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

Diannaa[edit]

Final (90/10/9); ended 06:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC) - ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Diannaa (talk · contribs) – This is my second attempt at nominating someone else for adminship. Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to give Diannaa the administrative functions. She's been around for just over a year, and since then has made over 12,000 edits, with nearly 60% of them into the article space. Now, the first time I came across this user was when she was doing lots of rollback, giving warnings to vandals and even warns rollbackers about any questionable revert they make. (See this one which I did wrong recently!)

Apart from rollbacking she's also done a lot of article promoting. She promoted four lists to featured status and one article to featured; all of which you can see on her userpage.

With her experience sufficient enough to know many areas of Wikipedia and the fact that she has a clean block log during her year I would hope that the community agrees with my decision that Diannaa would become one of Wikipedia's newest administrators. Minimac (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I have thought it over and have decided to accept the nomination. I would like to point out that the featured articles etc shown on my user page were not written by me; this is material I helped other people promote through copy editing efforts. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to help out with the articles that are tagged as copyright violations. There is often a large backlog of work there and I think my research skills and attention to detail could be useful there. I would also be interested in reviewing articles tagged as WP:Prod. I could branch out gradually to other tasks as time goes on. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the WP:Copyright problems page and it looks like there are not that many articles needing admin attention at present and there is a small team of people dealing with them already. But sometimes this page takes so long to load that I go and start some laundry while I am waiting. There are some articles reported by CorenSearchBot at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations that need to be looked at. Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source lists 167 articles that need to be dealt with. It is true that not all these activities do not have to be done by an administrator, but some aspects do require administrator attention, specifically, deletion of articles.
In my copy editing efforts I occasionally add a WP:Prod tag to an article. Typically the reason I do so is because the subject of the article is not notable, and the hours of effort required to copy edit or clean it up to standards are not warranted based on the article traffic statistics. I have looked at some 5000 articles in detail in the process of copy editing and know what a reasonably worthwhile Wikipedia article should consist of. I am not an inclusionist; in fact I think our efforts might be better off managing the content we aready have than accepting more articles, especially on borderline or non-notable topics. Some articles I nominated for Prod deletion recently include Mexican pacific lowlands garter snake, Comtrade group, No-cook cooking, and Vision of Rage. The last item in particular had an incredibly long plot summary that would have required many hours of editing time to bring up to an encyclopedic standard. I think my copy editing experiences would put me in a good position to help with evaluating articles for deletion that are nominated using the Prod tool.
I want to clarify where I stand on deleting articles. I think I would be more likely to delete a questionable old article: one that needs extensive work, that no one has taken the time to improve for years, and has been sitting around unread for years. I think our most valuable resource is our editor time, and in some instances it is better to cut our losses and invest our time elsewhere. New articles often grow and develop over time; there is no way really to tell which ones our readers will find valuable, or which ones our editors will decide to improve into something more valuable. So I would not want to be deleting new articles unless they are super clear cut. (This paragraph has been copied from down below) --Diannaa (Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, my interests right now lie more in administrative duties that relate to managing content rather than managing people. Obviously this might change over time. I will add more to this later if I think of anything else but right now I have to go do some RL things. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should add that while patrolling with Huggle we occasionally get attacked by a group of 4chan users who decide to vandalise a specific article. The other night some AP kids got a school assignment about Canterbury Tales and several vandalised the article. I could use admin tools to put temporary page protection an articles when this happens. Also I could block persistent vandals instead of having to list them at WP:AIV. I expect I would use these tools sparingly, at least at first, as the present system typically gets the desired results in a matter of minutes. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have several accomplishments that I take special pride in.
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: I have had several stressful encounters on Wikipedia. The best approach for me to take is to not get defensive and to concentrate on doing what it takes to continue improving the encyclopedia. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Nakon
4. What is your view on ignoring all of the rules?
A: I think we need to use common sense and not be dogmatic about following rules if doing so gets in the way of building a better encyclopedia. If a rule needs to be broken, though, the user needs to be prepared with a valid reason why they did so. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Mono
5. You have rather short answers to some of the questions, and have rather narrow interests; would you consider branching out?
A: Well, Mono, I tried to make concise answers rather than subjecting everyone to a wall of text. If you have some specific areas that you would see more elaboration on, please let me know. Yes, I expect I will branch out into other areas of interest as time goes on. There are many unexplored corners of the wiki I have yet to look at; that is part of the fun. In October, for example, I started using Huggle, and vandal fighting has been my main activity on Wikipedia all month. However, I have a flair for copy editing (though no formal training), and copy editors are in short supply here, so I expect that will continue to be my main focus, particularly during our copy editing drives. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from 28bytes
6. Can you comment on the recent discussion with 184.36.90.17 on your talk page regarding quoting sources? Under what circumstances (if any) do you feel it is appropriate to include a paragraph-long quote in a footnote to support a statement in the main article text?
A:In readily available material that is drawn from the Internet, no quotation at all is required. The reader can go to the website themselves and look at the material to verify it is there. When choosing sources for our articles, our writers are looking for readily available materials that come from high quality publishers, so no quotations should be necessary to prove the material is actually there either. In a quick check of ten featured articles I found only one quotation of any length: Noble Gases, footnote number 7. The quotation is from a book from 1872. I don't think a paragraph-long quote from a source should ever be necessary, and may in fact set us up for copyright issues. Short quotations from old or obscure sources may be appropriate occasionally. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
7. Do you think Wikipedia should have rules regarding alcohol consumption by editors? How about for administrators?
A:No, I do not think we need such a rule. It would be unenforceable, and the types of behavior that would result from a drunken editor are already covered through our guidelines about competence and civilised behavior. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Lambanog
8. In your view is it possible for a Wikipedia article to be the best English language reference on a subject or does WP:Original research make that an impossibility?
A:Thank you for your thought-provoking question. In my opinion Wikipedia can never compare to the wealth of information available in books. And I don't say that just because I work at the library! Here is an example: I personally have read about ten books written by and written about Albert Speer. We have a 7000-word article. Though it is a featured article the sheer volume of material available in the books can only give a more comprehensive view. And the authors of books are able to indulge in original research and draw conclusions: Gitta Sereny tells us exactly what she thinks about Albert Speer. From my research I was able to draw my own conclusions about this topic. The Wikipedia article is not as detailed and is not allowed to draw conclusions, so I would be unable to form an opinion based on that source alone.
On the other hand, there are some things Wikipedia does very well: our coverage of pop culture and current events is unsurpassed, and some of it even has reliable sources :P. We can keep our resource up-do-date and remove outdated or superceded material much more readily and at lower cost than a library. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Elen of the Roads

9. Since it seems to be topical at the moment, what is your view of Wikipedia's civility policies? Do you think they work? Could they be improved? How would you enforce them? (NB, for myself at least, I'm not looking for a 'right' answer, rather for your take on it).
A:I was driving to the bank one day and an aggressive driver came up behind me. Eventually he passed me, and then cut me off. When I arrived at the bank, the same man was standing there, politely holding the door. The internet is kinda the same: People might behave differently online or in their cars than they do in person. So we see a lot of uncivil behavior.
I think the civility policies work, but sometimes they are slow. A chronically uncivil user, even a long-term one, is occasionally banned. I think we have to keep using the tools we have available and let people know that uncivil behaviour is not acceptable and will have consequences. We need to keep calling people up to the appropriate notice boards (WQA, ANI, RFC) even though to do so might be difficult, time consuming, or uncomfortable. We need to ensure that new users have ready access to and understand the behavioral guidelines. People need to be issued blocks for inappropriate behavior, even though those blocks are sometimes overturned. Dealing with people that have long-term behavior problems will likely not have to be dealt with by me, at least not at first, but there are other things all users and admins can and should do to help make Wikipedia a civilised place to work, such as demonstrating proper behavior; not tolerating bad behavior; and helping angry or abusive people work through it to become productive editors. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from MJ94
10. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A:


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Excellent balance of content contributions and anti-vandal work. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Confirmed--Talktome(Intelati) 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks like a great user. Very good anti-vandal work. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've thought this would happen eventually for at least four months now. I'd have offered to nominate her in a cuple months, in fact. Courcelles 04:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good editor, great contributions - would be good admin. THEMONO™ 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Strong article contributor and vandal fighter. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Great work, I know this editor through GOCE. No problems here. Mlpearc powwow 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, user appears to have Clue. Nakon 05:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Stephen 05:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A good user that deserves the tools. ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seen her around in GOCE. Impressed by her edits. Bejinhan talks 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Whoops! I forgot about the fact that I can support myself as the nominator. Minimac (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Easy decision. Dianaa has done an amazing amount of copy edit work, has an excellent calm temperament, and clearly knows a great deal about Wikipedia policy. We definitely need more people helping with copyright problems too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Candidate has done fantastic work with the GOCE, extremely deserving of the tools and would put them to good use :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:26am • 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support I've known Diannaa for a while and her work over at GOCE is invaluable. Diannaa is a great editor and very helpful. No red flags here and nothing that I see that would cause me to even vote neutral :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support - I've also seen Diannaa a lot from the GOCE backlog elimination drives and I know she is an excellent copy editor along as a new Huggle user! Derild4921☼ 11:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support. I've worked with Diannaa many a time, and rest assured, she would make a great administrator. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support Diannaa is a very discerning and active editor who has worked in coordinating roles with the GOCE with great success. Awesome pick for admin. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 13:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support An able and clueful editor, no concerns here. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support the candidate has all the "right stuff" with respect to copy editing and vandal fighting credentials. Her work at GoCE is exemplary.--Hokeman (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Active, experienced editor. Well deserved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Fought a lot of vandalism on Huggle. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Everytime i check RC, i see her reverting something, this is a hardworking user. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Inka888ContribsTalk 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support--iGeMiNix 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I want to oppose because I think the tools will take away a good deal of your copyediting time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per expanded answer to question number 1, I have some concerns about article creation, but there's no reason why she would abuse the tools. Secret account 23:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. You've done some great work on Wikipedia, and if you feel that you would be able to benefit the wiki further with sysop tools, then you won't get an objection from me :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Excellent candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Why not. Smiley4541 (Smiley4541) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support—don't see why not. Airplaneman ✈ 00:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I don't see any problems. --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support per her outstanding work to the encyclopedia. I'm sure she'll use the mop well. ~NerdyScienceDude 01:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support I was one of the first people to give Dianna a Barnstar for her work last year, Great to see she kept up and collected many more. Looking at her edits, I can't think of a more deserving candidate. Theo10011 (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Looks good. T. Canens (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Good Track and see no concerns and feel the project only gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Adminship is no big deal and so I am happy to hand you the mop. Basket of Puppies 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I have always had positive interactions with this candidate, and I have not seen anything problematic or which cause me concern. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support indeed! Very pleased to see Diannaa take the plunge(er) :) Ever since her first few edits when I noticed her diligent copyediting work I knew this editor was among those of us who 'get it'. I'm confident she will make an equally fine admin. -- œ™ 07:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Diannaa. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Keepscases (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Default support, find opposes unconvincing. As a content contributor, I want to see some involvement, but do not ask for GA or FA involvement, which are quirky processes at best. Nominee minimally fulfills that criterion. Know of no other reason to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support for Christ's sake. If anyone seriously considers the votes in opposition then we should be voting to make this candidate Jesus or his metric equivalent. MtD (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 48-3 and the oppose votes have zero weight according to bureaucrats and past precedent. Essentially the vote is 48-1. It's safe to say at the moment that this RFA will easily pass. You don't need to be so dramatic in bashing myself and the rest of the opposition just because we have concerns. Diana will get the bit, but I hope she at least takes the time to significantly expand some articles along the way. Vodello (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Knows what she's doing. Brambleclawx 17:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I'm comfortable supporting here. AniMate 23:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. All looks good. I've seen the candidate make some good reports around the place, such as AN3. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support I can think of nothing bad to say about this editor. Plenty of good work, copyedit project, some promotion work, active, seen her around and can't think of anything objectionable. Give this one the mop. Sven Manguard Talk 00:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Heck yes! Nolelover It's football season! 05:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Solid candidate Jebus989✰ 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Great editor. -download ׀ sign! 20:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yo Apoyo Diego Grez (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, absolutely knows what she does (saw a "false positive" from me once I didn't saw...) - Hoo man (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. No reason not to give her the mop.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Old fashioned support It does not bother me that the candidate has shown little need for the mop, what is important to me is that she has shown that she is here for the purpose of creating encyclopedic content - and that she appears sufficiently trustworthy to be provided with the flags regardless of how often she may use them. I hope she continues to copy edit and do the other stuff that is read, and uses the responsibilities that comes with sysop privileges to further that work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Garion96 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support I know Diannaa as a very helpful volunteer in a leadership role in the Guild of Copy-Editors. All of my interactions with this candidate have been helpful and have helped me feel more enthusiastic about volunteering my time and effort to build Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Rock on! An obvious choice! I see no reason to oppose. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support - I'm glad you ran. I've seen you around and have no qualms about giving you the tools. Your answer to question nine was very good, by the way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Ocean Shores 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Looks good, I trust the user to work well with the community and the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Everything looks ship-shape here to me. Steven Walling 01:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Certainly. I'm not sold on any of the opposes below, which essentially spin around one PROD on an article about a snake, which clearly doesn't have a written consensus on whether they're inherently notable and which an admin (Explicit, who I think knows what they're doing!) deleted presumably having made all the relevant checks. If after 7 days of a PROD nobody could be bothered to fix it, I don't see the problem with deleting it if it's non-notable. Copyediting checks out, answers to questions look fine (even the stupid ones); no alarms, no surprises. GedUK  08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No obvious issues, enough content work, and a great anti-vandal track record. Ronk01 talk 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Excellent candidate. Contributions to lower-level articles highly encouraging, shows willingness to actually improve something that can grow rather than just tweak something that has already been worked on extensively. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Mature and thoughtful. No one has experience in everything, but if a candidate is mature and thoughtful they'll learn without causing disruption. More important is neutrality and the ability to interact with other editors calmly intelligently and fairly as this candidate does.(olive (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  74. Support Diannaa has come to my attention for her work in fighting recurring vandalism on a page of particular interest to me (Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania). I'm grateful to those who spend time and energy fighting persistent vandals. Canadian2006 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per above and WP:NETPOS. I note the opposes, and they are reasonable enough, but not enough to cause me concern the tools will be misused through accident or design. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support definitely Very positive interactions. upstateNYer 02:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I shall support because I forgot to do so before. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 10:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Definitely competent enough. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Looks good. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Diannaa got my attention for her productive (albeit brief) involvement with addressing ongoing problems at Alvin C. York, including her patience on the talk page there. I have not delved into much of her history, but that episode, combined with her answers to questions here, gives confidence that this is the right sort of person to be an admin. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Positive editor in which I see no obvious problems with; Diannaa seems prepared to use the admin tools in the areas that she is experienced in. She has a strong ability to work with others, and her work with the GoCE is fantastic. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support: A great editor. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Experienced editor who has worked tirelessly at the Guild of Copy Editors, keeps a level head in the many policy discussion we have had, and has contributed greatly to improving numerous articles. S Masters (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Aiken (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support No reason not to. Wackywace converse | contribs 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Great antivandal editor and very polite (from what I can see on the editor's talk page. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Absolutely, 100%, yes. Great work, Diannaa. MJ94 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Also 100%. Come across Diannaa quite often, adn I'm always impressed.
Oppose[edit]
  1. Regretfully oppose. I appreciate that almost 60% of Diannaa's edits are in article space, but examining the depth of those edits more closely,
    Article
    103 - Korean_War
    54 - Adi_Da
    51 - Rajput
    doesn't evidence deep involvement in any one article, or involvement in any GA- or FA-level article. And I'm a bit troubled at the notion she expresses that copyediting helps clean up problems-- perhaps it does on lower-level articles, but on higher-level articles, it's sourcing that causes problems, so I like to see editors who have researched and written extensively, rather than focusing on cleaning up prose. Dianna has been around for only a year; I'd like to see more experience in higher-level or more contentious articles, so we have a better feel for how she would handle the really tough spots on Wiki. We just have too few admins who really understand content work, and I can't support more of those without some evidence that there is one specific thing that they do very well and need the tools for (copyediting isn't one of them). Also, since I don't have admin tools, I can't check the prod at Mexican pacific lowlands garter snake, but I don't quickly understand why it was deleted, or at least redirected to Thamnophis valida celaeno; it shouldn't have been prodded as far as I know, and fixing it would take a second based on a google search. I also don't see much experience mentioned in any area where the tools would be helpful, or how she might use them (wisely) if she has them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale given by Diannaa for the Garter snake article was: Non notable variety of garter snake; all info here was copied from Garter snake#Diet. Airplaneman ✈ 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked around and was unable to find anything stating that all snakes are notable. I found a failed proposal for Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences) but nothing that confirms that all life forms are notable. The redirect is a good idea and may have been a better option than a prod. Thank you for your comments. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on the talkpage of that proposal. All life forms that we know about have been written about in reliable sources sufficiently to pass WP:GNG. There isn't a separate document that says "all snakes are notable". Hence my query if the snake was a hoax. If it wasn't, there should have been enough information in one of the big databases to verify that it was notable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better stated by DGG below, per funny comments that this type of oppose carries no weight with the crats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your continued interest, SandyGeorgia. Perhaps if the only place that it states that all species are notable is on the talk page of a failed proposal, it is a little too hard to find. All human settlements are considered notable as well, but this is not explicity stated at Wikipedia:Notability either. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose per SandyGeorgia. The bureaucrats have made it clear that a !vote for this reason carries zero weight, but I still want to request that the candidate improve in this area. Off-topic: Question 7, posed by Keepscases, is a weird, weird thing to ask. Vodello (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic: You're not familiar with Keepscases then? :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at his contribd; he likes to ask silly questions and then vote based on something comeplwtely unrealted. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it's just a bit of fun, and helps lighten up RfA a bit :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I like turtles. Someone please move this series of off-topic stuff to the talk page. kthx Vodello (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat_death_of_the_universe&action=historysubmit&diff=392162903&oldid=392162895 - I know we all make mistakes, but if you don't notice when you re-insert vandalism into an article, I think you're moving too fast with Huggle. It's kind of a pain to fix vandalism twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike411 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to query this, but the user did notice, as evidenced by this apology on your talkpage, only a few minutes later. It looks like a conflict between twinkle and huggle that's all, not a case of going too quickly. Quantpole (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Edit to add. I notice that your !vote was added before Diannaa's comment on you page so maybe it was only after this that they noticed. I still think it's a very minor issue however. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate apologized for the simple, easy mistake just 9 minutes later. We will all commit this minor screwup at one time or another. Opposing based on one accidental reversion that lasted for a grand total of 7 minutes doesn't make much sense. I don't support the candidate at this time, but I won't accept that the rationale provided above is grounds for opposing. Vodello (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose; I appreciate your effort as part of the LOCE, but my personal criteria require more significant contributions to audited content (further). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for several reasons: first, works far to quickly with articles to be able to see all the problem or leave properly personalized notices; second, admitted lack of knowledge of deletion criteria; third, almost no contributions to policy discussions,; fourth, an outspoken dedication to removing rather than improving content. I have no objection to deletionists who wish to remove borderline notable material; I do object to those who would rather remove than fix, even when they know it's fixable. People who think we do not need new content are not to be trusted in dealing with new editors. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "an outspoken dedication to removing rather than improving content": Diannaa has done a huge amount of copy editing (she improved 243 articles in the September copy edit drive alone), which to me shows a pretty solid dedication to improving content - I think all she is suggesting (which matches my experience of working with her at the Guild of Copy Editors) is that she exercises good judgment when it comes to deciding between improving and deleting a questionable new article. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would be more likely to delete a questionable old article: one that needs extensive work, that no one has taken the time to improve for years, and has been sitting around unread for years. I think our most valuable resource is our editor time, and in some instances it is better to cut our losses and invest our time elsewhere. New articles often grow and develop over time; there is no way really to tell which ones our readers will find valuable, or which ones our editors will decide to improve into something more valuable. So I would not want to be deleting those unless they are super clear cut. I am going to copy these remarks into my answer to question #1 as many people seem to be misunderstanding where I stand on this issue. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I always have enormous respect for DGG's judgements (and advice) on Wikipedia, however, he might just be missing one detail here, because it also concerns the way I occasionally get lambasted as a deletionist: the items that show up on Diannaa's Wikipedia CV that make them look like a deletionist, don't take into account the thousands of gnomish rescues they make both at NPP, and on their various travels around the site.--Kudpung (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Q1 - essentially the same reason as DGG's #4 above. Townlake (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It is with great regret that I land in this section. Diannaa is a friendly, likeable editor in my experience and if RfA were just about liking the candidate on a personal level, I'd gladly support. However, I can't help but think that many of the supporters are basing their !votes on her likeability (I mean no offence to anybody here as I hold both the candidates and the supporters in very high esteem). Being able to interact civilly is an admirable quality and certainly one that is useful for an administrator, but I'm just not seeing the kind of breadth of experience I think an administrator should have, not least because those seeking their help will expect it. Diannaa has excelled in enhancing the quality of poorer articles and in enhancing the prose of already high quality articles, but I don't see anything more than superficial (and, as a sometime copy editor myself, I don't mean to knock it) involvement with articles. Nor do I see any involvement with policy discussions nor any significant involvement in the project space aside from WP:EAR and the GoCE, both of which have important, even vital, functions, but neither of which provide one with the breadth and depth of experience that I feel an administrator should have. Administrators have a vast array of tools, functions and responsibilities and I just don't feel that you have sufficient knowledge and experience of these to be able to take on the tasks that admins are charged with, many of which can be extremely difficult or contentious. That said, if this RfA is successful, I wish you only the very best of luck as an administrator and, if not, I wish you all the best for a successful second attempt. Finally, this is absolutely nothing personal, so don't think that my door isn't open. If this RfA is successful, then my advice would be to stick at first to areas you know before branching out and never be afraid to ask for help or defer to somebody else if you feel you may be getting out of your depth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per SandyGeorgia and DGG. We do not need administrators who are cavalier with deletion. Since this appears likely to pass regardless, please take this under advisement: we absolutely need administrators willing to delete lousy articles, just like we need administrators who are willing to create content, but by far the most important aspect is that we need administrators who can--and take the time to--tell the difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per DGG and a remarkably weak and rambling answer to question #9. Answer to #1 shows that this user has no need for the mop and is unlikely to use it. Toddst1 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. uninspired by answers to questions, especially Q2. Also, the concerns brought up by DGG and SandyGeorgia. -Atmoz (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral: please check out what patent nonsense means was several articles were tagged that way but not according to the definition. Also there seems to be no uploads of anything on en Wikipedia or Commons. I feel an administrator should have at least tried out the upload button, and know how to put on a fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read over these definitions and it looks like I had confused "nonsense" with "hoaxes".
    No, I have not tried uploading any pictures yet though I do have some great ones that might fit in here and there. There are actually many things I have not done yet on Wikipedia. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if you would be sensible ad not take excessive risks. That is why I did not go in the section above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not try to act outside the areas that I am familiar with without taking advice or doing research first. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, CSD G1 is one of the most universally misunderstood criteria, probably because it doesn't actually come up very often; I've come across one legitimate G1 candidate (this in its first iteration), in my almost 6 months on NPP. I think we can just assume it was a legitimate mistake; I did the same thing once when I started on NPP myself. It happens. Please note; I'm not trying to badger Graeme Bartlett here, I'm just pointing out the pitfall G1 can be to those unfamiliar with CSD work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We all make mistakes at NPP, it's what happens when one is systematically trying to keep down the 30-day backlog where the difficult ones lurk because nobody else can be bothered with them or knows what to do with them, but some still need CSD and as speedy as possible, while also keeping an eye open to catch the nasties as quickly as they are posted. It's generally only the newbs who think NPP is a playground and who regularly make blatant errors.
    I don't think there is any criticism whatsoever to be attached to anyone who has never uploaded an image file. It doesn't mean to say they don't know how to write a FUR or choose a © from the dropdown. Perhaps they just never needed to upload one.--Kudpung (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: based on the answer to Q1 which does not mention doing anything that non-admins cannot do. Are you 100% clear on what being an admin involves? (i.e. blocking, deleting etc.) I'm also a tad concerned by the number of supports which look like they are treating the mop as some kind of award for GOCE work. Smartse (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: same reason as Smartse. They will give you a mop with block and delete buttons on it, and you will be expected to use it. I can see you using the delete button occasionally on irredeemable copyright pages, but it sounds like you want to rescue prods rather than delete them. Would you be OK with blocking the odd vandal/copyright infringer/repeat uploader of nonsense articles? Maybe you want to add a little to that first question.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add some more detail to my answer for question #1. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm a little concerned about you PRODding the snake article. I've heard it said one should never prod snakes - or any other species article, as all species are automatically notable. Mind, as an admin deleted it, am I right in thinking that the mexican garter snake doesn't actually exist? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article had no content that had not been copied from another snake article. The snake was not a separate species but a variety of snake as differentiated by where it lives. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I have to admit I did not realise all snakes are notable. Perhaps this article was deleted in error. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have some studying to do before I can delete any articles. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the ones dedicated to Britney's panties are fairly obvious :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: all species are notable, but I do not think this applies to all subspecies. I can see no use of this particular common name for any species or subspecies, though I have not made a full search. If the snake meant was the one Sandy George thinks it was, it's a subspecies--and listed in the Garter snakes article, but I am not sure I would have redirected it without being certain that the name was ever used. It's tricky dealing with zoology articles without knowing zoology--I avoid popular music deletions, on the analogous rationale. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unable to locate the place where it says that all species are notable. Perhaps you could provide me with a link?--Diannaa (Talk) 04:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's invariable practice, not a formal guideline. Checking, I cannot find one case in the last 3 years where an article for a real species with adequate verifiability has been deleted-- The 100s of disputes are all about fictional species, which are very much another matter. After all, there is inherently always at least one unquestionable RS, the original description, and essentially always a taxonomic survey of the group. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As per DGG re species notability (i.e. by definition will satisfy General Notability Guidelines). Subspecies are a slightly different kettle of fish and more often than not discussed on a species page. FWIW, species are the standard unit that readers focus on when reading or understanding biological organisms- guidebooks partition this way and people compartmentalise this way too.Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to reply. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all helpful info, but the issue remains that Diannaa didn't study any of this when prodding the article, and DGG's other concerns remain. I'd like to see more evidence that she understands how to use the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just added the same info further up - didn't realise Casliber had answered down here. I'm still neutral at the moment - your work is all good - people have picked up one or two queries bu we all make the odd booboo. Like your answers to all the questions. What is making me hesitate is that you seem very hesitant yourself. You don't sound quite ready to take on all the flak that comes with the mop. I'm sure this RfA will pass, and I hope you surprise me, and take to the buttons like a duck to water. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: While you have about 8,000 main space edits, you have only been here about a year. I think you would make a good admin, but hang around a little longer before we hand you a mop. Reviewer/Rollbacker is a good was to start (which I see you have). Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear answer to number one, neutral but may change vote later. Secret account 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. neutral - User is fine, but high percentage of automated edits (nearly 40% of total), and huge increase in this month (over 5,000 v. a previous high of about 2,000). Here for the long haul at those levels? or was it a push to become an andmin? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a "push to become an admin", but rather the discovery of the fun of Huggle as shown here. Derild4921☼ 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Derild4921 is right; Huggle has proven to be embarrassingly addictive. Once our copy editing drive starts at the beginning of November my level of editing will return to normal. I actually did not give any thought to becoming an admin until Minimac nominated me. I think the nomination process itself will be a good experience and being an admin could be a good way to expand my contributions to new areas, so I decided to accept the nomination. If I am accepted, I don't expect life will change all that much. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Generally looks okay from what seems to be the conventional view but copy editing doesn't provide the content addition perspective I'm looking for that seems to be in dwindling supply among admin candidates. I'd have preferred more enthusiasm and cognizance of the potential of Wikipedia articles too. Lambanog (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. I don't have any problems with the answer to Q6 regarding quotation use, but I had hoped you would also address the 184.36.90.17 talk-page interaction itself. That interaction concerns me, since there seems to be a lack of WP:AGF on your part. An editor who was quite clearly trying to improve an article instead of harm it still has a "do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles" warning template on his talk page despite everyone acknowledging that the change he made (which included an explanatory edit summary) was in fact correct, if initially unreferenced. Indeed, after he provided a reliable source reference, you then, rather than withdrawing or striking the "incorrect information" template, scolded him for "plagiarism" (!) for quoting the source text in the reference. Both the unsourced correction and the use of extended quoted text to support or defend a correction are typical newbie mistakes, and I think your response could have been much less WP:BITEY. And that your response included a reference to plagiarism rather than acknowledging that the quote was properly attributed but perhaps too long a quote to qualify as fair use is also concerning. That said, by all accounts you've done a lot of great work here, and you were correct in requiring a source for his change, so I can't in good conscience oppose. I just hope you'll be a little more kind to well-meaning newcomers when you get the bit. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good obervation, 28bytes. I now think I over-reacted in my response. My remarks the next morning were a lot tamer so perhaps I was just tired. I will have to watch out for this in the future and if I start feeling frustrated I just won't reply until later. Thanks for the feedback. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. .neutral sitting on the fence here with concerns raised by the opposers, still the more hands on deck the better. As astrong believer in the preservation of information I am pausing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some more clarification to my response on this issue, and you can find it in my answer to Question #1. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - would love to support a good copy-editor, but good copy-editing alone does not an admin make. Several of the opposes present good points as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category