Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mizu onna sango15 2

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

Mizu onna sango15

Final (84/1/2); Ended 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mizu onna sango15 (talk · contribs) – Mizu was first nominated for adminship on July 10, 2008 but she withdrew it as the consensus was that it was too early for her but that she had great potential for adminship and that she should try again in a few months. So, I'm nominating her again. Everything in that first nomination still holds, so I won't repeat it here. Soon after she withdrew from that first RFA, two articles she worked on heavily have attained Good Article status: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film) and WALL-E. She has also worked hard on the areas of concern from that first RFA, including WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, recent changes, article building, Wikiproject work, and WP:RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I first encountered Mizu on the pages of the now defunct League of Copyeditors and was impressed with her cheerful, helpful and courteous attitude towards other editors. I've since worked with her on Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film), where as well as reinforcing my initial good impression, she showed great patience, determination and a sound knowledge of Wikipedia's editing policies. Although I was slightly disappointed when she decided to withdraw her first RfA, I agreed with her decision in the light of the comments made, and noted at the time that it displayed a level of maturity and judgement becoming of a potential administrator. With more experience under her belt, I'm very pleased to see her back here; I believe Mizu is exactly the sort of editor we should be presenting with the tools. EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I'd like to offer a co-nomination to Mizu onna sango15. I actually opposed her previous RfA because I didn't think she was quite ready, but I made a pledge to myself to keep an eye on her because I could really see the potential for the future. I'm pleased to say I think she's now ready. She's a well rounded Wikipedian who enjoys both administration and article writing. As Rlevse has already stated, she's had experience with good articles and you can see numerous article edits in her contributions. She's also very effective in meta type work where she comments well in XfD's, always giving firm policy reasoning and her comments show a good depth of research showing she doesn't just hit and run. I think Mizu will now make an extremely good administrator and I ask that you support her request for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I graciously accept. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

This time, I plan on working gradually, performing some easy tasks and slowly working into others. If this RfA succeeds, I will start off doing some TfD, RfD work, and Recent Changes-related adminning, and gradually work into CSD, Usernames for Administrator Attention, and AfD. I also plan on helping to lessen the backlog at WP:RFPP.

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

I'm proud of my minor-but-important contributions such as vandal-reversion, cleanup and WikiGnoming, but I also must say my articlework, highlighted by Rlevse above, is my greatest accomplishment content-wise.

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?

My most recent conflict, albeit rather civil, involved a disagreement regarding the style to which musical theatre-related articles should adhere, and it was resolved within days of the disagreement. I try my best to handle any conflicts that arise very calmly and civilly, and that is how I plan on handling them in the future.

Additional questions from JoJo

4. What have you learned about admin work since last RFA? I really want to know about user names.

What I have really learned about admin work since July is that it is for a certain type of person, and is not for everyone. Adminship is a heavy responsibility bestowed by the community, and although I already knew this, seeing other admins at work (my former coach, Rlevse, and EyeSerene, Malinaccier, and Ryan) showed me that it can be rather stressful, and more importantly, it is a task you have to be not only dedicated to, but also enjoy doing frequently, and I do.

5. Do you think women have a different role on wiki. Do we need more women users and admins? How can we get more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question! :-) Although it would be nice to have more fellow women here on the wiki, gender does not really matter to me. If I were the only female Wikipedian here, I would still be glad to have so many skilled users working by my side, regardless of gender.

Additional Questions from Banime

6. Will you please explain these statements on your user page: Feel free to edit if you can find something here that could be improved, but please don't vandalise, or you will be swiftly blocked, and Should the account begin to vandalise or appear to be compromised, admins should not hesitate to block it immediately?

No problem. For the former, I now do realize you will be swiftly blocked sounds a little bitey, so I will remove it (if you don't mind). My intention was merely to encourage constructive users to edit my userpage, as no part of the wiki belongs to myself, and to warn possible vandals that they will receive warnings for vandalism and eventually a block if they continue. My sincere apologies if this sounded harsh to you, or if you misunderstood its meaning.

Now for the latter. I operate a public account when I am at the library/on campus and I find the need to edit. Even when I use a strong password and remember to sign myself out, there is always the chance the alternate account is hacked (either manually, or through a trojan horse in the system), so I though it would be useful to post a brief note instructing admins to block it if it edits disruptively or it appears to be hacked. Again, please excuse me if this gave you the wrong impression, as I only intended to give a warning.

7. When do you feel it is appropriate to block users without warnings, or only give one warning to a user before blocking them, if ever?

In extreme circumstances, for example a compromised admin account deleting random pages, I feel it is okay to block without warning, but only preventatively. Occasionally, I also find it helpful to make use of {{uw-vandalism4im}} when an editor has made massive blatantly unconstructive edits within a short amount of time (such as when multiple windows or tabs are used), although I would not do this often.

8. This was a few months ago, how do you feel about this uw-vandalism4im warning for this edit in hindsight?

Another good question. At the time that I issued the warning, a time that I was not necessarily a newcomer anymore but was still rough around the edges in some cases, I though it acceptable to give an only warning if the vandal defaced a page more than once and had not yet been warned. Having said that, I believe it is important to keep in mind this was a few months before my first RfA (I believe this concern was raised in my previous request), and that my opinion on giving friendly warnings, WP:BITE, and assuming good faith have changed drastically since then. I would most emphatically not give such a warning in a case like that now, as it seems an overreaction; the editor may just have forgotten to give an edit summary.

Additional Questions from DGG

9I have look through your contribution back through July, and I see you have !voted keep on exactly one AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Laka--one that was, incidentally, deleted. I have no particular quarrel with most of your reasons for saying delete, but I am very puzzled that among all the 10,000 or so AfDs in that period, you couldn't find anything else that you thought was worth an argument for keeping. I can think of nobody else whose AfD !votes are so exclusively one-sided in either direction. I'd appreciate it if you explained. DGG (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mainly choose the arguments I !vote on based on why they were listed in the first place. I find that I tend not to !vote often in areas in which I am not familiar when the reason is based on the content itself (e.g., an article about Quantum Physics is claimed to be almost completely inaccurate, so it should be deleted, etc.) because I lack the expertise to judge the content for its worth myself. To avoid these problems, most of my !votes and comments are on verifiability issues, clear hoaxes, original research, NPOV violations, and the like; as I'd venture to say 70%-80% of the time simple AfDs (for example, an article about a new video game claims it was designed by, written by, and produced jointly by, John Doe and Oprah, but there are no references to back this up and google shows absolutely nothing) like these warrant a delete, this would explain why most of my !votes are for delete and not keep. If you notice, I do not list many articles myself for deletion.

However, I see the validity in your points and I do realise I am increasingly becoming more deletionist, when I started off as an inclusionist. My point is, I trust in most AfD contributors and their clue, and as more than half of the articles that arrive there should be removed, if I do not see any remote reason for an article to be kept, I am unlikely to vote so.

Additional Questions from Wronkiew

10. Are there any situations in which a user might legitimately blank a page? What about an anonymous user?

Not many, but I believe it is appropriate for a user to blank articles created themselves (or their own subpages) as a deletion request, though {{db-self}} is always preferred over that method. Also, when needed, {{courtesy blanked}} can come into handy on occasion, although it should not be used in the mainspace.

General comments

• See Mizu onna sango15's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Mizu onna sango15
• Requests for adminship/Mizu onna sango15 2

• Links for Mizu onna sango15: Mizu onna sango15 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• :::FWIW, concerning Q8, I see nothing wrong with this warning. The edit, which was a highly involved, purposely vandalistic edit concerning anal sex, was placed back on the page after the reversion. No reason to AGF. Tan | 39 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well yes, but the wrong user was warned. The paragraph was vandalized with this edit, and the anon removed the paragraph here and here very much in good faith, yet got reverted and final-warned. --Amalthea^Talk 00:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, precisely. It wasn't long ago, but it was careless, irresponsible, and it occured a few months before my first RfA, where I really learned how to be more cautious. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mizu onna sango15 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support as nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as co nom. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Absolutely, as co-co-nom. EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, as per my rationale on Mos15's last RfA. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, oh yes! Lots of us have been waiting for this well-deserving user to try an rfa again. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - as the nomination reads, she is now ready for adminship. macy 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support — The nominators said it all. I've been waiting for this RfA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support – excellent candidate. Per Julian, was waiting for this RfA. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Support As per Rlevse and see no scope for misuse of tools and concerns of previous RFA appear to be overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Excellent, thoughtful editor, will make a fine admin. Great contributions to XFD's, RFA's and other areas of Wikipedia as mentioned by the nominators. Dreadstar † 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Amazing username = support - Just kidding, but amazing contribs = support so we'll go with that. iMatthew 20:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Seems like a good choice. I do see the concerns raised by A Nobody's oppose, but I am sure the candidate will not let AfD closes be influenced by such personal views or will mistakenly speedy delete stuff as cruft. On a side note, I'd suggest a shorter username. ;-) SoWhy 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Obviously. Garden. 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
16. To be completely honest, I considered this user to already have administrative tools. On that basis, there is no pressing reason for me to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent Editor can't smell any misuse Alexnia (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Duh At last. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Good answers. But women not many here and we need more to write about our issues. — JoJo • Talk • 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Hello, I'm Jack the Ripper and I need some help meeting the right woman...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for the right woman to wield the mop! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Strong support - Power to the Alaskan cabal! L'Aquatique[talk] 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - trustworthy editor. Customary thanks to the opposer whose first diff, in my humble opinion, shows a reasoned justification for deleting the article in question. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Crystal whacker (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

    Support I like all of the contributions, very trustworthy.Moving to Neutral while I await answer to questions and look at a few more things that caught my interest. --Banime (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

24. Support - No problems here. :) — neuro^(talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Support per the excellent nominations, good amount of contributions, work spread across the board, all-in-all, a net-positive. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
26. Yes per awesome user page and unusual name.--Serviam (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Excellent track history, and excellent history of kindness not commonly found. —Ceran↕(talk) 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent work on the wiki. I see no trust problems. Good luck. America69 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
29. はい, いいです。- Richard Cavell (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Very Strong Support A trust worthy experinced candidate who has what it takes DaffyDuckDied (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
31. Support – iridescent 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - I've always liked you and was looking forward to this one. — Realist² 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
33. Support as nom (I wanted to, anyway). Great user, no problems, I trust Mizu. Xclamation point 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Why Not? /\ _ /\ G ! B B i 3^{I4m 733t0rz}
35. Support She remains civil and friendly and she would make a good admin. Reliable♪ Forever^talk 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Has clue. faithless (^speak) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. A bit new, though, clearly involved with the community (1/5th edits in User talk:). Definite net gain. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
38. Support – Definitely. I knew this RfA would come up sooner or later. I've seen this user in many areas around Wikipedia and have found her to be a very worthy candidate for adminship. Happy to support. Will do perfectly fine with no doubt. I see absolutely no reason why not to support Mizu onna sango. – RyanCross (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Still obviously qualified. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. I see no problem at all. DiverseMentality 06:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Sure, no problems here. GlassCobra 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
42. Utmost Support When I was going over her Editor Review, I remember that I either said something along the lines of, "You are great. There is no weakness I can find in you," or looked at the editor review and skipped it because I can't find a weakness in her. I see no reason why I shouldn't say, "Good job, you're still just as good." Leujohn ^(talk) 08:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
44. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - definitely. RockManQ ^(talk) 13:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
46. Support per all above. abf /talk to me/ 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - I can find nothing that raises the slightest concern. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
48. Strong Support from me!. Lots of good edits and good all round. Andy (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. TN‑X-Man 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
50. Strong Support. You will make a fine admin. All that needs to be said has been. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
51. Support - Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - After reviewing things I am happy you will make a good admin and will not abuse the tools. The concerns of the opposition thus far do not concern me, I have not find anything I consider moderately wrong with your XfD contributions. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Quite clueful IMHO. Sam ^Blab 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - meets my standards. I did not take part in the first discussion. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Will definitely benifit from having the tools. LittleMountain5 01:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - Girl power, trust in the noms, nothing popping out in the contribs (though I just randomly scanned). No reason to believe there would be an abuse of the tools. لennavecia 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - I see no reason to be concerned about this user being granted the tools. Reyk _YO! 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - Great editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Thought she was one already. I am surprised. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
60. Strongest possible support. I was a bit worried when I saw this come up due to the last RfA, but looking at your contributions and attitude the improvement is absolutely phenomenal.Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
61. Support No qualms about the ability of Mizu or her trustworthiness. --Rodhullandemu 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. Good contributions & good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. Good experiences with Mizu, looks like a trustworthy contributor. FlyingToaster 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
64. Support One of those times where I can say "Seriously? She's not an admin yet?" Good experience, great editor, passes everything in my book. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - will surely be a good admin using her rational temperament. -- Mentisock 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
66. Horribly Strong Support I've been with her since she first started. What a great deal of work she's done in such a short amount of time! She's active in many WikiProjects, and is the most curteous Wikipedian I know. I'm sorry it took me so long to nominate! Have fun with the mop. ;D L337*P4wn 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
67. Strong support. Great user! Been waiting for your RfA Mizu! :) Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Nice noms, no problems with user, seem them around the wiki, nice work, keep it up!--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
69. Support. See no reason to suspect tool abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
70. Support As before! --jonny-mt 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
71. Support Your questions have satisfied any fears that I had, and I couldn't find any more recent contributions that seemed iffy. My fear was just that you would forego warning users of vandalism before blocking them, or skip right to the highest level warning even when only one or two minor vandalisms occurred. However based on your answers and recent behavior I don't think that will be a problem. I'm glad to support. --Banime (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Seems like a good candidate....Modernist (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
73. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
74. Support - the contributions highlighted in this RfA all seem very good. Just one small note, though: could you change your user signature to another colour other than red (as it looks like a red link to me, when you actually do have a user page)? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    No problem. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

    Great, thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

75. Strong Support Hell yes!!! SteelersFan94 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
76. Strong support Gladly interrupting my wikibreak to support this excellent candidate. Húsönd 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Excellent experiences with this user. Spencer^T♦C 22:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
78. Support Excellent contributor, seems to be very careful with her edits (at least now, if not earlier). Definitely won't mess up ;) Chamal ^talk 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
79. Support looks decent, not the best AFD work I have ever seen but she will do allright. Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
80. seresin ( ¡? )  05:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Support - You look like a good candidate to me. I have no concerns, good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indented, as Camaron has already voted. — neuro^(talk) 13:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

    I thought I was seeing Déjà vu, I could not put my finger on why. Camaron | Chris (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

81. Support per all above. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
82. Support. Why not? Synergy 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
83. Support: I dont see anything that concerns the community -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
84. Support gladly, based on past observation of Mizu.  Frank  |  talk  12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars vs. Star Trek (use of WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN non-arguments), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest (2nd nomination) (use of WP:PERNOM non-argument). In another example, the candidate really just votes without providing the why. It is important that administrators close discussions in a manner and with rationales that are still respectful of good faith contributors and that explain their judgment. We can only get a real sense of the why behind someone’s argument if he/she articulates it, especially in discussions that are not unanimous. I do not see from my experience with the candidate in the above cited examples much of an explanation beyond one or two words of how the candidate actually interprets and understands policies and guidelines with regards to these examples. In fact all of the preceding examples are the kinds of arguments typically cited as ones to avoid and from administrators I look for more carefully thought out arguments that tell me the logic behind their thinking. Nevetherless, these are only a few examples and I am pleased to see that she has never been blocked and was granted rollback rights, so it is only a weak oppose, but still I have reservations whenever I see these particular arguments to avoid in deletion discussions used as to how much thought will potentially be put into closes and if the closes will be good. As I am confident your request for adminship will likely pass, please do consider providing more substantive rationales in the future. All the best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   For the first one, at least, the user at least supplied other reasoning: non-notable and wholly in universe. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   I don't find "non-notable" persuasive reasoning for those types of discussions given the disputed nature of notability when it comes to fiction articles. Plus, given the current out of universe nature of the article per Star_Wars_vs._Star_Trek#Critical_commentary, it just goes to show that the article was in effect improveable and thus should have been improved as it was rather than deleted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   In other words, oppose because you don't agree with two of her AFD arguments. How petty. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   "A Nobody" seems to do that rather often. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat note: Address the argument, not the editor; name-calling isn't productive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   Just for the record, Ameliorate wasn't "name-calling." The opposer's username is "A Nobody." ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   Stifle's comment came across as calling A Nobody petty; that is what I was referring to (though obviously the username confusion isn't helping matters at all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   Drop it people. "A Nobody" (or LGRdC if you prefer) is like Kurt in this respect. You're not going to convince him to change his extreme beliefs on inclusionism or his !vote here so don't bother. Yes, it's petty, but escalating this isn't constructive and doesn't help the candidate. Regards, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

   This user doesn't want their previous user name bandied about- from what I can tell this has to do with real-life harassment. I think we should respect that. Reyk _YO! 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   Can we please move this passive aggressive bullying of User:A Nobody to the talk page? It's bad enough that an admin tried (and succeeded) to incite drama, but this really doesn't deserve to remain on this page. SashaNein (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   Alright, let's keep our cool. We don't need to get into a big argument over one oppose vote. It's not that big of a deal, after all. Expecially considering this user's RfA is on the road to 100+ supports if they're lucky. One oppose has very little effect. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   *Knock on wood* ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   OK, so it may not... but it'll pass. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's a little too slow for 100, but I'm happy with what I have. Thanks everyone for the thumbs-up! —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral While I await answer to my questions and look at a few things that caught my interest. Moving back to Support. --Banime (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Good editor with almost a full package; as a content builder, vandal fighter, active participation in wikispace, the nominators' excellent supporting, having shown her strong patience per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Woody (the candidate did not lose her temper after referred to as "Wiki bullies"). I also believe the candidate would not abuse the admin tool. However, I land here because I feel a little uncomfortable with the candidate activities on AFDs for her assertive tone as sometimes not providing a clear rationale and echoing "per who".--Caspian blue 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral I would really like to support, but looking through her contribution history I found several things that keep me from doing so. One is her short and at times insufficient delete rationales at AfD. Another is the recent content dispute with allegations of harassment. Mizu chose to report it at AN/I after giving up trying to resolve it herself. As the dispute resolved itself over time without administrator attention, reporting it seems to have been the wrong choice. This was a missed opportunity for Mizu to demonstrate her dispute resolution abilities. Finally, users are allowed to blank their own talk pages, and I fear she will block people for doing so. Sorry. Wronkiew (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.