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

Keilana[edit]

Final (talk page) (133/8/10); Ended Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:25:13 (UTC)

Keilana (talk · contribs) - This is a reconfirmation RfA.

Keilana was mentioned in this discussion (see also this one) as an admin who had gained the bit under a former username. There have been some requests on her talk page and at other venues for her to resubmit to RfA or in some other way attempt to gauge community consensus. The aim of this RfA is purely to determine of Keilana, under this username, has community-wide consensus to continue her work as an admin.

If this request is closed as unsuccessful by a 'crat, Keilana will resign her adminship, and request its removal on meta. If successful, her adminship will be retained. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With great sadness, I accept. The community's support and trust is essential to my work as an admin, and as I indicated on WT:RFA, I would stand for reconfirmation if any member of the community requests it. Dihydrogen Monoxide requested it, and especially because he is a community member in excellent standing, whom I greatly respect, I accept his request for reconfirmation. This is in no way a pat on the back, I have made mistakes as an administrator. Just look at my talk page. Please do not oppose based on your dislike of the process, please ask yourself the only question that really matters: Does Keilana have my trust to remain an admin, and perform in that role? Thank you all for your consideration, and I promise to step down immediately following a 'crat's closure of the RfA as unsuccessful. If, however, the RfA is closed as successful, I will retain my admin bit and perform to the best of my ability in the role. Respectfully, Keilanatalk(recall) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I suggested Keilana undertake this here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nota bene: See my comments under #Discussion; I was not at all forced into this. Please don't mention my old name, it's easy enough to find in my logs and contribs. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, my record as an admin should speak for itself. I'll outline my major admin activities though, for those who are unfamiliar with me. I do anti-vandalism work periodically (not as much as I did before becoming an admin), reverting edits, warning users, and blocking users that I find and that have been reported at WP:AIV. I have also deleted many articles at WP:CSD, performing (probably) over 500 deletions. Some of these have been contested by users on my talk page, but none has been contested formally at WP:DRV. I have also replied to WP:RFPP requests, and closed WP:AFD debates. This is just a summary, if anyone requests, I will go into further detail.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done both article work and admin work. I am currently collaborating with Dihydrogen Monoxide on a Featured Article Candidate (Odyssey Number Five) and have contributed in gnomish ways to many other article, including copyediting work. I am currently also working on Double Allergic, hoping to take it to FAC soon. Also, I've closed plenty of AfDs and deleted many article tagged for CSD. Again, I'll elaborate if asked.
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: As an admin, I've been involved in many conflicts, mostly with people unhappy over my deleting of their articles. I have treated these users civilly and with respect, working out the problem in most cases. Places of interest may be User talk:Keilana/Archive1, User talk:Keilana, User talk:Tilleyg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete), User talk:Reiskeks, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thank you.
Optional question from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)
4. Why do you want adminship?
Thanks for the question. I would like to continue being an admin because I feel that I can be of greater service to the community with a mop in hand. If the community decides that I am not doing the community a service by having the mop, then I will give it up. Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Dlae

5. Why are you so secretive about your past on Wikipedia?
Real-life events have unfortunately affected my Wikipedia editing. I do not feel at liberty to say more. All of my contributions are still visible. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I was expecting this kind of answer.. Did you do anything on Wikipedia (an incident, perhaps), or did you just transfer your data under a different username?
No, I did nothing controversial on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, at least no one had serious problems with anything I did. No blocks or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilana (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Yes/No question from Stwalkerster

6. Is your password secure?
A.Yes. Very. And if something happens to it, I have a committed identity. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


From M-ercury at 11:08, January 7, 2008

7 How do you address the deletion concerns by in the oppose section? Do you understand wht you are doing wrong, will you correct it?

A. They are valid concerns, and I have made really bad deletions. I'm absolutely willing to admit that and own up to my mistakes. The James Barker example was wheel warring to make a point, simply because I was annoyed. That was wrong, and I will not be pointy in the future. Second, I have made many valid deletions, but I do make mistakes once in awhile, but I'm only human.

Question from Cfufu
8. If someone were canvassing, whether for a RFA or something else, how long would you block the editor for? 1 month? Forever? What if it were in one setting (1 day) and not defying any warnings against canvassing. Cfufu (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A.Thanks for the question; I would see if the editor had a previous history of canvassing. If not, I'd warn them and then proceed through stepped blocks if they continued-mind you, I would probably talk to them and only block if I had no choice. Thanks, Keilanatalk 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Ermm, I'm not going to withdraw it unless it looks like it's going to be an utter failure, and Deskana said that they don't close RfAs early as success. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had been thinking about this ever since the matter was brought up on my talk page and WT:RFA. I had not decided, but was leaning to seeing if anyone asked me to stand again. Since someone did, I will stand again. I believe firmly in accountability, and want the full trust of the community behind me. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It shows the practically unanimous support of the community with an unusually high vote total" And that's enough to go by. — DarkFalls talk 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The results tally clearly links her old contributions to this account, given the harassment she recieved, this is extremely serious and would also make this RfA completely pointless given the fact that there would be no secrecy. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it will run for the full week. The "all opposes come in the first half" argument can apply to any RfA, and is thus effectively moot. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No bureaucrat would close an RFA early as "success". --Deskana (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then close it as a complete waste of time and misapplication of the rfa process. If an rfa was needed for a noncontroversial RTV, it should have been done at the time of the rename. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but I stated that if any member of the community stepped forward and wanted me to reconfirm, I would. DHMO did, ergo, I am standing again. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Process for its own sake, also known as WP:BUREAUCRACY. Avruchtalk 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, he said nothing about why I should/shouldn't be an admin. He was simply initiating the procedure. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you joking? He supported your request. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keilana's motives are to gauge community consensus under a new username on the basis of past WT:RFA discussions (which I specifically link to in the nom). My motives are to get the ball rolling because a self-nom in this case would be awkward. Thus, our motives are considered. — Dihydrogen Monoxide
Your motives are thus considered? No-one requested a recall before this, and neither was anyone realistically likely to - I actually do think you did this for what you thought were the right reasons, I just think you should now consider what everyone's saying. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, There is way too much drama surrounding this. I meant this to be a simple request for recall/confirmation, not a crazy spectacle involving edit wars. If anyone really wants me to, I'll withdraw, get desysopped, live a couple months without +sysop, and then come back to RfA in 2-3 months and ask for the tools back. Really now. Keilanatalk(recall) 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you should simply respect that everyone feels this is a waste of time, close it, and carry on as you have been. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with this: I think the RfA should be closed now. There isn't much reason to continue here. Acalamari 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I don't understand why you (Keilana) are so willing to react to 'anyone' as in one persons view, either. Avruchtalk 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that you should withdraw AND keep the tools. If anyone complains then they can just ask you to launch a recall. An actual recall. Húsönd 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Below moved from Oppose

Comment. This is just a general comment. It is not aimed at anyone in particular, either support, neutral or oppose. It is not meant to offend, challenge, or discredit anyone's opinion, but I have to say it. Is their any admin out there that has never speedy deleted an article, in good faith, only to have it overturned or questioned? Anyone? I'm asking seriously. I am not an admin, I don't have deletion powers, but from my experience, as expressed in my support above, Keilana has very quickly and completely been willing to overturn her own speedy deletes when contested. Isn't that the point of the hang-on tag, and WP:DRV? Has Keilana done anything, besides a handful of speedy speedies, (and yes, I grasp the irony of this even though some don't seem to) to cause anyone grief? Nobody is perfect. This feels like headhunting unless someone can show me some diffs that show that Keilana, in her deletion log, has a propensity for speedy deleting things in error at a percentage greater than any other admin that is not only willing to do speedies and deal with the onslaught of (usually) newbie editors that complain on a talkpage, but willing to also go back and undelete any article that is contested. I've seen Keilana's actions first-hand. I personally contested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Worship in English and was astounded by her quick reply and her quick resolution. Does anyone have diffs for me that show that she is anything but an extraordinary admin? Anyone? Keeper | 76 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said above, I found 4 bad speedy deletions in a sampling of about 20, over a 3 day span. Without my comment none would have been addressed... an error rate so high isn't just acceptable because someone replies politely, our goal isn't to have someone who gets overturned at DRV 5 times a week but doesn't let it get them down, but someone who doesn't get overturned DRV'd very frequently if at all. I can't watch every admin's deletion logs... and the solution isn't for me to have to do so. Admins shouldn't have 4 out of their last 20 A7 deletions be bad ones. --W.marsh 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know the diffs you provided, W.marsh. Of those 4, two were overturned, through DRV. The other two remain deleted. What I'm asking is simple. Are there any other admins that have a higher/lower percentage of deletes/overturns than Keilana? It seems there are several admins that aren't willing to even "stamp" their name on speedies because of the likelihood of being contested. I'm only asking out of curiousity, I sincerely have no ulterior motives. I've looked at the hundreds of deletions done by Keilana and don't see anything in there that strikes me as power-hungry, or unfounded, or out of the norm for admins, or anything close to that. Do you have examples of other admins that have a higher or lower "retraction" rate for articles that they've speedied (based on someone eles's nom in WP:NPP? Or do you simply hold admins to an extremely high standard in regards to deletions of articles from new contributors to Wikipedia? Keeper | 76 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, look at my record. I have 15,000+ deletions and I've been overturned at DRV twice in two years (I think that's the right number, I seriously doubt it's more than 3). And this is clearing CSD hundreds of times, and closing out the last (hardest) AFDs on dozens of days. I don't hold anyone to a higher standard than I hold myself. 1 overturn per 5,000 deletions is a bit silly of a standard though, I have the advantage of being a primary writer of CSD policy, so it's easier to mind my P's and Q's. Still, 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 500 seems a reasonable reasonable overturn rate... even 1 in 100 wouldn't be the end of the world. But 1 in 10? That's a red flag. Also, as I said, they didn't seem to be mere mistakes, but unfamiliarity with longstanding policy and consensus. --W.marsh 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also have the same rate as you with 25,000+ deletions, only like once or twice that I got overturned in a deletion that wasn't a prod, or an article in which was improved, for me a couple of the speedies were valid, and two weren't but still, I think she will learn her lesson about improper speedies with this RFA. Secret account 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support - Whatever the past, my review of this editor's present circumstances is more than good enough for me. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Has my support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Strongest possible support. Dreadstar † 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Avruchtalk 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Spebi 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support per WP:AGF Darkspots (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Strong support I strongly support this candidates try for adminship. I hope Keilaba succeeds and gets the position. Shojaijekhi (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Worth noting that User:Shojaijekhi registered on the 12th Jan, has vandalised quite a bit, and is already blocked for 24 hours. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. I have no reason to oppose. From what I understand, this is just about a confusion with usernames. J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Haven't seen a reason not to support her. MBisanz talk 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. This really isn't the right way to do this. Keilana left her old account because of real life harassment - she then created this account to carry on her excellent work. The problem is, people cannot be expected to fully evaluate her contributions when they don't know her old account - it's not really fair on the RfA process. If her account was revealed, then it would mean this RfA was pointless - she's an admin in good standing and doesn't need this RfA. I strongly support Keilana on both her accounts, I just don't support this RfA process, but there's no need to be a dick as I know she does a fantastic job. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ryan, I'm not really sure that I should say this here for the sake of Keilana's privacy (for however it matters), but Keilana has used the one account. She hasn't stopped using one account, registered another and then called this RfA on. Spebi 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Echoed, and I'm sorry I didn't realize the source of the confusion here immediately and contact Ryan to explain. Avruchtalk 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    sorry, I didn't realise that - this makes it even more pointless. I understand your point and won't bring it up here, but come on people, there's no secrecy involved at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. Malinaccier (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. — DarkFalls talk 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Good to see an admin live up to their word SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Sure. Sean William @ 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support just like last time, although she does seem to be going down a bit lately... —BoL 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Definitely. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support. No problems at all. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support, no reason not to. Wizardman 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Once again - Dureo (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support I was only asking a question... Nick mallory (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support. Solid admin, and changing her username should have no effect what-so-ever. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support No reason to deny the tools. Four edit conflicts! --Charitwo talk 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. I strongly support this nomination, just like the last time. Acalamari 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. I don't know who Keilana was before, because I'm not going to go look. It doesnt matter, I think I've seen enough of this admin in action to judge without knowing. This is an admin who is so concerned about doing things correctly they opened a DRV on themselves, just to make sure no loose end was missed. WP needs more admins as conscientious as Keilana. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support I am glad to see someone actually go through with a recall process when it is requested. I see no reason to oppose and I think that I can be certain that Keilana holds to her word. Captain panda 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Per the facts that she's already an admin and has done nothing to warrant confiscation of her tools. --Dynaflow babble 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Unquestionable support - absolutely 100%. - Alison ❤ 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support. Lawrence Cohen 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (I've changed to oppose) Suggest being more cautious with WP:CSD#A7 than in the James Barker scenario, where the notion of asserting significance could be seen as controversial before the first deletion, let alone the second. For this case, I think it's pretty clear what Soleil was asking for, since the AfD had around half the people wanting to keep the article as it is, and around half wanting to delete or merge the content away. As an aside, the discussion around this RfA have in effect destroyed Keilana's right to vanish, which is unfortunate. She should not have been used as an example, and I hope other editors use more discretion in the future. –Pomte 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support, this user has my confidence to continue acting as an admin. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  30. Support-No doubt will still stay a good admin...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Unconditional support; the name change was not under a cloud, there is no reason that our trust in her should be in any way weakened because she had to escape notice from unsavory characters. — Coren (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Weakened support - per Ryan. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Why judge someone by their name when you can judge them by their actions? Your history looks good and you are (obviously) qualified for Adminship. --Sharkface217 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support this seems unnecessary. --- tqbf 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. I have some mild reservations about some of her admin actions. However, her clear willingness to be accountable for them, and her desire to correct any mistakes clearly outweigh this in my mind. Administrators who are willing to admit they could be wrong, and a desire to be accountable for them is a great one, and one we need more of. I (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support, not an editor I had even seen until quite recently, but having checked out the contribs seems to be a good admin and editor, and having also seen the previous username, no issues there either. Shame about the circumstances of this RfA.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Yep - All looks good, Tiptoety talk 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Strong Support If user is a good admin who has convincingly established that she was also another good admin, I see no reason why she should be standing for an RfA at all. Gromlakh (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Midorihana∫∞ 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support I don't believe that this is necessary, but why oppose for that? -MBK004 06:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. I dunno which past admin this is, but either way, this editor has been a fantastic sysop. Glad to give my support here. 68.148.134.201 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anon IPs cannot vote... Jmlk17 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are correct, they cannot vote. However, it should be noted that they are allowed to participate in general discussion. Please take the time to let the 'IP' know these things. the_undertow talk 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IPs may not be allowed to vote, but RFA is not a vote. (if you're that concerned about the numbering of the list, then for a compromise I'll indent my own support.) —Random832 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have at it! :) Jmlk17 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Jmlk17 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support good 'pedia builder as well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support. Good editor, good admin. Pastordavid (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Of course. faithless (speak) 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Yes! --Ouro (blah blah) 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support This pointless waste of time. DHMO should know better then to foist this nonsense on the community and it does not speak well of their judgement. The candidate on the other hand.... is an excellent admin. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support I don't see any problem if the name change wasn't of malicious intent. And no serious objection were raised that I'm aware of. Dr.Kane (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This user had only 7 edits before voting here!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm trying to be cool here, so let me just emote. Don't strike registered a user's votes. Don't strike anyone's comments. Even comments in poor taste are generally not removed. And as all here know, I am not a policy-type guy. However, 7 edits or 14000, all registered users can vote. You are not the moderator of edit count vs. voting rights. It's bitey, counterproductive, and the investigative skills are tired. Assume good faith. the_undertow talk 09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Kushan, kindly link me to where the rule states that a member must have X amounts of edits in order to vote? I've been a member here for a long time, and I generally don't make edits due to time constraint in my profession unless I feel that my contribution will be helpful to the community. If this is about having an X amount of edits, I can easily rack up 200+ edits in the next few hours by making tons of low quality edits by adding a worthless sentence or fixing very minor grammatical errors like many people out there, which I will not do. P.S. Thanks undertow. Dr.Kane (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support as affirmation of admin in good standing. Orderinchaos 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support ditto. Tyrenius (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Strong support - a great admin under any name. :) krimpet✽ 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Strongest Possible Support - Absolutely no concerns. Rudget. 10:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support → for the record, I don't like reconfirmation RFAs either, but I don't see any issues around here. Snowolf How can I help? 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support, and congratulate on the terrific decision to resubmit herself. Dorfklatsch 11:56, January 6, 2008
  55. I'd be foolish to not support Keilana's continuation of Admin role. It takes guts, but you've definitely got a strong enough streak that I don't think you'll have a problem here. --rm 'w avu 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Stronger support than the last time — excellent user and excellent admin ;-) --Agüeybaná 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Absolutely Support and SNOW close as successful there is absolutely no reason for this RFA as hre rename was under non controversial circumstances and it's fine to move the bit in such a case. How do I know it was noncontroversial? Because I, at her request, helped with the rename/RTV process. This right should be respected and she should not feel compelled by others to do an unneeded RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While the RtV is an absolute right and should be respected, there is no "right" to serve as an admin, or to continue such service after exercising an RtV. Adminship is a privilege, not a right; admins are servants of the community, and the community should have a right to decide whether it has confidence in them. Keilana has done the right thing in submitting to community pressure and going through this RfA. WaltonOne 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that were true, that rename under non-contoversial RTV required a new RFA, the bcat would not have renamed her and moved the bit for her. She attained her admin bit privilege under her prior name and the community had their input then. This is no different than if I just now decided to change my name and the bit were moved--I would not need a new RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that a name change does not, in principle, require a new RfA. For the record, I also wasn't one of those who was pressing for her to go through this RfA - I never saw any poor conduct or judgment from her as an admin. And it looks like this RfA will pass with overwhelming support. But I also think that where someone has exercised RtV and is editing under a different username, with no links to their old name, it means that the community does not know who they are, and does not know whether to trust them or not - so I can see the argument of those who asked Keilana to go through this RfA. I also think that reconfirmations are a good thing in themselves, regardless of the reason; they allow the community to decide whether an existing admin still has their trust. I believe, on the basis of her record under her present account (I don't know her old username, and I don't plan to try and find out), that Keilana is trustworthy; and this belief is reinforced by the fact that she voluntarily submitted to this RfA. WaltonOne 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Pedro :  Chat  13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Weak Support. Per Dorftrottel, I applaud her decision to run for reconfirmation. However, I looked through her recent admin logs, and although the vast majority of her admin actions were fine, I found a couple that I wasn't happy with. This page should not have been speedied (a better version has now been recreated, but the original (viewable by admins only) asserted notability and was not a legitimate CSD A7). Likewise, I wasn't impressed with her deletion here: [4]. Her deletion reason read This is ridiculous. Why should some guy that gets in the Olympics and then gets immediately eliminated deserve an article? No way he's going to be covered in reliable, 3rd party sources; he won't satisfy WP:BIO. Chalk it up to WP:IAR. This is clearly an unacceptable use of administrative tools; such comments are fine on AfDs, but not to justify a unilateral admin judgment. (To her credit, however, she subsequently restored the page and took it to AfD when requested to do so.) I almost went neutral as a result of this; however, the question here is not whether Keilana's judgment is perfect, but whether she has done anything bad enough to merit desysopping. Considering that I only found two bad judgment calls out of several hundred, and both were reversible (and reversed), I don't think that she deserves an oppose; she certainly shouldn't be penalised for choosing to submit to the community's judgment when she could easily have not done so. I am very glad that she ran for reconfirmation and submitted to the judgment of the community, and that I have therefore had the opportunity to raise these concerns about her past actions; I hope that she will bear those concerns in mind in her future work as an admin. WaltonOne 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support per all above. No reason not to let her keep the tools. EJF (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support - No problem for Keilana being admin.--WinHunter (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Strong Support Not, I think, a necessary process under the circumstances, but Keilana has, and retains, my fullest confidence. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Weak support. Don't get me wrong, Keilana, you're a great contributor, but this RfA is completely unnecessary. I understand if you want to see if consensus is still in favour of you getting your adminship, but that could easily have been done on a lesser scale at WP:BN, and, if a number of people had opposed, it wouldn't have been performed by a 'crat. Thus, I'm only weak supporting as this is completely unnecessary, however, you always were a good admin, and I have no doubt you will continue that :) Qst 13:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User later added comment to neutral, striking older comment. Prodego talk 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support process for process sake, rename shouldnt require an RfA. Gnangarra 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support, as the admin has made excellent use of the tools. I also think this nom was ill-advised, but I'm not familiar with the overall discussion that spawned it, so I'll simply voice my opinion without any particular facts to back it. Thank you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support I;m just wanted to stress that I admire your guts, even if there is no chance of failure here. Being willing to undergo a new RfA shows that you're masochist enough to be an admin ;) -- lucasbfr talk 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. I support this excellent administrator. I also oppose this pointless process. east.718 at 14:55, January 6, 2008
  69. Support It's a shame what a few editors have put you through on all this.--Alabamaboy (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Supprot the user - I see no reason for this pointless RfA. Will (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support This administrator has always done excellent work and should be allowed to do so in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support I agree with the other views above that this RfA is totally unnecessary and appears to be simply the product of over-thinking on the part of a few editors. Eusebeus (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support this completely pointless RfA. Good administrator, and what was the point in bringing up a couple of errors in hundreds of admin actions? No-one is perfect. BLACKKITE 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Do not disappoint. Dlae│here 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Yup! GlassCobra 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Strong Support I don't know if I have a right to vote, since I rarely make contributions, but from what I have seen of Keilana, she is a great admin despite her youth. I recognized her immediately despite her "vanishing act", and give my full support to her excellent work. One of the most humble admins I have encountered. Eliyohub (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course you have suffrage, you aren't editing under an IP or a troll/sockpuppet. Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Has been a perfectly good admin. RMHED (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support - no real reason to oppose has been given that I can see. Agree that the RfA is unnecessary. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support - already a good admin, it should stay that way.   jj137 ♠ 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support While I like the idea of reconfirmation RFAs (they should be more regular, and from less popular admins), I feel this one is very unnecessary, for the following reasons: 1. She's an admin still. 2. She's been an admin only a few months, and passed her original without any problem 3. She was never controversial, afaik. I know I was, that's why I went through RFA, and lo and behold, I was opposed for good reasons. I messed up. This user hasn't messed up. However, you haven't vanished at all. I can still see who you are quite easily. If you are really concerned about your privacy, start a new account. I'm sure you'll live without admin privs for a while. Any user made an admin without an rfa will always be found, and so will their identity, so it isn't recommendable. Anyhow, I support you to continue doing the good job that you are doing, but this particular RFA is unnecessary - that isn't to say all reconfirmations are, just this particular one. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. 'n1yaNt 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Golly, if she abuses her tools, take them away. But there is no evidence of that. Now, I can't see the prior account, but I can see that multiple editors have attested that there was no abuse or cloud with the earlier one. That is plenty for me to know. So, go for it. M-ercury at 19:33, January 6, 2008
  82. Support You have a lot of edits (to me) and many of them useful if not all of them. ^__^--Alisyntalk 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Still mainspace edits, that's good. Drama with another RFA? More of a system problem. Archtransit (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support. Anthøny 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support. --Versageek 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support An admin who has shown appropriate respect for the delicate balancing act of being an admin. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support. I don't believe this is particularly necessary, but I appreciate Keilana being willing to follow up on an obligation she believes she has incurred. As her use of the bit has not been called into question, there's no reason not to support her continuing to have it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support From what I've seen from this user and his/her previous account, they are well-suited to the job. —Animum (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support John254 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support I don't even think I need an explanation. Jonathan § 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Of course. - As it's only a name change, I don't think this reconfirmation was even needed. But since the ball is rolling, I'll kick it ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice use of metaphor. :) Rudget. 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support. The community trusts the person behind the username, whatever that name might be. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support, Yes I think this person who is an admin and has been an admin without issue should be an admin. I do not however support the idea of using RfA to determine if an existing admin should remain one. 1 != 2 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support. Where's the waste of time? This took me all of 3 minutes to evaluate. Keilana felt she had an obligation to keep her word and kudos to her for doing so. --JayHenry (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, and please be much more careful with the deletion tools. --JayHenry (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support per above. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support - Clearly the right thing to do. Modernist (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Merovingian (T, C) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support. SorryGuy  Talk  02:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Strongly Support - I have looked at Keilana's history. As both an admin and a mediator, Keilana has, as far as I can tell, exemplified the best characteristics of an administrator and a Wikipedian. There may have been a few judgement calls that people have not agreed with, however it is my sincere feeling that Keilana has made every effort to act within the guidelines and spirit of the community at large. It is editors like Keilana that we need in this position. Thank you for the opportunity to voice this support. Edit Centric (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support. Why not? Experienced user that will keep her great job. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support, but please avoid these pointless, unnecessary reconfirmations in the future. Gimmetrow 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. I support this candidate. However, I think this RFA is a waste of time. miranda 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support. In this particular instance, I find this a waste, but at least the process exists, to alleviate doubts of some who've since voted support. ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. I support both Keilana's adminship, and the idea that admins without a visible RfA should at some point stand for reconfirmation. I recognize that it was not strictly necessary in this case, as someone who wanted to look up Keilana's original nomination can easily find it in her history, but I still see nothing wrong with the process. Thank you, Keilana, for going beyond the call of duty to show your integrity. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. The Transhumanist 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. It's a waste, but more valid then some of the reconfirmations lately Secret account 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. support,Call me Mr. Oblivious, but I had no idea that Keilana was a rename, nor do I care. May I never have to go through the RTV stuff for any reason (I like my username, among other more serious reasons). I crossed paths with Keilana, as Keilana the admin, recently regarding a speedy deletion and I was completely impressed with her communication (5 talk messages within an hour back to me when I questioned the speedy - like she's not even busy!) and the way she treated the newbie editor that was/is attempting to write new articles was absolutely exemplary. You can look here for support of the dialogue in my archive. Happy to support, as Keilana. Keeper | 76 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. support, though this is stupid - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. while I think this rfa is totally unwarranted-even silly, I see no reason she should lose her adminship.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support A better procedure needs to be created that somehow automatically grants adminship after renames. Timmehcontribs 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is already automatically granted - hence my opposition below. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said. Suffice it to say, I trust Keilana as an admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support Great editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support Fine admin, kind person: the reconfirmation RfA was unneeded, but is a considerate step, and shows good judgment. Xoloz (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support No problems I've seen. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support We don't promote people who won't make mistakes, but those who we trust to try to do the right thing, get it right the vast majority of the time, and learn with some humility when they cock up. Keilana gives me no concerns. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support I share the concerns of some of the opposers regarding past application of CSD, however Keilana's comments on WP:BN indicate to me that she has taken the critiscism on board and will learn. ViridaeTalk 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support Absolutely, I am sure the correct attitude is being shown here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support certainly! docboat (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Silly that this even needs to happen, but still, support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support. I don't feel this RfA was necessary, but regardless, Keilana has my full support to retain her admin buttons. --Kyoko 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Unnecessary Support. Why was this even an RfA? Regardless, I take pleasure in awarding the 124th (!) support. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.☆ 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support. Fine record, meets every possible standard. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Why haven't I supported yet? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:22, 09 January 2008 (GMT)
  128. Support and kudos for voluntarily submitting to the (possibly unnecessary)process. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Support. Húsönd 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Support - I do not know the details of the name change but have been involved in the past with admins who have changed names do to some pretty scary circumstances. I strongly support htis candidate and even more that they are willing to stand for reconfirmation in efforts to decrease disagreements. We need mroe administrators like this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support As per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]

Oppose The ideal RfA has at least one oppose - this RfA seems to be headed to WP:100 - possibly WP:200 - and that kind of pile-omn is ridiculous. To the lake (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Plus, I think this is a ridiculous RfA because the editor already has the tools. Reconfirmations are incredibly stupid. To the lake (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, this editor has been blocked indefinitely for operating a disruptive alternative account. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Keilanatalk(recall) 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose - sorry but no.. I don't even care to know who you are because this is one of those things that come with adminship "being able to counter all crap dished out to you and not run away with your tail in between your legs" when people begin to stalk you ..for whatever reasons..sorry I know this oppose means nothing but this RfA is more of a "pat in the back" than anything else..I really have to say nope..I have seen many admins leave quoting as "the Right to vanish" and then return with another name and ask for adminship from our gullible crats..nah..sorry, I'd rather not be a part of this but this kind of habit mainly by admins is getting a bit out of the hand..so regretfully ..I oppose...--Cometstyles 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've looked carefully at this situation and I think your characterization is not accurate. I agree with you that admins who start a completely new account and have it given the sysop bit are being unnecessarily secretive. But that's not the case here--this was just a name change. Chick Bowen 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Right to vanish" is what I'm really opposing on..its ok for normal editors to leave on RtV but It really shouldn't apply to admins since as mentioned above were chosen by the community to protect this wiki from trolls/vandals who is recent months have doubled and are getting smarter since previously admins were not that harsh. Since she is already an admin, this is pretty pointless and well just a waste of time...i believe reconfirmation of inactive admins should be done and not those active as well..--Cometstyles 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For me, right to vanish applies to the user rather than the account, and should be intended as closing everything for good. As so, I do not recognize a Right to vanish to Keilana or whoever that comes back with another name. I do, however, recognize the sensibility of the stalking-issue, and as so, while still believing that RtV doesn't apply in this case, I have no problem in having admins reopped after a name/account change (spare me the discussion on the difference between the two, I value the user, rather then the name s/he uses). I do agree that this RfA serves no purpose, but whatever. Snowolf How can I help? 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The right to vanish applies to anybody, Admin or no. If I was being tracked or stalked, I would like to know I could vanish, but be able to resume some of the things I engage in without any change to my approach, and the difference in approach for an admin and a casual editor is remarkable. --rm 'w avu 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Doesn't really seem to get WP:CSD#A7... as we saw in the James Barker speedy deletion. Some other examples: Ghost Lake, Alberta (A7 doesn't apply to geography), Cyril Walker (footballer) (playing for a notable pro team is a claim of importance), Comical (software) (A7 doesn't apply to software), Amelia Bingham (cited a New York Times reference).... these are all just in the past 3 days. --W.marsh 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of the three redlinks you provide have been taken to DRV. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They haven't been taken to ArbCom or France either. They're still bad deletions. --W.marsh 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are semantics really necessary? --Charitwo talk 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, considering the global nature of the Internet, I'd venture to say at least one of those articles has been taken to France. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The deletions are so bad that nobody has even tried to overturn them? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't really think you know what you're talking about. I picked 5 random examples, 1 is at DRV now, and the Barker one resulted in a very long AFD and village pump thread, which showed no support for the speedy deletion (and mixed support at best for deletion, although I did support deletion). That's 2 out of 5. Not every bad deletion goes to DRV... but it may still drive people away from the project, get rid of useful content, etc. This is just the nature of deletion. Your argument is not very informed... it's akin to saying it was okay for a candidate to be incivil if no one took them to the civility noticeboard du jour within 24 hours. --W.marsh 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are consequences for every bad deletion. Some more visible than others. These are articles. M-ercury at 04:57, January 7, 2008
    In case anyone was wondering, it was me who just undeleted Cyril Walker (footballer) - this is dismaying. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that those deletions were bad - indeed, I noted both the James Barker and Amelia Bingham examples in my Support comment. However, we should see this in context. She's made thousands of perfectly good deletions, and all of us make mistakes or lose the plot at times. Seeing as this is a reconfirmation, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether she has done anything bad enough to merit being desysopped - and, in my view, she hasn't. I agree that poorly-judged speedy deletions are a problem, but considering that we have some admins who think it's OK to go around machine-gunning confused newbies with the indef-block button, I don't think we should apply tougher standards to her just because she's had the courage and strength of character to voluntarily stand for reconfirmation. WaltonOne 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How many edit-hours do we use at these reconfirmations/recall things. If she has done something enough to get her desysopped, take it to arbcom. Has she done anything? I'll echo Walton - No. I don't think so. What will hinge me, is if the candidate addresses these deletions. Regards, M-ercury at 13:38, January 7, 2008
    One of the many problems with ArbCom is that it treats some bad admin actions infinitely more seriously than others. Wheel war with Jimbo once, and ArbCom will desysop you in an emergency case or something to that effect. Make 500 bad speedy deletions and ArbCom will probably never hear about it. We could RFC every admin who makes more than a handful of bad deletions... then take it to RFAr if the behavior doesn't change... but in practice this doesn't happen. It takes a few seconds to make a bad deletion, but it could take months for dissenters to actually correct the problem. It's a vastly disproportionate equation, so it's no wonder that few people bother. But here's an admin voluntarily standing for RFA... it's a quick opportunity to dissent against one of many admins who seems to have too high a proportion of bad deletions. I know that everyone makes mistakes, but speedy deleting articles on lakes, olympians and so on suggests more than just clerical error, but an intentional disregard for the rules and the longstanding consensus behind many of them. --W.marsh 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I fully agree that ArbCom is completely useless in holding admins to account - they value peace and collegiality far more than good judgment. Thus they'll desysop an admin who wheel-wars once (even if the wheel war was for good reasons), but they'll let admins get away with numerous dodgy deletions and trigger-happy blocks without saying a word. However, as I said, I don't think that Keilana has demonstrated overly bad judgment - we're talking about two or three bad deletions out of hundreds of good ones, and in the worst example (James Barker), she voluntarily reversed herself and took it to AfD. I personally don't see an "intentional disregard for the rules" here, just a couple of mistakes. WaltonOne 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Software of companies that are A7, should be A7 as well, as for Bingham, it was an A7 when it was deleted, it only said that she was an actress in a play, and the New York Times source was hard to see, didn't had cite web, the lake should have been prodded for an easily deletion, and no comment on the others. Secret account 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Speaking for myself, I would not have deleted the original Amelia Bingham article as A7, as I think it did cross the threshold of asserting notability; however, I don't think it was a catastrophic error of judgment. The James Barker deletion was inappropriate, but we should give her credit for the fact that, when confronted about it, she reversed her action and took the article to AfD. I don't see any of the other examples as a real problem. WaltonOne 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally, I would regard the speedy deletion of an entire lake to be a real problem. With regard to the claim that Keilana may have only made a few inappropriate deletions out of thousands of deletions total, I note that the examples of inappropriate deletions found by W.marsh were "all just in the past 3 days." This implies that if every entry in Keilana's deletion log were examined, hundreds of inappropriate deletions might be found. John254 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And I see no reason, why you have to look in my logs just because I disagreed with w.marsh. Secret account 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Huh? I didn't look in your logs, I was talking about Keilana's deletions (and I was in fact substantially agreeing with you). WaltonOne 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was talking to John254, not you, sorry Secret account 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per evidence of inappropriate speedy deletions provided by W.marsh. John254 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Moved from support to oppose. See my support comment above for reasons. I could not inspect CSDs, and so opted for the status quo, but W.marsh's examples raise more doubt. –Pomte 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I will continue to strongly oppose all reconfirmation RFAs. If you are so insecure as to require a great big community hug before you will continue to use the extra buttons, you are eminently not suitable for adminship. And if you made a promise to go through a reconfirmation RFA if "a user in good standing" asked you to despite everyone knowing it's a pointless exercise, then you are also unsuitable because you have knowingly made a foolish, wasteful promise. Neıl ☎ 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I realise I'm not the best person to respond to this, since you made substantially the same point on my recent reconfirmation RfA, and I could be accused of sour grapes. However, I'd like to explain (dispassionately) why I think you're wrong. Recall and reconfirmation are not indicative of a search for "community hugs" - indeed, recent reconfirmation RfAs (Majorly's, mine, Mercury's, etc.) have been among the most controversial and vitriolic community discussions. Anyone who sought a reconfirmation in the hope of getting "community hugs" would therefore be severely deluded.
    Instead, recall and reconfirmation are opportunities for the community to judge an admin. While the RfA process is quite stringent - and rightly so - we can't really judge the character of a user until they've already been given the tools and exercised them. Some admins have considerable contempt for community consensus, and will do what they believe to be right for the encyclopedia regardless of overwhelming community opposition; they're not acting in bad faith, they just don't believe that the community's opinion overrides their own. I personally believe that admins are servants of the community, and that they should act in accordance with community consensus in almost all cases, even if they personally believe that the community is wrong.
    I understand that you, and many others, don't agree with this, and would rather have admins who would do what they believe to be right for the encyclopedia even where it is against consensus. That's fair enough. But don't accuse those of us who choose to stand for reconfirmation of wanting "community hugs" or of being "insecure". I chose reconfirmation because of my deeply-held belief that admins should be fully accountable to the community, and I believe that Keilana chose it out of equally strong principles. So please assume good motives, and don't accuse us all of being insecure. I personally find it offensive. WaltonOne 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the community were asked if this RFA (or any other "reconfirmation" RFA) was necessary, I suspect you would find the answer to be "no, it is not necessary". I have not said, anywhere, "I would rather have admins who do what is best for the encyclopedia, even if against consensus", because I don't agree with that sentiment - please don't put words in my mouth. I could go on about what community consensus actually means and how a lot of people fail to understand it fully, but it's not the appropriate venue. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I apologise, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I agree that the community consensus is that this particular reconfirmation is not necessary. However, both on my reconfirmation and on Majorly's, there were genuine opposes relating to our suitability to be admins - for instance, many of the opposers on my RfA felt that I was too combative and aggressive in my attitude towards the ArbCom and other Wikipedia authorities. It was good that they had a chance to voice that opinion, and that the community had the chance to judge me and decide whether I was still fit to be an admin. Even on this RfA, which is relatively non-controversial, a few people (e.g. W.marsh) have opposed on the basis of a few questionable speedy deletions. So I believe that reconfirmations are useful - and, more importantly, I think you are harming the encyclopedia by opposing anyone who stands for reconfirmation, and I am offended that you describe those of us who choose reconfirmation as "insecure". I didn't stand for a reconfirmation because I'm insecure or because I wanted hugs and love; I stood because I believe that the community has the right to judge me. And I believe I'm a better admin now than I was before the reconfirmation. WaltonOne 09:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose, per B's neutral comment and Neil's oppose comment. -- RG2 11:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Sorry, but it appears to me you do not understand the concept of a merge in (closing) deletion debates. I've looked back at your AfD closures in the last 10 days and found no less than a dozen of discussions which you closed as "Merge", or "Merge and Redirect" but you just, in fact, went ahead to delete the whole content/redirect the articles and apparently made no attempt to merge any materials. I consider this to be a serious matter, since you as an admin carry the responsibility of doing the same as what you have said. If you close something as a merge, then take care to merge the content or apply alternative methods of the same effects (e.g using the merge template or giving a note concerning what content should be merged on the talk page). If it is not your intention to merge the content, please do not perform massive AfDs closures as merge. (Stating "the result is redirect" would do.) The AfDs in question are, to name but a few, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riemersma dithering, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poet and the Pendulum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambino (single), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Falcone, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thyrsus (Mage: the Awakening), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000 White Flags, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodsball strategy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Horst. I don't doubt the RfA is bound to pass, and I'm prepared to withdraw my opposition if you could please offer a satisfactory explanation for your unusual and, forgive me for the lack of a better word, dishonest AfD closures. PeaceNT (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sure you could have found a better word. M-ercury at 10:52, January 9, 2008
    What do you require of a "better word"? A too sumptuous requisition from a person who is frequently deficient in AGF.
    Actually, it is not the job of the closing admin to do the merge, it's the job of the people who actually wanted to do the merge. The candidate's closure of these AFDs is fine with me (as long as the actual delete function was never used when content was merged). Another acceptable option for closers is to simply add the proper ((merge)) tags to the articles when closing "merge" AFDs, perhaps this is a marginally better course of action, but there's no official policy here. In general though, merge AFDs are the worst to close... since some closers do feel obligated to the merge, and might know nothing of the subject. As AFD is so terribly backlogged on a regular basis, I do not think we should thrust the duties of merging onto the already overworked closers. --W.marsh 16:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    True. An admin is not obliged to do the merge, which was why I said the closer could "apply alternative methods of the same effects (e.g using the merge template or giving a note concerning what content should be merged on the talk page)." What I'm addressing here, however, is the issue of closing an AfD of, this long article for one, as merged and redirected to another page but then redirecting the page without seeking to preserve any content (no evidence of ((merge)) or talk page ((oldafd)) note, either). There is no future reference concerning the deletion debate easily available to our eyes, and the merge would only be done in the unlikely event of someone (in the future) digging out the AfD archive of a redirect that has no sign of having been AfD'd. If you take a further look, you may also see that the target article (Woodsball) still contains a link back to the supposedly "main article" Woodsball strategy (now a redirect). That one example makes the whole thing look just confusing and disorganized, and leaves the impression of carelessness, if not irresponsibility. Continual AfD closure in this fashion will generate considerable chaos, which is not fine with me (we share differing views here so it seems). Though a willingness to help reduce the backlog is certainly appreciated, I do not think closures like those are acceptable, it is only my rigid view regarding AfDs, and of course I could be mistaken, it is still the position I take regardless. PeaceNT (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So a responsible admin must notify the users who want to merge, or at least leave the "merge" tags in articles so that other editors who are not "overworked" will do the tasks for her. If she can't do this simplest thing, don't close the discussion as "merge" because she won't merge them anyway. What PeaceNT pointed out are just some of Keilana's irresponsible closures. Who knows how much content from need-to-be-merged articles was lost by this type of action?
  8. Oppose per W.marsh, though I have nothing against reconfirmation RfA's. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I echo some of Ryan's comment but I express them as a regular community user who has no idea what Keilana's previous admin identity was. Based on Keilana's contribution, I have no reason to oppose her but I also do not have enough established history to support her either. There are a lot of blank pages and I suppose all the community has is to take a far extreme adaption of WP:AGF in the case of admin tools. You don't really know this person but you are going to have to trust the judgment of the crats that give the tools back. To my knowledge, an RtV admin has not yet abused this system and the community has benefited from not losing these valuable contributors due to off-wiki harassment and the like. However, I admittedly do have some overarching concerns and reservation about the process itself. I wonder how obsolete and diminished in importance that WP:RfA becomes when view in hindsight of how RtV admins are handled. In theory, the RfA process is meant to be a community gauge of consensus and trust in the admins based on who they are and what they have done. Supposedly, this is an level playing field since any community member has access to view the same contribution history as anyone else. The case of RtV admins does make it less level since only a small group of people can truly see the "big picture" in order to make an informed decision of whether or not to trust this individual-something that the larger community lacks. Despite my philosophical concerns, I don't see a reason for Keilana to be "test subject" for the conflicts between RtV and RfA and would support this RfA (while made in good faith) to be closed, with Keilana maintaining her admin status, in lieu of a broader community discussion on the main issues. AgneCheese/Wine 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update After reading the comments above, I understand that this circumstance is a name change rather than a new account that a crat has given the tools back to. That does alleviate a few concerns and I have strike my comment that I do not have a reason to support her either since her contribution history is still in tact. There is the bigger issue of RtV admins in general but it is becoming even more clear that this RfA should probably be closed or withdrawn since this is not a good forum to tackle those larger issues. AgneCheese/Wine 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point, if I were to withdraw, I would have to be desysopped, as it would be closed as failure. Keilanatalk(recall) 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well hopefully a crat will close it early. AgneCheese/Wine 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a horrible thing to say. --Charitwo talk 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    AGF, I think she meant it as successful. Keilanatalk(recall) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Um, yeah please AGF. As I mentioned before, I think Keilana should retain her admin status. AgneCheese/Wine 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough, although the way that's worded is easily taken out of context. Apologies. --Charitwo talk 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. neutral Insufficient MediaWiki-space edits – Gurch 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you please clarify? I'm not a programmer or scripter, nor do I claim to be one (though I am trying to familiarize myself with such things). If I were to edit the MediaWiki space, it would do more harm than good. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I know, Gurch likes to do joke neutrals, as they don't affect the RfA too much. EJF (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that reconfirmation RfAs are a waste of time, but if I opposed for that reason I'd be blocked for RfA trolling again. So I'm neutralling with a stupid reason instead. Do you have a better idea? – Gurch 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate the consideration of me as an admin rather than the process. (You may read my reasons for starting a reconfirmation RfA at the top of the page). Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, and those reasons are silly. :) Unless you have people demanding your desysopping at the administrators' noticeboard, this sort of process is entirely unnecessary – Gurch 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    True, but I did make a commitment and someone took me up on it. Keilanatalk(recall) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In which case it's partly your fault for making such a commitment, but mostly DHMO's fault for (a) paying any attention to such a commitment, and (b) coming up with such a stupid reason. Since when is community consensus necessary for an administrator to be renamed? Your username doesn't violate the username policy; that should be the end of it – Gurch 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please don't blame DiHy for this, I was going to do it if anyone at all requested it, and he was simply the deciding factor. Others indicated their low level of trust in "anono-admins" such as me, which was another reason for my going through with this. Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Anono-admins"? If by that you mean administrators who do not use their real name, well, I guess we'd better recall 95% of all administrators, then. If by that you mean administrators who changed their username... so what? A pseudonym is a pseudonym, it's not like the previous one meant anything either – Gurch 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think anything will be accomplished by this, it's her choice. --Charitwo talk 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I was quoting W.marsh in the WT:RFA thread, saying that he had little trust in admins who changed their name and therefore had no visible RfA. Does that clarify? Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well it's not as though your RfA suddenly vanished from existence when you changed your username. A simple link from your userpage would suffice to make it easily accessible, no? – Gurch 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (unindent) Unfortunately, that would completely defeat the purpose of the RtV. Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral. At first I assumed good faith, but this RfA is an absoloute waste of time, especially as you were always a good admin, having this RfA go for no reason other than to get high votes is, in my view, a big no-no. Sorry, :( Qst 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I stated earlier, this is in no way a pat on the back. A user in excellent standing requested my reconfirmation, and as I made a promise to stand again if anyone had any concerns (see WT:RFA), I am simply standing by my word. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, a user with an extensive history of username-changes (three? four?) asked you to stand down because you changed your username once. The correct response would have been to laugh at them and tell them to stop stirring up drama :) – Gurch 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That maybe so, and for that, I admire you choice, but I think this is still unnecessary as if anyone objected, they could have easily said it on WP:BN if you requested it back quietly there. Qst 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I highly respect Dihydrogen, and have honored his request because of my respect for him. If some random vandal were to request this, then yes, I would decline because of an obvious bad-faith request. However, I feel that having the full trust of the community is essential. (Clarification: He didn't ask me to stand down, just asked for reconfirmation. I personally feel that there's a difference.) Qst, I have not been without my sysop bit, just for clarification. Best, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know which is the case, but presumably, he thinks you should be desysopped, or he doesn't. If he does, his rationale for doing so is ludicrous, and if he doesn't, then this whole thing has been initiated purely for the sake of bureaucracy. I really think reconfirmation RfAs should be prohibited; blatant admin abuse is already dealt with by emergency desysopping, and other admin abuse should be dealt with by blocks (and desysopping if said admin unblocks themselves) in the same way as any other abuse – Gurch 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it was more of a trust issue than an abuse issue, and I am just keeping my word with this request, but I won't push the issue further. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On Wikipedia, "I have trust issues with this user" usually means "I hate their guts, but I can't actually point to any specific examples of things they've done wrong" – Gurch 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Qst you supported above #64..fix it ...--Cometstyles 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect to those who hold the opinion I am about to criticise, opposing somebody because they chose to go through process *rather than* opt for the easier route is flawed logic, in my book. Requests for Adminship is a stressful forum - more so than most others in the project - and a former Administrator seeking his or her tools back should be commended for choosing to bear its burden for seven days, in order to avoid receiving "special treatment". Just my thoughts here, but it seems a rather trivial and unimportant point to refrain from supporting the return of the administrator tools to a user who will obviously make great use of them. Anthøny 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Chrissakes, lads, it's only a neutral. Leave off Qst - his logic is fine. This is a pointless RFA and as such it's quite fine for people to feel uncomfortable supporting it. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral It doesn't merit an oppose, because Keilana has done just fine as an admin. However, while every user has the RTV, that doesn't mean every admin who invokes RTV should automatically get their tools back. I know this is slightly different because of the rename and not switching accounts, and Keilana has done a fine job, hence my neutral. Mønobi 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Protest Neutral - I'm sure you do fine as an admin (no idea, didn't look), but reconfirmation soley because of a rename is a waste of time and a dangerous precedent. If someone doesn't understand the rename process, they need to be educated, not force the admin to go through a needless process. --B (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    well said B, this is a complete misuse of the RFA process. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral I'm still not quite sure if this is an RfA, a reconfirmation, a recall, or circus side-show. the_undertow talk 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Complete Waste of Time I was watching this RfA all day thinking that this was an admin that stopped using an older account and created a new one. But, after looking more closely, that's not what happened. This was an account rename, so why is there a problem? By the way, this does nothing to help your desired privacy -- this RfA has attracted a lot of attention and will naturally lead certain curious folks (like myself) to go search for your original username. And, frankly, it doesn't take long to find. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wait, this is a rename? Anthøny 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, bit of process wonkery. Dureo (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly, what I was thinking but couldn't put to words..The same people that you were running from will now find you thanks to this "pointless" RfA Confirmation farce..Congrats for digging your own grave..The best think that you should have done was ignore the process wonkery and continue with what you were doing without going through this cause believe it or not "History will repeat itself" ....catching my drift? ...--Cometstyles 23:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The way you're carrying on, anyone could be fooled for thinking you have a clue what happened the first time around. But you don't. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well ofcourse, I don't follow wikipedia anymore because I have realised, the more you try to help, the more people misjudge you and take you for a troll, I don't really care what happened to this lady, and I don't even want to know the reason for this pointless RfA..don't get me wrong DHMO,but those that 'manipulated' her into doing this conformation has not done her favours and I wish I only knew the reason for this 'waste of time' but as I pointed out on my talk page some days ago..there are only a few reasons for 'invoking' the RtV and if it was due to threats/attacks/stalking then this process just jeopardised that..--Cometstyles 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Uh. - As recall / retaining / reconfirmation / whatever votes are not RfAs (and not official policy), this should not go here. It's fine if you want to use the same format, but this is not the appropriate place to do it. Even if it were, the rationale behind starting this is trivial and should've been resolved elsewhere. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral - I'm one to support reconf. RfAs, usually stating the opposite of whatever Neil says. However, this is totally ridiculous to me. I've been debating this for days, reading over everything, including Walton's series of books, and I just can't bring myself to support. I get the RTV deal, but I think if something happened that caused me to need to vanish, my ass would vanish and I wouldn't bring it up again. I find it increasingly unsettling when users RTV then advertise it later, or link to their old account. It does not make sense to me. I also fail to see a need to put a recall link in ones signature. That seems like one hoping for a recall request, which is strangely masochistic. As far as edits, some diffs provided may be slight cause for concern, but overall I think her admin edits are overwhelmingly beneficial to the project, therefore, I cannot oppose the candidate, although I do oppose this stupid process of "Retaining RfA" based on one dumbfounded request. Lara❤Love 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally, I feel that the recall link holds me to a much higher standard, but I've removed it. Thank you for your comments. Best, Keilanatalk 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. WTF People who didn't know/didn't care about the rename/vanishing/whatever (say... me) now know it from browsing through a couple of logs. So having a high profile reconfirmation RfA totally ballsed up the RtV deal. Waste of time mainly because it's confusing the hell out of us. In all other ways, you seem like a decent sort of admin, no problems, except for this bit of fluff, which I'll chalk up to occasional bad judgement :s ~ Riana ⁂ 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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