Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove

Oppose

LaraLove opposed a candidate with a reasonable rationale, but then went on to back her rationale up with ageism. [1][2] As an under-18 admin, I'm not comfortable supporting someone who uses age to oppose or to back up their oppose. Acalamari 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Acalamari. Surely LaraLove's other edits make up for that. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There were additional reasons for the oppose. I also explained to someone else that disagreed with my view that there may be an instance when I would support a young admin, should their contributions assure me that they were mature and responsible with their editing. However, in that particular case, I was not comfortable supporting and I voiced all my reasons why. I stand by that vote, and I continue to feel that 12 years old is too young in most cases. I'm sorry if that offends you. I think you're a great editor, and a great admin. If you were 12 or 13 when you got admin, I'd think you were probably an exception. But even a few exceptional prepubescent admins wouldn't change my personal view that 12 is too young in most cases.

Love 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not ageism to oppose a 12 year old admin when that candidate has demonstrated a lack of maturity.--Alabamaboy 18:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it's best not to put your age on wiki anywhere, not to mention to protect yourself from the bad guys. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then one should oppose on lack of maturity, not age. There are contributors here old enough to have adult children who behave worse than some of our kids. Orderinchaos 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot ignore the fact that there is a correlation between age and maturity. You are right about immature adults, but there is a reason we don't give driver's licenses to 6 year-olds because the overwhelming majority, despite the occasional savant, are too immature to handle them. The world is full of age limits and rightly so. the_undertow ^talk 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent for better readability) I agree, you did oppose for other reasons, and I did mention this in my oppose (the "reasonable rationale" part), but I'm saying that you backed up your rationale with ageism, and age shouldn't be used to oppose, or even to support an oppose. In the third diff I cited, you clearly mention that “With all due respect, every user is entitled to judge each nomination and give their own opinions. It is my honest opinion that 12 is too young to be an administrator of a wiki. If you don't agree, then that's your opinion. I'm only one !vote.”, which meant age played a role in your oppose, even if it wasn’t the main reason you opposed. Acalamari 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your point, Acalamari, but how is that going to affect Lara's ability to dish out blocks, protect pages, and delete crappy images (per her Q1 answer)? —

₂O —  00:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Sorry, I'm obviously biased here, but I'm going to oppose. Ageism is a big no-no in my book. Underage people are just as capable of contributing to free knowledge as older people. --Agüeybaná 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agüeybaná - I would think that since Lara has supported young candidates (A.D as well as your own RfA) that you should know first hand that she doesn't engage in ageist practices. the_undertow ^talk 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Per Acalamari and Majorly.--

   U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   What type of bollocks is this? I've no views on this candidate, but opposing someone for ageism is even more bloody stupid as opposing someone for their age. We don't oppose people because of their personal convictions be they too ageist, sexist, left wing, right wing, or anti-fruitarian. We consider only whether they have the skills to be a good admin. Arguably young people tend not to (although personally I'd not use that as a criterion) but there is no possible argument that ageist people (if she is) make poor admins.--

   Doc^g 19:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Doc, I think your response was slightly uncivil. You are entiled to disagree with my vote, but please don't call it stupid. To quote what Acalamari said above, " I'm not comfortable supporting someone who uses age to oppose or to back up their oppose". I agree with that statement, and am opposing per it.--

   U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   (ec)I have a question, even assuming that Lara is an ageist(I don't think she is, as she doesn't ever give that as a sole reason to my knowledge), will this affect her ability to appropriately use the tools in any way? If no, why are you voting no? This is RfA not "does this person have opinions that conform to my worldview...if yes S if no O."—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, she supported Anonymous Dissident's RFA. The accusations of ageism are demonstrably false.--JayHenry 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You both make good points. While I think it's absolutely rediculous to oppose someone based on their age, I admit that this is still illrelevant to how the canadate would use the tools.--

   U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'll find and post the links for the discussions that followed. But I did not oppose based soley on age. The candidate's contribs, which are what I looked at first, were unimpressive. There was a lack of maturity shown in his edits. I then went to his userpage and saw that he was 12. For me, that explained it. I would not have cited his age, but rather simply stated maturity, or lack there of, as the issue, had I realized it may offend others. But, in this case, being unaware that it may offend others, I did cite his age as an explanation of his immaturity. However, in followup discussions, I clarified that I may support a young candidate were their contribs up to my standards. In fact, I may have already and don't know it. Whether or not his age was stated on his page, I would have opposed him. He put his age out there. I saw it and cited it, but not as the reason for the oppose.

   Love 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Still, age is no reason to oppose (or back up one) at all.

   Go green! 20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I wouldn't vote for a 12 year old Senator or a 15 year old president. Opposing someone who is 12 years old for administrator is justified. Sure, Wikipedia needs all of the editors it can get of any age, but administrator work is different. Administrators need to be reliable as well as intellectually mature. This is an online encyclopedia which is frequently mentioned in the news and for which numerous people get important information. Having administrators who aren't even teenagers yet who have the capability of blocking editors or erasing content simply won't work. Laralove isn't saying that 12 year olds can't edit or contribute, she's just saying that she doesn't trust a 12 year old with the responsibility to have administrator powers on Wikipedia! I won't get into arguing all of the physiological and biological differences that can make 12 year olds less reliable than mature adults, but this is basic common sense, Not "ageism". If you truly think that Laralove shouldn't be an admin because she doesn't want a 11 or 12 year old admin then ask yourself this question; Would you vote for a 12 year old president? If not, Why not? If Yes, Well then I won't try to convince you of why you shouldn't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe a lot of this comes with my opposition to Agüeybaná in his first RfA, and it may have (reasonably) made him sensitive to these kind of comments. Let's assume good faith that this is a valid reason for him to oppose, and leave it up the bureaucrats to decide the weight. Keegan^talk 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see my statement in the discussion section above.

   Love 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Just to put this ageism thing to rest for once at all, it should be noted that in his last RfA, which was successful, LaraLove supported him. If age was the determining factor, why would she ultimately change her mind? It seems like this is making mountains out of molehills, indeed, and feeding those moles a steady diet of red herrings. This seems like a total non-issue at this point, since the central tenet of the oppose, that LaraLove opposes other RFA's on age-related issues, is clearly false on face value. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose, the fact that this editors main contributions are reviewing GAs says it all. The GA process is possibly one of the most useless on Wikipedia, and I don't trust the judgement of an editor who thinks it's a good idea to spend so much time propogating that mess of instruction creep. User:Veesicle 20:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That's your personal opinion - Do you really think its fair to oppose for someone participating in an established Wikipedia process? Mr.Z-man 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a total misunderstanding of what GA is and how it works. A LOT of Lara's work involves IMPROVING articles directly so that they can be GA status. GA and FA are just levels of an articles status and how well they are written and composed. LaraLove does a lot of work improving GA and FA candidates. She did a lot of work on Homeopathy and Parapsychology, both of which I led in bringing to GA and FA respectively. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Closing crat, please ignore this oppose, as made by one of the many "GA sucks, FA is cool, and GA should be merged with PR so that people lose motivation to work on articles" trolls. —

   ₂O —  00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   People with strong personal views should not be labeled as trolls. His opposition may seem inappropriate, but he is entitled to his opinion, and there is no need to make accusations as such. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't call people trolls,

   dick. User:Veesicle 16:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   This is probably the worst though about oppose I've ever seen. Reviewing articles includes telling users how they can improve it, so basically, you're opposing Lara's RfA for too much mainspace edits? Right. — jacĸrм (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I looked through her contribs and most of it is a straight vote - delist, relist, etc. Or a vague, generic comment such as 'improve the lead'. Useless. User:Veesicle 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess you've been looking at

   WP:GANs, you would soon find that she is extremely thorough. Geometry guy 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   • (undent, sort of)
   • Hi Veesicle!
   • I can definitely understand your frustration with the Good Article process, as the text of your initial comment Opposing this nominee unequivocally shows... the Good Article process is one that has undergone a very substantive amount of change in recent months (hence the instruction creep that you mentioned). It is also a place that cannot avoid generating differences of opinion, and these differences of opinion regarding the implementation and outcome of nominations within the Good Article process also cannot avoid creating some dissatisfaction among some editors. Clearly you are one of those editors... I can clearly hear your frustration, and believe me, I know very well where it comes from.
   • Apparently you've been involved in the Good Article process before — I see you have 11 contribs to the Good articles page (which coincidentally is your highest number of contribs for any Wikipedia-space page) and 7 contribs to Good article nominations. Most of these contribs seem to date back to the February-March period. I really do hope nothing happened back then to frustrate you, and thus cause you to discontinue your efforts there. Your contributions would, I assure you, be welcomed.
   • You can and probably should also comment on the various forums associated with the Good Article process. Your voice can and probably should be heard.
   • Meanwhile, though, I hope you'll take a moment and try to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The
     Ling.Nut 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     I agree. I haven't heard it worded like that before, and that was very carefully chosen wording. I don't see anything wrong with GA or FA (but I am not really familiar with them). However in any general real word scenarious Link.nut made a lot of sense. --businessman332211 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Acalamari and Agueybana. As an 11-year-old, I am a little uncomfortable, as with Acalamari.
   Go green! 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Are you opposing just because you fall in the category that the discussion is about? If so, this argument doesn't have much weight. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, Jonathan's got a fairly reasonable argument. Wouldn't an African-American feel uncomfortable about supporting an openly racist candidate? GlassCobra 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So where does that stop? Shall gay users oppose conservative Christians? Should Libertarians oppose Communists? Really, to compare the suggesting that minors might be prone to immaturity, with open racism is offensive. Teenagers tend to be immature, and to hold that in mind as you assess as individual is just common sense. Youth, unlike race, is something you'll grow out of.--

   Doc^g 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I think the above argument is somewhat misinterpreting the argument being made. I interpreted GlassCobra's remark to *oppose* stereotyping rather than to vote on the basis of it. Wikipedia's adminship should be based from its editing community, and that means we will have conservative Christian, gay, libertarian, communist, young and elderly admins - and I'd support all of them if I thought all of them could use the tools responsibly and had a demonstrated history of civility (I'm sure many of us have fought for RfAs of people we would most likely agree with very little in real life). As long as everyone leaves their POV at the door and deals with things in accordance with policy in a mature manner, who cares? Orderinchaos 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Glass, I can't believe you just equated racism with ageism. First off, ageism originally meant discrimination against people for being old. The idea that it is ageist to believe that young people may not be as mature as adults is extremely controversial. Second, basically saying LaraLove is a racist is highly offensive. That reflect poorly on you, especially since you are up for an RfA at this time.--Alabamaboy 12:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What I'd like to know is whether Jonathon would feel comfortable supporting a five year old for admin. Hesperian 12:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just because someone is 12, or 11, or 10, or 9, and so on and so on is NOT automatically making them immature. I was actually about as mature as my 20-year old brother when I was 5, and now I'm much more mature now. Please note there was a user (I forget who he is) who became an admin at 11. If you oppose because of age, it is just as bad as racism and sexism. Thank you.

   Go green! 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   20 vs. 5? Seriously? Unless your brother had developmental issues, I find that extremely unlikely. And I don't mean that in an insulting way ... it's just psychologically unfeasible. 5-year-olds are physically, mentally, hormonally, and neurochemically nowhere near fully developed. A 5-year-old may be precocious, but that is not to be confused with mature.

   I remember when I was 11 -- I thought I was all sorts of mature and grown up. Now I'm significantly older than 11, and I realize that I very much was not. With all due respect, Jonathan, all 11-year-olds think they're mature, and with very few exceptions, they aren't. You're not done developing hormonally and physiologically when you're 11, which definitionally presents a pretty strong argument against maturity. You may be one of those rare exceptions -- I haven't had any previous contact with you that I remember, so I really can't speak to that. However, by and large pre-teens are immature -- this isn't discrimination, it's just the way of things.

   To compare the assertion that pre-teens are generally immature to racism and homophobia strikes me as offensive. They are not the same. If you don't think it's a legitimate reason to deny someone sysop status, then say that. That's a legitimate argument and you're entitled to that opinion. But in all honesty, sentences like "If you oppose because of age, it is just as bad as racism and sexism" sound immature. They are not the same and that should be clear to see. - Revolving Bugbear 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Revolving Bugbear, maybe it's unlikely that a 5 year old will be as mature as a 20 year old but there's a massive difference between a 5 year old and an 11 year old. Also, it't be hard to find any immature regular users, this is an encyclopedia after all, which is viewed as seriously uncool by those without backbones--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree on almost all counts, Phoenix; the numbers 5 and 11 didn't come from me, they were both offered by Jonathan. But the principle remains the same -- I think that having reservations about someone due to age is legitimate. I think that, with a Wikipedian of sufficiently young age requesting adminship, it is a legitimate point of view to say that the burden of proof of maturity falls more heavily on them that it would on others. I won't say that I necessarily endorse this view -- I can't be sure how I feel about the issue yet -- but I think it's a legitimate one. In any case, young Wikipedians would do themselves a favor by not disclosing their age.

   The one place I disagree is on the lack of immature editors. I believe that there are a great number of immature editors -- in roughly the same proportion that there are immature people among the general population -- who are reasonably frequent contributors. But that's a discussion for another place. - Revolving Bugbear 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This discussion is about LaraLove, not Jonathan. Please keep it that way. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose mistakenly accused me of being a suspected sockpuppet, realising her mistake she didn't revert or remove her edits that were informing other users incorrectly of the situation, and I'm still waiting for an apology.--Snakese 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I did. It was my mistake made in OhanaUnited's RfA. I saw the indef block and did not pay close attention as I should have. I thought it was a sock account, reported it to SSP and then was informed, by who I thought was the admin working the report, that it was a name change. I definitely understand your oppose. I wronged you, and I apologize.

   Love 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   She doesn't need to apologize on every page that mentioned about this error, as long as it's sincere, once is enough. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There's one important word in your oppose vote. "mistakenly". She made a mistake, reverted it, appologized; as long as it's reverted there is nothing to worry about. — jacĸrм (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I still think a simple apology was appropriate on my talk page.--Snakese 10:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also concerned she is a mother of two and should spend more time with her children and husband. I also don't believe she is aware of the dangers of the internet and identity theft as I managed to find her DOB, full name, work place address and a lot of other personal information in a matter of minutes. And admins, especially ones that block vandals sometimes get cyber-stalked.--Snakese 10:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   she "should spend more time with her children and husband"?? So now you're opposing because of your beliefs about the role of women? I've never heard so much

   ELIMINATORJR 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   should spend more time with her children and husband. Amazing sexist commentary there. Should all of the men on Wiki not spend more time with their children and wives, or do you suppose they don't have wives and children because they might not mention them on their userpage? By the way, how do you know how much time Lara spends with her children, anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Of all my years following RFAs, I have seen some rather nasty votes and "concerns" cast, but playing the "bad mother" card really takes the cake. You do not know how she raises her kids, nor should it be any of your business. We're talking about adminship on Wikipedia. You are not Child Protective Services. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't worry, we elected the bureaucrats because we know that they know to ignore bullshit like this. -- John Reaves 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Part of me wants to make some comment about being civil or whatever, but another part of me is too baffled by the statement to do anything but agree whole-heartedly with this particular statement. Utterly incredible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   she "should spend more time with her children and husband"?? What on earth is this nonsense??? Do you say that to male admin-hopefuls or is it only the gurls who come in for this ludicrous commentary? Absolutely ridiculous - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   User has lost suffrage. east.718 at 06:15, 11/6/2007

   For clarity, the user who cast this vote has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry.

   Love 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. Oppose Sorry, but I cannot support a candidate who judges users (whether partly or solely) based on their age. Although LaraLove's editorial contributions look very good, I feel that this candidate's ability to make reasonable administrative decisions will be severely confounded by his/her prejudice against 12-13 year old users. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As her userpage says "I am a mother of two", I think you can probably assume Lara's a "her". —

   iridescent 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Can you think of a specific example where an administrative action (delete, block or protect) would intersect with an editor's age? I'm just wondering. I've done quite a few administrative actions and don't see where this would occur. the_undertow ^talk 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If you've been around wikipedia for any length of time at all, you can already see the clear signs that this debate is going nowhere at all. It's the kind of argument that generates much heat and zero-point-zero light. Let them have their Oppose votes unchallenged and undisturbed; arguing will not change a thing except kill innocent pixels. --

   Ling.Nut 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Mild Oppose for now -- Ran into her last week over a minor issue for which I could barely make sense of her reply. I think Lara could do with some more hands-on experience and people interaction. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Mind if you give us the link? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Archive 54 of my talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You could have been more specific, but I am under the assumption that you are referring to this where she made it clear that you did not use a fair use rationale. Delving further, it refers to an image you uploaded in this state, which does not include a fair use rationale. You provided 'Seal of the govt. of Andhra Pradesh, India' was your rationale. However, this is a statement, and not a rationale. You also failed to provide the source of the image and an explicit link to where the image is being used as per policy a la "Each rationale must explicitly name the article to which the rationale applies," which can be found here. Despite your quip to Lara about using 'common sense,' she took the time to produce this - a page with a fair-use rationale. So would you still consider this a minor issue of which you could barely make sense? Fair-use is a big issue to some. the_undertow ^talk 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I just read this conversation, and from what I can see, it looks like LaraLove recognized your trouble, fixed the problem HERSELF, and then you thanked her for it? Again, all I see here is LaraLove's desire to go above and beyond the call of duty to fix problems rather than just tag them and leave it for someone else. How is this someone we don't want as an admin? I don't see the source of the problem here? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose with regret. LaraLove does some excellent work with articles and processes involved in reviewing them. However, I've seen a lot of RfA opposes from her recently due to candidates having relatively little content experience. She is of course entitled to her opinion (although I disagree with her views quite strongly), but she has come to this RfA with very little admin experience such as tagging pages for speedy deletion and reports to AIV. Without this experience, I really can't trust her with the admin tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Per Veesicle. I'm sorry, but GA and FA are truly some of the most broken bits of Wikipedia. I've seen them wreck articles beyond repair and drive away some of our finest editors. Spending large amounts of time round either of them doesn't show the kind of judgement I'd like to see in an admin. --
   Folantin 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   So working in processes that are actually a concerted effort to improve article quality is a bad thing now? So people who don't do work to improve articles are opposed for not having substantial mainspace work, and now people who do improve articles, but use a "broken process" (your opinion) are also opposed? Many people feel RFA is broken, why don't we oppose candidates for using that process? Mr.Z-man 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me repeat for the hard of understanding: "GA and FA are truly some of the most broken bits of Wikipedia. I've seen them wreck articles beyond repair and drive away some of our finest editors". RfA has its problems too, most notably the seeming inability of some editors to tolerate any dissenting opinions. --

   Folantin 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Please excuse the debate. These things bring the passion out in people. Perhaps it would help if you posted links as examples of wrecked articles and users who cited GA as their reason for leaving. I know GA has issues. Trust in that. I started in GA reviewing articles, then participating at

   WP:GAR

   . It is there that the problems became evident to me. I debated at one point whether or not I wanted to continue to participate in the GA project. However, because I believe it improves Wikipedia by improving articles, I simply could not leave. Instead, I decided to focus my efforts on improving the project and correcting the issues I could.

   Note, also, that there have been efforts in the past, and even as recently as a month or so ago, to get rid of GA in one way or another. Realistically, it's just not going to happen. So why should one leave it broken when they have the will and the ability to fix it, if only partially? In the past few months, I have created two task forces and gotten

   criteria

   by re-reviewing them.

   So while I understand your frustration with both projects (GA and FA), they both do more good than harm. GA is evolving. It's only a year and a half old. It's grown drastically, not only in participants, but in articles (over 3,000 listed GAs right now), and rather than leave it be, we should work to improve it. That is what I have done and will continue to do.

   Love 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Two excellent editors no longer with us in large part due to GA:

   Folantin 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   It is the candidate's fault that a user made a conscious decision to voluntarily leave of their own accord and freewill? Your comment makes me want to leave, but check it out - despite comments like "for the hard of understanding..." I choose to stick around. Nice. the_undertow ^talk 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for posting examples. I don't know who Nemonoman is. I don't recall having ever crossed paths with him. Jooperscoopers was upset with the decisions made in a GAR, if I remember correctly, so he decided it best to start altering our project pages. I, of course, reverted those changes. He also made disparaging comments about me regarding things within the project that he didn't understand. I always encourage those who have disagreements with the GA project to participate in constructive discussions in order to build a better project. In some case, they'd rather make unilateral changes to a project for which they do not participate and cry foul when those changes are reverted. In this instance, I cannot apologize for my actions for I don't feel I've done anything wrong. If a good editor has left Wikipedia because of the GA project, that's unfortunate, but I don't believe it's my fault.

   Love 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   This opposition comment seems very

   WP:POINT-y, opposing for participating in an established process that you have a problem with. Mr.Z-man 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   You seem to have major problems tolerating the slightest dissent from the consensus, Z-man. This isn't bloody North Korea. Don't worry, Lara can pass RfA with less than 99.8% of the vote. Now stop harrassing me with any more of your sophistry. --

   Folantin 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   He's not harassing you, he's simply trying to understand your stance and convince you otherwise. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Dissent is fine, just base it on actual policy/guidelines please instead of on your own opinions of a consensus established process. If you have a problem with the process, there are talk pages and the Village Pump for complaints, don't do it on RFAs. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Please go away. Lara can speak for herself. She's the only one who's used anything I recognise as an argument round here. But via her involvement in GA she played a role in driving away one of our expert contributors and I feel this must be noted. --

   Folantin 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Folantin, There's no justification for being rude. If you don't want to discuss it anymore then you're free to stop discussing it. However, Don't expect us to simply stop discussing it because you ask us to. If we believe that your reasons for opposing are not justified then we can express our opinions thusly. This is a discussion afterall. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I want to talk to Lara, not her "minders". BTW I'm hardly the only one who's been uncivil here. --

   Folantin 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   (ec)

   Folantin, You're brusque "Please go away" is outside of the spirit and letter of the discussion of the RfA process and, well, rude. Wikidudeman is a respected editor in good standing. Please consider striking. Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   No, "go away" is rude; "please go away" is an expression of exasperation at constant sidetracking. Plus, it was addressed to Mr Z-man. In any case, from what I've seen of GA, incivility is par for the course there. Joopercoopers was a respected editor in good standing who created some damn good content. Nobody seems that bothered by his absence. --

   Folantin 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Mr Z Man is also an editor in good standing and asking any editor to "please go away" is not in the spirit of colaboration. Please reconsider your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Look, just stop filibustering and stick to the point, please. This is just evading the issues I've raised. If anyone wants to withdraw the irrelevant comments here (by Z-man, Wikidudeman, yourself and some by me) and cut this down to the relevant discussion between Lara and myself, then go ahead. --

   Folantin 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I could not care less for the conversation between you and Lara. I made my my vote, exclamation mark or otherwsise, a few days ago. However you will not use a respected Wikipedians RFA as an opportunity to attack and disparage other deeply respected Wikipedians. Your "minders" comment is not within the spirit of discussion and I will block for disruption if I read something similar from you. Sorry, but the candidate and community deserve beter. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You do that. I will see you desysopped. You dare have the temerity to threaten Wikipedia's valued contributors in this manner? Beyond belief. Sickening. This is what gets the admin corps a bad name. Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Unbelievable. --

   Folantin 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Why? And is my talk page or this RFA talk page a better place? Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This administrator says there's nothing much going on here, Folantin is not being at all disruptive, and we don't block people we're in dispute with. Take a chill pill, Pedro. Hesperian 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What Hesperian said. And I'm supposed to believe that there's no attempt to suppress unpopular opinions round here? "I could not care less for the conversation between you and Lara". Well, I could. That's the whole point of an RfA candidacy discussion. --

   Folantin 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   (undent, sort of)

   For the sake of brevity I won't copy/paste this comment. However, it applies here as well. When Lara is nommed in RfA, there will be some anti-GA vote. Only one response has merit: Let them have their anti-GA vote. Accept it. Move on. Raise not even an eyebrow. And for goodness sakes, don't argue with it. That would be an incredibly counterproductive waste of valuable time. Done talking. --

   Ling.Nut 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I must agree with Ling.Nut. This is getting out of hand. RfA brings out passionate opinions from everyone on both sides (support/oppose). Let's just drop it. It's clear that the anti-GA editors' votes are set in stone, and as much was expected previous to transclusion. Let them say their peace and don't comment further. This is my RfA and I prefer it be left alone. Everyone is free to vote as they wish. I truly appreciate everyone who's got my back, really, but RfA is stressful and this is counter-productive. Let the 'crats sort it out.

   Love 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Oppose Largely responsible for making Bad Articles the disaster it remains. I do not trust LaraLove's judgment there; I certainly do not trust her with an admin's tools. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   PMAnderson makes it a point to vote oppose to any person who participates in the GA process... he doesn't weigh the individual contributions to the project, but votes oppose by default. Granted, he and Lara have had their own encounters, but I do not trust PManderson.Balloonman 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. In my singular interaction with this user she seemed to have adopted an "us vs. them" attitude which was damaging to the discussion, to say nothing of the fact that this attitude misrepresented the reality of the situation. Some relevant diffs: [4], [5], [6]. I'm happy to be told why the impression I have of this editor's attitude is incorrect. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I stand by my comments from those diffs. My "us vs them" attitude was in commenting on the disrespect GA takes from FA; the "us vs them" attitude presented to those of us in the GA project on a regular basis from those participating in FA. The discussion in question regarded the addition of the GA symbol in the corner of GAs, as in what the FA star represents for FAs. At that point in the discussion, we planned to go for community consensus. We later decided that despite how helpful the use of the symbol would be during the sweeps process, it would be better to wait until sweeps have concluded, when the project is at top quality, before going before the community with such a proposal.

   Love 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't believe anyone is presenting an "us vs. them" attitude to the people working on GA. Nor is anyone disrespecting the GA project except to the extent that they may be questioning its value to the project, which is a perfectly reasonable line of thought. I think your response indicates propensities to (1) imagine that disagreement is a sign of disrespect and (2) imagine that a group of people who disagree with you are acting as an organized clique. Thanks for your response, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that, perhaps, GA may look pointless and broken beyond repair to those who don't work in it. Many don't know the differences between the project a year ago and what it is now. Regardless, I think if groups consistently called for the deletion of the project User X (any one of us) worked in, that User X knows to be of value, then User X would stand up in defense of it, particularly when it is a consistent argument from the same groups. I have seen the discussions from months ago, been involved in those in recent months, those that included many FA participants calling for the destruction of the GA project, but you don't see GA calling for the destruction of FA. We defend ourselves. And those same comments are made to this day, in this RfA. And as for my perceptions of disrespect, "except to the extent that they may be questioning its value to the project", is the exact disrepect I speak of. You worded it perfectly. The disrespect is for citing issues from months ago. Issues that have been or are being corrected as the reasons the project is of no value to Wikipedia.

   Many say Wikipedia is pointless. That it's wholly unreliable. Students can't cite it for that reason. While these concerns are valid to a certain degree, those of us working here in Wikipedia know the value of it. And we know there are issues, flaws, but we also know we can improve them. And that's why we're all here. I mean, really, we write and maintain an encyclopedia as a hobby! We don't give up and go back to solitaire just because some outside nay-sayers don't believe it is of any value. We stay, we work, we improve.

   I know GA is flawed, but I know it is improving, and I know it can improve further. I also know that I got too attached. My interaction with Marskell made that much obvious. Since then, I've stepped back from the project for what has now been a few weeks. But, while I don't participate as heavily as I once did, I'm not abandoning the project because of some outside nay-sayers, from FA or elsewhere. Just as I'm not leaving Wikipedia because some find it to be flawed.

   Love 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

9. The GA process is fundamentally detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's very, very dangerous, and essentially consists of people giving a spurious air of legitimacy to (often appalling and POV) articles when they have no competence to deliver a meaningful review. I am uncomfortable with the judgment of any editor that spends so much time around this process. How many GA catastrophes have we had recently? People arranging to pass each other's articles on IRC, stuff that might have been written by the National Ministry of Propaganda being smiled through the system...awful stuff. Moreschi ^Talk 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, GA isn't different to RfA or FAC in the regard of what you pointed out above. Heaps of FACs have passed with home made websites because a whole faction has pushed it through. Same for RfA type stuff. I might point out that you moved

   Phan Dinh Phung to Veropedia, presumably as a "certified article". Are you an expert in Vietnamese history? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't approve of FAC or RFA either. I think you're slightly missing the point with Phan Dinh Phung: I didn't move it over because it's a GA, I uploaded it, although I know zilch about Vietnamese history, because you wrote it, and you are trustworthy in this regard. Moreschi ^Talk 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to point out, as Cricket02 noted in his support, that I was just as displeased with the IRC exchange as everyone else. I dealt with one of the articles in question quickly, while

   Love 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'd have to disagree that the GA process is detrimental, in fact it is an important stepping stone for users to improve their articles. I was so proud of my first (and only) GA that I beamed for weeks. I can't possibly be the only one to have gained this positive affect on their psyche. But I had a good reviewer who knew their stuff and whom made me work, and work hard, with their suggestions to improve my article. But there is good and bad in everything as I've had a bad experience as well. But that is certainly not Lara's fault and she is doing the best that she can to improve it and she gives of herself unselfishly so my hats off to her for hanging in there through disagreements and betrayals and fighting to improve what is a good thing. ♫ Cricket02 03:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I would disagree with the "good thing" final words. GA is not a process worth salvaging. Its basic premise is review by those who do not know the subject matter, or the contributor. Moreschi ^Talk 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just as an aside, as this is totally irrelevant to adminship, GA does not prohibit reviewers from reviewing articles of subjects they are knowledgeable in. In some cases, it is actually preferred. It also does not prohibit the reviewer from knowing the contributor(s). It does, however, prohibit contributors from reviewing their own articles. Also, so that articles can be undestandable to the general reader, it can be a very good thing if the reviewer does not have knowledge of the subject because they'll spot issues, such as missing information or confusing prose, that someone that already understands all of it may miss. Although, as I proposed some months ago, I think articles would be best reviewed in teams of two. One knowledgeable of the subject and one not.

   Love 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

10. Strong Oppose <out of retirement for this one> Doesn't demonstrate need, Discourteous, High handed, Escalates disputes, Won't listen to critcism, Ownership of project, Reinterprets policy to suit own ends, Feels it's enough to sit in judgement, but not to improve. I suspect, although we are told she wants the mop for image gnomery, the power of the block button will be too hard to resist and we'll have respected editors blocked for disagreements. Diffs and further reasoning to follow, but she's at best, another Kelly Martin in the making. ......--Joopercoopers 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find Joopercoopers accusations here baseless. For example, consider this article: LaraLove makes extensive edits to Michael Jackson article AFTER it appeared at GAR, to providing references and cleanup. Also see this article on James Strang where she personally did the same thing. Actually, while Joopercoopers notes may be true about some people who participate in GA reviews, they cannot be said at ALL about LaraLove's participation in the project. The above two difs, as well as these: her work on Elvis article, her work on National Ignition Facility, and this one on the Angolan Civil War all show clearly that she is actively involved in using the GA process to present quality articles. Her contribs list is FILLED with dozens of examples just like these. In each case, an article was presented for delistment at GAR, and LaraLove, who could have simply voted delist like everyone else, instead, without prompting or reason, chose of her own volition to personally clean up each article to Wikipedia standards of quality prose and quality referencing. She is the ONE person at GA who does the exact OPPOSITE of what is described above; rather than using GA as a place to complain about articles, LaraLove personally involves herself with cleaning up and improving articles where they fall below standard. No one in the entire GA project gets their hands dirtier in doing real quality work than she does. Again, while the above complaints are valid about the GA process in general, and about other editors who participate in it, they are patently and demonstratedly NOT true about LaraLove. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Jayron. Laura often goes out of her way to help clean up articles brought to GAR. Majoreditor 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    She's discourteous, but your Kelly Martin comment was a cornucopia of pleasantry? Is it can be back to retirement tiem now, pls? the_undertow ^talk 19:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comparing LaraLove (or any other good editor) to Kelly Martin is unbelievably offensive, and I suggest that the comment should be withdrawn. Walton^One 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous, Walton. If I should ever be so fortunate as to be compared to Kelly I would take it as a compliment of the highest order. Moreschi ^Talk 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreschi, I think you know that the remarks were meant to be negative. If you do find it as a compliment, then I will be happy to compare you to Ms. Martin when you acheive a wonder that truly rivals her RfA. the_undertow ^talk 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - User is rude, obsessed with
    WT:FAC suggesting WIkipedia would be better off without the GA process was met with this comment from LaraLove: "(←) Regarding the recommendation for Dev to move this discussion to a GA talk page, save it. GA doesn't care to hear the ignorant proposal for destruction from a pretentious FA participant. (Have a fantastic day!)". If this kind of response is illicited from a conversation in which Laralove played no part beyond this one insulting comment, which she actually came over from WP:GA specifically to make, I have no doubt she will prove equally intolerant of concerns over her use of admin tools. She has also, to judge from the WT:GA archives, a tendency to conspire against people and processes on Wikipedia when she thinks no-one is looking. God forbid she be given access to #wikipedia-en-admins. I would be deeply concerned if this user is given the power to block and protect. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Do you have any evidence of her "tendancy to conspire against people" or are you just going to leave that hanging out there. It would be nice to see evidence of this conspiracy, rather than just presenting an unsubstatiated accusation. I will not comment or defend the single statement above; I have no idea of the context, and will only say that if we held every user to a standard where one single rude statement will forever make them inadequate to be a quality editor than no one, not me or any of the other 120 or so editors who have commented on this page so far, would ever meet that standard. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but I found your comment to be utterly untakeable in its aggresiveness and assumption of bad faith and I will not be replying to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize if I gave that impression. I do not begrudge you your opinion on this matter. You have your reasons for holding it, and I do not deny you that right. I only asked for evidence, so that others may understand your position. A few difs could go a long way towards other people understanding why you have reached your conclusions about this editor. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused. I hope we are all reading the same comment that Jayron made. He asked for diffs, which is par for the course. He said he will not comment nor defend - showing neutrality. This is one of the most benign and courteous questions posed to an assertion that was absolutely unsubstantiated. Dev, you did not provide any evidence, so people will be inclined to ask you to present some. There is no evidence of aggression here, unless you construe scrutiny to be aggression, which may be the case. Civility and assuming good faith, and all those things that are thrown around should not prevent users from asking questions for the benefit of exploration. There is no way that any editor can assert something so deplorable and heinous as a 'conspiracy' without other users wondering where the conspiracy exists, and how deep it goes. AGF works both ways, and I believe the tonality of Jayron's comment was more than polite. the_undertow ^talk 01:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but I think you are rather missing the point of RfA - I don't actually have to provide any evidence at all. As it is, I provided a link to a specific comment to which I objected and a page on which I have found LaraLove's general attitude to be lacking. I did not have time nor interest to do more. There is a difference between scrutiny, and a determination to believe in something against all evdience to the contrary, demonstrated here by someone who clearly never looked at the evidence I provided and who, unlike me, has nothing better to do than to trawl through through ten pages of archives by a hudnred people for one incriminating diff, and then to demand the same from others. The comments made here by both Laralove and her supporters only strengthen my view that she is unsuitable to be an admin for the present, and is relying on mass-voting by WP:GA to get her through. If she gains the tools, Wikipedia will gain another ideological admin blind to the point of our work. Live on, Veropedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I request that the entire discussion Dev has linked be read by anyone interested in this information. The quote alone is out of context. This is very much the "us vs. them" attitude spoken of above. He states that "for years" (GA criteria was created in May of last year) GA has been steadily changing the criteria to be more like

    WP:WIAFA

    . Despite the comments from others within FA stating the improvements GA has undergone, he continued to speak of plans to propose the destruction of GA. It was suggested that he bring the discussion to WT:GA. Someone alerted me to the discussion early on, but I refrained from comment until that point because I felt that had he made such a proposal on the talk page of the GA project, it would have been a mess. I did not comment after that because my interest was not in the conversation but, rather, keeping the conversation where it was. It's also worth noting, this was one of at least two, if not three, on-going issues between GA and FA participants at that time.

    While I agree that I was overly involved in the GA project, I recognized that and stepped back over a month ago. That aside, I don't believe I'm rude, although I may, as most people do, have my moments. And I don't believe I am incapable of responding positively to criticism, which I believe is shown in my edits.

    Love 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    If this is a lasting stepback, I expect to cheerfully support in three month's time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please tell me we aren't doing a reconfirmation ceremony. Once is enough for me! the_undertow ^talk 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it significant that LaraLove's response to my oppose is an attack on both me and WP:FA (even though, as anyone who works there can tell you, I really only visit when I've written one). This tells me all I need to know about the accuracy of my oppose. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I neither attacked you nor the FA project. I summarized the discussion from the page you linked to put the quote you posted of mine into context. If you'd like to quote where I attacked you, that may be helpful. :)

    Love 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

12. Oppose I've just spent half an hour going through Lara's comments throughout this RfA and on talk pages,
    WT:RFA, her talk page et. al. . This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else. This oppose is pointless due to the weight of support, but I'm making it none the less. Please don't ask for diff's - I find it self-evident through perusal of comments. Lara will cause more trouble than benefit with admin tools in my opinion and that makes me oppose. I hope she'll prove me wrong when she gets them. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Well, I just read over the last couple of months or so of my talk page, and my edits to WT:RFA out of my last 1,000 edits, and I'm not clear on what discussions you are referring to. I'm also unclear on where you have objections to my comments here. As the candidate, I feel it's important for me to comment on opposes myself, rather than just have others get my back, so to speak (not that I don't appreciate it! :) ). I was accused of being an ageist, told it was no better than being a racist, so I defended myself and posted examples of supports which clearly dispute the claim, and it resulted in Acalamari changing from oppose to support. I don't understand what you mean by I act like I know "better than everyone else". If you wouldn't mind clarifying some of your points, I may be able to clarify some of the issues.

    Love 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Just a general comment on these last two opposes by Dev920 and Pedro. Both of these are reluctent to provide difs. As a matter of pragmatic concern, if you really don't want LaraLove to be an administrator, then it would seem to me you would want others to agree with you. By providing difs to her "bad behavior", which if it is as obvious as you say, would only serve to win people over to your side. Again, unsubstatiated claims of incivility and abuse of power and conspiracy don't really do anything. If your goal is to prevent LaraLove from becoming an admin, evidence of such behavior could only help your cause. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My aim is not to "prevent Lara from becoming an admin". That's a foregone conclusion. My statement is that I have too many concerns, also in the lack of admin related areas work wise, but mainly in the conversations relating to this RfA, to support. After a lot of thought I in fact oppose. But it won't make any difference, and I hope Lara will prove all opposition to be unfounded when she uses admin tools. As for diffs, well Marksell below nicely highlights some. Sorry, but best wishes anyway. Pedro :  Chat  10:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Strong oppose. Reluctantly, because I have no doubt of the candidate's good intentions. But I've found Lara tempermental, shrill, quick to take offence, and quick to accuse. In my case it was being called a troll. The "us v. them" is spot on. Shrillness here. Suggestion of trolling here and repeated here. No thanks.
    here. Note that the fourth link above ("Troll-feeder management classes") arrived after the "yes, but" apology. Marskell 11:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    This is the actual proposal, if anyone is interested in reading it.

    I recognized during that conversation that I was too vested in the project, too attached, and I apologized and asked you to leave me alone. I didn't want to be involved with it anymore because I needed to cool off. The next page of my archives shows you continue to message me after I asked you more than once to keep discussion of your proposal with it at the VP and leave my talkpage be.

    Also, the post on G'guy's talk page came before my apology. I posted it before I read your message which inspired the apology. That situation is the one that lead to my stepping back from the GA project. And I have no intentions of getting that involved again.

    The main reason I rejected a previous RfA nom was because of this situation and those similar to it. I wanted to wait a few weeks, see if I was capable of better dealing with such situations, stepping back and cooling off, taking the advice of my peers and various essays written on the issue. I understand your concerns, I had them myself. But I would not have accepted the nom if I didn't think I'd successfully addressed the issue. I say this not to change your vote, because I certainly understand it, and appreciate where you're coming from, but if this RfA fails and I should go for it at a later time, I hope you will consider voting differently, as I'm confident that I have honestly learned from this situation that I must step away from such discussions and comment in them only when I have a cool head, reading them in good faith despite what other issues have been going on (this was soon after the Dev exchange and some other similar issues), and I know my edits will show that.

    Love 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Your apology arrived at 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC); the subsequent suggestion that I was trolling arrived almost exactly 24 hours later on G'Guy's talk page. And funny that you think I was continuing to bother you on your talk—I had exactly the same opinion of you, as my own archives show.

    My actual ludicrous, pointless proposal is irrelevant. We could have been talking about Spoo and my rationale on this RfA would be identical. (Although it wasn't entirely pointless: it led, roundaboutly, to the workshop.) I will add most emphatically: this is not an anti-GA commentary. The process we were discussing is incidental. The essential issue is that someone capable of so quickly and deeply personalizing a conversation that needn't have been is not someone I want to hand the block button to. Whether I might oppose a later RfA is academic. This oppose stands.

    But I say that without rancor. I think you've made fine contributions around here and hope you continue to. Marskell 15:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider your response to Q7 sincere and I'll drop the 'strong' from my oppose, FWIW. Marskell 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is worth something, if not for the RfA, for me. Thank you.

    Love 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

14. Oppose - After following this Rfa, I first removed my support, with the idea of watching and mulling it over before probably adding a neutral. However, after reading all of Lara's replies here, I find her to too often engage in debate, or search for a reply which will neutralize the critical comment she has encountered. I am concerned how she would react when questioned about her actions after being given the tools. Lara (or anyone standing for admin) could better simply listen to constructive feedback here rather than debating or explaining it. She seems too eager to gain the tools, rather than really listening to what some members of the community are trying to tell her. I realize Lara has some strong supporters here, and state clearly now I will not engage in debate or reply to questions about my opposition. Jeffpw 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand why you might "feel" this way. However if you really read over everything, she was just trying to defend herself. RFA's are hard. You go under fire for everything you have ever done. People are mad at you, say things about you, bring you under fire for every word/phrase you ever said that was good or bad. If you really read above, throughout this entire RFA she was trying to simply defend herself civily. There were no rude remarks, incivility, under-handedness or anything else from her. Even when some of the additions were somewhat harsh, she took the opposition against her and defended herself civily. Providing links, and structural integrity to what she was saying. People (anyone) get's mad about things at one point or another and might say things they don't mean to say. During an RFA everything they ever said, including things that were long forgotten come back. A person has to deal with the stress that comes from an RFA, as well as criticism. If you really read through all the responses she has dealt with all the harsh, and good criticism as it came. To me, I think that is an excellent quality for an administrator. Some of the oppose's confused me, as I don't see how some of them could really be used as a valid Oppose. However everyone is entitled to post. However The statement "i find her to often to engage in debate, or search for a reply which will neutralize the critical comment she encountered". I understand why you would feel that way. However I just feel she was defending herself. I also feel debate is part of the existence of wikipedia. without debates there would be no wikipedia, just my thoughts. --businessman332211 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose A few of the other oppose votes sum it up. Admins who are thin-skinned are a potential liability. east.718 at 06:01, 11/9/2007
16. Sorry, it's hard to oppose when you have the support of so many people whom I respect. I have read over your exchanges with Marskell from late September and the problems there have me very concerned about how you communicate when you are angry. First you said to Marskell "excuse me if I'm a little defensive. I do apologize, seriously," then three hours later you suggested he was trolling, then you apologized for that, and 24 hours later you made the troll-feeding comment. I understand that you were stressed at the time, and it sounds like you made the right call in pulling away from the situation. However, sooner or later, something other than GA is going to piss you off again, and I am not confident that you will be able to respond appropriately. Sincerely, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - I echo the comments of those above me. While you have the support of over 100 people, I feel that the few people in opposition have really given good argument as to why you should not be a sysop at this time. Kla’quot especially makes good points, as does Pedro. I should note, however, that I do disagree with, or at least, am not opposing because of, allegations relating to you being ageist, but rather more as a result of your comments and your civility, both here on this RFA and elsewhere. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Lara. Please. Chill. "This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else."(Pedro) - My concerns exactly. 
    Monoxide 10:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Oppose I don't think I've interacted with this user before, but the concerns of the opposers seem stronger than those of the supporters. Just looking at this RFA, I have to agree with Pedro when he says "This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else" Plus, as a sixteen year old, I'm a little bothered by the ageism issues. SashaCall 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sasha Callahan, as the person who originally brought up the ageism issues, I personally believe, both from evidence provided here, and through my own discussion with LaraLove, that she is clearly not an ageist. She supported two RfAs where the candidates were younger than fifteen. I respectfully ask that you, and the other opposers, reconsider the ageism part of your opposes. Acalamari 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20. Reluctant oppose. I've been watching this RFA and trying to decide whether the nominee's occasional personalization of issues is that big a deal. Marskell's discussion with her was problematic. We all do it—personalize issues—but what bothers me more is the sense provided in some of the above diffs that when the nominee feels more "off the record" in talk page comments, etc., the nominee's truer attitudes may be prevailing. I remember seeing what I thought was a sarcastic comment about "math geeks" from LaraLove on somebody's talk page; this being the result of the apparent conflict stemming from how math-related GANs were being reviewed. I read it as a petty, dismissive comment, and while text commentary can be read so many ways, I would like to see the nominee spend a few more months demonstrating more constructive communication in areas of disagreement, and would then feel comfortable supporting. I don't think every admin needs to be equally adept at "handling conflict", but this nominee clearly chooses to work in areas where the skill is necessary. –Outriggr § 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak Oppose, sorry - all things considered...generally folks are keeping a lid on things in the run up to RfA so as to pass something like this. This makes me worry about what will happen once you're through and an admin. I can see you're dedicated and that's really good to see. I am glad you answered my question above but still don't feel convinced that you see your role in your perception of others rather than blaming others and your overinvolvement alone. I have mulled over this. Making yourself OPen To Recall would be a way of tipping my feelings on this into a net positive and weak support (and getting Elvis to FA standard of course... ;) )cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose, I'm afraid. Not because of GA, although I do agree that GA is one of the most broken things on Wikipedia, but because LaraLove is too inclined to take things personally, and too defensive and thin skinned. I know from personal experience that it is hard not to feel persecuted as an admin, and I feel that if LaraLove is given the tools, she will quickly burn out. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Sorry to break the pile on, but am I alone in finding an RFA transcluded with 5 supports already in place slightly discourteous to the RFA process ?[7]. It's happened before now at RFA and I'm afraid it shows poor judgement not to have asked the supporters to remove their comments. And before any one cites my "ludicrous" 6 co-noms I had a vote on my RFA before I transcluded it, and I removed it. Sorry Lara, you're great but this shows a less than perfect judgement. I await the slagging off I'm going to get. Pedro :  Chat  16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not usually a fan of challenging opposers/neutralers (?); I consider it disruptive, but Pedro, this is just ridiculous. Blaming the candidate for the over-eagerness of her supporters?! Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have no problems with this sort of situation, as we allow conoms, but discourage having too many. I think support votes from such people in place of conoms are fine. Orderinchaos 01:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Pedro, I wouldn't ever slag you off. However, I think it would be inappropriate to blame Lara, just because some users who are clearly fond of her, added their support before it was transcluded... Qst 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know it was a problem. I've seen RfAs before that were transcluded with votes already in place, I saw comments made about it, but I'd never seen anyone drop their support over it. Well, shame on all of you premature voters! I demand those of you with the bit be immediately desysoped!! XD But seriously, Pedro. I respect your decision, but I would like some clarification on exactly why it's an issue, if you don't mind expanding. Also, how not knowing this reflects on my ability to be a successful admin, and how this overshadows my 9,000+ contribs when judging my, well, judgment. :P

Love 16:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I know it looks unfair, and I certainly can't oppose - I've had conversations with Lara and wrote quite a comprehensive note of Feedback in September

as seen here. I like her, I think she a great editor, I think she'll do well as an admin and I'm sure this RFA will pass with a pile on. But I personally find the concept of "hidden voting" distasteful. I removed a support from my RFA [8] prior to transclusion as stated above. And yes, I know I argued that I couldn't tell my nominators to hold back, but nomination and actual supports are two seperate things. Cannot I comment based on my own standards ? I'm sorry guys but I personally feel it's not good form to transclude with votes / !votes already in. Like I say it won't matter - this RfA will pass for sure and my best wishes with that - but I feel it would be a compromise of my personal beliefs to support at this time. The precdent to this is of course Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me_2 allthough I believe the number of votes were higher than in this case. Pedro :  Chat  16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Pedro, of course you're entitled to this. :) I almost never harass commenters in RfA's - I thik it's usually rude, but sometimes I break the habit. I'm also stating my opinion. Thanks, Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're dead to me now, Pedro. Ha!! I'm just kidding!!! Well, my bad. I don't see what it matters. But I respect your decision. "Hidden voting" seems to be assuming bad faith, however. I asked and one found it while doing RC Patrol. I'm not sure about the others, but I didn't contact anyone. Wasn't even online. I added my questions, dropped a note on Phoenix's talk page and went to work to get royally disappointed and head back home. The votes were there when I arrived and I didn't think anything of it. Just took a deep breath, transcluded and yea... that's it. I'm a deep shade of purple at this point... I should probably start breathing now.

Love 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Breathe ! Breathe! Okay, look, it's probably not very AGF of me is it. I've got to go and sort out SonOfPedro now, so I'll refelect on my bad faith and revisit your RFA asap. I will be off-line probably until Monday so I apologise to all if you're earnestly leaving me notes to change my mind, (or indeed not bothering and just thinking that I'm a total arsehole). I'll reflect on it. Meantime, enjoy the pile on up in Support! Pedro :  Chat  16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see it as a good thing; multiple users had the RfA watchlisted before it even existed, meaning that they'd thought she would make a good RfA before she was actually up for the position. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: I am one of the "pre-supporters"; I hadn't even realized it was a pre-support, or I'd have delayed. I saw a post on someone's talk page mentioning the nom, clicked on the link and promptly supported. I didn't come to it through the RfA page and so I didn't notice the discrepancy. Mike Christie (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie, whilst WifeOfPedro isn't looking - I have nothing against those who supported prior to transclusion. I just think Lara could have shown better judgement by removing the supports before she moved it to the main page. It doen't mean she'll be a bad admin. It means I personally don't like the concept of RfA's being presented with anything in support before they appear on the main page. I can only echo the respected User:W.marsh at the RfA I identified above (which I admit was different due to the extreme level of supports) "While this situation seems largely accidental, it's not hard to imagine how this kind of thing could be gamed to get a highly controversial candidate on RfA with 70/0 support by the time anyone known to oppose them ever finds out about it" It's no fault to Lara, no fault to the supporters, but it is poor judgement and a dangerous thing if the community thinks it's acceptable. Thin end of the wedge and all that. I'm sorry it had to happen on an RfA for such a respected memeber of the community. Pedro :  Chat  17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm going to head to the talk page with a reply.

Love 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm in the same position as

instructions! There's no difference in principle between transcluding with some votes and transcluding with several co-nominations: it is for the instructions to say that one is okay, and the other is not. If so, then not only should they explicitly state that voting can only commence once the page is transcluded, but they should also say that the 7 day period starts from the moment of transclusion not from the moment of acceptance. This one started at 12:47 today, in accordance with the current instructions, and I commented at 14:11. Clearly, the instructions need some rewriting! Geometry guy 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(undent) hey if anyone wants to refactor my comments to a better place in the thread, go ahead.. but I'd like to say that slapping someone for having pre-transclusion !votes makes me wonder about where the substance is that we should be considering. I was a pre-!voter. I had no idea that the page wasn't transcluded 'til after I had !voted; had no idea that some editors would want my !vote stricken for this reason, and would merely have moved my !vote (wholly intact and unchanged) to a less offensive position if someone had stricken it, making the whole thing a game of musical chairs. Let's focus on substance. Done talking. --

Ling.Nut 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, not quite done. I pre-!voted because I was watching Lara's talk. So if you would like to slap someone, feel free to slap me. Repeat comment about substance. Now actually done. :-) --

Ling.Nut 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ack, again I speak. I left a note on Pedro's talk about my pre-!vote. I see, in theory, the reason fr his concern about the possibility of gaming the system, but I think the RfA process is not so blind as to let deliberate gaming pass. I agree with G-Guy that instructions need to be refined; suggest that each individual's RfA page should include a mild warning about pre-!voting, since this disturbs some editors. I hope this is my last comment. ;-) --

Ling.Nut 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't be bothered reading all the above, but apparently there is a need for me to explain the fact that I supported LaraLove before this RfA was transcluded. My only interaction with Lara has been on another editor's RfA, which I strenuously opposed. Lara initially strongly supported, and disagreed with some of my reasons for opposing. We had quite a long discussion about it. Sometimes you learn more about a person by disagreeing with them than by agreeing, and in this case it became pretty clear to me that Lara understands the role, and is capable of disagreeing with someone, even to the point of frustration, without being disrespectful to them, or playing silly point-scoring games. These are in my view some of the more important qualities of a good administrator.

Hesperian 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate has indicated that they have no intention of assisting with article deletion backlog – Gurch 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There're lots of things to do other than deleting articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time next week there won't be – Gurch 18:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Of the various administrative tasks, because I'm burned out on article reviews, I have no interest in participating in XfD at this time. I will assist in the image deletion backlogs, however.

Love 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec x 10) While I appreciate your right to your opinion, Gurch, there's a huge amount more to adminship than deletion backlogs. Any editor who uses the sysop bit solely for the benefit of the project is justified, IMO. Put it this way; if she works some other area, that just frees up other admins to address other areas. It's all good - Alison ^❤ 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this time next week there won't be. It is intended as encouragement, if you deal with article deletion backlogs, then you will get my support; if I hadn't wanted people to deal with article deletion backlogs I wouldn't have voted, so it's not as if this has any effect on anything – Gurch 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may help with the speedy deletes. I just don't have it in me right now to spend time reviewing articles. I'm so burned out. Speedies are often short, so that wouldn't be a drain on me.

Love 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

To be fair, you're opposing under the assumption that we're going to have a deluge of asinine anon-authored articles (ah, alliteration...). There is the possibility that it won't be the doomsday scenario it's been hyped as. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the theoretical possibility that all vandals will stop vandalizing; a scenario with, I fear, roughly the same probability – Gurch 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not "opposing" under anything. This is the Neutral section; my comment has the same effect on the outcome of the request as if I had not commented – Gurch 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in practice, it doesn't. Your ostensibly negative comments go towards influencing others' decisions though yours itself will not be counted by the 'crat. Just sayin' - Alison ^❤ 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, nobody listens to me – Gurch 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't comment. Go slap a vandal. —

₂O —  00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Poor wording on my part; I obviously wasn't paying close enough attention to which section I was in. My bad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reluctant oppose Neutral (Changed to neutral after reading Lara's apology to Snakese on this page.) The process of adminship is not asking us whether we like a person or think they are an excellent editor, but whether we think they would be good with the tools. Having the tools would have given the candidate the capacity to block
   good faith is absolutely *essential* in my book, and that this happened just 4 days ago concerns me. The ageism issue also concerns me - we have some fantastic 12-13 year old admins and experienced contributors who add value to the project, and I think judging them on a number is problematic. It raises the question of what would happen if this candidate, assuming she is successful here, becomes involved in a dispute with such an admin. That being said, I agree with many of the supports that LaraLove has done a fantastic job with the GA project - I saw some of her recent cleanup work in my own project and was pleased to see that GA is finally being pushed and moulded into a standard worthy of the attention Wikipedia gives it. In particular I cite SandyGeorgia's support vote on this. I realise this will probably pass, and as such wish the candidate well - but I cannot honestly support on this occasion. Orderinchaos 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Neutral, but will check back later. - the response to my question wasn't really what I was looking for. However, I will check back later to see how this runs out, and make my decision from there.

   Miranda 21:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Neutral - LaraLove is a great editor: very good with the GA articles, offers good help and advice. However, after seeing the claims of ageism, I feel a tad too uncomfortable to fully support her (I am 13). I am far from opposde though. I just simply cannot support.
   Chronic 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I was uncomfortable initially, and I was the one who brought the age-factor into this RfA, but I'm supporting now. Seriously, LaraLove isn't an ageist, and she wouldn't oppose any candidate entirely on their age, and also wouldn't have any issues with working with young editors. I don't have any worries about LaraLove at all anymore. Acalamari 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Switched from oppose. Looked at her contribs more in depth - has some good article work, but I see very little experience in admin-related areas :/ I don't think she will abuse the tools, but I do think she will be more prone to making mistakes. I'd like to see her be more familiar with how admin related processes work before she starts closing discussions etc. User:Veesicle 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Further: I also think it's really cool that you do so much on the help desk. However I'm not seeing much XFD work/vandal reversions/image tagging/etc/etc that I think is pretty much necessary to be a good admin. I prefer admins that work on content, but it's also necesary for them to have experience in at least a few areas of admin tasks. User:Veesicle 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure if it will affect your !vote or not, but I'd be more than willing to work with Lara to answer any adminship questions or issues she may have. She may still make mistakes, but so does everyone (well,

   except me, of course!). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   That's nice, but I don't see any reason why she can't do that before she comes to RfA. I also think it's a good idea for admin candidates to have involvement with admin tasks beforehand so they know what they're getting themselves into. Nothing against Lara. User:Veesicle 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have experience in the areas I intend to work, and help from several admins with whom I share a mutual respect. I hope that helps ease your worries some.

   Love 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. Neutral leaning towards oppose, per Dev290, and, most of the above. I've seen as well, in your recent deleted contribs, that you didn't even know which tag to use to delete an image [9]. However, you seem to have a semi-decent grasp on policy, and, most of the time you seem to be civil enough, so, I'm neutral. SQL^{Query me!} 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral my experience with her via GA left me with some concerns about her judgement and temperment. I understand where most of the oppose and neutral !voters are coming from (except those opposing on the basis of putative "ageism"). I'm not willing to oppose, since I'm not convinced she'll make for a bad admin, but my degree of angst compels me to comment. In the interest of full disclosure, my concerns stem her comments with respect to the GA delisting of all GA articles within the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Game_theory, many of which I had contributed to heavily. These articles were, in fact, not to GA standard, and I believe my concerns are not based on any sort of resentment over the delisting per se. I'm offering my opinion with the view that her being granted admin status seems assured, and I do not think that's a bad thing, but I hope that some small change in her some of her behaviour is seen after this RfA. Such that she fulfills the readily apparent potential her obvious energy and motivation and good intentions give her. Pete.Hurd 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I find that your claims are inaccurate.

   Geometry guy assessed the status of the GA articles that fall inside this WikiProject. I took a look at the articles involved. 3 of us (Geometry guy, LaraLove, and I) seem to agree upon the fact that they don't hold the GA standard. Yes, I understand that it hurts when you see your hard work towards these articles being viewed by others as something that is breaking down. But we cant sacrifice quality to please editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Sorry, I know that the original delisting was by

   Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_25#Chicken_.28game.29), not that *she* delisted them. I thought I'd made clear in the above that I had was not disagreeing with the assessment that they were not up to GA quality, and volunteered that information so that editors such as yourself were in full possession of the facts should you suspect that this is just sour grapes on my part. Pete.Hurd 19:52, 9 November 2007 (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.