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

Moni3[edit]

Final (144/34/11); Closed by Rlevse at 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 (talk · contribs) - A few months ago, I asked SandyGeorgia for some possible recommendations for admin. One of the people she suggested would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. So I took a long hard look at Moni3. While talking to Moni about it, people crawled out of the woodwork encourage her to run. Moni is a hell of an editor. She has helped 10 articles reach FA status and 12 others achieve GA status. I was ready to nominate her when I asked her the fatal question, "Why do you want to be an admin?" Part of her response was, "I don't want this to have it - I would only want to do it if I'm needed, and I don't know that I am." If this isn't the humble attitude of a person here to serve, then I don't know what is.

Moni is probably one of the more colorful candidates to be nominated... just take a look at some of her edit summaries and you'll see what I mean. When I first met her, I saw more of her humor and less of her seriousness. Over time, I've grown to respect her use of humor and appreciate how her light heartedness doesn't reflect poorly on this project. In fact, I've grown to really respect how seriously she takes this project. She is straight forward and will call things the way she sees them, but she is civil and wildly respected. Just take a look at her talk page and you will see people from all over coming to her seeking help/advice. Not to mention the barnstars she receives (often with notes such as "including witty comments" or "Even better: your humor lightens the load on everyone") The fact that she tries to maintain a light heart doesn't mean that she doesn't take the project serious.

I've been watching Moni3 since then and have grown more and more convinced that she is ready for the tools. When dealing with somebody as thoughtful and concerned about the project as Moni it doesn't matter what they do with the tools, it will be a net benefit. I have zero doubt that when she does use the tools, it will be in a manner befitting our top admins.

NOTE: Moni set up an RfA when I first started talking to her, but didn't mean for it to go live and pulled when she realized it had. I deleted at the time because she didn't mean for it to go live.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination. I have interacted with Moni3 for almost a year as a result of her nominations of ten featured articles and frequent thorough and helpful reviews of other articles at WP:FAC. I've also had her talk page watchlisted for many months. Moni3 is one of our top content contributors and even through a couple of stressful FAC noms, I've not seen her succumb to Wikistress or respond uncivilly to other editors. Moni3 is exactly the kind of editor I believe we should be entrusting the tools to: someone who understands how to build articles and how to treat other editors, but who isn't overly anxious to gain the tools or to use them and is unlikely to become embroiled in WikiDrama or to use the tools inappropriately. Moni3 approaches Wikipedia with a good sense of balance and humor, often decharging stressful situations with timely, well-placed and hilarious edit summaries. Her colorful edit summaries shouldn't be taken as a lack of seriousness about Wikipedia; she takes her work, her writing and the Project very seriously, is civil and assumes good faith, and her humor is often just what the Dr. ordered in difficult situations. With pleasure, I offer my co-nomination, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Because Balloonman has indicated my services are desired, I wish to be able to do something worthwhile, so I accept.

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: I plan to continue to write featured articles and review featured article candidates. In between, I hope to be able to ~~impose~~ make known my priorities within discussions regarding the encyclopedia, that nothing should diminish its quality. If there are any tasks I can perform that will make that process smoother, I will be happy to perform them.

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

A: I have so far ten featured articles and thirteen good articles. However, my best contributions have been my first FA, Ann Bannon, because of my interest in the subject; and To Kill a Mockingbird, because it was so challenging to do. When I mark my growth as an editor on Wikipedia, I look back to the process to get TKAM featured. I am also glad that I was able to take an uncited 9-paragraph disgrace that was the Everglades, and expand it to a suite of five articles, with the appropriate attention paid to the numerous details involved in the geography and politics of the region.

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 am generally a very mellow person. I participate in Wikipedia because it is fun. Were it to become unfun, I would stop participating in it. However, one cannot remain on Wiki for long and not get into content disputes for whatever reason. Timely enough, I am now involved in a dispute about a sentence in the lead of To Kill a Mockingbird (can be found here). When it was on the main page July 11, an editor accused me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I found that unpleasant in the extreme, for I consider my integrity as an editor my highest priority and greatest attribute. I have also been recently involved, in several locations, in a dispute over how WikiProject talk page templates are to be placed and removed since WP:LGBT talk page templates are being deleted by editors uninvolved with the project, who don't consider them appropriate. I have sought Keeper76's assistance in mediating this, and possibly taking it to some kind of dispute resolution since the policies on talk page templates are unclear. I was tangentially involved in FCYTravis' ill-conceived deletion of an article that had gone through a controversial AfD.

I welcome your questions, in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia.

Beat-Kurt-Weber-Additional-Question-and-more from Erik the Red 2

4. What is your opinion on cool-down blocks?

A: By reading the RfA page alone I know that cool-down blocks aren't policy. Logically, I agree with that. People don't cool down by being forcibly ignored, but by knowing that they're being heard and understood. Users should not be blocked unless they become so disruptive that reasonable attempts to communicate with them fail to be productive. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: I didn't look this up, because I think I'm being tested (and rightly so) about my non FA experience. A block is temporary or with a set point in the future that the user can return to make constructive edits. It's also able to be overturned by a good argument by the user. A ban is permanent with no argument by the user allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. How would you establish notability in line with deletion?

A: I think you're asking about saving an article from being deleted by determining it is notable? It depends on the subject, of course. A band and a protein would have different criteria. But a general rule of thumb is that multiple reliable sources have reported on it in a significant way, it has been deemed superlative (the first, the most, the best, the worst, etc.), OR it is a concept or event of significance to many people. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the story problem: 7. There is a large debate on a talk page about the inclusion of a topic in the article. The article is fully protected because of edit warring. The extreme majority favor the inclusion of one sentence, however, a lone dissenter favors a different sentence, one that is backed up by several reliable sources. The ((editprotected)) template is placed on the page and the majority asks you to insert their sentence, citing WP:CONSENSUS, but the dissenter tells you to put in his sentence instead, citing WP:RS and WP:V. Which sentence do you put in?

A: In watching a few arguments on ANI and other talk pages, it has become apparent that many disputes can be solved by cracking a book. Many editors argue passionately based on what they know, not what is available to be learned. If the issue is a matter of BLP, I might put the disputed sentence in a blind edit, read the sources in dispute for myself and determine that if indeed all sides present conflicting reliable information that it should be presented evenly. If it is not a BLP issue, and the sources are reliable, the material should be presented evenly again: "Theorist A has written that..., However, Theorist B argues that..." This is entirely dependent upon reliable sources, so I would want to see it for myself. If an editor cannot produce such a reliable source but swears it exists, I would try to find it, but at that point, I think the onus to produce a reliable source is upon the editor who says it's there but doesn't have it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases:

8. Why have you chosen to not customize your Wikipedia signature?

A: Now, this is an interesting question. =) Simply (pun) for simplicity. I would like my words to speak for me, not a signature. It makes it a little more difficult to find my comments on a talk page, but in line with the Quaker Testimony of Simplicity, my words and intent are more important than what I can make the signature line do. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

9. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

9a. ...an editor to be blocked?

A: Constant disruptions to the process of building the encyclopedia, uncivil behavior in the extreme (and by that I mean pulling out big guns with epithets, threats, and other comments that make talk pages very hostile environments—as opposed to what some editors take as uncivil behavior), violations to 3RR, and vandalism, plagiarism, or deliberately posting false information. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9b. ...a page to be protected?

A: Frequent vandalism, edit warring, immediate quick changes (a living subject has died and huge amounts of edits are trying to be made at once). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

A: Is blatantly false, fabricated, a hoax, or such an obvious fan or smash page that no amount of reliable sources could save it to make it work within the context it has been written for. Non-notable subjects without reliable sources (which I felt needed a clarifier, since some subjects appear to be non-notable on the surface until more information in uncovered). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

A: When the rules really aren't that clear and editors are stuck trying to figure out what to do, at an impasse, or seeing only two options. I hardly ever think there are two options to solve a single problem. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

A: Well, this is like herding cats, isn't it? Determining consensus is so rare that there's a special page dedicated to the rare times 100 Wikipedians have agreed upon anything. But for simplicity's sake, in a yes-or-no situation such as an AfD, XfD discussion, as I understand it, consensus is determined by majority rule. In a case where there is no yes-or-no response and it is more open, identifying the problem to the parties involved, making sure that is, in fact, the problem, then coming up with three or four do-able solutions, then working with the editors to come up with the solution that seems to take into account most of the sides of the arguments. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, by request: Although it might help if I had a specific example, consensus is reached by the parties present offering their input to solve a problem. If the solutions fall within policy, and there are no apparent extenuating circumstances (canvassing, newsletter alerts, etc.), the compromise, the middle way of what is being offered should be the road to follow. How about if I offer my own examples? In a situation to remove a talk page template from a talk page, very good reasons should be presented. If the reasons are poor (I don't like it) or violate policy then an admin would have to provoke further and better, more thoughtful discussion. A consensus can change with time, circumstances, or if users come and go and priorities change. At that time, the decision can be revisited. And if there is simply no apparent solution, ask for policy clarification from the community. It just may not exist yet. --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

A: Read the talk page, read the article history, if the reversions are happening in the present and have violated 3RR, protect the page until it can be determined which is the right one to be protected (may have to revert self, since I've never protected the right or wrong page before). My first priority would be the article itself. Once it has been stabilized, the editors who have violated various policies would be dealt with according to policy and procedure. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by request : Stabilize the article by protecting it. Determine which version is the one that is better, or has the least damaging information in it. Experience will probably teach me how to do this, but I imagine a temporary solution would be to revert to the version before all the edit warring started. From article edit history, warn users who have violated 3RR. Read their sides to the problem, see if a creative solution can be reached (which as I have stated, is as simple as reading one or two reliable sources). Block (48 hours?) those who continue to revert or cause unnecessary disruption after being warned. Continue to work with the editors and the article to make the disagreement improve the article (and hopefully improve the editors). --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

A: To serve in the capacities that I am able. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Jerry_teps:

13. Why exactly do you need administrative tools? Why does Wikipedia need a 1,586th admin? In Q12 you said you would "serve in the capacities that I am able" but what capacities are those? Looking at your Wikipedia history you have barely done any Admin related tasks. Does an article editor really need administrative tools? Does Wikipedia need another admin that doesn't work in administrative fields? Why should we give you tools if your not prepared; or experienced enough to use them? How does this help Wikipedia? I know that this has been asked twice before but i'm still not convinced that these tools will help you. I'm not saying that your a bad editor (Infact your an excellent editor), i'm just trying to find out why you actually need these tools if you don't need to use them.

A: Excellent questions, all. Do you mind if I answer a few of your questions with some questions? Then I'll try to sum up. It sounds esoteric, but none of us really needs what we don't have. We just create the need from desire. When I came to Wikipedia, I thought everyone worked to write and improve articles. I was surprised to find that is not the case. Do you really want admins who have no idea how to get an article on the main page, Wikipedia's first daily impression, that its several million visitors see every day? Do you need another admin to spend time and energy opening and closing XfD's who has no idea how to cite information properly? Or is unable and unwilling to find a reliable source, or even determine what a reliable source is? Or is unaware of the minutiae of the MoS? Content is why people read Wikipedia. It is the encyclopedia's blood and oxygen. Preparation is a matter of perception. Now, quite simply, this is what I told Balloonman when I was approached the first time: What do content admins do? Without knowing that, how can I tell all these fine admins judging me what I will be able to do? I didn't get a very solid answer, so it seems this is a grand opportunity to Ignore All Rules and make some up. I will perform whatever tasks are required for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Right now, I foresee them being moving, closing, small tasks required at FAC and other featured content areas. Until I am faced with a greater need for content admin duties (do significant ones not exist? what a shame.) I will not know what is possible until I see the possibilities. I feel quite comfortable with editors whose primary experience is with vandal fighting, participation on AfD pages and the like completing tasks in those arenas. What then, will happen when a content dispute arises? I do not feel comfortable, as what happened recently, that an article was protected from edits except only by other admins. Which of them has more experience than I do in article content? I would hate to think the focus of admins is so narrow that they are unable to accept diversity in the candidates. We all have different strengths. Mine, quite frankly, are extraordinary, as is my dedication to free accessible accurate knowledge. Do you really need another admin whose priorities lie in this direction? --Moni3 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. A good admin needs all those qualities that you have described. You have all those qualities. However there is one quality you lack. You have limited experience in Administrative duties such as being involved in XfDs, etc. Administrators need to make experienced decisions before acting. I know you say that you can move onto other tasks but you should not move into a duty if you do not have experience in it. You should gain more experience in XfD discussions and patrol the recent changes more. I would support your RfA if you had some experience in administrative duties but I could only find 2 edits in administrators noticeboard but they weren't even about reporting vandalism. I'm sorry but I just don't feel you need these tools as you aren't involved in administrative duties. You don't need administrative tools to add "content" to Wikipedia. – Jerry^teps 07:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, do you think the most important admin qualities are inherent, or could they be learned by being coached or cramming as if for an exam? Should prospective admins be asked about their writing and grammar skills, familiarity with research, or how to identify reliable sources from a list? Because you know they'll have to deal with my ilk in a highly technical content dispute one day. My point—which I think you got—is that admins familiar with AfD should go nuts and be AfD admins. I'm not interested in doing that. Should a frantic editor need an AfD close, I would happily point him in your direction. I'm interested in the content. Without quotes. I hope, should I need an admin in content dispute one day, that the one I ask for assistance has the experience and familiarity with article construction and maintenance that I do. More would be preferable. How many of the 1,585 admins could I ask for assistance? I get your points. There's more than one admin skill I lack (I would not use the word "quality"), but if you're claiming all admins have all the knowledge to handle every prospective problem and admin function before they are approved, you know...^{[citation needed]} --Moni3 (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, but I could shorten my question. Why do you need to be an admin to continue editing? I put "content" in quotes because I wanted to emphasize it, but making it bold/italics emphasized it a little too much. I wasn't implying that admins need to be skilled in all areas, I think what your saying is (tell me if i'm wrong) is that since your very skilled at content that you have one admin skill. And your right, an admin must be very literate. But what i'm trying to say is that I don't think there is a need for "content admins". Plus admins don't need a complete knowledge before jumping in to an area it's just they need at least some experience. And by looking at your contributions (last 500) you only fit into the [very experienced] "content admin" category. I'll change my vote to weak oppose since I trust that you wont rush off into other areas as soon as you get sysopped. But you could use some more experience in admin related areas. If this RfA doesn't work out (I hope it does, don't get me wrong) you should gain more experience stalking the recent changes and become involved in WP:XfDs. – Jerry^teps 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These responses are based on my experiences. Feel free to ask me to clarify or expand a response. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xenocidic

14. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: The language doesn't bother me (cockfags are immune to such treatment). I would not unblock the user. I do not believe the betterment of the encyclopedia is his interest. I would wait for the block expire, then watch him when it ran out. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Winger84

15. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A: I do believe in second chances, for stubbornness, for getting angry at another editor, even for singular abuse. The scenario in Xenocidic's example, however, showed an editor who was interested in reading his own profanity. I'm not really sure complete trust is possible of all editors, do you? There are editors I trust to do the right edits, editors I trust to be honest with me, and those I trust with my phone number. They narrow considerably with each category. There are editors I really like who would rather argue than edit. The instance and the circumstance, as a rule of thumb is what should be judged, not the individual. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

A: Yes.

Winger, if you want to see how despised that question is and how others view it as poisoning the well, you might want to take a look at this discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, and would also add Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 17#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. I would also note that Lar, who originally created the AOR programme, now agrees that participation in this voluntary process should not be a question at RfA. Many thanks, Gazi moff 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree as well, but I do think "What are your thoughts on administrator recall?" might be a better question. It also draws a much more nuanced answer out of a candidate, generally. - Revolving Bugbear 03:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably suggest the Pedro Compromise to this question - "Under what circumstances would you give up +sysop?". Many thanks, Gazi moff 07:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I can say in response to "how despised this question is" is that it is, of course, an optional question. If a candidate doesn't much care for the question, they can always choose not to answer it. I won't oppose a candidate solely based on a refusal to answer an optional question, nor will I oppose simply based on the answer to this question. To be more specific - as I'm sure someone may point out a previous strong oppose in which I cited a candidate's refusal to add themselves to the category - I may choose to cite this answer instead of another reason, particularly if said reason has already been raised by another opposer. --Winger84 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from user:DragonflySixtyseven: Why haven't you done any newpage patrol? DS (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Quite simply because I enjoy writing and reviewing articles more. --Moni3 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an admin for that. How can we trust you with deletion privileges if you've never tried winnowing the needles from the haystack? DS (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I create, maintain, and suggest improvements for articles at the highest possible standard (beautifully baled needleless hay). I don't consider the ability to delete articles a privilege, but a necessary function of a site that allows anyone to create an article; no more than I consider doing housework a privilege of living in my house. Furthermore, I hope I've made it clear that I don't intend to spend admin time in areas on Wikipedia outside of featured content. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), for example, has no admin abilities but she often needs admins to close and move discussions and nominations. Should I ever get the inclination to participate in the admin areas of AfD or XfD, those with much more experience in these areas than me will be the first people I ask for help. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Many times I'm running around looking for an admin to fix a malformed FAC, requiring several moves over redirects, when I'm in the midst of trying to do FAC work. These are uncontroversial chores, and exactly the sort of thing where Moni3 can be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Asenine

18. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: Nothing trumps sources. Simple answer. For those who assert they are right without the sources to back it up - they must get to a library. It hasn't killed me yet. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Here's an example of someone who wasn't very happy with the complete rewrite I did of Stonewall riots. A potentially explosive discussion took place in several locations about the AfD for Historical pederastic couples. You can view the talk page, its 2nd AfD, its deletion review, and the ANI thread that I also participated in. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I still plan to write and review featured articles. I will only do what I find enjoyable. We're all volunteers, and it's just not worth it to have unhappy ones. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

See Moni3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Links for Moni3: Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Moni3 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

So Brad comes back and now we all have to be poets? ;-) Frank | talk 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I raised the issue with my support !vote down below (the poems really are a nice touch) C L — 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it looks like it started here. A guy tries, but...how can I compete with not one but two poems in one RfA??? Maybe I'll just double-!vote.... ;-)
Oh, I thought you mean "Brad comes back" by this RfA alone. But by all means, he did start this "RfA poem" thing, not me. C L — 23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some question about why we should trust Moni with the tools and grant her the title of Admin. The concern centers around her lack of experience in some "adminly" areas. I personally believe that the project is large enough for people to fill different niches and that it is beneficial to have admins in multiple areas. Moni is a dilligent work in those areas that most admins frankly don't have the skill/expertise to work in. FAC/MOS are areas for people who have great literary skills, but that doesn't make their importance any less than other areas. In fact, I find her work there to meet one of the most important aspects of what an admin should be: Knowledgable about the project, helpful, and capable of building consensus.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The silly poem (in my support !vote below) is just a silly poem, but I have reviewed my position in light of the opposes that have been posted, and would like to say very seriously that after doing so I reaffirm my support for adminship for this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

naerii 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation. 'bout time too. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I disagree with nearly everything Ceoil says, but for once he's spot on. Simply one of the best editors on the project. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Record is impressive and solid. Deserves the promotion. Kazmarov (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all...the...FAs... something I have envied doing for a long time... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A caveat - if you're not sure, look it up please (per Q5) :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total absolute support – iride scent 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ardent support Unshakable integrity, down-to-earth, forthright speech, devotion to Wikipedia, incredible energy, good reader of people, noble heart. She has my utter trust. Willow (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see Ryan's point below, but given the answer to question 1, the candidate appears willing to work slow and learn. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. So, the question then becomes: "can I trust the candidate?", and from what I can see here, I do. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely support this candidate, over-reliance on Wikipedia-space work as an RfA criteria is faulty in my opinion, and this candidate shows a cool head, when dealing with some tough areas. Cooperative work in spanning the divide between the LGBT wikiproject and other projects is especially impressive, and would be enough for me to support, even if the article work weren't so impressive. Keep up the good work, Moni. You'll make a great administrator. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty much an ideal candidate so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom support, Moni3 can be trusted not to misuse the tools; I'm always asking an admin to help move and correct malformed FAC and FAR noms, and the same 'ole same 'ole admins are probably tiring of my requests. I'm sure Moni will put the tools to appropriate and good use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reason not to say "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah" ... Frank | talk 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When evaluating candidates, I look for solid skills in communication and collaboration—both of which Moni3 has in spades. In addition, she has shown very evolved leadership skills (q.v. The Everglades project, where she led a large group of editors), respect and understanding of viewpoints different than her own (e.g., the LGBT work, where she has acted as a bridge between the wikiproject and other groups within the community), and an ability to de-escalate difficult situations. Her sense of humour never fails to entertain me. She has demonstrated the ability to learn new skills quickly and effectively, so I have no worries about her being able to master the technical use of the tools or the policies associated with them, and she has no trouble at all asking questions when she has them. At the end of the day, adminship is about trust, and I certainly trust Moni3. Risker (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but Awadewit led that project, whipping other editors to assist. I just did the research and most of the writing. Otherwise, thank you and please continue... --Moni3 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit did a good job, but I think credit is due to you, Moni, not just for writing all those FAs (in a month), but for deciding how to deal with all the cantankerous input (including mine). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the above. Awesome article work, deserves the tools. Little Mountain 5 ^review! 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No Poems?-Support - Anyone who has contributed to that many FAs and GAs deserves the tools, although contributing to admin-related activities would be ideal. However I still can trust this user - C L — 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user who's called Moni3

On her talkpage has pictures of trees

She writes about FLA

But might fail RFA

Because some say the tools she don't need yes, I know I'm misrepresenting here, but "some say she's demonstrated an insufficient understanding of processes relating to the use of admin tools" doesn't scan – iride scent 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just made my day C L — 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I have to say I agree with Ryan, and I have great respect for his !vote, but after reviewing Moni's contribs, I think he is ready. Moni, if this RFA passes, I would strongly take to heart what Ryan said. I wish you luck in this RFA and as you continue in the project. America69 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support...
Her username is kind of neat

There's Moni (god) and Moni, Crete

And then there's User:Moni3

Administrator soon-to-be
Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen Moni3 around, know her work. Content is just as important; a good content builder will be able to assist more thoroughly, especially with requests from newcomers. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I'm sure Moni will be a great administrator. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I got into a disagreement with this user on the Charlie Christ talk page over the placement of the LGBT project tag. Throughout this discussion, which must have been trying, this editor continued to respond constructively and civilly. Not for an instant did I feel like this person held me with disdain, even though I staunchly opposed their (at the time) position on this particular issue. Excellent admin qualities. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... hell yes. —Giggy 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support is now stronger since the copy paste function on Moni's computer broke and was regrettably replaced by independant thought. —Giggy 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I echo Giggy here. Like "duh, of course". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good and featured article contributor with whom I have had no memorable negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In his studies, the Fat Man has identified no less than four admin archetypes, listed here in descending order of awesomeness: A) helpful, articulate and prolific contributor of content; B) dutiful custodian occupied with tedious but necessary drudgery; C) blustery, trigger-happy, bullying philistine; D) manipulative, scheming, partisan busybody. Moni3 clearly belongs in category A. It is more difficult (and in The Fat Man's mind, considerably less fun) to write a halfway-decent encyclopedia than to provoke, heckle and dissect the sundry amusing sideshows that our community can be relied upon to generate. Anyone who manages to engage in the former while not acting like a complete asshole deserve a few extra buttons. I also enjoy her edit summaries.The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are these categories mutually exclusive? Can an admin belong to both category A and category D? Certainly some non-admins manage it. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust you with the tools in the areas that you will be using them in. But please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't move into gnomish areas like AIV without reading up on WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. --Moni3 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per rather Brobdingnagian amount of FAs/GAs, and answers to questions 4, 6, and 7. Answer to 5 might warner a neutral or oppose if you primarily intend to work in AIV. But seeing as that clearly is not your primary reason for wanting the tools, I see no reason to oppose based on that. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Switch to Neutral[reply]
Oh my god, yes, Moni is the best of the best, one of the top contributors here. I've been waiting for this one. Good luck, Moni, this is a torture zone, just look around. ;) --Lord Sunday 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Adminship is primarily about trust, it requires no great skill. IMO a moderately intelligent chimp would probably manage OK. I trust you and I think you're significantly brighter than the aforementioned chimp. RMHED (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support will do just fine. Adminship is not rocket science: Moni3 is a trusted, responsible, smart and experienced Wikipedian. She will not go bonkers and get into the more delicate admin areas without making sure she's read and understood the procedures. Let's stop talking about closing XfDs as if it's this horribly complex thing that you can only understand after 3 grueling months of XfD experience. Great article builder, communicates well, what are people afraid of? I see admins whose work I respect talking below as if a lack of AIV reports is a sign that Moni can't be trusted with the mop but come on... Ryan, Bugbear: can you really say with a straight face: "I found that working as an admin is an intellectual challenge"? Moni is smart enough to ask around if she's getting into something she's not entirely familiar with. We all did that as new admins. I knew squat about images when I became an admin: now I've deleted hundreds. That's not because I hung around WP:IFD or WP:PUI, it's because there was this backlog and I read the policy. Nothing to it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everglades support The enormous amount of work Moni did to the Everglades articles was astounding, and outweighs his/her little admin-related experience. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support sensible, prolific contributor, will have loads of pages watchlisted and will be doing admin work on those without even thinking about it I am sure. Clearly can be trusted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, without hesitation. If moni can't pass thru RFA, no one can. I cannot think of a more (over) qualified candidate for the silly tools that seem to have gathered some ridiculous "aura" about them. The admin tools are ridiculously meaningless, and ridiculously boring, garnering more grief than they're worth. They should only be given to those editors that have proven, in one way or another, that they are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Again, if not Moni, then who? The opposition, at this point, is petty and nitpicky. This is an excellent candidate, one of the very few that could have gone straight to RfB and skipped this step altogether. Clueful, intelligent, collaborative, dedicated, and humorous. Ideal editor, one who will not block arbitrarily, will not delete arbitrarily, or create or enforece drama arbitrarily. What's not to love about Moni? Nothing. Heartfelt and hearty support, without hesitation or question. Keeper ǀ 76 02:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to get my conom to do just that---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I wish I could come up with a witty poem or comment, but instead I'll just say "Support". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answers to the questions appear spontaneous and almost original, which is more helpful than absolute compliance with policy (which is descriptive not prescriptive mind you) in evaluating the candidate. Bonus points for a non-colorful sig. — CharlotteWebb 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I sense that some of the opposition may have subconsciously developed the mindset that WikiDogma is more important than candid wisdom and that the bureaucracy is more important than the encyclopedia. Some of them might realize the error of this, if not during the course of this RFA, in their broader reflections about the project. The worst case scenario is Moni makes a small mistake, someone explains the error, and she politely apologizes. I must say: Moni isn't the one who doesn't have a clue about the purpose of this project (and hence, it's worth remembering, the purpose of adminship; they do not have separate ends). --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to a discussion the other day about how voters are so easily led, and refuse to base their opinions on who to vote for on facts from diverse sources, but are rather comfortable in their questionable knowledge. It's been that way since the beginning of the U.S. government, as the Constitution was written to protect the country from huge waves of populist fads because the Framers knew it. So, is the error in voters who have always behaved thus, or on a democracy that is being gamed? Ultimately, it is the cadre of admins who must decide who and what they want among their ranks. From personal experience, I know that nothing builds the encyclopedia and creates more personal satisfaction than bringing an article that was Start class (or didn't exist at all) to FA. That, however, is my bias because that's what I love to do. If I am weeded out, then it shall be so. The cadre of admins are looking for something else. However, provoking discussion among admins to determine the desired qualities of editors may be the most valuable outcome in the long run. If it benefits the encyclopedia, then let it happen. --Moni3 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "it is the cadre of admins who must decide who and what they want among their ranks" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of RfA processes. Many if not most of the participants in RfA discussions are not admins. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Moni has more than 3,000 mainspace edits and she has made more than 200 edits to five articles. She is interested in building article. There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user:Everyme 04:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to strong support. We need a lot more admins who don't know the difference between a ban and a block. user:Everyme 12:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Administrators need to be competent, communicate well, and be dedicated to the encyclopdia. All of my interactions with Moni3 convince me she is all of these and more and will do a fine job as an admin. What she doesn't know, she learns and is not afraid to ask and get help, she'll do fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As CharlotteWebb and others point out, reasonable and unrehearsed answers can show more than standard ones. She seems to be a sensible person who understands the objective of building an encyclopedia well.John Z (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember Moni3 from this discussion where she was unsure of Bethune's membership in a sorority. Wow, the number of GAs and FAs she has done are an oustanding feat. I urge many editors alike to take advice from her on bringing articles to GA and FA standard, because this is an encyclopedia...amirite? :-P I know she will be a good admin. miranda 05:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow, I'm exhausted. I spent the whole day at Lagoon Amusement Park (my brother, TheInfinityZero is in town so I haven't spent much time editing), however, I did have time to examine Moni's merits, and I trust that her experience and ability to communicate will make her a good admin. Useight (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone who is that busy working on GA/FA content is too busy to misuse the tools. Actually, I should probably change to "Oppose: we don't need another excellent editor manning the mop instead of writing an encyclopedia" but I won't. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrary to what those opposing may believe, adminship is not about whether the candidate is "needing the tools" or already working in admin related areas. It is about whether the candidate, if made admin, will use the tools correctly, look at admin-related areas and is a civil and cool-headed editor. As Balloonman correctly states, admins should be chosen by the criteria whether the candidate would be a net benefit for the project and not whether they agree to stop working on articles and start hanging around ANI or AIV all day. We have dozens of admins who don't and noone cares about that. I think we need to chose candidates based on the fact, that they can act like admins if they have to. And I have every confidence (by what I have seen) that Moni3 can be such an admin. So Why 08:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ideal candidate. Nick mallory (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - she'll be just fine. She's a trustworthy editor with a reasonably good knowledge of policy & I believe she'll come up to speed pretty quickly. I take the points below re. some of the responses to the questions, but it's not enough cause for concern, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I first saw this come up, I was surprised, never expecting Moni3 to be interested (which is a good sign I think.) My first instinct was hell yeah! based on her incredible proliferation of high quality article contributions, my entirely positive interactions with her in the past and the enthusiasm and civility I have seen her display all over the place. Going through her contributions, I can't see any reason to oppose. She may not be the most experienced in amidn-y areas, but one thing I noticed about Moni3 from the start was her thoughtfulness and willingness to learn and to ask for help if needed. She isn't going to just start deleting and blocking willy-nilly. She'll use the tools as and when needed in the areas she already works in. And if that's 3 times a year, it's still worth it overall for the project. Bottom line: can she be trusted? I have no doubt whatsoever. --Beloved Freak 08:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A trustworthy user with a load of great article contributions and stuff. I'm sure they'd only do good with the tools so of course! Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - She can be trusted with the tools. She can be trusted not to tread into unfamiliar territory. Fantastic contributions. Enough said. --MattWT 09:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am here for the "Man of La Mancha" auditions and...oh, wrong queue. Support Ecoleetage (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Ugh, I was hoping to be the first to support. I guess I missed that by quite a few votes. I 100% support. Moni is an excellent Wikipedian and I can't see her ever abusing the tools. APK is gonna miss Jeffpw 12:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Moni3 has an excellent grasp of policies as they relate to articles. I have no doubt that anyone who can understand (and implement) the intricacies of the WP:MOS will have no problem learning the intricacies of using admin tools as well. Being an admin is not exactly rocket science (but Moni could probably master that too if you gave her enough books to read). I trust Moni's judgement, and I trust her to know when she need to seek out help. Karanacs (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent content producer with a proven record in collaboration and the ability to learn. The other statements above clearly demonstrate the trust of the community, and I find the opposes less than compelling. Per NBD, in the absense of any concrete reasons to suspect misuse, supporting is the proper thing to do. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Sorry no poems from me this early in the morn. Dureo (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would probably have rather seen her simply not answer the questions at all, the brief and to-the-point answers are refreshing. Do NOT spam me with any thank you crap. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support While I do have hesitation with the answer to Q5, it isn't severe enough to change me to neutral or oppose.--LAA Fan 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smart user. I trust her to learn the ropes quickly. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Moni3 has amply demonstrated she has the qualities that matter for the role of admin. --MPerel 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, support despite the concerns. She seems to be bright and conscientious enough to learn first, do second with regards to the admin areas where she lacks experience. Avruch^T 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing that a potential admin candidate actually tried to answer questions in her own words, rather than just parroting what the relevant policy pages say. We have to weigh which we care about more in potential admins: Cluefulness, of which Moni3 is quite well-endowed; or ability to cram for an RfA. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb editor. People can learn and gain experience in 'admin areas', and I believe that Moni3 is sensible enough to be able to do this on the job (I view 10 FAs and 12 GAs as examples of diligence and application). Nev1 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haiku Support. Moni3 is a good enough editor to receive the benefit of the doubt from me. I have no reservations about granting the tools in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moni3's FAs

Impressive articles all

Quality Assured

Lack of Admin Skills

That may be true. A problem?

I Assume Good Faith. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Great editor, I would advise that before you make any admin orientated edits you ensure you do read the policy or ask for advise. Since you are very mature I know you will ask and think first before doing anything your unsure of. — Realist² 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia will be a better place if Moni3 has admin tools to aid in her work in the content areas of Wikipedia. Moni3 not only writes FAs, but is also active in reviewing at FAC. There is the need from time to time to delete FAC pages to make way for moves, and such tasks that require admin tools. These are the sort of admin tasks that Moni3 is definitely familiar with, and I trust her to not jump into something she's unfamiliar with. --Aude (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support without hesitation. I first ran into this editor on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mulholland Drive (film) and I was amazed at her dedication to excellence. The concern that she hasn't "prepared" for adminship (I guess the preference is strong here for pre-fab candidates) is easily offset by her frequent displays of thorough research and commitment to quality. I have no doubt that she would similarly research any admin action, especially if it were likely to be controversial or out-of-process. --Laser brain (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Moni3 fulfils my criteria, in that she displays competency in both strong behaviour (she is here for the right reasons, works well in collaboration with others and has the trust of the community) and strong mediation (her many GAs and FAs are testament to working well with others in resolving concerns to improve the quality of articles). Although her knowledge of Wikipedia's janitorial functions could be improved, I have faith that she will be cautious in her approach and seek guidance from others where appropriate. Good luck, Gazi moff 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I was granted admin access without experience in most admin areas. Learning these areas isn't very difficult. You look around, see what everyone else is doing, ask questions when you need to. It's not that difficult. You don't block or delete unless you're sure you've got it right. I remember my first few weeks as an admin. I'm sure the_undertow and en-admins were ready to desysop me just so I'd stop asking questions; of course, everyone seemed happy to help. When judging someone for adminship, I've come to believe that it should be based solely on trust. Not some arbitrary numbers yielded from a fake wannabe-kate tool. Is she a smart cookie? I think so. Can she be trusted? Contribution history indicates yes. Is she a risk to the project with the tools? Certainly not. Net benefit and all that jazz. It's unfortunate to see highly productive editors, who have spent many months/years doing great work for the project, showing they can keep a cool head, and clearly demonstrating they have policy knowledge and a decent amount of clue, get shot down (too often by the same people) for arbitrary reasons. She works in the area of the project she feels like working in, and she's volunteering to help out with some admin tasks. It should not be required that she start venturing off where she's not interested. She's already shown she can be trusted and that she can learn. I also trust the judgment of the noms. In this case, I put particular weight on Sandy's nom, knowing her role in the FA process and the expectations she holds for editors. That's enough, in my opinion. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After questioning, user has shown how they hope to use admin tools in addition to what they have now for the betterment of articles/the encyclopedia. Since the rule to Wikipedia is to do everything possible for the best interest of improving the encyclopedia, the tools in this user's hands will assuredly be used to this end. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jennavecia, who makes excellent points. A lot of admin work can only be learnt on the job, and as long as Moni3 talks to people if she needs help then she'll be fine. Acalamari 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (ok, I'm just jealous that you're a synaesthete): I was pretty conflicted about this - I share some of East718's and Axl's concerns about your response to the consensus question. That said, I think the pluses outweigh that particular issue here. As Risker said, you're a good content writer, you obviously care about the encyclopedia's mission, and you handle things in a mature, thoughtful, level-headed fashion. Those are really my main criteria - the experience thing isn't a big deal. You learn on the job anyway, and as long as you're willing to recognize the learning curve that's no big deal. You'll do fine.
But please think about the consensus thing - it's not a majority vote, and the middle road between two opposing camps is almost always the wrong way to go because of Wikipedia's dynamics. For instance, at any given time, AIDS denialists outnumber "normal" editors on the AIDS denialism article. Taking the "middle road" between their agenda and that of regular editors would still leave the article quite skewed. But I trust that with your obvious thoughtfulness and your hands-on experience in creating quality encyclopedic content, you'll recognize these issues in practice even if they are hard to articulate in the abstract. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have I completely misconstrued the question about consensus? If for example, a group of editors descended upon a controversial article such as AIDS Denialism and formed a majority to stress that HIV does not cause AIDS and cited information casting doubt on denialism should be removed from that article, then no. It doesn't matter how many editors say such a thing. Cited reliable material should stay in. Like I said, most of the arguments taking place over articles do so over mediocre ones with mediocre or missing sources. The best way to get a consensus in that case is to improve the article beyond reproach. Gosh, I was thinking of consensus like, renaming Katie Sierra to Katie Sierra suspension controversy. --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you've misconstrued it - I just think you're probably looking at it from a different perspective than jaded cynics like myself and, perhaps, East718. You have good judgement and I trust you'd make the right call in concrete situations, which is why I'm happy to support. I think the problem is that the abstract nature of the question here leads to divergence, whereas I think we'd probably agree on most all actual scenarios. Anyhow, I didn't mean to lecture - you've done great work here and bottom line is that I think you'll be an excellent admin. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Calm and thoughtful. Recognizes you learn as you go along, and presumably would not do anything stupid, and if s/he did, would presumably fix it. I heartily disagree with the opinion that an admin candidate needs to study all sorts of info s/he will probably not need before being given the bit, and I trust more people who have shown a rational attitude and good set of contributions than someone who has become fascinated by the minutiae of our policies. Martinp (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The answers to the questions are distinctly weak and would normally mean I could not support, however your excellent contributions show a clear commitment to the project and could not find anything in those contributions that makes me feel you will abuse the tools. Like others I would strongly urge familiarising yourself with the relevant policy before using the tools in that area and am confident you will do so. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find myself somewhat taken aback by several of the opposes which, frankly, border on absurdity. The nature of the tools is such that their possession requires the establishment of trust. Some editors demonstrate trustworthiness via participation at XfD, AIV, etc., while others do so via content building. Moni3, much to the benefit of Wikipedia, has chosen the latter and has done so with diligence, reason and good humour. Moni3, further, has demonstrated both thoughtfulness and a willingness to seek and heed advise from her peers. Trustworthiness has absolutely been established and I have little doubt that the tools will be used with all due and necessary consideration of the relevant facts and policy. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Per Casliber (talk · contribs), PeaceNT (talk · contribs), and Davewild (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, being willing to learn and being humble are the only attributes an admin needs, and these attributes appear to inhabit Moni3. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Screw-it' support — I have no idea why, it seems to go against all common sense, but you're such a nice person and I've just got a hunch you'd never do anything to harm to project. Best of luck. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Limited experience of 'admin areas' (e.g. deletion discussions), but that's not so problematic in this case, for several reasons: (i) Moni seems unlikely to spend much time working in areas she's ignored up till now; (ii) she has indicated that she is willing to learn more about Wikipedia processes where necessary; and (iii) her article contributions and behaviour with other users make her seem highly trustworthy. With no good reason to believe she would abuse the tools, and plenty of reason to think she would use them to improve the encyclopaedia, I must support. Terraxos (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - a candidate who likes to write; and creates articles and is capable and serious. Seems like she has a really good shot...at being a really good admin. Modernist (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whilst in pure admiration of her edit summaries, I have no doubt that she will make a great admin; only using the tools when needed. I see no reason why not to. Woody (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Wikipedia is lucky to have Moni3. If you could clone her, do so. Banjeboi 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for more grrl power. Some admins are mainly vandal fighters, others article writers, and others again like to nitpick over WP:WHATEVERRULE. Nobody can be experienced in everything and demanding that is making adminship an even bigger deal than it already has been made. ~~SIS~~ 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Hell, I already nominated you. (: --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has a clue; the rest will come. Hesperian 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon513 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - has clue by the bucketload. the wub "?!" 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Moni has demonstrated a profound commitment to building this encyclopedia. I have no doubt that she will handle the new tools with the same care and responsibility that she has handled her article contributions. Good work, Moni. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Moni is a very active editor who puts a lot of work into the project. She cares about getting things right in articles, and she will not abuse the tools. I trust her to use them appropriately. Aleta ^Sing 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great candidate for adminship - has clue, is here to build an encyclopedia, not here for "Wikipedia, the MMORPG that anyone can play". Simply put, she has my trust. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to go out on a limb here and support Moni, she seems to know what she is doing and also seems to know what she does not know how to do (ie. she won't do controversial stuff). Overall a good candidate. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good writer of articles. Tovian (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --maclean 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I really don't like the answer to Question 10. User:MastCell describes how consensus should be adjudicated, and I hope Moni3 takes this to heart. Despite that trepidation, I'm willing to support based on the comments of MastCell and Casliber. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. -- Freakatone ^Talk 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Her Question 10 answer bothers me a little too. But she's capable and intelligent, and I think she would examine all arguments in a conflict to arrive at a reasoned decision. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a hardworking and trustworthy editor who will do no harm to wikipedia with the tools and will figure out how best to use the tools as she goes along. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I respect the main thrust of the opposes. Because it's important to treat all candidates fairly...not just during their RfA, but in what we ask them to do before they get here...it makes sense to ask them to get their feet wet in admin-y things before they come to RfA. I've opposed on these grounds before. But there are plenty of genuinely nice, dedicated candidates who know all about XfD and AIV who will make some bad decisions as admins, because Wikipedia is huge, and people are coming from many different places, and writing and reviewing and editing are hard. Being an admin is not a trivial job, and learning enough to pass an RfA doesn't equip a person with everything they might need. I struggled with how to put this best, and all I can come up with is: trust me. I have worked with Moni for a while, and there is nothing she doesn't do well, and there is no chance that she will harm the project, whether she's an admin or not. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S. I think Moni3 thinks. I'll take an administrator who will reason, but has a few things to learn, over one who uses policies as hammers and considers everything on Wikipedia as the nail. Whiskeydog (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An RFA is to determine if we can trust the user. The user's commitment to the project shows that we can.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there's no reason as far as I can see to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Granted, the answers are weak, but my familiarity with the candidate's work alleviates any doubt I might have. Moni3 can be trusted with the tools, and we really need more admins who have a demonstrated ability to add quality content. Horologium (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd rather trust a candidate who isn't yet a policy expert than have doubts about a candidate who is. Ryan's points are sensible, but they don't convince me to oppose: I believe Moni would be a net asset to the project as an admin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd add another poem in support; both to argue for Moni's adminship, and to argue that it doesn't matter too much if she doesn't get it.
Shall we subject thee to an RfA?

I’d keep thee at FA if I but could:

Rough comments shake the candidates who stay;

And some have ceased their editing for good.

Sometime too hot th’opposers’ bitter lines,

And often is the joy of Wiki dimm’d;

And haply thy activity declines,

By lack of praise, or critics’ words untrimm’d;

But thy eternal edit summaries glow

Like diamonds in the watchlists we escry

Nor can an RfA much joy bestow

When many articles await thy eye.

So long as Wikipedia shall stay

So long your work shall live, admin or nay.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I can't speak too highly of this editor. Eminently trustworthy. Tony (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This should show how strong this candidate is... she had 99 beat the nom supports. Supporting despite the fact that she is afraid of clowns...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm afraid of the pasty-faced, large pantsed, ghoulish bringers of death and despair and guards to the very gates of Hell, as much as I despise the ground their very large shoes walk on. Precision, Balloonman, please. --Moni3 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that for the sake of diversity, the community benefit hugely from having admins who come from some kind of minority groups. She won't do controversial stuff and overall, a good candidate. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Appropriety for administratorship is primarily a question of judgment, trust and experience. My interactions with Moni, specifically at this GA review and her astounding contributions to GA/FA convince me of her judgment. There is very little chance that Moni will become a cabalist/dramamongering/abusive admin, and every reason to believe that when she does use her admin tools, she will do so responsibly, uncontroversially and in every instance with the bes interest of the encyclopaedia in mind; I can without reservation trust this editor. The point has been raised that she seems unfamiliar with what it is administrators do and how they are supposed to act; granted. Moni does seem unprepared, lacking the necessary experience in administrative areas to get everything right from day one. If this were a position that required prolific use of the admin functions from the first moment they were granted, I might be concerned; Moni could make a lot of mistakes due to unfamiliarity. But there is no such requirement. I would be concerned if I thought Moni would block/protect/delete without looking into what the prevailing policies and conventions had to say on the matter first. I would be concerned if I thought Moni would not listen to objections to her ineperienced use of a given function, or if I thought she would wheel-war or bully non-admins. I have absolutely no concerns on these scores. Worst case scenario if Moni becomes an admin: she makes a series of mistakes, is swiftly reverted by her admin chums/stalkers and after having the score explained to her, either discontinues actions in these areas or amends. Without a shadow of doubt, Moni as admin would be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. I also echo Kaaveh's point about the beneficial outcomes of having admins with interest in fringe/non-mainstream areas, to counter the systemic bias and groupthink widespread in the existing admin cadre. Skomorokh 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Moni has stringent standards and excellent research skills, as demonstrated by her article creation and improvement. She will use those same skills in the application of administrative tools-- researching what is appropriate to a situation, and using the tools as and where appropriate. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't have a poem for you, but I support you --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steady and thoughtful user. Am sure that she will approach new areas with appropriate circumspection & will do just fine. nancy ^talk 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support a great article builder with experience in anywhere would be quite trustable with the administrative tools. Marlith (Talk) 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I've worked with Moni for about 6 months at FAC. She is a skilled researcher and a great writer. A prolific FAC reviewer as well, she has a deft touch in delivering difficult news and forging compromises. She is a responsible, respectful, and above all thoughtful person who would make wise choices in using the tools. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User seems to be ready to be an administrator. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very appropriate attitude toward the "status" of admin; but when one is "wildly respected" then sysopship is truly No Big Deal... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I like the answer to Q14. John Sloan (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slade (The Joker) 00:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trustworthy? Yes, and that's what matters most. Moni3 may not be masterfully knowledgeable in certain areas (doesn't everyone have their weak spots?), but she's got the right attitude and plenty of experience. Steven Walling (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely. Per all the supports above. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support She knows the logic behind all the policies just not how they're currently worded. She has a great attitude to the project as noted many times (see her essay as well) and this has helped her always treat everyone with goodnatured respect, even those she disagrees with. She is short on admin related experience, and the consensus response worries me but seeing as she has made great reasoned consensus building on inclusion of a project template and other minutae she should be ok. I would think she would be able to gauge valid consensus if the numbers were with weak arguments laid out in WP:AADD but a few people made reasoned well thought out arguments she would make the right call. If she has problems on the technical end she is on good terms with enough admins that they could help show her/correct her. It is probably a lot easier to teach an admins the technical skills and application of policy, than it would be to change their attitude and behavior. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
+S In the particular case of adminship on Wikipedia, dedication to the encyclopedia plus possession of good character trumps lack of knowledge in admin-related areas, since the former two are relatively fixed, while the latter is quite easily acquired. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust the user with the tools and I think she will make a fine admin. --Patrick (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mailer diablo wants us to think that he supports this adminship. But does he really? You can Trust Xavexgoem to make the right call.I'm Xavexgoem (talk) and I approve this message 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to have an interest in good content. N p holmes (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support it's the fundamentals that count. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust this editor; that includes trusting that the same brain that has learnt to be a good content editor (by reading about WP policies for content etc, by communicating with others, etc) can also learn to the policies, procedures and buttons more relevant to administrative tasks. --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust this editor to use the tools carefully and to check before doing so if she was unsure about anything. I myself am an admin that is more interested in content than AFD and ANI, and I haven't broken Wikipedia (yet). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Fundamentally I support Wikipedians who have good contributions to WP articles and no history of bad behaviour at WP. Admins with mop and pens ! I agree you dont have much admin related activity but you have contributed immensely to FA and GAs.. What else are we here for ? I trust you. Just in case you are confused to use the 'power buttons' , dont hesitate to take the help of others,.. there are lots of pretty experienced admins around.I hope you adminship will lose your interest in article contributions.Keep up the good work and Best wishes! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — This is a Wikipedian with an extremely strong record and reputation who has made a good-faith request for the tools. There is every reason to believe that Moni3 will use the tools in the same conscientious and intelligent way she has dealt with other areas of our project. Some editors are simply suited to the tools, regardless of their exact prior areas of expertise. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom...and all the poetry. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I've changed to support from neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support - the opposes are uncompelling. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per Q4, and I don't find the opposes compelling either. You can train people to do the job; I am quite wary of the culture that suggests there are admin candidates going down a checklist and parroting the answers they think people want to hear. RGTraynor 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust her judgement and I feel comfortable with the idea of her having the tools. Definitely support. Guettarda (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per... oh, let's see. NewYorkBrad. Risker. Obesity/TFMWNCB. CharlotteWebb. Pascal.Tession. SandyGeorgia. Jennavecia. (how many times are you gonna get to cite THAT collection of names?) oh, and also KMWeber. Clue is more important than being able to recite policy backwards and forwards, or than regurgitating pat answers. This user has clue, and plenty of it. She'll do fine. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Some of the opposers raise concerns but I don't think they're insurmountable. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems intelligent and friendly. Haukur (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No doubt. Manderiko (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever the deficiencies in experience of other areas, she is extremely well-qualified to work in her intended specialisation of the FAC area. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support I hope that Moni will take the oppose votes to heart and study carefully what the CSD criteria are and the distinction between a block and a ban. But other than those issues I have no problem giving Moni the mop. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – some concerns about issues of preparedness raised in the oppose votes, though kudos for an honest attempt to give an opinion rather than a standard answer. Overall I'm confident that she'll act wisely and be an asset, taking particular care to check out guidance in unfamiliar situations before using the tools. . dave souza, talk 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Genuine. Doesn't spew out policy like it's the law. I like it. Asenine 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems bright and trustworthy. Neıl ☄ 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on a great working relationship. I know Moni and know that she will not abuse the trust of the community, and that she will continue to be level headed. All the rest can be learned, as we all do in a new job. Her honest answers are a good indication of that. Total suppport without any reservation. And the number of others here that I have come to trust that have voiced their support is inspiring. — Becksguy (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - while I understand the opposes, I see a very strong, bold editor here. I would suggest Moni3 be very careful about the tools, but I'm certain (from the evidence presented) that she will not abuse them intentionally. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She knows her way around Wikipedia. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see her misusing the tools in any way. --Peter Andersen (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

A great article writer, but unfortunately no experience in areas relating to adminship so I’m not convinced she knows when to delete pages, block users or use page protection effectively. I’ve gone back to January, and the only XfD discussion you’ve participated in is this MfD. Her deleted contributions show that she’s tagged no pages for speedy deletion. I also see no reports to WP:AIV, or any other board to give an indication of where she’d block a user. This boils down to not having enough experience in my eyes to use the tools correctly, and there’s a chance she might hit delete or block at a time when she shouldn’t because she doesn’t know when to. When supporting a candidate, I like to see at least one area of admin related experience – even if it’s just commenting in a few XfDs and tagging some pages for deletion. Unfortunately there’s none of this in Moni3’s contributions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who might make the same oppose, I have to admit, that in other circumstances, I might agree with you... it has been the root of some of my opposes in the pass. But the real question for me, is do I trust the user? Does the user contribute positively to the project? And does the user strive to build consensus/communications? IMHO, these factors outweigh areas where she might be lacking.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering she's requesting administrator tools, yet has no experience in this area, I don't believe she should be given the sysop flag. Trust at FAC and contributing positively in this area does not make her an ideal admin candidate - I just want to see some experience in admin areas, there doesn't have to be loads. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to answer any questions that might clarify my experiences and tendencies. I will freely admit where I am deficient in experience. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I want to see some first hand experience in admin areas (as I said above, it doesn't have to be a lot at all). You're a really cool woman, and a great article contributor - but in my eyes, that doesn't make you ready for adminship. I'm sorry Moni. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to strong oppose - I’m sorry, but I’m switching to strong oppose because I honestly don’t think Moni3 has a clue about adminship – and it hurts me to say that because of her strong article contributions. The answer to question 5 is just wrong – a ban is enforced by the arbitration committee, or when no admin is willing to unblock, and a block is for varying lengths of time, up to and including an indefinite block sometimes supported by community consensus, other times at the admins discretion. 9a makes no reference to warnings – we should always try to warn a user before moving to blocking, and this often helps to calm the situation before escalating things further. Question 9c – When an article is a hoax, it shouldn’t be speedily deleted – it should go through AfD to determine if it is actually a hoax, unless there’s other serious concerns about it such as BLP violations. Question 10 shows a complete understanding of what consensus is – we don’t base XfD closing on majority rule, we use value of arguments when determining the close of a deletion discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "blatantly false" articles are and should be deleted as obvious vandalism. They routinely are and that's even what the policy says. Just saying... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But not all - blatantly false can obvious be deleted, but the majority of hoax articles aren't blatantly false. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't doubt that I don't have a clear grasp of the intricacies of admin work, but simply because I haven't needed to do it. Nor, for that matter, have I needed much admin intervention in my doings. However, I had no clue how to go through FAC either until I did it. And the first few were painful until I learned, and learned quick. This process here is a learning experience for me. I don't wish to make it seem as if you need to be schooled, but I think most things here can be opportunities for all involved. In that light, do you think content editors are needed as admins? Do they benefit the admin group with their experiences? Once I saw an admin remove a ((citation)) template from an B-class article hoping that alone would get it on the main page. And the ANI discussion spawned from the appearance of Elderly Instruments on the main page showed a disheartening lack of understanding about what makes an FA and how articles get on the main page. I think we're both right. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: I agree with Ryan Postlethwaite. It's not that I don't trust Moni3 it's just that I feel they're not ready to become an admin yet. I see that Moni3 is a great editor and in my opinion is trustworthy, but I feel that they are too inexperienced in admin related fields. If there was at least a months worth of work in admin related fields I would support your RfA but right now I don't think you need these tools since you currently only contribute to articles and you said in Q1 that you will continue to mainly edit articles. What I gathered from Q1 it seems that you don't intend to use these tools very often. I'm sorry but I don't feel like you need these tools. – Jerry^teps 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Because to the answer given to #1, user does not seems to be interested in admin tools. Also per some of the comments given by Ryan Postlethwaite. Macy 00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is going to sound harsh, since Moni said she wasn't going to look it up because she thought she was getting tested. Moni, you're an awesome contributor, and I think you'd make a good admin. But the answer to Q5 worries me, because it looks like you haven't prepared for adminship. I've got nothing against on-the-job learning, but the block/ban question is almost always in RfAs these days, so not knowing the answer gives me the worrisome impression of a lack of preparedness. I would definitely support you, Moni, if you came back (soon!) and showed some more preparedness. Please don't let this discourage you, and happy wiki'ing! - Revolving Bugbear 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a boilerplate question that indicates that the candidate does not hang around RfA often, which can be viewed as a good thing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I hope it reflects is quite on the face. You're getting me and my experience, and it's up to you to decide if a content contributor would assist the cadre of admins the same way I might judge a vandal fighter's experience with content and sources. You are right that I have not prepared for this adminship, because you should be getting an honest picture of what I know, what I do, and what I have experience with. I've never blocked or banned anyone, obviously. It would not behoove any of us for me to memorize test answers without the application experience behind the memorized responses. --Moni3 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: Excellent response. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so impressive for me. In my opinion, it is more important that as an administrator you have the honesty and the humility to look things up when you don't know the answer instead of guessing. Your answer to the question was the result of you taking that latter option. It was an educated guess, because on any other website that would probably be true of the ban/block distinction. In short, you have plenty of information at your disposal. Nobody ever said RFA had to be a closed book test. — scetoaux (T|C) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly and fundamentally disagree with the premise of your response, Moni. I think you should prepare for adminship, by participating in administrative areas, by absorbing policy and process, etc. An admin should understand the responsibilities and subtleties of his/her post before using the tools. You are saying that you have not prepared, but what is coming across is that you are unprepared, and there's an important difference there.
Q5: This is a basic function of admin tools, and you really, really need to know this.

Q9c: The answer to this question is "when it meets the speedy deletion criteria". Hoax is incorrect, and there other criteria missing here -- referencing the criteria would have been much better than trying to recite them.

Q10: consensus is so rare that there's a special page dedicated to the rare times 100 Wikipedians have agreed, but consensus is reached by the parties present offering their input. Which one of these do you believe? (I'll give you a hint -- it shouldn't be the first one.)

Q11: protect the page until it can be determined which is the right one to be protected (may have to revert self, since I've never protected the right or wrong page before) and Determine which version is the one that is better, or has the least damaging information in it. Ack! This is the exact wrong thing to do during an edit war. Unless there are BLP concerns, the edit is patently uncontroversial, or there is clear and definite consensus, you should absolutely not edit a protected page.

Q13: Do you really want admins who have no idea how to get an article on the main page, Wikipedia's first daily impression, that its several million visitors see every day? ... It's not an either or. If you spend a little time hanging around RfA, you'll find that many people speaking up in RfAs want the candidates to have article work experience. But article experience doesn't preclude administrative experience ... which you should have to be an admin.

Sorry, but you're really showing yourself to be unprepared for this, Moni. You are an awesome contributor ... but I'm not convinced at this point of what kind of admin you'd be. - Revolving Bugbear 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it differently, but that's ok. You are right. I could have studied for this. I could have crammed for the correct responses. I could have performed tasks that don't necessarily interest me in order to gain experience in areas I don't plan to participate in. I don't mean to disrespect the editors and admins participating in this process by being unprepared. I could have been coached, but that practice worries me that good-quoting admins may not have much substance. I feel that my content experience is vast I have demonstrated sufficiently that I understand the spirit, function, and intricacies of Wikipedia. I present myself exactly as I am: a content editor who plans to assist in content admin duties in whatever capacities are required. Were I proposing to participate in areas I have little to no experience in, your scrutiny about my responses in areas that I have had no experience in would be completely justified. Instead of showing myself to be unprepared however, I think I'm showing myself to have obvious strengths in my interest areas, and honest about what I don't know and don't intend to do. The distinction is significant for me. If not for you, I respect your reasons for your oppose. That's what makes this RfA interesting. Plus, if it gets folks thinking about what they want to see in an admin, and works to initiate better admins in the future, then good for us both. --Moni3 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about cramming. You are correct, you are presenting yourself exactly as you are. You are without a doubt an excellent contributor, but the number of things you don't know (yet) about adminship are worrying to me. My scrutiny is for one simple reason: it's a lot harder to take away the tools than to not give them out. You want to have access to very minor parts of adminship ... but you'll also get the block button, the ability to edit pages that you lock, etc. You do have obvious strengths in your areas of experience, and you can continue to exploit those strengths without the tools. Your weaknesses pertain directly to some basic uses of them. - Revolving Bugbear 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm probably reading Q1 wrong, but the second sentence "In between, I hope to be able to impose within discussions regarding the encyclopedia, that nothing should diminish its quality." makes it sound like you only want the tools to be able to "impose" on people. Adminship isn't supposed to grant you any extra authority, and being an Admin isn't supposed to add or subtract to the weight of your argument in any situation. And, while Q5 may be an overused question, I still think that an Admin should know that answer long before an RfA.--Koji Dude ^(C) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify for you here, then I'll clarify the statement up top. Thanks for pointing out the vagueries. I don't participate in ANI much, but when I do I hope I make it a priority that the quality of the encyclopedia is the highest priority above individual editors' hurt feelings, lack of understanding, or whatever personal issue s/he has. This came to mind when I jumped into the CarolSpears plagiarism debates. Plagiarists, to my mind, should be dealt with as quickly and definitely as an editor who threatens another, or prints his personal information online. Plagiarism brings down the quality of the encyclopedia and hurts everyone. (Not to mention that the lack of originality is so tacky...) Off to clarify --Moni3 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll strike that part of my oppose. Thanks for clarifying. I'm staying opposed though, pending an answer to the twelfth question.--Koji Dude ^(C) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ryan and the blocks and ban confusion. --Step hen 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - while there is extremely impressive contributions to the article side of Wikipedia, there's clearly insufficient knowledge/experience in needed areas to use the tools, and I'm not at all convinced there's a need for tools here either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You look like a great editor and you've done some spectacular work. But, I'm going to have to agree with RyanP. Spending time in the areas admins edit to, can greatly improve your knowledge of the role. I'm seeing this lack of knowledge in your answers to the questions (specifically: 1. Q1- you never mentioned what areas you intended to help out with, just a continuation of what you normally do; which does not require tools. 2. Q4 - you should at least be aware of the controversy surrounding this. 3. Q5 - you didn't want to look it up, but its good to have a round about knowledge of the policies we did create since we didn't create them for window-dressing alone. And a ban is not permanent; it takes the community to implement, and the community to reverse. Also they can always request an unblock. 4. 9b - I would hate to see pages being protected solely for quick changes, even if the subject of a BLP just died. 5. Q9d - I suggest rereading WP:IAR and its corollaries. 6. Q10 - I would have liked to see you mention an XfD here. This is where consensus is derived on a daily basis and changes just as fast. 7. Q11 - Protection should come last. In this example, users are discussed. If there is a 3rr, the user gets blocked leaving no reason for protection. And if the second user is about to reach 3rr, they usually get a warning ). You'd know most of this if you were active in these areas (such as RFPP, AIV, 3rr). What strikes me the most is, where is the need for the tools? You seem to enjoy what you are doing, and I am happy to see that you would continue to do this even if you had these tools. So I can only hope that my comments give you a better understanding of why I oppose, and serve to demonstrate the areas you would need to work on if this request fails. Good luck and best wishes from Synergy 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately. I have nothing personally against this user but several of the answers to questions are dicey (to put it nicely). I'm not convinced by this user's definition of consensus (Q10: nothing on Wikipedia is defined by "majority rule") nor this user's respect for it (Q7, compromise is good but if all but one editor doesn't want to include something including it with weaker language doesn't seem like the right thing to do). The block/ban distinction isn't quite right (Q5). Two of the five reasons the user lists to speedy delete a page (9c) are explicit CSD non-criteria. The list goes on and on. This user might be a great article contributor and might have good intentions but IMO the answers above don't demonstrate anywhere near the policy knowledge required to be a sysop. Not every experienced editor needs to be an administrator. Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If the solutions fall within policy, and there are no apparent extenuating circumstances (canvassing, newsletter alerts, etc.), the compromise, the middle way of what is being offered should be the road to follow..." is a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. We are here to write a serious, reputable intellectual resource, not to create an egalitarian community where everybody meets each other in the middle. The natural reaction of the community to POV pushers, trolls and cranks - indeed, the only defense it has - is to throw them out without any quarter. The sort of agnosticism towards content when determining consensus that Moni3 describes, as if all viewpoints are equally valid is dangerous and undermines our integrity. east718 // talk // email // 09:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly oppose. you are clearly a great article contributor and a dedicated wikipedian, and I am certain that you would do nothing intentionally to harm the project. But it is important to learn the basics before being sysopped, not after. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another reluctant oppose. No one doubts that Moni3 is an excellent contributor. However consensus is not determined by majority vote. The block vs. ban is an important distinction. If Moni3 didn't know the answers before, she should have looked them up prior to answering. After all, this should be exactly what you do when you come across a real situation on Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per answer to Q4. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Neutral, per answer to Xeno's question, Q5 and general lack of admin experience. I really think you are a great and dedicated editor, and I admire greatly all of your article work. But one can be a great editor without being a great admin. Good luck in the future, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Moni3 is a prolific content editor who knows the featured article processes inside and out, but no clear need for or intended use of the tools is apparent. — Athaenara ✉ 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - answers to questions were very weak. --T-rex 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great writer but virtually no admin experience. I don't expect candidates to know all, but they need some degree of exposure to the admin area of wiki. Her statement about not looking up something she's not sure of concerns me too. Admins SHOULD look up things they are sure of, both formal policy and input of experienced admins. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Switched from support above. I regret somewhat having to do this, but after revisiting this discussion and looking closely at all of your answers to the optional questions, I feel that you are (at the moment) unfit for adminship. I was willing overlook your answer to the ban/block question, but subsequent answers are completely unsatisfactory. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unscripted answers are good but if a candidate comes with a weak resume in the "admin areas" they should come with strong responses; such are lacking, not terrible but not good enough to know without any contributions evidence that you would know how to use the tools correctly. Studying for an RFA is not a bad thing, an admin needs to know the policies as they stand. It is not gaming the system to read the polices one or twice before an RFA. - Icewedge (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To put it bluntly, RFA wether we like it or not has become allot like a job interview. you have come to the interview with a resume full of irrelevant bits to the role you seek (adminship) and you have been (very mildly) short with the questions, having to clarify multiple times. You also have made no indication as to what admin tasks you want to get involved in that prompted you to request this adminship right now. Regretfully content editing means less to me than what maintenance tasks do, as you don’t need adminship to make great articles ;-) . Get some maintenance experience and come back, then I will support «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: - (Makes for easier reading than a single block of text)
After going through the candidate's edit history, I find many examples of where the candidate will just "jump in" to a situation without first attempting to find out what's going on, as well as before attempting to learn a process. Typically, another editor had to take the candidate in hand, and "show them the ropes". (A first major example of this is here. It truly would appear fortunate (as another editor noted) that the candidate encountered User:Awadewit and such others.) While I appreciate being bold, this would seem to border on "reckless". And this isn't something that the user has done once or twice, but consistantly, up to and including this very nomination. I find this problematic when considering that (should this be a successful nomination) the candidate may be "jumping in" to unfamiliar areas, relying solely on others to "fix" their mistakes, and guide their actions. Once "in" and once "guided", the candidate seems to slowly but steadily learn the process, though it's slow going, through much trial-and-error. Just this might have placed me at neutral, as hopefully something the candidate could potentially learn "on-the-job" (despite consistantly making the decision to not attempt to learn until "assisted"), but for the other issues.

The answer to Question #11 (and others) just reinforces these concerns. The candidate seems very unsure about what steps to take and when to take them.
And the answer to Question #10 is just a severe problem for me:
- "But for simplicity's sake, in a yes-or-no situation such as an AfD, XfD discussion, as I understand it, consensus is determined by majority rule."
As I noted on the candidate's talk page:
"Absolutely not, for several reasons. Though I suppose that it's easy enough to see how it could be perceived that way. Read the second sentence at WP:AFD, which points directly to WP:CON."

This mistaken view of discussion determination, combined with the candidate's consistant lack of willingness to change a perception or learn a policy/process without "help", leads me to Oppose. (See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, if interested.) - jc37 04:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved extended discussion to talk page.162.121.252.4 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that first FAC for TKAM (my second FAC overall) was a bit embarrassing. I don't deny it. FACs are emotional journeys. Editors who go through them never go through them unscathed, even if the articles are promoted. But I hope you also took into account that I worked on that article for the next four months, expanding it by over 20k, and working with several other editors, ~~including~~ especially Awadewit, to make sure it could be beyond reproach. And it is. After reading all the sources on the novel, it would not be an exaggeration to say it is one of the most comprehensive resources on To Kill a Mockingbird available. And it's here, it's free, and I wrote it. So I'm quite glad I jumped in.

I don't mind the different approaches to how one approves an admin: coach or not to coach, lots of experience vs. none, etc. However, you and I both use the same example to show how I am not willing to change or learn vs. the opportunity that marked a significant growth for me as an editor. Obviously I disagree with your characterization. I'm a sound judge of character, so I'll assume you are as well. I'll have to take a high ground on this one to say I know my own better. If you have further opportunities to interact with me in the future, and I hope we both take advantage of any that may arise. We may someday reach an agreement on this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When going through your contributions I noted several trends that I found... well, disquieting. This is not to say that you are a "bad" editor, or a poor contributor.

When commenting in an RfA, my concerns are typically around how well an editor interacts with others, and understands things such as WP:IAR, WP:CON, and so on. (As I said above, see also my general criteria, and my general questions, which you responded to.) And further, whether there is a current "need" for the tools/responsibilities where the candidate could potentially be helping out immediately. In my estimation, you failed to impress on every one of those counts, and my perusal of yor contributions didn't help, but did instead hinder.

And honestly, between now and the next time you are a candidate (presuming there is a next time), perhaps you will find it in yourself to attempt the things which would help quell the concerns here. FAC is fine, and having someone fluent in FAC-ese would be nice. But an indication of interaction outside that realm, of respecting the concerns of others by making at least an attempt to learn even a touch about the tools which you would be given, would go a fair way to assuaging concerns. Your unwillingness to even do so during this RfA is a rather compelling indication that nothing has changed, and you still won't try to learn unless "helped" ("pushed"?) by others.

Given the choice between my interpretation, and your interpretation, I obviously would prefer that yours were accurate. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. However, I would welcome being proven incorrect in this interpretation. - jc37 04:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - the lack of admin action isn't what worries me, or any perceived lack of experience in the field. However, I don't find her rationale for needing the tools that compelling. 95% of all actions as an article writer you can do without the admin bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~And for that 5% that you can't, it would be wrong to give Moni3 the tools, why? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Weak oppose, regretfully. After thinking this over some and coming back to pore over the answers to the questions ... I find them to be rather unsatisfying. I had remained neutral because Moni appears to be a trustworthy, constructive and fantastic editor who unfortunately lacks the experience by which to measure her potential strenghts/weaknesses as an administrator. The quality of the answers to the optional questions, however, leads me to believe this candidate is just not quite ready yet. As others have stated, a new attempt after a little while mucking around the underbelly of the "meta" areas would probably have an enthusiastic support from me. Shereth 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've written to the others who posted similar "advice" following nearly identical oppose statements, don't count on seeing Moni "mucking around the underbelly" of this project, if the oppose recommendations have their way. That doesn't seem to be her way at all, and I wouldn't encourage it, since it's clearly not what she enjoys. She's a writer. She's a cool-headed bridge-builder in the content areas. Sooner or later this project (or at least the hole that this area of the project now occupies) will have to decide whether it's okay to have administrators who are concerned mainly (if not wholly) with the writing and construction of actual articles. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to save S. Dean Jameson the effort of reiterating himself and the flak he may receive for badgering the opposition, although I am grateful for his support. So allow me to state for myself, that I deliberately presented myself without any studying or coaching because I feel as if my content experience, record of collaboration and stability is completely sufficient, as it should be. The rest I plan to learn, slowly but surely. In 6 months I may have 15 FAs (my 11th and 12th are almost ready to nominate). In a year, I may have 20. Even contemplating failing this nomination process, I hoped to be able to expand the perception that content duties should not only be important to all administrator candidates, but that administrators with specific strengths in content should be recruited in particular. Should I fail this RfA, I will continue to write excellent and comprehensive articles, as I love to do. Though I will never learn everything there is to learn about the writing process, I feel quite strongly that if a candidate with 10 FAs, and a good record of civility and collaboration does not have the experience to understand the duties of administration, one with 15 or 20 will fare as poorly. Should I fail or succeed, I hope the next candidates will be asked about their experience in content, for they may have to intervene on my behalf one day. --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA's are absolutely irrelevant to someone's abilities (or lack thereof) when it comes to so-called "admin" duties. For the sake of transparency I will say that I do not have a high opinion of the whole featured-content thing. Nevertheless, I maintain the opinion that a demonstrated ability to add good content to the encyclopedia is - while valuable in any editor - no reflection on their ability to perform other duties. The crux of it, really, is a general dissatisfaction with the answers to the questions. Shereth 22:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, obviously one of the finest contributers around. However most admin tools require expertise in the areas where they will be used. Why give a user the delete button button if they don't have experience in XfDs? --Leivick (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the level of difficulty is incomparably different. If she can master writing 10 FAs, then I think she can determine the outcome of an XfD. If you can master nuclear engineering, you can probably make change for a 20. Avruch^T 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sensationalistic metaphor ... writing FAs is not as difficult as nuclear engineering, and properly using admin tools is not as easy as changing a 20. A better metaphor might be this: There is a brilliant auto mechanic. He can tune a car's engine so that it runs better than straight from the factory. He can take it apart and put it back together again. But he doesn't have a driver's license. So he takes the written test ... and confuses headlights and high beams, doesn't know when to use high beams, and suggests turning left on red. (Forgive my Amerocentrism.) Sure, these are things that are easily learned, but ... well, I don't know about you, but I'd like to see at least some of those things corrected before giving him a license. - Revolving Bugbear 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its an exaggerated metaphor, but I think it makes more sense than yours. The fact is that judging consensus is primarily a reading comprehension exercise, leavened with knowledge of applicable policy. If Moni3 had said "I haven't studied this policy, or participated in XfD, and I plan to jump right in but I don't see the point of reading the policy" then I could take your point. She didn't say that, however. She may even make a mistake the first time she protects a page, or blocks a vandal, or closes a discussion. But my point remains - she's mastered far more difficult tasks, and evidence indicates that she is capable of and willing to learn the ropes. I refuse to assume that if she spent 6 months working in XfD and ANI and AIV etc. it would turn out she's completely incapable. I imagine she would do as well there as she has elsewhere, with a bit of time. Given that, why would I ask her to go through the pointless exercise of proving the obvious for 6 months so that she can come back and say she's observed the proper forms? Its a waste of her time, and your time, and mine. Avruch^T 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume she'll turn out to be completely incapable either. In fact, I don't assume anything at all about her. That's the whole point here -- you are assuming that she'll be a strong admin, and thereby supporting, and I don't presume to know what kind of admin she'll be, and am therefore opposing. Her answers to the optional questions indicate a mis- or lack of understanding of several key admin-related policies (block/ban, deletion, and protection), which she admits is due to her lack of experience in those areas. You assume she'll be a strong admin despite these mistakes. I'd rather withhold the tools until I'm confident that she'll be a strong admin. Yes, she's a strong article writer, and I admire that in her, but given these fundamental mistakes on three key policies, I am worried about her understanding of these policies. I am willing to believe that she will come to have an understanding of them as she comes to work with them, but I do not assume that she will and therefore have reservations about her possible adminship.

I'm not talking about nitpicky wikilawyering here either. I'm talking about fundamentals, like block/ban and m:The Wrong Version. I don't think that wanting a candidate who thinks that "determin[ing] which [version] is the right one to be protected" to take the time and effort to understand not only the fact that but also why this is not a good idea is a "pointless exercise" ... especially an admin who says she will focus on article building. - Revolving Bugbear 04:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Per Ryan and answers denoting unpreparedness. I shall support next time if I see more participation and experience in admin-oriented tasks then. Hús ö nd 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with some of the answers to the questions. "Non-notable subjects without reliable sources" is not a speedy deletion reason and many articles to which this description may apply are explicity carved out and directed to other deletion processes. Admins protecting a page, in general, should not "determine which version is the one that is better" before or after doing so. I don't really care about whether candidates can recite the policy but am concerned about the misapplication of tools in these areas. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nominee seems to have some fairly big gaps in their understanding of policy, and doesn't seem to have a good feel for the soft skills needed in dealing with other editors. I get a feeling that their is a big risk that they will use the tools to impose their understanding of policy, or belief in "what matters" and cause more problems than they solve. When they say "I don't participate in ANI much, but when I do I hope I make it a priority that the quality of the encyclopedia is the highest priority above individual editors' hurt feelings, lack of understanding, or whatever personal issue s/he has" I am not convinced they understand that the contributors are the most important part of this project and sometimes we have to err towards taking the softly softly approch to get the best out of them. TigerShark (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would encourage you to take a look through her actual interactions with other editors, as Moni is very kind and considerate. She's not a confrontational, in-your-face type editor at all. Regards, ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose I wanted to !vote support on this one but I can't. I find the candidate's answers to questions vague, lacking thought or effort and, at times, completely incorrect. Hoaxes should never be speedily deleted. This concept is something that was instrumental in denying User:TenPoundHammer adminship several times. Being a spectacular editor (which this candidate undeniably is) is a very desirable trait in an administrator but it is by no means the lone qualifying factor. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a "speedy delete" code/letter/coordinate/whatever specifically for hoaxes, but that most certainly does not mean that "hoaxes should never be speedy deleted". The general presumption, however, is that it is much easier to find sources confirming that something does exist than sources confirming that something does not exist (see negative proof). However if the article is an egregious hoax, one which for example claims singular achievements on the part of its subject ("killed Franz Ferdinand", "invented the internet", "was the 1966 MVP", etc.) which are known to be someone else's, it can be deleted as "pure vandalism: this includes blatant and obvious misinformation", or less robotically by citing common sense. — CharlotteWebb 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, today I tagged a hoax article with speedy delete (#3 vandalism) for exactly the cited by CharlotteWebb, and an experienced uninvolved admin deleted the article. (Now trying to coax the hoaxster to edit constructively.) HG | Talk 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I am unwilling to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking. That's a really POINTy reason to oppose someone. If you have an issue with the concept or with a particular admin's recall process, that's fine, but don't drag another editor into a fight in which she is not involved. Horologium (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is POINTy, though I can see why you would think so. The recent unpleasantness surrounding admin recall has got me thinking about the effectiveness of recall pledges (in terms of bringing in more support !votes) vs the actual number of times a community-based recall process has been successful (only once per Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests, out of 1000+ admins). I conclude that the likeliness of a candidate honoring a recall pledge is vanishingly small. As I said at another RFA, with tongue sort of in cheek, I view recall pledges as prima facie evidence of power hunger, or at the very least a certain overeagerness to please that is unbecoming of an admin. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose different people make the choice to answer that question for different reasons. I accepted this nomination because I thought I could do some good, and it was requested of me. I will hold myself open to recall in the instance I make such a tremendous error in judgment that I can no longer be trusted. Power-hungry, however, I am not. (I think I would have played more to pleasing potential opposition in areas I have little experience in, by studying and being coached, were I interested in the admin tools merely for the, ah, "power".) I make a much bigger difference, such as it is, by writing great articles that help to shape common knowledge. In relation, the ability to move or close articles is minimal. And Wikipedia is not the place to gain recognition. Anyone interested in recognition chose the wrong hobby. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C with Moni3) There have been a total of 19 recall attempts. More than half of those were certified by only a single user, and therefore failed. Of the remainder, three admins requested removal of the tools on their own, before the recall process was completed (which is essentially the result that the petitioners desired). In only two cases has there been considerable support for recall which was rejected by the admin in question, and since one of them was more than a year ago, I feel confident that your position is based on a single case. A quick check of the related RFC shows that you support removal of the tools from the admin who is the subject of the RFC. As for "tongue-in-cheek", you may find it amusing, but the admin candidate should not be subjected to your humor when it may well make the difference between a successful candidacy and an unsuccessful one. Using Moni3's RFA as a club against an admin with whom you have a philosophical dispute is an abuse of the RFA process. Horologium (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true - I endorsed one section of a bloated RFC, did not support de-adminship, and participated no further when it became clear that it was just another Israeli-Palestinian/Science-Fringe shouting match. My concerns are global. Making "election promises" that have minimal probability of being kept are an abuse of the RFA process. This is not a statement on Moni's honesty, far from it - it is a near certainty based on historic data among admins. The recall process is broken, and until the community comes to a decision about if and how to make these statements binding I will regretfully oppose any candidate who commits to such a broken process. I leave it to the bureaucrats to decide if my !vote is worth counting - I'd prefer not to be badgered any further. Skinwalker (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't believe what I'm reading! You can't self nominated yourself (Kurt will oppose you), you can't write too many FA's, GA's, and DYK's (writing articles is not important, you need to work on admin-related areas), and now, you can't claim to be open to recall. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this line of conversation is unrelated to Moni3's RfA, please continue on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the basis of demonstrating lack of knowledge of the role, and apparent lack of willingness to even learn it. I'm not as much concerned about improper use of the tools, but of giving people incorrect advice about policy. 07:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Oppose Lack of acknowledge of the admin roles and experiences in the Wikispaces that require admin action.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case, it appears to be handing out an adminship as a reward for being a good editor. Is this really what an adminship is? The editor didn't request it, has no knowledge of admin procedures and policies, and has no plans to put the tools into effect. --HighKing (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fantastic work in what has been worked on, but there is a lack of admin-related work and I can't see a real need for the tools. This user doesn't need to be an admin, from what is desired to be done. Lradrama 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but I think that the answers to questions 1, 5, 9c and 10, in particular, are inadequate or incorrect. Sandstein 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also appear to be unfamiliar with basic protection procedures or policies, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Sandstein 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Dang-look-at-those-FA-contributions Neutral Moni looks like she would handle disputes really well. But I just simply can't tell how she would function in closing AfDs, blocking users, deleting pages, or applying page protection from her limited experience in those fields. So, a neutral until I can get out my quizzing book :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Your contributions in the mainspace are great, but you have little experience elsewhere. I would suggest getting more experience at WP:XFD, and doing a little WP:NPP and WP:RCP. Just so you know, you can look up the answer to questions, and I am not neutral because you didn't answer that correctly. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ARGHHHH!!!! neutral - Such many great contributions...but I'm on the fence due to Q5 and also because I don't see much admin area experience. Soxπed93^(blag) 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With such an expression of frustration, that has made my RfA worth it already! =) --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral from Support. All of my support reasons still apply, but answers to subsequent questions have to make me think twice. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Soxred93's pain Jaw-droppingly admirable contributions and commonsense. Admin experience really is a must, though. I'm sure that with some goodly involvement in it under her belt, Moni3 would and should be back soon for the !win. Plutonium27 (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it, as soon as I saw 10 featured articles I was almost certain to support. However, lack of experience in admin areas means I can't support just yet. Please come back in a few months with experience at AfD, CSD and AIV and I'll support you without a second thought. I sure as hell can't oppose, though. Screw it, switch to support—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 09:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From who Moni appears to be, I highly doubt that she'll go jump through some "check-the-boxes-pass-RfA" editing phase over the next few months. She's an article writer--one of our best and one of our most level-headed. If she runs again, it will still be what-you-see-is-what-you-get, which should be enough, in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - You seem like such a great person, you really do. But Q5 and Q10... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I really am. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I have to say I initially interpreted this vote as "your answers to Q5 and Q10 make it clear you are a bad person" :D ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no no no... dont take it like that. I meant it as in, I feel bad that I'm neutraling a good person. Thats all. XD Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I don't distrust this editor but there's really nothing to go on to demonstrate trustworthiness in terms of administrative duties. Fantastic editors do not always make fantastic administrators - so I have to go neutral on this one. Shereth 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I just wish there was a better explanation for what would be done as an admin instead of normal editor work. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Damned if I can't make up my mind, clearly a smart and dedicated user, but a smart and dedicated user with virtually no visible use for, or demonstrated knowledge of the use of, admin tools. I'll think some more. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a tough one. On one hand, there are a lot of very good article contributions. The candidate also gave a strong answer to my 3RR question above. But, there are some legitimate concerns raised by several of the opposers above. I would not be upset to see this RfA succeed, but in the event that it does not, I encourage the candidate to heed the comments of Cyclonenim and make another run at that point. --Winger84 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If she does fail this RfA, and does choose to run again, I highly doubt she's going to go start posting to the "adminny" areas which the opposers seem to think she needs. That's not her way. Some of us dabble in those areas, but she does not. Tremendous, even-tempered editors like Moni should not have to jump through the little RfA hoops before being assigned some extra buttons which she's already (by her temperament alone) demonstrated she would not abuse. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Q14. I would normally oppose for such a hardline approach to vandals who could possibly be turned into contributors, but I have a feeling that Moni won't be dealing with vandals on a regular basis should this RFA be successful. Will have to take a closer look later. –xeno (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I feel that Moni3 is calm and collected, and would learn the admin tools very well were she to receive them, so I'm leaning towards a support. However, the lack of admin-related experience troubles me slightly. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really torn here: on the plus side, brilliant content writer; on the minus side, not much experience. Spend a month or two in metaspace, and I'll gladly support if this RFA fails. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. You meet the pivotal criterion: a trustworthy person who is calm in tough waters, and this RfA is a good example. You have my vote as soon as you focus more on learning the policies, etc. To be a good admin, you'll have to devote some steady amount of time to it, even though the lion's share of your time could still be with your terrific editing. HG | Talk 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Damn if I haven't been torn on this for days now. Like pretty much everyone else in this section, I just can't tear myself off the fence. GlassCobra 05:15, 26 August 2008 (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.