Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha

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

Shirahadasha

Final (38/23/10); Ended Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:05:13 (UTC)

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) – Regular editor since March 2006, over 4000 edits, created several dozen articles, extensive contributions to existing articles, lots of user discussions including conflict resolution, regular work with WP:AIV, positive editor review. University of Pennsylvania graduate. Graduate work at the University of Michigan. Master's degree. Shirahadasha 01:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• Self-nomination.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I will help with vandal-fighting (VIP, VandalFighter, rollback tool, blocking when necessary), closing XfDs, helping monitor WP:AN and taking appropriate action in consultation with other administrators. I would also like to continue with welcoming new users, and do more work in dispute resolution. copyright issues, and the maintenance backlog. I expect to help regularly with administrative backlog issues. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Note: My response to Q1 has been clarified somewhat from the one originally posted following feedback from others. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Significant contributions and assistance in dispute resolution in articles including Role of women in Judaism, Bible. Helped create the article on Jewish feminism and a series of related articles. I've created dozens of articles and contributed to several hundred. I've also made numerous contributions to WP:AfD, WP:AN (particularly for vandalism issues), extensive discussions with other editors, and other work.

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

A: Regularly involved in articles that come into conflict, Examples include the ongoing Talk:Mami Wata conflict, Talk:Temple in Jerusalem#Problematic section (The dispute with User:Biblical1 was heated but ultimately ended in amicable resolution), Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism#Edits by User:Fduffy to Hebrew Bible articles and topics, and the dispute in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism#Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion about whether related WikiProjects should be listed as subprojects of that project, as well as in a number of edit disputes with the banned User:Daniel575. I attempt to keep cool, apply WP:CIVIL, and give benefit of doubt, but ensure policies are followed. I try to stick to sources and policies. (Note: Added additional examples per a request. Please also see my answers to Question 12 below. --Shirahadasha 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Optional questions from Iced Kola

4. Under what circumstances would you place a longterm or indefinite block on an experienced editor?

A: This is not something I would want to do as an inexperienced administrator without seeking agreement from other admins. I think administrators would need to block even an experienced editor with a long productive history if the editor becomes so disruptive as to be a threat; this can unfortunately occassionally happen as people go through life changes, crises, disagreements, psychological issues, etc. I acknowledge that even long-term users can occassionally do unexpected things and, as the Pegasus affair illustrates, an RfA requires a significant extension of trust that deserves careful scrutiny. --Shirahadasha 04:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

5. If you encounter a dispute in which users are being incivil torwards each other, how will you try to make everyone remain civil and follow the dispute resolution process?

A: When acting as an editor, I've attempted to begin by attempting to model civility and sticking strictly to discussion of the content on an article talk page, followed by a brief and polite note on the editor's talk page referring to WP:CIVIL. I've done this several times but wouldn't want to mention any particular user by name. I would only consider block procedures or other actions if repeated incivility is becoming disruptive to the editing process or if other users, especially newbies, are being attacked in ways that are harming their Wikipedia experience. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A. Well, the United States, for example, has a legal policy against age discrimination that frowns on asking this question. Acknowledging that laws that concern employment and the like don't necessarily apply to volunteer organizations, I nonetheless think that the policies behind anti-discrimination laws are very valuable guidance for an organization that seeks to conduct itself ethically and wishes to be a responsible and a decent "citizen". I don't personally think that age matters. One can tell a person's general intellectual development and maturity from looking at a substantial collection of what they've written. If people have the skills and show enough maturity, focus, and respect for others, I don't believe they have to be a certain age. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):

7. How do you interpret the policy Ignore All Rules?

A: I think Wikipedia expects editors to behave decently to each other, to do the right thing, and to get the job done. Rules and policies can sometimes be an obstacle to all of these things, and when they are, something is wrong with the rules. There's an old Swiss army saying that when the map and the terrain differ, following the terrain. I think we're similarly expected to be able to provide a basic reality check, using our basic sense of decency as people, and to develop and follow good instincts. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

8. How long would you block an anonymous IP address which had been blocked 5 times before for serious disruption and personal attacks?

A: It depends on the situation, and I'd check. If the IP address is shared, particularly if it's a widely-shared one, I'd hesitate to block an entire school, Starbucks, the country of Qatar, or similar for an extended time over the occassional disruptions of a single editor, although e.g. in cases of extremely disruptive vandalism it's something that may be necessary. For a single user, I'd check to see if past problems are balanced by a record of good edits and if past brief blocks resulted in improvement in behavior for a substantial period of time. People occassionally do things when they get angry and the like that they regret a short time later, and I wouldn't want to block a person for 3 months for something that might be gotten over in 24 hours. Ideally a block is a temporary protective to permit a cooling down and a resumption of civility and trust. However, for seriously disruptive and repeat vandals, the purpose of a block is to protect the encyclopedia, and for some people the encyclopedia may need a lot of protection. It's a judgment call I wouldn't make lightly, and I as a new administrator I would seek input from others before initiating any long-term block. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

9. What would you do if another administrator disagreed with your decision to block a well-known and well-liked member of the community for abusive sockpuppetry?

A: As a new administrator, if I found evidence of abusive sockpuppetry in such a case I simply wouldn't act myself, I would bring my information to the attention of other administrators and seek input and help. I would definitely want to know the views of others, who are likely to know more than I do. I'd certainly want m:CheckUser applied, consider the 100 edit rule and the like, and want clear evidence of sockpuppetry, which can be hard to detect and prove. Nonetheless, If there was clear proof, I would want to act on the evidence and not on reputation alone. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow up Nowadays we have many admins on Wikipedia who are very aggressive, I was just thinking you may become aggressive, say after 6 months of you recieving adminship. Anyways I am sorry for voting Oppose. I am retracting my vote as of now. Good luck. --Foundby 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

10. What is consensus? How does it differ from voting?

A: Consensus is an attempt to reach agreement through a process of discussion and exchange, to arrive at group conclusion that is not the conclusion of any one single individual but one which everyone involved can support. People reach consensus by actively engaging each other, changing each others' outlook through their interaction. Its analog is the jury room rather than the ballot box. A vote simply tabulates a sum of the voters' individual opinions; consensus create a whole which is more than the sum of its parts. Doing this takes time and energy. --Shirahadasha 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

11 How would being an administrator affect your presence in the Jewish articles of WP seeing there are many opiniated wikipedians involved. frummer 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A I apply the same approach to an area I'm personally involved in editing as I would to any area of Wikipedia, and there are lots of areas of the encyclopedia where there are many opinions, and lots of administrators successfully manage this issue. I don't intend to use administrative powers in disputes I'm personally a party to. I'd call in a neutral administrator if one was needed. I will apply administrative powers only on the consensus of other users and to address clear violations of policy which are disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. I would never apply punitive measures to address merely technical violations. I consider disputes about content, placing maintenance and dispute tags on articles, and the like to be normal parts of what Wikipedia is about and not disruptive at all. I would expect that any administrator who does otherwise would deserve to be recalled. Best --Shirahadasha 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

12. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high?

A I believe a youtube link etc. poses slightly different issues from spam, because they may be legitimate efforts to improve the encyclopedia that are simply inadequate sources or have copyright or privacy issues, whereas spam implies an intentional effort to use Wikipedia to push ones own product or idea. In general I agree with the side that says public domain and/or fair use should be established first rather than assumed and hence we should use these materials cautiously, although I don't have anything against them if they are authenticated by reliable sources and fairly used. Although Wikipedia provides the exciting possibility of up-to-the minute reports on news and the like, I agree that our real intention is to be an encyclopedia that provides knowledge with long-term reliability and value rather than being simply a place to post this moment's rumors. I believe that sensible information filters provide a reality check to help ensure that what is being added is for real as well as being fairly used.

I've edited sections of the encyclopedia where spam has been a serious problem, with regular edits posting links to opinion blogs or commercial websites. I agree that Wikipedia's increasing prominence has made it an attractive and sometimes vulnerable target for people seeking to use it as free advertising for their ideas and products, which is not what we are here for. In the case of individual editors inserting inappropriate text or links, I've tried to approach spam in a way that begins by seeing it not as a problem in itself, but simply as a case of an editor not necessarily understanding our WP:RS policies, and await repetition for enforcement. Protection from spambotting requires a more systematic and automated approach, as in the Spam blacklist. An example of a case where I've attempted to apply the policies is the related incidents in Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Talk:Avi Weiss#Vandalism (see also User Talk:YCTorah, User Talk:ClosedOrthodoxy), and User Talk:68.227.244.248) involving both promotional materials from the institution itself and an opposition blog. For another example of how I go about enforcing the policies, e.g. User Talk:Nnatan and Talk:Solomon's Temple. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Shirahadasha's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• His Interiot stats. Added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• His Mathbot tool stats. Added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• I was asked as question about the reasons for my opinion given below with regards to the answer to question one. Looking at the edit history of this RfA discussion, I notice that the answer was changed subsequent to my contribution although no indication of this change has been mentioned in the body of the application. I have asked Shirahadasha about this on her user Talk page as I think that this revision is germane to the discussion. (aeropagitica) 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I clarified my response to this question as a result of feedback and suggestions. I've identified that I've done so in the application body. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

Moral Support Your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, you're nowhere near qualified enough for Adminship. I suggest you try spending more time fighting vandalism, visiting WP:AFD, WP:PUMP, WP:FPC, WP:SSP, WP:AIV, and more time interacting with the community. Come back in 6 months after you have done this, and others will support. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

whoops, changed my vote. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support, not moral. It looks like this is going down the tubes, and I do not understand why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Full Support. Looks like a perfectly fine candidate to me after scanning the contributions. Q1 is a little vague, but names areas which require admin tools. Editing a relatively narrow range of articles is not bad in and of itself. Grandmasterka 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support: This user is clearly involved in the right activities for an admin: countervandalism, XfD etc. I would strongly urge you to write a better answer for Q1, though. Heimstern Läufer 03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Ghostbusters in NY 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Full Support Seems like a fully qualified and regular contributor who happens to focus on the mainspace.-- danntm ^T _C 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Moral Support. We who edit Judaism articles know you to be a reasonable person who injects a doze of calm into frequently overheated debates. However, I am afraid the community at large does not know you at all. You have very limited project and user interaction outside of Judaism topics and the answer to Q1 reflects that. Though we (Judaism editors) would hate to lose you, if you want to succeed at RfA in 3-6 months, you should branch out into the process- and maintenance-oriented areas of the the project (deletion, vandalfighting, policy discussion). Then users would be more comfortable trusting you with the tools. I suggest withdrawal. - crz crztalk 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Strong 2^nd re: Though we (Judaism editors) would hate to lose you, if you want to succeed at RfA in 3-6 months, you should branch out into the process- and maintenance-oriented areas of the the project (deletion, vandalfighting, policy discussion). Then users would be more comfortable trusting you with the tools. ... Tomer^talk 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Support. Daisuke-Matsuzaka 11:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I don't like opposing a trusted user. The question is whether you can trust her, not whether she spends all day doing nothing but deletion discussions. BigDT 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, answered question well, but the RFA isn't looking likely. frummer 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Weak Support per change of heart. You mean well, and part of me can't see you as an admin still, but you've been handling all the challenges put even in this RfA very well. (I'm NOT changing my vote again, I've done it too many times)--Wizardman 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Good editor, very reasonable. No reason to think she will abuse tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support. I've edited a few times with Shirahadasha, and I've watched her have to defend her edits. She's cool, reasonable, and civil under stress; she uses good sources well; and she knows how to write within the content policies. She's just the kind of editor who would make a great admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Hendry1307 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, as said above, no reason to believe user will use admin tools improperly. IronDuke 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support, I prefer someone who views his/her admin tools and powers with humility over someone who can't wait to throw his/her weight around. --68.39.69.1 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, anon IPs cannot vote. If you have an account, please sign in.--Runcorn 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Strong Support, this editor gave excellent answers and has without a doubt done enough editing. Regardless of how much this user NEEDS them, this user's record shows that should an instance arise when she needed them she would use them appropriately. Danielfolsom 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - would make a good admin. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Candidate is not likely to make a great deal of use of the tools, but that's no different from the great majority of current admins. I would be quite surprised if the average number of admin actions, per admin, per month, was a large number. Answers seem solid, although I'd prefer to see no answers to frivolous questions. How the answer to "Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all" escapes me. The candidate expressed an interest in closing XfDs and moves. Unless you're a very bold editor indeed, or never bothered reading WP:DPR, that calls for a mop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support, I'm very surprised by the oppose votes, I've seen only excellent, reasonable editing coming from this editor. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Will not misuse adminship. Also, my earlier support user was removed ([1] by User:Yuser31415. I am not sure why. --Banana04131 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    This was an accident, as I have explained when Banana04131 asked why. Yuser31415 01:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

21. Support I have not had a huge amount of experience with this editor. She reverted me once, but did so in a model Wikipedian way with a nice civil note on my talk page explaining her reasoning. I feel her discussion above is genuine and she would be a credit to Wikipedia as an Admin. Elizmr 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Weak Support Seems like she'd be a fine admin, has the experience...but answers leave something to be desired.Ganfon 02:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, I think the admin corps could use a bit of new blood right about now, even if it means some on-the-job learning. 6SJ7 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
24. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support: you appear to be a good editor. much of the opposes appear to be rather silly reasons to me. Hopefully, the you can use the tools to the best help for wikipedia.--Ac1983fan 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose; your statements are too short to give anyone an idea what you would be like as an administrator. Personally I don't see a need for the admin tools; and there's not much of a vandalfight. Apart from that, you'd be a great administrator. Cheers! Yuser31415 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to Support, now the questions have been amended. Yuser31415 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. I think this user demonstrates the ability to use the tools properly. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support with the disclosure that I know the user IRL. The user is an an excellent, responsible editor who will not abuse the tools. JoshuaZ 01:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Weak support - just about alright, looks trustable enough based on his/her edits. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - I especially like the fact the user didnt spend all day on xfd, instead showing his contributions demonstrate an individual spirit.Bakaman 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support, opposition is baseless, no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support I changed my mind. I think you are ready. Good luck! gidonb 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Goodluck --71Demon 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Having watched how this RfA has progressed, I have to change my view to full support mode. In the face of what I consider to be unnecessarily blistering criticism, Shira has shown hirself to be quite capable of keeping a level head and countering opponents with patience and respect. As noted in the editor review, Shira has demonstrated remarkable growth as a wikipedian, and welcomes rational criticism as a way of continuing to improve hir editing. A more thorough review of hir contributions indicates that admin tools could be quite useful for Shira, and I see no compelling reason to suspect they would be misused. Tomer^talk 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. --Rory096 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Unpersuaded by oppose arguments. Derex 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. It's ridiculous to deny adminship because someone isn't interested in deleting things or fighting vandals. There are many roads to building the encyclopaedia. I will gladly support a renomination at any time and urge nominator/candidate to drop me a talkpage message or email so that I don't miss it. Grace Note 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. Good temperament for handling controversial work. I'm concerned about this RfA given the current tally and look forward to supporting on any renomination. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all. — Arjun 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As per the Arjun, I think you are in no need for admin tools at al. I suggest you to put more work at reverting vandalisms. Best luck! --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign • Chit-Chat • I give at 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose Seadog Arjun nailed it on the head. You really don't tell us why you need the tools for what you do. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Other reasons There are also several other reasons for this oppose. You have a pretty narrow range of mainspace and project articles here on Wikipedia. I could and in the past have over looked that (the RFA of Wikiwoohoo is a prime example of that). I probably would have were it not for your incredibly short answers to the questions. I do not think that a person who is trying to Adminship, a job that grants the users extra powers over other members, can answer their "job application" questions with only a sentence for each question. If you notice the RFA of Kinu (below this one), it has a large paragraph for each answer. The RFA of BostonMA has pages of writing about his work here on Wikipedia. Your answer to question 3. does not elaborate at all. You cite no examples of scuffles you have had with users here on Wikipedia. Now, if you do not have any at all (which I doubt, but hey, anything is possible), I would bring your lack of experience in dealing with these situations into question. If you have never had an angry vandal attack you on your talk page or vandalize your user page (or even get into a civil argument with other users), how are we to know how you will react when you get into that situation? That being said, if you improve the answers to your questions, I will gladly consider changing my vote. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   I can cite scuffles, as I've had several of them with Shira, mostly back in hir earliest editing days.  :-p Much of this was covered in brief here. Tomer^talk 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've added additional examples of interactions with other users involving disagreements, in e.g. my responses to Questions 3 and 12. Perhaps you might have time to take a look and provide additional feedback. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   I shall stick with my original point per Arjun and I agree with the point czr made. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose: I scanned your last 1000 edits - almost all involve a fairly narrow range of mainspace articles. It's not at all clear that you'd even like to do administrator work - closing AfDs, moving articles, blocking users, whatever. I suggest you spend a fair amount of time with vandal patrol and XfDs and cleanup (see specific comments by others on this), and then you'll have a much better idea as to whether you'd really want to be doing admin work. John Broughton | Talk 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose Just today, Shirahadasha filed a three-revert rule violation report on WP:AN3 concerning a situation in which neither of the two users reported actually violated the three-revert rule. (see [2]) The three-revert rule is a major policy that I would expect any administrator to apply correctly. While users may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule, Shirahadasha's report is troubling in a number of respects:

   (1) If an administrator blocks a user for edit warring not involving an actual violation of the three-revert rule, the three-revert rule may not be cited as a justification for the block. A block for a three-revert rule violation where in fact none occurred will almost certainly be overturned.

   (2) The expected administrative response to edit warring involving a three-revert rule violation is quite different from edit warring without violating the three-revert rule. Where the three-revert rule is violated, the justification for issuing a block is clear, and an administrator may block the offending user(s) unilaterally, without prior discussion or consensus. However, the decision as to whether to block a user for edit warring without a three-revert rule violation is necessarily a subjective one, which may involve many factors, including, but not limited to the user's prior edit history, the content of the edits themselves, and the definition of "edit warring" employed. While a single purpose account whose only contributions are edit warring may be blocked unilaterally, the question of whether to block an established user with a substantial history of constructive contributions for "edit warring" may present a substantial controversy -- a controversy that should be resolved with a discussion on WP:ANI prior to placing a block.

   (3) Most importantly, reverting a page four or more times within 24 hours does not automatically amount to a three-revert rule violation. This policy has certain exceptions of which administrators must be aware. For example, blocking a user for a "three-revert rule violation" or "edit warring" because of reversions of vandalism, WP:BLP violations, etc, would be highly improper. Since Shirahadasha has recently misapplied the chronological requirements of the three-revert rule, reporting a violation where there were no more than three reverts in any 24 hour period, I do not believe that he will apply the exceptions to the three-revert rule in a satisfactory manner at this time. John254 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: I specifically requested that an administrator not involved in the dispute give both parties a warning in this case. As you indicate a warning here is a reasonable thing to do. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Question: Perhaps I'm missing the point, but why did you request an admin to give 3RR warnings? My understanding is that it's perfectly appropriate for a regular editor to give such a warning - why put this burden on admins? John Broughton | Talk 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment I had involved myself in the dispute, which has a history. I've given such warnings plenty of times myself, wanted an outsider to weigh in this time. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment -- A slight correction: though under what circumstances warnings should be issued for potential 3RR violations, actual 3RR violations, and edit warring generally, and the manner in which such warnings should be issued, is certainly an interesting question, I did not actually discuss it in my comment above. Moreover, while Shirahadasha did "specifically... [request] that an administrator not involved in the dispute give both parties a warning in this case" [3], he did so only after Wildnox observed that there "Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to WP:AN/I?" [4] John254 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment It might be worth mentioning that while Wildnox did say what you quoted, he immediately followed this with "Correction, User:BrianSmithson has violated 3RR...," and my comment followed this "correction". This is a genuine timing mistake and I regret that I and others were mistaken in this. I never intended a block to be applied in this situation, and I had wanted both users to be warned equally to prevent an appearance of favoritism in the dispute. You might also want to look at my own interactions with the users involved in Talk:Mami Wata. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose You can do everything that you want in your answer to question one without the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 06:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, user does not require admin tools. You need to do administrative work before becoming an admin. Terence Ong 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose with a heavy heart; as so often, I totally agree with Crzrussian, but this candidate is not yet ready. Please do try again soon!--Newport 13:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per John. --teh tennisman 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - I agree with Crzrussian as well, so I have to oppose for now. If you are able to branch out some more, you'll be an excellent admin. --DLand^TALK 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose - little need for the tools, very weak answers, and an admin should have his head round 3RR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Shirahadasha seems like a qualified editor, but shows no real need to be an admin. Admins' duties are more about the inner workings of Wikipedia, which require both knowledge of the mechanics of those workings and a willingness to engage in the sometimes tedious tasks involved in them. I don't know that Shirahadasha has either of these things, at least not judging by the edit history and answers above. Perhaps I'm wrong; if so, reapply in a few months and see what happens. Also, the answer to the sixth question is misleading from a legal standpoint. The candidate says "the United States, for example, has a legal policy against age discrimination that frowns on asking this question." The United States' law on age discrimination has nothing to do with administrative privleges on a free online encyclopedia. This doesn't really affect my vote, I just thought you'd all like to know. Coemgenus 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: To be fair, Shirahadasha does say, immediately after the sentence you quote, Acknowledging that laws that concern employment and the like don't necessarily apply to volunteer organizations .... (And to be even fairer, I think the word "necessarily" is excessively, um, cautious; the response would be much better without it.) John Broughton | Talk 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    You're correct, I was over-hasty. I withdraw that part of my comment, with apologies, but I'm still opposed. Coemgenus 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose An excellent editor, but you need more than that as an admin. She may well make the grade one day.--Runcorn 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose - Doesn't really demonstrate the need to be an admin. I think she should continue as an editor and would do better off not getting involved in admin chores. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Regretfully but with little choice given the number of concerns raised incl. lack of need for tools, misunderstanding of WP:3RR, narrow edit range and weak answers to questions. None of these are insurmountable and I hope to be able to support a future RfA in due course. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose Sorry, obviously an upstanding editor and potentially a good admin, but needs more experience with policy, admin tools; much wider edit range. A lot of the questions could have been answered better - I felt the analogies were kinda off. Bwithh 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose Do not seem to need admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose Although I'm sure you are a fine editor, I'm not convinced that someone with only 4,000 edits (only a little over 2,000 to the main namespace) is experienced enough for adminship. The range of edits is just not very impressive. Come back after you have more experience and have a wider range of contributions. --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Weak Oppose Primarily because of a bit narrow set of experience on mainspace topic activities to date, but I would have no problem switching to support with a little more widespread set of contributions in a few more months. Yaf 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Bwithh and others. But please try again.--R613vlu 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Arjun, John254, and Bwithh. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose Like so many others, I have to say "potentially excellent candidate - not ready yet".--Brownlee 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Very Strog Oppose per answer to 9. What would you do if another administrator disagreed with your decision to block a well-known and well-liked member of the community for abusive sockpuppetry? People can change.. You know when a person opposes, like me, the admins who support go after the user who voted Oppose and then ban them indefenitely along with the IP address, so they cant even use the arbitration process of Wikipedia. Ok all you shameless admins who voted support come get me (no offence to good admins who voted support). --Foundby 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry I missed the part about the puppet being abusive in the question. Appologies. But I don't feel like retracting my vote to see if someone takes revenge which is common in this page of votings. --Foundby 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

23. Oppose. Not yet. Proto::► 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Weak Neutral (this means possibly pending any discoveries by support or oppose voters). You seem like a great user, and your edits are pretty good, but your answer to question 1 makes you really not need the admin tools all that much. --Wizardman 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Part of me thinks you just added in this new things in Q1 for the sake of adding them because they fit, as opposed to if you really want to do them. Going full neutral now. --Wizardman 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Okay, that above statement was probably too harsh. He explained his stance on Q1 to me and that whole bit, and was very courteous even though it didn't seem like I was above. Changed vote.

1. Neutral best of luck to you in the future though. Just H 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral Sorry, but you don't seem to have an actual need for a mop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral. While I would be more than happy to support this candidacy if I saw a more enthusiastic presentation of a need for admin tools, I have to agree with EVula and (although not with the vociferousness of) the "oppose" votes, that I see no foundation for the RfA. My interaction with you and my unrelated review of your contributions leads me to think you'd make an excellent admin, but adminship entails a bit more in-depth involvement in the Project. With respect, Tomer^talk 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to support. Tomer^talk 02:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral, leaning Support - Sorry, but you don't actually seem to have use for the tools. Maybe in a few moths. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure whether you sufficiently understand what Wikipedia is about. --Chussid 10:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral for now, but you have the makings of a great admin! I commend you for trying, it shows that your heart is truly in the right place with regards to Wikipedia. IZAK 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Best of luck the next time you're up for this with a bit more work and demonstration of need for mop.--Eva ^bd 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
   1. Neutral Shira, I think that you will be an excellent admin in the future, but I also believe it is still a bit on the early side. I allow myself to make this observation not only because I am nearing the 11K contributions, a large proportion of which traditional admin chores, but also because after all that I have not yet run myself for office. I think you should definately run again before reaching these numbers, but gain a little more experience on the way. gidonb 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) changed to support.
7. Neutral I would love to support but think you're not ready. If/when you stand again, please drop a note on my talk page, (although of course that is not a guarantee of support). --Dweller 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral I don't see the need for tools, but I don't feel an oppose is neccessary. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral per James086. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 12:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral Good editor. Unsure of intent. TonyTheTiger 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.