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

Persian Poet Gal[edit]

Final (179/0/0); Ended 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs) - I am honored and thrilled to submit Persian Poet Gal for your consideration, whom I believe far exceeds the experience, dedication, trustworthiness, character and any other conceivable qualities expected in a candidate for administratorship. I am certainly not the only user who has long been amazed by her most distinguished work on Wikipedia. In the past five months, Persian Poet Gal has revealed an extremely friendly, versatile, keen editor with over 12000 edits in a vast array of areas, particularly:

Apart from these, Persian Poet Gal has a continuous, balanced participation in WP:XFD, WP:RFA, WP:HD and many other corners of Wikipedia. As for minor technical requirements, she has 100% edit summary usage, short signature, e-mail enabled. Finally, Persian Poet Gal can certainly be praised for being one of the friendliest and kindest users around. She is always nice to others, very civil and polite, and openly accepts criticism in order to improve (as proven by her editor review and this always increasing set of assorted awards). I unconditionally support this user who would without a doubt make an excellent use of the tools and continue her astounding performance as an administrator. Húsönd 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. Thank you very much Husond.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate to continue to deter mainspace vandalism and monitoring WP:AIV, seeing as admin backlog is eminently reoccurring on that page. I often scroll through recent changes and will continue to do so with JavaScript based anti-vandal tools but I will not exclude manually scanning suspicious edits as well. I keep tabs on articles experiencing periods of heavy vandalism, and with administration powers I would protect such articles appropriately (semi-protection in cases of large amounts of anonymous vandalism and full protection during unproductive edit wars). Besides vandalism prevention, I would continue to sift through New page contributions seeing as this also experiences backlog in CSD cases; as well as close AfDs when consensus has properly been reached. In regards to policy enforcement, I will rarely lean toward WP:SNOW or WP:IAR decisions and save such measures only for unique or special circumstances.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: There are several editors which have contributed significantly more than myself. Husond has highlighted most of my contributions which I believe were helpful. Besides what he has mentioned above I am recently very interested in the WP:SPOKEN project and have recorded spoken word versions of a few Wikipedia policy/guideline pages as well as one featured article.
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: To say that I have never been in disputes would be incorrect, however; to say that they ever caused me stress I would say fortunately not (real life and senior year of high school does enough of that already). I have made the occasional mistake on Recent Changes patrol and in such cases I respond by looking carefully through the diff links to recognize how I might have caused the mistake as well as apologize for the error on my part. The only significant conflict that I have ever been involved in was with a sockpuppeteer vandal known as JINXTENGU. He repeatedly attacked my user page as well as left several personal attack messages on my talk page. I ended up leaving this Long term abuse report tracking his vandalism along with submitting checkuser reports. I do not encounter the same frequency of his sockpuppet accounts as much and whenever I have found evidence of a new one I simply report it, tag it, and move on.
If I continue to experience such situations or run into a surmountable increase of them as an administrator, I will try my best not to encourage the user (or feed the troll as they say), warn the user of their potentially bad conduct, and take more serious measures when all possible warnings have been exhausted and administrative action is truly necessary. I completely agree that blocks done in light of bad conduct should not be used as punishment but rather to alert the user to discontinue the bad conduct or prevent the bad conduct to begin with.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
A: The five pillars of Wikipedia are pretty easy to comprehend. 1. That Wikipedia is to be treated as an encyclopedia, 2. When editing Wikipedia one should maintain a neutral-point-of-view, 3. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, 4. When editing Wikipedia editors should remain civil towards each other, and 5. Wikipedia’s rules are ever changing and are flexible. Each is important not only to maintain the integrity of information on this website but also to reduce the chaos of maintaining an encyclopedia where anyone can edit.
5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Wheel warring is extremely unproductive because it causes the use of administrative powers to be abused. The implications of various administrators pushing the will of their way can lead to significant disruption of editing. Steps to avoid wheel warring are as simple as encouraging regular discussion. Discussion can be used in a variety of places such as user talk, AN/I, or the Admin Noticeboard.
6. Who has the authority to ban users?
A: Only through ArbCom rulings or the word of Jimbo Wales can cause an editor to be banned. Also, if community consensus calls for it, editors may be banned under those circumstances.

Optional question from llywrch

7. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes actually I believe its quite feasible. I particularly would like to sit down and record some more spoken word versions of Wikipedia articles that are at featured status and are at stable versions. The process is quite lengthy and at times does take a full day to do so. It is important to remember that Wikipedia's goal is to expand in its array of content as well as its quality of content and not solely focusing on deleting nonsense day-to-day.
General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support Beat the NOM ~ Arjun 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Beat-the-nom #2! Woohoo! –Llama man 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongest possible support as nom. You cheaters!!! :-) --Húsönd 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Excellent countervandal and contributor. Heimstern Läufer 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support: Admin vandal fighter. alphachimp 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I have been consistently impressed with PPG's civility, knowledge and application of policy and vandal fighting. She is overdue for the tools which she will use well to improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support this is indeed going to be HIGH. --Majorly (o rly?) 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I wonna beat the nom :P Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (2x edit conflict)Strong Support A great catch. This user has demonstrated clear understanding of policy and is an excellent contributor to all aspects of Wikipedia. WP:1 BILLION? Nishkid64 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I've seen her around on more than one occasion, and thought she was already an admin one of those times. I have the utmost confidence in her. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support I always thought she was an administrator. After her recent edits and vandalism-fighting on the Anna Nicole Smith article, I am definitely in support of Persian Poet Gal. Acalamari 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support looks good, rename to User:Iranian Poet Girl to update. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Heh, the name Persia still beats in my heart :)...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Strong Support Guess I'm not the first to think she was already an admin--Hu12 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong SUpport - Husond knows how to pick em! Seriousley an amazing editor and an asset to Wikipedia. Run into her everywhere and she does a great job and exibits excellent judgement. She would make an amazing asset to the wikipedia team of admins (And, until recently, I thought she already was one!). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Very F'ing Strong Support. I think that sums it up :)--Wizardman 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored ;) James086Talk 07:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support The only editors who'll have any concerns about PPG getting the mop are the vandals, spammers and those who just want to disrupt wikipedia. Gnangarra 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support per personal experiences with this user. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seen her around and she does a great job. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Excellent nomination, strong candidate. Agent 86 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Definitely, 'cause she is good vandalfighter, spamfighter, and also excellent contributor which means deserving to be an admin. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Not only a vandalfighter, but a strong editor too. Good show! Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SupportJoshuaZ 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support keep up the good work.- Gilliam 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support This candidate is level headed and looks to resolve issues rather than escalate them. Xiner (talk, email) 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Been waiting to cast my support vote for a long time. -- Gogo Dodo 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support I thought Persian Poet Gal was already an administrator for the many times she has reverted and fought vandalism to Wikipedia, and with the tools, she will now be able to help in Blocking the users and IPs who vandalized Wikipedia. I remember reading so many revisions of Persian Poet Gal where the edit summaries said "JS:Reverted vandalism by X to last version by Y", for an example. --Wikipedier 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - fully qualified candidate. Contrary to the cliche, I knew she was not an administrator because I keep seeing her reports at AIV. Soon she'll be resolving instead of making those reports: welcome to the ranks. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, I've seen her work on numerous occasions.-gadfium 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Another of my favorite gals up for adminship. You'll do the mop proud. =) – Lantoka (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support By complete coincidence I e-mailed PPG to offer to nominate her, even as, unbeknownst to me, this RfA was being created. --Ginkgo100talk 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. I almost want to cry, seeing how the candidate is so uncompromising with vandals and so kind to everyone else. There is no such thing as a perfect RFA candidate, but she's pretty close. YechielMan 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support although I could have sworn... Rama's arrow 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, yup.--Isotope23 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support, wow, just wow. riana_dzasta 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support will be an awesome admin, and is also a really awesome person too! :) JoeSmack Talk 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Very Strong Support, she is a great canidate for adminship! --My Name Is Not Earl 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support! Khoikhoi 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Come on! Do we really have to go through this whole RfA? Just make her an admin already :-) P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support Amazing record on your hands. I salute you! Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support WjBscribe 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Was waiting for this. Fantastic editor. --Slowking Man 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support I've also been waiting for this RfA. She will greatly benefit the project. Dar-Ape 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support indeed.--Jersey Devil 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support, solid and fast recent changes patroller, level headed and well spoken. An easy support. Kuru talk 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong, Strong Support My admiration for PPG's vandal fighting is only exceeded by her achievements. Pigmantalk 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support "But I thought that she was one already..." (aeropagitica) 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, hell yes. I'm very confident that Persian Poet Girl will do a fine job. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 05:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Full Support without doubt. I've seen Persian Poet Gal all over Wikipedia and my direct interactions with her have always left me impressed. One of the best candidates in a while. auburnpilot talk 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support- anyone else for a zero tolerance policy on opposing her? Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)06:42, Friday, 9 February '07
  53. zOMG support! Two of my favourite editors on RfA at the same time! Vandals don't stand a chance... ;) Glen 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per above. VegaDark 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - good devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 07:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I encountered her edits months ago and thought she was an admin. I see no problems. James086Talk 07:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support per nom. utcursch | talk 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, good candidate, nice answers to questions. Trebor 08:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Strange, I'm seeing more and more RfA candidates who I thought were admins... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Long overdue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support you go gal! - Anas Talk? 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Terence Ong 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Trustworthy. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Yes, sure. Conscious 10:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support quite strongly. Everyking 10:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Edit count seems a bit low. Only been here since October 2005. 40 of her first 50 edits were to her own talk page. Conceeded, she now does seem to have worked out where the preview button is, but do you really think she's ready? I'm sorry, but I have to vote Approbation, Pro, Stödjer. Ben Aveling 10:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  67. Support per excellence in VP department. Bubba hotep 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support I've seen PPG everywhere and her contributions are flawless. The Rambling Man 11:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good interactions with this editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong, strong support. I have always been impressed by her work. Keep it up! — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, indeed. Coemgenus 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, very strongly. skip (t / c) 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Well qualified; excellent, diverse contributions over the last four months. ×Meegs 14:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. More like this candidate, please.TM Titoxd(?!?) 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support A devoted and trustworthy contributor who has displayed a need for the tools. Leebo86 15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support hard-working, civil editor. Hut 8.5 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Support. Has been doing a overall marvelous job as an editor. And has plenty of awards to prove it. QuasyBoy 11:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong support Have run across this editor several times, and to use the old cliche, thought she was one already! If not, time to fix that! Seraphimblade 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I've been impressed with Persian Poet Gal since my comments on her editor review. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Very Strong Support A very good Editor, hardworking and dedicated and it has been long overdue..Good Luck....ø~Cometstyles~ø(talk)
  83. Support absolutely. PeaceNT 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I think she's an excellent all-around candidate: a superb vandalism-fighter who (gasp!) does things besides RC patrol. I didn't see much actual deletion discussion, but I've agreed with all of her brief comments in AfD's so far. Still, I'm comfortable with her closing AFDs.--Kchase T 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Will be a fine admin. --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support through a lot of edit conflicts (enough that I gave up trying yesterday). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Do I need to say more at this point? Sandstein 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Once again, someone who should've been admin already. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strongest possible support - One of the most civil and calm users on this project. PTO 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Everything looks good.--MONGO 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Thanks for serving. --A. B. (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support I certainly think so. Seen her around thought she might make a good admin.--Dakota 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Dedicated efforts against vandalism, friendly attitude, experience in writing articles, an all-around good candidate. --Kyoko 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support – good work .. dave souza, talk 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. [edit conflict] Support: I agree with Kyoko. S.D. ¿п? § 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support This will reduce that backlog on WP:AIV, because she won't be filling it with reports, but instead removing them. Keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. [edit conflict]Support. Would prefer to see a few more months of consistent activity, but as she turned down previous nominations because she felt she was not ready I am at least comfortable that due thought has been given. Hopefully she won't burn out in a few months and do a disappearing act. Looks like you will make WP:100 very soon! --StuffOfInterest 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. --Yamla 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Hell yes ViridaeTalk 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Bwithh 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose -- >100 people have typed support, so I thought I'd add a little variety to this page. ... ;-) But seriously, an excellent editor and would be a great admin. Has my full support! -- Black Falcon 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Annoying spoiler: Supporters #62, #64, #66, #77, #81, #89, #100 and #102 did not type "support", making it less than 100 people having done so.--Húsönd 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support; our next Phaedriel. — Deckiller 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I never had the pleasure of encountering Persian Poet Gal, but since there's only unconditional praises for her (I presume?), I guess she's a very nice person to meet. The only thing that worries me is that of her nearly 13,000 edits (WOW!), 4315 were mainspace. That's still a whole mess of mainspace edits, but I'm kind of confused why she made 6292 edits to user talk pages and 1058 edits to user pages. However, she did make 918 edits to Wikipedia pages (mostly to WP:AIV), indicating that she's an integral part of the Wikipedia community. All her edits (except for 28) were made within five months, so I kind of concerned if she'll burn out (please don't)...but I'm sure Persian Poet Gal will do a fine job as an admin. Full support for a very well qualified candidate! =D Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support on the basis of this page. And just generally everything else I've seen on this RfA. Mathmo Talk 08:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Excellent vandal-fighter and very commited to the project. GizzaChat © 08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support I like what I've seen of this editor. --Folantin 09:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Persian Poet Gal / Wants to become an admin? / Support is given. ~ trialsanderrors 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support, excellent candidate from what I've seen. --Coredesat 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, top-shelf candidate, can't resist pile-on support. Accurizer 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Very emphatic support. I used to vote regularly in this forum, but have hardly done so at all for the last couple of years - due to the absence of names I recognize. This time, I'm delighted to see a name that I not only recognize, but think a lot of. This user's promotion is long overdue. David Cannon 11:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support, have come across her edits here and there, a good person, and the community will definitely benefit from her becoming admin. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Seems like a terrific candidate for the job. Definite support. Hello32020 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Right person for the right job. Iconic symbol of struggle for clean Wikipedia. - Darwinek 13:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Hey wow, I didnt know you are so popular! Pile on Support anyway — Lost(talk) 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support You're doing a great job as an editor :) keep up the good work! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I can't see this user abusing the tools, a great candidate! Darthgriz98 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support More than qualified! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Yes, Yes, Yes. Rettetast
  127. Hop on the bandwagon support Never run into her on an article, but I remember only thoughtful, civil comments in XfD. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Ridiculous, pile-on Support!⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support per above. Great user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - I haven't had that much contact with this user but when I have she acted very civil and has reverted lots of vandalism on pages I watch. BJTalk 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oh, are you kidding me? Support! delldot | talk 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Very Strong Support She's not already an admin?? Dionyseus 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Strong Support Firmly support this user based upon obvious knowledge of process and policy of Wikipedia. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support and add the obligatory "aren't you an admin already?" —Dgiest c 07:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support--cj | talk 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support per nom and per WP:MOBRULE. I also did some inquiry into cat owners and found all my prior assumptions roundly revoked by recent scientific insights. (Imagine a big big smiley if you need to.) —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Non-cliché, I really did think she was an administrator support. I dislike voting per nom, but what else really is there to say? IronGargoyle 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Run into her too many times to count fighting vandals not to add my vote. - Dan D. Ric 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Have run into her editing and vandal fighting many times across many articles, no possible reason to oppose. RHB Talk - Edits 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Pile-on thought-she-was-already-an-admin support. A calming editorial influence is always appreciated. -- MarcoTolo 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Absolutely. Dedicated vandal-fighter and impressively reasonable and cool no matter what the provocation. Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support -Very dedicated when it comes to fighting vandals. If Persian Poet Gal gets admin powers, it will give vandals one more reason to run and hide.--CWY2190TC 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 02:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. dvdrw 05:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong Support I've seen you on Vandalism patrol, and admin tools will benefit you hugely. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support seems like a diligent editor. Elle Bee 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support -- happy to lend my support. - Longhair\talk 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Strong support Excellent candidate. Valentinian T / C 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Strong support - OK, I will voice the cliche, "I thought she already was..." ;-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. I don't think I can say anything good about her that hasn't been said already. WODUP 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Vandalized RfA = Unnecessary pile-on support. Grandmasterka 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Candidate is a vandal fighter = Yes! Looks great. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Hate to pile-on, but... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. I have noticed PPG as a good vandal-fighter. Ekantik talk 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support: An amazing user, worthy in every respect. Deserving of Adminship. -Hairchrm 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support, the above says it all :P. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Seen nothing but good from this user. Well-deserved! –- kungming·2 (Talk) 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Strong Support I've seen you everywhere! Besides, not everyone has their RfA attacked by sockpuppeting vandals. :-) · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Kafziel Talk 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support I'm sure my !vote will make a huge difference. Pascal.Tesson 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Piling On Support belatedly adding myself to the pile MLA 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Strong Support Simply super.--Aldux 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Aw hells yeah! An amazing editor. -- Merope 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. WP:165 support. Kusma (討論) 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Snowball support Mostly for the vandalfighting :) No, seriously, excellent contributions, and will certainly make a good admin. Fvasconcellos 23:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Very very very Strong Support Need I say more? =) MetsFan76 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - And I'm pissed she wasn't made one earlier! :D --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support. Was going to nominate this person myself, actually. Where have I been? (out sick) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Hops on the bandwagon. Let's try for WP:200, eh? Support! (Persian Poet Gal looks like she won't explode the Wikipedia with the admin tools, so let's suit her up with a bucket and a mop already, eh?) ♠PMC♠ 10:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Full support An editor fit to be an admin, excellent contributions. Retiono Virginian 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Persian Poet Gal is a great user that should have been a admin sooner. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support Nothing but good can come from this! (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Spectacular contributions! Keep up the great work. Mehrshad123 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support - Good answers, I believe you'll be a good admin--SUIT-n-tie 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - count me in; great candidate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - has been unfailingly polite in dealing with people who don't necessarily deserve it. Added my support so that maybe we can get her to WP:200. Αργυριου (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Probably last - I hope not least!--R613vlu 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. Does very good vandal-fighting work, and I've seen nothing in her other contributions to cause concern. ElinorD 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Neutral

Moral neutral, leaning to support. Nothing personal, I simply don't trust people who like cats. :-) —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Change to support. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)05:26, Sunday, 11 February '07
Well I, for one, don't trust people who waste the world's shrinking resources of moral neutrality.--Húsönd 06:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree Husond.--Dakota 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kncyu, did you forget to add a smiley? GizzaChat © 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of moral neutral stacked in my backroom, enough for everybody. Husond, I appreciate your opinion, but whether or not you trust me is not the question of this RfA. :-) —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category