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

FisherQueen[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) at (86/2/0); Scheduled end time 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you FisherQueen. To get the dry stuff out of the way first, FisherQueen has with us since September 2006 and has made just under 12,000 edits to the project (about half of those to the mainspace). This is her second request for adminship, the first one (which can be found here) was in January - she was nominated by Majorly but was unsuccessful due to lack of experience.

I believe that FisherQueen now has more than enough experience to show that she would make a fantastic admin. She is an active member of WikiProject LGBT studies and a competent editor of encyclopedia content - for example largely writing our article on Billy Tipton. FisherQueen is a strong vandalfighter and has made 121 vandal reports to WP:AIV - those that I have reviewed have been spot on. She also makes helpful contributions to discussions at WP:ANI. Those XfD contributions which I have looked over appear thoughtful, going beyond mere votes and she continues to follow the discussion after expressing an opinion so as to address subsequent points.

In short, FisherQueen has all the skills and experience to make her a valuable addition to our list of administrators. WjBscribe 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept the nomination. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My work on Wikipedia has been most strongly focused in clearing Wikipedia of vandalism and self-promotion, so my first work as an administrator would be in the same areas, reviewing articles tagged for speedy deletion and requests for the blocking of vandals. As I gain wisdom and experience as an administrator, I'll do my best to help with the more complex problems listed at AN/I, and work on closing AfDs. I suspect that there are areas where I could be helpful that I have barely begun to work in, and I'm open to learning new stuff. I think I've shown that I can both learn new skills and correct my inevitable errors with reasonable grace.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Since my first RfA, I've gotten involved at WikiProject LGBT studies, where I've enjoyed making a number of articles just a little bit better. The piece of writing that I'm most proud of is Billy Tipton. Tipton is a fascinating person, and I was really proud of the way I brought the article about him from a mediocre stub to a pretty well developed piece of writing. And while it isn't an FA-quality article, I felt that my experience collaborating with a physicist on the other side of the world on Friedel Sellschop was a wonderful example of what makes Wikipedia so great- we'll never meet, but I was able to use my knowledge of Wikipedia to help him create an article about an important if minor scientist who wasn't here before. I even learned a little bit about diamonds in the process. And I think I've made myself pretty useful as a recent changes patroller, fighting the endless tide of advertisers, vandals, and bored teenagers.
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: Sure, I've been involved in conflicts- I can't imagine how a Wikipedia editor could avoid them. The vast majority are the childish anger of vandals and vanity-pagers, which hardly rise to the level of conflict that would make a useful answer to the question. I had my very own WikiStalker in JFBurton, which was a bit more stressful; in fact, there were one or two times when I got so angry at him that I had to turn the computer off and walk away for a little while, to avoid posting something I would regret later. The most frustrating conflict I've had recently was at Evan Dobelle, where the subject's edit-warring supporter simply refused to discuss anything on talk pages at all, but just left long, vaguely hostile edit summaries. Still, I think we've finally arrived at a version of the article that will satisfy even that editor. My strategies for dealing with conflict are to stay calm, stay polite, assume good faith, and to allow time to cool down rather than engaging in edit wars.

Optional question from Zeibura

4. When dealing with dubious notability cases, what is the distinction you would make between articles deletable under CSD A7 and proddable articles?
CSD A7 is for articles that don't include any assertion of notability. If the article has a plausible assertion of notability, I'll prod it with a note on the creator's talk page, to give the creator a chance to add the needed material. I do tend to err on the side of caution, prodding articles that I'll later notice have been speedied by someone else, but there's no harm done in giving the creator a chance to understand the guidelines and respond appropriately, even if it does mean that the article is deleted in a few days instead of right now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from DGG

5. You find by accident that an admin has just deleted a motion picture as A7. The notability of the picture is dubious. What do you do--not just the initial step--all the steps that might be necessary. DGG 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were an admin, and I noticed that another admin deleted an article as A7 which had an plausible assertion of notability, I would do some research into the subject, and see if I could find evidence that it met the notability criteria. If I found evidence that the subject was notable, I'd bring the evidence to the attention of the deleting admin, but I certainly wouldn't just undelete it. Wheel-warring is a very bad thing. If the deleting admin didn't agree with my evidence, I'd bring it to deletion review and look for consensus from the community. There's nothing there I need admin powers to do, but just because I have the tools, doesn't mean I always have to use them. I hope I've interpreted the question in the way you intended; if not, please feel free to clarify it.-FisherQueen (Talk) 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check on what types of material can be deleted under A7 notability. DGG 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want a response to this? Sure, motion pictures aren't on the list of A7 materials, but I didn't delete this hypothetical article, another admin did, and I'm not going to simply undo her actions unilaterally. Nor do I think it's particularly useful to have it undeleted on a technicality, send it through AfD, and delete it again. If I can't find any evidence that the article should exist on Wikipedia, I'm going to let it go, unless I notice that the other hypothetical admin has a pattern of deletion errors, in which case a polite note would be in order. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from —M (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
A: Absolutely. We share a commitment to the importance of knowledge, and to the free dissemination of knowledge as far as it will go. We also share faith in the ability of reasonable people to do good through the process of consensus. And we share our belief in the value of neutral, bias-free content, unsullied by political, religious, or other points of view, even as we experience the extreme difficulty of crafting such content. The Five Pillars are a reasonable statement of the Wikipedia ethic.
7. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
A: Certainly, I think that the ethics that we share should be the basis for our policies. With all our differences, what else would we use when deciding on our policies but the common ground we have agreed upon through years of discussion and consensus?
8. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
A: Not their personal ethical values, no- the values we all use when making decisions, as editors and administrators, should be the shared values expressed in the Five Pillars, and when we stray from those to try to insert the values of our own culture or perspective, then we are more likely to find ourselves in conflict, and less likely to build the best encyclopedia we can. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from WooyiTalk to me?

9. In what circumstances will you use WP:IAR to delete pages (in whatever namespace) that do not belong to, or in the gray area of, criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I think it's very much within the spirit on Ignore all rules to use CSD on articles which fall within the spirit if not the letter of the criteria. For example, I've tagged for speedy deletion a description of a non-notable person's favorite pizza order, which isn't technically a person, group, company, or web content, but is still never going to pass an AfD and lacks an assertion of notability. I'll also tag articles which technically contain an assertion of notability, but whose assertion of notability is patently ludicrous: "Jim-Bob's penis is larger than the state of New York" is an assertion of notability, certainly, and so is "Jamila is the first 13-year-old to win the Nobel Prize for cuteness," but they obviously have no chance of remaining on Wikipedia, and so should be speedied. I think that CSD functions in many ways as an extension of the snowball clause. As an admin, I'll cheerfully delete such articles without a second thought. In the grayer areas, as an editor, I've tended to use prod or AfD, since the article is eventually deleted anyway and the creator gets the chance to defend the article if it's defensible... as an admin, to be honest, I'd probably be asking a few more experienced admins for advice when I come upon grey-space articles which are tagged for speedy deletion, and listen to their advice until I feel more confident of where the lines are. I don't know everything about adminship yet, and will have plenty to learn, so will be looking to my elders for advice pretty regularly, I'm sure. But if the article clearly doesn't fall within the criteria, well, then I won't delete it, but will remove the tag, and leave a note on the taggers talk page politely explaining why I didn't delete it and suggesting it be taken to AfD. I might even AfD-tag it myself, if I think it should be deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, my question was asked in response of recent deletion spree of userboxes and categories. Will you, if an admin, speedily delete userboxes you find objectionable and in the borderline of divisiveness without consultation of other admins? WooyiTalk to me? 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the recent spree you refer to somehow escaped my notice, so I can't talk directly about whether it was correct or not. I was out of town for a few weeks recently; maybe I missed this. In more general terms, however, speedy deletion is for things that are very, very clearly in direct violation of basic Wikipedia policy, which is clearly defined at WP:CSD; things about which there is room for reasonable people to disagree belong at XfD. I've been a pretty conservative tagger as an editor, prodding or AfDing where others speedy, so I think that, as an admin, I'll be more likely than many to send something to XfD or discuss it with other admins if I think there's room for doubt about the necessity of deletion. If they are things that 'I find objectionable and in the borderline of divisiveness,' as you describe it, that definitely isn't, on its own, speedy-deletion territory. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from OhanaUnited

10. In your opinion, what (as in practice or policy) should Wikipedia change to provide a better editing environment? (Since this question is quite broad, you don't have to give a detailed answer. Point form is absolutely fine with me.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/FisherQueen before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support Good vandal fighter and cool head, now with lots of experience. NawlinWiki 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, obviously :-) as nom. I've said it all above. FisherQueen'll make a great admin... WjBscribe 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart and a mop in your hand. Moreschi Talk 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I have no doubt FisherQueen can expertly handle CAT:CSD. In terms of interaction, I've seen FisherQueen handle many situations with vandals and newbies well (I have a habit of jumping into others user talk pages on my Watchlist >_>). We worked together to try to defuse a sockpuppet situation at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy. No concerns. Leebo T/C 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Okeyday. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support since I nominated her last time, and offered to many times since, it would be silly of me to oppose :) A great user, who I originally welcomed back in September, who I've seen only good stuff from. Best of luck! Majorly (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support WJBscribe as a nominator? FisherQueen must be a good editor. ~ Wikihermit 17:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Will make a fine admin.--Húsönd 17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Concur with Husond! Politics rule 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This user has been strongly supported indefinitely by a user called Acalamari 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - good vandal fighting, see this editor around regularly. No problems here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Excellent user, no concerns whatsoever. Best of luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - The user has the right attitude to become a very good admin..I support this nom wholeheartedly...--Cometstyles 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support enough time has passed since last RFA Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Very good user. Would be a good admin in terms of vandal fighting. Is an experienced Wikipedian who contributed a lot and would ge a great admin. Canjth 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support This user will be a great administrator. — Wenli (contribs) 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, without a doubt. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I've delat with you alot lately, and I assumed you were an administrator! Definate support Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support This user appears to be a good administrator in the making. Captain panda 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Her first RfA was unsuccessful, in part because of her 4785 total edits she only had 98 Wikipedia and 83 mainspace talk edits which in part evidence a lack of experience in some areas of Wikipedia. She had her own RfA#1 closed, promising in January 2007, "I'll work on the areas mentioned, and see you again in three or four months." She now has 11,911 total edits with 806 Wikipedia and 341 mainspace talk edits and she now has garnered the experience that she lacked during her first RfA. More important than keeping her RfA#1 promise was her willingness to accept the criticism of others and work to improve herself. I believe it is time we made FisherQueen an admin. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Excellent contributions, any concerns raised previously have obviously been dealt with. Strong community support too. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support a good candidate, who can learn from criticism. A good admin trait! --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Unlimited supply of strong support Yes, yes, yes. Riana (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support no-brainer. —Anas talk? 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. A380 sized support one of the best candidates I've seen in a while. Cheers, JetLover 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Time and experience are on your side. I think that the project can only benefit with this editor becoming and admin. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support After reading through your talkpages, reviewing your contributions/edit history and your katewannabe results, I can see you are versed in both mainspace edits and Wikipedia edits. I feel confident you can use the tools, effectively, and be of no threat to the encyclopedia. --Ozgod 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Always has a useful contribution to a discussion.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support- per all of the above. Eddie 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support This is a good user who is not likely to abuse the tools. Because of that and since we are in need of admins, I will give you my support. Good luck:)!--†Sir James Paul† 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support She is qulified in every way. Shalom Hello 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Terence 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support will make a great admin. OysterGuitarst 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support good all-round record; looks good. Johnbod 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support everything looks good. Cool user name too.--Sandahl 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support – I doubt she will ever abuse the mop, and if she does, we can always block her... kidding! ;) Good luck Fisher, you will make a great administrator. +spebi ~ 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support impressed by the work on the dark side of the whole game - a good one to have at the barricades - strong support for what I have seen SatuSuro 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - not a day too soon. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Good user with sufficient experience. utcursch | talk 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, good luck! The Rambling Man 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Previous RfA failed because of lack of experience; but, with over 12,000 edits now, I think the candidate is certainly experienced enough. ♠TomasBat 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I've happened across her WP:AIV work; great contributions, well-qualified candidate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, most definitely. Editor can definitely put the mop and bucket to good use.--Isotope23 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, have seen her work and liked it much. :-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have never said this before; I really thought she was an admin! From her contributions, she certainly should be; any problems since the last RfA have clearly been addressed, and I would support even if the big names in the top dozen or so !votes had not already done so.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - The users seems ready for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Easy to support this applicant - good edits since last RfA and a good time between applications. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. The nominator says it all... Sr13 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I've seen FisherQueen around, and I'm sure they will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I am confident that he will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - I think she will be a good admin, using the tools correctly. Od Mishehu 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom and answers. From what I've seen of FisherQueen's contributions, she'll make a fine admin. Flyguy649talkcontribs 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I see no problem giving her the tools. -- DS1953 talk 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. Just after seeing you handle that almost amusing oppose voter I have no problems supporting. Wizardman 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Hell yes. I've offered to nominate her time and time again -- FisherQueen rules. -- Merope 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I support this nomination fully. Competent, active, and solid responses to each question. — Scientizzle 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Absolutely - FQ is a model editor, and has been a help to me more times than I can count. - Philippe | Talk 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. —AldeBaer (c) 23:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Suppport. Excellent personal observations of FisherQueen and per nom. Sarah 12:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. FisherQueen does great work in vandal-fighting... I've often found myself edit-conflicted by her speed at speedy-tagging and vandal-warning. :) Pinball22 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support—Excellent contributions and nothing of concern turns up. --Paul Erik 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak support. Excellent user, plenty of experience, clear answers to questions. However, there's something nagging at the back of my mind about something bad that happened with this user - but I really can't remember what it was. Maybe I'm getting her mixed up with someone else. Anyway, that would be a totally unfair reason to withhold support, so I'm supporting. Waltontalk 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I have serious reservations about your preference for Cybermen, but I think this can be overlooked, all things considered. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support. Top shelf editor. Having interacted with for quite some time I trust her to use the tools wisely. She's knowledgeable, smart, level-headed and experienced, firm when necessary, able to deescalate, has a wicked sense of humor and is able to turn teen angst on its head in the blink of an eye. What's not to like?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support - super track record. Knows policy well, is polite and patient and has a good sense of humour, betimes. I've never seen BITEy edits from this editor, either. All good here - Alison ☺ 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. per nom Peacent 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I've seen this editor around and believe he will do just fine. JodyB talk 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - I like FisherQueen's replies to the RfA questions. I had noticed her (and Leebo's) good work in handling the sock-attack on N. R. Narayana Murthy, and later making the article better. Besides, I dig anyone with a sense of humour (context: an ignorant sockpuppet was threatening to have the editors of the N. R. Narayana Murthy article "fired" and this was FisherQueen's response. The edit summary had me in splits for quite some time :-)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaximvsDecimvs (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I have seen lots of good work from this editor and expect the same with extra janitorial equipment. --Slp1 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Seen around, trusted and experienced. ck lostsword•T•C 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Has shown very good signs of being an excellent administrator. Daniel 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support the editor's record and his answer convince me that he/she will not abuse the tools. WooyiTalk to me? 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support seems like a worthwhile janitor to me. Modernist 05:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, seems good editor to me. Carlosguitar 08:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong support She's beaten me to reverts countless times, I don't see why should she not have the tools. --Evilclown93(talk) 14:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, impressive work record. --健次(derumi)talk 02:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Deb 11:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Definately deserves the Mop!--Hu12 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oops. Slade (TheJoker) 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose. As a relative newbie to wikipedia, I found FQ agessive, bullying and unwelcoming. I understand she has done good work with vandals, however she agressivly assumes all 'non expert' posts are created by vandals, which is clearly not the case. Further more, she highly offended me when she wrote 'dogfucking' on my own talk page (which to be fair, the first time she wrote it may have had some context), HOWEVER when I deleted, and requested her not to repost as I find such language highly offensive, and has no place on a family site, she then reposted this language. This is not admin material, until she can be more removed/controlled in conflicts.Icerinkprincess 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This editor's only contribution (apart from edits to her own talk page) was an article that was tagged for speedy deletion by FisherQueen. It probably was unnecessary to use the word 'dogfucking' on Icerinkprincess's own talk page, just as it is unnecessary to use it in this RfA when a diff would have done the job. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The context of the word used was that FisherQueen was discussing the speedy tag with Icerinkprincess, and Icerinkprincess saw another user complaining on FisherQueen's talk page and requested said user's thoughts on dealing with their combined displeasure of FisherQueen. What Icerinkprincess didn't check for was that the user she asked for help was a vandal who had used the offending word in an act of vandalism. FisherQueen pointed this out, as probably the wrong type of user to associate with. Also, though it's not critical here, Icerinkprincess's description of "a family website" with no use for "highly offensive language" displays a slight misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Leebo T/C 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Icerinkprincess. I think your characterisation of FisherQueen as bullying and aggressive is unfair and unsubstantiated. She tagged an article you had created (actually recreated after it had already been deleted by an administrator - Ben Hilton) for deletion and an administrator confirmed it did not meet our inclusion criteria and deleted it - the message left on your talkpage is a standard form message we encourage people to use. When you asked her about it she responded with this comment - which is one of the most civil and helpful reponses I have seen to such questions. The problem was that instead of accepting this message, you solicited assistance [1] from a blatant vandal [2], which was unacceptable - the word you find objectionable was intended to highlight what sort of a user you were seeking assistance from. I find nothing reprehensible in FisherQueen's conduct - I wish I could the say the same for your behaviour. WjBscribe 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Slade (TheJoker) 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question May I request a reason? I'm always interested in learning from my mistakes and becoming a better editor; I'd love to know in what areas you think I still need to learn. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must second FisherQueen's comments. There is no blatantly-apparent reason to oppose without justification, so it'd be great if you could give your justification. Daniel 02:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Joker seems to be a sparse editor here; you'll probably be better off getting a response if you email xem. Majorly (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

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