Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Solarra

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

Solarra

Final (57/29/4); ended 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate 16:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC) —LucasThoms 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Solarra (talk · contribs) – I've had an eye on Solarra as a potential administrator for some time now, but since I'm apparently notoriously slow I've only just gotten around to nominating her. Solarra is excellent prospective admin material; she has a substantial editing history which features a reasonable variety of work, from content cleanup to anti-vandalism. She's spent time in admin related areas such as AFD, AIV and ANI, and has demonstrated a good understanding of policy in these areas.
More importantly, though, Solarra possesses one of the coolest heads I have seen on Wikipedia. She has weathered fairly persistent vandalism and abuse without batting an eyelid, and has been the voice of reason in every dispute I've seen her get into. She's never been afraid to ask for help or advice, and displays a degree of caution that would put many of our most active administrators to shame. In short, her temperment is ideally suited to admin work, and I'm convinced that once she has the mop, she'll quickly become one of our most respected sysops. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I agree with Yunshui and am happy to add my support. Solarra is indeed cool and courteous and while she hasn't created many articles she displays plenty of content knowledge, and seems to know her policies and guidelines very well. Most of all, though, I support her because of her demeanor: she strikes me as someone who doesn't push people around, judges fairly, is willing to change her mind, and genuinely tries to improve the atmosphere by seeking consensus through diplomacy. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept the nomination. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

After very careful consideration, I have decided to withdraw this request at this time. I really appreciate both the nominations by Yunshui and Drmies and the Support !votes below. What I appreciate more, is the excellent feedback from those who oppose. The careful and extremely helpful constructive criticism gives me an excellent direction to grow in. I would greatly appreciate if even some of you would be willing to continue to keep an eye and my growth as an editor here and continue to provide such good feedback. Again, thanks to all who participated and thank you so much for your input :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 16:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: They type of Admin work I look at doing is quite honestly the work I've been doing already, without the mop, just with the tools needed to actually impact some of the backlog that exists on various admin boards. I see the tremendous backlog, at RPP, often AIV, SPI, AN3, etc and I feel like I could be a tremendous help to the project if I were granted the tools by the community to do so. CSD is something I will probably become involved in as well as AFD. As far as AFD goes, if the community endorses me as an admin, I will be taking it slowly at first like Yunshui notes in the nom statement, I am very cautious when it comes to things that may be even considered controversial, as such I will never supervote. To conclude, I wish to help out in areas I feel the help is needed.See below for reasoning

Addition: I wanted to add a tad bit here, right now there is a huge backlog SPI. One of the most specific areas I plan to look to become active in is specifically becoming an SPI clerk. I note 6 active clerks at this time, and I feel this is one specific area I could give some assistance in.

Amendment CSD and AFD were something I never really considered to be something I wanted to be involved in more than passingly. The things I named before (AIV, SPI, and AN3 as well as RPP) were more what I have my sights set on as an admin. Several issues have been brought up in this RFA regarding my qualifications for adminship over my possible involvement in CSD and AFD with the relevant tools. I will fully and gladly accept not involving myself in these areas at all per the perfectly valid objections raised. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 09:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

A: This is a tough question to answer to be honest, I have been active in a large number of areas over the years and it is really hard to narrow it down to even a handful of individual contributions. To start I'd have to point out my long work at AIV, over the years and especially recently I have worked closely with some well known vandal-fighting admins to fight abuse by some of the more notorious LTA puppetmasters. I take much pride in the work I've put in to that particular aspect, primarily because of how important the project is to me, and I hate to see the work of others destroyed by the foolishness of malcontents and I try to resolve such issues as quickly as possible to protect the work others have often put many hours into.

Secondly, I'd have to point to copyediting and cleanup of various articles over the years. I really enjoy this sort of work, I'd love to do more of it, but sadly my free time has not always allowed it. When I do get to do it, I feel that the improvement to the article in specific, and the project itself more generally, are better as a result of it.

Lastly, I'd have to point at my contribution in the area of mentorship/coaching. This project is nothing without the efforts of thousands of active editors, and any opportunity I can take to 'teach newbies the ropes' I jump at the opportunity for. I love the process of it, I love the interaction, and I love seeing their completed work. The whole process is an absolute joy for me and it is something I am quite fond and proud of.

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 say with impunity, that I have never became angry over something on the project. One of the most paramount things important to editing an encyclopedia, is having a cool head to look dispassionately at the facts. Given that doing so is literally my job, I try to bring that same collected and unbiased thought process to serve me here. That is not to say I don't feel when things get heated up, I just make sure to realize that I am being affected by a situation and recognize that as such. That being said, I have been involved in misunderstandings in the past that I feel could have been handled better by me. For example, a couple months ago on ANI, I noticed what I felt was a personal attack by a user on another user, and removed it. That user and a couple others and I argued the merits of the disagreement and eventually reached a common understanding. In the end, that editor is one of those I greatly respect the opinion of quite strongly now, and I feel they are a great asset to the project.

There was one particular AFD I argued quite energetically on, but it never got into the realm of anything resembling an edit dispute. Honestly I try to treat the project as that, a project. I feel that it is of utmost importance to keep a level head here in all things.

Additional question from Lucas Thoms

4. Before May of this year, you were inactive most of the time, with a few random months of high activity. Out of curiosity, why? Do you plan to be here more steadily now (especially if/when this RfA succeeds)?

A: I love Wikipedia, and in the past I have been active when I could, but honestly I would get involved to the point where it would affect other real life concerns, especially school. So when I noted I needed to, I took extended Wikibreaks for a time then came back when I could. A couple of times I'd post an edit or two here when I noticed something that needed improvement, but I purposefully kept myself away from the project to prioritize other things. As of May, those other issues are resolved now, I can fully devote my time and balance it with other ongoing 'life stuff' as it were and plan to continue to be involved with the project as much as my free time allows. If accepted as an admin, there will be plenty of pink to go around :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from ArcAngel

5. Let's put you in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have the mop, you made a !vote on this AFD. Based on what you see in the comments, how would you have approached the closure of it?

A:I'm going to take this in two pieces, first from an involved admin that !voted on an AFD (as I believe the intent here is). If I !vote in an AFD, I am not qualified to close it, as someone who has expressed an opinion on an issue, especially here expressing it multiple times, I would be WP:INVOLVED and cannot close it. Both out of policy and good conscious, it would clearly be out of line. This is an instance where another admin would have to close the discussion.

Going to take this on the second path here, the hypothetical where I am the patrolling admin looking to close the AFD I am not involved in. On first sight, this is an obviously controversial AFD, there are a myriad of opinions all citing valid interpretation of various policies. The insight given by several editors here regarding the possible connection with the author and some of the sources is particularly troubling. Frankly, without a clear consensus (as was the case here) as an admin, I'd let this run as long as possible to get as much consensus as possible, here, barring the nominator withdrawing his nomination, I'd eventually have no choice but to close this as no consensus reach. I would also follow up with personal attention on the article, to work with the whole group of individuals on trying to make this controversial article as sourced as possible to everyone's mutual agreement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you nailed it - the first situation you mentioned is what I was after.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from GraniteSand

6. A week ago you nominated an article about a battle in the present conflict in Gaza for deletion. At the time of the nom the battle was about two days old. I'm curious as to the logic behind your nomination and your understanding of WP:GNG and the generally excepted criteria for notability in relations to battles. Could you elucidate further your reasoning for the nomination and clarify, in light of both the unfolding AfD and topical coverage, whether or not you still support the article's deletion?

A:Again, gonna take this in two places, first why I nominated this for deletion. I nominated this for deletion because there was a discussion on the talk page where notability concerns and deletion possibility were brought up. As an AFD was the correct placement for the discussion I put it up for deletion per policy. On a personal level, at the time I felt that the article was a minor skirmish in the greater ongoing Gaza conflict and did not warrant its own article based on the quoted policies I named in the nom. When the article was nominated, the majority of sourcing was done from some of the more dubious sources I have seen. I have since changed that view since the article has matured, and can see the lasting impact of that particular battle, I have also withdrawn the nom per that view. The sourcing is much more neutral and the article itself more in line with the various applicable Wikipedia policies.

The second place I want to take this is on my understanding of WP:GNG. The guidelines exist for the establishment of sourced content for articles. The purpose of the GNG is to allow an article to reflect what the sources say on the subject. If the sources do not exist, or are extremely borderline, an article fails GNG because of the fact that it is impossible for the project to reflect that particular subject in a neutral way. In some cases, eventually the sourcing will exist, and the article can (and has been on multiple occasions) be created using proper sources. To put it simply, GNG exists so that neutrality can be established and confirmed and the article's content can be verified. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Jim Carter - Public

7. (I'm a bit sleepy now, can't think about question. I may add few questions later, hope you will not mind)

How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

A:Taking this in two pieces. First an involved admin on a block is an admin that has a history of disputes on either with the editor in question or in the topic area in general. As I touched on above with the AFD question, I am a very strong proponent of what I callzero doubt, I want absolutely no doubt as to the basis of my actions as a hypothetical admin. If there is a question that I am WP:INVOLVED with the editor or have a history of dispute, even if said dispute was amicably resolved in the past, I will not take admin action on the editor in question, I will reach out to my fellow admins for review and/or action.

Secondly, on page protection. A very similar guideline applies. I want my actions as an admin to be viewed as an impartial action by an agent of the community, as I believe all admins are. If there is even a hint at a perceived conflict of interest where that intent might come into question, or worse, draw attention away from the reason for the protection (vandalism, edit-warring, etc), I wont take said action. Every action I take as an administrator is an extension of the trust the community places in me, I firmly believe that every action I take as an administrator should reflect that. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: Jim Carter and to anyone else that has questions for me: Please do not hesitate to ask, I am more than happy to answer. This process is to verify trust that I am asking for in adminship, I am here because I am asking for your trust. I do not mind questions in the very least, especially if it answers concerns a user may have. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Noyster

8. As an admin patrolling AIV, how would you deal with this edit treated as vandalism and reverted four times? See also the article talk page

A: As an admin, I have to take the entire situation into account and dispassionately look at all sides of a dispute, which this clearly was. Coming upon this in AIV, I would recognize it for what WikiDan61 did in this case, a content dispute and not an obvious case of vandalism. In this case you have an established editor, reverting what another editor with no edits to any other page other than that one, tagging the new editor's contributions as vandalism when they are clearly not. First thing's first here, I would tag both editors on their respective talk pages and let them know that this is a content dispute and that further reverts would be classified as edit warring which could culminate in a block. On both I wouldn't template them per say, but in gentle language still strongly worded enough to grab attention. Next, I would begin a discussion on the talk page of the article (honestly similar to what WikiDan did here) and try to establish a dialogue between the two editors. For the duration of the dispute, I would work with both editors and closely watch both the article and the talk page. I don't think protection or blocks would be needed here, as long as the editors involved give it a good faith effort to try to work with me in resolving the dispute.

Two things would concern me, one the complete lack of contributions from the new editor on any article other than this one, makes me think this may a single purpose account and while that is not always negative, in this case it would strike me strongly that this editor is trying to push a point of view, I would additionally message this user and point out why it is inherently important to follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing, BLP, and NPOV. The second thing here that would grab my attention is the reversions of the established editor, this is not clear case of vandalism. I would message the user, likely as a part of the previous message, that additions of things like radical feminist are not always vandalism, telling them to double check the sourcing of the article to the content of the reversion, especially given the re-addition of the content by the new user reminding them that is what talk pages are for.

On a side note here, this was an incident I learned more from than a great many others. I am human and this proves it; not everything I do is correct and I make mistakes. One of the things I cherish more than any other here is the patience of a lot of users and their efforts to teach each other, WikiDan61 taught me a great deal with how he dealt with this. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Jim Carter - Public

9. Thanks for your answer to my above question. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Solarra, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may they effect your usage of admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with admin tools??

A: Like I touched on in my closing comment for Q7, I am very human and have a great many faults. I'm headstrong, often self-righteous, impulsive, and quite frankly I can be downright arrogant at times. What is of paramount importance is recognizing these faults and how they can affect me when I interact with others and make decisions. When using the admin tools, being headstrong and self-righteous can be a huge detriment. If I go around thinking I'm always right, can do no wrong, and that I am God's gift to Wikipedia, the damage done could be profound. The same could said about being impulsive, if I rush into a decision, especially on a more controversial issue, the damage done to the project and the mutual trust it is built on would be catastrophic. Arrogance, is no better, thinking I'm better than new editors, just because I have a couple years under my belt, will do nothing but lead to absolute rubbish decisions and compound the problem the project already has with attracting new editors.

Thankfully, I recognize these faults for what they are and I know how they affect me. I recognize when I am being headstrong, self-righteous, or arrogant, and I make a conscious decision to change my thought process. To prevent acting on impulse, I hold myself back and ask myself what others would do in a similar situation. I was taught to recognize when I'm acting on auto-pilot and when my faults are influencing my actions. In a very similar way I prevent myself from acting in anger on the project, I attempt to prevent my faults from controlling me and what actions I take. It is for this reason I ask for your trust with the tools, I have the ability to push through my faults and recognize them for what they are. I'm not always successful, I am human and sometimes I can still be headstrong, self-righteous, impulsive and arrogant, and when that is the case, please feel free to slap me with a trout accordingly. What I can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that given the tools, I will not misuse them, I care way too much for the project. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from LindsayH

10. Hi Solarra; thanks for allowing your name to be put forward. I want to ask if you can be a little more specific about one portion of your answer to Question 2: You point to "copyediting and cleanup of various articles over the years", yet i noticed several grammatical errors or questionable usages in the answers to the first three questions alone. Can you please point me to an article or some articles where you have done some copyediting you are proud of?

A: In 2012, I was more active in the copy-editing side of things. There are also a few other articles I've coached others through editing both on IRC and via the project proper. While I really enjoy this type of work, historically I have placed protecting the work of others over doing work myself. I would love to do more work in content creation, but with all of the other work I do, it is difficult to find the time to dedicate that I feel is needed to do it properly. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Stfg

11. Hi Solarra. I'm slightly uneasy that on a couple of occasions you have removed a posting ([1]) or part of a posting ([2] amended to [3]) at ANI on the grounds that they were personal attacks. (The former seems ambiguous to me, and you omitted to put {{RPA}} there.) When challenged on the latter, you mentioned the NPA policy ([4]), but these are at best marginal cases in terms of WP:RPA and the idea of removing them seems to me rather, so to say, parental. Could you tell us your thoughts on when and why it's appropriate to intervene in such a way in interactions between other editors, who I assume to be adults (ahem, at least chronologically speaking)?

A: This was exactly the dispute I mentioned in Q3. I reverted that edit after it was brought to my attention by a couple of users expressing concern over someone being called a pig, it was for that direct reason I intervened here. I had a lengthy discussion with the user and a couple others, and changed the way I use to remove personal attacks to using the {{RPA}} template as a result.

I intervened in this because the direct complaint was being called a 'prick' and I felt repeating a near identical attack during the discussion on that attack at ANI was at best disruptive.

Now That I've answered the individual incidents you referenced, I want to touch on my understanding of WP:NPA in general. I realize, we are all adults here, adults swear, insult, make dirty jokes, and all the thing adults generally do, but the policy is extremely clear. Directly insulting someone adds nothing to a discussion. It simply escalates matters and makes it so compromise is that much more difficult, because personal attacks often lead to increased anger and frustration. For small time stuff, most of the time I just ignore it and move on. However, if I see something that is clearly disruptive, I remove it for the reasons above. For me, it is not about being parental, it is about fostering communication and effective on-topic dialogue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition I wanted to add something here, as I felt the answer is a bit incomplete. As many are aware, this particular policy has been discussed ad nauseam recently. The first case named here was a significant learning experience for me, something I am extremely grateful to both Mendaliv and Beyond My Ken for. If a similar situation happened again, I wouldn't repeat the same actions. In all honesty, I was wrong here, but I felt answering my thought process as to why I did it at the time was what was sought.

The second case, the user was literally repeating the same attack he was being reported at ANI for. In this case I would probably do the same thing. I agree 'prick' is childish and honestly not worthy of an {{RPA}} template, but in this specific instance, because of the surrounding factors, I feel it was justified.

I am not here to be anyone's mother. We are all grown adults, and frankly the last thing I want to do babysit every comment made on Wikipedia made. It is not the role I am asking for, and it is not the role I desire. For childish things like the first instance named here, I see no reason to get involved in the future.

Additional question from Hawkeye7

12. Can you tell us about your content creating work? While content creators need the tools, many of us are extremely reluctant to trust or endorse an admin without a solid record of content creation, especially in areas like AfD. Do you understand the reasons for this and can you put our minds at ease on this matter?

A: To start, I want to say I fully understand people's reservations when it comes to content creation. I fully acknowledge it is my primary weakness on the project. I also fully understand why some feel that strong content creation be a paramount part of any RFA proposal. I only have a handful of articles I've created and/or directly improved upon, and I see where that raises concern. Content is Wikipedia, it is what people come to Wikipedia for, and it is what we all work together to create. Admins are trusted to be the vanguards of content and demonstrate care, good judgement, and be accountable for their conduct. I fully recognize that without a solid record of content creation it is very difficult to gauge an editor's knowledge of policies and guidelines crucial for adminship (Some of my contributions are linked above).

To make up for this, I strive to read and understand every policy page I can get my hands on. I stepped up participation in AFD in May specifically to strengthen my knowledge on content policies and guidelines. Like I said in a recent RFA, AFD is a outstanding place to learn content policies. I'm human, and I may make mistakes into how I interpret various policies, but I can promise that I will be accountable for them. Like Yunshui said when he nominated me, I am cautious, especially when it comes to something as critical as content deletion. Each and every article made can represent hours, sometimes days of work put in by editors who often times feel passionate about what they are writing about.

That being said, I will be extremely cautious in dealing with the tools when it comes to deletion. It is honestly not something, aside from obvious violations (vandalism/attack pages/etc), I plan to undertake a big part of, especially right away. If trusted with the tools, when I delete something, I will respond to every objection made and I pledge to be fully 100% accountable for every action I take.

To conclude, I absolutely understand the concerns raised with content creation. I don't feel I can convey in words how seriously I take this role I am asking for, but I am asking for your trust and support. Believe me when I say this, I take this trust I am asking for extremely seriously. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from John Cline

13. Hello Solarra. Please review whichever page(s) you deem, to answer the following question. Was this administrative action an action you support, or one that you oppose?—John the Baptist (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A: This dispute is all over the project. It has brought up discussions on gender bias and the return of the civility board. Even Jimbo Wales has commented on the block and subsequent unblock by DangerousPanda.

Now that I've linked all the relevant topics, I'll comment on the actual question. As I stated in Q11 we are not here to be babysitters, we all need to have the common sense to tell a genuine personal attack from a comment that is slightly insulting. Do I believe the comment was borderline yes, do I concur with BrownHairedGirl's block, no. I ask myself what I would do in the same situation, and honestly, I'd take it to the user's talk page and discuss it. That comment and the relevant edit summary were a tad bit insensitive, but not worthy of a 72-hour block (or any block for that matter). I firmly believe in deescalation at the lowest possible level, putting a block on someone is done to prevent damage and/or disruption to the encyclopedia and is a last resort when all other avenues fail. In this specific case, while Eric Corbett was very passionate and borderline uncivil when he made that comment and associated edit summary, he was arguing in good faith about an editor that was repeatedly reporting personal attacks in various places.

A good example of a similar situation is here. Again, another user was posting several threads all over the noticeboards, and again some stronger language was used to describe them, but nothing was tagged as {{RPA}} and no one was certainly blocked as a result. Some editors find stronger language more effective for them and honestly it is the job of every editor, not just admins to use good judgement and common sense in any reaction to it.

To conclude, I would not have taken the same action here. No damage was being done to the project, and I feel this particular block was punitive, not preventative and would have been better solved with open discussion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 08:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support — A wonderful editor with more than one heart ♥ Always ends her sentences with a smile :-)  NQ  talk 17:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong support times a million - Already acts like an admin. Plenty of edits (almost 5000 non-automated), involved in everything, doesn't let stress get to her, and is incredibly helpful. She needs the tools, and she can be trusted with them.—LucasThoms 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support A good candidate from a good adminator (admin + nominator).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support An excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Should be an excellent addition to the admin corps. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
6. ///EuroCarGT 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support—Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Support excellent nominator. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   You're talking about Drmies, right? Ha! (also, Drmies, nominators should !vote too!) Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

9. Support Very patient when explaining policies to users embroiled in disputes and exactly the front Wikipedia should offer towards newcomers. I've seen Solarra take frustrated users step-by-step through the notability guidelines on AfD without losing her temper. Altamel (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
10. 100% Support - Until recently I wasn't even aware Solarra wasn't even an admin!, Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
11. Support- why isn't she already? Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
12. Strong support - one of the strongest vandalism fighters on WP. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Qualified, no concerns. Answer to #5 was great. Best of luck, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
14. Support I can understand the concern about content creation but that is not a huge issue to me as long as there is a history showing they do such work. I see great potential.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
15. I'm not familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of her contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
16. Support On balance this looks like a great future sysop. Content creation is a tad weak but I weigh that a bit less importantly than experience in the adminny end of things. I am also impressed by the things being said about this candidate by other editors whose opinions I respect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
17. Support - previous interactions and above comments give enough confidence for me. Ansh666 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
18. Support. I mean, if Drmies co-nominates, who am I to disagree? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
19. Support - For the short time that I've known her, this user has always struck me as admin material, and while I'm surprised that she has only created a single article (and I hope she creates more), she more than merits becoming an administrator. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Fine user, will make a fine admin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
21. Secret ^account 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - experienced and helpful editor. Agree with Sturmgewehr88. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
23. Aww I wanted to be a nom.--v/r - TP 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
24. Support Absolutely and without reservations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
25. Support – With Drmies as a co-nom and a good track record, it would be hard not to support. United States Man (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
26. Strong Support This user is by far the most frequent editor to edit conflict me with huggle. Been around for years with thousands of edits. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
27. More AIV admins is always a great thing. I've seen her name pop up numerous times and have no doubt that she'll use the tools wisely. Connormah (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
28. Weak support Solid candidate overall but the CSD diffs provided by Valenciano below are a legitimate concern. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
29. Strongest possible support I've bumped into Solarra multiple times while patrolling new editor contribs. I've been impressed by her helpful behavior towards new editors and her humility while being corrected. She is more than willing to talk things out with other editors to explain her reasoning in a calm fashion, which I believe is a very strong skill for an admin to have. Even with a lack of content creation, Solarra offers input in discussions and is quick to jump on malicious edits. I absolutely believe that giving the mop to Solarra would be a net positive to the project. Ishdarian 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
30. Support; I've got absolutely no reservations here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
31. Support Well dedicated and active. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
32. Support I think Solarra has the right temperament and judgement for adminship. Mike V • Talk 04:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
33. Support While unfamiliar with this editor, I like the answers I see to most questions, didn't find anything concerning in random spot checking. From checking the opposes, a number of deleted edits are a good sign if there are no warnings or blocks to go along with them. :) The CSD issue ( Valenciano's oppose and Q6 ) is slightly more concerning, though some of the noms mentioned are understandable. I understand that she has been getting guidance in preparation for running for admin, I would hope that the mentorship continues for a bit afterwards especially in the case of speedy deletions. The signature stuff doesn't bother me and the guidelines only says to be sparing with subscripts and superscripts, but does not prohibit them outright. While content creation is a very important thing, content preservation and management is important as well so the balance of contributions does not bother me. PaleAqua (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Support After careful consideration, I see no reason why this candidate would misuse the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)After new information is revealed about the candidate's policy knowledge, I moved to Oppose.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

34. Support I knew this was coming... I've worked with Solarra in the past and can certainly vouch for her reports at AIV, RPP and other vandalism-related noticeboards. Solarra breathes passion, a general desire to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. She may not have prolific content contributions but I trust she won't dive head first into any administrative areas she's not comfortable with. A friendly, adept janitorial asset with a clear need for the tools. I am happy to support. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
35. Support While I've seen some imperfection from Solarra, I'm confident that she's the right person for this job. I'm glad to see more attorneys looking to pick up the mop, not because they're prone to wikilawyering, but because they know how to cut through it when other people try. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
36. Strong Support. Solarra is a great user and should definitely be an admin. Her contributions as well as antivandalism work are significant and this is why she should be an admin. 電子888^說-TALK 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
37. Support would make an amazing sysop. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
38. Support. Great contributions to anti-vandalism work. Helpful. Good temperament. Should do well as an administrator. I trust that having been advised that some of her deletion work has been hasty that she will give more consideration to claims of notability when working in this area. With her background, I also would like to see a little more content creation but in view of my conclusion that she will be a net positive and a big help in some admin areas, I am confident in my !vote to support. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
39. Support When you're tagging articles for CSD, there can be an element of "OK, let's see what happens...". When actually deleting them, you worry more. And think longer. Mistakes can get made, but can be put right very easily - and lessons learned. Not much article creation - probably got more than I have anyway. No matter what some people think, you don't have to be an artist to hang pictures in a gallery. How many book critics have written great books? (Before giving up the critic's job...) I like the current version of her sig, but nearly opposed over the user page. 8-) Peridon (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
40. Support – Absolutely yes. Solarra is a tenacious anti-vandalism crusader, someone whom I've had the absolute pleasure of bumping into now and then on the project. She is very level-headed, easy to approach and will no doubt operate admin rights with absolute distinction. She's had long breaks, of course, but I believe her contributions speak for themselves. Solarra, all the very best and good luck! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
41. Support Why not? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
42. Support. I rarely comment at RfA these days, but having seen this one I have to offer my support. Solarra might not have done a huge amount of content work, but looking around her interactions with others I see someone with strong policy knowledge, and who is calm and friendly and shows empathy with other people - and empathy is one of the things we don't have enough of round here. (I'm also looking forward to the appointment of the first lesbian Pope - the world will be a better place that day) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    I can't resist asking -- did you read Oppose #1 and click the links provided before stating your opinion that the candidate possesses "strong policy knowledge"? Your answer could well be "Yes," I'm just genuinely curious about your perspective on that oppose rationale. Townlake (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Fair question, and yes I did - and the concerns are justified. However, CSD can seem deceptively simple, but its nuances can throw even very experienced editors. I've supported a number of candidates whose biggest weakness has been CSD, and they have gone on to become excellent admins. Any CSD misunderstandings are easy to rectify, and I don't think should stand in the way of a candidate who clearly has excellent people skills - lack of people skills is, in my view, the biggest single failing amongst admins these days, and when we find someone who is strong in that respect we should rope them in as quickly as we can (before they fully understand what they are letting themselves in for!) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks Boing. I certainly agree that the candidate's people skills deserve praise. Townlake (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Support --Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

43. Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
44. Support I don't find the oppose rationals convincing, and my interactions with the candidate have all been positive. Monty₈₄₅ 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
45. Support This user helped me out right from the start when I joined Wikipedia, therefore I'm supporting on this RfA. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
46. Support Well qualified user! JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
47. Opposes are unconvincing. --Rschen7754 17:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
48. Support I'm convinced the user is competent, and I'm extremely convinced (primarily by the interaction with SagaciousPhil on her talk page, which everybody ought to go read as a good example of 'de-escalation 101') that they are good under pressure and can deal with people well. Chuy1530 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
49. Support Seen often around, no issues with what I've seen. The opposes don't change that Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
50. Support Edited to add: regarding the candidate's understanding of GNG: I recommend reading WP:WHYN, then last sentence of lead of Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments: Neutrality and verifiability have been stated in our guideline documents as goal for having a GNG for nearly a decade. Now go back and reread what the candidate actually said about GNG with that in mind, and I think you'll find the candidate's statements on GNG consistent with our guidelines and history. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
51. The evidence -- in particular the dodgy CSD tagging or two and -- shows that you're about 2-3 months behind where an admin should be on the learning curve of deletion policy experience. But that's not far enough for me to oppose. And hell week accelerates that learning curve to the extent that it probably counts for 2-3 months itself. Take care, because there are few more chastening experiences as an admin than getting the shit kicked out of you at DRV! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
52. Support For me, RfAs boil down to trust: do I trust the candidate to "do the right thing". That means doing the right then when clicking the buttons and also doing the right thing when they click the buttons by mistake. I think that Solarra will do fine with both. Sure, some mistakes will be made (nobody is perffect), but I think Solarra has the temperament to acknowledge and correct any mistakes. I think granting the bit to Solarra will be a net positive for the project. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
53. Support I only ran across Solarra a short time ago, but she's always seemed an adminlike sort of person to me, and poking around this RFA and her contribs has confirmed my suspicions. I don't find the opposes convincing particularly since her answers to the questions indicate that she recognises her shortcomings and is willing to change her behaviour in response to criticism. Cathfolant (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
54. Obviously. → Call me Hahc21 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
55. Support OK, Solarra hasn't been active here all that long, and has proven somewhat trigger-happy on occasion - but she's evidently a quick learner. She extends a helping hand to new users, and has already taken a useful part in a whole range of admin-related activity, not shying away from difficulty. Honestly, if we can't pass such a strong candidate, we may never again pass any, and will end up with no admins to run to when we need them: Noyster (talk), 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
56. Per Gerry.y.ma. —Kusma (t·c) 12:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    Eh? Shouldn't this read "Pace" or "Contra"? (see Oppose 7): Noyster (talk), 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    Comment added after withdrawal—LucasThoms 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

57. Support Not very convinced by the opposes. Anyways, good luck. Jianhui67 ^T★C 13:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose with regret, a lot of good qualities, but she states an interest in working in deletions and that's a right I'm not so comfortable giving her at the moment. Just yesterday there was this declined speedy, a government minister seems a clear enough claim of notability disqualifying an article from A7 criteria. Similarly this nom last week: elected member of the Romanian Academy and Moldavian Academy of Science "the main scientific organization of the Republic of Moldova" is clearly not an A7. Two weeks ago, an A1 nom of Central Library Cape Town (seems easy enough to identify) and added the same minute the article was created, despite explicit instructions at WP:NPP not to tag for A1 and A3 moments after creation. State Medical Faculty of Bangladesh at the start of this month was not an A1 and ended up redirected. AFD looks mostly fine, though there was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinod_Kumar_Binny, a politician in a sub-national legislature explicitly meets WP:NPOL. I could be more forgiving if there was some content creation, but she appears to have created a single article in her time here: Habitable Planets for Man, a stub. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Good contributor with an ideal temperament, but I think this RFA is a couple months too soon. Editor's only been active for the last three months; there was about a year of extremely light activity before that. I get it, I've taken long breaks multiple times, but I'm not asking to be accountable for admin responsibilities. Also, a minor irritant that I'm sure will be blown out of proportion but I'll mention it anyway: the vanity signature doesn't contain an obvious link to candidate's talk page, which is a problem when I'm on my mobile. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Just wanted to let you know, was the first time someone raised on issue with my signature characters. I have since resolved it, let me know if you still have any issues :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Well, the links were obvious if you could read Japanese, but... ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   And they made sense if you know Chinese as well (though I think there might be a PUA character being used as a separator). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Haha of course! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose, as not now. I am impressed with the candidate's thoughtful answers to questions, but their lack of experience shows through in several areas. First of all, almost no sign of content creation, and whatever experience an admin has, I now regard it as essential that they have extensive experience of the core activity of Wikipedia.
   Secondly, Townlake sets out a series of recent misjudgements on deletion policy, all of which are fairly basic mistakes. An admin needs to be doing a lot better than that in an area they particularly identify as wanting to work in.
   Thirdly, an apparently minor point: even the revised sig still breaches WP:SIGAPP, by its use of sub- and super-script. This is only a minor thing, which will be easily fixed; my concern is that when it was raised under the scrutiny of RFA, I would expect someone ready for adminship to take a few minutes to check the relevant guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   WP:SIGAPP doesn't forbid superscript or subscript. It says to "be sparing" with it. I personally would consider a couple links to be pretty accurately described as sparing.—LucasThoms 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Indeed it doesn't forbid them. But it does say "in some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed". That is the case with Solarra's application of them, which has the effect of increasing the line height both above and below the existing boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Does it? I don't seem to see any difference - Windows 7/Chrome/Vector and iOS7/Safari/Vector. Ansh666 05:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Nope, no difference made by sup or sub. Look especially to the right of each line: evenly spaced.—LucasThoms 05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   This is one of those curious situations where some say yes and some say no. I have Opera, and it looked like it was creating a taller line space for me. I magnified the page, got out a rule and measured, and the signature does increase the line space. Interesting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   SilkTork is probably right. I think superscript always affects the line height for me, even on refs and the like, but it's a small enough difference that it doesn't bother me. I don't notice any difference with subscript, though it may or may not be pushing the text down farther, or something. (I hadn't noticed anything before running across this RFA.) I'd also like to say that plenty of other editors have both superscript and subscript in their signatures (and some of them seem to have made it through RFA--just look around this page), but I don't know how much water that holds. (Also, this is why I use a default signature. With a custom one, it seems you're bound to run into trouble sooner or later...) Cathfolant (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

4. Oppose, regretfully. The core of this sprawling place is still the addition and deletion of article content, areas the nominee shows little experience and dubious judgment, respectively. Being pleasant and having a good grasp of the technical underside of Wikipedia isn't enough for me; I need to see a demonstrated understanding of how to build an article and the recent absence of faulty logic in deletion, the latter being evidenced in both A6 and by Valenciano. I hope for a reapplication in six months. GraniteSand (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose- Articles are the heart and soul of Wikipedia. It's the only thing that 99.9% (exaggeration) of visitors to our site see, and I can't find any evidence of at least even a B-class article she's been a major contributor to. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Actually, a depressingly large percentage of readers read articles that have been vandalized. Wikipedia needs both content writers and people who devote significant time to defending that content against malicious editors. Pichpich (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   What does that have to do with my comment? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Repairing or preventing damage to article content is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia and improves readers' experience, and even though no original content is created during this process, it is content work nonetheless. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose; not now. An impressive user page, but... top edited article is Legal status of Hawaii, the editor is a practicing lawyer in Hawaii, yet edits involve fixing typos and formatting using AWB and another tool, tagging for {{POV}}, more references, weasel words, removing a dead link (which can be found at archive.org), adding a citation needed, then some adding and fixing references. I'd like to see more substantial content additions; maybe work on some physics articles too? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose- This user has over 1,000 deleted edits, which shows a 99% certanity of vandalisim in the 1,262 deleted edits.Gerry.y.ma (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Do you understand what deleted edits are? They're edits to now-deleted pages, which is usually a result of deletion tagging. This is a sign of a good editor, not a bad one. It's not the same as reverted edits. AFAIK, there is no count of reverted edits.—LucasThoms 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Having access to the deleted contributions, I can confirm that a great deal, if not nearly all, are normal CSD-tagging edits. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, we're allowed to support / oppose for any reason or no reason, but I hope Gerry will reconsider his rationale here, as it holds no water. Townlake (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   @Gerry.y.ma: If you remove an inappropriate apostrophe from an article, and later on the author of the article successfully requests deletion, both the apostrophe remover and the author will have 'deleted edits' on their lists. No vandalism. Likewise, anyone who tags for CSD or PROD or AfD will have deleted edits as well as the creators of the tagged articles. I notice you haven't any. That suggests you haven't tagged anything for deletion yet or have been unsuccessful. (I've got 7000...) Peridon (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   I suspect that the user in question is a not-yet-fished-out satirical account. The logic behind the !vote is demonstrably incorrect, I suspect the closing editor will so no reason to count it and therefore we have no reason to spill anymore pixels over it. GraniteSand (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   As people have said above, this "Gerry.y.ma" oppose is quite frankly unadulterated rubbish. I hope the closing 'crat takes no notice at all this uninformed and unhelpful contribution. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Not enough overall experience in my book. If the Rfa fails, suggest you work hard and try again in 2015. Best wishes! Jusdafax 06:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose I agree completely with User:Valenciano. CSD is something I will probably become involved in as well as AFD - you wrote in your response to Q1 but the examples in the first oppose show that you don't have sufficient experience and/or careful judgement to be trusted with the right to delete articles. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose with sincere regret. All Solarra's !Supports are right about almost everything, and I would strongly support her next RfA. I would trust Solarra with every aspect of adminiship right now - except speedy deletions. The CSD nomination of Awadhesh Narain Singh less than a fortnight ago was, I am afraid to say, quite clearly wrong. In the state the article was in immediately before the WP:A7, it included the text "chairperson of Bihar Legislative Council". The Bihar Legislative Council is the equivalent of a State Senate. This was like nominating an article about the current lieutenant governor of California for speedy deletion. (If you think this is an exaggeration, remember that California has about 1/3rd the population of Bihar.) If I had a userspace "my opinions of qualifications for adminship" it would be "Ten articles rescued from speedy deletion by the addition of references from reliable sources that verify their notability". In short: Solarra has everything it takes to make a great admin almost now, but just not right now. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Oppose Sloppy CSD noms is a particular beef with me. I've opposed nice people at RFA before over this issue -- unsuccessfully -- and must do so again. I really don't get why this seems to trip some people up: CSD is not rocket science. Just read the criteria and approach each stub article thoughtfully, with mentality that rushing to delete someone else's work is not the desired outcome. Right now, the way this editor should become 'more in involved in CSD' is not through adminship, I believe. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    I hate to badger oppose !votes, but I'd recommend that those opposing due to CSD concerns take a moment to look through Solarra's CSD log - the percentage of red there is not unimpressive. I would suggest that Solarra is already "more involved in CSD" than most editors, and whilst she, like anyone, can make mistakes, it is apparent that the overwhelming majority of her CSD nominations have been accepted and actioned by existing administrators. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Fair enough. I don't know what happened with those three recent bio articles but overall the record is fine. Strike oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Tirumalapudi, an article (presumably) about a village in India created by an obviously clueless new editor, has been tagged as db-nocontent (admins only) by Solarra at 04:47, 11 July 2014, the same minute it was created. It is now a red link in the CSD log so everything looks perfect. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Nikita dutta, an article about a Bollywood beauty pageant and actress [5] playing in a notable film, was nominated 7 minutes after creation. It is also a red link in the CSD log. The subject doesn't have to be necessarily notable, but hasty CSD noms like this one or those mentioned by Valenciano tell me that the candidate doesn't look around carefully (I mean checking Wikipedia links or doing at least a basic Google search), which is what I expect by an administrator deleting work of others. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    But there's no reason to believe Tirumalapudi wasn't no content, even if it exists. As for Nikita Dutta, was it CSDed A7? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    .As for Tirumalapudi, there was no content, only a link pointing to Ojili. But why not to ask the creator what is his intention instead of slapping him with db-nocontent template the same minute he has managed to save the page? I've fixed Nikita dutta, it was uncapitalized. Yes, deleted as A7. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    @Shawn, the advice to new page patrollers is very clear: don't tag pages for no content or no context moments after creation "as not all users will have added full content in their first revision." That's very basic stuff. Yes, I know it's called speedy deletion, but with the exception of things like vandalism, hoaxes, copyvios and attack pages, there is no mad rush to delete and certainly not without doing WP:BEFORE. In this case, one of the mistaggings that I've pointed out happened the day before this RFA went live. It's clear that the candidate started preparing for adminship in late May and got into CSD tagging as a result, but they still seem to be learning the ropes with that and so I'd rather they went away, spent another six months sharpening up their game in the deletion sphere and then presented themselves again. Regarding the amount of red/blue in the log, if you look at the history of the candidate's CSD log, you'll see that she occasionally removes some entries from it. One was another misplaced A7 tag from 19 July that ended up deleted at AFD instead. Valenciano (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

11. Strong oppose - Sorry Dr. Mies, but your nominee is much too inexperienced (only three months here, aside from extremely sporadic earlier appearances), and much too fast on the trigger. Her CSD log, quoted somewhere above, has too many blue links (result of incorrect tags) and besides the 4-times-revert mentioned by Noyster in Q 8, there is a 17-times-revert here. Holy cow, seventeen times reverting instead of asking for page protection and being patient enough to wait for it being done? Also, and that's actually my greatest concern, there's absolutely almost no content creation. Her top-edited article contributions are things like ref-fixings and punctuation, her second-most-edited is an epic edit-war. I quote myself again from a previous RfA "The last thing Wikipedia needs is another non-content-creating-vandal-fighter-admin." I suggest the candidate writes at least one article, and comes back in a year. Kraxler (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Edited to reflect article creation stats: 2 dab pages in 2010; a somehow botched move from AfC to mainspace in 2012; 3 redirects in 2012 and 2013 which were deleted after a few days; and one stub article on a book in May 2014, mentioned by Valenciano above. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    I know she's addressed this in Q4. There were thousands of edits in the summer of 2012, then it dropped off, then picked up again in April 2013, etc. Personally, I wouldn't characterize it as "only three months here." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    According to her edit count (click on "monthly stats" there), there are five months of bot-running edits (several thousands each) June 2012, April 2013, and May to July this year, the rest of the time since February 2010 is either plain zero or nothing much to speak of, like 1 edit or 4 edits in a month. Besides, all these edits are maintenance, no content creation at all. Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Shawn's statement is misleading. "Summer of 2012" is really "one month of 2012", and there is no "etc." aside from numerous months of extremely light activity. This can all be verified at the edit counter. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    There was a little activity in July 2012 but yes it tapered off quick. Then 1000s starting again in early April 2013. The "etc." was simply a short way of referring to the latest round of editing activity, which is currently taking place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

12. Oppose as too soon. The candidate has a lot of potential, and I like what I've seen at ANI. However, while I'm not a stickler for tons of content creation I see a lot more reliance on automated editing than I like and not enough real work on articles. It's easy to run up your edit count with AWB. Miniapolis 18:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose I have to echo the previous sentiments that this RfA is taking place too soon. I would recommend the candidate devoting more time and achieving better results before asking for an elevation to the administrator level. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Drmies is the admin I trust and admire the most here. That said, I see two problems with this nomination. The first is a lack of article creation vs judging which articles should be deleted. (In full disclosure, I have not created any articles except on Simple English because I am allergic to the process here for getting them accepted, but this is why I am a lowly editor). However, one of the primary foundations for adminship is article creation, ISTM. Especially because one does not understand how to judge article declination or deletion until one has created a large number of articles, in my opinion. Secondly, X!"s tool above in the RfA template reflects stats that an astounding percent of Solarra's edits (82.5%) are with Huggle, Twinkle and AWB. Out of 27,039, 22,317 have been clocked up with semi-automatic tools. This is just not enough experience in composing actual text prose for article content. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 22:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose I believe Solarra has great talent and could possibly be a stellar admin one day, perhaps sooner rather than later. But the answer to Q11 is most disturbing. She overlooks that interfering in interactions between other editors for the purpose of "fostering communication and effective on-topic dialogue" is exactly what I mean by "parental": it is moderating the behaviour of the naughty others. She also appears to overlook that calling people "swine" (if anyone actually was being called that) or "prick" is mere childish name-calling, not the toxic kind of personal attack that gets under the skin because it actually says something about the person attacked. This is particularly important if someone who doesn't profess to be a content creator aspires to moderate the behaviour of significant content creators, because content is what we're here for, and nothing else. I know what the NPA policy says about personal attacks, but is also has something to say about when to redact other editors' remarks, and I linked it in Q11. We've all seen in the not-too-distant past what happens when someone gets ahead of themselves with supervision of content creators. Let's not go there again. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Insufficient experience, specifically in content creation, per the comments above. BMK (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Same reasons as above, such as the relative recency of most activity by the nominee. Epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
18. Regretful Oppose ~ Solarra seems to have a good temperament, is largely knowledgeable about policies and practices (although the CSD questions raised above are somewhat troubling), and clearly wants to help people as they make their way on Wikipedia; i suspect at some point, perhaps fairly soon, she will be a good admin. For the present, however, i am troubled by the timing (not very long as an active contributor and, forgive the cynicism, a great deal of recent activity at AN/ANI which might be taken as attempting to raise a profile prior to RfA), by the points raised in Stfg's question and comments above, and by the response to my question: While i don't hold content creation to be such a requirement as some, if a candidate points out a specific area of it they are proud of, they should be able to point out why, whereas in answering me Solarra gives at least one diff in which she introduced a very simple error into an article. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
19. 'Oppose on the basis on the CSD problems raised above. Everyone makes errors; even the seemingly unambiguous criteria at speedy require interpretation. But the nature of the errors cited here are such that either the candidate does not understand the criteria, or the candidate is not actually reading the articles but goes by an inaccurate first impression. Whichever it it, it demonstrates an irresponsible approach to what is a serious responsibility in an area where a mistake can cost us an essentially good editor. Even if the candidate were to fundamentally disagree with them, they would still need to enforce them--or at the very least to avoid the area. There is also a basic misunderstanding about GNG--the candidate says " GNG exists so that neutrality can be established and confirmed and the article's content can be verified". Basically, that's plain wrong. GNG exists as a rough measure of whether the subject is sufficiently important that people outside pay attention to it, and therefore might reasonably come to an encyclopedia to find information on it. (It may not be a very exact measure, but it's still considered by very firm consensus the most helpful general criterion.) It is not the same as Verifiability --Verifiability does not require truly independent sources if the plain facts are what's at issue, nor does it require substantial coverage. Mentions or indiscriminate but accurate coverage that address the material provide adequate verifiability of what they support. Nor is it the same as NPOV: biased sources can perfectly well meet the GNG, as long as they are independent. NPOV requires a search for sources over a range of possible biases if the subject is potentially controversial--meeting the GNG requires only finding the necessary two or more substantial sources. Anyone working in deletion areas must understand these differences. It takes paying attention to details. I suggest that some participation at deletion review would help in understanding~~it's not an admin-only area and wider participation beyond us regulars there would be very helpful. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose Admitted ongoing errors in judgement; I don't trust you with the tools. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose per DGG's explaination of the candidates policy knowledge on the general notability guidelines. This is an important policy to have good knowledge on not only at CSD, but across the deletion board.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
22. Since Solarra is willing to get involved in speedy deletion, the errors mentioned in this section are a deal breaker. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
23. Lack of experience (including in content); errors of judgement; misunderstanding of basic policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose. The candidate appears to have a good attitude and has fielded some of the optional questions well. However, the lack of experience (only ~5 months of substantive editing) and almost complete lack of content creation lead me to consider her unready for adminship at this time. I'm also concerned about the speedy tagging brought up by Valenciano. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I count 5 months of serious editing so far, and that simply isn't enough experience to be entrusted with the admin toolset IMO. I share other users concerns about CSD tagging and content creation, but I would also like to say that the candidate has many qualities and has given an excellent account of themselves in this RfA. I hope to support a future RfA after perhaps a further 12 months of consistent, quality editing and some content creation. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 14:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose - currently too inexperienced, sorry. Keep up the good work and I will be the first to support in future... GiantSnowman 14:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose Restoring a struck-through oppose. While I myself am not of the view that Rfa candidates must be focused on content creation, lacking that, one looks for strengths in other areas. There just don't seem to be enough of those, yet. And as DGG points out, there seem to be a rather basic misunderstanding of policy if the "N" in GNG is thought to mean neutrality, and not notability. Most opposers seem to be simply saying too soon rather that no, and will hopefully be an encouragement to this very pleasant and collaborative editor if this 1st Rfa does not succeed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose. This RfA has too many strange features. I want focused requests: say a focus on AIV or a focus on deletion requests with some minor branching out. I want some explanation. Not just stating a desire to do SPI, but also some reasons and evidence for the qualification such as involvement with a specific sockmaster. In many respects, RfA is a job interview; the candidates states both interest and qualification. I don't like requests that desire involvement in everything. Different tasks involve different interests and skills. If a candidate states an interest for working in X, then I judge on X. For AIV, the identification of vandalism and the number of AIV reports are significant; AIV reports are fine. Stating an interest in CSD or AfD means other issues are significant. Yes, there's a lot of red in the CSD log, but there's also some blue, and accuracy is much more important. Some mistakes are OK, but there's more to learn; I'm not seeing some circumspect restraint. I'm not comfortable with the backpedal on CSD and AfD interest. She has a significant presence in both CSD (hundreds) and AfD (99), so it is on the table. There are lots of edits overall, but they come in intense bursts; that raises a tenure issue and another other questions. There's also the changing focus. I want more stability. I don't usually weigh content heavily, but I want to see reasonable amounts. It's good if admins have been involved in content disputes, dealt with difficult people who are not vandals, and started an article only to have it tagged within minutes of creation. That builds perspective. I don't require GA or FA, but I don't like the idea of an editor who is enforcement only. I'm troubled by some answers, but the direct route is to oppose for inexperience despite the age of the account. Glrx (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    'Oppose Sorry, but the lack of content contribution/improvement is the killer for me. Spend six months in those areas and you'll have my unqualified support for another run.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    Comment added after withdrawal—LucasThoms 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I can not oppose because Solarra has good pre-admin experience (I see lots of good work at AFD, CSD, RFP and SPI) and I will just copy and past from Dennis Brown to say that "overall, I think your participation in a number of places has been very positive and helpful". But, I can not support because I personally do believe that admins should be content contributors —reasonable people may disagree—, which I see basically no evidence of here. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral usually the bad CSD taggings would be enough for me to oppose, but I'm familiar with Solarra, I know she's been around for a while, and I have faith in her to take the advice into account and take it very slowly with deletion. The thing that bothers me more is apparent lack of content creation. Anyone who doesn't name an article they've worked on in their answers to Q2/3 raises a red flag imo, as people who don't create content don't know what it is really like to be in a dispute, so I would also advise to know your limits when it comes to intervening on content disputes. Good luck. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   I'm curious what other people think of as "been around a while." I've been bewildered throughout this RFA by people who cite the candidate's experience... she's had three recent very heavy months of editing, and two far-past months of heavy editing. The vast majority of her bursts of activity have been automated vandal-fighting. She doesn't create articles and she hasn't demonstrated consistent familiarity with policy, which is a little scary for someone like me who dabbles in obscure Italian film topics. Am I missing something significant about this candidate's positives? She certainly strikes me as a kind and polite person, but are we at the point where kindness-and-hearts combined with three months' recent experience is good enough? Townlake (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

3. I recommend that Solarra takes the time to familiarize herself a little more with notability guidelines (both general and specific) and the speedy deletion criteria. Once she has shown a greater track record of solid NPP work (maybe six months or so), I would be thrilled to support — and I suspect most of the opposers would be as well. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 07:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
4. I have become more and more concerned about the effectively short editing history. I have seen Solarra around and liked what I saw, but I think it is better to withdraw this (just a suggestion) and come back in 6 months for what then certainly would be a successful RFA. --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2014 (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.