Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tokyogirl79

Tokyogirl79

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (82/0/0); Scheduled to end 08:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tokyogirl79 for adminship. When closing AfD discussions, I am always glad to see Tokyogirl's signature - her comments are always thoughtful and wise, she knows our notability guidelines back to front, and she is always willing to put in the extra mile to find sources for articles that might be saved. Her good judgement in this area is reflected in the 90.6% rate with which her comments match the discussion close.

Tokyogirl is also one of the best things to happen to book and film articles on Wikipedia. I knew that she was a prolific content creator, but when I investigated the list of articles she has started I couldn't help but be impressed. These are not just stubs, either, but are all fully-fledged articles that the project can be proud of. As if this wasn't enough, she also spends a lot of time fixing up both new and existing articles, and has a cool head under pressure. I'm impressed with the way she has handled the dispute at Bend, Not Break so far, although given the amount of praise for her work in her talk page archives, it looks like getting into a dispute is a fairly rare occurrence for her.

Tokyogirl has been around Wikipedia since 2006, and has been actively contributing for 18 months now. During this time she has proved herself an excellent contributor, and I am sure that she would do very good work as an administrator. It's about time we gave her the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TBrandley

Whenever I pass through article for deletion debates, I always run into Tokyogirl and see their excellent, wise comments. Usually, I'll be honest, are quite a bit longer than other comments proving that she can be dedicated to looking for sources and making the wisest argument. She obviously has an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines through experience, including notability, verifiability, civility, and such. With almost 60 percent of contributions to articles, Tokyogirl is an amazing content writer as well, with about 90 articles having created. And a number of these, as Stradivarius pointed out, are almost fully-complete articles. With her brilliant calm, mature behavior always, she is rarely involved in disputes. Having already maintained autopatrolled and rollback rights, I ask why shouldn't we grant Tokyogirl administrator rights. TBrandley ^(review) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Co Nomination by Secret

Sorry for the lengthy co-nomination, but I believe this is an exception. I am glad to have the honor to co-nominate, in my opinion one of the best available non-administrative candidates in the project today in Tokyogirl79.

Mr. Stradivarius nomination sums some of my feelings well, from the amazing 90.6 percent accuracy rate in AFDs to her lengthy list of articles she created. But wait there is much more to her!

Recently many people started to avoid WP:AFD for various reasons. It has become more of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT bloodbaths, and at times it is impossible to read consensus because almost every comment stated isn't grounded in policy, or in most cases no activity at all, even in rather "clear-cut" keep or delete commenting once you research the topics. But Tokyogirl79 is the rare exception. I first encountered her while participating in those debates in which we were occasionally on the opposite sides. I was extremely impressed with her dedication, a calm head dealing with newer editors, and her all around WP:COMMONSENSE that I offered a nomination back in December which she declined. However I decided to put this RFA on my watchlist in case she decided to change her mind, one of only two (now one) RFA redlinks on it.

Her knowledge of policies is clear, especially when it regards books and academic subjects, an area that always been undervalued in the project, despite being better topics for a global encyclopedia than other areas that people waste their time fighting with, like very specific fictional television elements, vague lists, and obvious news events. Tokyogirl79 is the type of editor who instead of simply “voting” keep or delete with some simple rationale, she would evaluate every source imaginable that might meet our criteria in reliable sources in attempt to salvage an article from potential deletion. [1]. Each AFD Tokyogirl79 participates in always have a clear policy based comment behind her rationale, [2] [3] [4] [5] and of course, using her knowledge in our policies and guidelines, she manged to rescue countless articles from deletion. Here before after are before after some before after (and she still comments merge and redirect!) examples, before after oh and prods too.

Quite a number of times after putting some work on an article, she would admit that it is beyond salvageable [6] or needs to be worked on further to see if potential off-line sourcing exists thus giving the opinion to userfying it or saving it on the Article Incubator , [7], an amazing trait I seldom seen from an editor in all my years working at AFD.

She is arguably one of the most respected contributors today in that subject area, and simply put one of the best AFD contributors I've seen in my eight years editing in the project and I'm sure most of you agree on this. I could probably write a book on how strong of a candidate Tokyogirl79 is for the tools, but considering this is a co-nomination, and RFA is WP:NOBIGDEAL. She has long earned our trust in this project, AFD needs more administrative eyes, and she is the best candidate available to deal with that task. Thanks Secret ^account 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly maintenance and custodial work pertaining to WP:AfD, article creation for books (since some books have past article histories I couldn't access), and other aspects, but I'm open to looking at other things.

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

A: I guess I'd say my best contribution would be to take the article Strange Fruit (novel) from this (a stub) to its current state (B status).

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: Some conflicts, yes. It's unavoidable, I think. The most recent was the kerfuffle over the article Bend, Not Break. I did try to seek resolution after a while since I didn't think we were really getting anything accomplished and since more users are now active in the discussion, I'm taking a break from the editing on that article to sort of clear my head. Sometimes the best thing to do is to walk away when you know that you have others there to help keep things progressing, especially when you feel that you might end up holding up the other editors coming in with clearer heads that weren't active in the previous discussions.

Really optional questions for you to answer if you wish to answer questions from the one and only Bonkers The Clown

4. What do you consider to be an inclusionist and what do you consider to be a deletionist? What are you (inclusionist, deletionist, or neither?)

• I've grown to really dislike those terms in general because they're so easily misunderstood. People tend to use it almost as a way of saying that deletionists want to remove the articles on everything but the White House and Queen Mum (which isn't true), while others say inclusionist like it means that the editor wants to keep an article on Mary Smith, checkout clerk extraordinaire. But how I'd define them? I guess I'd say that most of the people I know that identify themselves as deletionists tend to focus predominantly on the articles that are particularly bad in some form or fashion. For the inclusionists I know, I'd say that they're the ones who usually want to give the article the benefit of the doubt when it has several decent sources from smaller RS that aren't as well known rather than sources from bigger and well known RS. I don't know that I'd identify as either at this point in time. Those terms are so limiting. Every good editor should be both.

5' Say I'm a 4-year-old baby editing here right now. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors (like the hypothetical 4-year-old me) that are under the age of majority (ala 4 years old), and how will you deal with such cases as an administrator?

• I actually had an article where a young boy in his early teens (about 11-12) was editing Wikipedia and put enough information on the page to where it would make it somewhat easy for people to track him down, such as his name, where he lived, and other things that were pretty revealing. I removed the information and left him a warning about posting personal information on the Internet. All we can really do is warn in those circumstances and hope they don't re-upload the information.

6 what is more important: Your family or Wikipedia?

• Wikipedia is a family. Hopefully I can have both, but if something happened to my IRL family I'd focus on them first. They know where I sleep, after all. (Answered this anyway!)

Additional question from Razionale

7 Would you have run adminship without having been nominated? Did getting nominated for adminship surprise you?--Razionale (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. I resisted against it for a very long time for the exact reasons that Scray brought up. I'm still slightly hesitant because I know that this is my biggest weakness. I know this might be shooting myself in the foot by saying that, but I think it's better to approach things like this by acknowledging your faults. It's when you don't do this or say you have no issues that people should really worry. Getting this nomination didn't really surprise me since people have been after me for a while now, though.

Additional question from Cncmaster

8. I see you are very active in cleaning up and writing articles, but I don't see you have very much activity in UAA (<20 edits) or AIV (20 edits). If you become an administrator, would you pay much attention to those noticeboards?

A: I'd try to, although I'd probably watch other people for the first month or so unless it was a fairly obvious case. I've not nominated that many people for either board because either someone has beaten me to it or (more commonly) the vandal or UAA hasn't edited for so long that it's not really a huge threat if a promotional username that hasn't edited since 2010/2011 isn't blocked. Sometimes I'll watch some of them, but normally the ones I come across are either inactive or usually content to stop after 1-2 warnings.

Additional question from Ritchie333

9. Although you've been commended already for your work at AfD, I also notice you've had time to contribute to articles, such as Witches of East End. Have you ever considered taking this (or, indeed, any other article) to good article status? If so, what additional work do you feel could be done on the article?

A:

More optional questions from Bonkers The Clown... Again

10. Will becoming an admin distract you from what you are so far doing now?

11. Will you see adminship as a promotion?

12. do you believe in honesty? If yes, do you think admins should have the right to answer assholes in any way they want?

13. So Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In your opinion, is it true that only content matters?

General comments

• Links for Tokyogirl79: Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tokyogirl79 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats posted on talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Suggest striking Q6: the question strikes me as pointless. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree withstriking question 6.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Also agree with striking Q6. Seems completely off topic to me. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd go a step further and call it exceedingly inappropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and struck it, anyone who disagrees should feel exceptionally free to revert. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask Bonkers the Clown exactly what he is expecting to get out of the questions he has asked, and precisely how it will help make people's minds up which way to !vote on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible support I'd have co-nommed this if I'd gotten here in time. Tokyogirl79 has been on my list of potential admins since before I was an admin; her contributions to book-and-author-related pages are first-rate and her tremendously in-depth arguments at AFD have always impressed me. I see absolutely no reason not to trust her with the toolkit; she's an assest to Wikipedia now and will only be more valuable with a mop. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. I spotted this nomination in the making over the weekend, and I was very pleased to see it. I've seen Tokyogirl79 around the place a lot, doing all sorts of great work. She's calm, collegial, friendly, understands all manner of wikithings, and I'm sure she'll make an excellent admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible support - thrilled to be near the top of this list. A friendly, collegial editor with a penchant for saving articles, an even-handed and logical approach to AFD, solid source-finding skills and a beautiful drafting style. Would have co-nom'd if I'd known this was coming. Stalwart111 09:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Full support. Widr (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
6. A big support! I'm not much working with Tokyogirl7. Nevertheless, I see that Tokyogirl is a very good editor and is rightful to have the mop. Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Support As per Secret and Yunshai. User has been around editing regularly since October 2011 and has created over 90 articles.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
8. A friendly, courteous and likeable regular at AfD; she has well knowledge of our core policies and guidelines. Has created numerous, substantial articles and I see no reason why I should not Support. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Support, no problems with this candidate. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Yes --Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Tokyogirl79 is a quality editor with a high level of both reasonableness and clue, and I would have no reservations whatsoever about granting her the tools. Honestly, I almost marked this as "Oppose: Editor's nominators went over their wordlimit telling how awesome the candidate is...", but I know some well-intentioned chap would just remove it as a misplaced oppose. You guys are no fun any more. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Is there a word limit? Don't remember seeing one for RFA :-) Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Not to my knowledge - that's part of the joke. ^_^ But from the comments above, it's a wonder she stopped at just a nom and two co-noms! When trusted editors are elbowing each other out of the way to get in a co-nom, that says something about the candidate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Dunno if I can post down here, but that would be one of the funniest oppose votes ever, especially considering how wordy I can get in AfDs and talk pages of various types.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

12. Support Longstanding editor with zero block log and (as far as I can see) no substantial disputes. Such editors should be given a support pretty much by default. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Support. Always impressed by the thought and research that goes into her comments at AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Support as an obvious excellent pick for admin. Wish we had a dozen more candidates like her. Dedicated, hard working, focused on improving the encyclopedia, and we know that she will put the tools to very good use doing what she is already doing. Very happy to hear she is finally seeking the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Support - Seems to be a perfectly reasonable and good editor. However, I disagree with the nomination statement of "Her good judgement in this area is reflected in the 90.6% rate with which her comments match the discussion close." Some people (like myself) generally don't vote in AFDs that are obviously going one way, which would lower the metric. It is easy to get 90%+ "accuracy" if you go find AFDs that are clearly going to close one way and then vote "per everyone else". Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Fair enough, point taken, and I agree that it's not a good idea to encourage people to play a numbers game at AfD. I meant it as more of a good sign, rather than a good thing in itself, but I probably could have expressed that better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

16. Support - I've always noted that Tokyogirl's arguments at AfD are usually among the most well-reasoned and thoughtful. I offered to nominate her awhile ago, before she felt ready for RfA. She'll do great. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - I'm familiar with her work, especially at AfD. She has also done some good article rescue work, for example, Dead Sea products. Definitely someone we can trust to keep the machinery well-oiled. - MrX 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
18. Support No concerns, great candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Support I've seen her work at AfD (and other places) - and been impressed by her attempts to find references and additional info for articles. Any delete !votes at AfD are because she's not been able to rescue the articles in question. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Support What? No! I wanted to nominate her! :( — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Support no concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Support impressive nominations; plus the areas the candidate says they want to go into (AfD) match their previous strengths as laid out in those nominations. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
23. As co nom Secret ^account 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Support - I've only ran into Tokyogirl recently as a volunteer at DRN but I thought she seemed like a level headed person willing to listen to the other side and make consessions. Happy to offer support Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
25. Support - Excellent contributor, good track record on AfDs and making sure article quality is upheld. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
26. Support Quality candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Another excellent candidate and Secret makes a particularly compelling case.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - I think that improving an article is the best approach to settling an AfD, and I'm glad to see that she frequently does that. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
29. Non-contemplative support - I've run in to her enough times at AfD that I really don't need to think further as far as whether I think she should have the tools. Good contributor. Go Phightins! 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - I rarely get myself involved in RFAs; here, I'm making an exception. Tokyogirl is a fantastic example of what all admins should be: she works hard, she listens to discussions, and she has a grasp of policy. She's neither a deletionist, nor a keepist, merely someone who goes the extra mile (or several) to attempt to improve articles. I've never bumped into her away from AfDs, apart from occasionally on talk pages, but I've no qualms whatsoever with her. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I trust bibliophiles. And she seems to have support from AfD regulars, which is where she intends to work. No red flags. The Interior (Talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Has lots of common sense, especially on AfD posts. –TCN7JM 20:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Has plenty of clue. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
34. Support per noms. Great candidate. INeverCry 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Support, if only to find out what on earth a fish does with a mop. Joking apart, the closely argued AFD comments are excellent, lots of people beat a path to her talk page for help and advice, and you've got to like an editor who, improves a WP:TOOSOON article before turning it into a redirect, so that there will be useful stuff there when it's no longer too soon. Good answer to Q3, too. --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Support, certainly. I've seen her name frequently when I closed AfDs, always providing insightful comments. I'm sure she is more ready than ever to become an admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
37. mabdul 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
38. Support fully, with admiration for her willingness to look for sources and improve articles (if possible), before offering an opinion at AFD. Congenial and knowledgeable editor. Of great value to the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
39. Support From observations of her work at AfD. Abundant CLUE. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Tokyogirl's comments at AfD are sufficient evidence that she knows the difference between thoughtful and useless !votes. AfD sorely needs more voters like her. She'll also do fine as a closer. Kilopi (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Kraxler (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
42. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
43. Amalthea 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
44. Just be wary of the tl;dr effect from now on. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
45. Support as co-nominator. Should have done this sooner ;) TBrandley ^(review) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
46. Support an extremely careful and conscientious editor, very helpful in dealing with problem articles. Willing to admit error or the rare occasions they occur, and not self-important. This is the sort of person we need as an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
47. Strong Support her ability to find and evaluate sources on tricky AFDs is amazing and has earned my respect many times. She'll make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
48. OK, I'm impressed Support — Ched :  ?  00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
49. Support; impressed by her comments whenever I saw them, I thought her to already be an admin. Huon (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Yes please. No one works harder at AFDs than her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - Great user, I have no concerns. ZappaOMati 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
52. Support. Looks like a very good candidate to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. I've noticed this editor's work (mostly around AfD) for some time. Her thoughtfulness and understanding of policies will make her a valuable asset as an admin.  Gong show 01:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
54. Support knowledgeable and tactful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
55. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
56. Support, with a suggestion I have a feeling might be necessary: when closing debates, try not to over-explain; if you address every argument made, you'll drown out the overall thrust. Chick Bowen 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
57. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
58. Support per Secret and Stfg. Tokyogirl79 looks like exactly the kind of sysop we want. Committed to core values, willing to put in the time and effort to improve the 'pedia, and calm and relaxed enough to not make a big deal of it. Perfect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
59. Support I've seen Tokyogirl79 around in AFD and to be honest I'm impressed with what she does. I think she'll make an excellent administrator. Webclient101^talk 03:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
60. Support Nice user. I'm sure user'll become a good admin.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
61. seems fine Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
62. Support obviously. No concerns here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
63. Support: Yes, sure! Excellent contributor! Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
64. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. It's terrific news for the project that TG79 has decided to run for adminship, and I'm delighted to support. — sparklism ^hey! 08:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
66. great editor --Guerillero | My Talk 08:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
67. Support: Yes! A dedicated editor, with a clear head and a caring nature. Will be a great addition to the ranks of administrators –
     – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
68. Support - No brainer. Probably one of the most consistently well-reasoned !voters at AFD, and she isn't afraid of elbow grease. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
69. Support after substantial reflection (see my earlier comments under "Oppose", below). -- Scray (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support -- We've crossed paths at AFD now and again, and I've always supported her stances and rationales. (Not to mention I have to support a fellow "90% success rate at AFD editor" too!). Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
73. Support. I know of Tokyogirl's AfD contributions--oddly enough in AfDs I put up, not so much from the ones I closed--and find their contributions invariably well-phrased, well-reasoned, and cucumber-cool, whether they agree with my assessment or not. Often they add relevant coverage, and more than once have given me serious thought. To my surprise I just discovered that they've also wrote a fair number of articles; I looked at half a dozen and am pleased enough. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
74. Support - no concerns, seems a strong candidate who will be nothing but a benefit to the Project. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
75. Support Per nomination statements, and a pleasure to do so as well. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support No concerns, and you seem like a good person in addition to all of the technical details like AfD. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
77. Support No concerns, answers seem good. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
79. Stephen 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
80. Support: Tokyo has made many fine contributions, such as writing good articles and improving ones that need help. Tokyo also seems to be very knowledgeable with AfD, as their votes matched consensus 90.9% of the time according to this. I am semi-satisfied with the answer to my question Tokyo will make a great admin. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
81. Support Very helpful and friendly towards users I have seen Tokyogirl make alot of great additions to wikipedia, i think she would make a great admin ^-^. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
82. Support. I've seen Tokyogirl out and about in AFD and from what I've seen I have full faith that she would make a great admin. Ducknish (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose, very reluctantly. The strengths are highlighted by the nom and many support statements above, and my review of histories is generally very positive. In addition, I've never been the first oppose !vote before. That said, the candidate's opening statement herethis statement really concerns me. It is so far from focused and succinct that it raises questions of maturity. I need to look through more of the candidate's statements in other contexts to see whether this is an outlier or part of a pattern, and I'm certainly planning to revisit this. IMHO, a crucial skill is the ability to process information, place it in the context of policy and guidance, and then succinctly state a well-founded set of conclusions - this is what I've seen from the most effective sysops, and what I see lacking in the statement I've linked. -- Scray (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see great work but still get the impression of wordiness even when there's not much contention. I remain concerned about how the candidate will handle highly charged situations, which will be much more prominent (more difficult to avoid) as an admin. Clarity in the face of strife will be far more important when wielding the bit, and I'm not seeing evidence of that steely focus. -- Scray (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

She and I both started in 2006, and both of us have done a great deal of work at AFD over the years, although we have never worked on the same article that I know of, nor really chatted outside of an AFD template. One of the reasons I'm supporting is seeing exactly how she reacted in heated situations, keeping calm and on topic. I've never seen her get rude or mean at AFD, and it would have been easy to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have immense respect for your judgement with regards to RFA, and have seen no reason to doubt anything you say. I'm moving this !vote because after serious reflection (I opposed very reluctantly) I realized that I am convinced she'll do a good job, but I still think she'll be more effective if she addresses the tl;dr problem and finds her succinct gear. -- Scray (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suffered from TLDR, and still do some days. Getting the bit forced me to become more pithy. We all shortcomings, but I know she will do an excellent job at being fair to everyone and being reasonable in tone, all while striving to improve herself. I appreciate the faith you extend, and I'm confident we are all better off if she has a few extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I did some research, and from what I can tell, this user writes like a 13 year-old speaks, well sort of. I mean, is that what we expect of an administer? I don't think so. At least I don't. But then again, I may vaguewave at some guidelines and say a lot of words that mean nothing in the hopes that you don't realize that I actually have said nothing but typed alot. Sometimes, the contributions at AfD are outstanding, but sometimes confusing. Xe say that can come up with sources for an article. But then, most of the mentions in those sources are brief, or I don't really know if this qualifies for deletion or not. But I'll make sure to bold my vote anyway. Lke srsly, who does that? Xe had a recent speedy declined at Smoky Joe's, but I don't know, that might not have been xys fault. Xe also nominated the same article at AfD, which will likely be kept, but I think that the AfD nomination had merit. Also has a declined speedy at Jon Pastor, but two declined speedies in the last month is probably a fluke considering how long xe has been editing. Well, has really only been editing since 10/2010, but that's a long time in Internet years. What else, IDK, user has a habit of writing way too much for what, in essence, be said in a just a few, short words. At AFD, user will always mention that xe has done research. If xe has done a search, that will also be noted. Will almost always say something vaguely related, but not relevant, in what seems to be a concerted effort to appear smart. Well okay. I guess that's your style, but it's not for me. My concern is that xe will always find a way to be on the fence, even on non-controversial issues. I may or may not find other issues, but the concerns brought up here convince me that this user may or may not be suitable to be an administrator or hold other advanced positions. I will continue to look for issues and pass on them if this survives. Well, RfA is nobigdeal so I guess I'll support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)