Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster

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

FlyingToaster

Nomination

Final: (76/36/6); closed at 13:50, 27 February 2009 by Kingturtle as unsuccessful.

FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) – It is my utmost pleasure to be able to nominate FlyingToaster (also known as Boriss) - a dedicated, experienced, hard-working, and trustworthy contributor to the project - for the mop and bucket. FT is incredibly open-minded and good natured, and is easy to talk to when there are problems that need to be resolved. She always tries her utmost to help others (as evidenced by her adoptions of several new users, of which she has followed through to the end, helping and supporting when needed), and, perhaps most importantly, I have always found her to be a warm hearted and friendly individual to collaborate and interact with on a frequent basis. She interacts with others in such a way that constructive ends are achieved without compromising on attitude or etiquette, which is a valuable attribute to have in a prospective administrator.

Content wise, she has contributed a good deal. She has created over 140 articles, 4 spoken articles (one over an hour long, that's not the sort of thing for me), and she uploads appropriate pictures and images with appropriate licenses and fair-use rationales (if applicable) for use in articles where appropriate. She regularly patrols pages - this often ties into her CSD work. Whilst she often uses automated tools (She has made around 6,500 automated edits), she has over seven thousand non-automated edits (at least according to my trusty calculator), which should be enough to all you people looking for prima facie evidence of manual edits. If you're the number crunching sort - she has over 75 edits to UAA, over 100 edits to AfD, 120 to AIV, a good few sockpuppet reports and 100% recent edit summary usage. She has demonstrated that she is well versed with dealing with vandalism, and the vandals themselves. The way she conducts herself in particular makes me think she would be an excellent candidate for your consideration.

In summary, FlyingToaster is a dedicated individual who is sensitive to the needs of those around her. She never ceases to astound me with the amount of good work she does - and I believe her talents would be better spent if she had the bit. — neuro^(talk) 07:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for your kind words, Neurolysis. I totally accept this nomination. FlyingToaster 08:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The main areas I'd like to jump right into are CSD and AIV. After that I'd gradually widen the scope of my contributions (probably hitting UAA next) as I get more experience in areas I've used less often. My ultimate goal is to be an admin that is competent and knowledgeable in most areas on Wikipedia so I can be "on call" to deal with problems and backlogs as needed.

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

A: I'm proud of the span of my edits, which generally fall into two categories; content protection and content creation. On the content protection side, I've been Twinkling, new page and recent edit patrolling, wikignoming, and reporting vandals and sockpuppets. On the content creation side, I've been creating requested articles (123), adding disambiguation pages, making bold edits, fixing redirects, editing images (123), and taking photos for articles. While lately I've been getting involved in a few projects such as WikiProject Northern Ireland, I see myself as editing for Wikipedia as a whole rather than any part specifically.

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 can't think of a serious conflict I've had with an established editor. I'm fairly low-controversy because my edits tend to arise from either vandalism, obvious article problems, missing information/citations, or requests. This means that my work tends to fall over a wide range of subjects that I'm fairly detached from emotionally. Thus, rather than go into depth on the subtle points of an article's subject, I tend to fix basic article problems and then move on.

As a result, most of my conflicts with users arise when newer editors are upset because an article they created has been marked for deletion. They often feel singled out or insulted if their topic has been marked not notable. In these instances, I aim to AGF and explain Wikipedia's policies for notability, NPOV, what WP is not, etc. Often, these early editors are far from vandals, but simply unaware that articles need to meet certain criteria. Plenty of them go on to be valuable editors, so we have every reason to err on the side of not biting.

Optional questions from Dylan620

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Your own words, please, no copy-and-pasting.

A: A block is a technical restriction on the editing, which can be applied to a registered account or an anonymous IP. It’s not meant as a punishment, but is an action taken when a problem arises to prevent ongoing damage and address the problem. A ban is a formal, community consensus-driven revocation of editing privileges over all or part of Wikipedia. Bans are social constructs, and as such do not technically prevent a user for editing a page.

Edit: I originally wrote a story here about the difference between ban and block, but people seemed to find that silly and a waste of space here - so I'm transferring it to my sandbox.

5. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it too. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined here and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: What I would do is make sure I had some time free, get comfortable in my favorite chair, and say to the user (in not exactly these words) “Ok, prove it! I challenge you to be a constructive editor.” Then I would unblock, and personally watch him closer than the china shop owner watches the quiet bull in the corner. This may sound fairly gullible on my part, but my reason is cost-benefit analysis. Let’s assume that the user’s intention is simply to vandalize more. What I lose by unblocking is the five minutes of my time that it will take to reblock and revert one or two vandalism edits. However, let’s assume that the user’s unblock request is genuine - that he has gotten it out of his system and now wants to improve articles on ceramics in dentistry. What we gain is a useful contributor that we might have missed had we blocked indefinitely - and that’s worth vastly more than my five minutes.

Optional questions from Smallman12q

6.Could you tell us in your own words what it means for something to be in the public domain?

A: If something is in the public domain, it is not copyrighted by anyone and can be used by anyone. In the United States, an item enters the public domain in one of two ways; either it has been around long enough that its original copyright has expired (about 86 years), or the item meets certain criteria to be ineligible for copyright. An important note is that even if a work is in the public domain, the original creators should be attributed to avoid plagiarising. Where this all becomes complicated is the internet, since it is a global network, yet individual countries have different laws regarding copyright and public domain.

Optional questions from Aitias

7. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?

A. Definitely. A hangon tag gives the editor a chance to explain their rationale for Wikipedia inclusion in instances when the merit of a subject may at first be unclear, but it’s not sufficient to prevent a page from being deleted. I’d delete a page despite a hangon tag in cases such as obvious personal attack, clear copyright violation, and blatant vandalism.

8. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?

A. I’d make sure the editor had at least three weeks of positive contributions or at least a hundred or so edits, including work in reverting vandalism. Any vandalizing misuse of rollback would be grounds to remove it.

9. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. There are a few conditions that need to be met before the photo can be used. The main criteria is that no free photograph, existing or able to be created, could serve the same purpose as the non-free one. If a person is living, it would be extremely hard to argue that a free photograph of them could not be taken. If this first criteria is met, there's several others which assure that proper attribution is being made to the creators of the photograph, and that the photograph itself meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion, etc.

10. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?

A. I would block the IP myself and not consider this to be conflict of interest. Blatant vandalism to my talk page I consider equivalent to blatant vandalism anywhere; if it were someone elses' talk page I would act the same way. If the vandalism is blatant, it really does not matter where it occurs.

11. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A. I'd do this very rarely. One instance would be a knowing, grawp-style attack. Rather than someone experimenting with Wikipedia, this type of user would be demonstrating a clear desire to harm and continue harming. This is the equivalent of premeditated murder, whereas someone's first vandalism edit might be a crime of passion. Other than this case, there could be a few cases of vandalism I'd block for without warning - perhaps if someone was being racist off the charts and editing a page a second, for instance. But in general, even for serious profanity and vandalism, I'd give the user one warning.

Question from Seddon

12 What is your favourtie piece of classical music and why?

A. One of my favourites is Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major, Op. 92: Allegretto. Everytime I hear this one I'm so amazed at its beauty I almost forget to breathe. I guess I'd describe it as haunting - it's steady, at times almost like a slow march, but also tense and tragic. Ever look at someone's face and think that they've been to hell and back, and their stories are probably too dark to even relate to someone else? That's what I get from this piece.

Optional question from Dank55

13 Yesterday, you said[1]: "Unfortunately, I (like many) do think that the RfA process really could use major improvement. It's really unfortunate when a bad experience at RfA can lead some of our best contributors to leave the project, or at least have forever hampered relationships with others here." What major improvement does RfA need, and who has left the project recently or is about to leave because of a bad experience at RfA? (One major improvement needed of course is, if there are different standards for CSD at RfA, they should be known differences ... was that what you were talking about?) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A. Hey Dank. Unfortunately, while I did say to Deb that RfA needs improvement, I don't yet have the solutions for improving it. It's an important issue for Wikipedia, and one I think we should give serious thought to in the longterm. It's also one I've been giving some personal thought to and hope to give suggestions on, but not before I were an admin myself. As for the reasons I say it needs improvement; one issue comes to mind which is still a bit half-formed in my head. I feel some aspects of the physical process of RfA can conflict with its goals. Consensus is the basic goal of the RfA - for the community to collaborate within itself and thus come to a conclusion which reflects its character and ideals. The problem is that this sort of collaboration is very difficult to achieve online and in different timezones, and even moreso in a "!vote" system where most users come in, drop a ballot, and then leave. In this model, there is no need to explicitly engage other users, and at the end of the day we're left saying that this is not a vote when essentially it is. This problem is exacerbated because users have such divergent rationale for what makes a good admin. Some people are voting based on "won't break the wiki," others are interested in specific points of policy, others want to see few mistakes, other want someone who most of all can learn and collaborate. Rather than voting on whether Obama would make a good president, this is more like a few people are voting on if he'd be a good president, a few more on if he'd be a good accountant, others on if he'd make a good fireman. So while I'm not sure of the solution to this particular problem yet, I think we need to be considering how we can come together a bit closer on exactly what should be the measure of an admin and taking this more from a system of "voting" back to its intent of "consensus."

I don't feel comfortable giving specific names of people who have left RfA hurt or disheartened, especially since the cases I have in mind have been told to me in confidence, but I do want to say that I do not fall into this category and plan to continue actively contributing regardless of this RfA's result. FlyingToaster 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Pocopocopocopoco

14 As an admin, is it ever appropriate to block or threaten to block an editor who asks for a second set of eyes to review your actions?

No. FlyingToaster 08:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for FlyingToaster: FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/FlyingToaster before commenting.

Discussion

• My gut feeling is that there's going to be a strong difference of opinion over SoWhy's excellent research. What's the fastest way for all of us to get smarter about this so that we understand how CSD works in practice and whether FlyingToaster's take is out of the mainstream? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly a 'percentage of speedy tags rejected' figure? PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds good. I'm just trying to anticipate a divisive problem here and head it off; some of the admins who do CSD work are not as careful as SoWhy. I could easily see it happening that someone decides they want to learn CSD, they watch what some of those admins are doing and try to follow their lead, work hard for several months, then show up at RFA and get told that they got it all wrong and they have to start over. I don't know how to fix this, but wouldn't the usual solution be the best? Invite a discussion among all the CSDers, argue about when it's okay to cut corners and when it's not (there's a current ArbCom case on this topic, according to SoWhy), come up with something that passes for consensus, and make it available for all prospective admin candidates interested in CSD ... we don't have to give them the one true way, we can show them the arguments and let them decide for themselves. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • IMHO, that will drive RFA candidates to only choose "safe" speedies to pad their average, knowing they are subject to a formula and will let pass the closer calls that would have allowed us to see how well they assimilate the CSD guidelines. We all know, that there is considerable leeway in most cases (A7 by its wording doesn't strictly apply to pets, but most admins will delete "Fido was a wonderful dog who is now in doggy heaven blah blah" as an A7). There is also experientially based understanding of how much is enough to overcome A1 or A3; what G11 looks like, etc. Allowing candidates to operate without some target will give us much better insight in to whether they understand the principles - and for those who care, which I don't particularly - where in the spectrum of leeway (deletionist/inclusionist) they fall. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • And that would be bad...why? Not speedy deleting does not mean keeping the page, it just means using other means like PROD or XFD which allow more input of the community. As I wrote in my reply on the talk page of this RFA, the problem with FlyingToaster is her shotgun-approach to CSD a.k.a. "Tag them all and let admins sort it out later". For AFD, there is WP:BEFORE to avoid overeager deletion nominations - its spirit is valid for CSD taggings as well. To quote from WP:WIHS: "When it doubt, err on the side of caution". As I'm Spartacus! correctly analyzed in his essay: The damage is unknown and getting it right matters, because every incorrect speedy, even just the tagging, may be BITEy to the creator and scare them off. When I go through CAT:CSD, at least 50% of the pages are incorrectly tagged and need only a few simple fixes to make them acceptable stubs etc. This is why I cannot support any user who contributes to these 50% knowingly. I rather see a 500 pages backlog at CAT:CSD for not having enough admins to take care of it than to lose a single newbie because his article is deleted against policy. Regards SoWhy 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm still going to add CSD to my proposed list of "RFA things that could use wider discussion", but I don't think we need to get it done before this RFA is over; see my oppose support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support because beating Neuro to an edit is fun. Seriously though: Good contributions, excellent answer to q.3 and I trust the nom (although probably not with my wallet :P). Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - As nom, and occasional Ironholds hater. — neuro^(talk) 08:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support because beating Neuro is fun (edit-conflicting with him less so), and because she let me sleep in her apartment once. Oh yeah, and trustworthy and all that, too. — Werdna • talk 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Suppport - clue and trust are there, no reason not to support. Matt (Talk) 09:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Well qualified candidate, clean block log and a nice mix of defending the wiki and improving it. WereSpielChequers 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Very good editor, knows what they're doing, works hard to put good stuff in, and flag rubbish stuff to be taken out. Good mix as far as I'm concerned. --Ged UK (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support > helpful and pleasant. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
8. [redacted by Petersymonds] yes - //roux   11:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Could you please clarify why your !vote is marked as 'redacted' as it seems to me you entered it already like this?[2] Thanks in advance. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   It's a running joke. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   A running joke which is only awful enough to have spawned from my own godawful comment. :) — neuro^(talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Quite true. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Support Opposes are unconvincing, even Homer nodded. Everyone makes mistakes, and given the volume of tagging this editor does, don't see that an occasional slip is a big problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support No worries everyone makes mistakes so certaintly support.--Giants27 TC 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - iMatthew // talk // 15:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support -Easy choice Simon^KSK 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - User is very unlikely to break the encyclopedia and/or delete the mainpage. Trusilver 17:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support But please be a little more careful when tagging stuff for deletion. Good luck! Majorly talk 17:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I'm not happy about the sloppy tagging but I still believe sysoping would be a net positive. I know this may be a weak excuse but FT does a lot of newpage patrol and mistakes are inevitable. I also trust that he understands that speedy tagging and speedy deleting are different things. Sloppy tagging is basically newbie biting. Sloppy deleting is newbie biting, chewing and spitting out. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    Hooray, the first gender confusion of this RfA! :) — neuro^(talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

17. Support with disclosure that FT is my wikiadoptive mum: she has been unfailingly clueful, knowledgeable, and welcoming in that capacity, and I am sure would do the same as an admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, userpage suggests a nice and helpful attitude, and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. SoWhy probably successfully derailed this, but opposes are unconvincing to me. A user with clue, definite net positive. Tan | 39 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Mo negative issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per Tanthalas. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Weak Support - looks good to me, but CSD tagging should be done with a lighter touch. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support as the questions answered met my thoughts and are backed up by actions. An editor who is willing to be a little WP:BOLD in improving wiki is to be cherished. I'd hate that anything I contributed got speedied... but then, I try to be careful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Very, Very Weak Support Keepscases (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    Why? What are your concerns?--Adam in MO Talk 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    The opposers make very good points. Keepscases (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

25. I have no problem with the tags that SoWhy has pointed out. I would have (and do agree with) 75% of the taggings. Create articles in userspace or elsewhere, don't use the mainspace as a test pond. That clutters up orphaned articles. Delete and inform the creator of the best way to create a cultural contribution that they can be proud of. Even if it's only been a minute; hell, they'll get the new message that way. Differences of opinion of what is and is not encyclopedic in policy is discretionary in a sysop's judgment, and I would never call for the head of an admin who deleted those pages that have nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. I see that SoWhy's comment has drummed up support of opposition, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea of what Wikipedia is about. He owns newspapers? Big deal. Following some of those standards I am notable, and I am not. I'd like this comment to be taken at face value, I will have little time to follow the issue on the talk page. Must respect in disagreement, that's what makes this project intellectually fun. Happy editing to all. Keegan^talk 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    I am sorry, but that is just incorrect. Speedy deletion has a restricted set of criteria for a very good reason and to say sysops can go around deleting outside those criteria is against policy. Yes, you might think it is correct, but that does not make it so. Sysops cannot decide what is encyclopedic and what is not, that is what we have guidelines and policies for. Maybe you need to brush up your knowledge in those areas because the problem with the taggings was not for example whether the group (not person) is notable but if the article (and I quote) "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (emphasis added). It is a lower standard than notability for a reason. Regards SoWhy 22:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    Hey SoWhy, thanks for the timely response; it gives me the chance to respond. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. CSD are rules, and rules should be followed. However, Wikipedia does not have laws bit we do have ignore all rules and sysops, IMO, do have the leeway when it comes to such taggings to decide. Part of what I was saying that may not have been expressed properly is that I do trust the candidate when reviewing the CSD to make the proper call. If I see an article when I don't know what decision to make, I tag it and let another admin review what I have done and avoid unilateral action and what could become abuse of the tools. I trust FlyingToaster to do the same. I am very clear on my policies and guidelines when it comes to the goal of the project. I agree to disagree with you and I don't want to change anyone's !vote. Simply expressing opinion. Thanks for your time. Keegan^talk 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    if 75% is right, 25% is wrong, and that error rate is too high. it's 1/4 of new user discouraged. We can't afford to do that. And it's not just the rate of errors, it's the insistence that it is justified to speedy articles for lack of content when they have just been started. DGG (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

26. Support I believe the total positive input from this lady (which goes far beyond a handful of hasty CSD tags) justifies support. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Lean Support - she seems nice and hard to annoy or to provoke. Such a trait is something needed in the admin pool. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support per Paster Theo. LittleMountain5 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
29. I like her positive attitude. Acalamari 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Slightly Hesitant Support Despite her overenthusiastic attitude at CSD, I believe that other editors can help her judgment when (if) necessary. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Full Support SoWhy raised completely valid points. However I think the most important thing he said was "'I left out most of those where she realized her mistake.'" Far too often we tend to look for perfection in those we wish to entrust power. Everyone is human and everyone will make mistakes. I find it far more reassuring to find someone who can admit to and learn from their mistakes than someone who never makes any. I've spoken with FT at length outside of WP about many trivial and non-trivial topics, and I find her to be a very thoughtful, conscientious, and well reasoned person who carefully and appropriately contemplates the consequences of her actions. While some of her tags in the past may have been misplaced, tagging is not a permanent action, and I don't think for a moment she would have acted on any of them without first reviewing the article and the reasoning behind it's existence and potential deletion. I also find she is eager to search out the advice and knowledge of those around her, and that she values the experiences of others as learning tools to help her make the right choices. I have no reason to believe that as an admin she would suddenly change that course and not reach out for other opinions. Like any promotion, you can't know for certain how a person will act once they have new powers and responsibilities. Only time will tell if she turns out to be a good admin, but I'm more than willing to take that risk, and support her nomination, for whatever that's worth. burnte (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support most of the CSDs below really are articles without meaningful content... which is what CSD is meant to deal with. Yes, there are some bad CSD A7 taggings... but the candidate's responses indicate they understand the error. This RFA will probably fail... but don't be too discouraged. People tend to understand if you lay down a few months of uncontroversial taggings moreso than they believe RFA-time apologies and admissions of mistakes. --Miss Communication (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Weak Support Certainly, the concerns raised below in the oppose section are mostly valid. However the answers to my questions suggest that the candidate has both policy knowledge and, much more important, uses common sense — something very important for an administrator. Taking everything into account I believe that FlyingToaster will be of benefit for the project as an administrator. — Aitias // discussion 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support, no problems at all to me. Some of SoWhy's diffs show issues, but some of them are perfectly fine. If it's the wrong number but still a speedy then at least it's being tagged. Wizardman 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. I've looked at FlyingToaster's contributions previously, and I've also reviewed reasons to Oppose that have been brought up at this RfA. While some of her new page patrol tags had issues, probably made in haste, the majority of contributions, including content wise, and the wikignome work, give me no reason not to support the RfA. In addition, she comes across as a positive member of the community, she mentors others, and I don't see any indication that she would abuse the tools. In my mind, this makes her trustworthy with mop and bucket. Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
36. A couple of SoWhy's diffs are a bit concerning, but not all of them are that bad, and I think I can trust FlyingToaster to be a cautious and helpful administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Ding ding ding! Wehwalt gets the Right-on-the-nose Award. "Everyone makes mistakes, and given the volume of tagging this editor does, don't see that an occasional slip is a big problem." Support. wodup 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. I agree with Wehwalt, and would add that if you're not making any mistakes, you are probably not learning. FlyingToaster seems to be dedicated and hard-working. I don't see anything that would detract from this editor becoming a competent admin. Sunray (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support There's a difference between asking for a speedy and actually deleting an article. I should think the beating at this RFA would have driven home that line to FT by now, if there ever really was a problem. That speedy tags were added quickly is unconvincing. Lots and lots of CSD tags are applied under the 2 minute mark from creation, and most of them are valid. A solid contributor otherwise, and, frankly I thought she already was an admin.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Very friendly editor. The CSD issue doesn't bother me much. Remember that everyone make mistakes (as seen in my block log), and they learn from them. Versus22 _talk 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - Man, am I everywhere on this RfA?! :P FT has proven herself to be a very friendly, helpful, and clueful user. SoWhy's diffs are a tad concerning, but her other service tips that off. :) →Dyl@n620 03:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've had good dealings with her. -download | sign! 05:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Really good work.Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Per original answer to 4. Excellent.  GARDEN  19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - DING! the toast is done ready for promotion. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support — Jake Wartenberg 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
47. SUPPORT Excellent user, awesome name too! Deserves to be an admin. Good luck Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong support - Yes, yeah, ja, oui yep and every other possible yes available. The FT is one of those few users that I 100% respect full-stop and period!! fr33kman -s- 04:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong support Couldn't possibly oppose. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 07:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support: Intelligent, clearly dedicated, great contributions, ready. I realise that SoWhy has brought up valid points (on quite a serious issue), but because FlyingToaster is intelligent and cares about the wiki, I think the damage/repair/lessons learned/etc is already being taken care of, as hinted at by this gracious response. Also, I wonder how many of those opposing based on the CSD tagging are, were, or would be slightly careless CSD-ers, too? We know SoWhy does stellar work in this area: what about the rest? I doubt it myself. Maedin\^talk 13:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    As the WP:CSD page makes clear: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." Many editors don't even touch CSD because of the likelihood of accidentally using it carelessly. In my opinion this is not a bad thing; reasonable people may reasonably disagree. Townlake (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

51. Support - A difficult one, but I have decided to support you in the end. The issue of speedy deletion that has come up is certainly not a trivial issue, but you gain credit in other areas which allows me to overlook this. Looking at my criteria, you display the ability to learn from mistakes and communicate effectively (k.c. 5/6/7), and that is very important in my view. Your answer to the questions are good and your attitude is right, I think you having adminship would be overall a benefit for the project. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    And something I forgot to mention, I would suggest using the minor edit check box a little less, you do generally not mark edits with obvious potential controversy such as WP:PROD nominations as minor to your credit. However, big changes to a page such as adding refs and moving stuff around even if non-controversial are not really minor edits, and some editors don't like users marking discussion comments as minor either. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

52. Support - Good-faith editor, even-headed, and I'm sure I could think of more compliments with hyphens in them. Still on learning curve, but seems to understand the concerns noted in the opposes. --StaniStani  21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I've watched this user's good work in many areas and am confident that the CSD concerns voiced here will be taken to heart by FT.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support The comments in the support from Aitias reflect my thoughts as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. I think the RfA itself has probably taught the necessary lesson: be careful with speedy deletes, and I have little concern about abuse. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Whew, for a minute there I thought I was getting deleted! FlyingToaster 02:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

56. Support. Per Stanistani. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Support per above. TheAE talk/sign 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support User can be trusted, and will learn from any mistakes she makes. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Strong support -- see my analysis of her last 15 days of deletions: Flying Toaster's detailed record of successful vs. unsuccessful deletions. 327 successful deletions vs. 11 flatly declined; most of the declines were early in the period and not in the most recent 200 deletion taggings. Note that there were also 41 more taggings in the "other category" (for example: tags removed by author or FlyingToaster herself, etc) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for that list, A.B. 327 tags in 15 days is impressive ... it's not just "click, tag", it's also talking with confused people. I went through all the G1s (nonsense), and they were much better than your one G1 that I stumbled on by accident when I opposed. Zona kayla and 2 other of your G1s were deleted for G11 (promotional) or A7 (no assertion of notability) rather than G1, and I'd prefer you tag that kind of thing as G11 or A7 in the future, so that deleting admins will know that there's a history of attempted promotionalism. Tiger person wasn't quite a G1, but no harm done. The one G1 I mentioned in my oppose, I struck, because I don't think it should be held against you, because that kind of tagging has not been uncommon (but some of us are working to change that). Originating Point Code was correctly declined as a G1 and changed to a redirect. All the other G1s (that you didn't self-revert) were right on the money ... good work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you A.B. - I appreciate the work you put in there. FlyingToaster 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

60. Weak Support Knows WP:AGF perfectly, but I must say she is a little too kind. Be a little more logical, and you should be fine. Leujohn ^(talk)

    Support per 50px? FlyingToaster 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    This is a non-free image... Cenarium (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    Note: (the above image was edited out by Cenarium) User was notified less than 24 hours ago about using non free images outside of article space, and had read the notice. Phil153 (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    Ahaha, ok Phil, you win. Also, I will be thrilled if someone opposes for this. FlyingToaster 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

    It's not about winning - you're clearly a fantastic editor with all the qualities of an admin, so I want to see you and anyone else with those qualities in the job. But the blind spot on policy issues is getting missed. If I don't bring it up pointedly now, it will happen again, and it really does matter, especially copyright. If it's rectified before your next RfA I'm 100% support, as are a lot of the current opposes, I'd imagine. Phil153 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

61. Support Per good answers to questions --DFS454 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support - I see no problem here. Deb (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Has been around since March 2006 and see no real concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Also, we could use more admins. He won't break the wiki. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

    That's all very well but he's a she =] --DFS454 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

    Much like adminship, gender is WP:NOBIGDEAL. :) FlyingToaster 09:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

65. Support I'm not convinced by the opposes, and I think the candidate can handle the mop. Spencer^T♦C 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support I'm a little perturbed by the tendency to blackball people over a few CSD mistags. The user has admitted to some degree of error among many many tags (humanity is not yet a disqualifying criterion at RfA, so far as I know), and a lot of them seem to be no big deal. As for the rest, the user appears to be a valued contributor Wikipedia, and it's a shame that as of this writing it seems the RfA will not pass. Ray (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Full support. ♨ --Mixwell!^Talk 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Struck my neutral, and now vote to support per this Showed me plenty about the editor! — Ched (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - I'm happy to cast what I think is my first RFA vote in support of FlyingToaster. Despte not naming Eroica as he/she/its favourite bit of classical music, the answers given and based on some past experience, I think the tools will be in safe hands. I see no reason to bar access to them. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support ResMar 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support We need more sysops willing to dedicate themselves to CSD and XFD's. Just don't make deletion decisions hastily, breathe a little bit and be careful not to become bitey! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Per my criteria, A.B.'s analysis, and her ability to stay cool under pressure (this RFA). Nobody is perfect; what matters is what you do after you've made a mistake. Sadly, it looks like this isn't going to pass, but there's always next time. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Moving to Support. Great answer to my question today; great responses all week. I don't want to minimize the concerns of the opposition, because on rare occasions, she forgets things that she usually knows ... and that can really be a problem, especially with CSD. Her WP:CSD A7 and WP:CSD G11 tagging isn't great ... but neither is mine. In theory, A7 is supposed to be a simple question, but good A7 taggers try not to delete articles that might meet the notability standard whether notability was asserted or not, which means they're trying to decide quickly what normally takes the work of many people over 5 days. It's not surprising that A7 taggers get confusing advice. WP:CSD G12, copyright violation tagging, is often done wrong, but you'll see on the talk page of this RFA that she's done a phenomenal amount of tagging in the last 15 days or so, and got all of these right. I'm not happy about some of the A3 decisions, but thjtaggers are rarely getting any feedback about A1, A3 and G1. It's my fault that I didn't look more closely at her tagging contributions before now, and that I didn't know more about what goes on at CSD, but now I have and I do, and I'd really like her help as an admin at CSD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. Though she made a few mistakes with CSD (has anyone not made a mistake in CSD?) she is a strong candidate with great answers to the questions. And I liked the dragon story. Valley2city^‽ 04:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support some CSD problems (I had the same problem myself), but notwithstanding, I am confident that there will be no misuse of the tools. Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support User should be trusted with the mop, and adminship is a learning process anyway. Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Good user but I would not trust her with the mop at the moment. She wants to work in speedy deletion but her tagging is less than good. Let me elaborate:
   • Mistaken A1 for an article with clear context
   • A7 on an article that makes claims of notability (owner of multiple newspapers)
   • A3 one minute after creation (another one like that, here an A7)
   • A7 on article with clear claims of notability
   • Good faith attempt at a game report but no test page
   • A7 on an article about someone who has a notable school named in his honor (that should be enough claim of notability to fail A7)
   • Incorrect G11 (how can sth be advertising if the product is not sold anymore?)
   • A1 with clear context (Another one)

   And that is just within the last week (and I left out most of those where she realized her mistake). We have a shortage of admins at CSD, I know that, I cleared CAT:CSD the last days almost alone for several hours. But I cannot support someone to help with it if they make such basic mistakes so frequently. The candidate seems overeager to delete on sight and I fear she will continue with such mistakes when allowed to delete herself. At the moment I advise against this candidate, although it is a pity given the good contributions overall. But this is too grave to overlook. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - SoWhy - Thank you for your feedback. As Neurolysis mentioned, I do a ton of CSD'ing each day, and definitely I make some mistakes along the way. Whenever this happens, I try to as fast as possible fix the mistake, apologize to all involved, and explain what happened if a user is confused. And definitely, if a hangon tag is present, I will investigate the subject again to try and find the notability or content that the article in its first form could not convey.

   That said, while the CSD criteria are reasonably well defined, deciding if something meets the criteria and which one can be open to interpretation. Many of the diffs you provided are edge cases which I think can simply be interpreted differently, so I'd like to address them individually:

   • Mistaken A1 for an article with clear context I do believe this could qualify in sufficient lacking in context, as the only tie that this entry provides to the world is a name with no Wikipedia article.
   • A7 on an article that makes claims of notability (owner of multiple newspapers) This one is definitely an edge-case, and certainly it could be argued that owning newspapers is an indication of why the subject is important. For this reason, when the user made an edit to my talk page asking about the tag, I declined my own speedy and instead helped wikify and source the article. I also want to point out that the A7 tag is not exactly a mark of the subject being notable, but rather if there is any indication of why the subject is important. It's a slightly lower standard than notability, which is often more suited to an AfD or Prod.
   • A3 one minute after creation (another one like that, here an A7) The question here is time (this article was marked quickly) rather than the tag (the article indeed had no content). The reason I am willing to mark pages for speedy deletion very shortly after creation is because speedy is just that - a tag for deletion, not deletion itself. It alerts the article creator that something is wrong, and gives them the chance to correct it (via the hangon tag, another edit, using the talk page, using my talk page, etc). This is very different than deleting an article very quickly, which I feel that admins should not do (except in cases of vandalism, attack, nonsense, etc). My personal take is that if a page qualifies for speedy, it should be marked as such without need for much delay. Then the editor should be given time to contest it or to fix it, and if that fails then the article will be deleted. After all, an editor is warned when creating a page that "an article without references will likely be deleted quickly."
   • A7 on article with clear claims of notability I applied the tag here because while the claim itself would indicate notability, I searched for the name of the person and could find absolutely no evidence that they exist. I can see how you could argue that since the article provides a claim to notability and the problem is that the person in question appears not to meet that claim, a PROD or AfD explaining this would have been more appropriate.
   • Good faith attempt at a game report but no test page I agree with my tagging here, but I definitely think this is an edge case that could be interpreted a few ways. I applied the test speedy tag because the content appeared to be some sort of copy/paste from a blog or other article without any indication the author was trying to format the page like an article.
   • A7 on an article about someone who has a notable school named in his honor (that should be enough claim of notability to fail A7) This one is truly my mistake - I did not notice that the name of the school mentioned was the same as the subject of the article.
   • Incorrect G11 (how can sth be advertising if the product is not sold anymore?) My opinion is that advertising is no more appropriate if the item in question is hard or impossible to purchase - it's more a concern of tone and style. The test of the G1 tag is whether an article "exclusively promotes some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" - not whether an attempt is necessarily being made to sell the reader the item. Incidentally, I personally feel that articles written as advertisements should be either deleted or the POV parts removed until they can be substantially rewritten. That's why, after this speedy tag was declined, I came back and removed some of the advertising language and helped to wikify it.
   • A1 with clear context I think the context here is questionable - I read the link that was provided before I applied the speedy tag and could not verify the source to be notable or true in any way. (Another one) I must admit I did not understand the context here and thought the page might be nonsense. That's why I removed my own CSD tag when the editor provided enough information (the subject pharmacology) for me to identify it.

   In summary, the process of patrolling new pages is unfortunately never cut/dry black/white, and the ones above I feel are for the most part edge cases which could be interpreted and marked different ways. I suppose what I'd like to point out are two items. First, in many of the above cases where a speedy deletion tag is declined, you'll see I go back to that article and try to wikify/tag it to meet Wikipedia standards. My motivation is not purely deleting bad content on Wikipedia, but making sure the content here is good - so if an article about a notable subject is written as an advertisement, I'm happy to fix the article and have it stay rather than delete it. Secondly, I want to point out that, as I mentioned, I feel there's an important difference between marking pages for deletion and actually deleting them. Honestly, I think people should mark pages for deletion more liberally than they would actually delete them, and if I become an admin this will be the tack I take. As an admin, rather than quickly deleting many pages as fast as I mark them for deletion today, I would give the editor time to fix whatever problem was called out in the speedy tagging and err on the side of improving an article to Wikipedia standards rather than deleting it. I see marking a page for speedy as the first line of defense to flag a problem, but actually deleting a page is the final say and I think all effort must be given to take each case individually and make a decision fairly. FlyingToaster 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   → Response and further discussion moved to talk page to avoid overlong text here. SoWhy 12:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Seeing the comments that were given in support of SoWhy's initial oppose, and the discussion that ensued, I've changed my stance slightly from this initial reply above. Please see the comment I left DGG. This was made assuming the failure of this RfA and looking towards the next. Thanks everyone. FlyingToaster 04:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per SoWhy. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per SoWhy. Especially worrying for me is the one minute tag. It demonstrates lack of an attempt to research and/or improve the article first, and comes of as WP:BITEy. Rami R 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - SoWhy's diffs are troubling. FlyingToaster's response is doubly so - it convinces me that FT won't improve their practice once they're an admin. Newpage patrolling, especially speedy deletion, is where we drive away new contributors the most. Here we have someone who is already biting the content creators, the new users - and seems to have no intention of, or interest in, stopping. Giving them sharper teeth is a bad idea until the behaviour is fixed. WilyD 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - Wilyd - I just wanted to point out that I actually did mention in my response to SoWhy that as an admin, I would be deleting much slower and more carefully than I apply speedy tags, and erring on the side of keeping if anything. I would not expect you to support based on how I'm telling you I would act versus how I have, but only wanted to mention that I do see a difference between editor teeth and the sharper admin teeth, which should be used more sparingly. FlyingToaster 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well, fair enough, but ultimately I think I have to predict your future behaviour based on your past behaviour, rather than your stated intentions (I may well catch flak for that, but I'll stand by it). Of course, being a regular at C:CSD might well make me crankier than most about bad nominations ... WilyD 17:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Additionally - uploaded a noncommercial image less than two months ago [3] and applied a bad tag {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I've deleted the image, but it's available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mafleen/286697668/ for the curious. WilyD 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect, that could easily just be a mistake. Everyone makes them. — neuro^(talk) 22:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, the page is only viewable to admins, but it was clearly label as "CC-BY-NC-SA" in the text and "CC-BY-SA" with the machine readable code. The uploader definitely seems to know what they're doing. Perhaps they're not aware we can't use non-commercial only licensed material ... but if that's the case, they're probably not ready to be an admin. WilyD 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Hey WilyD. I obviously can't view the page in question, but I'm guessing I accidentally selected the wrong item from the license dropdown list on this file. I'm aware we can't use photos that are licensed for non-commercial use. FlyingToaster 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose - Per dodgy CSD work. This absolutely cannot be overlooked. The responses are troubling too. The A7 and A1 responses in particular. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, too many recent questionable speedy deletion nominations. The occasional mistake we all make or if these were from a few months ago then I could understand (the learning process). However nominating articles for speedy deletion can drive off editors from contributing further (and especially newcomers) and incorrect actual speedy deletions are even worse in driving off new editors. I accept FlyingToaster says that he would be more careful in deleting but I can only judge from nominations at the moment and I am not convinced by the response over these deletions. Come back in a few months with a record of good speedy deletion nominations and I will be happy to support then. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose per SoWhy and daft answers to Q 4 + 5. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Both answers look correct to me...how can you label them that way? Acalamari 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   These were the answers at the time of my oppose – the thing about the dragon just struck me as odd and an indication of a lack of committment to the role of admin. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, though I personally would consider that more of a reason to support on the basis of giving a unique answer, and having interesting thinking. Thanks for your response. Acalamari 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose Both per SoWhy and the responses to SoWhy's diffs.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose very poor CSD tagging, I found plenty more poor examples beside those listed by SoWhy. RMHED. 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per SoWhy's diffs, FT's response, and the strange/silly answers to my questions (Q4, Q5). My opinion on Neuro stays, however. :) →Dyl@n620 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Can I please ask you to look closer at both his original answer, which does indeed make sense (and is rather clever, nice job), and his new one please? They might be a bit silly, but they certainly are not wrong. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Very well then; even so, my oppose (albeit weak now) stands per SoWhy and FT's response. BTW, FT's female. →Dyl@n620 03:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Dylan has moved to support. — neuro^(talk) 08:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose Those bad CSDs are not close calls. Townlake (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    Reduce to regular ol' Oppose based on review of last couple days' worth of edits, which are quite good. CSD concerns remain, but I've enjoyed following this RFA and gotta say FlyingToaster's constructive attitude about everything going on here is encouraging and laudable. Townlake (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose without even reviewing you further. Sorry, but the moment I saw the words "tagged within one minute of creation" and checked the link to confirm that was indeed the case, (and that the article wasn't an attack page or copyvio, where hairtrigger biteyness is acceptable) trust instantly goes out the window. – iridescent 20:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    Did you see who created the article? Majorly talk 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    I was talking about the second one, created by a user with a history of valid contributions, albeit a brief one. I have no problem with A3 deletions – a blank page is no loss – but tagging something which was fairly obviously a user fixing their infobox before starting on the article. Leaving a dodgy page for a couple of days before tagging it is no harm to the project; potentially driving off a user who's come to contribute something useful, doesn't understand the difference between mainspace and userspace so creates an unfinished article in mainspace, sees their page vanish before their eyes and thinks "screw this site" and moves on elsewhere, is. (Although it's now been AFD'd I can't quite see why, as it certainly doesn't look like spam to me – and I'm not sure of the usefulness of spamming a company solely serving a French-speaking country in the English Wikipedia, anyway.) – iridescent 20:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    OK, I agree, just making sure I knew which you were talking about. Cheers, Majorly talk 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. SoWhy's quoted edits make it clear that FlyingToaster needs more experience with the deletion process before being granted adminship. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - SoWhy rightfully presents the necessary information to be shared with voters, so I appreciate that and agree with his assessment. That diffs pretty much convinces me that the approval of the admin tool to the candidate at this time is not the good choice. --Caspian blue

    Oppose - content editor wanting tools for non-content areas. Seems like a bad mix. I don't see a need for them to have the tools. Also, we have plenty of people who use automated scripts, so I see nothing on that side of things to really be of note to give them access to the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    I think classifying her as merely a content editor is a little off, and perhaps even somewhat demeaning considering her prominent work with various other areas like UAA. — neuro^(talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    I was being tongue in cheek there. Automated edits don't really count as -your- doing. So, all that was left was the 8000 edits that they did manually, mostly to content editing. I don't think she has a need for the tools, and this is an area that has plenty of admin. If UAA starts putting out help wanted banners, perhaps, but definitely not now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

14. Regretful Oppose. You are a great user, but just a single mistake in WP:CSD can nail you in an RfA. Unfortunatley, if you look at Oppose #1, everything is there. However, I would of opposed anyway. Looking at your edit count, you have about a gazillion edits on User Talk pages (???), more than mainspace pages. You also don't have too many manual edits. The verdict is per SoWhy... like about everyone else...... K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Comment - I have over 7000 manual edits, which I understand you feel is too few - that's fine, it's your personal call. I also wanted to say that I'm personally proud of my talk page edits. This is where I engage users, answer questions, help out new users, give warnings, etc. For each vandalism reversion I make a talk page edit, and if the users have any questions I will follow up on their talk pages. If you feel that editors should refrain from talk pages this is your call, but I do want to point out that this is deliberate on my part and I am proud of these as I am of my mainspace edits. FlyingToaster 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Not enough of an encyclopdia editor, relatively too much outside the mainspace. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 06:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Hey Iterator12n - I'm not sure what you mean here - could you rephrase this? Are you saying there's too many Talk Page edits, or too much Wikipedia space, relative to mainspace edits? And are you talking about a ratio here, or edit count? FlyingToaster 07:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose Uses "open to recall" as a response to concerns. "Open to recall" is non-binding, and using it to allay concerns makes this candidate unsuitable. Hipocrite (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    You do know that an open to recall can be binding if the user makes it clear that it will be, right? I think having the courage to be open to recall is something most admin around here would never follow in suit. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    ORLY? Tell that to User:Elonka. There is no circumstance where "recall" can be binding. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to supportOppose. Ouch. I saw that doing CSDs this morning; Wily had to turn down the candidate's CSD G1 (nonsense) tag on an article that isn't close to G1. To do that after all this discussion about CSD tags suggests the candidate isn't hearing what we're saying. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Striking this rationale. I've spent a couple of days doing CSD work to get up to speed, and now I know that {{db-nonsense}} tags in this situation are not that uncommon (although still terrible IMO ... to leave a message on a first-time good-faith contributor's talk page saying that their work deserves to be deleted because it's gibberish or "incoherent" goes beyond BITEy in my mind ... much better is to delete if appropriate per {{db-context}}, as Chillum suggests below, and ask the tagger not to use db-nonsense in these cases). I'm still opposing per SoWhy's A3 and A7 diffs. Below, the candidate says: "Honestly, I think up to now I've been marking CSDs about the same as most other people (in fact I used the example of other new page patrollers to learn what cases fall into what categories)." A lot of patrollers get things wrong. Also, it's completely appropriate to set a reasonable standard for CSD work at RfA, even if other people, including admins, sometimes don't meet the standard. I'm very happy to see below that you're learning from this RfA and it's a useful experience. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Comment Funny thing is, I fretted and fretted over that particular CSD, moving cursor from PROD to CSD to back again, for exactly this reason. Turns out nonsense is a hard thing to define. :P FlyingToaster 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    commentSure looks like something with little encyclopedic quality made by a brand new user with no other contribs. It would take a lot to -not- see it as either a test edit or nonsense. The smilie face was a dead give away, and it seems like Dan may have missed that in looking at the page to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Give it another look. The entire article, SHUT YOUR MANE was: "A refrence used to tell smiles on blogtv to be quiet:) Used by afroman,chicpanda,smiles". Those are 3 characters, and Blogtv is similar to YouTube. The user was attempting to give a definition to a piece of what they perceive as popular culture. As Wily correctly tagged, it would belong on Wiktionary if it belongs anywhere, and it probably doesn't belong on Wiktionary. It's important to get nonsense tags right, because telling someone who might have been trying to add something to Wikipedia in good faith that they're talking gibberish might in some cases be bitey. See WP:NONSENSE for our guideline on what is and isn't CSD G1. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    The smilie face is a dead give away that the page is vandalism. Even wiktionary's low standards would still think its inappropriate to introduce emoticons like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Good faith edits are never vandalism. RxS (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    I get your point that emoticons in what are supposed to be serious Wikipedia articles are a bad sign, but this was a new user; we can't really expect them to know anything about what a Wikipedia page is supposed to look like. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    New users can still create nonsense. Regardless, to hold it against this poor girl because she thought this was nonsense, then, well, I don't know what to say. Sure, the other CSDs might have legitimacy, but there is a strong argument to make for this being reasonably seen as nonsense, even if you don't think it is. I, for one, think that it was nonsensical. As you can see from my user page, I have a long history in writing encyclopedic pages. If you think I am wrong, so be it. We all have the right to disagree. However, you should be able to recognize that reasonable people may see this as nonsense, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Even if it is not nonsense, I say it either qualifies as a WP:CSD#A1 or at least is close enough. I have deleted the article, and I also feel the application of the CSD tag was correct in spirit, even if it did not meet the technical wording of the policy. Chillum 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

17. Weak oppose. While I really like the work you've done as an editor, I cannot support you with the incorrect speedy taggings hanging over your head. Once you've cleared this up, you'll do fine--but as of now it's a problem. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per SoWhy's dissertation. ArcAngel (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
19. OpposeI really try to go beyond SoWhy observations but the actions are too recent. Many of the request for speedy where related to international topics, every wikipedian should try to help to counter this encyclopedia natural bias, WP:BIAS. I have no doubt about the quality of the user contributions, I just want to see more experience dealing with deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose anyone who would make speedy nominations one minute after an article was started when it is too early to tell if it might be notable, and intends to continue doing so, or who would think Indian Express Group borderline notability enough to speedy is clearly not to be trusted with the buttons. I don't think she accepts WP:Deletion policy. DGG (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Comment Thanks for the feedback DGG - if you don't mind I'd like to take your !vote as an opportunity to make a comment. Basically, this RfA is really teaching me a lot, and I'm going to be a different editor as a result. If the community is soundly against marking certain things for deletion, and against marking them too quickly (except in cases of vandalism etc), then that's what I'll be doing from now on. Honestly, I think up to now I've been marking CSDs about the same as most other people (in fact I used the example of other new page patrollers to learn what cases fall into what categories). But I think this RfA shows some opinions which are not fully covered in our policies, and frankly that's good to know. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is a community project, and while we don't always agree I want my work to fall in the mainstream of what people here consider acceptable and unacceptable for marking content and engaging with users. I've already changed my criteria of what I personally mark for deletion as a result of this RfA, as you'll see in my recent edits, and I hope that by the time I reapply for adminship I'll have earned your trust. FlyingToaster 04:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose Not enough policy awareness, particularly shown by the comment at Indian Express Group talk [4] after the speedy. Admins need to make lots of difficult decisions and while a misreading of one criteria is ok, I think this shows a lack of understanding of speedy deletion in general and the rationales and balances involved in the community's decision to allow it. Admins working in difficult areas need to understand things from first principles because criteria only go so far. I say this to be positive; FlyingToaster is a great contributor and even went on to more than right her mistakes by substantially contributing to the article afterwards. I just think she needs to delve a bit deeper into the inner workings of policy. I'm sure she can do that and come back for a successful RfA in a little while because everything else seems suitable for adminship :). Phil153 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    In response to claims that opposes are "too hard on CSD", there's more to it than that. Edits like this from 2 days ago (all candidate's text - please read carefully) make me think that a lack of care may extend beyond CSD. User is highly efficient which is great in a contributor but sometimes at the expense of accuracy. I want to be convinced that user is sufficiently careful if they're going to be doing potentially permanent actions. Phil153 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, I consider that an example of turning CSD-able vandalism into content. FlyingToaster 16:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    Oh sorry, you mean the typos! Hehe. I would continue to make typos even if I was an admin, I promise you that, so fair enough. FlyingToaster 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    No, not the typos, this sentence, which is a hilarious misreading of the sources: Because of these abnormal cells, the anus extends from within the body and joins the rectum, forming an anal canal within the body. See the next edit. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it merely shows that sometimes you do things too quickly, which is fantastic as a contributor (you get stuff done, and a few mistakes are easily fixed), but more concerning as an admin when combined with the same traits in the CSD stuff. As I've said before all the other stuff you do, including saving that article, is awesome. Phil153 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose. Dubious deletion tags and article work is unimpressive. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    I would hardly call her article work 'dubious'. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Neuro, her article work was described as "unimpressive". The dubious relates to the tagging. Maedin\^talk 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    Heh, just realised how easy it is to read the sentence the other way. Is the sentence missing a comma or . . . not? Maedin\^talk 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    I think you can read it both ways, and the English language is just being ambiguous on us:

    1. Dubious deletion tags and article work is unimpressive. (deletion tags are dubious, article work is unimpressive) ← This is technically a sentence fragment

    2. Dubious deletion tags and article work is unimpressive. (deletion tags and article work are both unimpressive)

    English can be annoying. But you be thankful we have tenses. FlyingToaster 16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

    Wouldn't it be helpful if we all started writing in colors like this? ;-)--Atlan (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

23. Regretful oppose. I love the polite, rational responses, even in the face of pressure. But even before the RfA I had concerns about the quality of this editor's speedy tagging (both in amount of time elapsed and the correctness of speedy tags). The replies to SoWhy's diffs give me concern -- I don't see that FT truly grasps the criteria. Get that straightened out, and I'd love to change to support in a future RfA.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per SoWhy and apparent fundamental misunderstanding of CSD policy. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Tagging this for deletion after it's only been around for one minute? That's reason enough for not to trust your judgement. Majoreditor (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, what? The article in question at first glance looks like a standard failure of WP:ORG. No references, no text and between 30-60 employees obviously fails the policy; I'd also point out that when FlyingToaster noticed that the company now passed the notability guidelines she removed the db-org tag and replaced it with something more apt. Making a mistake with a speedy? Bad. But it wasn't a mistake at the time, and when she realised the company did indeed pass WP:ORG she removed the tag, so I'm failing to see the problem. Ironholds (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    The problem is highlighted in the introduction to WP:CSD: "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." An article that is actively being edited and is under five minutes old should not be tagged for deletion for notability concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Well said, Moonriddengirl. Flying Toaster should not have tagged a one minute-old article for possible deletion since the article was under construction. This is highly disruptive to those of us who create content. Majoreditor (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

26. Oppose. Too many newbies are bitten on their first article. {{Notability}} is an alternative to A7. Good manners! jmcw (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    They're surely getting put to the test. FlyingToaster 09:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Notability tags are for "well we're not quite sure how notable this is, but we might be able to find something so we'll keep it for now" not "it is obviously not notable, but what the hell you have to be nice to the newbies!". We're meant to teach newbies how to fit in; giving them the impression that blatantly non-notable articles will be kept hardly helps that. Just to emphasise: {{Notability}} is NOT an alternative to A7. {{Notability}} is when notability is unclear, not when it is obviously missing. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

27. Oppose. I certainly agree with Neuro that this candidate is cordial and collegial in conversation. However, I think there needs to be time to process and work as the "different editor" she indicates to DGG that she will now become. I acknowledge that she is hardly alone in the rapid-fire tagging of articles for speedy deletion that are obviously incomplete, but our policy does explain why this is a bad idea, and I believe that an admin should demonstrate understanding of the policy...not only what it says, but why. We need to welcome new contributors not only through one-on-one mentoring, but in a general sense by explaining "the policies, guidelines and community standards of Wikipedia" (as per WP:BITE). CSD is not meant to wipe out incomplete articles with potential; it's meant to summarily remove material that does not and cannot belong. I think this nom demonstrates that she has a clue; I'm glad that she reconsidered this vandalism CSD requested, placed on the 22nd. She certainly left the article in better shape than she found it. But the initial tag was hasty, given the results of a simple google test--11,600 hits for the term. I'd encourage the nom to slow down as she moves forward and to consider alternatives, as the policy says, "[b]efore nominating an article for speedy deletion...." (my emphasis). I must also note for the record that I am also uncertain how well this contributor understands copyright, WP:CITE and plagiarism. As recently as October, she cleaned up the article Army Worm by pasting extensive material from this source. Admins only can view the selectively deleted version, here. Non-admins, for one single example, compare one sentence she placed in the article: "For example, Pitre and Hogg (1983) studied winter survival of the pupal stage in Florida, and found 51 percent survival in southern Florida, but only 27.5 percent survival in central Florida, and 11.6 percent survival in northern Florida. " The citation there (which is to the Pitre and Hogg article) would seem to suggest that she had viewed the Pitre & Hogg article and crafted a sentence noting their work herself, but in fact that sentence, as with multiple sentences and paragraphs, was copied directly or with minimal change from the University of Florida profile. This text is not only not public domain, but clearly marked "Copyright 1999-2005". In one paragraph, she cited the copied page (though without any indicator that her text was placed verbatim). At best, this contributor did not know as recently as October of last year that she could not paste content from copyright sources to Wikipedia--which would suggest at least one pretty serious gap in policy understanding for a person whose userpage indicates that she has been editing for nearly three years. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Closing bureaucrat - please note that "October of last year" was essentially the start of my active Wikipedia career, and nearly 14,000 edits ago. FlyingToaster 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    This copyright infringement, which was only discovered this month, was placed on 19 October 2008, about four months ago. Not only does your userpage contain a userbox indicating you've been editing for nearly three years, but your logs seem to bear that out. I'm sorry if you feel, as you indicate in edit summary, "a bit saddened that mistakes from the beginning of my wikicareer have been brought up but trust that they will be taken as just that", but I'm unsure how this can be viewed in that light. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    The user did indeed start serious editing in October. On 25 September FT had 350 edits. By October 19th, the date of this addition, FT had 2976 edits. So you're both right, in a way. (I used wikichecker). I think the Feb 11 discussion on your talk page is relevant though, it does show a continuing lack of good understanding of copyright policy (although not egregious) [5]. Phil153 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for clarifying. I've never used Wikichecker. I've been trying to look through more recent contributions to find substantial text to see if there are other signs of confusion about copying text from other sources, but I am finding it difficult, since the nom seems to mark almost everything "minor", including edits such as this. I see she correctly tagged "Top 100 Greatest Villains" as a problem. Creatively compiled lists are governed by copyright, but she removed the tag herself. Except that the contributor claimed it was necessary to verify a fact in another article—the rationale she gave here—I'm unsure why she did not proceed with other steps in handling copyright problems. (I'm also very confused as to why, 4 minutes later, she tagged the talk page for G8, but that's not a copyright concern.) This was February 19th. I would hope that an admin would follow through. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose per Moonriddengirl (as a change from all the others opposing per SoWhy). --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    Changing to Strong Oppose per Ragesoss and that Las Vegas Sun article. Wow. Her delete-don't-improve work gave us a big, raw, black eye there, in an important newspaper. Anyone supporting should read the Las Vegas Sun article and think again if this is the sort of face we want to be presenting to the world, and if Flying Toaster is the sort of person we want to have as admin. Note that the article as tagged included a link to the band's site, which has a press page full of reliable sources that not only should have saved it from Speedy, they pass WP:N. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose. My own experience with FlyingToaster mirrors those incidents noted by SoWhy. Last month, she tagged Killian's Angels for speedy deletion two minutes after it was created. After the deletion, an article about it came out in the Las Vegas Sun: Band is in millions of homes but not on Wikipedia, a textbook example of why newcomers often find Wikipedia bewildering and hostile. FlyingToaster should spend a few months continuing to work on whatever areas she wants to contribute to, to demonstrate that she can be more conscientious about her work than she has been recently.--ragesoss (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Weak Oppose. I completely approve of the work FlyingToaster has done, but, SoWhy and Moonriddengirl bring up some very strong points. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. As Ragesoss highlights, this kind of attitude to new articles gives the encyclopedia a bad name. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose mainly per SoWhy. Although I would agree that we need more admins doing speedy deletion, I believe FlyingToaster needs some more time to mature and fully understand the process first. Sorry. Tavix (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
33. I'm afraid that I can't support either, entirely because of the far too rapid speedy deletion tagging. Editors, especially new editors, have to be given reasonable time to construct their articles without harassment. I myself prefer to build articles incrementally in mainspace rather than userspace, and it's certainly what most new editors will automatically choose to do. Evidence of a little less rushing at CSD tagging could well persuade me to support at a later RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Regretful oppose - Based on the candidate's good answers to the questions (except Q11), I immediately prepared to support, but then scrolled down and saw SoWhy's comments. Doing more research, and reading the candidate's responses to SoWhy, it is clear that the candidate does not understand the whole point of CSD and what it was created for. I happen to work on the CSD backlog as an administrator, and have seen countless trigger-happy users tagging clearly-notable articles, or other articles that obviously don't satisfy CSD criteria. From my experience, A7 and G11 are by far the most misunderstood criteria, and it appears that the candidate is one of those users who completely misunderstand them, based on the taggings and answers to SoWhy, which I encourage other users to read. I'm not saying that trigger-happy taggers are harming the encyclopedia (although making the backlog bigger for no reason isn't helpful), just that they should not be administrators until they fully understand CSD, especially if they intend to work in that area. In addition, the fact that the candidate has argued many opposes does not play in their favor in my eyes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

    Speaking as an opposer, I think FT has conducted herself nicely on the responses to the opposes here. If she's had any one real stumble, it was on the sarcastic response to the Spock picture goof. Otherwise, I'm not in the least worried about her temperament. Townlake (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

35. Oppose I can only echo some other comments. Getting speedy deletions is bad for content and often bites new users. I'm sure the message is clear to FT, but I'd like to see a longer track record of more moderate CSD activity. It's more important that new users find a welcoming atmosphere here than it is to get rid of borderline content immediately. RxS (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose for above concerns. If some of the raised problems date back to her 'early' time, that also means that she is effectively not that long around and while there is an impressive number of good edits, I'd simply prefer to be sure that deletion (and copyright) policy have sunk in and then there shouldn't be any trouble next time. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral - I trust FT as an editor (and I personally wouldn't mind seeing Neuro up at RfA), but SoWhy's evidence makes me a bit wary. I might rethink this, but I'm not sure. →Dyl@n620 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving to oppose. →Dyl@n620 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Currently both sides are convincing, if anything new comes up I could tilt either way. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral -- Flyingtoaster seems like a good-faith editor who could use the tools for good, but the misuse of tags leads mead to wonder whether her decision making as an admin with the tools could end up being misused as well.--TRUCO 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I don't ask that you change your !vote, Truco, but I do want to mention here as a point of information that were this RfA to pass, I would be open to recall. FlyingToaster 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but I honestly think that in months time I will be able to support, but the mistaggin' leads me to wonder.--TRUCO 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral Honestly, I think a full minute was too long for tagging that article. It had no content whatsoever, so it did obviously fit the CSD criterion. And as for the concern about that being BITEy: I've found that if the (presumably) new user actually wants to make an article about something, then he'll do a bit of research and not click "Save page" until there's actually some content there. If they're not serious about making an article (i.e., if they're just making a hoax, spam, or just some random article like "John Johnson is awesome!!!!!!1"), then it usually gets them off our back (for a while, at least). flaminglawyer 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Uh, so why are you neutralling then? You seem not to have brought any concerns to the table, or reiterated any. — neuro^(talk) 02:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Since you really want one: Over half his/her edits are in the User talk namespace. That's not really a concern of mine, but it may be to someone else. flaminglawyer 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Uh, shouldn't it be about what you think, and not what others think? — neuro^(talk) 13:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps flaming is considering the best interests and general will of the community, rather than their own personal interests, in staying neutral for now rather than committing to one side or the other. Seems totally reasonable to me. Townlake (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   I vote neutral if 1. I have no preference as to if this user should become/not become an admin, and 2. I trust the community's decision-making skills to decide whether the user needs/can have the tools. So by voting neutral, I was saying that, but while doing that I added that a minute was too long. And whatever else you could gather from that. I only support an RfA if I've seen the user around a good bit, and I like what I've seen of them. I only oppose an RfA if I really think that seeing the user with the tools would make me cringe (like a NOTNOW or someone who loves content disputes and edit wars). flaminglawyer 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Oh right, never thought that you might be taking neutral as the default position. Sorry for bothering you, I am an idiot. (this sounds a bit sarcastic in my head, it isn't intended to be.) — neuro^(talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral Moral of this RfA? You want to run for adminship, don't touch newpage CSD with a bargepole. Even if 99% of your tagging is spot on, you'll still piss someone off. Keep doing what you're doing, be very careful with CSD if you keep on working on it, and come back here in a few months. Black Kite 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Alternative moral: talk with taggers and admins, search for consensus on what passes for "good enough" at RfA, and then be careful. The problem is that admins are routinely choosing different rationales than the taggers, and not alerting the taggers; maybe it seems like a lot of work with not a lot of payoff. But I don't see that we have a choice; we have to keep working towards consensus on what's good enough for RfA, even if that turns out to be a little more strict than what happens in practice. (And generally, what they tell you to do in school is more "idealized" than what you see in your profession, and everyone knows that's the way it is, and deals with it. If people put answers on their bar (law) exams that corresponded to what lawyers actually do, no one would pass their bar exams.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with both of you: the moral that Dan points out is the optimistic one, the one that Black Kite points out is more pessimistic. Time will tell which way it goes, but I also think that most RfA candidates will have forgotten this RfA in less than 3 months, which is my cynical moral. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

   I think there's a good takeaway from this RfA, especially for experienced editors. If you see other editors making edits you feel are mistakes, everyone benefits if you take a minute and just let them know. It's rarely a deep-seated ideological preference that leads things like tagging too often, but people who are genuinely trying to make good edits and are learning from a combination of written policy and the edits of others. The problem is that these learning editors (such myself) go on editing without any indication that anyone disagrees with the way they are editing. I don't mean to single him out, but SoWhy mentioned that he had become frustrated with the way myself and others had been tagging articles for deletion. If you are feeling frustrated as SoWhy was, please just let the editors you are frustrated by know about it. Not only will this mean less work for you because you won't have to fix as many mistakes, but then editors can learn from you and fix the problem and won't find out there's an issue for the first time on their RfA. Thanks again for participating, everyone. FlyingToaster 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

   That's a very good and reasonable point FlyingToaster. I hope it's taken to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral. FlyingToaster means well, but doesn't quite have a good enough grasp of CSD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I respect the nom, and it's clear to me that FT is a great editor, and valuable assent to the project. I'd trust FT with the block and pp tools, but the XfD stuff bothers me. I'm of the "fix-don't-delete" mentality, so delete issues are important to me. There's a rising storm headed this way concerning user pages and deletion, and I think extra-care has to be taken before deleting things right now. (oops - sig) — Ched (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral because of speedy deletion tagging issues. However, I can be swayed either way with more evidence. Timmeh! 21:34, 25 February 2009 (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.