Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moe Epsilon (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 2 August 2006 (support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Phaedriel

Discuss here (240/5/3) Ending 03:32, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

Nomination

Nomination by Johntex

Why am I pleased to co-nominate Phaedriel (talk • contribs • count) (Sharon)? Let’s see:

  • Active editor: 5,168 edits, nicely distributed across namespaces.
  • Quality editor: From her very first edit as a logged in user [1] has used helpful edit summaries to complement her well-written contributions including substantial enhancements, [2], housekeeping tasks [3], [4], minor improvements (which she diligently tags as minor) [5], new articles [6], and in reverting vandalism.[7].
  • Leader: Active role (and/or founder) of Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America, Portal:Oklahoma and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.
  • Role model: Offering mentorship [8], and recognizing the good work of others. [9].
  • Room for improvement?: Yes – she would be better if she edited twice as much!
  • To Sharon: I appreciate your willingness to take this step. Admins sometimes take undeserved abuse. We sometimes make mistakes, too. We need a kind spirit such as yourself to help guide us in what is right, and to help cheer us up when things go wrong. You help create a stronger community that not only helps our project succeed, it helps our project to be more worthy of success.
  • Conclusion: let’s do ourselves and our readers a favor by voting her in right now. - Johntex\talk 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination by Blnguyen

Phaedriel hails from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, and has contributed large amounts of work to Oklahoma and Native American topics. On the wiki-chore facets, she contributes to AfD discussions and fights vandalism. Aside from this, and probably what sets her aside from all other candidates is that she is the foremost propagator of wiki-love on WP, and would set a brilliant example for other wikipedians, as it is clear that one of the most notable things that an administrator can do is to affect the morale of contributors to this great project through their dealings with other users.

For more detail, see my supporting remarks

I am honoured, humbled and embarrassed to be selected to nominate Phaedriel for administrator status. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination by Lar

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Phaedriel for adminship. Johntex gave the checklist. Blnguyen gave the detailed quantitative analysis. I'm here to close this nom with the philosophical... once in a great while, you get a candidate that's so awesomely right that it's amazing. Phaedriel is that candidate. She may well change how admins get things done. For more on why, see my supporting remarks

It is way past time to make Phaedriel an admin and I hope you will join me in supporting her candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations after acceptance

co-nomination by Samir: Phaedriel will make a caring and wise administrator; these are traits that are hard to find in anyone. I've met no other that has brought her degree of compassion to the project to complement a solid history of editorial contributions. I'm honoured to add a co-nomination (but I suspect that there will be a few more co-noms under this one soon). -- Samir धर्म 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination by 1ne: I had offered to nominate Phaedriel for adminship as SushiGeek a while back. She politely declined, but thanked me for the offer. She is a nice and caring person, and is a great contributor. She deserves it. 1ne 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) removed as unauthorized 1ne 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination by Sceptre: I had proposed a co-nom by everyone on her talk page a few weeks back, because Phaedriel is a perfect editor and she'll do very well with the tools. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Ding Xiang

Sharon here is the friendliest user you could ever have. She has the spirit and has what it takes to be a great administrator.--Tdxiang 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination by Merovingian

Sharon has the patience, knowledge, experience, and common sense to be a truly great admin. She's one in a million. --Merovingian - Talk 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination by Tony the Marine:Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon. Tony the Marine 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Acceptance[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored by the kind words of Johntex, Blnguyen and Lar, and proud to accept. Phaedriel 03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A record of a previous nomination, which I declined, can be found here.
Support
  1. Strong support. Oh my, yes! Per nomination. "More candidates like this one, please!TM" ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Back from illness and sorry for being late. I haven't been sulking. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I have said before and I will say it again "There is no one I would rather support for administrator than Phaedriel". Johntex\talk 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hell yeah --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Yes, please. Yanksox 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Edit Conflict Eternal Support does she even need an RfA? Nope.--Andeh 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support times infinity -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. That's hot. Sharon is quite possibly the nicest, most genuine, most ready-to-help person I've ever come across. We need more people like her! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hell Yes Jaranda wat's sup 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is a record for me. Booted out with edit conflicts six times Support -- Lost 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongest support By FAR the best adminship candidate in Wikipedia's history. — Deckiller 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Titanium Plated Support. You damn bet I'm supporting :D ShaunES 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Wicked, wicked, wicked strong support: —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, even though I just know I'm going to get yet another edit conflict. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongest possible support. Not only does she pass my criteria with flying colors, Sharon is without a doubt a blessing to this encyclopedia. Her diligence, dedication, and kindness are near-legendary. I don't know what else to say...she'll make an amazing administrator. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Huge Support- Darthgriz98 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Enormous Support - Definitely Wikipedia's finest editor PerfectStorm (Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!) 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Too many nominators, but what the heek ;) pschemp | talk 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support - Phaedriel is kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a great editor. She will make an awesome admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose :D - I wouldn't want to condem an AMAZING well suited for adminship reader never to edit again -- Tawker 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this to be counted as a positive vote or a negative vote? Editor88 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a support, thanks for catching it though :) -- Tawker 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused also, but then again, I'm usually confused -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. James Hetfield says— YEAH! --Nearly Headless Nick 04:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support--cj | talk 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. That's an awfully wordy nomination for someone who doesn't need to do much more convincing, guys. :-) Support a consistently kind, productive, considerate, and diligent user. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Fully Support great user who will undoubtedly make a great administrator hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. How the heck is Sharon not already a sysop?! --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Overwhelming support! Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. How can one not, with such history and such detailed nominations? This will be a pile-on for sure. Ifnord 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Is this necessary? Hasn't anyone read WP:SNOW? :-) --Allen 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hip, hip , hooray! support Phaedriel is the best of the best. FloNight talk 04:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cliché support, my dislike of co-nominations wasn't enough to overcome my liking of Phaedriel's good qualities. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support because the RfA clique said so (set your sarcasm detectors to stun) --W.marsh 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support of course. Simply a wonderful editor and leaver of the kindest and most pleasant messages. Been waiting for this for a while - Peripitus (Talk) 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, really great candidate. This seems very inevitable and that my vote isn't necessary, but here it is. This week, Today's Star shines on Phaedriel. DVD+ R/W 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support; would that they were all this obvious. Superb user, likely to be a superb admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support(duh?) This nom was sort of obvious. αChimp laudare 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Should have been adminned a long time ago. Editor88 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per all above.. and below. G.He 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Natural Support a wonderful person. I'm not sure but I remember reading something about her being a police officer(??), in which case it is only natural to accord her the badge and cuffs here. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A positive force. Tyrenius 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Could we have WP:300 here? -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope so! — Deckiller 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Bandwagon. There really should be a CRLF between support and oppose. --Golbez 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh god, coding in Windows. ~ PseudoSudo 06:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strongest support ever. Obviously. 1ne 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. The most qualified candidate I have seen in many months. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Unconditional full-blown 100% support. Oh, complete with you weren't one already? Mo0[talk] 05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support looooooooong overdue! :p —Khoikhoi 05:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Double edit conflict Support An excellent candidate for adminship and a great role model for admins-to-come.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. of course I support! Phaedriel's already an admin, she just needs us to give her the buttons. You can't ask for a nicer, more competent person as an admin, and quite frankly she's as nice a person as you're ever going to find. I'm predicting a little snow to fall on this discussion. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Suppport outstanding candidate. MLA 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Saw this on RC Patrol and stopped dropped everything I was doing to support RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Super Support Impossible not to... you'll do great :) --MasterEagle 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Total and utter support - wouldn't have it any other way. Birthday in a matter of hours too! If the RfA is still unanimous tommorrow, we could end it and give her adminship for her birthday :) --Draicone (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strongest possible support (might have to do battle with some nominators for that title though) Wonderful user, kind to others, excellent editor, more like her please. She knows exactly what to do and how to do it. — Nathan (talk) / 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Excellent nomination. Nothing to say that hasn't already been said, and likely said better. Agent 86 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. ABSOLUTELY 2 edit conflicts later Phaedriel is a shining beacon of light on the project, support without a milli, micro, nanoseconds thought - Glen 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support. Voice-of-All 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: While help talk and image talk edits are low, portal talk edits are high enough to compensate. — Philwelch t 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: candidate is exceptional. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Quickly support to avoid snowball support edit conflicts. DarthVader 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Very strong support. Sharon is both a great editor as well as good natured and incredibly tolerant towards others. Not the least shred of doubt here. Valentinian (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support! I support you this much: |<------------>|. Isn't that a lot? :) RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strongest Support I Can Ever Give Phaedriel is my idea of the perfect editor. Not only is she kind beyond compare, and have such a compasity for helping the community, her cotributions to this encyclopdia can not be over looked. The ammount of not only Native American and Oklahoman subjects she has given to us is amazing, as is Phaedriel as a person. She is one of our greatest. Thε Halo Θ 08:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support without question. Kind, intelligent, caring, and has integrity. She'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strongest of supports Active editor, but also very active in the community and is pretty much the person that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy. Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 08:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Kusma (討論) 08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Lectonar 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Support. I totlay support thiguy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwats (talk • contribs)
    User's 5th edit. DarthVader 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Phaedriel is the totally perfect editor. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support longtime editor, nice to see the work on portal namespace. feydey 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support.  Grue  09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Well, duh. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support per all above; I've seen nothing but great things from Phaedriel. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. All the novel strong supports are taken, so just strong support Wonderful in all senses of the wiki. If she's even half as good an admin as she is a friend, we're a very lucky community to have her on board. Sergeant Snopake 10:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support :) -- Froggydarb croak 10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. This is ridiculous. Add me to the queue. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Phaedriel is a natural admin candidate who will do nothing but improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Yeah :) Petros471 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:03, 28 July '06
  81. Strong support. Avenue 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Gifted and spirited. No hesitation. El_C 11:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Pepsidrinka supports. 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support for all your hard work and the comments you left on my talk page. Mostly Rainy 12:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong support - per all of the above - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. A regular gal with a helluva resumé. Strong support. And her "Soundtrack of Wikipedians" idea is just awesome. JackLumber. 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Indeed Support I'm num 86 yay. KOS | talk 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Robert 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong There isn't any cliches left Support Between the time I clicked on to this site and now, three people added their name to this list Jrcoga! 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 12:57Z
  92. Support. I don't wish to appear to be bandwagon-hopping, but she really deserves adminship (90 supports in 10 hours is unbelievable by the way). Rje 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Wow, excellent strong support.' A support from a fellow ex-Oklahoman (I lived in OKC for 8 years)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Strongest Possible Support This user is perhaps the most universally respected non-admin currently editing. She is consistently helpful and wise in her wikipedia activity. --rogerd 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strongest Possible Support per Rogerd. --Guinnog 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - A pleasant user. Iolakana|T 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support; with this much community involvement I'm rather surprised that we haven't interacted but hey, not everyone hangs out at FAC. An important member of the community and a strong proponent of Wikilove, which is key part of being an administrator. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - Support - Support & Support...: It has come as news to me that she was not an administrator. I found her always caring for the Project, as also to the fellow-wikipedians. I am sure that she shall have an active role as an administrator. --Bhadani 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong support. A very kind user. Will be a great admin. AnnH ♫ 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Seriously, how many users get this many noms? Dammit, I'm only number 99. Roy A.A. 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support per all the nice remarks above. Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Emphatically support. Phaedriel is passionate about building and improving Wikipedia, and she is unfailingly kind in her dealings with other users. In terms of her technical skills, I'm sure that she will learn whatever she needs to know. Far harder to learn, in my opinion, are the people skills and overall good judgement that she already possesses in spades. --Tachikoma 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add that I'm not questioning her technical knowledge, but the issue had been raised, and I was trying to address that in my vote. --Tachikoma 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Super Strong Support Editor has the inside track for being the kindest Wikipedian ever! :) This will set the RfA record, and it should, because someone so sweet deserves recognition! Xoloz 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Sublime Support for this sublime user. Hell yeah! --Alf melmac 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support, Wikilove notwithstanding, Phædrial represent all of what a good wikipedian should be. Technically savvy (see the plethora of userpages), well-versed in both articlespace and wikispace, and perhaps the single most delightful person with whom to interact herein wikipedia. Not to mention being endowed with an above average helping of common sense. She truly exhibits the traits we want in an administrator, not just a friend and a great person overall. -- Avi 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Double plus good support The nicest Wikipedian I know; responsible, level-headed, great contributions, good answers to questions below. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose - too popular. Strong support - kind, considerate, lovely, civil, useful, beautiful user. Give her the mop already. —Celestianpower háblame 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. OKC Metro-Support Guettarda 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Absolutely. Not that you need the support, but I thought I'd register mine. We haven't interacted directly much, but I've been very impressed with your work, attitude, and the respect others have in you. Keep it up! Triple edit conflicted support by the way. - Taxman Talk 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Complete Support, many more like her please. Phaedriel has given many editors reasons to be proud of themselves, and now it is our turn to give her many reasons of being proud of herself. It is her understanding of other users that has made her so helpful to the project--I believe that there is at least a handful of users that decided to stay on wikipedia because of her encouragement. Phaedriel is the role model of civility and wikilove. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Uhh, she wasn't one already? Really? I could have sworn... Well typically if I have been going on the assumption that an editor was an admin already, they get a support vote. Syrthiss 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. —freak(talk) 16:00, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)
  113. Multiple-edit-conflict total support. You've never met an editor who you can trust more with the extra buttons. Sharon is a perfect Wikipedian on every level, needs and would make good use of the buttons and would be an excellent addition to The Cabal. And, it's about time she was was given they keys to the janitor's closet - we need her! ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Strong Support Goes way beyond my standards. --Tuspm(C | @) 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. edit-conflict Support - wait, what? She's not already?! Wow. Excellent and positive editor, from the many times I've seen her in various arenas, should be a fine addition to the admin ranks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support sur roues !!!!!!!!! La meilleuse wikipedienne. And I know my french sucks. xD ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. SUPPORT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE If there is a nicer Wikipedia less likely to abuse the tools I challenge anyone to find them. She's also super-kawaii! >^____^< - FrancisTyers · 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support model Wikipedian.--Dakota ~ 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strongest Possible Support I Can Give. Wow, where to start. First off I'm shocked I haven't seen this already, but, well wow, she accepted! Phaedriel has to be, without a doubt, the nicest Wikipedian I've ever come across, and while niceness is not the #1 admin criteria, I believe it is a very important one. A kind, friendly, and helpful admin can only be a benefit to the encyclopedia, for sure. Secondly, Phaedriel is also competant, excellent with html (look at some of her userpages, mine among them), plenty of well-spaced edits, active Wikiproject participation and founding, and much more. Ok, I'm done. :) Support this brilliant candidate. -- Banes 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support He isn't one already? Total support! Viva La Vie Boheme 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Phaedriel's a she :) — Deckiller 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Very Strong Support. Enough said. (↑ I thought this user was she?) -- Jared A. Hunt 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Teke adds to the avalanche 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support with best wishes. Although I was saving this comment for my 3000th edit...instead I ended up welcoming John Hill6633 (talk · contribs · count) with it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Highly respected and helpful user, with quite a large collection of barnstars and awards. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support no brainer. Joelito (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Very strong Support highly helpful, polite, informed and experienced. JPotter 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support of course, fantastic editor, very surprised that she wasn't an sysop! - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support I don't usually vote in obvious landslides but this is someone who deserves to be in WP:200. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. (edit conflict) Strong support. I was not only sure that she was an admin, I was sure she was a good one, too. That is completely the truth. I postponed my wikibreak to support this user.Picaroon9288|ta co 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support, of course, per Thatcher, and inasmuch as I'm waiving by no admins from states below the Mason-Dixon line policy. Joe 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Duh. — Vildricianus 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - Really impressed with what the user has done. An amazing effect of spreading the wikilove. —Mirlen 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support wholeheartedly. I could go on with superlatives, but it is not needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support very strongly. Does great work AND goes out of her way to treat others with kindness. A role model for all of us -- even, or perhaps especially, those of us who have been here for a long time. — Catherine\talk 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Nothing to add that hasn't been covered above. TigerShark 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support An outstanding user. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Per the 136 supporters before me :) Thistheman 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. supportive gesture. DS 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support We need more people as nice as her on this planet. :-) bogdan 19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Even if only from distance, I'm still watching still the same pattern. Absolutelly kind and helpfull person. I only hope that the adminship will not affect her good mood. Good luck! Reo ON | +++ 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Omg-she-wasn't-an-admin-already support Great user that you just bump into everywhere. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support how can I oppose the most civil user on the entire English Wikjipedia? -- Where 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Great portal work (and thanks again for my user page!).--ragesoss 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Good user and editor. (although I do think one nomination per RFA should be enough)Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Excellent contributer who makes the wiki a better place for all, and is a welcoming presence for those with questions, as admins are supposed to be. -Mask 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support per all said above :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support--MONGO 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Strongest support imaginable. If there were only one single admin, it should be Sharon. —Nightstallion (?) 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strong support. At first I merely thought Phaedriel wrote well. Then I thought she was nice. Then I thought she was incredibly kind. Now I have grave suspicions that she is not human, since no one can be so pleasant, and yet get things done. In her private life she must secretly pinch babies or kick puppies or something to make up for it. Anyway, as so many wrote above, I have not yet met anyone that I would like better as an admin. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Strong Support very active, very civil, and very good contributions.--Jersey Devil 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. ~ Encephalon 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Great Wikipedian. Jkelly 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Change to oppose over image issues. Jkelly 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Strong support, just about the only instance where pile-on voting is warranted. Kuru talk 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Well, this one looks close, guys, so I'd better get my support in there to make sure it passes. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support, of course. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. I'm not sure if you need admin tools, but you certainly deserve them. Great work, keep it up! +Hexagon1 (t) 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Strong Support, its way overdue. Good editor and will make an excellent administrator. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. A sick Tdxiang support!- I'm sick. but I'll support Sharon. Now time to take a rest...--Tdxiang 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Enthusiatic Support - I've been a Phaedriel Fan since before I even registered on WP. Being able to support her for Admin gives me a warm fuzzy glow. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. I guess support... ;) -- I thought I'd leave Phaedriel hang before she knew if I'd support or not. I'm only supporting anyway cause she's a cop & I want some "favours"... ;). Plus I want her to get to 200 votes.... Spawn Man 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Strongest support possible and then some: Phaedriel is without a doubt one of the kindest and most level-headed editors here on wikipedia. We need more administrators who really care about the editors here, and Phaedriel will be one of them. I've been waiting for this nomination for a while now. The Ungovernable Force 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. No question from my mind, support. I need more people like her on the admin team. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Incredibly strong support - an amazing editor MichaelZ526 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Strong support. While most of what I could say has already been said, I have to reply to Ligulem's comment. While the technical side of Wikipedia's administration is clearly important (as I'm beginning to pick up PHP so I can actually code some bugs out of existence and not be limited to reporting them), it is not the only thing that requires attention, and not working on it should not be something that should be held against a particular nominee. There's much more to adminship than a few buttons: remember that you're becoming one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and your actions may be the examples new users look upon. Certainly, Phaedriel here is one of the editors who I would certainly look at as how the ideal comminity user should be, and adminship would just make her spotless behavior more prominent as the ideal example I mentioned. Even in this case, she has demonstrated quite good grasp of the technical side of Wiki, so I can't hold that against her. In a way, she is precluded from working on the MediaWiki namespace, where her design abilities would be most beneficial, because she still doesn't have the mop and the flamethrower; either way, I would trust her with both. Add one to the tally from here. Titoxd(?!?) 06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Jump on the bandwagon Support per the >hundred people above me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs)
  167. A jar of iguanas Support -- Simply positively stupendous. Greatly jaw-dropping double-thumbs-up doubleplusgood. Absolutely terrific completely and totally delicious. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support, definitely overdue. Leithp 09:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support a role model. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support a role model indeed. :) Dlohcierekim 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Strong support. I can't think of a better candidate for adminship than Sharon. Sango123 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong Support — Probably as deserving as any candidate has yet been. Though I've never personally had... well, any discussion with this user, I've observed a good deal of kindness and friendliness on her part, as well as an eagerness to help out others. She certainly meets all possible criteria for the position. Do the encyclopedia a favor and make it official. Ryu Kaze 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Strongest Support. Angel Lion King 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Highway Return to Oz... 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Complete support without qualm, hesitation, or extra adjective: The good part of not checking RFA often is not getting into more arguments. The bad side is missing when someone thoroughly pleasant, judicious, careful, and thoughtful like Phaedriel gets nominated. I'm sorry I'm so late. Geogre 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. http://www.wikipedia–watch.org/hive2.html#299 (don't click, it seems to be on our spam blacklist so I had to improvise...how lame is that?) —thought she was already... Bastique▼parler voir 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support JoshuaZ 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. My Strongest Support ever, Sharon is living proof that Angels do walk among us. Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon. Tony the Marine 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strongest possible support per Geogre. She is the nicest person I have met here, bar none; and I've seen her around a lot. I am really surprised that she is not an admin yet. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support The co-nominations are excessive, no doubt, but I see no logical reason find an aversion to "wikilove", unless it has shown an inability to deal with vandals, which it has not. Seems like a very intelligent and talented editor. Congratulations. AdamBiswanger1 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Complete Support 100% cannot be changed no matter what Great member who is very sweet and nice, and really deserves this honor! Karrmann 02:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. Seems like a competent, friendly person and an ideal admin (and possibly future arbitrator).--Eloquence* 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Overwhelming support. Nightstallion said it: if Wikipedia had only one admin, it would need to be Sharon. (Now here's for bureaucratship!) ;) The one and only Cliff 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support; an exemplar of a Wikipedia editor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - Sometime back, When I landed on her talkpage to make an offer about nomming her for rfa, I saw many users already do so. --Gurubrahma 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support No additional commentary is needed other than to say that Phaedriel is an outstanding editor and one of the kindest, caring people here. I wish her well with the mop and bucket. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support never have I seen so many nominations for one RfA!! Seivad 12:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support per the gushing but true praise of Tony the Marine. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support with a big smile, she is such a lovely contributor. -- Natalya 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever. I know it's a cliche, but how come Phaedriel is not an admin already?!?! Just zis Guy you know? 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support She's a cutie pie. :-) Attic Owl 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support. Not really necessary according to the overwhelming count, but since I'm here... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Strong support per all of the above. You just need 5 4 more supports and Welcome to WP:200 hope you make it there —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be only the second RfA to meet WP:200. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote...Minun already supported at #170. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I didn't notice —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed my old comment, so this should be the one that counts, cheers —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Strong support. A class act: mature and elegant. Bucketsofg✐ 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support. The force is strong in this one. bd2412 T 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. I've never seen this user before in my two and a half years of editing, but she's got 197 supports, and she's pretty, so what the hell. Oh yeah, and I just looked at her edits and they're really really really good. Seriously, I did. Consensus rules! BillyH 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support for a candidate with eight nominators and a ninth attempted and the start of a new page, WP:200, and possibly the best record I have seen on RfA. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to Can't sleep, clown will eat me, this is the second RfA on WP:200.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  201. WP:200 Cleared for adminship :) Congratulations Sharon, there is no one more deserving of this than you. No sense in repeating what has been said above, but your interactions with the Wikipedia community before your membership here is now paying off. Best of luck to you, you are an inspiration to us all. --Pilotguy (roger that) 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support! Would you please help me finish this bottle of champagne? 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  203. This page is nearly 100kb long support!! Well deserved. --james(talk) 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support - Richardcavell 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support - Bharatveer 10:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support - How is she not already? I understand the reasons behind Ligulem's 'neutral' vote, but I think we need admins who can deal with conflict without being nasty even more than we need admins who understand the technical side of things. I've been on the other side of disagreements with Phaedriel a few times (similar to the situation 'Shannon' describes - though I'm unfamiliar with that one), but never found her to be anything but pleasant. Would it be better if she could also do PHP programming and complicated template work, always considered and attempted to address not just the mistakes of angry new users but also the mistakes of admins she respects, knew every facet of copyright law and image tagging by heart, and could walk on water? Yes, but perhaps we are then setting our standards a bit too high. --CBD 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support. Oops, I knew you guys would get the 200 spot while I was sleeping! This is one of my biggest cliches ever. I see that admins on the tech side are good for wikipedia, but an admin that is sensible and kind could do a lot for the community (yes, specifically for the community and it's numerous conflicts). fetofs Hello! 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support. I'd feel silly if I didnt slap my signature to this. Congrats on the adminship! SynergeticMaggot 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Next stop, WP:300. Misza13 T C 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Strong Support Nicest and most friendly person on Wikipedia. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Absolutely. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Is It Too Late To Co-Co Nominate? Support! Besides being a great editor, combines good judgement and good humor with an uncanny ability to spread Wikilove and good will. In short, just what the Cabal is in dire need of now-A good cop who is also a community builder.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Support - I'm great supporter of the truth, and I don't like women in socks. --Eliade 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Hell. You're not an admin already? How did I miss that? Enjoy the mop, and may you avoid the despair and frustration it too often brings. Dragons flight 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support of course. LotLE×talk 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support, without any reservations. Accurizer 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support. --TantalumTelluride 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support We need more admins such as Phaedriel. Deli nk 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  219. She is the very model of a modern wikipedian. --Zoz (t) 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support - this is the sort of guys we need.--Aldux 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, in this case, girls... ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Strong Support I thought she already was an admin.  :-) Eluchil404 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support. All the metrics I might mention have already been covered above, so I'll just say that her user page is an oasis. - BT 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  223. I'd normally oppose someone who already does this much good work for adminship. But I do love a bandwagon. Beautiful editor, warm and comapssionate and has demonstrated that she's got stones, too. Great with the wiki-markup, not afraid to say what she feels... but if her non-admin efforts suffer for having the mop, I'll raise and RfC quick as a rat up a drain pipe. - brenneman {L} 01:32, 1 August 2006
  224. Support from me also. I only hope that sysop responsibilities don't take the edge off her wikilove campaign. -- I@n 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  225. 225th Strong support... This is unbelievable... Grandmasterka 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support. As I said in my rant (which I removed from the neutral section, you can read it on the talk page if you want, somone else copied it there): It has nothing to do with Phaedriel. It's true. I was proving a point by abusing this landslide election as a platform for my rant. I'm an idiot. Apologies. Seeing how she behaves during this election session is truely impressive. --Ligulem 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Strong Support. A little late, this one. Sharon had asked me to conom, but it went live without me. Then I was holding out for #200 but missed it. Sharon has done great work with her WikiProject and portal. She's also done more than probably anyone to foster a sense of community here. I have absolutely no hesitation at all in handing her the mop. --kingboyk 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. Best answers I've read in a long time. Haukur 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support. Wonderful Wikipedian Weird Bird 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Strong Support with pleasure. probably one of the best noms wikipedia has ever seen. Stubbleboy 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support My pleasure. Blinking Spirit 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Strongest Support Here I first came across her looking at the recent changes and came across her Wiki Soundtrack, and I LOVED THE IDEA. I have watched her super quality edits, she is so nice that I added her to User:Kitia/Friends. Of that list, Mangojuice is already an admin, Computerjoe rejecte, and I will probably put Abdullah Geelah up in the future. I don't care wheather she is a sock of a banned user, she deserves my support. I would rather have her an admin than myself. --Kitia
    Kitia, I think you misunderstand. It isn't Phaedriel that is accused of being a sockpuppet, it is one of the oppose votes below --rogerd 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support. I know it's a pileon at this point, but seems eminently suited for adminship. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support. --CharlotteWebb 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support, wonderful user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support Even though the support column reads in part like some users mistook it for Wikipedia:Requests for a Date, but reading the responses by the nominee it seems like she is very aware of her limitations and will use the tools judiciously. ~ trialsanderrors 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone redirected that to Lar's userpage, mwa ha ha. — Deckiller 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some wanker certainly did, but I've redirected it to a more appropriate place. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support - Whoever has such wide support from such an intelligent community, deserves my vote. I've seen your work, keep it up! --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Of Course Supporting this user is a no brainer. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support Glad I got here in time! - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck...
    Good luck...
  240. The reminder... (yes, this is a support :p) Sharon, please try to improve on your situation under oppose and you shall no doubt be a truely great administrator. But even with your situation below, I can't help but to support. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Sharon would be a great admin. I'll even go out on a limb and say she is the most deserving person on Wikipedia for adminship. Sharon is a great contributor, excellent friend, and she has the time and dedication that goes along the responsibilities of being an administrator. She will absolutly not abuse the administrator tools and I think we can establish that she made her presence felt in the community by the number of voters at her RFA. I believe she's the greatest practitioner of WP:LOVE of all time, she's always been there for me and she was the reason I came back to Wikipedia in June. ♥ Sharon, you are a truely amazing human being, a great friend and a general, all-around saint. I sincerely hope you enjoy your time with your new tools. Now, shoot for WP:300. Your friend forever — Moe Epsilon 05:35 August 02 '06
Oppose
Oppose (struck comment, this user is an obvious sock of indefintely band banned User:Thewolfstar and has been blocked. We don't consider comments from banned users whose presence is not desired here. See this AN/I thread and others on WP:AN/I for more detail. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate the effort but I can't honestly say that I approve of the answers. Your answer to my first question included this "I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result." That sounds okay except for one thing.
  • That statement assumes that the newcomer is the one that needs talking to. From what I've seen it's frequently the other way round. A group of more seasoned editors harass a newcomer, or anyone who dissents the opinion of a group of editors at an article, an admin steps in, does not review the situation thoroughly, and then proceeds to put a block on the newcomer or just threatens the newcomer or continue the harassment of the seasoned editors.
  • I see that much more often than not. I see that because that's what's there. This discouraging of editing, to put it mildly, of newcomers, and those who often try to round out an artilcle to make it more neutral, clearly goes against Wikipedia's Policy and Guidelines: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and in most groups it's considered rude and unkind. Kindness and civility includes much more than just a superficial display of it. It also goes against the Wikipedia:Harassment policy.
I also find this statement, "In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.", objectionable as hell. They already were Wikipedians and they had some legitimate defenses of keeping this article. Did I care for the topic personally? No. But I find this just as sickening, personally SCUM Manifesto. The reason for deleting it based on lack of notablility didn't cut it either as per the number of insignificant articles there are on Wikipedia and other generally dumb articles in existence..plenty.
The example you gave of talking to a newcomer was this:
Delete, per nom and Merovingian's research. Re. your questions, Osmod, I believe that any sort of independent, non-related mention is in order here, and in reasonable quantity as to establish notability enough to warrant the existence of this article. Side note: attacking users and posting his picture at the site in question is definetely out of place. I strongly urge the person(s) responsible for this webpage to remove it immediately, please. Thank you. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any policy concerning posting a picture of a Wikipedian on another non-Wikipedian website. Can you point me to this policy? Thanks. Shannonduck talk 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to talk page. Also, one vote by an anon moved to comments. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some strange reason my comments and responses to them were moved to the talk page. I still would like an answer to my question:
A general question is still where is this policy concerning off-the-wiki text or pictures or whatever? I was pointed to a couple of brief references to this topic but can someone point me to the actual vote and consensus that was reached concerning this issue? Thanks. Shannonduck talk 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comments because the talk page is where in depth discussions belong. I'm not sure to exactly what you referring, but general policy questions can be asked at the Village Pump. Someone there should be able to help you out. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Lingeron (the actual username of the user who commented) is currently strongly suspected of being a sock of banned user Thewolfwtar (talk • contribs • count) Should this be confirmed the comment will be stricken. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lingeron has been indefblocked for aforementioned sockpuppetry. Strike pls? 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Phaedriel's open letter to Brandt is mushy and wacky, and shows no familiarity whatsoever with the ethical standards expected from professional journalists such as Katefan0. Moreover, it was posted on the Talk page of Brandt's biography, which was inappropriate. Clearly it was an effort to influence his biography in a hostile direction. And even on this page, Phaedriel is pumping it for sympathy. This may sound like Wikilove to Phaedriel's supporters, but it looks like POV-pushing and manipulation to me. Talleyho 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of striking this vote due to consent that it is from a banned editor...see comments at AN/I--MONGO 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's 9th edit, and first in two weeks. All edits to Brandt-related articles. Username is "talleyho", a mockery of a common phrase used on RfAs. I recommend this vote be stricken to avoid making this RfA look tainted. — Deckiller 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Phaedriel is obviously an extraordinary editor and person and that is actually why I am opposing. I do not doubt her competence or trustworthiness at all (I'd be crazy to), but I do wonder how becoming an admin will compromise those traits that have made her, rightfully, the only Wikipedian that has her own fan club. The fact that she is using a reduced version of her lovely signature on this page (so as not to disturb the signature police, maybe?) somewhat worries me in this regard. Phaedriel has demonstrated herself as being capable of so much, both from an editing standpoint with her portals and wikiproject she has started, to her incredible interpersonal skills. I just think, with all that, why bog her down with the tedious and menial tasks of adminship that will occupy her attention and divert her from the truly great things she can offer the project? I really believe that if a user like Phaedriel is going to contribute to the "greater good" here at Wikipedia, it's not going to have much to do with her protecting pages, deleting vanity pages, and applying blocks to vandals -- she has advanced far beyond that. Furthermore half of "adminship" is really about the elevated status you receive. Phaedriel, as an ordinary editor, has achieved a level of community acceptance and respect that far surpasses what the "admin" label affords, so it's not as though the passing of this RfA will change anything in that regard. Besides, it's always really nice, especially as a non-admin and probably for new users as well, to see that a non-admin can carry just the same "weight" around here (if not more) that an admin does. Finally, before I get a barrage of angry comments, obviously this preceding comment is made with the full recognition that this RfA will pass by a record-setting landslide and my intention is not to hinder that with this vote - just adding my two cents as the process permits and encourages. — GT 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A barrage of angry comments? You asked for it buddy! You're such a....just kidding ;) Thε Halo Θ 10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Grr! Mad reply! Terse comment! ...you're sure that's an oppose, right? 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Image issues. Kotepho 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A terse comment indeed!! -- Lost(talk) 19:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kotepho, could you please expand on what you mean? Thε Halo Θ 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of her image uploads have obviously wrong licensing tags, lack sources, etc. Kotepho 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. I thought for a second that it might be that you didn't like the way she did her hair or something ;) Is it possible to change you mind? Thε Halo Θ 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Could you please be more specific? I've taken the liberty of going through the relevant upload log [10], and I find no reason for alarm. The images generally *do* list their sources and their copyright tags look ok. Many images simply fall into PD-old due to their age, and others fall into PD due to their date of first publication. A few images (colour samples) are tagged as GFDL and based on an Cc-by-2.0 image [11], but the original author is properly attributed, so I believe that is ok as well. I've found a few problems back in the uploads from December / January; two images (Billy the Kid [12] and a US politician ([13] lacking sources, but both are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880. I did find an image of Josef Mengele [14] incorrectly tagged as PD but to me these examples look like a few mistakes made by a beginner. I think quite a lot of us could plead guilty to having made few of those, one way or the other. :) Valentinian (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Blue-star.gif tagged CopyrightedFreeUse, but the license from the site only mentioned reproduction and requires attribution. Probably should be CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|Attribution and no dervis, and is thus unfree. We can't find someone to draw a picture of a star that is actually free? Not used in an article.
    • Image:Kevrichardson.jpg Tagged as a promo photo, but it looks like a scan of a magazine or something. Source is a blog?
    • Image:Twogunhart.gif Source is a random website, source says it was taken in the '20s, but the description says 1920. Doesn't say who the photographer is, when/if it was published, when the photographer died, etc. The claim of PD-US seems to just be a guess.
    • Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg Listed as PD-USGov-Mil, but AFIAK Flagg wasn't a US gov employee. Likely published before 1923, so PD-US would be fine probably. Commons also has this as PD-USGov-Mil, if someone does figure out what it really is.
    • Image:Meeker.jpg Had no source, still really doesn't. We have a source that says it is from LoC, but LoC has things that are copyrighted still. Likely public domain, but cannot be certain. The subjects's age is only of tagential relevance.
    • The Langs_N derivs are arguably gfdl because the author uploaded it, but that they are also cc-by-2.0 so that people know they can reuse it without the horrible monster that is the gfdl
    • Image:Mengeleold.jpg Was listed as PD, says it is the subject in 1971. No reason to believe it is public domain.
    • Image:Shffbadge.jpg No source, just PD.
    • Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg PD-USGov, but why would the federal government be designing patches for a city police department?
    • ...
    Kotepho 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that photographs become public domain under {{PD-old}} when the photographer (the "author") died before 1906, not the subject. Kimchi.sg 09:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to {{PD-US}}, materials published in the United States before 1 January 1923 are normally PD under U.S. juristiction (and definitely if published before 1909), see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Footnotes. Valentinian (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (resetting indent) You did say "two images... are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880", implying if the subject died in 1880, any photographs of them would become automatically PD. That cannot be assumed. The photograph might have been taken before 1880, but published after 1923. Kimchi.sg 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed possible, but it seems unlikely. Billy the Kid was a very public figure and the photo is listed as the only photo of him, so the original would have been very valuable back then. Furthermore the article about him states that this photo is the reason for a common belief that he was left handed, and Paulita Maxwell who died in 1929 critizised the image [15][16] The incident in which Meeker was killed caused an outrage in Colorado, so it would seem logical that the editor of at least 1 newspaper would chose to print his picture, but information on the latter image is more sketchy than on the former. Valentinian (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Kotepho. Improperly tagged images indicate lack of understanding of copyright policy. Although Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg, Image:Shffbadge.jpg, Image:Mengeleold.jpg, Image:Meeker.jpg, Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg, Image:Twogunhart.gif, and Image:Kevrichardson.jpg were uploaded in the period from December 2005 to February 2006, Image:Blue-star.gif was uploaded last month (June 14), so I cannot excuse this as newbie ignorance. Kimchi.sg 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose due to image issues above, with regret. Jkelly 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I'm comfortable with the commitment to brushing up on image policy. Jkelly 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, if you don't mind, I'd wish to address these concerns. Like Valentinian and Kimchi have correctly expressed, almost the entirety of the images mentioned by Kotepho (out of around 100) were uploaded by me at the beginning of my wiki-life. You may have noticed that I've always tried to provide a source, and never left the tag space empty; I swear, I've never taken the matter lightly. The only recent image where I obviously messed up was with the Star one, which I never intended to use in articles, but in my "Today Star" campaign to award and cheer up other editors. I've contacted both Kimchi and Jkelly and I have compromised with them, as I commit myself here, not to take a single step in that direction without consulting with them first. I don't intend to participate in image-related chores, at least not until I learn more, so I apologize for that mistake, and I promise to be ultra super careful in the future. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1FA :-S -- Миборовский 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1 FA isn't a reason to oppose anyone, and she does meet it anyways with her featured portals Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it not a reason? That's your own opinion. With 211/5/4 this RFA is a foregone conclusion.
    Anyway. One. Featured. Article. :) I have my own standards, different from Mailer diablo's. But to borrow what he said: Please do not take it personally I have opposed you under this criterion, especially if it turns out to be that odd vote in the RfA. This is done in good faith, and Mailer Diablo wishes all the best to all RfA candidates regardless of outcome. Sorry, my oppose vote remains. -- Миборовский 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Phaedriel's comment above. Phaedriel says she never intended to use the star image in articles; only in userspace. That's completely the opposite approach. Userspace should be held to an even higher image standard. A great user otherwise, and I know your adminship will pass, but it's important for admins to know image rules (at least to some degree). Ral315 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. neutral per ligulem. Too much wiki love. Certainly i would not oppose based on this and love is great and all, but smooshing, hugs and kisses to an extreme start to get us a little off track from the goals here. Love the portals though. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers can find my original rant on the talk page. I removed it from the neutral section and changed to support. See above. --Ligulem 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Phaedriel seems like a very nice person. Six co-nominators and 148 supporters agree on that point. But there's a little too much "happy fluffy bunnies in meadows under rainbows" for me. (As an aside, I'm not sure Ligulem's technical point totally applies here - Phaedriel's very nicely designed portals suggest good knowledge of wiki-markup, at least - but in general, I agree 100%.) Also, a quite minor point, but the "dear so-and-so" affectation in writing just sounds odd to me.
    The above was me, I got distracted and forgot to sign. Opabinia regalis 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I've seen reluctance in the past to support RfA's based on incivil behavior, but not for the candidate being excesively civil. LOL. :) Dlohcierekim
  3. Neutral. Two things, and obviously neither is a very popular opinion. I'm not exactly sure why Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one more; an explanation wouldn't hurt. Secondly, I love the nominee's userpage as much as a lot of users here do, but I have but one issue with it, and that's the section labelled "Being Indian Is ...". I'm slightly worried about POV pushing, or even the appearance of POV pushing, on related topics, for much the same reason that a number of users here opposed a recent RfA candidate due to religious views expressed on his userpage. I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column. theProject 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column." Does this mean you are up for being convinced to support Pheadriel? Thε Halo Θ 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear theProject, I solemnly swear that at no time I have requested that any co-noms were authorized by me, as everyone who has been so kind to co-nominate me can attest. You must of course be referring to 1ne's concern that his kind co-nom was somehow not authorized by me; I completely assure you this was but a small misunderstanding between him and Lar, that's all, and my message to 1ne is nothing but a light hearted comment in that sense. I am indescribably happy to be worthy of a co-nomination, and if I could, I'd like every wikipedian to throw in one, because such a measure of trust can only be a flattery to me. All this, I tell you from the heart.Phaedriel 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to interject here... Phaedriel has had a LOT of people wanting to nominate her as many of you know. Knowing that people do sometimes ding, or even oppose, for it, some of us counseled her not to have too many. Johntex, Blnguyen and I were chosen but others could have been. In the flurry when it went live, other people started adding co-noms. This is a relatively recent thing, I think, I first saw it only a few nominations ago (although I could be misremembering). Rather than start removing them, I thought it better to make it clear which ones were added on after the nomination went live, in order to possibly reduce the number of people that have issues with the practice. My wording choice may not have been the best, which I regret. But the intent was to both adhere to the norm of not having a lot and yet, not suppress those who honestly just wanted to show their support in a way more than just commenting support. Blame it on me if you must, but please don't blame the candidate. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding that section at my userpage: it is only meant to express the thoughts that, as a member of an ethnic minority, sometimes cross my mind due to real life difficulties and concerns. You may notice tho, that it's not a one sided view in any way. It alludes ideas regarding both White and Native American people, without speaking badly nor diminishing either group in general, but things that make me sad in my everyday life in my dealings with certain specific members of either group. As I say, this in no way is limited to interaction with White people, but with other Native Americans as well; for example, please see my opinion on this AfD debate and here. I understand your concerns regarding possible POV pushing, but I'd simply like to point at my contributions as means of putting your mind at rest. Last but not least, whenever I try to write something that could be even remotely controversial, like Indian wars, I always ask for input in order to be 100% sure I'm not inadvertently crossing the NPOV line. If you need any further clarification, I'd be more than happy to help. Warm regards, Phaedriel 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Please leave the section breaks in this nomination, they are there for a reason, they make edit conflicts less of a problem on high traffic pages. (which this one is). note also that some of the co nominators who have chosen to add themselves (I've added a section break so it is clear which those are) were not approved by Phaedriel in advance. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately I think doing that has broken Dragon's Flight's RfA counting tool, not just for this nom but for all current noms. Its expecting to see one nomination section and can't parse the multiple sections. Gwernol 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Section_Breaks... at least one bot has been changed to handle it, but consensus there seems to be starting to shade towards this not being a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoopydink and I are changing them back. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Phaedriel's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:[reply] 

Username Phaedriel
Total edits 5275
Distinct pages edited 3184
Average edits/page 1.657
First edit 06:20, December 7, 2005
 
(main) 1598
Talk 887
User 360
User talk 1465
Image 114
Image talk 6
Template 52
Template talk 16
Help 1
Category 32
Wikipedia 707
Wikipedia talk 37
Portal 285
Portal talk 51

--Pilotguy (roger that) 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As I experienced the interest in process most Wikipedians go through as we become more familiar with the project, I've tried to participate and make myself familiar with as many aspects of the process as I could. Of all these, I find myself returning often to recent changes and recently created pages patrolling - fending off vandalism in its multiple forms is a task I find fulfilling, and one where I feel very comfortable. I remember reading, months ago, the ways of dealing with vandalism properly; from that day on, I've constantly tried to remain within these guidelines, and I consider placing the adequate Test template at the editor's Talk page as important as the reversion itself. Tagging articles that unequivocably qualify for speedy deletion has also taken most of my RC patrolling, and until I was sure I had learned by heart the exact meaning of every CSD, I always kept that page open while monitoring the logs - and I am happy to say that I've been wrong on very few occasions over nearly a thousand deleted edits. Many of you have experienced my requests for intervention at CAT:CSD and AIV; therefore, it will be my commitment to continue to take part in these important chores, with the ability to relieve other admins from taking action in those cases that I've been able to spot and detect.
I think it's important to point out that, nonetheless, it is also one of my main priorities to address edit disputes and incivility issues. As an admin, I feel I can be in a better position to intervene in such cases before they escalate in magnitude. In case it becomes evident at said situations that administrative intervention is the only way to proceed, I commit myself to use the abilities granted by the community with utmost responsibility, and with immediate report of any actions I take at AN/I.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I definitely feel that the creation and organization of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America, which I started as means of putting order and unified criteria into the overwhelming amount of information available on the subject. I am happy and proud to have seen it grow from a mere personal illusion that I once held into a thriving and active community of over 40 dedicated members which covers nearly 1,500 articles. The creation of Portal:Oklahoma and Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America are a close second; particularly the latter, which was for a long time a personal dream of mine into opening the beauties of Native American culture and history to the general community, which I currently maintain. It is going going through the process of attaining Featured status as we speak (hopefully!). I can also point out several articles I am pleased with; you can consult a list that Blnguyen has so kindly compiled here. As you can see, many of these articles deal with Native American topics, especially in relation to the Indian Wars. Since I am of Native American ancestry myself, it was a deep concern of mine to keep the articles truly NPOV, so I requested my work to be reviewed by more experienced editors; and I'm happy to say that I passed the test.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Leaving aside the usual bashing by assorted vandals, which many of us experience every now and then, I've been at the point where my communication abilities and will to compromise are tested. At all times I've tried to solve such disputes in the most civilized fashion I could, for (in my humble opinion) it is the only way in which peers who respect each other should behave in the first place. The only major dispute over my contributions that I recall involved User:Atlantahawk, and it motivated a post at AN/I - and sadly, dialog was not an option as this user chose to behave in a rude manner and closed himself to discussion.
Other than that, many of you may remember my name from the situation with Daniel Brandt that took place two months ago, after the forced departure of User:Katefan0; so, before being required to comment the matter, I'll simply sum it up for you myself. As you may or not remember, Katefan0 chose to leave the project after a dispute with Mr. Brandt in late May. Katefan, who had invested more than a year and a half of effort in WP, was also a friend of mine. I felt compelled to express my thoughts in an open letter to Mr. Brandt. Unfortunately, instead of the desired result (of reaching some sort of Détente), this simply led to increasing anonymous hostility towards me from a group of users of the Wikipedia Review forum, as well as some uncomfortable real life inconveniences. At no other point in my wiki-life I ever found myself truly stressed, for obvious reasons; but fortunately, and in great part due to the warm support that was kindly given to me, it is all in the past now. I'll gladly offer more details on the subject to those who inquire privately.
The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Johntex\talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A: When dealing with new users who may be simply experimenting or conducting small acts of mischievery, I personally prefer to use the Test group in ascending order, mainly to inform them that they conduct is inappropriate. Meanwhile, I've used {{bv}} when a clear will to disrupt in a malicious way can be observed behind the edits of a particular user. Although a great number of these cases appear every day, I have found them to be rarer, and on many occasions I chose not only to place this warning but to attempt a more personal approach by urging the editor to stop, and explaining why his/her behaviour is disruptive. As with everything, I firmly believe that every case must be appreciated by taking the surrounding circumstances into consideration, since new users can't simply be expected to know all our policies and guidelines the very minute they start editing.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A: Without question, the appropriate immediate action is to dialog with this user. As such an action is still within the limits permitted by our policies, a block under these circumstances is per se not warranted. This kind of behavior is usually the most evident sign that there is a dispute taking place, and therefore, helping to reach a consensus and acceptable compromise should be the top priority. However, as I mentioned in the previous question, every case must be appreciated according to the circumstances. If a user shows a pattern of conduct in this direction, he/she is clearly gaming the system and disrupting the work of others. At such cases, and again taking everything into account, further actions as described at WP:DR may be in order. If I ever encounter such a case, it is my firm belief that a previous consult at AN/I is needed before taking any sort of measures.
6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: Quite a difficult one to answer indeed, and one that no matter what I say, can receive valid opinions against it. Frankly, I don't feel I can single out any aspect, just like this, out of the blue. There are many things we can improve; as the community steadily grows, new challenges and new needs arise. However, we have always faced difficulties, way longer than most of us even knew that Wikipedia existed; and yet, we have become a great project nonetheless. Magical solutions don't exist; simply changing something radically hardly proves itself useful. I'd rather look at our future with optimism and a will to share my ideas to improve the place when the needs arise, and hoping to hear others' with the same enthusiasm.

Optional question from Lar:

7.I've put this set of questions on several RfA's now.. I think it's stirred some thinking. You're welcome to address them all if you like... but I guess I'm also interested in what you think of the meta-question; that is, of asking it, and of the notion of people categories themselves... I know you're perhaps not as big a fan of putting categories on people as some folk are... please share why with the rest of us, it's pretty profound stuff... Note, there's no wrong answer, after all I conomed you! ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hah :) Oh well, if there was one moment I feared of all this, it certainly was the one when I got to answer this question. Let's go step by step, shall we?
I definitely intend to add myself to Administrators open to recall; this is an initiative that I personally find admirable, and I have observed its development since Aaron Brenneman first informed me of it (tho it may need some further work to turn it into an actually functional process). Just as I have never, ever tried to hide my actions, I expect the community to demand me accountability for any mistakes I may make. Being an admin is not a fancy and shiny badge; it is both a privilege, because good people has chosen to trust you with tools that must be used with utmost consideration; and a responsibility, for which you must be ready to answer.
On to the rouge Admins category we go. I find it amusing; and more often than not, I find myself smiling, if not laughing openly with approval, at the words of some "Rouge" admins like JzG. Personally, tho, I'd never add myself to it, for personal reasons. The today famous criteria of Rouge admins is simply not my style. On a serious side, deep inside of me, I hold a spark of concern whether or not the Rouge myth may eventually generate rash actions on someone who aspires to be worthy of the title. I have not yet witnessed such an event, tho, and I prefer to be optimistic and trust the good judgement of my peers.
Last but not least, and on to the meta aspect of your question we move. By definition, you're asking for an entirely personal opinion, which may and certainly will not be shared by many. As you correctly guess, I'm not a big fan of putting categories to people basing on their beliefs. I am a Humanist from head to toes, and I believe that the beauty of places like Wikipedia stems from the sum of our many diverse personalities and our different ways of being and thinking. I'm not like you, nor like Bishonen, nor Sango123, nor anybody else here - none of us are the same, yet we manage to share big part of our time and learn from each other... I cannot think of a better reason why I enjoy being part of this project as much as I do. Categories based on the way we think seem somewhat unfair and limiting to me; yet I completely understand their sense and the reason why they exist, and their usefulness to many. For all this, beyond my own beliefs, I don't object them... but well, you asked me for my opinion! :) I guess that's all - sorry about the lengthy reply. Phaedriel
Sorry for the lengthy reply? Those of you that know me know I love lengthy replies... There's no wrong answer dear Phaedriel... but some answers are just righter than others!!! Remember how I said (above) that there's more to this candidate than mechanics? See what I'm talking about, guys and gals? What we have here is a very thoughtful candidate who is very possibly going to have a significant impact on how we get things done around here, just as I said in my nom... congrats on making WP:100 already, happy birthday, and all best wishes for your continued WP career. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Shannonduck talk: (User is banned as obvious sock of User:Thewolfstar ++Lar: t/c)

8.If you were asked to become involved in a situation that included many of your friends, that were harassing a newb or article dissenter at Wikipedia, would you blindly back up your friends accusations, etc, or would you carefully review the situation and make a decision based on the actual situation? (By this I mean reading the content of the dispute and coming to an unbiased decision.) Shannonduck talk 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I understand your concern. My personal beliefs, which I've always tried to uphold, is that dialog and consensus are the only true way to build our project. A fight in which one side overcomes the other, usually doesn't bring out the best of people, and in the end it generates more bitterness and stress. At the hypothetical situation you present, I must definitely say that I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result. I can provide an example that resembles this situation at this AfD debate, where I was happy to meet Merovingian. Although we had not interacted much before, I hold him in the highest regard; and of course, I adhered to his position. An escalating hostility from these necomers towards Merovingian ensued; I tried my best to stop the arguments and head the agitated moods to a constructive effort instead, as you may see here. In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.

Optional question 2 from Shannonduck talk: (User is banned as obvious sock of User:Thewolfstar ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

9.Would you use your sysops powers sometimes to block a user who disagreed with your edits, or your friends edits? Shannonduck talk 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I can categorically tell you now, and I ask you to mark my words, that never, under any circumstances I will consider such possibility. Our policies clearly rule such actions out, and I'm nobody to challenge them so blatantly. Furthermore, a mere disagreement over edit contents is not in itself worthy of a block - I've always been under the impression that Wikipedia is not censored, and performing an act like the one you describe certainly qualifies as such. Even if I find myself directly disagreeing with the conduct of a user (and not just the contents of his/her edits), and I find that a block could be in order as consequence of it, the proper course of action is to request further input at the proper project page, like AN/I or AN/3RR, and let other admins uninvolved in the dispute take the actions they deem necessary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Phaedriel_2&oldid=67188593"