Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (55/5/2); Scheduled to end 12:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove (talk · contribs) - Dear Friends, I am nominating LaraLove for the highly-esteemed yet no big deal position of administrator. As Wikipedia is not a paid profession, then it must be an endeavor undertaken for fun or perhaps some strange altruistic reason. With that, as editors, we delve deeper into areas that interest us and spend our time bettering our knowledge of policy, and develop strength in certain areas. As I started as a vandalfighter and AfD regular, Lara has shown her greatest asset to take on GA review and making massive edits to mature articles (tough to tackle) by cleaning up references and scrutinizing every last detail. To me, this is the dirty work of the encyclopedia because for every 'friend' you make, there are 23 people who are unhappy with your decision. I find her work to be of the utmost importance, and frankly, not a task that I would ever assign to myself. Like editors, GA and FA are aspects of Wikipedia that do more than preserve the integrity of the 'Project' but more importantly, improve it immensely. It is the reason that some kid in the middle of Virginia can come across articles of such caliber and be assured that they are to our highest standards. GA is the building block of an article that would make the 'paper guys' cringe because her job is thankless and unpaid. (I'm pretty sure she is not getting paid for this. Please tell me you aren't getting kickbacks from Graceland!) In any event, she is quite well known in this arena for her understanding of policy and her editing ability. She also takes the time to grace us with her presence at RfA. She (not physically) is well-rounded, and there is no doubt in my mind that we will be much better off having her as a sysop, as she is accountable, responsible, and dedicated. As I have never nominated a fellow editor, you can rest assured that I am excited for her RfA to begin, and for those of you who are not familiar with her 'work,' I can say with certainty that just as you have entrusted me with a sponge (I lost my mop) that she will make a fine asset to our current group of eclectic and dedicated administrative team. She is just that good. the_undertow ^talk 06:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) You will, no doubt, have seen LaraLove around the 'pedia and won't need me or anyone else to tell you what a great editor she is. Anyway, LaraLove, unlike many who request adminship, has some fine mainspace contributions in addition to her antivandal work. She has also shown sound judgement and understanding of policy in her work with images, helping to clear out fair use images without rationale. She visits the admin noticboards regularly, reporting vandals and trying to help out as much as she can with other reports. She will definitely make a great administrator--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you! Lara❤Love 12:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: I don't have experience in WP:XFD, nor do I care to gain any at this time. I've burned myself out on article reviews while working in GA, so it may be a while before I stick my toes in that pool, but there are other areas of interest to me. Breaking out the bullet list:

• I now sit in #cvn-wp-en and would watch WP:AIV, so I intend to help with blocking vandals using these tools, as well as those I encounter while doing RC patrol and during my regular editing. I have experience issuing warnings and reporting vandals with whom have met the threshold for a block. I believe my AIV report to block ratio is high, if not perfect, as of late.
• I have experience with requesting protection of pages which receive high levels of vandalism regularly. I intend to help with this at WP:RPP.
• I've gained an interest in image tagging. I have learned a lot over the past few months from 17Drew, and recently Betacommand requested help working a list of images which were in violation of WP:NFCC. In helping with this, I added to my understanding of Wikipedia image use policy. I would apply this to reducing the backlogs at WP:PUI, CAT:CSD and CAT:REFU.

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

A: I believe my work in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles is probably my best work.

• I've reviewed hundreds of articles. I lost count long ago, but between WP:GAN, WP:GAR and backlog elimination drive quality reviews, it's a staggering number.
• I created the Uncategorized Good articles task force and Good articles project quality task force. The objective of the first was/is to categorize all Good articles under one of the eleven top categories at WP:GA and maintain it. The latter ensures consistency and quality throughout the GA project. This includes the sweeps process, which I also got going. In this, all listed GAs (although particular focus on those list in 2006) will be re-reviewed to ensure they meet current standards.
• I also worked to get two existing articles listed—Fall Out Boy and Maroon 5 (please judge the quality of the work, not the topic. ;) )—and wrote Hogettes with Jayron32, which was just listed GA and I also took it through WP:DYK.

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: Ah, yes. I have encountered many conflicts working in the GA project. In one such instance, there was a particularly difficult editor making unilateral changes to project pages and instructions (a frequent occurrence). He attempted to undermine our reassessment process by voting against consensus, ignoring our criteria. It was extremely stressful and resulted in a handful of GA regulars, including myself, taking a short wikibreak from the project. (Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). There was also an instance of an academic Wikiproject considering a boycott, so to speak, of GA. That was averted. There have been additional issues with editors upset about decisions I have made regarding their article and GA, as well as editors upset with various areas of the GA project where I stepped up to deal with it. Outside of GA, I've dealt with disgruntled vandals, editors who prefer to edit as they want regardless of policy, trolls, etc. I had a troll feeding problem. I entered a twelve step program and have now received my one month chip; *tear* I'm proud.

From Mr.Z-man - Please answer as if you were an admin. Mr.Z-man 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. You come across an image of a celebrity tagged as {{PD-self}}. The image appears to be a publicity photo taken on the red carpet of an awards show, but you cannot find proof that it is copied from somewhere else (the image elsewhere on the internet). It was uploaded by a relatively new user who has no other image uploads. What do you do and why?

A. I tag it with {{PUIdisputed}} and await further information. While possible that the person did take the image their self, it's doubtful when one considers the money typically made by photographers for such images. Common sense puts into question why anyone would release such an image into the public domain. Lara❤Love 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Someone requests semi-protection of an article about a recent mass murder because of vandalism by anonymous users. The incident is still making international news headlines and new information is coming out on a regular basis. Looking at the article's history, there is about an edit every minute and the majority of edits (more than 50%) are by new and anonymous users. The edits by new and anon. users seem to be about evenly divided between helpful and vandalism edits. Do you protect the page? Why or why not?

A. Deny protection. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Granted, there are many instances when pages do need protection, but it's my belief that those for which have the most traffic, such as high profile current events, we need to hold true to that foundation. The main page article, for example, is never protected (unless my nominator gets frisky :P). They generally take a hard hit of vandalism while featured, but they're also heavily watched. As long as many of the IP contributions are productive, it would be counter-productive to prevent them. Lara❤Love 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Have you addressed my concerns with my questioning your ability to uphold policy in my review of you in the second editor's review? And, what steps have you taken to familiarize yourself with policy (BLP, V, etc.)? Miranda 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. In my work with GA, I have encountered libel and remove it accordingly. I focus my attention on specific articles, rather that searching for libel randomly, as you recommended. This was in no way a disregard of your concerns. My work with GA articles has strengthened my understanding of WP:BLP, which can be seen by reviewing the articles for which I have contributed. Further, in recent months, I have taken on the tedious task of reference formatting. During this process, I often check references against the information in the article. This is particularly important in BLPs, and I have always removed such information from articles when the ref does not back it up, as well as hide or remove the ref and detail the issue on the article's talk page. This is, of course, a matter of WP:V.

7. Do you still think Marskell is acting in bad faith with regard to his proposal? Please explain your reasons. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.

• See LaraLove's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

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

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

• Past editor reviews:

Wikipedia:Editor review/LaraLove

Wikipedia:Editor review/LaraLove 2 Miranda 19:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The delay in transclusion is my fault, so please understand that it's solely on me. I've never created another RfA (besides my own) and was asleep while the nomination was accepted. the_undertow ^talk 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Majorly's oppose was removed. Miranda 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this. I wish people would strike out their votes when they abstain. :-/ Miranda 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm commenting here because I don't want this to get lost in the midst of the oppose discussions below. Also, because it's kind of long. :/

Wikidudeman is very correct. I don't trust a 12-year-old to be an administrator, but I do trust a 22-year-old to be. However, I don't trust all 22-year-olds to be administrators, just as I do trust some 12-year-olds to be... or at least young, as I don't know the ages of all the admins I've encountered, but I've been pleasantly surprised to find some of them to be quite young. It's a broad statement with, like most things, its exceptions. Should I have said it? In hindsight, no. But I'm very expressive and detailed. Perhaps from being in GA where I tend to be very detailed and specific with reviews so as to convey the various issues and how, precisely, they should be corrected. I did not mean it to offend anyone, not even the candidate. His edits showed a terrible lack of maturity and experience, his age, in my opinion, helped explain why such an editor may apply for RfA. For that reason, I commented on it.

It's my personal feeling. I've been a kid, I work around kids, I have nephews, and I just know how most are. It's just part of being young to be immature. For those exceptions that are mature beyond their years, I fully support them, in RfA or otherwise. I trust that any young admins were granted the mop for a reason, I may have even supported some of them in their RfAs (Anonymous Dissident and Agüeybaná, for example), so I really don't foresee there being an issue with that should I become an admin and have an issue with another.

Last, I respect everyone's vote here on this matter. Everyone is, of course, entitled to vote how they wish, but I really don't want people to think I'm an ageist. I'm really not. I don't look for age when I'm reviewing a candidate for RfA. I look at contributions. I happened upon his age after deciding there was no way I could support. I'm sorry that I offended, really. It was not my intention. Lara❤Love 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Good candidate from what I can tell. Hesperian 11:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • Someone has gotten their knickers in a knot over the fact that I supported this candidate before the RfA was transcluded. I have explained myself below. Hesperian 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wondeful Candidate. Sure she will not abuse the tools. Good luck!--SJP 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support Someone please leave a note at User talk:Jimbo Wales telling him he can desysop five or ten other admins; they've just become redundant. --Ling.Nut 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Further remarks: erm, some people may not appreciate my jocularity. Let's reword: Lara is as dedicated as any I've seen, and has a sure hand and good judgment. I'm sure the weight of the mantle of Admin will be well borne by her. --Ling.Nut 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, suggesting that someone leave a message on Jimbo's talk page is a bad idea. I've emailed him instead (duh, the Cabal doesn't work out in the open; didn't you get the memo?). The desysopping should happen later this weekend. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Where did my buttons go? ZOMG, I'm leik Superman when he gave up his powers for Lois. Please don't beat me down in a coffee shop. the_undertow ^talk 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) the_undertow ^talk 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support I have a high opinion of LaraLove, and think she will make a good admin. I think she's a passionate editor and I've occasionally seen her get a little irritated in conversation; I'd like to encourage her to be calm when dealing with difficult situations. This has not been a big issue, though, and her dedication to the project and work ethic are both evident and will be huge assets to Wikipedia if and when she becomes an admin. Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. I also have a high opinion of LaraLove. She is a fabulous GA reviewer, and many of our best articles owe a debt to her for her high quality copyediting and attention to detail when she reviews articles. I have always found her easy to work with, even when we have disagreed. She is an editor who is not afraid to speak her mind, but that's no bad thing, and I completely agree with the nominator that she is "accountable, responsible, and dedicated". She will make a great admin. Geometry guy 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support great GA contributions, pro-active and well deserving of the extra buttons. Good luck! The Rambling Man 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongest possible support, excellent, well-rounded and judicious contributor. Great! Go to WP:200, plz. @pple complain 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - This RfA is overdue, everyone else has already expressed my feelings. She will make a great admin. Regards, Neranei (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, certainly. Respected editor, valuable contributions, thoughtful answers. PeaceNT 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Finally an RfA candidate that wants to work with images. Another admin would help very, very much. 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)
11. Support. Qst 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support All of my experience with this editor has been positive. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support A user who is certainly very suitable for adminship and hopefully will be a good one. Any work helping with backlogs is much appreciated. GDonato (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Hi Lara! I can't say anything that won't sound cliched, so I'll just pile on. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong support Absolutely, she's one of the best ones here. — iridescent 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Upgrade to strong support in light of the fact that she hasn't snapped at anyone involved in the increasingly bizarre conversations in this RFA. — iridescent 02:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support As one of WP's most productive GA writers I have interacted with her numerous times and have had nothing but positive interactions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I've always considered Lara to be a very well-balanced editor. I'm sure she'll do well with the tools. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. I've seen her a few places, and always thought that she was a model editor. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support as co-nom well duh!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Appears to be a good editor. Answered questions clearly, and with ease. Looks quite easy to get along with. Good pedian. Twenty Years 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - Good answers to my questions, good contributions. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support She suggested to have GA sweeps, and that's a really good suggestion. A GA sweep was long overdue. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Support Good user. No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 talk 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong Support Good luck, Lara! I can't think of anyone more suited to be an admin than you. GlassCobra 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strongest Support for a candidate in my !voting related edits - I really did think you already were one. The amount of support so far is evidential of that. You truly are an outstanding candidate. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong Support per pervious comments. She will make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - of course. Addhoc 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - super editor, always courteous to others. Will make an excellent admin - Alison ^❤ 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support with no hesitation. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. strong support very high editor would make a great administrator. Brendan 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. --Doc^g 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Tentative support 1) I agree with Pedro about the supports before transclusion. (I also think that commenting should end strictly at closing time). But it's no biggie. 2) I agree that a lot of teens / preteens can be immature but that shouldn't automatically disqualify a candidate. I find reasoning like "very young = immature" an unnecessary presumption and I urge you to reconsider using reasoning like that. But not really relevant to this RfA anyway IMO. Your being an admin or not will not affect your opinion regarding this issue. 3) More importantly, I find [this] conversation that I stumbled upon a while ago slightly troubling. I do not know all the history between you two. I just find all of it a bit... odd. You are allowed to express disageement, you are allowed to be belligerent from time to time, but calling a good faith attempt at discussion trolling is not a good idea. But you generally show good judgment and have apologised to the editor in question, so I think this will not happen in the future. P.S. I originally intended this to be a neutral but I guess I'd change to support later anyway, so I'll first support and then change my opinion in the unlikely event that something else comes up against you. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually believe it is relevant - what happens if the candidate ends up in a dispute with any of our younger admins over an admin matter where cooperation and negotiation is essentially required by the situation? Orderinchaos 02:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

34. Being ageist is one thing, but realizing that the vast majority of people under about 14 are probably too immature to see the word bra without giggling, much less be an admin on WP, is another. There are several good admins who are under eighteen. There are one or two excellent admins who are under 14. While these show that there are exceptions to the rule, opposing because of someone's age without evidence that the user is capable of being an admin is not wrong. So the opposes based on that have little bearing in my mind. The above evidences of her qualifications, however, do. i (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - Great user, fully trust her with the tools. - Shudde ^talk 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Sure! Jmlk17 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strongest Support as the nom. I was seriously late on this one, geez. the_undertow ^talk 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Experienced, dedicated, civil. Accusations of agism are unfounded, I deem. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support and thanks for all of your fantastic work on the GA project. —Moondyne 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Good infrastructure 'pedia building with all the GA stuff, when you gonna jump in the pool though? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. We need more troll-whackers. — H₂O —  00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Good editor and the 'ageist' rationale of some of the opposers is ludicrous. Nick mallory 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, have found this user very helpful in the past, will use the tools wisely. Dreamy ^§ 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. support Good article writer and editor, always civil and nice, no real reasons to oppose. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Agism does not suffice as a reason for opposition and besides that I see no reason to not trust this user with the tools. SorryGuy 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support unlikely to abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I see nothing but good work, and that suffices for me to disregard the age issue. Húsönd 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Great work all around, especially helping out with GAs, and will make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support A good article writer who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong support, Lara is a solid editor, stable, responsible and not likely to abuse the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support positive, diligent, and will do an excellent job, - Modernist 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. First experience with this user showed that she should be admin. She was friendly and helpful. I then checked out her edits: fantastic work for the community by reviewing articles, which overall improves articles. Also fantastic work on the Help Desk. If a user is improving the quality of mainspace, helping users, and being friendly, why should they not be an admin? — jacĸrм (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Maybe she is not experienced in the administrative tasks, but her work as GA reviewer is awesome this makes me to believe that she won't abuse of tools. Carlosguitar 06:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Very good editor, as she works on bettering the encyclopedia as a whole, and I have faith that she is trustworthy enough to have extra tools, as I feel she would make a great admin and needs tools to continue with this work, and to easily enforce policy/tasks, while still improving the encyclopedia. even though I dislike flowery/colorful sigs, as IMO is arrogant, etc., but I still support. :p~Jeeny ^(talk) 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Experienced editor, good contribution to mainspace through GAs. Recurring dreams 09:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oh my god why didn't you tell me former adopter support As Lara's former adoptive wikidaddy, I am only to pleased to support. Sniff ... it's like graduation. She will be fine, no concerns whatsoever. Neil ☎ 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lara❤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)? — H₂O —  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. Lara❤Love 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Please see my statement in the discussion section above. Lara❤Love 04:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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. — H₂O —  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]

   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]

3. Oppose per Acalamari and Agueybana. As an 11-year-old, I am a little uncomfortable, as with Acalamari. JONATHAN ^{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]

4. 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. Lara❤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]

5. 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]

1. 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 ?[3]. 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 Lara❤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 [4] 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. Lara❤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. Lara❤Love 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm in the same position as Mike Christie: I came directly to this page and had no idea that I was expressing my support "pre-transclusion". This doesn't show a lack of judgement on anyone's part: it shows that RfA needs to tighten up its 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]

   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. Lara❤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. Lara❤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. — H₂O —  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]

(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]

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 User:Snakese on what turned out to be flawed grounds. An understanding of policy and an assumption of 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]