AfC than I'm familiar with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Experience not quite up to snuff in administrator areas - you've made a good start though. I also praise you for your article work - unfortunately, this means that you fail my criteria for balance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just to clarify: are you saying the balance I lack is that of administrative versus article work? Aleta ^Sing 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, my personal criteria necessitates a good balance between mainspace and wikispace work. The balance is offset in this case do to your lack of admin-related tasks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   "Do"? Goodness gracious. 222.153.71.102 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Was that really necessary? scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Why not! Wisdom89 won't mind too much. He says on his page "I correct your grammar and use big words to piss you off". 222.153.71.102 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification. Aleta ^Sing 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting. #1 and #2 on one hand, and #3 on the other hand, oppose for essentially opposite reasons—not enough admin related work, or not enough article related work. Does that mean she might have struck a relatively good balance between the two areas? Not a criticism of anyone, just an observation based on comments here. — Becksguy (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I should do my homework better. Swearing in edit summaries ([1]) and vandal killing?? I won't oppose as there's lots of positives, but when you become an admin (as is inevitable) I'd ask you remember that the popular press have a keen interest in the administrative actions of en.wikipedia and that kind of stuff is unbecoming. Pedro :  Chat  18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Points noted. I admit "killing" was not the best choice of terms, although I of course did not mean it literally! I won't use it (or similar) in the future. Aleta ^Sing 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   I appreciate you did not mean it literally, and I thank you for your considered and reflective response. I'm sorry if this neutral seems overly harsh, and I have every confidence in your abilities as an admin, with the caveats I mention. Good luck, and as ever happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Did I miss something here? I'm looking and I don't see any swearing.. unless you mean the word "crappy" ?? If she had said "shitty photo", that would be swearing. Eh? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, crap is considered a swear word. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   That's crap. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wiktionary defines crap as:

   1 The husk of grain; chaff.

   2 Something of poor quality.

   The long-running game show went from offering good prizes to crap in no time.

   3 Something that is rubbish; nonsense.

   The college student boasted of completing a 10,000-word essay on Shakespeare, but the professor judged it to be nothing but utter crap.

   4 Faeces.

   I have to take a crap

   So, who are you to say that crap is considered a swear word, inferring there are no other defs? Is it because you don't know, or that you simply need to censor everyone else? 222.153.81.24 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   (unindent) And who are you to say it isn't a swear word.? Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think two months is enough time on Wikipedia to be an editor before becoming an admin, but as far as that goes, I don't really have a set limit. Six months minimum of active editing would be desirable, but there are other positives here, so I'm going to add my two cents while keeping this neutral. I will probably end up changing this vote to a support in the near future. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC) My mistake. In that case, my vote has changed. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment She's not the one that has been on WP for 2 months, I am. She's been editing since 2006. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Crappy would hardly be considered swearing in many societies nowadays! It is merely a tribute to the marvelous Thomas Crapper...and I say that as a non-supporter of WP:Profanity--Camaeron (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   This is really just semantics - You can battle back and forth about whether or not "crap" constitutes actual "swearing". The salient point is the Pedro sees its usage as unbecoming of a potential administrator. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   I understand the criticism and will refrain from such usages in the the future, whether as an admin or not. Aleta ^Sing 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   That comment indicates maturity to become an admin. I am confidant she will not use such "language" again...--Camaeron (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

   The substantive point was the "killing vandals diff" This has been mentioned by a number of editors in support as perhaps the one with more "impact". I fully believe that the "point" has been made; Aleta clearly recognises it is a fair comment by me to draw attention to that diff. Aleta agrees it wasn't perhaps the best choice of words. Aleta, the supporters and I are all in agreeance it is minor and certainly not a reason to oppose an otherwise excellent candidate. That's the end of the matter really. I'm not going to move my comment again, but FWIW (which ain't much!) my comment would be better headed "Neutral indicating support but with a comment for fuuture reference". Pedro :  Chat  08:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   I think crappy is at the most, a mild swear word. I still wouldn't recommend using it in edit summaries though, so that point should be noted. But it is in no way a serious offence really.

   And when it comes to talking inappropriately to others, isn't this a little harsh and unnecessary? --> And who are you to say it isn't a swear word.? Lradrama 10:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   I've read and noted your input Lradrama. There's not really a lot more I can do than that to be honest. I'm very unclear as to what you're trying to achieve here. You seem to agree that my comment is valid and yet also challenge it? If you consider my reponse to the IP to be "inappropriate" I'd be happy to discuss this on my talk page. I'm failing to see how this relates to this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 21 March 2008 (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.