Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bellwether BC (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 13 May 2008 (→Oppose: lol). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Risker

Voice your opinion (talk page) (107/11/7); Scheduled to end 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker (talk · contribs) - There has been a lot of discussion lately about how qualified candidates are afraid to run for RfA. Last month we witnessed the fewest number of new admins in over three years. When I saw SandyGeorgia's vote on PeterSymonds' RfA it reminded me of how much I respect her opinion. So I asked her if she knew anybody who might be interested in running for adminship that might be missing the "RfA regular's" radars. She suggested Risker. All you need to know about Risker you can find out from her user page.

Risker has been actively editing since September 2006 and has amassed over 6000 edits. She is a copy editor at heart and her talk page is full of requests from various people.

She has also given insightful information on WT:RFA dealing with Checkuser and in several arbcom cases. A quick perusal of her edits will reveal somebody who is thoughtful and committed. For example, The "incivil" term is one that is used regularly as a weapon to silence critics and create strawman arguments. Or Now, both of those issues were eventually resolved with sound editorial judgment coming to the fore; but both of these issues resulted in a phenomenal amount of sturm und drang all over the place. And both of these users are respected editors who have demonstrated good editorial judgment in the past; they are simply interpreting the same words in a different way than other respected editors with good editorial judgment. I encourage anybody who has questions about her judgement or policy knowledge to read any of these edits to important discussions!

Again, she is not your typical RfA candidate. But part of the problem with the RfA process is, IMHO, that we've come to demand a certain model for admin. This chases away qualified individuals who don't fit our preconceived notions. The question really boils down to, do I trust her with the tools? In that regard, I firmly believe that she will be a net positive! It doesn't take long to realize that she will be an asset as an admin. Balloonman (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to co-nominate Risker, having offered to do so the other day. I'll try not to say too much that hasn't been said by Balloonman, I simply wish to add my endorsement that what this project desperately needs is a good overhaul of admins actively involved in, and interested in, the content creation/review processes. Risker's editing philosophy on her userpage summarises perfectly what I would dearly like to see more of in administrators; "Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct." (I know I just violated MOS:ITALICS, don't bite me please! :)). Rather than endless reversion, endless deletion, and endless blocking, I foresee Risker using the administrative tools to help better the projects, in tricky situations where a cool head, calm commentary, and cool buttons, are highly useful. (As is alliteration!) It is for this reason I nominate Risker for adminship. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Risker (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to start slowly and build confidence in the use of the various tools, in keeping with there being no deadline. I see that WP:PROD always has a backlog, and because few proposed deletions involve copyvio or BLP issues, there's greater opportunity for reflective decision-making; that's where I'd probably start when it comes to deletions. I've made up a page here so people can see my thinking process when it comes to PROD. I see myself userfying deleted content where appropriate and requested; assisting editors in page moves; and pitching in to help address the page move vandalism we've recently seen. I'd also be looking at WP:RFPP and other more content-oriented admin areas. On the other hand, I don't plan to do anything significant with images; nor do I see myself doing a lot of blocking, except for obvious vandalism. Recently, I did some work developing evidence for an RfAR; I would like to collect similar factual data for future cases to assist the arbitrators in making informed decisions, and the ability to look at deleted versions will be very helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: From the perspective of the encyclopedia itself, I think the articles I've collaborated on are my finest legacy (for example, Jacques Plante, Hockey Hall of Fame, James Blunt, Bezhin Meadow); they have an impact beyond our community itself. Within the community, I'd like to think that my comments on various policy talk pages and other community forums (various arbitration cases, WP:ANI, and so on) have encouraged people to look beyond the specific situation involved to see the broader impact of a particular action or proposal.
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: This is a difficult question for me to answer; I can think of very few on-wiki situations I've considered to be "conflicts", but perhaps I simply have a high tolerance compared to others. From the editing side, the most intense discussions were on the Essjay controversy article over a year ago; as some may recall, there was quite a challenge in keeping the article focused, and several side skirmishes broke out along the way. My main thrust was to try to keep the discussions focused on the content of the article and how various WP content policies applied to that content. Outside of the article sphere, I've found myself in some fairly intense policy and community discussions; again, I've tried to keep things focused on "content, not contributor" as best it can be applied in project space, and to focus on "big picture" issues or, alternately, to illustrate the policy issues and questions behind a specific incident. I'm well aware that my opinions aren't the only valid ones, and I have a lot of respect for those of other people. On the rare occasion where I have gained the impression there is a conflict between myself and another editor, and where I find that there is unlikely to be a point where we can agree, my tendency is to withdraw; if my point is valid, others are likely to pick it up, and if I am off-base, then it's time for me to stop talking.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 4. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 4a. ...an editor to be blocked?
  • A: The most common reason for blocking is vandalism; of course, that generally applies to new accounts and IP addresses, as editors with experience very rarely vandalise, unless the account is compromised. Other content-related reasons for blocking include persistent insertion of copyrighted materials or information contrary to WP:BLP, spamming, or edit/revert-warring. Less commonly, blocks are warranted for behaviours such as making legal threats, persistently harassing another user, or other serious conduct issues. As noted above, I think the block button is one I'll be extremely careful with, at least until I have a greater comfort level with admin functions.
  • A: The most common reason for protecting a page is because there is an ongoing edit war, often involving several editors; unless there is a serious BLP or copyright violation, it's best to simply protect the page in whatever version it's in at the time of protection. Rarely, the user talk page of a blocked user can be protected, if the blocked user is posting inappropriately. Pages can also be move-protected (such as WP:ANI and articles scheduled to be WP:TFA); or semi-protected, as many articles are when there are increased levels of IP vandalism. A few deleted (or never created) articles are creation-protected—I believe that's what's often referred to as "salted"—to prevent their (re-)creation.
  • A: Some speedy deletion reasons are very clearcut (e.g., userpages at author request, talk pages of already deleted pages, and attack pages). More nuanced are the criteria that include recreations of deleted material (careful checks between the new content and the deleted content are important, as it may simply be a new editor starting from scratch); A3 (no content), which might be an editor just starting an article and getting tagged before having a chance to add much content (perhaps waiting a short while would be a good choice, or even asking on the article's or author's talk page); and A7, which is probably the trickiest of them all, and requires an admin with a deft touch to determine whether the subject is notable enough (even without a direct assertion of notability) to keep, but the article is simply very poorly written. An example of the latter is here, an article I stumbled on when doing new page patrol. Before I could even reformat it, I got edit conflicted by another editor adding an "under construction" tag, and a third editor adding a CSD:A7 tag. I quickly added a {{hangon}} tag. Luckily, the admin reviewing the CSD request recognised that several of us had by now started cleaning the article up and looking for references, so instead he sent it to AfD, where it was promptly kept because the subject was notable. Yes, the article still needs work (it's one on my to-do list), but it's readable and doesn't contain any BLP violations or terribly excessive hyperbole now.
  • A: The first step in determining consensus is to make an edit, and then see if anyone disagrees with it, either by reverting it, modifying it, or taking it to the talk page. An unchanged or undiscussed edit to an article could be considered presumed consensus, in that nobody appears to disagree with it, and likely the majority of edits made fall into this category. The second level would be if Editor A makes an edit, then Editor B modifies it, and after the modification everyone seems satisfied. An example of this is seen here, where User:Shoemaker's Holiday proposed a change, I modified it (with a summary indicating I'd be willing to discuss it on talk), and we both seemed fine with the modified version; nobody else reverted it either, so I guess that is now part of our WP:NPA policy. Talk page discussions can often lead to consensus, although sometimes it takes quite a while to get there. I've been watching the talk page of Rosalind Picard for the last few days, having bowed out of the discussion there fairly early on; after some rather heated exchanges, it appears that the rather large group of editors participating in that discussion are slowly coming to a consensus on the key area of contention. Sometimes an uninvolved party can be asked to give an opinion when there is a deadlock, as in WP:3O, or an RfC may be helpful to get different perspectives.
With XfDs, consensus is often dependent upon the strength of rationale of the various positions; it's not to be considered a straight-up vote. Policy-based positions should be weighed against each other; if there is no clear consensus one way or the other, then the default position is to keep. DRVs are intended to be reviews of the deletion process undertaken with a particular article, and include an option to undelete any article deleted improperly; especial care needs to be taken in weighing the arguments to ensure they relate to the original deletion process and aren't just a re-run of the XfD, and I like to see administrators with lots of experience closing these decisions.
Page move consensus isn't nearly as big a deal, and there's no expectation of minimum participation; the presumption is to move, unless there are objections to the proposal.
  • 6. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: This is often a grey area, because it is where the editor intersects with the administrator. My actions would be determined by several factors: a) whether or not I have edited the article or participated in discussions about it in the past, b) the nature of the dispute, c) whether or not I have an established editing relationship with any of the involved parties and d) whether or not other admins have been working on resolving the dispute. First off, if it is an article I've invested time in, I will deal with the dispute strictly as an interested editor and would not use administrative tools; I feel quite strongly about perceived conflicts of interest, and would ask non-involved administrators to step in if admin actions might be appropriate. That would extend even to management of any apparent BLP violations. Secondly, I'd determine the nature of the dispute. Is it a slow edit war extending over days or weeks? If so, I'd ask all parties to come to the talk page and try to hammer things out, involving our various dispute resolution mechanisms as required. If it's a BLP issue, I'd remove the contentious material and discuss it on the talk page, explaining why it needs to be out and working with the other editors to see if there are reliable sources and a good reason for its inclusion before agreeing to its reinsertion; I participated in a (now archived) discussion like this at Richard Gere, which involved an RfC, discussions on WT:BLP, and WP:BLPN as well. (Yes, this was the apparently endless discussion involving rodents.) If it is an edit war occurring over a very brief period of time, I might temporarily protect the article and invite all parties to the talk page to discuss things. This is more dependent on the histories of the respective editors; particularly if they are newer members to our community, they may be unaware of how we work to achieve consensus, whereas experienced editors may require either a reminder or a firmer hand (particularly if WP:3RR has been violated). Like Winston Churchill, I believe that "(t)o jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war". Dependent on the relationship I may already have established with one or more of the involved editors, I may feel it is necessary to recuse from a discussion; it's important for the participants to feel their positions are being dealt with respectfully, and it's hard to do that if someone thinks I'm a buddy of the other editor or, worse, that I'm there to perpetuate a previous disagreement with them. Finally, if another administrator has already taken on a dispute-resolution role, I will ask that admin if my assistance would be of value, or if it would be better to hold off. It's my opinion that admins should do their best to respect each other's administrative decisions where possible; if they have a concern, the right thing to do is talk with the other admin first, and move on to a neutral noticeboard if it cannot be easily resolved. (Apologies for the very lengthy response, but I think it's a really important question.)

General comments

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

Discussion

Risker is female? Now I feel bad. I first met Risker on WP:AN [1] in which I made a comment that made with the state of mind that Risker was male. The comment takes on a whole different meaning now with this turnabout (the implication now being that females can't solve their own problems and need help), and I liekly wouldn't have made that joke had I known. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, don't feel bad at all, Hbdragon88! I thought it was funny! Risker (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Kinnear and I really fail to see the problem here. Sure, Risker's arguing a point with skill and determination, but if she went over the line I missed it. AfD is a discussion; you're supposed to argue your points. If I were the closing administrator in that discussion I would have been grateful for such a wealth of discussion to draw on. A parade of lock-step keep/delete/whatever-have-you comments are worse than useless. It's a dark day when someone is opposed for adminship because they discuss too much. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We want our experienced editors to join discussions, they give administrators valuable information. The thought that this would be later held against them in a RFA is strange to me. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Beat the noms support « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support For the near perfect response to Q3 and for the quote on the top of her user page. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nomBalloonman (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You're not an admin? Seriously? You certainly act like one. Support without hesitation. Keep on truckin. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Give me a content-oriented administrator over a career wikimandarin any day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support: See no immediate problems, but having little experience with her, I can't say full support for now--Bedford 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  7. Seems like it's moral support time, for whatever reason. Dorftrottel (bait) 23:07, May 7, 2008
    I wouldn't say so just yet. I think Risker will have many people supporting her, it's just that they haven't had chance yet. I fully expect the support percentage to raise significantly over the next 12/24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At any rate, she has my genuine support. Btw: I could have sworn she were one... Dorftrottel (complain) 23:44, May 7, 2008
  8. Weak Support. Mmmm. I don't like DRAHMAZ, but I do like the attitude toward Wikipedia that you convey. And like Balloonman said—she is not your typical RFA candidate. Let's shake things up a bit. Malinaccier Public (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Clear article builder who isn't afraid to be bold when needed.Gazimoff WriteRead 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. a very gentle support, with comma splices, to drive her mad; but to wish her luck. with the hope that she's careful with deletions. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Closer inspection reveals a thoughtful editor, who analyzes carefully and astutely, and actually does not jump in disputes head first, but tries to avoid drama for drama's sake. Anyway, good content editor. Make that strong support. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support very strong content credentials, and reasonable when I've seen her around in discussions. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per noms. Good seems to outweigh bad. Dlohcierekim 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support—Thoughtful editor. The opposers' diffs so far leave me wondering why this editor's opinions are considered "drama". –Outriggr § 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good experiences with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Enjoyed working on Jacques Plante with her. Maxim(talk) 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Per Nom. I admire the fact that she was one of those who stood up to the BADSITES policy-pushers as a voice of reason. We need more, not less, administrators who can think critically. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as a net positive to the project. GlassCobra 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Just because I think she will do good with the tools. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I'm uncomfortable with editors who are dramaholics, but I can't see from below that this is at all the case. Risker participated in discussing, yes, a relatively small handful of some ugly dramas. But hers was always a calm voice that never fanned the flames and often helped move toward resolution. Her approach to BLP is firm and principled while not couched in unhelpful histrionics about "what moral right etc. etc." In short, the sort of candidate we need, and I encourage the opposers to give this one a careful reappraisal. --JayHenry (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - great admin material Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Her contributions are solid and valuable, and don't find the problems pointed out by the opposers very problematic at all. I also disapprove of the tendency to label getting into any sort of policy debate as "wikidrama" and use it as a reason to oppose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - I'm willing to take a risk. :) Dfrg_msc 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I see no reason not to support here. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. the_undertow talk 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. The admin corps can do with more great content contributors like this, for balance, and, per JayHenry, with calm voices in the storms. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Per my nom and those above. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Highly qualified candidate. No major concerns for me. Lradrama 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Fuck it, why not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Swat Nick (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Well informed, temperate, and interested in both the issues (and some people call that "drama") and best practices. An administrator who takes a stand is going to be accused of "drama" by someone. There is neither policy nor reason to suggest that this is a valid criterion for rejection. Every time someone, below, says "drama," just translate that in your mind as "took a position." Now, are administrators better for taking positions or worse? Are they better or worse for being involved? Are they better or worse for caring? To me, it's a reason to support, unless there is some reason to think the new candidate would use the buttons against policy. Nothing like that is present here. Geogre (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - no rational reasons to oppose Risker getting the tools. Neıl ☎ 10:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - There's srsly not one diff in the oppose section that brings me any caution. Tho, I do need to give credit to those who actually bothered to give diffs, thereby giving their oppose some weight. I've worked with Risker a few times over the past year. I've always had a pleasant experience. While we certainly do have too many admins with nothing better to do that kick up the dust and interject themselves in the drama, I have a feeling in my gut that risker will be a good addition to the team. Lara❤Love 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Thought she was one. Opposing concerns do not seem particularly troubling to me. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support My only issue with this candidate is an extension of prima facie: I view accepting RfA nominations as a sign of power hunger. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I object to this candidate for her unwillingness to follow accepted practice and to keep her head down until her RFA has passed (although if those diffs are the best drama she can provide I should really be opposing on the grounds of blandness. She put an article up for deletion and then had the temerity to argue in favour of it being deleted?! How did Wikipedia survive that? Whatever next?!). Also, I see no need for the tools, and where is her 1 FA? Yomanganitalk 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Methodical, open minded and keen to learn new topics. Would make a good admin overall.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support After looking this candiate over, I don't see any drama in the diffs of the opposers, so I will give the benefit of the doubt. ArcAngel (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Respect opposers, but positives far outweigh the negatives. Unless of course, other links could be provided. Rudget (Help?) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Solid contributor with mature and rational approach to problem-solving. I share Lara's sentiments in general regarding the net benefit to the project of this candidate having the tools. Regarding the opposes, I see no evidence that the candidate has done anything other than express arguably controversial opinions on process - that should not be a disqualifier for RfA. Orderinchaos 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Heaven forbid someone show gumption prior to RfA. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I just don't see the issue with excess drahmaz mentioned in the opposes, and agree with Orderinchaos' view of the situation. I'd much rather have a known quantity who's been around the block than another candidate with 3000 automated vandalism reverts. I don't like the precedent that previous involvement in significant and controversial issues is a handicap at RfA; it should be a prerequisite. Risker will be a good admin. Honestly, I'm most troubled by the 540 edits to James Blunt, but I could not in good conscience oppose an RfA solely on grounds of differing musical taste. MastCell Talk 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. If I could think of something pertinent that hadn't been said already, I'd add it right here. I can't. We certainly don't need more groupthink or careerism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. Excellent, well thought out answers + contributions to a featured article + participation in virtually every area administrator should work in = Excellent administrator. I would not hesitate to give her the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support--Duk 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support The opposes from editors whose opinions I hold in very high regard (e.g., Ryan, DGG) gives me pause. But overall I think she will be a good addition to the admin corps. One person's "drama" is another's "not afraid to step into controversy" (and vice-versa). Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I don't see how her alleged dramatization will affect her ability to use the admin tools at her disposal. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. the wub "?!" 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support -- good user, unlikely to misuse the tools. Loved the nomination also, very well said! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Obviously knowledgeable, definitely trustworthy (in my book anyway). Gnomes are not the only people who are trustworthy, and the presence of conflict is not a bellwether for potential abuse. I find that Risker has done a fine job all around, and there is no reasonable objection to sysopping her. VanTucky 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I think she'll be great. Tex (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Net positive? Definitely. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Will make one hell of an administrator. east.718 at 21:16, May 8, 2008
  57. Support Excellent copyeditor, I see no reason why she wouldn't make a good administrator. -- Scorpion0422 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Fine answers up above. MrPrada (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support. Very good candidate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. As an experienced editor, I expect her to have opinions about Wikipedia. Discussions on Wikipedia are not reserved for administrators so I have absolutely no problem with her regularly commenting in discussions, even controversial ones. Although I do not always agree, I see her polite comments as a plus. No reason stated indicate that she would abuse the admin tools. Rather, she appears to be an experienced user volunteering to do her share of more work. :) FloNight♥♥♥ 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support The opposition raises some valid points, but I personally find them insufficient to counter all the pros about Risker. Húsönd 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Experienced and dedicated editor. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. No evidence whatsoever that the candidate would abuse the tools. Indeed, everything I'm seeing would indicate the opposite - that this candidate's adminship would be a net positive for the project. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support A good user with a good record. I looked at the Bob Kinnear AFD cited by DGG, and I am not bothered by it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. An active editor who is here to make an encyclopedia. WillOakland (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. A great candidate. krimpet✽ 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Looks good. - Merzbow (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Has helped me. MBisanz talk 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, a reasonable voice with good judgment. --MPerel 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Solid judgement, can't find any reason not to say yes :) Jacina (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support So reasonable. - Epousesquecido (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I'm not too worried about this user; solid work and answers to questions look good. --CapitalR (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. The diffs provided by the opposes seemed to show a calm, level headed individual here. No worries.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, Risker appears to be friendly, pleasant, courteous, and to already have a hand in lots of issues that administrators deal with. I think that we will benefit from her having the tools. -- Natalya 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I've had only positive interactions with this user, through some tough times. (The badsites drama, specifically.) In all cases I am aware of she has acted as a steady voice of reason and diplomacy in some of Wikipedia's worst zones of personal antagonism and social conflict. Her involvement always served to mitigate, rather than exacerbate, existing drama. She has never caused controversy, and her judgment and demeanor in high-stress situations leads me to believe she is well qualified for use of the tools. Ameriquedialectics 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I read the arguments in the oppose section and do not see why giving the tools to an experienced editor such as Risker would be a problem. Yeah, we all make mistakes here and there, that only shows we are human. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Understands the work at hand, and has demonstrated competence in my eyes. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Changing to Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support No question, given of what I've seen of him/her to date. Trustworthy, and an asset to the project. Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. This took awhile to go through all the diffs and various discussions posted in the opposition section. I didn't see anything that would indicate misuse of the administrator tools. I might not agree with 100% of Risker's opinions, but seems like a fine editor. An asset to the project. Tan | 39 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. I trust her judgment. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Weak Support. not thrilled by deletion tendencies, nor drama, but evidence of helpfulness and article building is a plus. On the balance of things a net positive I suspect. Difficult as people whose opinions I take heed of are on both sides of this debate. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Strong candidate and I see only evidence she will use the tools wisely and well. There's some people I greatly respect in the oppose camp, but looking at the diffs, I don't really see the drama. Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support I've seen nothing but good from Risker. This is long overdue. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. My interaction, though limited, has been positive. Checked through hundreds of talk page edits and Risker has been level-headed and reasonable; I think would s/he would be fine with the bit. Good Luck! R. Baley (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Ok. Not afraid to get her hands dirty, which is probably a good thing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Very Strong Support To be honest, it is the oppose arguments (but not the arguers) who cite the strong opinions and the strange affliction of "wikilawyering" (i.e. the willingness to test the understanding of policy, to ensure that all aspects have been covered, in a debate) in their decisions that has persuaded me to vote early (when I first found out I was toying with holding on and trying to be WP:100.) I am biased, but I sincerely believe that a candidate who is committed to the encyclopedia and yet is prepared to get into the protracted debates and hold an unpopular opinion on the basis that it is important to provide a full vista of argument is one that is needed. "Too much drama!" is sometimes shorthand for, "Too much hard work, why can't we just act and move on?" Even where this is considered a Bad Thing, does this willingness to ask the awkward question or take the unpopular position translate as an inability to use the sysop bits appropriately? Has this editor been found to violate Wikipedia principles or policy? I say no, and thus believe that this candidate is a great example of the type of free thinking individual that should be part of the admin community. Case in point; it has come to me, as it has for many, as a surprise to find that Risker is female - evidence that the individual has devoted much of their time to the project, and not used it as a medium for promoting themselves. It makes the point that Risker has only ever debated upon facts and interpretation of policy, and never on who they are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Change to support. Anyone who can stand up to the kind of loopiness currently going on in the oppose section without snapping at anyone is going to do just fine. — iridescent 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. The STRONGEST SUPPORT I have ever offered an adminship candidate. Risker is not only one of the finest editors I've known on this project, but one of the nicest peoples as well. I've rarely, if ever, seen more specious, less-reasoned opposes. And that's saying something, as with a previous account, I spent a LOT of time at RfA. Bellwether BC 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support 10 more supports to WP:100 Alexfusco5 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Seems fine to me. Acalamari 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Good answers to questions and I don't share the concerns brought up by several of those in the oppose camp. I've seen Risker around in at least a couple of intense community discussions and she always seems to demonstrate good judgment. Bottom line is that's what we're looking for in an admin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per Bigtimepeace. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Very good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. A good editor that will make a reasonable admin. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support: I dont see a reason why I shouldnt support her -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. I've had good dealings with this user, and she seems well qualified. NoSeptember 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  100. Support. Good editor with good judgement. Hal peridol (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Exceptionally intelligient, calm, and rational person. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Seems to have the right combination of patience, judgment, knowledge and self confidence to be an admin. Ward20 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support: for those occasions when a protected page needs copyediting :) --Relata refero (disp.) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Way way too much drama to be an effective administrator. He has tendencies to jump in head first to disputes and ask questions later and I really don't think that makes a good administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know this needs diffs Ryan, accusational is one thing. Proof is another. Right now, this just sounds like a personal beef instead of a legitimate oppose, if I'm being honest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not personal beef - I've just had that impression of him over the past few months since I've been aware of his editing. It's not one situation, more a wider view of how I see him jump into situations that he knows will cause drama. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof? Diffs? Scenarios? Links? Anything to substantiate? I'm not not believing you, just not seeing it in my own digging. Where? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to change, this is just my interpretation, but his actions on both the IRC arbitration request, and Durova arbitration request tended to increase the drama levels rather than reduce them. It's my opinion that both cases would have been smoother, and led to the same conclusions if he had stayed clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only question I asked you was "Diffs", as are to be expected when saying an editor is filled with "way too much drama", along with "tendency to jump in head first". Diffs? Proof? Evidence? Just a feeling? and I'm going offline in 12 seconds, so I'll look at this tomorrow, thanks RP...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Keeper, I've given areas where I think he created too much drama. I said specifically it's not one or two comments, it's small things over a much wider number of diffs hence why I've believe Risker is unsuitable to being an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I wish more people would recognize that "diffs please" is good for simple, immediate issues but often is inadequate for more subtle, long-term concerns. (Though I disagree with your assessment in the present case.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor point he's a she ;-) Balloonman (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appologise, I hope no offence was caused. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does offend me a bit, as it is apparent that you did not even read the nomination statement...It makes me wonder about your whole oppose rationale and all. daveh4h 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er Dave, I have never known Ryan to be less than rationale. I disagree with him, but I have full faith in his integrity. One doesn't have to read the entire nom when one already knows or has strong feelings towards or away from a particular candidate. Please remember to AGF.Balloonman (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (moved to neutral - see below)Oppose (sorry, as I do respect both noms' judgement). As any AfD regular knows, I'm all for deleting things that have no place here, but having just gone through your last 500 wikipedia-space contributions you seem to be one of the most obsessive deletionists around with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT hairtrigger; with one exception, every XfD comment you've made in the last month has been to add "delete" !votes to discussions; the one exception was this piece of zOMG DRAMA (a quick search of the BADSITE I assume is the one you're avoiding naming reveals only 17 mentions of you, all in the context of side-mentions of you in threads attacking someone else; neither of our other two favourite attack sites mentions you once). Deletionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I've no doubt you are going to pass this RFA, but I don't feel comfortable supporting. — iridescent 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, Iridescent. I won't link to the attack page, which names about 100 people at Wikipedia, but there is a thread about it at Wikipedia Review. Apparently I am an abusive administrator closely linked to David Gerard, Josh Gordon, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Musical Linguist and MONGO. It's difficult to take it too seriously, especially when one looks at my contribs, but it did come as a bit of a surprise to find my name on the list. Risker (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they're attacking you - apparently, "Mailer Diablo, Giano, Alkivar, Iridescent" are "the good guys". — iridescent 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I hadn't noticed! You certainly got the short end of the stick there! Risker (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose - I was going to support per WP:WTHN, but this drama has me worried. asenine say what? 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the drama? She's concerned about her name appearing on a hate site that has driven some editors off the project. It's a valid point being made, and although it's drama, it's not hers. It's simply drama that has affected her... much to her dismay, at that. Lara❤Love 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per Wikidrama presented at XfD and Arbcom and the issues raised with AfD's. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I remember the ad hominem and strawman arguments she made at the Essjay controversy talk. She is one of the top wikilawyers I have ever seen. She loves calling me a quack. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those diffs display what you are saying. asenine say what? 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack, I'm sure there must be some reason that she would refer to you as 'Quack.' Know what I mean, Quack? the_undertow talk 07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing because she shortened your name when addressing you? At the very least you could oppose for something that holds merit. This oppose seems like retribution, to me. ArcAngel (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Risker's response to question 3 at 3A That is not a clear represenation of her behaviour or actions. The involved editors remember the feeding frenzy and the distractions. QuackGuru 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're opposing based on events from more than a year ago and the fact that she addresses you by the first half of your nick? Lara❤Love 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker made a claim that Denny Colt is probably a sockpuppet.[2] Risker, please explain these unfounded allegations. QuackGuru 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite a stretch to say that Risker made the allegations based on that diff. Anyone that actually reads the whole thread will quickly realize that she did not make the allegation, simply discussed the possibility. Read the thread directly above hers, read the whole thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for my ignorance, but is it common practice to ask a candidate about the rationale behind comments made just shy of a year ago? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common practice when your reaching for reasons to oppose, yes. Keeper | <;font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76 | Disclaimer 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't wish to engage QuackGuru in this line, it seems only fair to those reading this RfA that they be given a link to the entire thread from which this diff was taken.[3] I trust the judgment of the readers to draw their own conclusions. Risker (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't want to be referred to by a word you find insulting, then you probably shouldn't use a username that is conveniently shortened to an insulting word. -- Naerii 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh I'd call you "Quack" as well with that name o.O It wouldn't be calling you a quack as the 'quack' just a shortening of the name. Jacina (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Ryan and Iridescent. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that Iridescent has, although without changing the content of the oppose/neutral, now moved to support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose a tendency to spend too high a percentage of time in argument. We have too many admins already who like to participate fully in the drama. The tendency to get too much involved in a negative argument such as at WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Kinnear concerns me. DGG (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight or anything DGG, you know I respect your opinion, but I felt that Risker was exceedingly civil in that discussion. I have no problem with someone going "back and forth" in an AfD (in my mind the D is for discussion, not deletion). Civil, direct, policy based. Didn't appear heated at any time. I'm actually quite impressed by it. Although the AfD closer did close it correctly according to consensus, I also believe that Risker had the nomination right, and according to WP:LOCAL (I'm aware this primarily deals with places not persons, but I believe it still applies in principle) and WP:BLP, the article really should be deleted or merged to a parent article, but that's here nor there (note: I did not participate in that AfD or see it prior to it being linked here). I'm personally impressed with the composure Risker showed in defending her nomination and taking it seriously. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there are no civility problems, nor am I questioning the position. I just have problems with a general tendency to devote energy to contention. Arbs Admins tend to drift that way naturally after appointment, and this strong a balance towards it is not reassuring. DGG (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an administrative RFA, not an Arbitrator vote. Being involved with issues affecting Wikipedia that might draw strong opinions is bad? I thought it was good. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mistyped, I meant admins. Arbs are in fact required to get involved in the contentious issues; my reluctance here is not over discussing policy, which is good, but over the apparent strong preference for concentrating on the already high-traffic potential drama filled places, rather the the routine at the noticeboards and afd. Not that its wrong to do some, but its not a good idea to do this primarily.DGG (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, after looking at the link supplied by DGG. Ashton1983 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Changing my mind, after reading some of the remarks above. (Mackensen and FloNight.) Ashton1983 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Too much drama, overall per Ryan. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, per links provided by Quack Guru above. I don't really know Risker, and my overall impression isn't bad, but twisting an editor's username into an insult is unacceptable. Repeating the slur during your RFA shows either incredibly bad judgement or a lack of self control. Either one is a huge red flag when it comes to handing out admin tools. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah! Time out, everyone. I did call QuackGuru "Quack" on my talk page when he popped up there last night (direct quote: "Oh hello, Quack. Long time no see..."), for the first time in about a year. I'd called him that (or alternately QG) when we were editing Essjay controversy last spring, and did not know until he posted here that he took offense; I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who used that abbreviation then, but I am happy to stop now that he has made it clear he doesn't like it. I don't consider him "a quack" (in fact, if I remember correctly, he's not particularly supportive of many alternative therapies). Now...could we all go back and try to practice the last sentence of my response to Question 3? Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That answer definitely belongs in the plus column. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have copied these comments from inside the box below, as they are hihgly relevant to this vote. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the (boxed) lengthy discussion to the talk page. - jc37 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per the links provide by QuackGuru. And also per Guettarda. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per her drama mongering BADSITES stance - very reminiscent of Voldemort/Harry Potter. ViridaeTalk 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose—I believe non-self nomination increase the cabalism of Wikipedia. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:40Z (UTC)
    Ah, the Bizzaro Weber. We had to know it was coming. Bellwether BC 01:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Change to Neutral; this is shaping up to be close and I don't want to be the one to derail it. I still have some issues (see above) but on reflection, none of them are deal-breakers (and she's explained the dubious vote on Lauren Harries to my satisfaction). Although should she pass, I do urge her to rein in the drama. — iridescent 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I agree, this user is grat admin material, but the amount of time arguing this user spends cannot make me support. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 10:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral The amount of time that this user spends arguing is not a good sign that she will be a great administrator, but the way that she has answered the questions has made me put this in here, as I believe that she will be great administrator material in the future. Good luck in the future! Razorflame 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Quite frankly, i'm torn - One side of me says I'd trust this user with the bucket, the other (after viewing the diffs) is worried that she would use the tools perhaps a little too quickly. A few months of positive editing and contributing to namespace without disputes would change my mind, most certainly, so right now i'm unwilling to oppose or support. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding the questions, there were a few words that I felt were missing in your responses. I really would have liked to see the word "warning" in your blocking response; And "discussion" in your protection response. Your response in consensus starts out describing being bold, which is fine, but that's not the only way (talk page proposal/discussion?) to start concensus ("a way" vs. "the first way"). And I do consider page moves to be a "big deal". Redirects aside, navigation for our readers is very important. And your response to 6 had me concerned at first, but I think you clarified yourself better as you went along. (It probably was good that you decded on the long answer.) All these concerns aside (and no, none are minor), the context, tone, and structure of the responses was such that I think we can trust this editor with the tools. I don't believe this is someone someone who's going to block/protect/delete first and ask questions later. And there is distinct evidence of the use of discussion and an understanding of when to "back away" when appropriate. - Support - changed to Neutral upon reflection. - jc37 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If Risker has drama-escalating tendencies, this is good reason to oppose. However having looked at some of the examples given above, I don't see anything that looks wrong to me. So I'm on the fence for now. Friday (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant neutral, per Iridescent and DGG, and the discovery that the majority of her recent AFD !votes have been skewed toward deletionism. She is a good editor, but I have concerns. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chaotic Neutral per diffs provided in Oppose section. However, I feel that besides the "drama", this candidate is more or less qualified for adminship. Alas, I must vote neutral. --SharkfaceT/C 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Risker&oldid=212011367"