Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Kathryn NicDhàna

Final (85/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 07:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I offer you Kathryn NicDhàna, as my ninth candidate for adminship.

Kathryn NicDhàna has been contributing to Wikipedia since July 2005. Since that time, she has made over 5600 edits, with over 2700 to the mainspace, 460 to the Wikipedia-space, plus 1300 to user talk, and editing roughly 1900 pages in all. Located in those numbers, Kathryn NicDhàna is a good article-writer, and has improved pages such as Jim Morrison, Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, Samhain, Patricia Kennealy-Morrison, and Polytheistic reconstructionism. As well as article writing, she is also an effective vandal-fighter: giving accurate reports to AIV.

When it comes to Kathryn NicDhàna’s behavior, I have found her to be an extremely polite user, both on and off-Wikipedia. My observations of her interactions with other users and myself have been positive, and I also admire her patience. She has E-mail enabled, so if users need to contact her privately for whatever reason, they’ll be able to.

In all, I believe that Kathryn NicDhàna is a very experienced editor with a high knowledge of policy. I am certain that she will not abuse the tools if they are given to her, and Wikipedia will gain from her being a sysop. Acalamari 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I am honoured and delighted to co-nominate Kathryn NicDhàna for adminship. As Acalamari says, she's been here for over two years now, and as a writer by profession, has been a solid contributor to some of our finer articles on Celtic and Irish history, mythology and folklore. She has a broad range of experience and, largely due to the Starwood Arbitration case, has gained an immense knowledge of WP policy. In the time that I have known her here, I have always found her to be patient, knowledgeable and always willing to give of her time to help others. She had quite a rough time through the Starwood Arb case of last year, and its associated battles but throughout it all, she handled everything with dignity, calmness (at least on the outside!) and level-headedness. Given the kind of pressures we admins are put under on a daily basis, I think she will be a tremendous asset to our team here - Alison ❤ 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, ok, you talked me into it :-) Thank you for your kind words, Acalamari and Alison, and for your nomination. I accept. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Candidate statement:
With the possible upcoming change to allow IPs to create new pages, it looks like we need more admins. I’ve been putting off an RfA for a while, largely because I’ve been rather busy off-Wiki. However, the possibility of further backlogs at CSD, AIV, and possible angry responses when new users have their nn pages speedied, has made me decide to go ahead and see if folks want me to help out via the extra buttons. I already do some admin-related work (vandal fighting, policy discussions, informal mediation on content disputes and WikiProjects), so I think I’m pretty clear on how to wield the mop (as well as when not to). There are a handful of admins I work with regularly, so I know where to look for help if something is outside the range of what I’ve dealt with before. So, if you want me to help lighten the load, I’m here.
(Note – If we do proceed with enabling Anonymous page creation, I think this should help: Wikipedia:Article wizard)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am most familiar with AIV and CSD, and could help with backlogs there. After having to ask for page protection on heavily vandalized articles (Halloween on Halloween of 2006 was a notable example), I understand the need for protecting pages, as well as dealing with the vandals or POV-pushers that lead to protection being needed. I am one of those people who has stayed up far too late some nights because there were backlogs and no one had gotten around to protecting or semi-protecting a page that was being hard-hit, so I have a lot of sympathy for that now.
I already get requests for help with some of these things via e-mail and my talk page, so I anticipate a significant amount of my work coming in that way.
Helping Pigman and other admins gather evidence for the Starwood arbitration gave me experience in tracking and stopping sockpuppets. Since then I have helped out informally on some sockpuppet investigations, usually by observing editing patterns, gathering diffs, IPs and other evidence to help the admins running the checks. Being able to view deleted contribs and deleted pages would help with identifying the sort of editing patterns we often have to rely on in these investigations, so would make my work in that area more effective.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I consider myself a well-rounded Wikipedian. I have contributed in many different areas across the project, from writing, sourcing and copyediting articles, to image creation, template creation, vandal-fighting, XFD, informal mediation and helping new users. I feel my main strengths are as a writer, researcher and editor. I value WP and the WP community, and am committed to helping protect the ‘pedia.
I have written a number of small articles (Kevin Danaher, Helena Moloney), and contributed significantly to one Good Article (Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism). However, I feel my best, and most satisfying, work has been salvaging mid-size articles by rewriting, expanding and sourcing them, sometimes on my own, other times with one or two collaborators. Some of these are high profile articles (sections of Scottish people, like this one), while others pertain to more specialized fields such as Celtic Mythology and folklore, such as Cailleach, which looked like this when I found it. Or Geis which still needs a lot of work, but which looked this this before I tackled it. I also like improving and sourcing established articles, such as these additions to Hogmany.
I do a fair amount of wikignoming (mostly copyediting) and a bit of template work. I’ve made a few simple templates (Gaelic Festivals is one), and I helped Jossi proof and update Celts and Celtic mythology.


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: The events leading up to the surreal and draining Starwood arbitration were not fun. After weighing in on my very first AfDs and RfCs (on a slew of spammy, nn articles), I suddenly became targeted for harassment by a now-banned, virulent sock drawer. Being lied about, insulted and wiki-stalked was stressful, especially when I had no idea why most of it was happening, and when colleagues of mine and articles they work on were also being attacked.
However, it was largely because of those attacks that I learned about WP dispute resolutions processes, WP:AN/I, AfDs, RfCs, and numerous other admin-relevant sides of WP. Prior to being attacked, I had just written articles and patrolled RC for vandals. Once he filed the arbitration, I helped Pigman and others gather evidence on the sockpuppetry and policy violations. This gave me a lot of experience in learning to spot socks and what to do when they’re found.
Though I would have preferred to learn about things like Arbcom by less-stressful means, I’m glad for what I learned. Were it all to happen now, I would handle it completely differently, and I don’t think it would particularly stress me at all. I think that with earlier use of checkuser and more stringent application of policy by helpful admins (which would have resulted in sanctions and blocking of the sockdrawer before so much damage was done) it could have avoided going to Arbcom. It was stressful at the time because I didn’t know how to find help on WP or how to get policies enforced in a prompt manner; now I do. It also made me realize how important it is to help less-experienced editors who become targeted by trolls.
Other situations that could have been stressful but weren’t were when I helped resolve a somewhat contentious debate about the Irish People graphic, and some differing opinions about images on the Neopaganism article. It struck me during those discussions that the events leading to the Starwood Arb could have gone similarly well, if only the people involved had been respectful and civil with one another.
Disclosure: Like most of us, when I first came to WP I knew nothing about WP policies. Even before I discovered that it is against the WP:AUTOBIO guideline, I knew instinctively that it’s bad form to write about oneself. At the express request of other Wikipedians, I did contribute fairly extensively to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism article. At the time I began working on it, I was not mentioned in the article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.
The article is now classed as a Good Article, and I am proud that it is very thoroughly sourced with third-party, WP:V sources. However, once I was named and cited in it, even though I was contributing as an “expert” and was always open about my identity, I realized it would be best if I scale back my participation in the article for WP:COI reasons. Though I would like to expand the article somewhat, I now do my best to limit myself to the talk page, and even stay away from that when it looks like it could get stressful. The only recent exceptions to this have been when I’ve added third-party sources, corrected serious misinformation or vandalism, or agreed to do a bit of collaborative addition of text and sources in direct response to a specific request from an admin or other experienced editor.
Optional question from Keepscases (talk · contribs)
4. Do you plan on making edits to Wikipedia in languages other than English? Keepscases 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Mais Oui! Yes, I do. I have made minor contributions to the Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and French Wikipedias. On en-Wiki, I often correct mistakes in articles that include words or phrases in these languages. If there's something beyond my skill level that needs attention, I know a small handful of native speakers and linguists to turn to for advice.
5. An 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 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A: The relevant policy is WP:BP#Unblocking. And yes, I respect the policy.
In a bit more detail: I would contact the blocking admin directly, through talk page and/or email, and ask for more information. Sometimes a block only seems unjustified because one doesn’t know the whole story. If I still believe the block is unjust, I would bring it up on WP:ANI or WP:AN and discuss it with other editors, getting more eyes on the situation and reaching some sort of consensus, rather than simply unblocking.


[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Co-nom support - of course :) - Alison ❤ 07:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. StrongSupport from my experiences in Starwood. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support looks like a good candidate --Herby talk thyme 08:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support. Our paths have crossed on numerous articles and I've noted that she's a stickler for the facts, polite and well spoken. I think it's only natural that Kathryn would make an excellent administrator. :bloodofox: 08:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, there is no reason not to. Great editor, deserves the tools. — E talkBAG 09:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Got the goods. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - of course. An excellent candidate. I looked into nomming her a few weeks ago but I didn't get round to it. I trust her to not do anything silly with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Seen her around. Don't think she would abuse the tools, and is experienced. Good luck!--SJP 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - of course. Addhoc 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I do think 460 WP edits is a tiny bit low, but of course that's not nearly enough to offset all the fantastic and positive work that this user does. Good luck! GlassCobra 13:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, good editor. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I see you around and I think, you are ready and have my trust. Good luck. Carlosguitar 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Experienced, no indications she would abuse the tools, and very grounded in Wiki-Policy. SirFozzie 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Ar ndóigh - Rudget zŋ 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. I strongly support this nomination as the nominator. One of these days, I'm going to be the first person to support one of my own candidates, but the RfAs almost always begin when I'm in bed or eating! :) Acalamari 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support No problems. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - meets my standards for edit count; has been a useful editor; more sysops are needed where she's promised to work; no red flags; expert in areas subject to edit wars and vandalism. Bearian 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Is ea. Support per all above ;). -- Jack 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Huge Honking Support. Calm, deliberate editor who adds good WP:RS and WP:V sources to articles (my personal bugbear). Acts calmly under pressure and I don't recall her ever being uncivil. Writes clearly and to a general audience. Most importantly, she's already doing some admin-type tasks up to the limit of a regular editor's abilities and indicates she will help with housekeeping work. I can't see any downside. Pigmanwhat?/trail 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I trust this user. Húsönd 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Experienced editor. Calm, civil, and sensible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. I thought she was already an admin.--Berig 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Keepscases 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Starwood support Keegantalk 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Yet another Irish candidate! hehey!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    She is?? - Alison ❤ 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Irish-American / Scottish-American, actually... Not that there's anything wrong with that! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. No concerns with this user. And by the way, last time I checked, anon page creation doesn't have consensus to pass. Still, CSD is usually backlogged as is. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. A solid, experienced candidate. --krimpet⟲ 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Another great user from Alison. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. How to say Support in Gaelic? :) - Darwinek 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    "tacaíocht" :-) - Alison ❤ 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    I couldn't find "Support" so I just put Is ea meaning yes.. or at least I hope it means yes.. am I right Alison? Jack 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, thanks! How should I read it properly? - Darwinek 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mean "pronounce"? :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support She "gets" it, and she's "got it" :) ~Eliz81(C) 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support There is no reason not to. Hopes she gets the nomination. Redmarkviolinist (talk)
  36. Support Long overdue :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Jmlk17 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per her being a constructive editor that is qualified to be a sysop. No reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. the_undertow talk 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. The answers and the nomination are both impressive. I see no reason why this user shouldn't have the tools. SorryGuy 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Absolutely. Good luck! The Rambling Man 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support--MONGO 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Need I say more?? --Solumeiras talk 13:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, but could you say it smaller next time? :D ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. Strong, Strong Support Great edit summary, great answers. Acalamari Certainly knows how to pick who they nominate. I have seen his past nominations and he always nominates from his heart on one's he thinks are going to great admin. Again great pick this time. --businessman332211 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support -- Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support-- {{insert cliche here}} Knowledgeable on Neopaganism associated articles, but scrupulous about conflict of interest and neutrality issues. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Good users should get the mop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. If it's good enough for Allie and Acalamari, it's good enough for me. --DarkFalls talk 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Excellent experience and answers. Acroterion (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. This is yet another in a recent flurry of sane, civil, knowledgeable, and even-tempered nominees. I'm beginning to wonder if something is amiss. (Oh yeah, support.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support, good work! bd2412 T 08:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support very good user, will certainly be a very good administrator. PeaceNT (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - most of my experience of her is helpful. I think this is a worthwhile request, and judging by the vote, she has got it already. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  55. There is no reason not to support this nom Happy Thanksgiving! (Sasha) 17:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support, per nom - seem like she will use the tools wisely and well. ww2censor (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support - decent candidate. Lradrama 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support - Having worked with this user numerous times I know she will raise the average quality of our admins (sadly lowered this past week) immeasurably. 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC) (This one is actually Dev920)
  59. Support per nom. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 07:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support. Excellent candidate, no reason to be concerned she would misuse the tools. Rockpocket 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  61. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's alright. It's the Internet. No one knows that none of us are wearing pants. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  62. - Zeibura (Talk) 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - no reason not to.-MBK004 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support She'll do fine! --MoRsE (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support. Kathryn is highly competent and will make a fine admin. WjBscribe 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. Definite yup. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support - Per the evidence brought up under the oppose. When other editors jump in to defend you and readily make such good points about you, it clearly shows that you are appreciated by the community and that you are trustworthy. Bon chance! Brusegadi (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support - No question, all the best. Khukri 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support - Piling on! Hey, easy, no shoving! There's room for all of us. Dppowell (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  70. Bíodh sé amhlaidh - excellent writer, very even-tempered and knowledgeable. -- nae'blis 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  71. Tacaíocht (Support) - thoughtful, reasonable, and civil person, and it's nice to have admin candidates who are so involved in writing articles as opposed to just reverting vandalism. --Kyoko 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support Seems like an exceptionally good candidate, capable and experienced. - Modernist (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  73. Eile riarthóir na hireann? Fainne oir ort! gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, Ina theannta sin, is mór ag náisiún na hÉireann a choibhneas speisialta le daoine de bhunadh na hÉireann atá ina gcónaí ar an gcoigríoch agus arb ionann féiniúlacht agus oidhreacht chultúir dóibh agus do náisiún na hÉireann. gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. A good candidate. Axl (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support - Editor has obvious strengths, and no apparent weaknesses. No reason to oppose. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  76. Although I strongly disagree with this user's opinions of another candidate currently at RfA, I would find it impractical and improper to oppose due to a difference of opinion on another user's candidacy (which is, by all means, personal interpretation and judgement of the candidate and their abilities). I feel this user will make a good administrator. Daniel 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support No concerns, and more than ample reason to support. --Bfigura (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. She is a serious, thoughtful, and committed editor. No reason to object. Coemgenus 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support This editor was the very first editor (who did not know me from previously working together) who had the nerve to offer me support after months and months of being blackballed by ADMINS. In my mind, her support for me started the ball rolling that resulted in ARBCOM revealing the 1 1/2 year long established sock puppet ring that had been making my life miserable. Besides the ring but part of the whole soap opera was a sockpuppet Admin and also our first sockpuppet Mediator). Mattisse 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support - Trustworthy. Good candidate. Seems someone willing to take on the tough assignments. Welcome to WP:80. -- Jreferee t/c 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support - Strong editor. Lara❤Love 06:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support per the calamari guy up top there who seems to be doing a great job lately picking fine RFA candidates. Sarah 08:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support Great answers with impressive contributions.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support I intended to write a full explanation for my support opinion, but it seems I took too long going through contributions, and now it is the closing morning. I understand Dorftrottel's concerns, but I think that compared to Kathryn's history of calm, rational discussion, the issue is not one that concerns me enough to not support. I have watched Kathryn deal with a number of rather heated issues, she's not at all timid of issues that have already become heated, or are headed that way, and she's often brought a measure of reason and calmness to the discussions, as mentioned above and below. I think this ability is exceedingly helpful for any administrator, but also the ability to be able to express oneself via this imperfect medium of text-based communication, and Kathryn has demonstrated her ability to do that many times. Dealing with others is an integral part of being an admin, and I truly believe that when it comes to other actions, Kathryn will be careful, cautious, consult with others when in new situations, and would be objective when blocking editors. I believe Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of Kathryn to the current administrative team. Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support. Seems to have made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia during her time as an editor. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Past experience with this editor leaves me doubting her objectivity. --evrik (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    Can you please elaborate on this "past experience"? Acalamari 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    The vitriolic repsonses of Pigman and Dev920 should explain it. --evrik (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    Evrik was the subject of an RfC. During this time, he was trying very hard to WP:OWN WikiProject Awards: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards/Archive 4#Coordinator. Kathryn was one of the people attempting to mediate the conflict: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards/Archive 4#Arbitrary_.28sub-.29section_break. Kathryn commented in the RfC here and here. I think it's about this: Evrik was the subject of an RfC in which Kathryn participated [1]. He then showed a tendency to retaliate against those who criticized him [2]. My opinion? Kathryn was instrumental in reforming WikiProject Awards, a WikiProject Evrik was attempting to dominate and WP:OWN. He obviously hasn't forgiven her for that. If he has a differing interpretation of the events, I would be very interested to hear it. Pigmanwhat?/trail 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    As the other party with Evrik in this dispute over WP:AWARDS, I can say that Kathryn did a bang up job as a measured calm voice in the heat of the debate. If one looks through the archives of WP:AWARDS, you will find that Kathryn played the role of mediator, an crucial part of an admin's job, perfectly. If anything, coming out of that debate, I trust Kathryn even more with the tools. She was tried, tested, and not found lacking. Evrik's sour grapes stem from the fact that he not only lost his self-appointed role as Coordinator, but WP:AWARDs itself, so long Evrik's fiefdom, was deleted by MfD shortly afterwards. Pigman makes a good summary of what went down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    (Echoing Walton in the neutral section.) Oppose for the way she opposes Shalom's RfA. Please do me the favour and don't try to argue me out of it. My oppose doesn't matter anyway and even so will probably be disregarded by the closing 'crat. But I think the attitude she displays there, totally disregarding the vast majority of good contribs of another user and the development and change in attitude and particularly his commendable straightforwardness (as opposed to creating a new account and starting over with a clean slate), speaks volumes about her abilities to assume good faith. Worse, she doesn't recognise that she (along with the majority of the opposers over there) is encouraging the practice of lies and deceit. With that attitude of her own, she's going to be a problem admin. |dorftrottel |talk 09:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

#Neutral per Dorftrottel's oppose. I share his disquiet at the way she is behaving on Shalom's RfA; although I wouldn't say her concerns were necessarily baseless, she ought to give him some credit for being honest about his past history, and try to factor in all the good work he's done over the years of contributing to Wikipedia. It worries me that, if entrusted with the blocking tools, she would be too quick to block productive users based on a few instances of immature behaviour; trigger-happy admins can, and do, drive good users away from the project (see User:Walter Humala for an example of where this happened). This isn't, in itself, enough of a reason to oppose, and it's pretty clear that this request will pass. But I want to voice my concerns. WaltonOne 10:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Switch to abstention, I'm not sure my above comment was fair to the candidate. WaltonOne 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.