Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 LaraLove

[edit] LaraLove

FINAL (137/22/5); 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)

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)

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

[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 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.

[edit] Optional questions

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

A. This is one of many exchanges I've had with FA participants, and I'd say the most heated. Certainly my sustained involvement in the GA project over the past few months has lead me to defend it against nay-sayers, sometimes ardently, and while I stand by my arguments, I concede that I was too attached to the project; it meant too much to me. It was in this case that I recognized that. Admittedly, this was a difficult situation for me. As I recognized how much it frustrated me, I stepped away from it and the workshop that's followed. For that reason, I was reluctant to answer this question. Because of your comments on The undertow's talk page saying you would probably oppose if I did answer, I was further reluctant to. However, as Marskell has joined the discussion, I felt it necessary to do so now.

Since the conversation I had with you in IRC about this situation, I've been trying to put myself in Marskell's shoes and look at GA from an outside perspective, in order to possibly understand his proposal and where he was coming from. I read over WP:AGF again. It reads:

In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. ... When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. — WP:AGF

I then read his initial proposal (which can actually be found here) again, forgetting about previous FA arguments and considering only his comments, and, while considering that those not involved in GA don't know the changes that have been made and the changing being made, I can see that his intentions were good. I still find many of his comments regarding GA offensive to the project (such as his claim that it is a waste of time, for just-past-stub quality articles, and only a pat on the back for getting half way to FA), but I realize that those are separate from my contributions to the project and it is necessary for me to understand that he comments without knowing what improvements I've help make. I do not still think he was acting in bad faith, nor do I think he was trolling. For that I again apologize to him.

I realized weeks ago the fact that I was so offended my his comments regarding GA was evidence that I was too attached to the GA project, which is why I stepped back from it. The "us vs them" attitude that is mentioned below is not my own, but the perception I have gotten from many FA participants. Marskell's proposal was actually against the grain of the common proposals of those in FA. At the core, I can see the good in his proposal, and I know from seeing the Workshop that good is coming from it. Lara❤Love 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Because of your comments on The undertow's talk page saying you would probably oppose if I did answer, I was further reluctant to." I hope this misquote / selective quote, which completely distorts the meaning of what I said, was inadvertant or a result of a misunderstanding, because I'd be an ass if I said that. :) What I said was, "And to be fair, if she answers the question honestly, I would probably change to oppose (that is my understanding from our off-wiki conversation; I just wanted a clarification for that)." That statement was made keeping in view your stand on the issue at that point of time, which was much different from what you state above in the answer, and assuming that you would hold the same view stated earlier. I did not say that I would oppose without considering the answer. Anyway, I think you gave the "correct" answer but I worry about how difficult it is to make people see what is "good faith" and what is "bad faith". Again, this is probably because I am not so passionate about any particular area of wikipedia. So anyway, I will not oppose you because I know you are one of the best at handling articles but I will not support you because I don't think you can handle people or disagreements with people very well. (Funny how I end up neither supporting nor opposing after all this discussion because I would have done exactly that if I did not come across the Marskell conversation in the first place. But good luck. And also I feel pretty bad bringing all this up considering how you had helped by going over an article at my request on IRC but as Mario Puzo said "It's business. ...not personal" <--- That combined with my lack of passion might make me sound like I am a robot or one of the Mafia; I assure you I am neither. :) Now, I'll shut up before someone comes and tells me I am talking in the wrong section. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

A. The policy is Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking and I fully intend to adhere to it should I encounter this situation. I have learned in my time here that it is much easier to contact editors for whom you have disagreements and discuss the issue rather than just revert. I avoid edit wars, which can be seen by reviewing my contributions, and I will avoid wheel wars just the same. Lara❤Love 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

9. The end point of this is 'pedia building and quality articles. Divisiveness can be toxic and extremely disruptive and I can see some issues here. You have perceived people involved at FA to be hostile or otherwise antipathetic to folks at GA. Can you tell me what has changed since late September and how you feel now? How do you feel parties can work forward WRT conflict resolution here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A. This is an excellent question. In my work in GA, it's been a goal to improve the project to a point that will please the community, including those at FA—to have GA be respected as a valuable project of quality. I have invested a lot of time and effort into that along with many other GA participants. My problem has been that people outside of the project, such as FA, aren't recognizing the work that we are doing to improve it. What I've realized is that I can't take it so personally. My work is appreciated within the project and for that I am proud.

There only needs to be a mutual understanding between the two projects in order for them to get beyond this feud of sorts. I think if GA participants let go of every discussion that has previously occurred with comments from the FA crowd regarding the destruction of GA, and if FA participant focused only on what the project is now as opposed to what it was a year ago, that the two groups would better communicate. To go into such discussion without assumptions of bad faith, and with an open mind that GA may actually be improving to a point that the two projects can peacefully co-exist for different classes of articles, would be most productive.

I haven't been keeping up with the Workshop that Mike Christie, Marskell and others have been involved in (although I would like to be), but I have seen progress being made there and heard that it's going slow, but well. That in itself is an accomplishment and something to be proud of. It shows that it is possible for those of both projects to work together for the betterment of Wikipedia because, ultimately, that is the goal of both. Lara❤Love 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for replying and I am happy you have a constructive tone. I still do not have a sense of how pervasive you feel this antagonism between GA and FA to be and I concede that discussing it in any more detail here could open up a real can of worms (i.e. I think it is more prudent to just drop this rather than me getting you to clarify things further). Thus I'll drop this now. I am sure this nom will pass anyway regardless of how I vote and hope this bodes well for the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

10 Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not? From SQL ^{Query me!}

[edit] General comments

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 · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

Past editor reviews:

Wikipedia:Editor review/LaraLove

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

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)
Majorly's oppose was removed. Miranda 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Personally, I draw the line at 11. But I've seen some admins I've thought were 20 or 40 who turned out to be under 15--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Age Debate: This is the largest area of concern on this RFA. For those who say it's no factor at all, would you allow a 3-year old to be an admin? What about 101 yr old? Then 12? What if the 12-yr old was an Einstein? What if he was temper-prone? It all just depends as I see it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd saying that opposing a 12 year old for admin means that someone is "ageist" or even can't be trusted to be an administrator. Administrators are trusted individuals and I don't trust someone who hasn't even hit puberty yet with such capabilities. Those of you who say that a 12 year old should be trusted if they have a reputable editing history, where do you draw the line? What about a 10 year old? What about an 8 or a 6 year old? Would you trust a 6 year old administrator? Who can delete pages, block editors, etc? If not then why? Is there some line of a difference between 6 and 12? Does opposing a 6 year old admin make you ageist? What about even younger? If opposing a 6 year old admin doesn't make you ageist then why does opposing a 12 year old admin? I personally draw the line at about 15 years of age. Some people might draw the line at 14 or 13 and some others might not support an admin under 18. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A a 17-year-old who sees a lot of unpleasant ageism, I agree wholeheartedly with Wikidude. Using age arbitrarily as a tool for social control is one thing. Reasoning that a young candidate's use of tools is likely to be unpredictable and capricious based on their psychosocial development is very different -- it isn't a foolproof analysis, but it's far from arbitrariness. Universal age restrictions on driving or voting are similarly suboptimal, but few would argue that we ought to jettison them. Perhaps it would have been best for Laura not to mention age so as to avoid any possible offense, but that was clearly not her intention. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive Conspiracy Concern Address :) Per this comment, Lara has requested that her userpage history be deleted, and she has restored the current version to reflect the last version, which is the version that would exactly coincide with the RfA. There was personal information included in earlier versions of her userpage, that is better left deleted, as opposed to reverted. In short, the only difference is that the history is not viewable. I thank you in advance for your understanding as privacy is a concern that we all share. the_undertow ^talk 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
At 25, according to her user page, I still consider Lara to be a young person (old and crusty as I am). I could not care less if a user is old or young, black or white, gay or straight, left wing or right wing - I care if they can exercise good judgement within the ramifications of this work. This is not some Politically Correct diatribe. It's what I believe and my two pence. Pedro : Chat 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

~~Good candidate from what I can tell. Hesperian 11:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)~~ Marskell's interaction with LaraLove directly disprove my stated grounds for supporting. Hesperian 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wondeful Candidate. Sure she will not abuse the tools. Good luck!--SJP 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Support great GA contributions, pro-active and well deserving of the extra buttons. Good luck! The Rambling Man 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongest possible support, excellent, well-rounded and judicious contributor. Great! Go to WP:200, plz. @pple complain 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support, certainly. Respected editor, valuable contributions, thoughtful answers. PeaceNT 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support. Qst 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support All of my experience with this editor has been positive. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Strong support Absolutely, she's one of the best ones here. — iridescent 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Support as co-nom well duh!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support - Good answers to my questions, good contributions. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
~~Oppose~~ Support Good user. No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 talk 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Strong Support per pervious comments. She will make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - of course. Addhoc 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - super editor, always courteous to others. Will make an excellent admin - Alison ^❤ 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support with no hesitation. bibliomaniac 15 A straw poll on straw polls 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
strong support very high editor would make a great administrator. Brendan 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
--Doc^g 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I had had a discussion with LaraLove about calling Marskell a troll and I was left with the impression that Lara still believes he was acting in bad faith. I have asked an optional question asking to explain why she believes so and I will indent my support for now; will reconsider depending on whether the question is answered satisfactorily. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had asked me about another editor at my RfA, there is no way I would have commented about him or her -- it would lack tact and RfA is not a forum to rehash disagreements between two editors, much less from a third party such as you or me. the_undertow ^talk 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's how an RfA works. A lot of unpleasant stuff is rehashed and all the work of an editor is brought under the scanner. But I understand what you are talking about; if she doesn't want to answer the question, that's fine. That's why it is an optional question. Still, my concerns stand and I can not support someone who believes that anyone who asks for the closing down of the GAC must be acting in bad faith. I withdrew my support not because she did not answer my question but because without further clarification I can not honestly support. But as you can see, I am not opposing either (for now anyway). :) - TwoOars (Rev) 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of how an RfA works, which is fine, but I'll take it to your talk page - I don't want to be the source of any undue stress here. the_undertow ^talk 19:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support - Great user, fully trust her with the tools. - Shudde ^talk 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Sure! Jmlk 1 7 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Support as the nom. I was seriously late on this one, geez. the_undertow ^talk 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. Experienced, dedicated, civil. Accusations of agism are unfounded, I deem. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Support~~ and thanks for all of your fantastic work on the GA project. —Moondyne 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Very disappointed after reading this which seems to indicate an unhealthy obsession and unwillingness to at least discuss. I do sympathise with your stance but dislike your tone. I now doubt your ability to communicate calmly as an administrator. —Moondyne 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Support~~ ~~withheld pending answer to Q.7.~~ Very good infrastructure 'pedia building with all the GA stuff, but I am concerned about 'us' vs. 'them' attitude in the conversations with Marskell, and what this means for future coordination of all parts of quality improvement on wikipedia. Schisms and bad blood worry me immensely. Normally the diffs shown would have made me oppose but I can see you're sincere. I need to know what happens regarding this from now on. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

~~We need more troll-whackers. — H ₂O — 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)~~ (Oppose)
Support Good editor and the 'ageist' rationale of some of the opposers is ludicrous. Nick mallory 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, have found this user very helpful in the past, will use the tools wisely. Dreamy ^§ 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
support Good article writer and editor, always civil and nice, no real reasons to oppose. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support unlikely to abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I see nothing but good work, and that suffices for me to disregard the age issue. Hús ö nd 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great work all around, especially helping out with GAs, and will make a great admin. --krimpet ⟲ 02:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support A good article writer who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, Lara is a solid editor, stable, responsible and not likely to abuse the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support positive, diligent, and will do an excellent job, - Modernist 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Support Experienced editor, good contribution to mainspace through GAs. Recurring dreams 09:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Support Excellent candidate. Opposition rationale is of poor quality. Xoloz 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
She certainly has her moments :-D — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support From what I have seen Lara has been great at reverting vandalism, and has beaten me to the punch more than once. While I am a very big n00b here (this happens to be my first comment/vote/discussion reply on any discussion related thing) I think she would have no problem with the admin tools. Nn123645 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support based on her participation with Editor review, among other things. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. The fact that the biggest complaints against her are she likes GAs (maybe we've redefined "good"?), some other people did some stuff (it wasn't her, was it?), and she has reservations about young admins (under-13's used to get permablocked on sight and forced to recreate if they admitted they were under 13) says pretty good things about her. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Her previous work makes it clear that she'll judge objectively.DGG (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Granted, I've only seen your work in the last week or so, but you've already left a mark. I'd for stronger if I'd seen you around more (I really only watch a few pages, so that makes sense) but from what I've seen, I have complete faith that you'd make an excellent admin. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support – I don't really understand why people are bringing ageism into the argument. Lara said she might support a 12 year old admin, and to be honest, if Sango could handle the mop as a teen, then why not a 12 year old? Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Good candidate with good judgment. Ageism argument holds little water with me. I used to be the youth leader (I was under 19yrs old) of an international religious youth group (membership generally between 14-18yrs old). Despite exceptions (nothing is absolute), age and experience plays a significant role in maturity. Not saying I wouldn't vote for a 12yr old for admin, only that such a 12yr old would be very exceptional compared to their peers' maturity levels in my experience. (end rant) Pigman^what?/trail 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Support~~ - Though I have never interacted with Lara, I have certainly seen her fine work on the Elvis article, where she has worked hard to ensure that it remains to a high standard. Having looked through her other contributions, I think she do a good job as admin, and certainly wouldn't abuse the tools. Jeffpw 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support per the ludicrous "ageist" opposes. Common sense says that 99.9% of 12-year-old users do not possess the maturity to handle the tools of adminship. Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are. Users like Acalamari (who, I believe, is 15 or 16) is a really good admin. But where do we draw the line? I teach 11-14 year olds. Some of them are very mature and thoughtful. However, I can't think of any that I feel would be ready to adequately handle the tools of adminship. As a very young person, they would need to deal with some VERY adult situations, where tempers are short, and anger runs thick. I would not want even my most mature kids placed in that position. This is not "ageist", it's common sense. Lara should not be opposed for being "ageist", first because she's not, and second because her opinion in the cited case was simply based in common sense. K. Scott Bailey 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have come to support this RfA, and it seems I have some explaining to do as well: for clarification, my initial oppose was not meant in bad-faith: I was not trying to sink this RfA, or trying to make LaraLove look like an ageist. As I said, I thought LaraLove had used age as a reason to back up her oppose in that RfA, and I opposed this RfA on that basis; and yes, perhaps I should have assumed more good faith. However, LaraLove's comments here, plus a private discussion that I had with her, convinced me that age wasn't a factor at all in that oppose. I am not pleased with the mess I've turned this RfA into, and I'm also not happy my comments here have led to another RfA being opposed. I hope the people opposing here on my now-withdrawn rationale will reconsider their opposition, and realize that LaraLove isn't an ageist, and is certainly not prejudiced in any way. LaraLove will not abuse the tools, so there is no reason to oppose anymore. Acalamari 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. The candidate is a great asset to the project and a dedicated encyclopedia-builder. Majoreditor 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, mirroring K. Scott Bailey's sentiments above. Sandstein 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, have interacted with Lara multiple times in the past for the GA process and have always been impressed with her knowledge of policy and her behind-the-scenes work for GAs. I believe she will use the tools well in helping with the image backlogs. --Nehrams2020 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
STrong support great work at GA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the editor does a fine job and should make a fine admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, was very responsive to my questions via yahoo messenger. Bstone 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, after a bit of thinking. ~ Sebi 04:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support after my prior interaction to help with a harassing editor. --Step hen 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support civil, sensible, and helpful in a disagreement over whether Angolan Civil War meets GA requirements. Would make a better admin than most. Perspicacite 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. Reviewing GA candidates is extremely commendable. Not only has she done that, she's edited several articles to GA level herself. Obviously a dedicated editor who is doing more than her share to improve the quality of the project. Cla68 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support- She has done good work. The lack of work in XFD gives pause for thought but I have looked through this users history and found nothing that would indicate she would not be trustworthy with tools. I have taken in account the issue of age and want to say there are some fine admins of all ages here.--Sandahl 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hand her the mop! Civil, judicious... insert your own word of praise here. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Tarragon Support - Chuck Norris crossed with Wonder-Woman, with no facial hair! Good luck! Dfrg_msc 08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I thought she's an admin already. Anyway, she is a very kind user with a good understanding of policies and a well rounded contributor.--Alasdair 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Top chick. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support She is an excellent editor, perhaps too "bossy" in voicing her opinion, but I would trust her with the tools, and I think she will be an excellent and hard working admin. docboat 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - How can we go wrong with an admin named "Love"? -- Jreferee t/c 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong support as one of the best, most honest editors we have, with lots of contributions across many fields. She's been quite kind at GA review, and useful here at RfA. While I understand the concerns noted below, overall, she's so good and would be such a useful sysop, she should have the mop. Bearian 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support User appears ready to mop. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - one of the best editors on Wiki I know. Davnel03 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support As for the opposes, I'll say it again: the fact that some 30-year olds behave like 12 year olds is not a sound rationale for giving additional responsibilities to 12-year olds. Though the occasional 12-year old behaves like an adult, chances are they behave... like a 12-year old and this is most certainly not what Wikipedia needs. I'm sure it's frustrating for younger editors to hear the ol' "you're just too young" but the outraged opposes below, ironically enough, demonstrate immaturity. Pascal.Tesson 19:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Already acts as one of the de-facto administrators at WP:GA and has been a powerful guiding hand at making that into a fantastic area of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that her use of admin tools will help there and at all areas of Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong supportShe is fantastic, she has Adopted me and has demonstrated to be very patient with showing me basics. She will be a great asset to Wikipedia. Pvara 99 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. DS 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support *Cremepuff222* 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support!! Wow, I'm late. T Rex | talk 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. When I first came into contact with LaraLove, I realized she did a lot of good work. Through misunderstandings, I thought she was actually rather abrasive, but by talking to her directly I realized that sometimes she just forgets to respond to messages she reads. That's not a bad thing, it happens to all of us. I think she's rather deserving. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support – To WP:100 we go! LaraLove knows a good editor is, and she's a great example of one. She also happens to know what a good article is – invaluable knowledge. She'll make an excellent administrator. — madman bum and angel 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:100 support. (Will elaborate on my rationale in the morning.) Walton^One 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, my reasons for supporting are as follows. Firstly, although I remember once having an argument with her, I can't remember what the hell it was about, so it probably wasn't important. Secondly, she's got sound common sense, as demonstrated by her track record as an editor. Thirdly, although I don't agree with her about age being a pre-requisite for adminship, she's entitled to her opinion and I admire her for stating it clearly and succinctly, without any politically correct bullshit. Also, on closer perusal of the cited comments, she didn't say a pre-teen could never be an admin (indeed, she supported Anonymous Dissident), only that most pre-teens wouldn't be mature enough, which is quite true, and not "ageist" in the slightest. As we all know, there are some people of that age group who are fantastic admins, and I don't think Lara was trying to impugn them in any way. Walton^One 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
El_C 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I have absolutely no doubts in Lara's ability to be an admin. Captain panda 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support — I trust that this user will use the tools in a responsible and mature fashion. Many of the opposes are incredibly petty. --Haemo 03:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. She has a history of excellent contribution and understands policy. I'm not convinced by the oppose reasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, no need to say anything more. :) RaNdOm26 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether it's wrong or right. As long as LaraLove's opinion doesn't affect her judgement within admin duties, I see no reason not to trust her with the tools. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have not had much contact with Lara but have seen her around quite a bit and have admired her edits. I am particularly impressed with this response stemming from this discussion regarding a shameful act of corruption of the GA process of which Lara has worked so hard. I trust she will make a fair and just admin. ♫ Cricket02 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support: Because she has opposed juvenile RFAs on the age count alone. News flash: societies around the world impose age restrictions. Why? Because they find minors to be, by and large, immature. In my own experience, some of the pre- and just barely post-pubescent editors who hotly proclaim their maturity have been their own worst enemies. It's a hell of a lot better a reason to think someone won't cut it as an admin than whether he or she's gotten an article to FA status, whether he or she is active on ANI or based upon his or her edit summary percentage. RGTraynor 08:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support: Will be an excellent admin. Epbr123 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I have seen good things from this user, and the reasons to oppose are not convincing to me. 1 != 2 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have personal experience of this editor's good judgment in a complicated situation and am impressed by her work in taking articles to higher states of existence. I know she'll use the tools judiciously and well. Accounting4Taste 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Only just stumbled across this RfA. It looks like Lara hardly needs my support, but (as an editor I trust implicitly) she has it all the same. EyeSerene^TALK 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. I stumbled across it too and recognized the user name. I have thought very well of this user's work. The oppose arguments below are really weak. There is no good reason to think this person will abuse the tools. There are reasons galore to believe she will put them to exceptionally good use. Some people are making a mountain out of a mole hill on the ageism thing, and I say this as a younger (well, standard college age) contributor. As for the type work, man, standardizing and cleaning up GA articles is crucial for project goals of attaining real encyclopedic quality. She has really been conscientious and hard working. Wryspy 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support A name I recognize; great work; I trust this editor will make good use of the tools. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, see no reason not to. Wizardman 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, I've come across LaraLove in a variety of GA reviews and always considered very polite and knowledgeable. I have no doubt that she would use the tools to the best of her ability. Nikki311 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Great contributor, significant work on GA front. Will make a good admin. - KNM ^Talk 00:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Support one of my view interactions with this user wound up as a part of my standards page. Gracious, thoughtful helpful and just plain good user. Oh, and FA is one of those things that I like to see in a nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Support, excellent editor who will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I heavily support for admin. To be honest the edit count was very good. I looked over the edit records and saw some really good overall work for wikipedia. That was enough for "support". However I looked through the oppose, and saw the person under fire. The way they responded was remarkable, and made me consider strong support. They came under fire from about 3-4 different people for the same thing, but they stuck by there decision and remained CIVIL throughout the whole process (even if someone else wasn't). To me this is a great quality for an administrator. --businessman332211 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I can't believe I was so late to this RFA! Lara deserves sysop powers beyond all doubt. VanTucky ^Talk 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've had good interactions with the user, and am confident she will not damage WP with the tools. Gimmetrow 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I regularly lurk on WP:GAR, WT:GA and other GA-related discussion pages, and I have always found LaraLove to be friendly and her input helpful. Her willingness to improve articles that are brought to GAR shows that she is committed to building the encyclopedia, unlike some admins who are only interested in people politics. During my two discussions with her, which are among my few pleasant experiences on IRC, she gave me several useful pointers regarding an article I am planning to improve to GA status. This is also, to a certain extent, a protest support, as I find that the oppose votes are ridiculous - either prompted by LaraLove's allegedly "ageist" comment or motivated by GA-bashing. Although I am 16, and strongly oppose ageism, I do not find LaraLove's allegedly "ageist" comment particularly troubling. Opposing a candidate on the grounds that he is 12 is one thing; showing evidence of the candidate's immaturity, and mentioning the candidate's age in passing, is another. Oh, and have a nice day. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Very active long term editors tend to have mistakes collect, no matter how considerate they are in their overall approach and attitude, in the big picture, LaraLove shows a great deal of intelligence and understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I do not fear at all that she will abuse her admin privileges.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Hi Lara. Nicely done. Congratulations. ;) The Transhumanist 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - Trust in Neil's judgement as her adopter. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - hard-working editor; no reason to think she would abuse the tools. Coemgenus 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Qualified. --Shark face 217 06:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Great Wikipedian. King Lopez ^Contribs 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. Should make a good admin. Hal peridol 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - I see this username all over Wikipedia being of immense help and hard work. My interactions with her have been brilliant and she talks and acts like an admin. I've seen her providing great help on the Help Desk when I've been working on there too. Should be a great admin. I'm sure that she is sensible enough to take note of the concerns raised below and improve herself even more. Lra drama 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Very impressed with answers givenWatchdogb 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Won't abuse the tools This is a Secret ^account 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Ceoil 00:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Works hard with the GA field. Good lu...You don't need any luck to pass this Rfa :) --Tadayuki ^紅葉 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Very strong support I've worked with her on GA and she is one of the most detail oriented reviewers I've met... which is why some people have a problem with her. She will catch things that most reviewers will miss... but she is also one who will go out of her way to fix problems that she sees. I think the agism issue below is bunk. I agree, 12 years old is generally too young to be an Admin.Balloonman 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - I'll emphatically support Lara for adminship even based on the degrees of opposition and I agree - with her. Her bluntness at times seems to have been misinterpreted as discivility, but I really don't consider her to be that. I think she's blunt to get the point across clearly. I wish I could be so blunt, so I wouldn't waffle on. Lara's consistent hard work over at GA, (irrespective of one's position on GA, it's a necessary evil, and she's there keeping the evil of its instruction creep at bay) and generally well thought out perspectives give her all the more clout to carry the glistened mop. --linca linca 09:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. Lara will be a fine admin. Axl 11:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)? — H ₂O — 00:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oppose Per Acalamari and Majorly.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

Still, age is no reason to oppose (or back up one) at all. JONATHAN ^{Go green!} 20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — H ₂O — 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Don't call people trolls, dick. User:Veesicle 16:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I guess you've been looking at WP:GAR there. Once a couple of reviewers have left detailed comments on an article, then it is not necessary for other reviewers to repeat the same points, only to confirm the validity of the argument. LaraLove is often one of the reviewers making substantial comments, but not always, and nor does she need to be. However, what such a search did not reveal to you is that LaraLove often substantially edits the articles under review: many reviewers do not, which I think is a great pity. And if you were to check her reviews of WP:GANs, you would soon find that she is extremely thorough. Geometry guy 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- (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 Good Article process is flawed. The process might be described as a broken machine, and Lara might be described as one of the mechanics who are trying to fix it. Rather than firing all the mechanics, perhaps it's wiser to join in and help with the repairs. --Ling.Nut 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  
  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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. JONATHAN ^{Go green!} 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 bollocks on RfA in my life. ELIMINATORJR 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 02:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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 sweeps going. Regardless, the first categorized all listed GAs into the top 11 categories at WP:GA. The second has made changes to bring consistency to the project on various levels. From things as simple as project page names for consistency with templates and such, to a modification of the instructions for both WP:GAN and GAR (many of those based on the suggestions of users such as yourself, who are upset with the process), to sweeps, which is to ensure that all listed GAs meet the 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. Lara❤Love 18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Two excellent editors no longer with us in large part due to GA: User:Nemonoman (expert on Mughal history); User:Joopercoopers (expert on architecture). I believe you might have played a role in the latter's decision to leave us for Citizendium (e.g. [3]). --Folantin 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unbelievable. --Folantin 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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. Lara❤Love 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)

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. Lara❤Love 03:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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 Hesperian dealt with the other. I implore you to nominate listed GAs you encounter that you believe to be "appalling and POV" to WP:GAR. The sweeps process is currently running down the list, removing articles that fail to meet the criteria, but nominations are still on-going at GAR as well. There are also discussions on how to better ensure quality considering the current "one nominator, one reviewer" process. GA has issues. This we know. But the project is improving. As I said above, I considered leaving the project at one point, but it's not going anywhere, so why should I leave it broken when I have the will and ability to improve it? GA has also helped me learn over time, through many disputes, how to handle such situations. It's been trying and has taken time, but I've learned when it's best to take a step back from certain situations. Something I think is important for an administrator. Lara❤Love 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Oppose - User is rude, obsessed with WP:GA to an extent which is not healthy, and is incapable of responding positively to criticism. A comment I made on 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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. :) Lara❤Love 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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. Lara❤Love 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
~~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. Marskell 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose: I see she has been asked about our conversation in Q7 and declined to answer. The relevant link is here. Note that the fourth link above ("Troll-feeder management classes") arrived after the "yes, but" apology. Marskell 11:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Lara❤Love 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

It is worth something, if not for the RfA, for me. Thank you. Lara❤Love 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)
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
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)
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)
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. Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
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. Sasha Call 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Me too. I'm going to head to the talk page with a reply. Lara❤Love 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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.

I rarely comment on RfAs, but sometimes when I encounter an utter prat or a good candidate, I put their non-existent RfA page on my watchlist, so that I am aware if ever they go through RfA. I did so in this case, and was online when the RfA went up, so knew of the nomination immediately. I supported straight away then went back to what I was doing. If you think that was "discourteous to the RfA process", tell someone who cares, 'cause I don't. Personally, I think a better adjective would be "efficient".

Like I said I haven't read much of the above, but one thing I did see is the suggestion that Lara should have removed my support vote. Now that would have been discourteous! Had she been so rude as to do so, I should probably have changed to oppose.

Hesperian 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Then don't comment. Go slap a vandal. — H ₂O — 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

~~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)

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)
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. The Chronic 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Lara❤Love 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Sorry, I know that the original delisting was by Geometry guy, I meant to say (and re-reading I think I *did* say) that my experience with LL stemmed from this (e.g. at 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)

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.

Categories: Successful requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaraLove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] LaraLove

[edit] Questions for the candidate

[edit] Optional questions

[edit] General comments

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search