Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana

Riana

Voice your opinion (talk page) (105/9/3); Scheduled to end 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Hi there :) I know that any RfB means *tons* of question-answering, nit-picking and soul-searching, so I'll make my opening statement as brief as I possibly can. It'll probably be boring anyway. I'm Riana. I've been an admin for little over a year now, and an editor for about 20 months. I have a pretty good handle on how things get done around here, and try at all times to enforce rules with a large dose of common sense rather than with rigidity.

As far as cratting goes, my main interest lies in RfA. I frankly enjoy the process, with all its quirks and imperfections. It's symbolic of a community which is constantly learning new things about itself, and striving for improvement. I've taken part in most RfAs in late 2006-2007 (not so much 2008, unless a candidate catches my eye), and I feel I have a good understanding of what the community looks for in an admin, and what it considers good or bad closures. I also feel the community makes its choices well, bar some few exceptions who have something so obviously wrong with them, that they get caught up anyway. It is because I trust this community that I also believe that it is up to them to choose a candidate, not up to a crat.

It's hard to define the boundary where community opinion and bureaucrat discretion blend. I can say this much - if I am personally invested in an RfA in any way, I will not take action. If I believe a promotion will be controversial should I do it alone - and I am conservative enough to have a broad definition of 'controversy' - I will suspend a discussion in order to confer with other bureaucrats, no matter how long it might take. At the end of the day, I feel that we, as a project, need to remember that we are run by humans, and that human error encourages us to improve.

I've made plenty of RfA nominations myself. Most have been successful, and have gone on to become wonderful and respected admins. The unsuccessful ones, I continue to hold in high esteem. Some of these were bad choices for adminship, in hindsight, and I am happy to answer questions about them. I reiterate my firm belief that by and large, the community is correct. One does not become an administrator for oneself, but for the community, and it will judge best.

I'm also happy to help out with CHU/USURP. I'll go slow in this region because it looks a little trickier than just adding +sysop :) I'm also completely flummoxed by the bot process - they scare and confuse me! ;) - but there are so many experienced and helpful Wikipedians working in this area that I'm reasonably confident that I should be able to figure my way out eventually, should I ever need to.

Why apply for 'crat at this time? People seem to think we need more. I honestly think we need more, and I'm not very bothered if I become another statistic in the unsuccessful RfBs table - I'd just like to see loads more people doing this kind of work. I've always had an issue with Wikimedia's minimalism when it comes to higher-up positions, and strongly believe that the more trusted people doing an important task, the better. Our current crats are fab guys (and gal) and do a terrific job, but things could definitely be smoother and more efficient.

I'm happy to discuss anything you want. I love talking, especially about myself. For the sake of neatness, I might respond on the talkpage.

If you've stuck with me so far, congratulations. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Bar the Carnildo affair, which had more undercurrents than an episode of The Young and the Restless, I've followed every controversial decision so far. I'm a bigger reader than a talker, so you may or may not have seen me at these discussions. I hate to break things down to numbers, but here's what I feel - anything above ~75% is alright. Anything below ~65% is probably not a good idea. Anything between that is open to interpretation and discretion, when arguments should be weighed on an individual basis.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Here's what I feel. We throw around the term 'bureaucratic discretion' a lot. However, it's important that we're actually discreet about this sort of thing. Bureaucrats achieve little through controversial promotions; one admin vs a mob of disappointed people who feel they've wasted their time. I don't feel we have a problem separating a candidate from the numbers - the numbers come from how people feel about the candidate, after all. At the point where the need for discretion arises, I'd protect a discussion and have a crat chat. At all times I'd consider opinions from the community, but at this point it'd ultimately be up to the bureaucrats.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I don't know that this is a question I can answer for myself, really - it's one for you guys! I can say this much: I've always tried my very hardest not to change my behaviour towards others despite having a sysop bit. I try to make it mean as little as possible in my interactions with others. I know policy well enough to be trusted with adminship, OTRS and a place on the ArbCom-appointed Working Group. That's all I can think of, really - I'll have to let my actions speak for themselves, and assist you on any specific points.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. A little too much. *sigh* :)

Question from SorryGuy:

5. Without specifically referring to your opinion on the ^demon RfA, although you are more than free to explain such, what is your general stance on reconfirmation RfAs? Do you believe that the bar should be set lower than the 75% level you described for what you feel normal promotion range should be? Any additional thoughts on reconfirmation RfAs are welcome. SorryGuy  Talk  02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A. OK, do you mind if I discuss the ^demon issue in VanTucky's question? :) I'm not a huge fan of the concept of reconfirmation, frankly. For most returning admins it would be unnecessary. However, I think it takes a lot less time to just give your support/opposition than pontificate about the process. I've supported all the reconfirmation RfAs, AFAIK (save Majorly's, where I withdrew my support, and I've apologised for that). I mean, if you really want to put yourself through that again, more power to you. ;)

I don't think the bar should be set lower for reconfirmation. I don't see any reason why it should be. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Question from VanTucky

6. What is your assessment on the recent resysopping of ^demon, despite the reconfirmation RFA closing with less than 65% support? How would you have closed it and why?

A. Hm, good question. With all respect to WJB, I wouldn't have closed it this way, and I wouldn't have flown solo on a controversial decision like this - it's best to get your head checked in these situations. I supported, and I thought that was the right thing to do. I also think that ^demon was and is a fine admin. However, the opposes were strong and reasonable, and they should have been considered further. Will's explanation was great and sufficient, and his standing with me remains as it ever was - but I personally would have asked for wider opinions, or, if I were going to do things individually, closed this as no consensus.

Questions from J.L.W.S. The Special One

7. "Potentially controversial nominations should be decided through a discussion between multiple bureaucrats, rather than closed by a single bureaucrat." How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

A.

8. State and explain at least three factors involved in bureaucratic discretion.

A.

(Not really optional) questions from User:Twooars

9.It is obvious to me that when a 'crat closes a difficult RfA, a certain amount of personal bias does exist in the final decision and this can not be avoided. I would just like to choose 'crats knowing their biases and standards rather than someone who sidesteps the question saying "my opinion doesn't matter, I'll just determine whether there is consensus or not". Hence the following questions; unlike at an RfA, a refusal to answer may be sufficient reason for an automatic default oppose from me but answering them honestly will probably bring you more opposes, so.... :)

a)How do you feel about the following oppose reasons, assuming that they are the oppose rationales in their entirety (responses on a scale of "wtf?" to "well said!" :)

• • • Not enough experience
    • Not enough time spent
    • Uses automated tools
    • No participation at XFD / AIV / RFPP
    • No need for tools
    • Not enough mainspace contributions
    • Not enough wikipedia space contributions
    • Low mainspace:wikipedia space ratio (or any other ratio)
    • Unfriendly / curt when communicating with fellow editors
    • "I'll oppose all self nominations"
    • "Weak answers to questions" / "did not bother to answer to questions"
    • Weak vs. strong oppose
    • <any other reason you think should have been mentioned here / feel strongly about... I may add more if I can think of some more or if you think these quesions aren't enough work for one day ;) >
    • <no oppose reason given>

b)How do you feel about reconfirmation RfA's? Do you think they should have a different yardstick? Do you plan to apply a different yardstick?

c)When you are in doubt about an RfA closing and there are no other crats available to discuss with, what would you do, close as successful or unsuccessful?

Optional questions from Yechiel

(I've lost count.) I read User:Riana/RfA. How has your role in nominating users for adminship prepared you for closing RFAs? In particular, is there a contradiction between your somewhat cheerful desire to support anyone who "has clue" with the need for a bureaucrat to judge neutrally? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(I've lost count plus one.) You wrote in the above-linked page that recent nominations for RFA, including mine, have been "cursed." Did you really expect these all to succeed, or were you just hoping they would? (And at the end of the day, does it really matter?) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Riana's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Just a note. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per my longstanding custom, I don't "vote". I think this is a trustworthy candidate and we are in chronic need of new bureaucrats, however, so I want to express my support for the nomination. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. First! Support - duh Will ^(talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Glad to be firstsecond. Don't go crazy! :) Majorly (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
3. (oh noes, double ec) Strongest support ever. Z-man and Riana would both make excellent 'crats, and if Acalamari runs now as I've begged, I will be dancing with myself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   All that said, I am concerned by the Kelly Martin nom. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Dlohcierekim 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, good user, been around a while. Prodego ^talk 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Absolutely yes! Captain panda 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Obvious support. Somitho (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Hell yeah! bibliomaniac15 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes: I am always convinced by Riana's judgment. That is a sufficient reason for me to support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
10. I trust Riana completely. Acalamari 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Excellent. --barneca (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support: Another familiar name, and see no reason not to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
13. I definitely trust Riana to make the right choices. Strong support. --Agüeybaná 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Strong candidate, knows bureaucrat policies, and has a history of logical decision-making. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. I assume you're R-dizzle? Lookin' and Lovin'!!!! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
16. zOMG YES! Riana has always impressed me. She's perfect for this position. Lara❤Love 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Add mine. Avruch ^T 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Absolutely! SQL^{Query me!} 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support VanTucky 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Sense and sensibility. What's not to like? Ronnotel (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Is it me or is there something oddly auto-erotic about the frequency with which Riana has, er, blocked herself. Ronnotel (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    rofl. Er, don't ask. :P ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, Riana, I keep telling myself: 'Tequila, quaaludes, posting at WP, pick two', but it never works out that way. :( Ronnotel (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

21. Of course Easy decision. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support We need more admin's 'cuz it's raining more than ever. Riana is the umbrella (ella ella eh eh eh) crat for the job. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Sound judgement. I see no reason to oppose :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Yep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - excellent candidate with valuable experience in crat areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
26. (edit conflict)x3 Strongest possible support She will make a great 'crat. She's helped me out on & off-wiki, going above and beyond her call of duty. She's always happy & helpful, just what we need. нмŵוτнτ 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - stealing support #27. Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - definitely will make a good crat.   jj137 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Another Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
30. You get my support Riana but do I have to write another damn Haiku?--VS ^talk 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Her judgment has my confidence. - Philippe | Talk 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support My experiences with Riana as an administrator have been nothing short of stellar. May she bring honor to the B'crat position. ;) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - Riana has been a very trustworthy administrator and I rarely have seen her get involved in significant conflicts. I believe she would be a fine crat.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong support - absolutely 100%. A phenomenally trustworthy admin. She will make an excellent 'crat! - Alison ^❤ 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Strongest Support that cannot be matched unless Newyorkbrad runs for something new :D. Riana=great admin, great admin=great crat, great crat=Riana. <- Perfect logic folks. Seriously, Riana is a great admin and user (and person :]) and has been able to deal with many problems well. I trust Riana to continue her excellence :) -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Everything else about Riana made her look like a great bcrat, and the answer to my and VanTucky's questions give me even more confidence in her abilities. Best of luck, SorryGuy  Talk  03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support She is an excellent admin in my view, and I had positive interactions with her. PrestonH 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support She has a huge amount of support from other established users and from all the great experiences I have had with her (small but significant) I think she will make a great bureaucrat! Drizzt Jamo 04:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Been around enough to have an idea of 'bigger picture'-type issues. Good to get some female representation unlike the 2020 summit too....[[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Consistently good judgment and good answers to the questions.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I must concur with my esteemed colleagues, above - Riana is a Class act, her unorthodox block log aside. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Another good one. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Demonstrates the maturity and even temperament required from bureaucrats. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - How can I oppose, there are no red flags. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
45. I've had this watchlisted for a very, very long time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support I like the answers on q 5 and 6...I think it's important that the bureaucrats seek consensus among themselves when considering controversial or "close" RFA's. Community consensus in those cases is important enough to spend some time getting right. RxS (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Good track record of RfA nominations, very cordial and shows good judgment. Can only think o one reason to oppose and it's inconsequential to me. Wizardman 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Excellent record and is well-known for level-headedness and judgment. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Yes, if she is willing to take on the extra work load :) Spebi 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - No reason to oppose and much to support.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Ok. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support In my experience, always patient and kind. A good listener and clear thinker. Is likely to be active, but is unlikely to replace community consensus with her own opinions, and this is something we need in 'crats right now. Sees the role as one of helping rather than one of power and would, in my opinion, be a good balance to the current bureaucracy. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    I do think, however, that FeloniousMonk raises a fair point below, and I'd actually like to know what happened there. --JayHenry (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

53. Yes. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - one of the most clueful sysops out there, we need more 'crats, and Riana's perfect for the job. Everybody wins. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Absolutely. This user has my complete trust. GlassCobra 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
57. Support 100%. Mike H. Fierce! 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Passes the "'crat qualities" checklist with flying colours. Spellcast (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Support per Miranda. "Just get rid of the holier-than-thou attitude, I prefer bitches. ~ Riana" Classic. ➪HiDrNick! 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
61. To sum it all up, the best admin I've ever interacted with. What else can I say? —Dark ^(talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Will be a great 'crat, but 102 opposes on the KM RfA, WTF? -MBK₀₀₄ 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
63. Support, alright, nominating Kelly Martin for admin was a really, really bad idea, but we've all had our moments. Overall, Riana is an excellent editor and admin, and I have no doubt will be an excellent crat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support no reason not to. Viridae^Talk 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
65. Support Level headed and intelligent. --Stephen 08:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
66. Support, definitely. R. Baley (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Tarragon Support Snort, snort, snort, snort, snort! Dfrg_msc 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Sufficient taste in music. She'll do fine. Dorftrottel (warn) 09:19, February 28, 2008
69. Strong Support per Acalamari. —αἰτίας •discussion• 10:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
70. Support per the opinions above. Jehochman ^Talk 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
71. Support Kind in tone, but cool and, I hope, disinterested in judgment. An editor who respects consensus. Regarding one of the oppose-reasons below, it is certainly possible to see Kelly Martin's re-nomination for adminship as poor judgment, but it is also possible to see it as an instance of giving Kelly Martin and the community a chance for reconsideration without pretending to "know" in advance what the community wants. Sluzzelin talk 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
72. Support I would most certainly trust Riana with the bureaucrat tools. :) --Coredesat 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, as I believe the Kelly Martin nomination was a temporary mental lapse, and everything else is near perfect. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. Definitely. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
75. Huggles Support - Go Riana \o/ ....--Cometstyles 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. Fair, trustworthy and knowledgable. Neıl ☎ 11:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
77. Support Thought you were one already... heh. Jmlk17 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
78. Support one of the fairest admins here. I certainly can't imagine a finer candidate for bureaucratship. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Fair and trustworthy. Woody (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 12:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. I trust this user to not abuse the tools. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
82. Pile on support; a role model! — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
83. Riana has both brains and balls. A rare combination. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
84. Support interesting and experienced admin. Outstanding answer to question 2 (with an unfortunate error in the final sentence, which we may have to set straight), shows a very good spidey-sense of how to handle these kind of situations in both the abstract and the specific, with a care for both the immediate question to hand and the flow patterns in the community after it. Question 6 shows a similar gnauss for such things. I think that Riana would make a skilful, careful and respectful bureaucrat who would smooth the RfA/B processes rather than adding hairpin bends to them. Splash - tk 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
85. Any interaction I have had with Riana has been fine. I have considerable respect for her & feel that this task should be well within her capabilities --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
86. Strong Support Great track and record.Fully trustworthy and impartial.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
87. Strong Support Riana is among the trustworthiest users we have. How could she not make an outstanding bureaucrat? Húsönd 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. My recent experiences with Riana have been nothing but positive. There has only been incident between Riana and I that was negative, but that was resolved before christmas, and I've got over it. So, good luck :) Qst (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
89. Support Experienced. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
90. Support. No offense to the other noms, but this one is the only one I'm actually kind of excited to support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
91. Support. RfA's and RfB;s, at their core, are referendums about editor judgement and community trust. In my interactions with, and observations of, Riana, I have felt that his judgment is deliberate and thoughtful, and I am willing to extend my trust that he will make decisions using his judgment for what is best for the project, even if I would disagree with them at times, and I am also certain that these decisions will be based on sound reasoning and he would be able to defend his decisions adequately. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
92. Support. The opposes here are vacuous. — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
93. Support. The only thing the Kelly Martin episode showed was that even the best wikipedians have their off moments. But then, who's perfect? Black Kite 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
94. Support. Trusted Agathoclea (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
95. Strong support. Riana is a perfect choice for the role of 'crat - trustworthy, and with excellent judgment. :) krimpet✽ 16:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
96. --EJF (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
97. I think Kelly "trolled" the people who put that RfA up for her, taking advantage of their good faith, so I would not hold that against them much. Maybe a minor lapse of judgement, yes but not enough to worry about really. I'm ok with people acting in good faith even if it turns out not to work out, I've done it myself more than once and gotten burned by it. Support ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
98. Riana. Where to start? Intelligent, increadibly capable, coherent and possibly the best knowledge of policy by a user not yet a bureaucrat? Yeah, okay. Rudget. 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
99. Support, absolutely. AGK (contact) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
100. Support. She's a person of good judgment. None of the items mentioned by the oppose voters worries me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
101. Support: A very knowledgeable user. I have no major worries. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

     Already at 23. Rudget. 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

102. Support and a little jealous; I used to have ambitions to become a b-crat, but then I stopped editing for a while :) — Deckiller 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
103. Support Rianna is consistently one of the best admins, and her clearly levelheaded use of the admin tools has shown me she will be a worthy 'crat. Not that she needs my support at this point, but I am glad to give it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
104. Absolutely. per #'s 1-103. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
105. Hell yeah Support!-From what I've heard Riana is an amazing administrator, has excellent judgment, and is an overall good hearted person. I gladly support you! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
106. Support Nothing raised makes me think will not a good crat. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
107. strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose — Iz rouge! More seriously, I disagree with the "position" on ^demon's RfA, in which consensus was clearly lacking. I'd rather see a 'crat who follows what the majority wants over rewriting how consensus works and ignoring what the community wants. From my understanding Riana supported the close of ^demon's rfa, leading me to oppose this rfb. Sorry. Mønobi 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Lacks the amount of good judgment necessary for the position. Mike R (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2. This conversation shows that the user is unstable and can't solve conflicts well with other users. miranda 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   One incident can show all that? I could show you many situations in which Riana has shown the utmost level of civility and stability, and managed to solve the conflict at the same time. Can you show why you think that this incident manages to silence the rest? Spebi 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Considering your past history I find that rich coming from you. I don't need to elaborate, you know what you did. Mike H. Fierce! 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Funnily enough, I don't remember who was the most incivil there. Just a guess, but it's definitely not Riana. —Dark ^(talk) 07:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I was rude. That much is correct. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Miranda, bureaucrats are people, and people can overreact and flip out when other people provoke them. There's nothing strange about that. If you don't want bureaucrats that get angry once in their life, you should get my access removed right now. --Deskana (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I think that Riana handled that better than most people would. She didn't resort to name-calling or anything, she simply set out her opinion of the situation. нмŵוτнτ 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose Mike R mentions necessary good judgment for the position being absent; co-nominating Kelly Martin during the last RfA clinches it for me: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelly_Martin_2 FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose--Filll (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Would you care to explain why?...--Cometstyles 12:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Per FM - that nom raises serious questions about her judgment. Guettarda (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose And this hurts me Riana. I have no doubt about your communication skills, your admin skills, your work ethic, your encyclopedia skills et. al. But I've just re-read your nom for Kelly Martin. Now this is decidedly not the place to discuss that RfA, indeed it would be extremly unfair to Kelly Martin to do so. I personally feel that making that nomination, in ringing and endorsing tones, clearly failed to take account of the extensive reasons why KM was not likely to be wanted as an amdin by the community. In short, this is not about "faulty judgement" as such (though I feel that was a poor judgement), but that you're too nice and forgiving. Admirable traits, but not in judging consensus at RfA which needs to be dispassionate. Sorry. Very Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I am pretty sure that Riana will stick to pure consensus for promoting and ask for further opinion by bureaucrats if the case is too difficult. She will not, in my opinion, use her own personal opinion to judge it. —Dark ^(talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Please note that bureaucrats do not promote RfAs unless there is a community consensus, and that bureaucrats recuse themselves from RfAs that they've nominated or supported or opposed. Kingturtle (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose per FeloniousMonk...this episode is less than one year old and I hold crats to even higher standards than I do admins. However, Riana has always been an outstanding asset to this project and I would consider supporting at a later date.--MONGO 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Anyone who thinks Kelly Martin was a suitable candidate should go nowhere near the promote button. We already promote too many drama queen admins. Friday (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   There is a difference between Riana being one of three parties to put KM up for adminship, which involves community analysis, discussion and consensus, and Riana personally taking responsibility for doing the task of promoting. Some are saying that it was a lapse of judgement on Riana's part, but I dont see that - KM asked for three fools, and as an ordinary member of the community, Riana decided it was worth a go. If you read Riana's nomination, she is very forthright, providing an overview of the highs and lows. KM then sunk her own RFA with answers like "The only aspects of admin tools that I have any real interest in is the ability to edit through autoblocks". In the end, the community roundly rejected that RFA, but it could have turned out different if KM had really tried to express why she should be trusted with the tools again. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   We must have crats for some reason, so what is that reason? It's not vote-counting, otherwise we'd use a bot. Admins are already trusted to "interpret consensus" at AFD, but not at RFA. So, it must be the case that we expect crats to use better judgement than admins. "Judgement" is another way of saying "personal discretion". This means we give the crats a wider mandate to disregard any misguided portions of the community, and do the right thing. Thus, I want to see crats who will promote qualified candidates, and not promote unqualified ones. With KM, we already know how it turns out when she's an admin, and it wasn't pretty. Thus, supporting her as a candidate was a grave error in judgement. And, because that is exactly the area in which we expect the best possible judgement from crats, this sinks the candidacy, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   As far as I'm aware, the three people who co-nommed Kelly Martin at RFA were being trolled by her, and were probably unaware they were being trolled. See the link to her blog in one of the neutral arguments below. --Coredesat 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, yes, but I don't see why this matters. Riana supported one of the least qualified candidates we've seen in a long time. KM's motivations are irrelevant. Crats occasionally need to step in and save the community from bad decisions. Encouraging bad decisions is the exact opposite of this. Friday (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from Riana has been positive. However, the Kelly Martin adminship nomination really gives me pause. I respect Riana too much to oppose, but can't in good conscience support either. AniMate 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Riana nominated Kelly Martin as, in her point of view, she viewed Kelly as an asset to the project. It was her opinion of that matter in which she nominated her; I do not know why that should be put against her. if everyone nominated a person who they viewed as good; but the nomination failed, do we automatically disqualify them? She was not incivil in that RfA, nor did she do anything against policy. She was not disruptive, she didn't do anything wrong in my perspective. —Dark ^(talk) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Her viewing Kelly as an asset to the project is what is giving many people pause. Mike R (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Putting Kelly up for adminship was a monstrously bad idea, and common sense should have stopped her as everyone could see that it had no chance of passing and every chance to create unnecessary divisiveness and drama. AniMate 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning towards support pending answers to my questions. My interactions with Riana have generally been positive, but I am slightly concerned by this. Uncivil admins should not become uncivil bureaucrats. I hope this is merely an isolated incident that Riana has learnt from, but would nevertheless appreciate an explanation from her. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'd suggest this was an isolated incident. This was merely a light-hearted comment, and similar "incidents" are very hard to locate on the 'pedia. Hope this helps. Rudget. 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   I agree, someone that isn't lock-step with Jimbo certainly doesn't deserve to be a bureaucrat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Per AniMate. It's not that Riana co-nominated Kelly Martin, it's that Kelly Martin admitted on her blog that the RFA was pure trolling. That means that Riana either knew about that before she co-nominated her (which I highly doubt), or she fell for the trolling. The latter isn't nearly as bad, but it still shows a lack of judgement, in my opinion. --Conti|✉ 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)