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

Miniapolis[edit]

Final (84/24/7); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Miniapolis (talk · contribs) – It is a big pleasure to present this adminship nomination of Miniapolis. She created her account on May 21, 2007 and from there, she has amassed an incredible 27 consecutive months of active editing, earning her more than 12,000 edits (7,500 of them to mainspace), as well as several user rights to enhance her mission to improve the encyclopedia. I first met her a while ago when I put together the courage to participate in a GOCE Copyedit drive, and since then, I have only been impressed by her always helpful character, her attitude and dedication to the project. With her incredible copyediting work, I am sure she understands all the notability policies and, focused on content administrative work, she will become one of our brightest administrators. Today, in this current need of new admin blood, I consider that Miniapolis would be a very fine addition to the admin corps. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. Miniapolis 02:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd like to pitch in in a number of areas, wherever I'd be needed the most. At first I'd tread carefully, and branch out after gaining some experience with the mop. My strong suit is probably dispute resolution; my interpersonal skills are decent, and I don't rattle easily. I'd probably start with ANI and backlog work (especially AFD and RFPP), stretching my comfort zone from there. Although I guess most admins tend to specialize in particular areas, I'd like to learn them all first.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Copyediting is my forté; I've had fun with the Guild of Copy Editors for the past couple of years and also participate in WikiProject Wikify and several other WikiProjects. Although I admire the content creators, I'm better at improving existing articles than creating new ones. However, I've created two short articles on lesser-known horse breeds (Spanish-Norman horse and Baise horse) and hope to improve them as I find reliable sources. It's very satisfying to take an article needing a lot of work (with the maintenance tags to prove it) and bring it closer to encyclopedia quality, regardless of subject. Recently I've been copyediting more articles from the GOCE requests page, and it's nice to contribute to an article that's up for GA or FA.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been fortunate in not encountering any major conflicts so far, and only a few minor ones. While it can bruise the ego when our contributions don't seem as valuable to others as they do to ourselves, it helps to assume good faith and remember that the vast majority of editors are here to improve the encyclopedia (even when they do things differently than we would). Once or twice I've had to take a deep breath, walk away and have a nice cup of tea; when I return, the conflict has always shrunk. I contribute to RFCs as a subscriber to the Feedback Request Service; as a (usually) uninvolved editor I may not have as much expertise in a particular field as the editor(s) requesting comments, but try to base my comments on policy and guidelines. Life is too short for edit-warring.
Additional question from MJ94
4. Why do you think you'll make a good administrator?
A: I have good judgment, a cool head and a good grasp of WP policies and guidelines. In addition, while I certainly wouldn't be available for many hours on end every day, I'm fortunate in that my personal circumstances allow me to "pop in" several times most days. Although the prevailing atmosphere on WP is collegial, I wouldn't shy away from the tough stuff (blocks and mediation).
Additional question from Go Phightins!
5. Thanks for expressing interest in becoming an administrator. Though I don't believe we've directly interacted, I have seen you around and admire your tact. I do, however, have a concern regarding your interest in closing AFDs which you can read in its entirety in the oppose section. Hahc21 thought it might be a good idea to ask you a question about it, so I thought I would.
a.) Would you define yourself as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or somewhere in between? In other words, what's your philosophy regarding what should be included in Wikipedia?
b.) What is your opinion on "super voting" (when an AFD closer uses their vote as a "super vote" to override consensus)? Are there any scenarios in which you think it could have merit and would you ever employ such a practice?
c.) And lastly, how would you have voted in this AfD? Assuming you didn't vote, how would you have closed it?
Thanks in advance.
A: Thanks, Phightins; the points in your oppose are well-taken (although I hope to change your mind :-)).
a) I believe that Wikipedia is large enough for a vast number of articles—within reason. I'm well-versed in WP:NOT, which (unfortunately) leans me slightly towards deletionism. I say "unfortunately" because there are a number of WP articles which are promotional, sourced entirely by self-published sources or not sourced at all. While I agree that WP is a work in progress and there's no deadline, I don't think that articles with no reasonable expectation of meeting WP:N and WP:V belong in any encyclopedia.
b) I'm not sure what you mean by "super voting" in this context. AFD discussions are just that: discussions, not polls. Therefore, an admin should determine consensus by giving more weight to policy- and guideline-based votes than those of the ILIKEIT variety (even if the ILIKEIT votes are more numerous).
c) In this AFD, the presence of RS for the conspiracy theories would force me to hold my nose and vote "keep". I think Sandstein's closing remarks, distinguishing WP:RS on the one hand from WP:DUE on the other without giving either greater importance, were very good and I agree with their decision. When in doubt, keep for now (which may make me an inclusionist after all :-)).
Additional question from Dennis Brown
6. A scenario: You are patrolling for AFDs to close one day as admin, and come across one with 4 delete votes and 3 keep votes, all are more or less average and reasonable votes. It happens to be a topic you are very familiar with but have no conflict of interest, and your gut and experience tells you that it is a notable topic, even if a bit difficult to source. How would you close it? Or would you just walk away or do something else?
A: Although we all edit WP on a volunteer basis, walking away and doing something else is a bad habit to get into (unless you're WP:INVOLVED, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Seven votes total seems low for a no-consensus after just a week; I'd relist it (probably only once) in the hope for more input.
If I may ask a follow up, what if the AFD had already been relisted twice? Go Phightins! 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't prolong the agony, but would close as no consensus. Miniapolis 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Marcus Qwertyus
7. Why did you become active from Nov. 2010? Have you ever gone on an extended wikibreak?
A: Although I opened my account several years earlier (more to support the project than for any other reason), over two years ago I realized that I could help in a small way by working on the typos and poor prose in many articles. When I began learning the policies and guidelines behind the encyclopedia itself, I branched out into content and behavioral issues. Since then I've never taken an extended wikibreak, nor do I intend to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Northamerica1000
8. Do you feel that your !votes at AfD discussions should be congruent with other editor opinions most of the time, perhaps as an example, in 90% or more instances, as a qualifier for adminship? I noticed in User: Go Phightins!' "Weak oppose" below that they stated you have "voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time" in AfD discussions. Do you perceive this type of comparison as a valid qualifying metric regarding abilities to make correct closes in AfD discussions? Why or why not?
A: I think it's intellectually dishonest to see which way a vote is going and vote with the majority, and believe that all my AfD votes have been policy-based. The difficulty arises when a consensus has been recently reached (since consensus can change over time) and an editor persists in arguing a minority view. That's disruptive; once consensus is reached, it's time to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a follow-up, since you didn't answer the second part of question 8 regarding the use of AfD statistics as a metric to predict the probability of editors being able to make correct discussion closures. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had answered both parts of your question. To reiterate—no, I do not. Consensus evolves over the course of a deletion discussion, and I don't closely monitor discussions on which I've already commented. As I've said, I base my opinions on policy and guidelines; it would be easy to change one's vote at the end of a discussion to that of the majority but a) I'm usually somewhere else (contributing to the encyclopedia) by then and b) I don't play that way. The phrase "voting against consensus" sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Miniapolis 14:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Would you ever consider closing an AfD discussion that you have contributed to?
A: I'd be uncomfortable doing so, and would ask another admin to close it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Should AfD discussions be closed based upon general consensus in the discussions, or per the strength of the arguments within them?
A: Consensus is not just the number of votes in a discussion, but the strength of the arguments within them. You don't need walls of text to make a point; a sentence or two (and a link to policy always helps, assuming it's relevant to the issue at hand) can shed needed light on a previously-deadlocked discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniapolis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mkdw
11. Several editors have addressed concerns over the fact that you have only participated in 23 AfDs. Would you be able to share with us how and why you feel qualified to close AfDs as an administrator with relatively little participation in the area? (This comes mostly out of a concern that by not being involved you lose familiarity with the current consensus and status quo of XfD including things such as WP:OUTCOMES or very new policies that arrived out of AfD such WP:NMMA)
A: Sure. Because I've chosen to participate in relatively few AfD discussions so far (and have been busy with other aspects of the encyclopedia), it doesn't follow that I'm unfamiliar with current consensus—although, frankly, I think the sports-notability guidelines (including WP:NMMA) are diverging from WP:N to a degree that's not beneficial to WP as a whole. My work at AfC and elsewhere has familiarized me with WP:OUTCOMES; however, consensus can change. I regularly monitor the noticeboards (including WP:N/N). Miniapolis 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. I think most people will agree that reading and being familiar with XfD and practical experience teach and reveal very different things that will ultimately change the way you close AFDs. I am still surprised that consensus sometimes falls against what I consider a 'rock solid' argument for or against a policy where the outcome is the opposite. You mention below that you will "get a lot more familiar with AfD discussions before attempting to close". If you find appropriate, would you be willing to elaborate further on what how you intend to accomplish this commitment? (x number of AfDs participated, no controversial closures until you have closed x number of XfDs, etc.?)
A To answer your question, I can't tell you how many AfD discussions I will participate in before beginning to close any, let alone the more controversial ones; frankly, I'm surprised that you would expect a specific number. Although policies need to be weighed against each other when reaching a decision, any consensus (by definition) ought to be policy-based. Miniapolis 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Hobit
12. Here are a handful of questions about our deletion process just to get a sense of your understanding of an area you are interested in working in.
a. Explain how you see WP:BURDEN apply with respect to article retention. If an article lacks any in-line citations at all, is that a valid reason to push for the deletion of the article? A good reason to do so?
b. Say you run across a newly created BLP which has no sources. As an admin, what are the range of choices you'd have on how to deal with it and under what circumstances would you make each of those choices?
c. Say an admin who is on an extended wikibreak has used a speedy deletion criteria in a clearly incorrect way to deleted an article (an article deleted as a G4 which had never existed previously). A relatively new editor asks you to undelete the article as the closing admin is away. What action(s) would you take?
A Thanks for your good questions.
a. Except for BLPs, a lack of inline citations is neither a valid nor a good reason to propose deletion. While inline citations are desirable, some articles have a list of sources at the end (which, while not optimal, is better than nothing). Other articles are unsourced because they are still under construction. My concern is with unsourced articles, created years ago, which have not been edited for a long time and have apparently been forgotten.
b. While BLPs must be sourced, unless a BLP is way off base in terms of NPOV I'd wait a bit for RS to be provided (and perhaps remind its creator about WP:BLP) before considering deletion (a last resort anyway, per WP:BLPDEL).
c. Ordinarily, an editor would contact the deleting administrator to contest a speedy deletion; since that's impossible in this case, I'd advise the editor to use deletion review. Miniapolis 15:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My last answer is indicative of the caution I'd employ as a new admin. I wanted to avoid the appearance of wheel-warring, but on further reflection I wouldn't have a problem undeleting the article in question under the circumstances. Miniapolis 16:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support As nominator. — ΛΧΣ21 17:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good editor; Came across a bit while in the background, no main reason to oppose or concerns just the lack of editing in the beginning. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, John; when I opened my account, I was still just a WP reader :-). Miniapolis 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That has set it; Full support I guess now. Hopefully everyone else (mainly opposees) could see the current skills and communication abilities you have. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recently came across this editor in an article RFC; she displayed exemplary character and calmness, willingness to discuss and answer questions (actually past the point of IDHT on the part of the other party). Seems to have a good grasp of policy. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Miniapolis displays great qualities; Wikipedia would be lucky to have her as an administrator. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Looks like the oppose(s) have a to-do list for you. No qualms here, Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: Miniapolis's interpersonal skills are a lot more than just "decent", and I'm particularly glad that she is willing to spend time helping at ANI, where such skills and maturity are sorely needed. Easy support. --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Good editor, no concerns about suitability for adminship. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I have never crossed roads with Miniapolis, but I am aware that she is a very kind user (a must for an admin, I might say) and judging her contributions, I think that she'll make a good use of the tools. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Indeed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A trustworthy editor that is obviously a net positive to the project. TBrandley (what's up) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Miniapolis is a great editor, and I have absolutely no reason to think she wouldn't use the tools responsibly. I'm proud to be casting my first RfA vote in support of her. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I am familiar with the user's work with the GOCE. They are a capable editor with clue, able and willing to learn. -- Dianna (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Stephen 03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as I see no reason not to. Regarding the reasons given for opposing this request, I find nothing wrong with the quality of Mini's edits in administrative areas, even if my colleagues take issue with the quantity of those edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No reason not to. Miniapolis would likely do a great job. Kurtis (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support As per Someguy1221 and the user has been editing regularly since November 2010.There absolutely no reason to think or suggest that she wouldn't use the tools responsibly.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yeah, no concerns here, and she sounds very nice. AfD experience looks perfectly sufficient to me. Swarm X 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, pretty strongly, based on Miniapolis clearly being an intelligent and calm contributor with buckets of common sense, lots of great content work, and a clear understanding of how this collegial project works. Do I need to see more action in the AfD arena? With some candidates, I would, but not with Miniapolis - clear common sense (supported by pretty good answers to questions) is plenty for me. Miniapolis strikes me as someone who will be cautious, and is not going to be doing anything contentious without careful deliberation and without seeking help from colleagues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support As per Boing Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tentative support, in the absence of glaringly problematic areas being raised by opposes/neutrals, per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Whether or not this request is successful, you might wish to consider whether a few of the userboxes you display could potentially be viewed as off-putting by editors visiting your user page: while I'm sure you're very capable of editing with a neutral POV, some may infer otherwise by your obvious expression of personal opinions in such a way. Good luck. -- Trevj (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; your point about the userboxes is well-taken, although I'm not alone in a small degree of self-expression. I've edited a number of articles whose subjects are opposed to my own beliefs, and have had no trouble maintaining (and restoring) NPOV; I don't lose sight of the big picture, which is maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 15:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure this is the case, but the danger is that it may ring alarm bells for others. Administrators are sometimes more visible than non-admins, that's all. But the importance of self-expression is understood; indeed I share some of your convictions - however, I'd give serious thought before including such things on my user page. -- Trevj (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes—after giving your comments more thought (which is why it's good to have other things to do during an RFA), I decided to retire the most...er, undiplomatically-worded of my userboxes. Miniapolis 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. In part, I admit to thinking we need more female admins, but that's only a minor reason. There's a good track record of high quality copyedit work, indicating attention to details and a proclivity for helping other editors make articles better. I see no reason to worry about anything getting broken. As for AfD being a drama-fest, no kidding! And it's spilling over to here, in opposes based on disagreeing with the candidate's views about keeping or deleting particular pages. RfA isn't about settling scores in the perpetual inclusion-deletion conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Fair-minded answers. Miniapolis seems highly unlikely to take controversial admin actions in areas unfamiliar to her. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine. Though if you're interested in helping with the Category:Wikipedia backlog, AfD and RFPP are the very tip of the iceberg. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Response to Keepcases oppose is not appropriate for an admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan, you're unhappy with Mini's response, or the ensuing thread, which she did not take part in? I'm just confused, because I could not see how someone could take Mini's response as inappropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate response to trolling is ignoring. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And exactly how does one distinguish !voting from trolling? Miniapolis 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience mostly, though looking through contribs would have helped here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, although I've been busy answering questions and addressing concerns :-). Miniapolis 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I think Miniapolis can be trusted to use the tools in a responsible fashion and believe her when she says she would tread carefully. Any potential concerns over AfD could easily be addressed through a mentoring period. I'm encouraged by the interest in working on backlogs and a demonstrated history of doing so at GOCE. Gobōnobō + c 21:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Not massively experienced but it sounds like the candidate will take it slow and learn from any mistakes Jebus989✰ 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – the concerns listed in the Oppose section have not been enough to make me personally oppose the candidate. It Is Me Here t / c 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support While the answer to question 1 is not perfect, the opposes are not convincing in my view, because she mentions that she would use the tools cautiously and would seek mentoring if anything arises. That question shows she won't abuse the tools. Secret account 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support no concerns, user will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Net positive Inka888 03:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Looks more than competent, no reason to oppose. GaramondLethe 03:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - I trust this editor to not misuse the admin buttons and to be a thoughtful force for good here. Opposes fail to convince me; the insistence that Afd's should have a certain "correct" percentage, for example, should carry little weight. Thanks for your service to date, and best wishes! Jusdafax 08:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I believe this editor will stay within her purvue and know when back down. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support She seems sensible, and unlikely to rush into closing contentious AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - can't see any specific problem. Deb (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. It's not the strongest support I've every given, as I have some concerns about answers to the questions. The answer to Q6 kinda rubs me a little wrong...I would have preferred an answer along the lines of "I would not close the AfD but would instead !vote", as that's a good middle ground between just walking away and letting bias affect your close. The other answers seem just a hair off from what I would like to see as well, but all in all I still feel that I can support. The user is generally clueful; I trust their judgement and ability to get it right. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I realize now that you (and Dennis) are correct, and will keep that in mind. Miniapolis 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Can't see any problem to not to give support.--Pratyya (Hello!) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support You want to work on backlogs? Sounds like a job for an admin to me, you have my support. Best of luck to you. — - dain- talk    15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I like the idea of a kind admin. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" and all that jazz. And determining a consensus is a different thing to expressing one's opinion, although that subtlety seems to have passed one or two by here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - The supposed lack of experience is not a reason to oppose, experience is gained while serving. The answers to the questions are IMO perfect. Kraxler (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I've pondered this RfA longer than any other. On one hand, you come up short on in mediation experience, by a large margin. On the other hand, you are unquestionably here to build an encyclopedia and have a good attitude. My choice boils down to "play it safe" or "take a leap of faith". Your overall demeanor and style allow me to leap here. I don't think you would ever intentionally cause problems, so the leap is that you are wise enough to know your limits. I do recommend you go very slowly at AFD and ANI for a while, instead learning at RFPP, participating at AFD without using the bit, and similar. Do what you already do best, and I'm sure you will make a fine admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Dennis, and I'll take your advice to heart. Miniapolis 23:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - I'm not sure if others have interpreted the comments in a different way to me (which is, of course, their prerogative) but I don't interpret the answer to Question 1 as, "I'm going to jump into AFD and start closing sh*t like a crazy banshee". For me, editor contributions at AFD are about consensus building, while admin closes at AFD are about consensus reading. I don't think one necessarily makes for good practice for the other. Take RFPP for example - how are you supposed to "learn RFPP" as a non-admin? By making lots of requests? Salvidrim was recently granted the bit, jumped in at RFPP and made some cracking calls, including rejecting one of the half-arsed, half-asleep requests I made in frustration late one night. So for me, it comes down to whether or not we trust the person to be sensible and to wield the mop in furtherance of the project's goals. The rest is WP:AGF and WP:NOBIGDEAL. Stalwart111 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support — You're really good at this. --Yrtneg T 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Candidate doesn't look like she'll break the wiki, so per WP:DEAL she should have the tools. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I've been thinking about this for a few days. I have political differences with Miniapolis, but I never would have known it from her behavior on-wiki, as she is always very helpful, even-tempered, and willing to learn. I've never seen her push any POV, and she is very clued in. I have some concerns about her less-than-stellar AfD record and answer to Dennis Brown's question (just remember that being ad admin doesn't preclude you from participating as a regular editor if you can contribute more that way), but I'm comforted by her general attitude about taking care in all her activities. She's done a great job with her copy editing and coordinating for the WP:GOCE as well. If being an admin is really no big deal, people like Miniapolis are exactly who we want: smart, considerate folk who won't embarrass Wikipedia with foolish or hasty actions. She's the kind of person that may not know everything in and out now, but will be viewed as one of our best admins years down the line. —Torchiest talkedits 04:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per Dianna, Dennis, and others. Good attitude and willingness to learn. INeverCry 05:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Opposes not convincing at all. Wizardman 06:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. support. - filelakeshoe 12:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support The candidate is very unlikely to break the wiki and is likely to mature into a good admin. Clearly the nom statement is weak and fuzzy as Kiefer says but I'm not going to hold that against the candidate. There are issues of experience as well (the removal of the userbox, closing something as no consensus where she has an opinion) but that's something that is easily learned on the job for someone with the right attitude (which I think she has). And I like her response to Pichpich's oppose. No sense in waiting when all evidence points to someone becoming a good admin so I hope this is successful. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support The candidate answers the questions very confidently and convincingly. I can see the candidate's committment to WP, in not taking wikibreaks, and trying to log on few times a day to check stuff. Trust that the candidate will be a good admin. Arctic Kangaroo 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support As long as a bull in the china shop approach is not used with administrative experience, due to the slightly under-participation in AfD and the like, I think Miniapolis will make a good sysop. There is clearly a level head with common sense at work, and I think the tools would be appropriately used. iComputerSaysNo 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support —stay (sic)! 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I trust Hahc's judgment, and I see no reason why I shouldn't support the candidate at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Largely per regentspark. No concerns from me. Pol430 talk to me 21:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Use the opposes as a to-do list to focus on your weak areas (I think someone above me mentioned something like this). Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Sufficient tenure, clean block log, and no indications of assholery. Nice mix of mainspace to other edits. We actually are in need of more closers at AfD as there is a disturbing trend towards punching the EXTEND DEBATE button instead of making a call after multiple extensions. Thanks for your work. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support The answer to question 12 made me gun shy as I wasn't necessarily looking for a number but rather a plan in which none was offered in how to take Dennis' advice. That said, this editor has an outstanding record of contributions and history on Wikipedia. More than meets my User:Mkdw/RfA Standards. If any mistakes are made at the AfD, I'm almost fairly certain someone take it for DRV (as mentioned NAC's are not going well and even admin closures). Mkdwtalk 04:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support as per above, could be trusted with the mop Mediran (t • c) 07:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - While the user does not have a lot of experience with AfD, I am confident she will ease her way into it. Edits overall look good. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support largely per user:Dennis Brown, User:Gobōnobō and User:Boing! said Zebedee. Fortunately, AFD is one of the easiest areas to see what an admin is doing and if they are doing it well, and to correct any errors. I think Miniapolis has learned already. :) As others have, I would recommend beginning slowly with AFDs - you can train yourself by watching instead of closing difficult ones to see how other admins handle it and also by watching WP:DRV. And if you ever feel like doing copyright work and want some feedback, please feel free to come by my talk page. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I can't see this one rushing in and causing chaos. Seems to have clue and be willing to learn. Peridon (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support after a review of contributions, including AfC work. Regarding AfDs, I'd echo Moonriddengirl and other's comments, and as I've done a bit of AfD closing myself, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if I can be of assistance. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I can see that this may need some experience at AfD before jumping too far in; there are pleanty of other things which ~I am sure they are fully competent to do. The userbox (now removed, unnecessarily in my view) is a quote from "Imagine" by John Lennon, which has been voted as one of the best songs ever written, and even if it were a personal statement by this user would be wholly irrelevant at an RfA.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support on the condition that the candidate goes slowly at AfD. Looking through her AfD comments, I am concerned by this comment which suggests that whether sources are in the article or not should affect the decision to delete the page. It is always a good idea to add sources to an article that needs better references, of course, but it is only whether the sources exist that affects the subject's notability. Also, these two comments[1][2] suggest that the articles in question should be deleted for having a promotional tone. This would be true if they were unambiguously promotional throughout, per CSD G11, but the problems with these articles weren't nearly as bad as that. If there are no other problems, these kinds of articles should be cleaned up, by reducing them to stubs if necessary, but not deleted. I almost opposed over these comments and the general lack of experience at AfD, but Miniapolis is otherwise a great editor, and she could do very useful work in other areas. Given that she has agreed to tread carefully at AfD already, I think that making her an admin would be a net benefit for the project. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support...no evidence candidate will abuse the tools or the position.--MONGO 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - good candidate for admin. Torreslfchero (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. The real issue for debate here is the candidate's answer to question 1. I've come to think that question is a bit of a trip-up one, because people are inclined to answer things that seem like they will be a sufficiently sizable contribution (and voters expect that too, as we saw at a recent RFA), but you can't really know what suits you until you get into stuff as an admin. The big mistake for new admins is to overreach, but I see nothing to indicate that this editor will do so, and much to indicate she will be (appropriately) cautious. Chick Bowen 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Long-term, trustworthy editor who will move cautiously into administrator areas so she learns as she goes? Yes please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Solid "young" editor with over 12,000 total edits and almost 7,500 to article space. I had more that I was going to say, but you know what? Ed's comment immediately above sums it up nicely: she's good now, and with time and a little growth in the job, she has the potential to be a great admin. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Good editor! Cmckain14 (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Struggling to see a reason to oppose here. Can't really complain about "lack of content contributions" when over half the candidate's edits are in article space. — foxj 15:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. The opposes mostly seem to be rewordings of "not enough experience" which has never been convincing to me. What I like to see is a lack of embarrassing or troublesome incidents in your history, and in that you definitely pass. —Soap— 17:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support With one caveat: my advice to any editor who doesn't like non-English sources is learn. The world does not revolve around English and neither does the Wikipedia. You cannot be expected to be able to handle sources in every language (although that doesn't seem to worry reviewers) but translation resources are always available. TCO's advice about the ban hammer is also well worth remembering. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I do agree with some of the concerns mentioned here ( question 6's answer for example ), but not enough to be neutral or oppose. I would hope that dealing with XfD would start carefully, ideally with a mentor. PaleAqua (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. This was a tough call. I'm well aware of the concerns of those in the oppose section that you leave something to be desired in some aspects of administrative work, AFD in particular. But, having scanned your talk page archives going back to July 2012, read your responses to the questions and reactions to criticism on this RFA, and seen you interact with other users, I'm convinced that giving you a mop would be a net positive to the project. You come across as thoughtful, deliberative, and willing to learn from your mistakes—all traits crucial to success as an administrator. I also appreciate your gnomish work as well with WP:GOCE and think that your willingness to clean up in the background and do the less glamorous mopping around the project is commendable. After weighing things out, I'm convinced that you'll be an asset to the project as an administrator and am happy to support. Absolute best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I stayed on the fence for a long time with this one, almost entirely because of DGG's oppose below, but I feel he was mistaken. I see no legitimate reason to oppose this user... and a lack of admin-related experience isn't a legitimate reason. I am sure the candidate doesn't need to be reminded to be careful while making the transition into mop-related duties, but here is the reminder again all the same. Trusilver 04:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support -- good and thoughtful responses to the questions that were asked; enough editing work and two good articles created. Some concerns about the lack of AfD experience and hope she participates more in them before closing anything vaguely controversial, but a happy support on balance. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Like several other !voters, it took me a long time to make my mind up. DGG makes a sound rationale to oppose, and the candidate doesn't quite tick all my boxes. However, I'm impressed with the content work and general engagement, and I trust that she will take note of the advice and comments here. Rather than go neutral, I have enough trust in this candidate to tip my scales to 'support'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - some lack of experience in admin-related activity but experience can be gained, a calm and thoughtful personality is much harder to acquire and commensurately much more valuable! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per Tyrol5. Tread carefully and slowly when you start at AfD. --99of9 (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support I like what I've seen; and they appear to be open to discussion. I haven't seen any red flags. — Ched :  ?  11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support The ability alone to discuss things in a calm and thoughtful manner is a great plus which will come in handy. AfD experience is not a must, and can be acquired. Lectonar (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support But I would advise care when wading into controversial AfD closings. Deletion is one of the more permanent things we do here. RayTalk 18:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak oppose - She expresses an interest in working at AFD, but she only has participated in 22 AFDs, never performed an NAC, and has voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time. In the last 2 months, she's only participated in 4 and voted with consensus only twice. I don't like opposing good candidates for adminship, but for someone who expresses an interest in closing AFDs, I need to see more experience in that area. I am open to changing my vote, but for now, I must oppose. Go Phightins! 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how users doing NACs have been recently treated, I won't consider that "never performed an NAC" could apply. I was very active performing NACs, and everybody knows what happened (I am not challenging your oppose though) — ΛΧΣ21 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I only brought it up because it could have been an alternate way in which I would find experience in AFDs. I know that NACs are controversial, but it was just an alternate way I could at least see participation in AFDs. Go Phightins! 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. Another way may be asking the candidate some questions about AFD and assess her answers :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Excellent work as an editor, but insufficient experience in discussions relating to administrative tasks, as explained by the caveats stated by the first two neutral opinions. I suggest obtaining more relevant experience and applying again in a few months. I do recommends doing some NACs; the difficulties experienced by some people have been because of a considerable series of erratic and unjustified closes, & I would hope to see otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose Sorry, but simply not enough experience at AfD for someone who really wants to work there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 'Strong' Oppose - Not enough admin area experience, as DGG says. I'm all the more bothered by the follow up responses. I see nothing encouraging in terms of experience here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - When confronted with articles at AfD that end up getting kept, they've !voted delete more often than they've !voted keep. They've demonstrated poor judgement at AfD, and yet list working on the "backlog" at AfD as something they intend to do. (And are apparently unfamiliar enough with the process to be unaware AfD doesn't have a backlog. Perhaps they meant CfD, RfD, FfD, or MfD?) WilyD 10:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Lack of experience, fluffy nomination and statements, and concerns over prose and maturity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per DGG. I have very few expectations of candidates. I am willing to pass a candidate who has no admin experience and makes no promise to even do admin work and oppose a candidate who says they intend to work an area because they have no experience. It's a matter of trust and damage. I trust a candidate who intends to start easy or use the tools sparingly if they have no experience but have shown an ample supply of clue and trust. I do not believe that person would cause damage. I am concerned about Miniapolis though. When you come to RfA and you answer the first question with an admin area, I want to see experience. Am I punishing someone for offering to do work? Maybe. But I don't see it that way. When someone wants to work an area they have no experience, they can potentially cause damage. Further, ANI should be the ending place that admins work, not the start. A brand new sysop should not start at ANI. New sysops should start at RFPP, UAA, PROD and PERM. Areas that are the least controversial. What this boils down to is that I am not confident that Miniapolis is aware of their limits. I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - nothing more than lack of experience in the areas you want to participate in; you look to be a good editor and so will be happy to support when you run in future :) GiantSnowman 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Per KW and TP. Intothatdarkness 17:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose No candidate who displays an anti-religious userbox should ever be granted adminship. It shows terrible judgment on the part of the candidate, and serves only to alienate other editors who actually want to keep their religion, thank you very much. A userbox stating the world would be better off without (for example) Jews, homosexuals or black people would probably get someone banned. This is really no different. Keepscases (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed; I do not consider the userbox in question to be anti-religious, and meant no offense. Miniapolis 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You could also say that somebody who has a "This user is a Christian" userbox would alienate people as well, so that's actually not a legitimate reason. It's not as if it said something like "Death to the Jews!", it said "no religion" [quoting a very well-known song]. That doesn't affect adminship in any way.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the selection of that userbox shows horrible judgment by the candidate. I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking? I tend to think all people have the right to believe whatever they like, as long as they are not harming anyone else, and I don't trust a candidate who wants to dictate what other people believe. That's a *whole* lot different than a "this user is a Christian" userbox, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the userbox does not say "All religion is bad and nobody must believe in it because I don't." If someone is a Christian, they can be and they can say they are. If someone does not believe in any religion, they are free to do the exact same thing. It's no different what-so-ever, and it's not a reason to oppose. If someone takes offense to that, that is their problem. I could very well take offense to someone's userbox stating "This user is a Christian", as that's not my beliefs (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just stating this for an example). "I'd be interested to know what exactly happens to the Jews in the candidate's mind. Are they all killed? Are they all converted to the candidate's desired way of thinking?" I'm curious – what does that actually have to do with anything? Are you now questioning someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in an RFA?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and don't call me "chief".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained why an anti-religious userbox is indicative of terrible judgment, and you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that. There is nothing wrong with professing your own beliefs. There is a big, big problem with suggesting other people don't have the right to their own, especially when you're a candidate for a position that ideally will be able to get along with the vast majority of other users, chief. Keepscases (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I do understand Keepscases's point here. Whatever my own view on religion (and I don't disclose it, because I really don't think it is of any relevance to my work on Wikipedia), I would never use a userbox that states an opposition to a religious belief (or a political or philosophical opinion, etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should just add that I don't think the userbox in question was intended to be derogatory towards religious beliefs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even believe it was meant that way, I just took it as being a quote from a song, and I don't wish for the candidate to specify (as that has nothing to do with the RFA). Yes, you can say that is "terrible judgment". And please! "you really need to work on your reading comprehension if you truly didn't understand that." How about you keep the conversation on topic and don't go for a "If you don't understand it, you don't know how to read properly" comments. I've read your comments several times before actually commenting (I couldn't believe what I was reading). And for the record, my reading comprehension is perfectly fine (I'm not an A+ student in English for nothing.) Boing, I agree, I wouldn't do such a thing either, but look at it this way. Once the issue was raised (which obviously wasn't before now), Miniapolis said "I don't agree, but I will remove it" and removed it. If the candidate knew it was going to be an issue, then they wouldn't have had it there in the first place. Let's assume a little good faith here that the candidate wasn't trying to offend anybody, or, as you suggested, convert people to non-religious beliefs (ridiculous).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a fuss over a quote from a John Lennon song seems overkill. Taking that particular userbox as anti-religious seems to require a leap of logic, or a the very least, is unnecessarily presumptive. I'm concerned about experience, but certainly not by someone quoting the song Imagine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. A userbox with a John Lennon quote is banal perhaps, but can hardly be considered anti-religion. (I think the candidate would have done better to have ignored the oppose and left the userbox in place.) --regentspark (comment) 17:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just image what would have happened had she quoted this one! ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Only keepscases can answer that question, chief! :) --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Oppose - per experience, as noted above, at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Kiefer and DGG. Not enough experience in important admin-related areas. SpencerT♦C 06:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose. Good candidate overall but I'm a little worried about the AfD record. Three of six nominations (using Snottywong's stats) should not have been nominated and Miniapolis seems to believe that it's ok to send articles to AfD without checking if sources exist. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Boucher she wrote "I'm up to my neck in cleanup work as it is and have no dog in this fight; the burden of proof to provide reliable sources rests with the editor(s) who want the article kept." It's true that a lot of unreferenced junk needs to be deleted (as well as a significant chunk of kinda-sorta-referenced junk) and I'd probably argue that too many things are kept at AfD. But AfD is not a place to give "clean it up or it dies" ultimatums. Pichpich (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is well taken, but I don't issue ultimatums. Per WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V), "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material". If I had time, I'd look for a source (in fact, I believe I did for that article). Sometimes, I don't have the time. Miniapolis 00:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN is about material that's likely to be challenged and implicit in there is the idea that you've made at least a minimal effort of trying to verify the content. In the case of Marcel Boucher, Change 123 and DJMax, the simplest Google search would have provided sources backing up the bulk of the articles. Even if the first sources you find are weak or incomplete, they certainly suggest that better sources exist and if you don't want to spend time looking for them, you should just tag the article. WP:BEFORE is pretty clear on that point: before sending something to AfD, "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." Moreover, you seem to believe that identifying reliable sources is not sufficient and that an article should be deleted unless those sources are used to reference the article properly. That's simply not the case (although obviously everyone prefers properly referenced articles). I also share Espresso Addict's concerns about your attitude towards non-English sources. Pichpich (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in questions has been tagged for notability concerns since August 2009, and it's implicit in WP:V that sources be cited within the article; otherwise, any editor could say "hey, I have sources". (The citation templates make it easy to add properly-formatted, easily-accessible citations.) While I certainly understand that sources need not be in English, the quote from my explanation below is from WP:NONENG. My "attitude" towards non-English-language sources in BLPs (especially if there are no English-language sources cited) is that the bar is necessarily higher. Miniapolis 16:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to insist but this is wrong. Since this RfA is likely to pass, I think it's important to note that you should review this before closing any AfDs. The existence of sources is sufficient to keep an article, period. You might disagree with this practice but AfD has worked like this since the beginning of times and as an administrator, you would have to respect that. You also link to the BLP policy to support the idea that non-English sources should not be considered sufficient at AfD. That's completely wrong and of course Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons doesn't even discuss the issue of non-English sources. If you believe that some source needs to be translated, you should look for help at Wikipedia:Translators available, not at AfD. The role of AfD is to weed out articles on junk subjects, not junk articles on legitimate subjects. The latter can be fixed and often with less effort than the time wasted on an AfD discussion. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. However, I didn't say that non-English sources are unacceptable in a BLP; what I did say is that the verifiability bar is highest in BLPs, and I would have difficulty ascertaining if an article violated WP:BLP (which—you're right—doesn't address non-English sources, so the common-sense default is to WP:NONENG) if I couldn't check any of the sources. Fear not; following the advice of Dennis Brown and several others, I'll get a lot more familiar with AfD discussions before attempting to close them. Miniapolis 22:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I am concerned about the candidate's lack of experience at AfD (including occasional faulty nominations and inappropriate rationales), given her intention to work there. I'm particularly concerned by the example of Marcel Boucher brought up by Pichpich, and by the candidate's response to that oppose. I don't feel the delete function should be given to editors who don't always make time to check for sources before deciding to delete, especially in the context of PRODs where the deleting admin might be the only experienced editor to look over the article. Additionally, "This BLP is not well-sourced in English (almost all sources are untranslated Hungarian)" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gábor Koltai) & "as sources, they should contain enough of a translation to demonstrate that they verify the material" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change 123) both suggest a lack of understanding that sources need not be in English. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Generally good contributions, but lacking in AfD !votes. (I am not concerned by the absence of non-admin closures. I don't consider NAC to be desirable, neither for RfA candidates nor in general.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose—while Miniapolis is a strong contributor to Wikipedia, I'm not confident the editor has the experience in fields such as AfD. Give it a few months and perhaps she can change my mind. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. Warden (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per DGG & Pichpich. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. weak oppose I'm torn between GiantSnowman's reasoning and Dennis Brown's. On the whole I think waiting for people to acquire the needed clue before being an admin makes more sense than assuming they will acquire said clue even if it seems likely they will get that clue. Had you not expressed an interest in working at AfD I'd probably end up as neutral. But your stated intent to work there with what seems like a lack of deep understanding is troubling. Participate in AfDs (and ideally DRVs) and we'll chat. That said, maybe I'll swing out some questions and see how you do as a clue check... Hobit (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that I read the nom's answers to my questions. I was hoping for a bit more detail, especially on "b". I'd have like to have heard about BLPPROD (note:typo fixed). I also think POV isn't the sole issue that should draw a rapid response, it's also unsourced negative statements even if they come from a NPOV. Answers aren't horrible, but aren't good enough to move me. Just not enough evidence the nom knows enough to work in this area at this time. And given it's one of the areas they identified they wanted to work in, that is a problem for me. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per Espresso Addict and very low contributions to other admin areas user wishes to participate in. I also think DGG makes some good recommendations that would help me determine my position better. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Lack of content creation, and lack of experience in other admin-related areas.--Mark91it's my world 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per DGG et al and because of the candidate's dreadful answer to Hobit's question 12. An editor who doesn't even consider [WP:BLPPROD] when evaluating "a newly created BLP which has no sources" isn't showing enough understanding of the deletion process to be given the tools to manage that process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak oppose. Sigh. I don't want to be here when a candidate is clearly a good, likable, and conscientious editor. Edits and tenure are fine. My problem is when a candidate says they want to work in X, then I will judge with reference to X. ANI is about conflict, but Q3 doesn't describe experience with conflict. I'd expect an editor with 9K article/talk edits to have bumped into some difficult editors; the candidate has apparently avoided that learning experience. The desire to work in ANI is odd given edit stats imply < 63 edits to ANI; editors don't have to be admins to comment there. AfD is also mentioned, but the experience there is minimal and the main diagonal is poor. Q8 gives an explanation about using policy arguments in AfD comments, but Northamerica1000's question misleads with "congruent with other editor opinions". The AfD stats show congruence with the closing admin's determination of consensus and not whether one voted with or against the crowd. That's a subtle but important distinction; policy arguments should trump a majority w/o policy; a poor main diagonal indicates a problem with applying policy rather than failing to follow the crowd. Examining some AfDs leaves me more uncomfortable; the experience/judgment is not there. For a candidate who wants to work at ANI and AfD, I need to see better evidence of good judgment. I want to go the other way, but 68% is difficult to swallow. It looks like you'll get the bit; please be careful with it. Glrx (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, for now The more questions that get answered, the weaker the candidate looks - unfortunately. This is probably a "not now" - I would like to see 6 months of admin-ish-type work ... to see how you respond around ANI, AFD, etc (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - lack of experience in certain areas. Among first areas to get involved she mentioned ANI and AfD, but 23 AfD votes is quite limited amount, and as far as I can see she has never edited/commented on ANI up to now. Also she doesn't seem to have been involved in any prolonged discussions on article talk pages, highest number of talk page edits are 11 and 7 but these weren't proper discussions, and the rest are all 5 and below. On other hand, I fully approve her copy editing contributions and find it unlikely that she would cause serious problems as admin. So neutral it is.--Staberinde (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to support Neutral for now. Unquestionably a great editor, but not all great editors make great admin, and vice versa as well. The answer I was hoping for "I would have found a better source and !voted to keep". In this case you would have a definite opinion on the subject matter, thus risking your close becoming a supervote, something that causes unnecessary drama should be avoided. Having the admin bit shouldn't prevent you from participating in AFDs, after all. That alone won't stop me from supporting, although I think that if you get the bit, I would suggest you participate in at least 100 AFDs and get your ratio above 80% before closing any AFDs. What has me on the fence isn't trustworthiness, it is experience under fire, and I don't see you participating in the very areas you say you want to participate in. As someone who has done a great deal of work at ANI and AFD, I have to admit that makes me a little nervous as those are two areas where a discussion can quickly devolve into a drama-fest. You will get abuse and insults thrown at you at those two venues when you are an admin, and you have to be able to brush it off, or at least know when to just walk away. And you need to realize that walking away isn't a dereliction of duty, it is the exercise of wisdom. I can't determine if you can or can not do this, due to a lack of experience in those very venues. We are all human, we all have emotions, and refusing to walk away when they get the best of you will only cause problems for everyone involved. Additionally, the lack of any long term discussions on article talk pages makes it difficult to determine what kind of demeanor you would have in a heated content situation. I will try to poke around some tomorrow, and perhaps find some information. If you have any diffs to that effect, that would be helpful. Right now, I'm torn. Unquestionably, you want to do good things and have the best of intentions. I don't question this. I just can't yet determine if you can take the heat, and with the lack of experience in so many areas, you will make mistakes and get some heat directed your way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few recent threads from an RFC on Talk:List of pantheists#Carl Sagan. Miniapolis 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I always try to avoid asking questions where I hope for a specific answer - I tend to find I'm usually disappointed if I do, but that's generally because we all have different lines of thought and we rarely come up with the same answer first time. I thought your hoped-for answer and Miniapolis's answer were both good, and I expect Miniapolis would agree that your hoped-for answer is good too. (And I think another good answer would have been "I wouldn't close that one.") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, the answer I gave as "preferred" wasn't the only good answer, it is just how I would have answered it. There is a range of acceptable answers, although I think the answer given did come up short and missed the point about supervoting completely, as another answer did. Again, I wouldn't use that as a basis to oppose by itself, but it is one unknown in a series of unknown issues with the candidate. As you know, my criteria is "some experience in a few areas, can stay calm under fire, independent", if I have to put it in a nutshell. Fairly lax, actually. I'm just worried that there are more questions than answers here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have found a better source and !voted to keep and what if you were unable to find a better source :) Still, I think the candidate's answer does show a bit of inexperience. I generally walk away from things when my gut does the talking without adequate source backups because, as bitter experience shows, that gut of mine is as often wrong as it is right so "I wouldn't close that one" is the best answer. I certainly wouldn't close a conversation if I had an a priori feeling about it - there are sure to be other - gutless - admins around (couldn't resist that one!). --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I am nervous to support a candidate to work in areas that they lack experience in, especially technical areas like ANI and AfD (A discussion can turn from a debate to a drama fest in seconds). I'm definitely not going to oppose a candidate for these reasons though. I 100% agree with what Dennis has stated above. -- Cheers, Riley 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I can't support at this time. Some of the answers to the questions seem one sided, where an administrator would be able to see all sides and answer accordingly, presenting ever possible solution. I just don't see the maturity and responsibility I'd be looking for at this time. However, I have no reason to outright suspect the user will abuse the toolkit, so I'm in the neutral pool for now. gwickwiretalkedits 06:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Moved to support) Awaiting an answer to question 11 before making a decision. Mkdwtalk 09:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lots of clue in the nomination, and I'd like to support here, but the lack of concrete evidence of experience in adminny areas gives me pause. Other than Keepscases's usual disruption the opposition is pretty much all around AfD, and I'd wager that it's going to end up being dominated by the usual suspects, but there are some in there whose opinions I really trust in that area (such as TParis) and I do agree that Miniapolis probably isn't ready to participate in AfD in an administrative capacity. This is one of those noms that is pretty much a stick-on the next time around IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my reply to Dennis in #Support above; I now plan to ease in at WP:RFPP and similar, and will participate in many more AfD discussions before I'm confident enough in my expertise to begin closing them. Miniapolis 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sweet kid, but light on the writing. If you pass, then go easy on the banhammer and the dramaz for a while (forever works too). And spend more time writing (actual writing, not comma-fixing). If you get dinged, then don't let it bring your spirits down. This place can be stressful. Just spend more time and you'll breeze through on the next one.TCO (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Would like more experience, but you don't seem like the type that would do anything rash either. I like that you are willing to learn, e.g. Dennis Brown's discussion above about participating instead of closing close AfDs. For Q12 re: BLP, you did not mention Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. If this RfA is successful, keep in mind that you don't have to close AfDs. I've been a mop for almost 6 months and have yet to close one. For myself, I've found participating in AfDs to make the consensus obvious to the closer more rewarding (so far).—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder about WP:BLPPROD for newer articles. Miniapolis 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral leaning oppose. The candidate is clearly inexperienced in what she wants to accomplish, and the more she answers questions the less I like it. Since she is clearly going to pass, I only hope that she starts slowly and learns things quicker than breaks them. On the other had, I do not see any potential for the tools abuse here, and we are somewhere in the middle of the learning curve, this is why I am in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category