Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/5 albert square

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

5 albert square

Final (101/2/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

5 albert square (talk · contribs) – For my second RfA nomination, I would like to present 5 albert square. She has been on Wikipedia for almost two years, and during that time, she has acquired 33,523 edits, 48% of which have been to the article namespace. She has significantly contributed to two Good articles, The Bill and Neighbours, and to one featured list, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill. In addition, she is a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and has participated in their Backlog elimination drives. She has made over 700 edits to WP:AIV and over 200 to WP:RPP. As can be seen here, she uses her edit summaries often. Throughout her time here on Wikipedia, she has shown that she is a mature, responsible editor that can use the sysop tools wisely. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Co-nom from HJ Mitchell

Ladies and gentlemen, I first came across 5 albert square about 15 months ago, when the two of us worked together on The Bill. This was a real learning curve for both of us, as we had to get to grips with some of the less obvious content policies and guidelines in order to bring the article up to GA standard. She even went so far as to buy a book to help with the sourcing. With the confidence of having brought The Bill up to GA standard, she went on to collaborate to bring Neighbours to GA. She can also take credit for an FL, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill, and for plenty of smaller articles, particularly articles on The Bill characters, that aren't of GA standard, but which are of a better quality for her efforts. When not writing, she has devoted a lot of time to patrolling recent changes (sometimes with Huggle, others the "old school" way), which has provided here with a great deal of experience in some tricky situations. She is calm, trustworthy, and, most importantly, capable of keeping a cool head and asking for help when she is out of her depth. We need more admins to help with areas like AIV and RfPP, both of which are frequently backlogged, areas in which 5 albert square is easily qualified to work as an admin. If the community gives her the tools, she will not let you down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you for the nomination which I gratefully accept. --5 albert square (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Primarily, I will ask experienced admins (I have a number of admin friends that I could turn to, including Anemone Projectors, H J Mitchell and Courcelles) if I'm unsure whether or not I should deploy an admin function. I would expect the use of my tools to be mainly dealing with vandalism (page protection, reversion of obvious vandalism, protection of articles when necessary etc) and moving pages over redirect when necessary. An example of what I would deem obvious vandalism and would protect a page, can be found in the revision histories of Adam Sandler and Snoopy. With Snoopy, various IPs kept adding that he attended a High School in Connecticut. Because it was more than one IP I requested protection of the article. Adam Sandler is a BLP that has come under numerous vandalism attacks in the past, from various editors making inappropriate remarks such as this. This is what I would consider obvious vandalism. I would also help with dealing with the backlogs at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, indeed at the moment I offer support at AIV if there's a backlog by doing things like checking user pages to see if they've been appropriately warned and checking user contributions to see if their edits are actually vandalism. If the user for example has not been warned sufficiently and/or the edits aren't vandalism I will always post a note on AIV stating that I've found this.

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

A: My best contributions would have to be Matthew Werkmeister, The Bill and Neighbours. I would be remiss if I didn't mention The Bill because that was months and months of sheer hard work that went into improving the quality of that article and that article will probably be mentioned every time I'm asked this on Wikipedia. The content of the article was basically re-written in it's entirety, and we made sure that every single aspect of it was referenced appropriately, I even went to the trouble of purchasing a book so it could be reliably referenced! The end result was that the article qualified for, and passed, GA and has been there ever since. Neighbours would be for pretty much the same reason as The Bill. Again the content of the article was re-written so it qualified as a GA and myself and other editors went to a lot of trouble referencing the content, anything that couldn't be referenced was removed. The end result was that the article qualified for, and passed, GA and has been there ever since. Matthew Werkmeister, again I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this. The article was nominated for deletion because an admin deemed that the subject was not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I basically re-wrote the article and referenced the content appropriately. I managed to turn it from what was effectively a 2 sentence stub into a decent sized article. So I improved the content of the BLP and proved that he was notable enough for Wikipedia by proving that he'd appeared in a couple of plays prior to Neighbours and had also been nominated for various Logie awards. The end result was that the article was kept and instead of being deleted, was actually featured in the DYK section on the front page!

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, I have been involved in edit conflicts in the past. The most recent one that springs to mind happened on the Samsung Group page. There was an editor that kept removing lawsuits from the Samsung page which I felt was being biased towards Samsung. I inserted them back, when the editor kept reverting me I opened a discussion on the articles talk page to try and resolve the issue. I declared that I work for the company (which I do) in case anyone accused me of being biased. I tried to resolve the issue with the editor there but they seemed unwilling to listen to my point of view that by removing practically the whole lawsuit content section that they could be deemed as being biased towards Samsung and actually accused me of lying about working at the company. I tried to reason with the editor and trying to find out why they thought that lawsuits by the company shouldn't be made on the company page but they didn't really give an explanation. I also tried to come to some form of compromise by suggesting that the lawsuits mentioned were cut back but maybe had a link to a main article about them, but the editor rejected that idea too. Other editors gave their opinion but the opinion was still 50/50 so I asked for a third opinion. When the third opinion also came back divided (one editor said it should be included another said it shouldn't) I asked for comment on the article and left this open for a few weeks. Comments came back marginally more that the information shouldn't be in the article so it has been left out. If this happened in the future I would open up a discussion on the article talk page first to try and reach consensus there. If no consensus was reached I would again ask for comment on the article or go through the third opinion process again if necessary. I would not use my admin tools to influence any decision.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Your user page indicates that you are a fan of alcoholic beverages. Do you plan on consuming alcohol while editing Wikipedia?

A: I will never ever edit Wikipedia whilst drunk. Sure, I like the odd occasional drink but for me that would be at the end of the week whilst at the pub with my friends on a Friday night. Certainly never drunk whilst editing Wikipedia.

Additional optional question from 28bytes

5. Your most recent article creation is Faye Daveney. Pretend someone else wrote it, and has asked you for feedback on how to improve it. What would you tell them?

A: I would suggest that they expand the article and maybe try and find out a little more about the actress. Maybe something to give people a little insight into her life before she was an actress, but only if the information can be fully referenced by reliable sources, and, of course, respect her privacy. I would suggest that they expand a little more on the roles that she has played to give those people viewing Wikipedia that aren't familiar with the actress a little more information, and I would suggest that they improve the references that are on the page. I would also try and search on Google myself for information on the actress that may be of help to the user to point them in the right direction.

Optional question from Baseball Watcher

6. Since you say that you will help WP:RfPP and at WP:AIV what would be you criteria to block a user at WP:AIV and to protect a page at WP:RfPP?

A: I would normally block a user at WP:AIV if they had vandalised articles and had had a final warning issued within the last 24 hours and had carried on vandalising. However before blocking anyone I will always check their edits as it may be that the edits are in good faith. If the edits are in good faith I will tell the nominator why I've refused their request at WP:AIV, and maybe give them some hints on how to proceed. I will also tell the person being reported where they're going wrong. However, as always, there are exceptions to the rule at WP:AIV. If, for example, someone was reported to WP:AIV and had only been warned say twice, but when I look at their history and it's been nothing but obvious vandalism, say abusive language, I would look to block them then. It's the same for WP:RFPP. I would always look at the edit history and deem if the edits are vandalism. If they're not vandalism I'll explain at WP:RFPP why I've refused page protection and I'll also explain to the editors involved where they're going wrong and give them suggestions on what to do. For example, if it's only a couple of editors involved in a dispute, the page may benefit more by going through the third opinion process than it would by getting locked. If the edits are vandalism and it's a couple of editors involved, then I would consider blocking the editors than locking the page. However, if I look at the page history and there is nothing but blatant vandalism from a number of editors and the vandalism is recent, I would then look to lock the page.

Question from WFC

7. How likely would you be to close AfD discussions, if at all?

A.I would be very likely to close AfD discussions. It's not something I've done before although I'm aware that it is possible for non-admins to do it. The only reason I've not closed one before is because I feel that it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins, simply because some cases can be quite complex. However it would be something that I would do, if I was ever in any doubt about how to close an AFD, then I have a number of admin friends that I could turn to for advice, especially Courcelles, and I would make a point of always asking if in doubt.

What about being an admin means you are more able to deal with complex issues? Is there any admin criteria that demands more complex thinking than that required of non-admins? Have you attained this level of complexity in your dealing with wikipedia? How? And, yes, I am retired, waiting around for things to close up. But, back to you and your quest for the mop. I don't see anything about adminship that says, "must be able to reason more complexly than the non-admins?" Everyone keeps saying it's a mop--isn't that rather the opposite of more complex?--Kleopatra (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Question from User:Strikerforce

8. I noticed in your edit counts that you had a couple months of significant (for you) inactivity. While those numbers do not necessarily concern me - given that they are still a decent tally - could you please give a brief insight as to the reason why those two months (July and August '10) were significantly lower than your average month?

A.Yes, July and August 2010 were when I moved and relocated with my job from Edinburgh to Newcastle. Unfortunately that meant I had limited internet access in that time until British Telecom got an engineer out to install a brand new telephone line in the property and my internet service provider couldn't install the internet until that was done. Therefore for a couple of months I could only really edit Wikipedia whilst at work.

Question from Wayne Slam

9. What other administrative plans would you be willing to do besides blocking users and locking pages?

A.I would look to continue the work that I currently do at special:newpages. I would also look to carry out work at CAT:NT simply because I know how very important it is for it to be verified that images on Wikipedia are not in breach of any copyright. I will also look to close AfD discussions at some stage although I will only do this once I'm fully comfortable with admin tools. As WFC quite rightly points out below this is something that should only really be ventured into very gradually.

Additional optional question from Wingdude88

10. Say you did not receive the title of administrator and the consensus was to leave you as a regular user. What would your plan of action be then?

A: I would take on board any criticism received and learn from it. I would then consider re-applying in a few months time.

Additional optional question from Armbrust

11. In your own words, what is the difference between block and ban?

A: A block is a technical measure used to prevent an account, an IP or a range from editing Wikipedia. A ban is a revocation of the "right" to edit that can apply to a specific article, a topic or the whole site; bans can be imposed by community consensus, by ArbCom or, in certain circumstances, by administrators acting under the authority of discretionary sanctions. A block may be used to enforce a ban and all edits made in in violation of the ban may be reverted or deleted under CSD F5.

12. Is Non-admin closure acceptable? Why?

A: Deletion discussions are generally closed by administrators, however, they may be closed by non-admins in cases where the consensus is clearly to "keep", where the speedy keep criteria apply or when a closure would be uncontroversial housekeeping (usually where the page under discussion has been speedied, but the deleting admin has forgotten to close the discussion). A bad non-admin closure may be reverted by an administrator. Where deletion is required or the consensus is not clear, the close should be left to an administrator.

You've just copied from both policies in answer to question "11" and "12." Can you say anything that shows you understand these policies and guidelines and can interpret them in difficult situations? For example, what are these discretionary sanctions? Aren't those granted to admins by ArbCom based on an ArbCom decision? Your answers here concern me; it's not the straight-forward following of policy where administrators will run into trouble. It's the willingness and ability to deal with the more difficult situations in a thoughtful manner that shows you're attuned to the community. You have not even closed straight-forward AfDs; do you have the skills to close more difficult ones? Is non-admin closure acceptable, not just copy and paste the policy, but is it acceptable? If someone makes a non-admin closure of an article on homeopathy, do you know what sort of problems might arise from this, or, if it was a snowball keep, would that remove the controversy? --Kleopatra (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, Kleopatra, you made your WP:POINT in the oppose section. How about you pipe down and allow people to come to their own conclusions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to make a point, and if you think I did, you're probably mistaken as to what the point is. I want to understand how this editor would act as an administrator under more challenging situations. I consider this an important issue in community actions. As she raised the issue, I suspect she's capable of either answering or ignoring me; as she's running for admin, I hope she is. If you have any more comments to me, HJ Mitchell, please take them to the discussion page. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for 5 albert square: 5 albert square (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 5 albert square can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Note: edit stats are on the talk page. 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I have worked closely with 5 albert square on several articles and she is an absolutely top-class editor. Excellent answers as well. I have no doubt that 5 albert square will use the tools appropriately. –anemoneprojectors– 08:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Really helpful editor, works hard against vandalism and would be a great use to the project if given admin tools.GunGagdin^Moan 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Support Long overdue, about time! --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

   Above comments indented as they were submitted before transclusion. Airplaneman ✈ 14:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Support. Should be an admin already. tedder (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Support as nominator. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
6. As co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Support Was surprised you were not an admin already. Good Luck. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Another admin at RFPP and AIV would be a good thing. Support →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. Tiderolls 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Support —Soap— 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Support --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Suppport Definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Something strikes me as weird in this RfA ... but that's never happened before when seeing this user's signature around. Regardless, happy to support. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Just wondering, but what strikes you as wierd? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Nothing. What strikes me as weird is just the tone I see in the nomination statements and answers to the questions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    What strikes me as wierd is the pie chart. Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

15. All looks good here! AD 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
17. Support Yes. Airplaneman ✈ 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Of course. Baseball Watcher 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support - Yep! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. No problems whatsoever. Happy to have her come aboard. -- œ^™ 01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
21. Support: Glad to see 5 Albert Square up for adminship. She would make a great admin. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
22. Support. I was a little concerned to see the candidate's most recent article creation was a BLP of a minor with no third party sources (just a bio from the actress's own agency), but the answer to question 5 suggests she recognizes the article needs better sourcing, so I won't complain too much about that. References on Captain Nigel Croker seem a little dodgy as well (one to a forum, the other to an unofficial fan site), but the candidate's other 11 article creations seem to be solidly referenced. Although some people might balk at 73% automated edits, I'm not particularly bothered by it, since that still leaves 8,800 "manual" edits, which is plenty to judge a candidate on, and I for one appreciate all the vandal-fighting work she's done. The talk-page interactions I've looked at seem helpful and positive as well, so overall I'm comfortable supporting. 28bytes (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
23. Support. I learned more here about the nominee than I'd previously known; before this, I've seen the username frequently from appropriate speedy deletion tagging which has shown good comprehension of the criteria. – Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
24. I am doing no research on this candidate - I was familiar with her before today, and hold her in high regard... happy to support. Townlake (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Support. Work looks great, answers to questions are fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Support Insert cliche "isn't an admin already?" comment here... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Keepscases (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Pretty much an admin-by-proxy as it stands. Courcelles 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - I was going to go 'neutral' but I'm not going to be the first one to break the magic spell. There is a high number (73.67%) of Huggle and other automated edits edits leaving only 8,837 'real' edits. This meets however my criteria. Neverthelss, although there is proportionately little involvement in Wikipedia projects and policies, I cannot see any salient reasons not to trust this candidate with the tools, (I can't do my research to the full extent because X's tools are partly down or disabled: creations, RfA !votes, etc). Kudpung (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
30. Support - Good user, comprehensive answers to questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
31. Weak support Content creation includes 14 new articles and 7 redirects; and I found the answers somewhat tentative. That said, however, the candidate has a solid body of work with respect to vandal fighting and speedy deletion tagging.--Hokeman (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
32. Support. I have only crossed with the candidate at WP:AIV, and the experience was positive. Given the current situation with vandalism, a candidate being an experienced and reliable vandal fighter is enough for me to support. Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. This clueful editor will be well suited for admin work. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Happy to support. Will be a good addition to the admin team. – SMasters (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
35. Support Great contributor. Steven Walling 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
36. I've been watching 5 Albert for a little while when I came across her at RfPP I think it was, and was thinking of nomming her myself after I saw the userbox. No alarms really, good vandal fighter and CSD nominator as I recall. Article work is good too. GedUK  09:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - Delighted to see this nom, and delighted to support.--Korruski^Talk 09:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
38. WP:RIGHTNOW. Talk page history shows a communicative editor and dis-interested in drama. Sure, quite a bit of automated edits - but clearly knows her stuff. More admins at RFPP is good news. Pedro :  Chat  10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
39. Support; relentlessly competent, undramatic, and can be trusted with the tools. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Intended AIV work, and track record there. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
41. Support MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Minimac (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
43. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
44. Support. Another in a string of no-brainer easy supports. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - No concerns. Overall net positive. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. Very good vandal fighter who could really use the tools and also good at creating content! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
47. Most recent article creation being a BLP of a minor, referenced only to the website of the subject's paid personal representatives, and with no evidence of passing WP:BIO, is a worry. So I went through the last 2,000 contribs and checked other articles. Not perfect but sufficient for me to think that the candidate coming back for another shot in a few months time would be a waste of a few months. Seemingly good CSD work (no declines apparent) and experienced admins in RfPP are vouching for the candidate's work there. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
48. Support She's a great user and will be a great administrator with the tools. WayneSlam 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
49. Support Although I would have expected that Natalie Imbruglia and Holly Valance were notable Neighbours cast members. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Checked some user contributions and talk pages and seems like a force for good on the wiki. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
51. My interactions with 5 albert square have been positive, and for a long time I have thought she would make a good admin. I also gave her rollback well over a year ago, and her use of that tool has been fine. Acalamari 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. AGK [•] 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
53. Stephen 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - Sufficiently experienced to avoid excessive accidental misuses of the tools, sufficiently level-headed to avoid using the tools to promote a personal cause or viewpoint, sufficiently humble to learn from mistakes and accept constructive criticism. Has a clear reason to benefit from the tools. Full support. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
55. Support I've run into this editor before, and was surprised that she wasn't an admin. She knows what she's doing. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
56. Support Now where have I seen this editor before... Oh right! Everywhere! She does pretty good stuff too. Brambleclawx 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
57. Support I would like to see a bit more in projectspace but, bedsides from that it looks good. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
58. Support. Tony (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
59. Strong support - Definitely an asset, needs the mop more than anybody else right now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
60. Support. Just went through her contributions and i got the impression of a committed, devoted, enthusiastic, faithful, given over to, old faithful, purposeful, single-hearted, single-minded, sworn, true blue, true to the end, wholehearted, zealous person. This one's from me. Glad to see you on the spot Someone65 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
61. Secret ^account 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. Sure thing, no doubt. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
63. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
64. Support - without a doubt. Orphan Wiki 18:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
65. Weak Support because of the insanely high automated edit count, but you deserve it. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Related rant on the talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

66. You strike me as an outstanding candidate for most of the areas you've expressed an interest in. But as I see AfD as the thing that makes adminship a big deal, I felt the need to ask Q7. You were very honest in your answer to my question, even though many AfD regulars would have been able to guess that I was looking for something else.Based on the lack of AfD participation that I've seen, I would prefer if you were to venture into closures very gradually. For me AfD is often the be-all-and-end all, but although Q7 worries me, I'm convinced that you would enter AfD to help ease the workload, rather than seeking to use admin discretion in any particular way. —WFC— 00:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
67. Support - I've seen this candidate doing things around here when I first signed up for Wikipedia and he seems to be in great shape for the mop :) - Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
68. Support Concerns have been dealt with (see below) and so I'm moving up to the support column. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
69. Support I've had only positive interactions with 5as, and trust that she would use the tools wisely. Frickative 05:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
70. Support, how'd I miss this one? Absolutely no reservations here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
71. Support. I looked over the two GAs and the FL and didn't see any glaring problems, good work. Your answer to #4 was fantastic. Either way, good luck with a mop and I'm glad to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
72. Thought you were already. Nothing but positive interactions with 5...  7  13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
73. Support. Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
74. Support Awfully high number of automated-type edits, which is a no-no under my standards, but I can overlook based on the amount of edits once those edits are removed. Most certainly a clueful candidate and an asset to the encyclopedia. --Strikerforce (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
75. Support as per review of contributions. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
76. Strong Support Been seen about often, I can see no issues here. The mop is well overdue.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
77. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - almost 36,000 edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
78. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Seems to be a good choice...Modernist (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
80. Support - Absolutely. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
81. Support Very good vandel fighter, was particularly impressed with the way she handled Talk:Bart Simpson. Worm 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
82. Support This guy is definitely cut out to be an admin. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
83. Support no issues. ThemFromSpace 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
84. Support - Easy call. Jusdafax 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
85. Support Excellent user, no questions asked. Have my support. MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
86. Support Based on what I've seen from this user, I have no concerns. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
87. Support - why not? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 19:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
88. Support - Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
89. Support - Noom _talk ^contribs 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
90. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
91. Support. Would like to see significantly more participation in Talk: spaces, but other qualifications are reasonably strong. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
92. Support Trust the nom of HJ Mitchell and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
93. Support Reasonable edits of articles related to her employer, civil tone and enough experience. KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
94. Support - No problems here and the old adage "I thought she was one" Mlpearc powwow 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
95. Support. On the basis of the Samsung Group discussion history, I'm pretty confident that this user will do no harm. (But what's up with those "support" !votes from users who were so careless as to not get the candidate's gender right?) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Well... Albert is a boy's name :) AD 16:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Ah yes, the famous Square family! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    I've seen more ridiculous surnames... —WFC— 19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

96. Length of time here and contributions suggest is more than likely to be a net positive, so worth a trial with the mop. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
97. Support In all of my encounters has always been civil & on-track; no concerns Skier Dude (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
98. Support – Definitely. Why the hell not? —mc10 (t/c) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
99. Support saw the candidate helping out with the people's princess article, they deserve WP100! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
100. WP:100. Obvious support. - JuneGloom Talk 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
101. Support: Will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my experience as a wikipedia editor for a number of years, the bulk of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do more work than other editors, hence the comparison to a janitor with a WP:MOP. The community has decided that non-administrators are competent and allowed to close specific WP:AfD discussions. This admin candidate has added another policy of her own to the process: that "it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins." The existing policy and an accompanying essay offer guidelines already that show that in many cases non-admin closures of AfDs are fine. This concerns me that the admin candidate intends to proceed in areas where she appears to have not read the policy/guidelines fully, leading to her establishing a bar for non-admin closures without full understanding that non-admin closures are for non-complex AfDs. She has taken a stance against non-admin closures, she raised the issue, she could have familiarized herself with the policy before answering the question.

   The only reason I've not closed one before is because I feel that it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins, simply because some cases can be quite complex.

   I am concerned that an admin candidates does not support community consensus and/or has not fully familiarized herself with the policies before answering the question, in addition to appearing to diminish the abilities of non-admins without reason (the policy and the accompanying essay already deal with complexity). Whether it arose that way or not, the complexity clause is a responsibility issue, not an IQ issue. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   This oppose has left me genuinely confused. (X! · talk)  · @074  ·  00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   See talk page for response and any additional discussion, as this confusion does not come from the candidate herself. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   Further discussion on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose Candidate has too many automated edits to me, so I asked her 2 questions. But the answers were no to my likening. The answer to Q11 is too close to the text of the policies and there's no real answer to Q12. The answer would only be right if the question was "What is WP:NAC?" Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   That oppose reminds me of something. I know she does have a lot of automated edits, but any automated edit does require a bit of thought first before proceeding. Minimac (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to Support 42.56% of your edits are within the user talk namespace, accounting for just over 13,500 edits. Only 2.15% (684 edits) of your edits are in article talk pages and 0.11% (36 edits) are in the Wikipedia talk namespace. I conducted a random sampling of admins I knew off the top of my head (Fetchcomms, Geni, Soap, Graeme Bartlett, and OlEnglish) and found that your percentage of edits to the user talk is abnormally high, and your percentage of edits to the article and wikipedia talk namespaces is abnormally low. While this in and of itself is not a reason to oppose, what worries me is that the article and wikimedia talk spaces are typically where collaboration takes place, while a high percentage of edits in the user talk space usually indicates people that spend lots of time doing vandalism reversions. While I look more closely at your edits, I'd appreciate it if you could share some examples (links please) that demonstrate that you collaborate well with others, as I would want to see that before giving my support. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just look at Talk:The Bill/GA2 and Talk:Neighbours/GA1 if you;re after evidence of collaboration. Granted, those were a year ago, they're just the examples that spring to mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to Sven. I believe that 5 albert square was involved and in mentoring User:Wayne Slam and may still be involved. Mentoring a user would give one a large percentage in user talk space. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As does vandal fighting, which 5 albert square does. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate everyone's comments, I'd prefer to have an answer from the candidate before I consider changing my vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Dot Branning/GA2 you will see that I am reviewing the article for GA and am working with other users to try and pass the article. You can also look at Talk:The Bill/GA2 and Talk:Neighbours/GA1 to get an idea of how I've collaborated with users on projects like this previously. If you look at Talk:Bart Simpson you will see how I have worked with other users to try reach some sort of resolution over whether the claim that one editor was continually inserting in the article should be included given that only one source was backing up the claim, in doing that I stopped the page turning into an edit war. --5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I asked for a response from the nominator. Moving to support, per Talk:Bart Simpson example. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending more information on AfD. —WFC— 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Moving to support section. —WFC— 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral. From the answer to question 1: "I would expect the use of my tools to be mainly dealing with vandalism (page protection, reversion of obvious vandalism, protection of articles when necessary etc).... I would also help with dealing with the backlogs at WP:RFPP." Repeated declaration of her intention to protect pages is unnecessary. Reversion of vandalism does not require the tools. From the answer to question 7: "I would be very likely to close AfD discussions." Why didn't she mention this in the answer to question 1? On the other hand, 5 albert square is a good contributor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 5 February 2011 (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.