Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2

Opabinia regalis 2

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/14/1); Scheduled to end 09:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) – I'm Opabinia regalis and I'm nominating myself for re-adminship. In short, I was inactive for so long that my mop got fossilized.

I'm a scientist in real life and I mostly work on articles related to biochemistry. I made my first edit in May 2006, had an uncontentious RfA in November 2006, and more or less left the project in spring 2007. I had a brief return in 2009 but other than that was not active until the end of January 2015. I was procedurally desysopped due to inactivity in 2011 and, per this 2012 policy change, need a new RfA after having been gone for so long. (For the record, I think these are both good ideas.)

To get the obvious questions out of the way:

1. I did not edit anonymously or with any other account while inactive; I just wasn't participating.
2. I mostly left because I was busy with offline life, and if memory serves I no longer had academic journal access by the time I left, which made it much more difficult to edit articles in my areas of interest. A secondary reason was frustration with the Essjay controversy and its aftermath.
3. Strangely enough, I mostly came back thanks to the all the press the Arbcom Gamergate decision stirred up. It was widely discussed in women-in-STEM circles, and friends who knew I used to be involved here kept sending me links and asking for opinions. Some of the links contained claims that seemed off or suggested that things had changed since I'd left, and I poked around to investigate; while I was doing that I found some articles in bad shape and decided to fix them, and you know where that goes.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Me, myself, and I all agree. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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: I actually like my old answer to this question - I'm mostly interested in article-space maintenance; less so in the 'user management' aspects of adminship. That means mostly the same things I used to: deletions, requested moves, history merges if I'm feeling extra patient. I'm glad there are people who enjoy vandal-fighting because it's never been an area of major interest for me. I think my previous admin logs bear this out - 1415 deletions, 17 protections, and all of 3 blocks.

I'll have to say this request seems timely considering this ongoing conversation at WT:RFA (permalink) - somebody has to break the streak, after all! But actually the timing was mostly dictated by finishing a major work project last week. Frequent AN/ANI posts about admin backlogs and commentary that 'we need more admins' did influence my decision that I would volunteer when I had caught up enough on how things work around here and when I got enough time for the process.

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

A: I'm primarily a "content contributor", to the extent that those distinctions exist. As mentioned above, I mostly work on articles about biochemistry and related topics.

Probably my most useful recent contributions came when a featured article review was started for the enzyme article. This was a close and productive collaboration with other members of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject that was able to restore and update a high-visibility article to retain its FA status. Its original FAC nominator, TimVickers, wrote some great articles but is now only very sporadically active; it was nice to be able to maintain quality contributions from a frequent old collaborator while working with newer ones. (Incidentally, he's also the only other person I ever nominated for adminship.) More recently I've been working on a similar collaboration on gene spearheaded by Evolution and evolvability, which is a work in progress but much improved.

I'm also a believer in the value of a good stub. We can worry about the quality of the core/vital/high-traffic/etc. articles, but a lot of the value of Wikipedia is in the long tail. I enjoy writing interesting little stubs about niche topics I come across, and sometimes poke through the new article search lists or Category:Science articles needing expert attention for something to polish and improve.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I'm really pretty low-conflict, on-wiki and off. These are more 'disagreements' than 'conflicts', but I can point to this discussion about the best way to describe the difference in usage of the term "force field" in physics and in chemistry, and this discussion (see also here on my talk page and here on article talk) as an attempt to help a newbie who got off on the wrong foot. (The thing I did wrong there was neglect to ping him or post on his talk page when I responded to the article talk post; newbies don't necessarily know to watch article talk pages for responses.) There's also the ongoing conversation at Talk:Molecular binding (my participation starts in this thread), mostly about terminology and exposition. I was also a participant, though not a primary one, in the contentious TfD for {{Template:Maintained}}, and its follow-up DRV.

Additional question from an unregistered (yet) user

4. A discussion (afd, rfc, whatever) attracts a relatively large number of users who have a significant history of voting in unison - would that influence the weight you assign to their votes as a closing admin? List all policies you think apply in such a situation, starting from the one you think is the most important.

A: WP:DEM is why the rest of this alphabet soup matters. WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS are the obvious ones, possibly WP:SPA and WP:LOCALCON or WP:OWN depending on the context and type of discussion. What to do with this entirely depends on what these users are doing - is it a group of established users who share a wikiproject and common interest in the topic of discussion? A horde of SPAs? Big groups of newly registered (or long-dormant) users making the same argument can be a tip-off for sockpuppetry or off-site organization, but that in itself doesn't make the arguments invalid. If the arguments are poor and show no policy engagement, then the group gets steeply discounted; if there's strong suspicion of sockpuppetry, an SPI might be called for before closing the discussion; and if it's just people who agree a lot making sound arguments about a common interest, then they get as much weight as anyone does.

The type of discussion also matters to how much of a concern this pattern might be. Most AfDs, with the exception of some BLP cases, are not that high-stakes. If this is an RfC for a change to the WP:OUTING policy then a lot more care is needed in making sure that everyone is participating fairly.

No mention of wp:agf? I've got to say I'm not impressed, but luckily for you IPs can't vote. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. You got an answer that focused more on procedural-fairness issues than anything else, but yes, WP:AGF should be in the bowl (and WP:BITE is likely relevant too). There is a subtle but important distinction here, though - it is entirely possible to make a poor argument in good faith, and closing a discussion is essentially about evaluating the collective strength of the arguments, not judging the motivations of the participants. Take the current AfD for Nim - no doubt that many of the commenters coming from the Nim community mean well in wanting the article kept, but in many cases the arguments presented and sources offered don't measure up to local standards.

Additional question from 69.251.249.123

5. You see a new user account named Winbots come up on the account creation log. Please give various actions you would take, if any.

A: That appears to already be taken by a user who got renamed (Cobi) as a result of a concern expressed about the username. Even with the 's', it fails the username policy as misleading (unless it actually were a bot - in which case, I think, it really should be singular, as the bot username recommendations are for the 'bot' string at the beginning or the end of the name). If I saw it now I'd wonder if it might be a promotional account for the window-washing robot, but if the account didn't start spamming, it's ambiguous enough not to warrant a block on that basis. {{uw-botun}} would be appropriate, and so would a non-templated discussion with the user, especially if they have already started productively editing. {{uw-botublock}} only for the uncooperative. Username issues are one of the most bite-prone areas of newbie interactions and in this case it's a good thing the owner of ClueBot wasn't mistreated!

Additional question from 110.200.189.93

6. During the 4th AFD of Violence against men - which you voted to delete - you made the following statement: 'I'm not entirely sure this community at this point in time is capable of maintaining an article like this'.[1] Would you mind elaborating on that statement? Why exactly is 'this community' 'not capable of maintaining an article like this'? What is 'an article like this' supposed to mean? Don't you consider yourself part of 'this community' that you seem to oddly distance yourself from in that comment? 110.200.189.93 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A: Interesting question. I don't agree with the 'linguistic' point, and that's not what I was intending to mean. (Whatever else one might think of political rhetoric, politicians talk about 'this city/state/country' a lot, and none of them is intending to distance themselves from their community. Maybe an WP:ENGVAR thing?) I thought at the time of that comment - and still think now, on looking at the article again - that it's a serious case of WP:SYNTH.

What I was getting at is the fact that some articles that are on the borderlines of meeting relevant inclusion criteria are cases of 'just because we could doesn't mean we should'. It is possible for an article to be a net drain on scarce volunteer resources because it's disproportionately difficult to maintain. I think a lot of marginally notable people, products, and businesses actively edited by self-promoters fall into that category, and would support more stringent inclusion criteria for those topics. This article looked set to fall into that category because the broader topic area was attracting POV-pushers and soapboxers and was a repeat source of BLP violations. I still think it's inappropriate synthesis as written, but the article does appear more stable than I would have predicted, though, so it's not the problem I suspected it might be.

Additional question from Northamerica1000

7. After your time away, any opinions about the overall present state of WP:AFD compared to back in the day?

A: The deletion-sorting lists are great. I remember the idea knocking around but don't think it had really taken off yet while I was around. It's much easier to find and follow discussions relevant to topics of personal interest - which means you're more likely to get people who know the topic to make a judgment. On the other hand, most discussions have many fewer participants overall, and the distribution is more bimodal - a few high-traffic contentious AfDs and a decent chunk that attract hardly any commentary. I picked a random one out of the list that I commented in - when was the last time you saw 13 deletes, one merge, and zero keeps?

The factionalism between 'inclusionists' and 'deletionists' and 'preservationists' and so forth really seems to have died down. There is also generally well-settled consensus on the status of the various special notability criteria, which are much more refined than they used to be and are much more a part of the common vocabulary. That makes communication between established editors much more efficient at the expense of making the discussions difficult to navigate for newbies attempting to defend their articles. The balance between efficiency and accessibility is not one that's been well worked out anywhere here as far as I can tell.

An admittedly silly change I'd like to see is redesigning the relisting and delsort-list templates, maybe corraling them into a single summary box. As it is there's a lot of visual clutter in short discussions, and it might be contributing to the fact that newbies never seem to know where to put or how to format their comments.

Additional question from Gerda Arendt

8. Would you dare to perform the requested close of Beethoven?

A: I assume you mean the infobox discussion on the talk page? I don't see it in WP:ANRFC. In any case, I would not close that discussion or any one about infoboxes because messy and inconsistent and missing metadata is a recurring theme in the list of 'things that drive me crazy at work' and I have not been able to stop myself from forming an opinion about the infobox wars despite a sincere desire to not care.

Additional question from Softlavender

9. Is an AfD nominator allowed to enter a !vote at that AfD?

A: This is almost always inappropriate, as highlighted in the contribution instructions - it's redundant and gives the impression to someone just skimming a log that two users have commented when in fact it's just one. But generally when it happens it's just someone who doesn't hang around AfD much and doesn't know the norm (which could easily have developed the other way - RfA nominators do enter !votes), and someone will come along soon enough to explain and strike the !vote. If the nominator changes their mind but there's still significant support for deletion, they could reasonably do this by adding a note below the nomination and entering a keep !vote. It's easier to read than striking the whole nomination statement, clearer about the chronology of the change of heart, and less distracting than trying to withdraw a contentious nomination.

Additional question from Softlavender

10. If you see a long conversation or posting that is either disruptive, overly off-topic, or belligerent on an XfD, RfC, or other community discussion, what would your action as an admin be in that situation?

A: Often this kind of thing gets taken care of by "hatting" the inappropriate material, though that's not necessarily something that needs to be done with the "admin hat" on. Depending on the context and the level of disruption, it may be better to start by asking the poster to strike or remove it, move it to a relevant talk page, or remove it entirely, but the collapsible boxes are nice for keeping the history intact and navigable. Whether anything needs to be done with admin tools varies - trying to be heavy-handed about disruptive and off-topic material usually generates more of it as everyone argues about how disruptive the attempt to remove disruption was. If the same person is repeatedly posting disruptive material after it's been removed and warnings delivered, or if the material is offensive or full of over-the-top personal attacks, a block is in order.

Additional question from Softlavender

11. How would an admin go about striking an edit, an edit summary, or the username on an edit, so that it is not visible to non-admins? When is it appropriate to do this? When is it not appropriate to do this?

A: WP:REVDEL was introduced after I left, but it's great to see - the old selective-undelete method was a huge pain and almost certainly left material publicly visible that should have been hidden, but didn't qualify for oversight, just because it was such a pain to do. I think the revdel criteria are quite clear on appropriate usages and on the general principle of preserving transparency by redacting the minimum amount of material necessary. Ordinary rudeness and insults, spam, vandalism, and disruption don't qualify; offensive slurs, blatant BLP violations, malicious code or links, etc. do. When it's the username or edit summary that contains the relevant material, these can be individually redacted (again unlike the old method), with the constraint that care should be taken to avoid breaking attribution by removing a username when its edits are still visible. I'm not sure how often it's used for copyvios; probably many cases where it can be done easily and without breaking attribution could just be deleted outright. It's also used for temporary redaction of oversightable material (privacy breaches and libel/defamation/etc.) where doing so won't itself attract more attention to the material.

Additional question from Softlavender

12. When is it appropriate to use rollback? When is it not appropriate to use rollback?

A: Rollback got unbundled from the admin toolbox awhile back, which is an excellent idea and seems to have really improved the speed at which vandalism gets removed. The important consideration with default rollback is, it shouldn't be used in any situation where a descriptive edit summary would be expected. Removing obvious vandalism, edits by banned editors*, and your own mistaken edits are the primary use cases, plus occasional mass-revert cleanups of bot errors and such. It's not appropriate and never has been to use it on good-faith but misguided edits. There are apparently a bunch of semi-automated tools and scripts that do allow descriptive summaries, but I don't spend enough time specifically on vandalism removal to have asked for rollback rights or used Huggle/etc. Rollback is faster, but for occasional removal of vandalism when you happen to find it, Twinkle is fine.

*Except when said editor is removing their own vandalism. I thought this was April Fool's.

Additional question from Andrew D

13. In browsing your contributions, there's a couple of cases I don't fully understand. One is the creation of the redirect pundle. What does that mean, please? The other is the article Poribacteria, which has the edit summary "recreating". What is the background to this, please? Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A: Pundle: I probably had seen this pagemove from Pundling to Kneading (cats) the week before and created a companion redirect. Both got retargeted to cat behavior later. It means cat behavior#kneading, though Google turns up very little usage (and an alternate meaning of "short fat woman" which I imagine is the reason you thought it was strange). The original revision of kneading (cats) says it came from a BBC program and the only person I've ever heard use it was an elderly British woman. I did argue in this AfD that redirects without substantiation for the existence of the terminology should not be made, so arguably these should go.

Poribacteria: the article was created by a new user as a blatant copyvio. I speedy-tagged it and then re-created it with non-infringing content after it was deleted. Not the most descriptive summary, admittedly.

Additional question from 115.156.213.132

14. What are your thoughts on this edit made by a long-time admin to his talk page recently? How does it relate to WP:ADMIN in your opinion? How does it relate to WP:TALK or WP:ES/WP:CIVIL? How likely would you be to make an edit such as this yourself?

A: Placeholder, out of time and stopping here for now.

I punted on this question earlier because it looked like there was a lot of backstory and I didn't have time to read it. Now that I've looked I'm punting again. It's hardly unusual to find an administrator's actions frustrating and perfectly reasonable to want a second opinion, but an unrelated user's RfA is the wrong venue.

Additional question from Trout71

15. Say you were to come across an AFD for an article about local history in Ireland. The article is quite short, poorly-written and has only one reliable source. There are 3 votes supporting a delete making basic comments about notability. These votes are from users who are not native to Ireland. Would you vote, effect the deletion of the article or try to get an opinion from Irish users as to the notability of the subject? Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A: Well, there's no way to validate anyone's claims about where they're from or live or have been, and it's not likely that there will be specific subject-matter experts on hand for every AfD - that's one reason there are guidelines for notability, to facilitate judgments on a variety of topics. But in this specific case, the history of an English-speaking first-world country isn't the kind of topic where we're likely to be lacking in knowledgeable users. I'd put it in the Ireland and History deletion-sorting lists; posting to relevant active wikiprojects is also reasonable; I personally have no problem with the idea of neutral requests to specific users known to be active in the area, but some people think that's too canvassy. So yes, get the attention of "editors interested in Ireland", but not necessarily of "Irish users". I probably wouldn't vote, since I don't know much about the subject, and would be inclined to relist if an AfD had only thin or poorly researched rationales even if the numbers are enough to justify a delete close (and 3/3 deletes is sometimes enough these days).

General comments

• Links for Opabinia regalis: Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Opabinia regalis can be found here.
• Previous RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis.

• Comment given the modern 20-question RfA and my propensity for prolixity, I thought I'd leave discussion of 'what's changed' to the questions, but maybe a general comment would be useful. Yes, Wikipedia has changed, but it's sort of like visiting the new owners of a house you used to live in: they feel like everything's different compared to the house they originally bought, because they're the ones who considered, decided on, carried out, sweated over, and put up with hassle of all the renovations they did. But, it's still the same house. You still know where the bathroom is, that one window in the living room still closes funny, the crazy neighbor still comes by to drop off ads for his latest get-rich-quick scheme, and the new fence still doesn't keep the neighbor's dog from doing his business in the garden every so often.
• Concrete observations: expectations for referencing, sourcing, and provenance are way up across the board, especially for BLPs. BLP-prod is a clever solution to balancing not biting newbies with communicating referencing expectations and not hosting unsourced BLP content indefinitely. There are more speedy criteria than there used to be, but each one is interpreted more narrowly. AfC's scope and scale have broadened hugely and it's now a major intake point for new editors' content, providing a very different experience from directly creating an article in mainspace (and possibly seeing it tag-bombed or deleted). When I look at the new pages feed, I see fewer "Chad is a cool guy" type no-hoper A7s, more spam and promotionalism, and more articles that are on viable topics but need huge amounts of cleanup. ClueBot is great and vandalism seems to disappear much faster - and so do typos and formatting errors and other things taken care of by very effective (semi)automated tools - at the possible expense of reducing opportunities for newbies to make a low-stakes but clearly positive first edit. IMO the major problem that has persistently evaded a workable community solution is COI and advocacy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support; Seems like they will be an excellent admin again. -- haminoon (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support; Doesn't seem to have done anything too dodgy last time they were admin. 3 months seems sufficient for getting back into the swing of things.Bosstopher (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - yes the long break / lack of recent activity is concerning, however this is clearly an editor who was trusted once and has done nothing to lose that trust. Their head seems screwed on and therefore I trust that they won't doing anything rash while they get fully up to speed. WP:NETPOSITIVE. GiantSnowman 11:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Support - Agree w/ Snowman. Trusted once; no reason not to trust again. No history of disruption as an editor or an admin. On-the-job-training will fill in any gaps in updating awareness. We need admins that are more concerned with content rather than conflict. Buster Seven Talk 11:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Support. I utterly reject the argument that Opabinia has inadequate experience. Let it sink in that she has already made 1415 deletions; that's 1415 more than a typical admin candidate, who has made zero deletions. Yes, they were a long time ago – but surely there are vets who can fill in Opabinia on anything that's changed? She could solicit advice at WP:AN or WT:CSD, and I believe she has the humility and good sense to take such advice. Opabinia's talk page archives show no evidence of past poor judgement, abundant evidence of excellent people skills, and sincere thanks from many editors I have a great deal of respect for. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
6. Support as there is no evidence they will misuse the tools.--MONGO 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
7. Support and welcome back - Wikipedia needs more admins. --B (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
8. I like the clean block log, the deleted edits look fine as do the contribs. Commendable that you spent a few months refinding your feet before this RFA. As a returning admin you might want to check out WP:BLPPROD but otherwise less has changed than one might hope. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
9. Support OK we might not accept a candidate of 3 months' standing, nor one who has been inactive for many years: but this is neither. There is enough recent activity to see extensive and knowledgeable participation at AfD, many of them borderline cases, as well as at AN/I, FAC and elsewhere. Here is evidence of intelligent awareness of "biting" issues. The candidate will undoubtedly be an asset in administrative areas: Noyster (talk), 14:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Neither? I think it's a little bit of both. 69.251.249.123 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

10. Support. Well-qualified candidate who I am glad to see back on the pages of Wikipedia in general and on this page in particular. The candidate's well-thought and accurate analysis of what has changed in the past few years (see above in the "Comments" section) mitigates the concerns about the time away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
11. Support, we need more admins badly, and it's not like she deleted the main page or anything while she was admin, and of course my support is conditional on the fact that she reviews policy but I have no concerns that she won't. Kharkiv07^Talk 14:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
12. Support Trusted with the tools once before and I see no reason not to trust with the tools again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
13. Support This candidate has demonstrated trust and responsibility as administrator before. Recent edits show renewed dedication to improving Wikipedia, and while a lot of things have changed since, I am confident such changes can be learned without incident. Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
14. Support candidate seems to have plenty of WP:CLUE and we really could use more workers for the adminisrative tasks. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
15. Support Despite the long absence, a look through recent contributions and her clueful remarks here convince me that she will be a great admin. If it doesn't pass this time round, please keep going and apply again soon! --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
16. Strong support Adminship is not rocket science. Opabinia regalis has shown that she is clueful and responsible. Her "Concrete observations" above should reassure people worried about the 8-year hiatus. Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
17. Support As far as I'm concerned, welcome back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
18. Support Very well qualified candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Candidate has less than 500 article edits in the last five years. I'm not challenging your support vote, but your rationale is puzzling. Townlake (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    The truly puzzling rationale is to oppose. Is the oppose rational that after eight years on not editing Wikipedia, a former administrator must have had a memory wipe and no longer knows how to edit, has no idea how to determine notability, or understand civility? To argue the candidate is not qualified deeply puzzles me. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

19. Support In some ways, RfA is a catch-22. Ideally, we want candidates to demonstrate the competence and maturity to use the tools appropriately, but this is very difficult to show given that they don't have the tools in the first place. This results in very high standards for areas closely related to admin work, such as NACs and AfD !votes. Opabinia regalis cuts the Gordian knot in this instance: she has already demonstrated competence as a former admin, and from examining her recent contributions and AfD !votes from the prior three months, Opabinia is still clued-in to Wikipedia's standards. As for the concerns over inactivity, I believe it is actually incredibly valuable to bring back an admin with a different perspective than we have now. Wikipedia of 2007 had less cynicism and bureaucratic creep than today, and perhaps Opabinia will bring a fresh look at the detrimental effects of our evolving culture. Given these reasons, I support. Altamel (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
20. Support We need more content creators, and content creators need the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Why do "content creators" need the tools? There's nothing about creating content for the encyclopedia that requires admin tools. In point of fact, the general pattern is that once an editor receives the bit, their content creation goes way, way down, as they deal with other things (as admins should) - so we should be giving the tools to editors who understand and empathize with the needs of content creators, but are not necessarily themselves the cream of the content creators. BMK (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, there is, and working on content creation without them is a constant frustration. This ultimately causes content creation to cease entirely. There is no evidence that content creation goes down due to admin work. I agree that we should should be giving the tools to editors who understand and empathize with the needs of content creators, but the cream of the content creators are by definition the ones who will put them to best effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    I suggest you take an admin at random, check their percentage of edits to mainspace before they became an admin, and compare it to their percentage from the time they became an admin to the present. I believe you find that in almost all cases it goes down. (I'd be interested in hearing from any admin whose percentage remained stable or went up.)

    As for content creator needing the tools, your statements of opinion, presented as statements of fact, are far from convincing, and do not accord with my own experience. Admins need tools to do admin stuff -- blocking, deleting, and so on -- none of which has much to do with researching, writing, or editing content. Sure, there bave been times when I would have liked to be able to block some idiot unfortunate editor who was messing with an article I had contributed significantly to, but having the tools wouldn't actually do my any good, because as an involved admin, I wouldn't be allowed to use them. BMK (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    "Most well-known facts are." Its accords with my own experience. I've needed the tools three times in the last few days. The most common is a simple move of a page from the draft space to the main space. I cannot do it any more without leaving a redirect behind. An admin request is required. Humiliating but manageable at the moment, but when the Olympics rolls around, we'll clog the CSD system with large numbers of requests. Portals present an even bigger problem. And I had to raise yet another request for assistance last week just to get an icon added to a portal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

    Sorry, that doesn't show you need the tools, it just shows that it would be slightly more convenient for you to have the tools. Not a big deal in my book. BMK (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    By that measure, no one needs them, least of all people who are not content creators. Which is another way of saying WP:NOBIGDEAL Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    That doesn't follow at all. Someone needs to block the vandals, delete the non-notable articles, close the contentious debates and discussions, etc. etc etc.. Admins need the tools to do those things, and it doesn't make life slightly more convenient for them, it makes their job possible at all. Content creation just doesn't enter into it. BMK (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    Content creation is what it's all about. We are all here to build an encyclopaedia. Nobody's job is just to do admin work. Content creators do admin tasks too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    I very much agree that content creation is the core of what we do, and that it's the most important aspect of the project, but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about whether content creators (i.e. those whose time is primarily spent adding to the encyclopedia) need admin tools, and you have yet to show that they do - which doesn't surprise me because the vast majority of content creators are not admins, and they seem to get along just fine without the tools - just as you do. You're slightly incovenienced at times, but that's it. BMK (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    Hawkeye7, your original assertion was "content creators need the tools". When challenged you've failed to justify that statement. Would you consider striking it? DexDor ^(talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    No, I stand by it and my support for the candidate. I had to make another admin request just a minute ago after I copped another insult template [2]. (The page has already been moved.) It doesn't matter whether I wield the tools or someone else does. Somebody needs to. Would you consider striking your remark that I've failed to justify it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

21. Support, recent activity shows the editor still understands policies and would be a positive (re)addition to the admin team. Nakon 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
22. Support Always find it interesting when people who have never been admins oppose something like this because being an admin is such serious business. :-) It's not exactly rocket science people. I see no reason this person is going to misuse the tools if so granted. I mean sure they're going to make mistakes, but so does everyone else who is a new(ish admin. Or even not; tbh as far as I can tell it's an integral part of being a human. I also like that they've done content work because even if you don't necessarily need the tools to do that, it is a huge positive when dealing with content issues. And people like Hurricanehink and Gatoclass were admins who used the tools ably even though they were content focused. Basically I see way too many people on Wikipedia who think being an admin is a bigger deal that it is and as far as I'm concerned this person has what it takes, regardless of whether she's been active recently or not. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
23. Support I see no reason not to trust someone we trusted before, with the caveat that they should start slow and familiarize themselves with what has been going on the past few years, especially in the area of deletions, blocks and ARBCOM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
24. Support - Changed from "oppose", based on the "Comments" above, which I found to be accurate and insightful. My thanks to Newyorkbrad for his pointer to them in his !vote. BMK (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
25. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
26. Support - I hardly expect this user to misuse the tools as a result of being away for some years, and they've shown above that they are sensible enough to find out what's changed since they left. Opposes unconvincing. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
27. Hesitating weak support, subject to change. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
28. Support: Wikipedia is different, but not radically different eight years ago. The candidate already showed that she can judge consensus well, no need to critique that. The core policies are almost fundamentally the same (with only moderate changes and additions) compared to eight years ago. The candidate also has great content contributions. Three months should be enough to get acquainted with the "new" Wikipedia. Esquivalience ^t 00:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
29. Support. Seems fine. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
30. Support, I am perfectly comfortable having someone of Or's caliber back as an admin, in spite of the long absence. Character is character; you don't just lose it over an absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
31. Support, echoing reasoning of Noyster and Newyorkbrad. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
32. Support. I remember Opabinia regalis as a voice of reason. Cardamon (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
33. Support I don't see any problems here. This user was previously an admin, so unlike most cases we can actually see the user's track record. I haven't heard or seen any problems with the former stint as an admin and the inactivity doesn't bother me: sometimes people get busy IRL, and I completely understand that. Good luck! Tavix  Talk  02:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
34. Support: This person has a demonstrated history of good judgement, and while there will be adjustments necessary due to the time uninvolved, the answers to the questions above show insight, intelligence and tact. Welcome back.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
35. Support. I don't normally like the reasoning that someone who is trustworthy but doesn't really use the tools much should be appointed, but Opabinia seems more than trustworthy. She's deliberate, thoughtful, and analytical without being abstruse. If we're lucky, maybe she'll use the tools more than she has in the past. My sense is, though, that whatever she does will be constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
36. Support Maybe you'll only make one good admin action before disappearing again, but I'm convinced you won't make a bad one. Hope it works out and that you stick around though. Chuy1530 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
37. Support - answers to the questions are fine, the opposes are a bit thin and broadly rest on the assumption of unassimilable change. And the backlogs suggest we could do with a few more people to do tedious janitorial duties. So, why not? -- Euryalus (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
38. Support per Newyorkbrad. Graham87 06:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
39. Support. Regarding the number of edits - the sample of the candidate's edits I looked at were the sort of edits that take time - several edits/hour as compared with several edits/minute that those doing some wikignoming tasks can rack up. On that basis the "low" editcount of 7000 isn't a problem. Regarding being "up to speed on current..." - this isn't driving a car or brain surgery; if an editor isn't sure about something they can check the (current) policies etc before (optionally) making the edit. DexDor ^(talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
40. Support. Welcome back. :) -- œ^™ 06:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
41. Support per Guerillero. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
42. Support as long as he stays active. I have no problems with him regaining admin access. Jianhui67 ^T★C 07:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
43. Support Was trusted before, no reasons given not to trust again. Relentlessly (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
44. I'm quite comfortable supporting an obviously competent candidate and content contributor who clearly has a life outside of wikipedia that might take her away for months or even years at a time. Much more comfortable than someone who edits ANI from their mother's basement 18 hours a day. Many of the opposers seem to be superimposing their own template of the political-ideal RfA candidate (the doing of time and edits for the sake of it) onto this editor, which is totally inappropriate for this left-field but clearly qualified candidature. Any reasonable scan of the recent 100 or so edits—as I have done—would reveal that this candidate is more qualified than most. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
45. Support The time away is an issue but insufficient for me to oppose or sit on the fence. Based on the candidate's history here, I'm guessing we won't see any drahma, just solid work in areas that could use attention.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
46. Support I started writing this in the "neutral" section, but then managed to convince myself to support...: I'm torn about this one. On the one hand, if Opabinia were an editor who had started editing, say, last year, I'm sure there would be a solid majority here for "too early", given the relatively low number of edits. Indeed, when this RFA started, my gut reaction was to oppose because of that. On the other hand, however, there are the very insightful and well-thought out answers to the questions, with which I find myself in complete agreement. (For example, the remark about the relist/delsort templates, which is an excellent solution for something that is indeed a problem, even though I never realized that myself until Opabinia pointed it out). I am not troubled by concerns that Opabinia might disappear again. So what? If that happens, then the tools will be taken away (again) because of inactivity, no harm done, so that really is a very minor risk. As has been pointed out by several people, we desperately need more admins. Most AfDs (except for obvious "keep" ones that get NAC closures) get closed late. There's a continuous PROD/CSD backlog. Not to mention the even worse backlogs in other areas. Opabinia clearly knows what they are talking about and a re obviously very level headed. Even if they only close a few AfDs each month, that will be a net positive. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
47. Support Chance of candidate's time away causing something terrible is 1%. Chance of candidate being a significant force for good is 99%. Easy decision. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
48. Support Although ordinarily I'd say that three months of activity after an eight-year break isn't enough for readminship, the candidate's desysop was procedural only and I like what I've read above. Welcome back. Miniapolis 14:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
49. Support. See no reason why not. Welcome back! Malinaccier P. (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
50. No reason to make someone with significant clue jump through a lot of hoops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
51. Support This is a rare case of quality over quantity. I was going to outright oppose because so few edits after such a long hiatus is really not a great indication that this editor has the necessary knowledge and understanding of the current status quo. Then I read SandyGeorgia's comment about the article Enzyme and its FAR. Anyone who can return and play a critical role in preserving a FA about to be imminently demoted shows everything I expect out of someone with strong article space contributions. Clean block log and considerations that this person did not lay down the tools under a cloud also contributed to my decision but not in a major way. My only concern is that this is not used as a precedent in the future because I believe very few RFA candidates will come along with all the same qualities and history. This is indeed a rare candidate and situation. As others have said, the benefit of the doubt here. Mkdw^talk 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
52. Support precious biochemistry, irony and a good answer to my question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
53. Support This is still the same productive person who no one had reason to oppose in 2006. Wikipedia has really not changed that much since 2009, and the few changes that have taken place are not that hard to catch up on. This user will still have significantly less trouble adjusting to adminship than a brand new admin, and we have new admin school for that anyways. Opposing concerns are not convincing at all. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
54. Support Not concerned. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
55. Support A great deal of discussion in RfA applications is, or should be, concerned with the applicants attitude and intentions towards the project. We already know that this editor's approach and, indeed, experience is wholly acceptable; the fact that s/he has only a modest number of recent edits is not, in my opinion, relevant. We need more competent admins, and here we can acquire one. And should. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
56. Support. I like the answers to the questions, and as someone who was around eight years ago, I think that any "Wikipedia is far different from what it was then" comments are seriously overstated. Deor (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
57. Support—Good answers to the questions, looks like an editor with a lot of clue. No concerns. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
58. Support. Daniel (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
59. Support. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
60. Support: Looking good. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
61. Support - Looking back on the user's tenure as an admin, I see nothing concerning. While the length of the user's absence could be problematic, I believe that the user has more than adequately demonstrated that she is not only willing to learn about the changes to policies, procedures, and tools that occurred since she left, but also has taken the next step and actually learned what has changed. This is clear in the answers to the various questions above. Does the user know every change that has occurred? Of course not; however, such knowledge is not necessary (and likely is not held by any current admin). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
62. Support I have been around since 2006, and WRT admin tools and common sense, I don't things are different enough for this to be opposed. Chances are will be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
63. Support Net positive. She seems to have a good understanding of policy despite the eight-year absence. I don't think a period of absence is enough to warrant an oppose in itself. It should only be an oppose reason if there's good reason to think that the absence has affected her ability to edit, and I don't think there's really any evidence to support that perspective. The content creation looks nice, and she seems to really be here for good this time. BenLinus1214^talk 02:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
64. Support: Seems able to get up to sped on current situation very quickly, wikibreak doesn't bother me. Has common sense and understanding of STEM and womens' issues is a plus in my book. Montanabw^(talk) 7:28 pm, Today (UTC−7)
65. Support per everything mentioned by Montana, who "took the words out of my mouth". —04:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
66. Support per MONGO and Newyorkbrad and others above. The break, while long, and potentially of concern, does not in fact worry me with regard to this user. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. A lot has happened in 8 years; Wikipedia is very very different. After being inactive for that long (and having only been an admin for four months before retiring), and having only been back for 3 months and less than 1,100 edits, my view is this is far too soon. I've seen a lot of problems with admins who have been inactive, or virtually inactive, for many years. (I've even seen a lot of problems with active admins who are only here sporadically.) Wikipedia needs good people as admins, but more than that it needs good people who are up to speed on current tools, policies, guidelines, and best practices. Also, 7,000 edits total (and in this case only 1,100 within the current wiki era) is an extremely low edit count for any RFA these days. Not to mention, your rationale for returning and/or wanting the admin bit seems thin. In any case, my view would be wait 9 months from now, and if you are still active and still interested, re-apply. Best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   7k edits is low? maybe if they're semiautomated vandal fighting or if there's been obvious edit history padding such as fixing 5 typos in 1 article in 5 consecutive edits. Otherwise I'd say 7k's pretty solid but to each his own I guess. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Considering that 85% of those 7K edits were made eight years ago, and current edits only add up to 1,100, yes, this is a very low edit count to base a successful RfA on by current standards, considering the extreme complexity, size, and scope of the project, the amount of changes that have occurred in the past eight years, and the fact that Wikipedia is 14 years old. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   You said 'for any rfa' and that's what I objected to (and still do). Obviously this one is what it is and I'd oppose too. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   I said "for any RFA these days". If you can show me a successful RfA in the past year that had less than 10,000 edits at the time, please feel free. (Not sure why you are editing logged out; you have only edited as this IP for two days, so you if you are familiar with Wikipedia it must be under another account.) Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   My IP's dynamic. I last used an account 5 years ago, forgot the password and realised that I never needed an account anyway. Accounts are useless unless you're planning to run for adminship which I never wanted. I've no incentive to look through old rfas, but I don't recall ever seeing someone oppose because the candidate had less than 10k edits. You think 10k+ edits is necessary, cool. I have a different opinion and that's that. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Complaints about her number of edits from opposers are ringing hollow, considering a) she already passed RFA once, and b) she was critical in restoring a deteriorated FA to status upon her return. Some editors can do in 1,000 edits what others will never do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   Sandy, I think you are confusing excellent content writing with the actual experience, time, and travels around the current complex state of Wikipedia that an admin needs at this juncture in order to avoid the kinds of rookie and damaging mistakes I see returning long-absent admins make. You're entitled to your opinion about her qualifications as a featured-content author, but please don't presume to judge other people's qualms about someone who abandoned the project for eight years after only one year of editing and only four months of adminship, and who has only been back for three months, with no demonstrable commitment to the project and a waning edit count at that. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   You presume much ... I am confusing no such thing. I've been around quite long enough to know what kind of editor Or is and what kinds of mistakes she is not likely to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   Sandy, I'm not commenting on your experience here; I know you are an active, knowledgeable, experienced, longterm editor. I am stating that one cannot conflate one current instance of featured-content writing with adequate knowledge of 2015 Wikipedia administrative and other protocols. I'd appreciate it if we agree to disagree here; obviously we don't see eye to eye on this and I'm willing to let it drop. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   My support is not based on content writing; I have always felt that sanity is the first prerequisite for adminship, it is in short supply, Or has it, and Or doesn't appear to have lost hers. I don't need to see another 5,000 edits from her to know that she is unlikely to do anything stupid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose- normally I'd say regaining the bit after a period of inactivity should be pretty much just a formality, but 8 years is a very long time. Long enough to make your previous admin experience somewhat obsolete. A couple more months getting acquainted with how WP has changed should be plenty though. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Great point. The "delete" button now says "pancake" and the "block" button now says "twitter". Oh, wait, they don't. Yes, there are some new toys. There are some new processes. There are some new speedy deletion criteria. But the basics are still there ... and she has had THREE MONTHS to get used to the changes. Heck, we used to routinely grant adminship to people who only had three months in their entire editing history. The purpose of this exercise is to see whether or not Opabinia regalis can be trusted to use the tools correctly and it's obvious that she can. --B (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   There's no need for the sarcastic bitching. Do you imagine that it will change my mind? Reyk _YO! 14:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   The label on the button's still the same but rules of when you're allowed to press it are completely different and accepted practice changed even more (and let's not kid ourselves here, policy text never managed to catch up with what's actually being done so just reading policy pages isn't enough). 3 months just isn't enough to learn all you need to learn. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose The candidate has made a grand total of ~1200 edits in the last eight years.[3] There was a burst of activity in February 2015 (450 edits) and March 2015 (413 edits), but the candidate's enthusiasm seems to be diminishing already; it's 25 April 2015 and the edit counter for the current month shows only 169 edits, indicating that by the end of the month, the candidate will have made considerably fewer edits than in the previous two. There is no evidence that the candidate is planning to come back for good, and there are too few recent contributions to meaningfully evaluate the candidate's current performance. Wikipedia's policies have changed significantly enough over the last eight years to render the candidate's prior experience largely irrelevant. For the purpose of this evaluation, the candidate's been active for only three months and has made just a bit more than a thousand edits, which simply isn't enough for me to as much as consider his/her candidacy, let alone support it. Please reapply in nine months. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   The work project mentioned in Q1, and associated travel, is the discrepancy there. 350-400ish edits a month average is a sustainable rate given my editing patterns (I tend to edit articles in big chunks). Opabinia regalis (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Good point of clarification, Opabinia. I, for instance, edit articles in little chunks so as not to get "timed out". The number of edits an editor has is not always a good barometer of work accomplished. . Buster Seven Talk 16:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   I don't doubt that you'll be able to maintain the rate at which you're currently editing for as long as you want. However, given your history of leaving the project shortly after you were made an administrator back in 2006, I highly doubt that you'll remain motivated to do so should this RfA be successful. I consider one year of sustained activity prior to an RfA to be necessary for a candidate to demonstrate his/her commitment to the project; in your case, there have been only three months of such activity, and that's simply not enough to convince me that you're genuinely interested in contributing to the furtherance of Wikipedia's goals long-term. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Lack of recent activity is my only concern. I was not comfortable with editing again once I returned from a two year break so eight years look too much to me. All three of you should try again after few months ;) Sorry for now. — Yash! ^[talk] 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose-Plenty has changed in so long; you should take some time off to get used to the new Wikipedia. Re-nominate yourself after a few months and you probably find me in the Neutral/Support section ;).--ABCDEFAD^{talk to me} 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, a lot has changed. For example, Category:Administrative backlog has fewer and fewer people helping out. Wikipedia needs more admins. Turning away someone who has already proven that she can do the job doesn't seem like a great idea. It seems like an unbelievably bad idea. --B (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Proven, right. A decade ago. For all we know it's not even the same person. 108.255.216.79 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   If wiki wants more admins and active users, it should stop letting bullies run the place. HalfGig talk 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose - No doubt about it it seems like you were a great admin and IMHO would make a great admin again but unfortunately things have changed here - Had you been away for 2-3 years I wouldn't have had a problem but 8 years is an extremely long time, As others have noted it seems you've been here on & off this year so I don't see the point in us giving you the bit only for you to vanish for another 8 years..., Personally I'd rather you get used to everything here first and just edit more for a year or so, Nonetheless good luck with the RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
7. Only three months of relevant activity. The culture of this place has changed significantly in the past eight years; candidate doesn't just seem oblivious to that, she actively rejects that reality. That's particularly odd given that recent WP dramas are what sparked this RFA in the first place. Something's clearly off here. Townlake (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Do you know something we should know? . Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Agree - if there is some reason we should oppose the candidate based on recent events, please share a diff. I'm not aware of any such reason. --B (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Not sure why you guys are acting like I'm being secretive about this. Self-nom says plain as day she is currently attracted to adminship because of Gamergate. Townlake (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   That's not true. She says that Gamergate partly explains why she returned to Wikipedia, not why she's requesting the admin bit. Pichpich (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose - for the returning-admin equivalent of "too soon". Stick around a while longer, edit with some consistency, and my !vote on the next RfA will most probably be "support". (And, as an aside addressed to other commenters, we can do without the "OMG, we need more admins" panic.) BMK (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC) (changed to "support")

8. Oppose -gone too long, back too soon. HalfGig talk 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

   Don't you mean "gone too long, request too soon"? How would returning to editing later have made the editor more qualified? BMK (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose Much too few recent edits --_nonsense ferret 02:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose - The brief enough period of recent activity and the strikingly large hiatus in combination find me more in resonance with the views raised in the "Oppose" section. Although there is some dedication shown, more time should be taken to see whether the candidate's ambitions should withstand the test of time, in contrast to last time they were an admin.

    Furthermore, though the candidate's edits and !votes on various AfDs seem to be done from a neutral point of view, one must admit that their motives seem quite dubious; one could argue that simply being "interested in article-space maintenance; less so in the 'user management' aspects of adminship," such as "deletions, requested moves, history merges" alone, is not a good enough reason to request adminship, since that kind of work is already being dealt with sufficiently. The candidate does have a rich history of contributing to many AfD discussions, largely prior to their hiatus, something which should be continued if there is indeed an interest in article maintenance. It should be very carefully noted that "Adminship is neither compulsory nor necessary to aid Wikipedia," something found among other relevant points at WP:ANOT.

    Finally, the candidate's statements of regaining interest after "all the press the Arbcom Gamergate decision stirred up" as well as that "Some of the links contained claims that seemed off or suggested that things had changed since I'd left" seem dubious in addition to previous points. Although good faith is to be assumed here, one cannot help but question the motives for the current RfA, as well as the candidate's current readiness, comments on which are of course plenty on this request page. Plot Citizen (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    I do not agree with your contention that deletions are being dealt with sufficiently. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is nearly always backlogged. Wikipedia:Non-free content review goes back to October. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files goes back to January. And even if Opabinia regalis does not intend to help out in the image-related backlogs (which, to my knowledge, she does not), it's a zero-sum game. Closing AFDs, PRODs, or helping out at CAT:CSD frees up someone else to work on other backlogs. There are a daunting number of backlogged admin processes right now. We desperately need more admins. I realize that you have other reasons for your opposition and I'm not going to change your mind on those ... but I do take issue with your contention that her help as an administrator would not be needed. --B (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    B I think you mean it's not a zero-sum game. A benefit in one area really is an overall net benefit; it is not somehow offset by a corresponding and equal loss in another area. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

11. Oppose - The supporters fail to convince me to !vote to give the candidate back the extra buttons. The candidate has been away from Wikipedia longer than I have been editing here (I am at 7 1/2 years) and I would like to see them wait until next year before making a decision in favor. Of additional mild concern is the decision to self nominate, which under the circumstances I have to question. Frankly, adminship has gone from "no big deal" to one of the biggest issues Wikipedians face, and I prefer to err on the side of caution. I thank the candidate for legacy work, and the very recent service, and should this Rfa fail, suggest returning in 8-12 months, after establishing a substantial contemporary track record. Jusdafax 05:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
12. Because I am not familiar with Opabinia regalis by any direct observation or collaboration, my !vote is based solely on an assessment of the candidate's contributions; with abundant deference to my "gut interpretation" of their remit. Without the mitigating benefit of first hand interactions, I am given to oppose this request – almost perfunctorily.
    First of all, I feel the self nomination reflects negatively on judgement. At best it is a mistake of over confidence, at worst: the reflection of a thing more sinister. I believe it's the former; but have no quarter to give on assumptions alone. Within the self nomination, I do not see a strong "elucidation of need" for the admin buttons either. A discussion about time-spans without RfAs is hardly a mandate for users to request adminship prematurely. And, having formerly served as an administrator, although positive in itself, does not create an "entitlement" for the restoration of one's status.
    I scanned user talk contributions looking for an example that sought a qualified opinion of the best approach for regaining Wikipedia adminship. Sadly, I did not see an such query. Had such an inquiry been made, I suspect advice like: get a well known, well respected editor, (or two), to assist an RfA endeavor with a nomination, and to wait a few more months before transcluding an RfA, so as blokes like me won't misconstrue zeal for over eagerness, nor one's selfless desire to serve, with a choreographed march to power.
    Ironically, the very "Wikipedia things" which concern you most: COIs and the biased advocacy they engender, are the very concerns topping my list as well – and the very things that make it difficult for me to support someone on a "fast-track to adminship", (this one is a bit fast IMO). I hope you will take this in stride as you continue contributing such high quality edits to Wikipedia namespace; realizing that you are only around 4 to 6 months shy of achieving criteria that overcomes concern, replacing it with confidence. That is also when you will most likely see me supporting an RfA from you. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose The fact that the editor has been an admin in 2006 shouldn't weigh that much since the whole community was quite a different place – it doesn't mean the person would have passed a RfA today with the same credentials. Recent activity, which is the one that should be examined, is not (yet?) on right level. --Pudeo' 13:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    Whether or not a candidate who was only as qualified as Opabinia was at their previous RFA in 2006 would get through today is a moot point, most of Opabinia's editing experience came after their RFA; Though if a candidate comparable to Opabinia at the time of their 2006 RFA failed I would say that was RFA's failing not the candidate, as Opabinia was then a useful and active admin until mid 2007. For this RFA we also have several months of their time as admin to judge them on, including 1435 logged admin actions, and amongst the ones that I have gone through I didn't spot any that would be handled differently today. Has anyone spotted one of those 1435 actions that they considered incorrect by former standards or that would be handled differently today? ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    I was very good at the job I had eight years ago, when I had it. If you told me to return to that job today, I would need some time to get back up to speed, even if nothing at the office had changed. And I probably wouldn't be as interested in that work now as I was eight years ago, so who knows how I'd perform. Townlake (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

    Fair point, but Opabinia has very sensibly spent some months getting back up to speed, this is not like a former admin coming back after three years of inactivity and getting the mop back after a day or two. As for performance and motivation, we can only judge volunteers on the amount and quality of the effort they put in. I'm seeing someone who has got back up to speed, can others give diffs showing otherwise? ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

14. Oppose, I want to support the candidate but the candidate is just not there yet. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. She might have been an admin before, but after taking a break for 8 years and only having returned for 3 months, I'm afraid that Opabinia hasn't enough experience with present-day Wikipedia. Not doubting her contributions, but she may want to make a few more edits before being re-adminned. She only has 7K edits, which is very low for an admin, but only 1K of these edits were made in recent years, and being an active admin for four months out of an 8-year editing span isn't exactly getting my hopes up. However, I still think that she is familiar with the present-day policies to become an admin, Epic Genius (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (moved from oppose. Epic Genius (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC))