Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dana boomer

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dana boomer

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (120/0/4); Closed as successful by (X! · talk)  · @872  ·  at 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

our slowest deletion process.) Her GA reviews
show careful and thoughtful reviews of content. For those who like to count edits, she has just over 22,000 of them, over 98% of them manual according to the tool.

I commend to you a candidate who won't be the most active user of the tools to ever come through here, but a candidate whose work would be greatly assisted by having them. I hope you will agree. Courcelles 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: The initial areas where I would like to use the tools include the review and deletion of
WP:FAR
(where I am a delegate) and on articles included in projects in which I am interested. If I decided to become involved in admin work in areas of the project in which I'm not as familiar, I would first need to learn more about the area, including "shadowing" experienced admins as they perform the day-to-day work needed in that particular piece of the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am the most proud of the 9 pieces of featured content (including 6 articles, 2 lists and 1 portal), 15 good articles and 2 DYKs (see my user page for a detailed listing) that I have completed significant work on. Of these, Horses in World War I is probably the best accomplishment, due to the broad topic and huge range of sources - it would not have gotten where it is today without the input of many editors, and it is an article which shows the true power of a collaboratively written encyclopedia.
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: As far as I can remember, I have never been in a major conflict with another editor. I have had brushes with some fairly unpleasant editors, and come into contact with the occasional POV-pusher or single-purpose account on breed articles such as Andalusian horse, but nothing all that serious.
My goal is to not let disputes that I am in become serious. The whole encyclopedia is a volunteer effort, and something that people are doing for nothing should be more fun than otherwise. If I feel myself getting worked up at something on WP, I shut my laptop and walk away for a few hours. This time away also allows me to present a more cogent argument than the "Dude, but...wait, what?!?" that's sometimes my internal first response.
Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim
4. Hello, Dana, and thank you throwing your hat in the ring. I recently speedily deleted this page that was tagged A7. (and have temporarily moved to my user space for this question.) Was my deletion correct? Why? Why not?
A: Personally, I probably wouldn't have deleted it under A7. A7 states that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". I would consider the many firsts and unique inventions in major measurement instruments, used by other major organizations such as NASA, to be a "credible claim of significance or importance". I would probably have first done a search for references, since the article provides none, and if I couldn't find enough references to make the article undoubtedly notable, I would have taken it to AfD. However, I must hedge these statements with the fact that speedy tagging is not an area that I have worked in before, and it is not an area that I plan to use my admin tools in without a significant amount of study.
Additional optional question from wiooiw
5. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A: The only circumstance that I can think of would be if the user was a CU-confirmed puppet. Even with others, such as BLP violations, bad faith, attacks, etc, the user deserves at least one warning to let them know that other editors are watching them and that there will be consequences for further "bad" behavior on their part. In some cases new users don't know that a particular behavior is frowned up on Wikipedia, and with help can turn into a productive editor. One warning (or even two or three) is not that hard or time consuming to give.
6. A user (Tommy1111) vandalizes an obscure article and eventually you block it as a vandalism only account. The next day, you see a new user (Tommy1111 is back) editing the same article but with seemingly good faith edits. What action(s) would you take if any?
A:
WP:Block evasion
states that "An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked." So, an admin would technically be correct in blocking the "T is back" account. However, it is possible that as a new user, they don't know that creating another account is not allowed if the first one is blocked. So, I would post a notice on both talk pages (the original account and the secondary account) that block evasions are not allowed. I would also suggest that the user go back to their first account, admit to/apologize for the block evasion, and ask to be unblocked there. If the edits by the secondary account are truly good faith, it is quite possible that we have the potential for a good editor on our hands, and through careful handling, they could be a net positive to the project with their initial history being nothing more than a minor roadblock.
However, this is another one of those situations (like the speedy delete question above) where I don't have much experience. So, before doing any of the above, I would most likely call in the help of a more experienced editor.
7. I noticed you removed this user box from your user page. Any particular reason in doing so?
A. Hmm, I don't even remember having that one :) I occasionally go through and prune/add user boxes, although I haven't been doing that as much lately. I probably added this one after a particularly long rant by my astronomy professor against the downgrading of Pluto to dwarf planet status, and then removed it after it seemed less relevant. I don't like it when my userpage gets too crowded with infoboxes, so this one apparently just didn't make the cut in one of my purges!
Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano
8. When is it appropriate, in your opinion, to impose an editing restriction on a user and how would you go about it, should you want to impose one?
A: As far as I know, individual users cannot apply involuntary editing restrictions upon other users. That is left up to ArbCom or the community, per the list at WP:Editing restrictions. Restrictions usually revolve around the number of accounts a user may have, civility issues, probation for disruptive behavior, revert restrictions or topic bans. Individual editors may (politely) suggest voluntary editing restrictions to other users, but for an involuntary restriction the case needs to go through a community forum such as ANI, or go through ArbCom.


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Looks fine. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I've seen the candidate around here or there, and always thought they would be make a good admin. AlexiusHoratius 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great candidate.
    talk contribs editor review 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. As nom Courcelles 20:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Six featured articles? Unbelievable. She really is a high quality user and could've been trusted for the tools a lot earlier than this. Minimac (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits, high-quality article work, sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and great user page. We could use another sysop with experience editing quality articles about horses. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Duh →ROUX ₪ 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support from self-interest. If she's an admin, I don't have to. In all seriousness, no reason whatsoever to think she'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- Эlcobbola talk 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In spite of having only six featured articles to her name I think that Dana Boomer could make good use of the admin tools in her work as an FAR delegate. Normally I'd be demanding at least 10 FAs plus a clutch of GAs, but I'm prepared to make an exception in this case.
    Fatuorum 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support—of course. Airplaneman ✈ 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good egg. Jack Merridew 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support per Jack Merridew. Not tainted with salmonella, for sure. —fetch·comms 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Looks good to me. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Do I get to be the first one to say "I thought she was one already"? By the looks of it, yes.
    BencherliteTalk 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Support Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support - I do not know of a better editor. A lovely candidate! - Josette (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support.Splendid! Can see the wood and the trees. Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support - excellent content and project contributor, definitely will be a net positive with the tools. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Sure Inka 888 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I offered to nominate her and got beaten, yes of course Secret account 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Excellent candidate. --
    Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Support - Excellent and well-deserving, trustworthy member of the community. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Looks good. She deserves it.
    lover 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Support Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. De ninguna forma I wouldn't support, with the condition to not get on to the inactive admin list ;) --Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Looks OK. I too miss Pluto. Dlohcierekim 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I cannot for the life of me work out where we've interacted, but it must have been a very positive experience since my gut instinct is screaming at me to support! A dedicated content editor knowledgeable in The Ways of the WikiTM with a good head on her shoulders. My gut says she'd do a damn good job and I can't remember the last time it was wrong. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Very grateful for her work at FAR. A good example of someone whose admin work seems likely to be limited to particular areas but whose access to the tools will help the project along. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Bwrs (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Definitely. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support For all of the above reasons, and more. Excellent editor with the right personality and temperament, to boot! Plus, according to her user page, she manages to associate an Appaloosa horse, and if anyone knows Appaloosas, who are the Jack Russell Terriers of the horse world, that's proof she can put up with anything wikipedia throws at her!  :-D Montanabw(talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I am unfamiliar with this editor which, considering where I have been spending most of my time these last few weeks, is all to the good. Only box that was not ticked upon review of stats and questions is the grounds for instant block - there are a couple more of which the most important is violation of
    WP:OUTING. However, the candidate indicates that there are area's in which they are not so familiar and would need to develop better understanding if they were to participate there. From what I have seen, I do not believe the candidate would abuse the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  34. Support a trustworthy candidate. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I see no issues right now. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Did a great review of a GAN of mine. Thorough, straight-forward, and friendly. The way it should be.
    NYer 01:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. Support + Commendable work; good answers. Tommy! [message] 01:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support – No problems with me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - No issues. MurfleMan (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support—Very trustable, does a lot of valuable things, excellent work as a FAR delegate. Tony (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support - Distinguished, veteran content contributor; well-qualified across-the-board--Hokeman (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support - Massive content contributions, and no experience in admin areas where she's indicated she has no intention of working. A perfect candidate. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Aaroncrick TALK 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support A great delegate at the FAR. I'm just shocked that she wasn't an admin yet.
    GamerPro64 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  45. Support. Very experienced editor who is strong in the areas she knows (and they're areas that need help), and will clearly be cautious about areas she doesn't know so well. And horses are good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. This one I trust to learn on the job if necessary. Excellent candidate; best of luck. sonia♫ 06:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support- As I said, I'm not going to keep a vote based on 3 or 4 sentences. Seeing that you admit to not having much experience in some areas shows a lot of character and obviously no one is experienced everywhere. Your honesty is much appreciated. So looking through your contributions, I see a user wise enough to handle herself well in such areas. And I see a user who would not make stupid mistakes. To make is short; I'm sure you will make a fine administrator. The only thing I would highly recommend, is to add this userbox back to your userpage. Please...Please! do not let me down... wiooiw (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I think Dana boomer can be trusted with the mop. Not being familiar with certain aspects of policy is no big deal to me, if the candidate is honest about it (but still understands the basic principles), and would not work in that area without learning more. In the meantime, there are plenty of other bits of wikipedia that need mopping. bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Some may bridle at the puns, but if Dana is willing to be saddled with this thankless task, it's well past time we harnessed Dana's energy and talent. ++Lar: t/c 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - although Lar almost made me reconsider. ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. +S. Diplomatic and reflective. • 
    Ling.Nut 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  53. Support
    talk) 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  54. Support - logs look OK. You may also find that warning bots is useless, immediate block and then find the operator for a rogue bot! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Absolutely (how did I miss this?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Exceptionally thoughtful, hardworking, and gifted at content work. ceranthor 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Why not?
    talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. Support - good choice...Modernist (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support seems like the perfect candidate. Content provider and good understanding of tools. --Sulmues (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weak Support - The content contributions and work at GAN are just fantastic. My big concern is with a lack of involvement in other admin-related areas, as pointed out by Salvio and Pepper in their opposes neutral comments. What sways me to support is the insistence at caution and the very clueful and thoughtful answers to questions posed in this RfA. -- Atama頭 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Salvio and Pepper are neutral. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So they are... I guess I looked down and saw "Oppose" and then their comments when I glanced down quickly, because there aren't any opposes. Ah well, fix'ed. -- Atama頭 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  – 
    iridescent 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support A lack of experience in admin related areas is not concerning given the thoughtful answers given at the start of the RfA; the last two sentences in response to question six exemplify this.
    Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  64. Support experienced and willing. Bastique ☎ call me! 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Yes per the WTHN rationale. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong support Dana could have / should have been an admin a long time ago. For once I'm able to !vote for an editor with whom I have greatly interacted. If we want a true role model of how an admin should be in every way, this is it - and yet another reason why we don't need to lower the bar. --Kudpung (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support No issues that I see.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. A lot of great candidates of late. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support From my limited interactions with Dana, and observations of her work, overall I am impressed, and I think she will acquit herself well as an admin. Wotnow (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Answers above suggest that Dana is aware of those admin areas where she has limited experience and won't go rushing in, which is always good to see. Excellent content work, too. Seems like a great candidate to me. Rje (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support unequivocal and significant net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Looks good to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - interactions have been positive, and editor is clearly comitted to the long-term advancement of Wikipedia, careful and courteous, and keen to seek advice on areas of unfamiliarity. Don't see that anyone could ask for more than that. Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support Yes yes yes. Reads things in detail beyond the headlines, per article reviewing, so will make proper and well-informed decisions. And also writes, so we won't have stupid interpretations of policy per armchair "intellectuals" and "Wikipedia scientists" and other such junk that are already all too numerous in the running of the place. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Stephen 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I was unfamiliar with this editor before this nomination, but a after checking their contribs and user talk I'm convinced that their effort would be greatly enhanced with adminship. Tiderolls 03:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support -MBK004 06:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yes. SilkTork *YES! 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. A significant content writer, who thinks about the tools and how to apply them, and is prepared to openly admit when she is unfamiliar with some of the rules? Wikipedia needs more admins like this! GyroMagician (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Ucucha 11:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Absolutely. The FAR delegates require the admin tools. I've looked through this user's edits and she would be an excellent administrator. Timothymarskell (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Excellent candidate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - a great content contributor, and will be valuable with the tools as well (hopefully they won't slow down the content work). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support: A content writer, who thinks! Will make a great Admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Very strong content contributor, good experience all round, see no issues. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Cordial, helpful, and very skilled editor. Iridia (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. No concerns that this user would be anything but an excellent administrator. –Grondemar 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Excellent content creation + sufficient knowledge of deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Impressive contributions, intelligent answers to questions - I have the strong impression the candidate will make thoughtful, positive use of admin tools, and see nothing to cause concern.  Begoontalk 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. A good example of how a user can be light on admin-related experience but still be a very good candidate. Despite the relatively open-ended timescale of FAR compared to FAC, it's still a pretty intense job, so I very much doubt she would hastily move into too many other areas. --WFC-- 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Due to her being an excellent FA/GA contributor to horses (a poorly supported part of wikipedia) and for being female (we need more rationally thinking females on this site as admins!!). I very much like this candidate, candidates should be strong editors like this one. She is clearly intelligent enough to learn about admin stuff she is uncertain about anyway, as long as becoming an admin doesn't mean less time developing the encyclopedia. Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per nom. Minor4th 05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support seems like a sensible choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support not your typical candidate, but has the experience to use the tools wisely. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Do not spam, please.[reply]
  99. Support. Strong content editor with what seems to be plenty common sense (I am not bothered by a bit of hesitancy in pulling the trigger immediately on an apparent sock--admins are rarely alone on call). Drmies (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. NW (Talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong Support: Worked with this user on a FAC. User is knowledgeable, knows the policies of the project and giving this user a mop can only benefit their already great work on the porject. User will make a good admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Great edit summary use, civil, good edit history. Found no reason not to support.—Sandahl (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. I've seen her around. She's a great contributor and quite level-headed. Majoreditor (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Dana is a great contributor. Steven Walling 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Sure.
    talk | 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  107. Strong Support - phenomenal content creation at the GA and FA level, a staggering quantity (and quality) of work across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia's many facets, and significant clue. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support with pleasure. Novickas (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support  Roger Davies talk 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Dana has a strong grasp of policy and I have full faith in her judgement. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - Happy to pile on. Clearly has a clue. Overdue for the mop, I'd say. Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Jmlk17 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, good editor with the right attitude and knowledge of Wikipedia. And anyone who can handle Appaloosas that well, can certainly handle the mop.  :)
    Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  114. Support Hell yeah. Per nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Piling on.. Ϫ 02:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Good Track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Clueful editor. Good attitude and contributions. BigDom 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Of course. EyeSerenetalk 11:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Candidate is good people, small backlogs are good. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support largely based on previous positive experiences with the editor as well as a great record of contributions. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
Neutral - I see a lot of potential in this editor, but I'm a little worried about the answer to question 5 and in particular, the last two sentences in answer 6. wiooiw (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) striking after an extensive review wiooiw (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you're worried about the answers to these questions? I'm not trying to badger you, just being honestly curious. I wouldn't have thought that admiting inexperience and asking for help from another editor would be particularly worrysome. Maybe it's just me, but when I was looking at an admin's contributions, I would rather see this than an inexperienced editor rushing in where they don't know what they're doing and possibly driving away a good faith contributor who's just a little slow getting started. Feel free to not answer this - like I said, I'm just honestly curious. Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your honesty, and that does say a lote about you. Trust me, I'm not a picky voter. I would probably never oppose over 3 sentences, but the answers stood out to me. I'll probably not stay neutral, but for now, I am. wiooiw (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I'm a bit on the fence, here, especially because you're a great content creator and because I respect your nominator's judgement; however, taking a look at your 'tribs, I see very few edits to admin-related areas (actually, only 5 to
    WP:ANI) and some of your answers are not really satisfactory, in my opinion; therefore I feel I cannot support you at this time. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Neutral because of experience. I know no one can be active in all areas, but to have 0 edits to AIV, UAA, RFPP, AN, and ANI raises a small concern. I will definitely not oppose, but at this time I can't support either. "Pepper" (Talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think perhaps that anyone with Dana's experience of providing content and doing a lot of GA & FA reviews, has come across all kinds of situations whether they have chosen to be active in in them or not. It has involved a vast amount of high level knowledge of article buiding, and just as importantly, interaction with other editors. She almost certainly already knows far more about what to do with the tools than many editors who have been given the bit, and will make a seamless transition into adminship. --Kudpung (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you can run AIV with no prior experience more or less... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Given your lack of experience in admin areas I would be happier supporting if your answers to the questions were stronger and you had looked into the policy a bit more. I question someone working as an admin in the area of PROD who admits to knowing little about CSD and has shown no evidence of significant AfD experience.
    talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As a (relatively minor) contributor, I'm tired of meeting admins who will quote rule 1.9.3.4.2.7.6.9 or WP:SOMETHINGOBSCURE, rather than having a conversation about the article in question. I'm not related to DB, but she seems like exactly the kind of admin we need more of. I think we're in danger of losing sight of the point of WP, which is surely content. Adminship is a tough job, and I'm glad other people do it, but I like the idea of WP being run by people who actually write content as their main contribution, and figure out the other stuff as they need it. GyroMagician (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: This otherwise solid contributor had a remarkably weak answer to question 5. For the benefit of the candidate, threats of violence should be met with immediate blocks. In my opinion, responsible editors (not just admins) should follow-up on credible threats from IPs with law enforcement if feasible (note that this part is my opinion, not policy). If not an IP, immediate CUs should be pursued. In addition to TOVs, editors making legal threats are usually blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dana_boomer&oldid=1177692961"