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

Final(271/6/5)Ended 03:36,2006-08-04 (UTC)

Nominations

Nomination byJohntex

Why am I pleased to co-nominatePhaedriel (talk •contribs •count) (Sharon)? Let’s see:

• Active editor: 5,168 edits, nicely distributed across namespaces.
• Quality editor: From her very first edit as a logged in user[1] has used helpful edit summaries to complement her well-written contributions including substantial enhancements,[2], housekeeping tasks[3],[4], minor improvements (which she diligently tags as minor)[5], new articles[6], and in reverting vandalism.[7].
• Leader: Active role (and/or founder) ofPortal:Indigenous peoples of North America,Portal:Oklahoma andWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.
• Role model: Offering mentorship[8], and recognizing the good work of others.[9].
• Room for improvement?: Yes – she would be better if she edited twice as much!
• To Sharon: I appreciate your willingness to take this step. Admins sometimes take undeserved abuse. We sometimes make mistakes, too. We need a kind spirit such as yourself to help guide us in what is right, and to help cheer us up when things go wrong. You help create a stronger community that not only helps our project succeed, it helps our project to be more worthy of success.
• Conclusion: let’s do ourselves and our readers a favor by voting her in right now. -Johntex\^talk19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination byBlnguyen

Phaedriel hails fromOklahoma City,Oklahoma,United States, and has contributed large amounts of work toOklahoma andNative American topics. On the wiki-chore facets, she contributes toAfD discussions andfights vandalism. Aside from this, and probably what sets her aside from all other candidates is that she is the foremost propagator of wiki-love on WP, and would set a brilliant example for other wikipedians, as it is clear that one of the most notable things that an administrator can do is to affect the morale of contributors to this great project through their dealings with other users.

For more detail, seemy supporting remarks

I am honoured, humbled and embarrassed to be selected to nominate Phaedriel for administrator status.Blnguyen |rant-line08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination byLar

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Phaedriel for adminship. Johntex gave the checklist. Blnguyen gave the detailed quantitative analysis. I'm here to close this nom with the philosophical... once in a great while, you get a candidate that's so awesomely right that it's amazing. Phaedriel is that candidate. She may well change how admins get things done. For more on why, seemy supporting remarks

It is way past time to make Phaedriel an admin and I hope you will join me in supporting her candidacy. ++Lar:t/c22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations after acceptance

co-nomination bySamir:

Phaedriel will make a caring and wise administrator; these are traits that are hard to find in anyone. I've met no other that has brought her degree of compassion to the project to complement a solid history of editorial contributions. I'm honoured to add a co-nomination (but I suspect that there will be a few more co-noms under this one soon). --Samir05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination by1ne:

I had offered to nominate Phaedriel for adminship as SushiGeek a while back. She politely declined, but thanked me for the offer. She is a nice and caring person, and is a great contributor. She deserves it.1ne 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) removed as unauthorized1ne21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this co-nom IS perfectly welcome, and I hope it gets unstricken... 1ne misunderstood me. But it's his perogative to do as he likes. ++Lar:t/c12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination bySceptre:

I had proposed a co-nom by everyone on her talk page a few weeks back, because Phaedriel is a perfect editor and she'll do very well with the tools.Will^{(Take me down to theParadise City)}09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination byDing Xiang

Sharon here is the friendliest user you could ever have. She has the spirit and has what it takes to be a great administrator.--Tdxiang04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination byMerovingian

Sharon has the patience, knowledge, experience, and common sense to be a truly great admin. She's one in a million. --Merovingian -Talk08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination byTony the Marine:

"Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon.Tony the Marine23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-co-co-co-co-co-co-nomination byUser:Messedrocker

I wanted to nominate her earlier, but apparently someone beat me and she unfortunately had to turn it down due to some situations that arised. Now I'm taking the opportunity to be her eight nominator (is this a record?). Phaedrial isthe nicest Wikipedian ever. Not only that, but she takes WikiLove to heart and stands strong despite prejudice and even a death threat. I first saw her atTalk:Daniel Brandt where she gave a very powerful open letter to Mr. Brandt, and I just had to reward her for it. I didn't want Daniel Brandt to chase after me, so I e-mailed her a nice asterisk barnstar. Her response was exuberant and definitely unexpected. I cannot ask for anyone better to be an administrator, and I would not be able to handle this RFA failing. She is the perfect example of how administrators, as well as all Wikipedians, should behave. Not to mention that she is very experienced! —02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored by the kind words of Johntex, Blnguyen and Lar, and proud to accept.Phaedriel03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A record of a previous nomination, which I declined, can be foundhere.

Support

1. Strong support. Oh my, yes! Per nomination. "More candidates like this one, please!^TM" ++Lar:t/c03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support. Back from illness and sorry for being late. I haven't been sulking.Blnguyen |rant-line00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I have said before and I will say it again "There is no one I would rather support for administrator than Phaedriel".Johntex\^talk14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hell yeah --Srikeit^{(Talk |Email)}03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support Yes, please.Yanksox03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Edit Conflict Eternal Support does she even need an RfA? Nope.--Andeh03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support times infinity -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. That's hot. Sharon is quite possibly the nicest, most genuine, most ready-to-help person I've ever come across. We need more people like her!Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Hell YesJaranda^{wat's sup}03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is a record for me. Booted out with edit conflicts six timesSupport --Lost03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strongest support By FAR the best adminship candidate in Wikipedia's history. —Deckiller03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Titanium Plated Support. You damn bet I'm supporting :DShaunES03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
13. Wicked, wicked, wicked strong support: —Wknight94 (talk)03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, even though I just know I'm going to get yet another edit conflict. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strongest possible support. Not only does she passmy criteria with flying colors, Sharon is without a doubt a blessing to this encyclopedia. Her diligence, dedication, and kindness are near-legendary. I don't know what else to say...she'll make an amazing administrator.EWS23 (Leave me a message!)03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Huge Support-Darthgriz9803:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Enormous Support - Definitely Wikipedia's finest editorPerfectStorm^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)}03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Too many nominators, but what the heek ;)pschemp |talk03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support - Phaedriel is kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a great editor. She will make an awesome admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose :D - I wouldn't want to condem an AMAZING well suited for adminship reader never to edit again --Tawker03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this to be counted as a positive vote or a negative vote?Editor8804:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course it's a support, thanks for catching it though :) --Tawker04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was confused also, but then again, I'm usually confused --Samir06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. James Hetfield says—YEAH! --Nearly Headless Nick04:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support--cj |talk04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. That's an awfully wordy nomination for someone who doesn't need to do much more convincing, guys. :-)Support a consistently kind, productive, considerate, and diligent user.Mindspillage(spill yours?)04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Fully Support great user who will undoubtedly make a great administrator^{Conas tá tú?}04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. How the heck is Sharon not already a sysop?! --Merovingian -Talk04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Overwhelming support!Kirill Lokshin04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. How can one not, with such history and such detailed nominations? This will be a pile-on for sure.Ifnord04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Is this necessary? Hasn't anyone readWP:SNOW? :-) --Allen04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Hip, hip , hooray! support Phaedriel is the best of the best.FloNight^talk04:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Cliché support, my dislike of co-nominations wasn't enough to overcome my liking of Phaedriel's good qualities. --Deathphoenixʕ04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. support because the RfA clique said so (set your sarcasm detectors to stun) --W.marsh04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support of course. Simply a wonderful editor and leaver of the kindest and most pleasant messages. Been waiting for this for a while -Peripitus(Talk)04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, really great candidate. This seems very inevitable and that my vote isn't necessary, but here it is. This week, Today's Star shines on Phaedriel. DVD+ R/W04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support; would that they were all this obvious. Superb user, likely to be a superb admin.Antandrus(talk)04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support(duh?) This nom was sort of obvious.αChimp^laudare04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Should have been adminned a long time ago.Editor8804:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per all above.. and below. G.He04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Natural Support a wonderful person. I'm not sure but I remember reading something about her being a police officer(??), in which case it is only natural to accord her the badge and cuffs here.Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support A positive force.Tyrenius04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Could we haveWP:300 here? --Samir04:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope so! —Deckiller05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

41. Bandwagon. There really should be a CRLF between support and oppose. --Golbez05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh god, coding in Windows. ~PseudoSudo06:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42. Strongest support ever. Obviously.1ne05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. The most qualified candidate I have seen in many months. —Knowledge Seekerদ05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Yes. -Goldom‽‽‽⁂05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Unconditional full-blown 100% support. Oh, complete withyou weren't one already?Mo0[talk]05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong support looooooooong overdue! :p —Khoikhoi05:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Double edit conflict Support An excellent candidate for adminship and a great role model for admins-to-come. (aeropagitica)  (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. of course I support! Phaedriel's already an admin, she just needs us to give her the buttons. You can't ask for a nicer, more competent person as an admin, and quite frankly she's as nice a person as you're ever going to find. I'm predicting a littlesnow to fall on this discussion.~Kylu (u|t)06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. ~PseudoSudo06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Suppport outstanding candidate.MLA06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Saw this on RC Patrol and stopped dropped everything I was doing to supportRyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!)06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Super Support Impossible not to... you'll do great :) --MasterEagle06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Total and utter support - wouldn't have it any other way. Birthday in a matter of hours too! If the RfA is still unanimous tommorrow, we could end it and give her adminship for her birthday :) --Draicone^(talk)06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strongest possible support (might have to do battle with some nominators for that title though) Wonderful user, kind to others, excellent editor, more like her please. She knows exactly what to do and how to do it. — Nathan^(talk)_{/07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
55. Support, definitely. --JoanneB07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Excellent nomination. Nothing to say that hasn't already been said, and likely said better.Agent 8607:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. ABSOLUTELY^{2 edit conflicts later} Phaedriel is a shining beacon oflight on the project, support without amilli, micro, nanoseconds thought -Glen07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Strong Support.Voice-of-All07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support: While help talk and image talk edits are low, portal talk edits are high enough to compensate. —Philwelcht07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support: candidate is exceptional.Stephen B Streater07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Quickly support to avoid snowball support edit conflicts.DarthVader07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Very strong support. Sharon is both a great editor as well as good natured and incredibly tolerant towards others. Not the least shred of doubt here.Valentinian^(talk)07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support! I support youthis much: |<------------>|. Isn't that a lot? :)RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!})08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strongest Support I Can Ever Give Phaedriel is my idea of the perfect editor. Not only is she kind beyond compare, and have such a compasity for helping the community, her cotributions to this encyclopdia can not be over looked. The ammount of not only Native American and Oklahoman subjects she has given to us is amazing, as is Phaedriel as a person. She is one of our greatest.Th Halo^Θ08:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong support without question. Kind, intelligent, caring, and has integrity. She'll make a great admin.SlimVirgin^(talk)08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strongest of supports Active editor, but also very active in the community and is pretty much the person that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy.Master of Puppets^{Giant Enemy Crab!}08:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Kusma(討論)08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support.Lectonar09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong Support. I totlay support thiguy.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPeterwats (talk •contribs)

    User's 5th edit.DarthVader09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70. Support - Phaedriel is the totally perfect editor.Will^{(Take me down to theParadise City)}09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support longtime editor, nice to see the work on portal namespace.feydey09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. Grue 09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Well, duh.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong Support per all above; I've seen nothing but great things from Phaedriel. --tariqabjotu(joturner)09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. All the novel strong supports are taken, so just strong support Wonderful in all senses of the wiki. If she's even half as good an admin as she is a friend, we're a very lucky community to have her on board.SergeantSnopake10:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support :) --Froggydarb^croak10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. This is ridiculous. Add me to the queue. -CrazyRussiantalk/email10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Phaedriel is a natural admin candidate who will do nothing but improve Wikipedia.Gwernol10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Yeah :)Petros47110:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. — FireFox^(talk)_{11:03, 28 July '06}
81. Strong support.Avenue11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. SupportSarah Ewart (Talk)11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Gifted and spirited. No hesitation.El_C11:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Pepsidrinkasupports.11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support for all your hard work and the comments you left on my talk page.Mostly Rainy12:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strong support - per all of the above -Aksi_great (talk -review me)12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. A regular gal with a helluva resumé.Strong support. And her "Soundtrack of Wikipedians" idea is just awesome.JackLumber.12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Indeed Support I'm num 86 yay.KOS |talk12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Robert12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Strong There isn't any cliches left Support Between the time I clicked on to this site and now, three people added their name to this listJrcoga!12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support—Quarl^(talk)2006-07-28 12:57Z
92. Support. I don't wish to appear to be bandwagon-hopping, but she really deserves adminship (90 supports in 10 hours is unbelievable by the way).Rje12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Wow, excellent strong support.' A support from a fellow ex-Oklahoman (I lived in OKC for 8 years)--KungfuAdam^(talk)13:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Strongest Possible Support This user is perhaps the most universally respected non-admin currently editing. She is consistently helpful and wise in her wikipedia activity. --rogerd13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Strongest Possible Support per Rogerd. --Guinnog13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - A pleasant user.Iolakana|^T13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support; with this much community involvement I'm rather surprised that we haven't interacted but hey, not everyone hangs out at FAC. An important member of the community and a strong proponent of Wikilove, which is key part of being an administrator. --Spangineer^es (háblame)13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - Support - Support & Support...: It has come as news to me that she was not an administrator. I found her always caring for the Project, as also to the fellow-wikipedians. I am sure that she shall have an active role as an administrator. --Bhadani13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strong support. A very kind user. Will be a great admin.AnnH♫14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Seriously, how many users get this many noms?Dammit, I'm only number 99.RoyA.A.14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support per all the nice remarks above.Tom Harrison^Talk14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Emphatically support. Phaedriel is passionate about building and improving Wikipedia, and she is unfailingly kind in her dealings with other users. In terms of her technical skills, I'm sure that she will learn whatever she needs to know. Far harder to learn, in my opinion, are the people skills and overall good judgement that she already possesses in spades. --Tachikoma14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Let me add that I'mnot questioning her technical knowledge, but the issue had been raised, and I was trying to address that in my vote. --Tachikoma15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

103. Super Strong Support Editor has the inside track for being the kindest Wikipedian ever! :) This will set the RfA record, and it should, because someone so sweet deserves recognition!Xoloz15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Sublime Support for this sublime user. Hell yeah! --Alf^melmac15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support, Wikilove notwithstanding, Phædrial represent all of what a good wikipedian should be. Technically savvy (see the plethora of userpages), well-versed in both articlespace and wikispace, and perhaps the single most delightful person with whom to interact herein wikipedia. Not to mention being endowed with an above average helping of common sense. She truly exhibits the traits we want in anadministrator, not just a friend and a great person overall. --Avi15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Double plus good support The nicest Wikipedian I know; responsible, level-headed, great contributions, good answers to questions below.OhNoitsJamie^Talk15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Oppose - too popular.Strong support - kind, considerate, lovely, civil, useful, beautiful user. Give her the mop already. —Celestianpower^háblame15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. OKC Metro-SupportGuettarda15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Absolutely. Not that you need the support, but I thought I'd register mine. We haven't interacted directly much, but I've been very impressed with your work, attitude, and the respect others have in you. Keep it up! Triple edit conflicted support by the way. -Taxman^Talk15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Complete Support, many more like her please. Phaedriel has given many editors reasons to be proud of themselves, and now it is our turn to give her many reasons of being proud of herself. It is her understanding of other users that has made her so helpful to the project--I believe that there is at least a handful of users that decided to stay on wikipedia because of her encouragement. Phaedriel is the role model of civility and wikilove.The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support - Uhh, she wasn't one already? Really? I could have sworn... Well typically if I have been going on the assumption that an editor was an admin already, they get a support vote.Syrthiss15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. —freak(talk) 16:00, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)
113. Multiple-edit-conflicttotal support. You've never met an editor who you can trust more with the extra buttons. Sharon is a perfect Wikipedian on every level, needs and would make good use of the buttons and would be an excellent addition to The Cabal. And, it's about time she was was given they keys to the janitor's closet - we need her!➨ЯEDVERS16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Strong Support Goesway beyondmy standards. --Tuspm^{(C |@)}16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. edit-conflictSupport - wait, what? She's not already?! Wow. Excellent and positive editor, from the many times I've seen her in various arenas, should be a fine addition to the admin ranks.Tony Fox(arf!)16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support sur roues !!!!!!!!! La meilleuse wikipedienne. And I know my french sucks. xD56297-talk-16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. SUPPORT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE If there is a nicer Wikipedia less likely to abuse the tools I challenge anyone to find them. She's also super-kawaii! >^____^< -FrancisTyers·16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support model Wikipedian.--Dakota~16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Strongest Possible Support I Can Give. Wow, where to start. First off I'm shocked I haven't seen this already, but, well wow, she accepted! Phaedriel has to be, without a doubt,the nicest Wikipedian I've ever come across, and while niceness is not the #1 admin criteria, I believe it is a very important one. A kind, friendly, and helpful admin can only be a benefit to the encyclopedia, for sure. Secondly, Phaedriel is also competant, excellent with html (look at some of her userpages, mine among them), plenty of well-spaced edits, active Wikiproject participation and founding, and much more. Ok, I'm done. :) Support this brilliant candidate. --Banes17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support He isn't one already? Total support!Viva LaVieBoheme17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Phaedriel's a she :) —Deckiller17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

121. Very Strong Support. Enough said. (↑ I thought this user was she?) --Jared A. Hunt17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Tekeadds to the avalanche17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support with best wishes. Although I was saving this comment formy 3000th edit...instead I ended up welcomingJohn Hill6633 (talk ·contribs ·count) with it. --Slgr@ndson(page -messages -contribs)17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support. Highly respected and helpful user, with quite a large collection of barnstars and awards. --Aude(talkcontribs)17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support no brainer.Joelito (talk)17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Very strong Support highly helpful, polite, informed and experienced.JPotter17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support of course, fantastic editor, very surprised that she wasn't an sysop! -Mailer Diablo17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support I don't usually vote in obvious landslides but this is someone who deserves to be inWP:200.Thatcher131 (talk)17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. (edit conflict) Strong support. I was not only sure that she was an admin, I was sure she was a good one, too. That is completely the truth. I postponed my wikibreak to support this user.Picaroon9288|taco17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support, of course, per Thatcher, and inasmuch as I'm waiving byno admins from states below theMason-Dixon line policy.Joe17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Duh. —Vildricianus17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support - Really impressed with what the user has done. An amazing effect of spreading the wikilove. —Mire18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support wholeheartedly. I could go on with superlatives, but it is not needed.≈ jossi ≈t •@18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support very strongly. Does great work AND goes out of her way to treat others with kindness. A role model for all of us -- even, or perhaps especially, those of us who have been here for a long time. —Catherine\^talk18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support Nothing to add that hasn't been covered above.TigerShark18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support --Jay(Reply)18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support An outstanding user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support Per the 136 supporters before me :)Thistheman19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. supportive gesture.DS19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support We need more people as nice as her on this planet. :-)bogdan19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support Even if only from distance, I'm still watching still the same pattern. Absolutelly kind and helpfull person. I only hope that the adminship will not affect her good mood. Good luck!Reo^ON |+19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Omg-she-wasn't-an-admin-already support Great user that you just bump into everywhere.FredilYupigo19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support how can I oppose the most civil user on the entire English Wikjipedia? --Where20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support. Great portal work (and thanks again for my user page!).--ragesoss21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Good user and editor. (although I do think one nomination per RFA should be enough)Garion96(talk)21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Excellent contributer who makes the wiki a better place for all, and is a welcoming presence for those with questions, as admins are supposed to be. -M^ask22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support per all said above :) --Grafikm^(AutoGRAF)22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support--MONGO22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Strongest support imaginable. If there were onlyone single admin, it should be Sharon. —Nightstallion(?)23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Strong support. At first I merely thought Phaedriel wrote well. Then I thought she was nice. Then I thought she was incredibly kind. Now I have grave suspicions that she is not human, since no one can be so pleasant, and yet get things done. In her private life she must secretly pinch babies or kick puppies or something to make up for it. Anyway, as so many wrote above, I have not yet met anyone that I would like better as an admin.AnonEMouse^(squeak)00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Strong Support very active, very civil, and very good contributions.--Jersey Devil00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. ~Encephalon01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Great Wikipedian.Jkelly 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Change to oppose over image issues.Jkelly17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Strong support, just about the only instance where pile-on voting is warranted.Kuru^talk02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Well, this one looks close, guys, so I'd better get mysupport in there to make sure it passes. (ESkog)^(Talk)02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support, of course.CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support. I'm not sure if you need admin tools, but you certainly deserve them. Great work, keep it up! +Hexagon1^(t)03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. Strong Support, its way overdue. Good editor and will make an excellent administrator. --Terence Ong_{(Chat |Contribs)}04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. A sick Tdxiang support!- I'm sick. but I'll support Sharon. Now time to take a rest...--Tdxiang04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Enthusiatic Support - I've been aPhaedriel Fan since before I even registered on WP. Being able to support her for Admin gives me a warm fuzzy glow. --Doc Tropics^{Message in a bottle}04:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. I guess support... ;) -- I thought I'd leave Phaedriel hang before she knew if I'd support or not. I'm only supporting anyway cause she's a cop & I want some "favours"... ;). Plus I want her to get to 200 votes....Spawn Man04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Strongest support possible and then some: Phaedriel is without a doubt one of the kindest and most level-headed editors here on wikipedia. We need more administrators who really care about the editors here, and Phaedriel will be one of them. I've been waiting for this nomination for a while now.TheUngovernableForce05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. No question from my mind, support. I need more people like her on the admin team.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Incredibly strong support - an amazing editorMichael06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Strong support. While most of what I could say has already been said, I have to reply to Ligulem's comment. While the technical side of Wikipedia's administration is clearly important (as I'm beginning to pick up PHP so I can actuallycode some bugs out of existence and not be limited to reporting them), it is not the only thing that requires attention, and not working on it should not be something that should be held against a particular nominee. There's much more to adminship than a few buttons: remember that you're becoming one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and your actions may be the examples new users look upon. Certainly, Phaedriel here is one of the editors who I would certainly look at as how the ideal comminity user should be, and adminship would just make her spotless behavior more prominent as the ideal example I mentioned. Even in this case, she has demonstrated quite good grasp of the technical side of Wiki, so I can't hold that against her. In a way, she is precluded from working on the MediaWiki namespace, where her design abilities would be most beneficial, because she still doesn't have themop and theflamethrower; either way, I would trust her with both. Add one to the tally from here.Titoxd^(?!?)06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Jump on the bandwagon Support per the >hundred people above me.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDaniel.Bryant (talk •contribs)
167. A jar of iguanas Support -- Simply positively stupendous. Greatly jaw-dropping double-thumbs-up doubleplusgood. Absolutely terrific completely and totally delicious. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support, definitely overdue.Leithp09:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support a role model. --May the Force be with you!Shreshth9112:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support a role model indeed. :) Dlohcierekim14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Reluctant switch to neutral perUser:Kevin Breitenstein

170. Strong support. I can't think of a better candidate for adminship than Sharon.Sango12315:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. Strong Support — Probably as deserving as any candidate has yet been. Though I've never personally had... well, any discussion with this user, I've observed a good deal of kindness and friendliness on her part, as well as an eagerness to help out others. She certainly meets all possible criteria for the position. Do the encyclopedia a favor and make it official.Ryu Kaze17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. Strongest Support.AngelLion King17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Highway^{Return to Oz...}19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Complete support without qualm, hesitation, or extra adjective: The good part of not checking RFA often is not getting into more arguments. The bad side is missing when someone thoroughly pleasant, judicious, careful, and thoughtful like Phaedriel gets nominated. I'm sorry I'm so late.Geogre20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support.http://www.wikipedia–watch.org/hive2.html#299 (don't click, it seems to be on our spam blacklist so I had to improvise...how lame is that?) —thought she was already...Bastique▼^parler_voir21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
176. SupportJoshuaZ22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
177. My Strongest Support ever, Sharon is living proof that Angels do walk among us. Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon.Tony the Marine23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
178. Strongest possible support per Geogre. She isthe nicest person I have met here, bar none; and I've seen her around a lot. I am really surprised that she is not an admin yet. --Idont Havaname (Talk)00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support The co-nominations are excessive, no doubt, but I see no logical reason find an aversion to "wikilove", unless it has shown an inability to deal with vandals, which it has not. Seems like a very intelligent and talented editor. Congratulations.AdamBiswanger101:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
180. Complete Support 100% cannot be changed no matter what Great member who is very sweet and nice, and really deserves this honor!Karrmann02:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support. Seems like a competent, friendly person and an ideal admin (and possibly future arbitrator).--Eloquence*03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
182. Overwhelming support. Nightstallion said it: if Wikipedia had only one admin, it would need to be Sharon. (Now here's for bureaucratship!) ;)The one and only Cliff03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support; an exemplar of a Wikipedia editor.Walter Siegmund(talk)04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support - Sometime back, When I landed on her talkpage to make an offer about nomming her for rfa, I saw many users already do so. --Gurubrahma06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support No additional commentary is needed other than to say that Phaedriel is an outstanding editor and one of the kindest, caring people here. I wish her well with the mop and bucket. --Cactus.man✍11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support.Palmiro |Talk11:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support never have I seen so many nominations for one RfA!!Seivad12:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support per the gushing but true praise of Tony the Marine.smurrayinche14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support with a big smile, she is such a lovely contributor. --Natalya15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support per all of above.Newyorkbrad16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever. I know it's a cliche, but how come Phaedriel is not an admin already?!?!Just zisGuy you know?17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support--Dwaipayan (talk)18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support She's a cutie pie. :-)Attic Owl19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support. Not really necessary according to the overwhelming count, but since I'm here... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
195. Strong support per all of the above. You just need5 4 more supports andWelcome toWP:200 hope you make it there —Min ^{•Review Me}20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     This would be only the second RfA to meetWP:200.CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Duplicate vote...Minun already supported at #170.EWS23 (Leave me a message!)21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Oops, I didn't notice —Min ^{•Review Me}19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     I have removed my old comment, so this should be the one that counts, cheers —Min ^{•Review Me}19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

196. Strong support. A class act: mature and elegant.Bucketsofg✐21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support. The force is strong in this one.bd2412T21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support. I've never seen this user before in my two and a half years of editing, but she's got 197 supports, and she's pretty, so what the hell. Oh yeah, and I just looked at her edits and they're really really really good. Seriously, I did. Consensus rules!BillyH01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support for a candidate with eight nominators and a ninth attempted and the start of a new page,WP:200, and possibly the best record I have seen on RfA. —WAvegetarian•(talk)02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Apologies toCan't sleep, clown will eat me, this is the second RfA onWP:200.—WAvegetarian•(talk)02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

200. WP:200 Cleared for adminship :) Congratulations Sharon, there is no one more deserving of this than you. No sense in repeating what has been said above, but your interactions with the Wikipedia community before your membership here is now paying off. Best of luck to you, you are an inspiration to us all. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)}02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support! Would you please help me finish this bottle of champagne? 8-)Can't sleep, clown will eat me02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
202. This page is nearly 100kb long support!! Well deserved.--james^(talk)05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
203. Support -Richardcavell05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
204. Support -Bharatveer10:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
205. Support - How is she not already? I understand the reasons behind Ligulem's 'neutral' vote, but I think we need admins who can deal with conflict without being nasty even more than we need admins who understand the technical side of things. I've been on the other side of disagreements with Phaedriel a few times (similar to the situation 'Shannon' describes - though I'm unfamiliar with that one), but never found her to be anything but pleasant. Would it be better if she could also do PHP programming and complicated template work, always considered and attempted to address not just the mistakes of angry new users but also the mistakes of admins she respects, knew every facet of copyright law and image tagging by heart, and could walk on water? Yes, but perhaps we are then setting our standards a bit too high. --CBD10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
206. Support.Oops, I knew you guys would get the 200 spot while I was sleeping! This is one of my biggest cliches ever. I see that admins on the tech side are good for wikipedia, but an admin that is sensible and kind could do a lot for the community (yes, specifically for the community and it's numerous conflicts).fetofs^Hello!12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
207. Support. I'd feel silly if I didnt slap my signature to this. Congrats on the adminship!SynergeticMaggot15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
208. Next stop,WP:300.Misza13^TC16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
209. Strong Support Nicest and most friendly person on Wikipedia. -Ganeshk(talk)16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
210. Absolutely. --Mr. Lefty_{Talk to me!}17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
211. Is It Too Late To Co-Co Nominate? Support! Besides being a great editor, combines good judgement and good humor with an uncanny ability to spread Wikilove and good will. In short, just what the Cabal is in dire need of now-A good cop who is also a community builder.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
212. Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Support - I'm great supporter of the truth, and I don't like women in socks. --Eliade18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
213. Hell. You're not an admin already? How did I miss that? Enjoy the mop, and may you avoid the despair and frustration it too often brings.Dragons flight19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support of course.LotLE×talk19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
215. Support, without any reservations.Accurizer20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support. --TantalumTelluride21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support We need more admins such as Phaedriel.Deli nk21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
218. She is the very model of a modern wikipedian. --Zoz(t)22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
219. Support - this is the sort of guys we need.--Aldux22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Or, in this case, girls... ++Lar:t/c22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

220. Strong Support I thought she already was an admin.  :-)Eluchil40423:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
221. Support. All the metrics I might mention have already been covered above, so I'll just say that her user page is an oasis. -BT00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
222. I'd normally oppose someone whoalready does this much good work for adminship. But I do love a bandwagon. Beautiful editor, warm and comapssionate and has demonstrated that she's got stones, too. Great with the wiki-markup, not afraid to say what she feels... but if her non-admin efforts suffer for having the mop, I'll raise and RfC quick as a rat up a drain pipe. -brenneman 01:32, 1 August 2006
223. Support from me also. I only hope that sysop responsibilities don't take the edge off her wikilove campaign. --I@n02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
224. 225thStrong support... This is unbelievable...Grandmasterka05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
225. Support. As I said in my rant (which I removed from the neutral section, you can read it on the talk page if you want, somone else copied it there): It has nothing to do with Phaedriel. It's true. I was proving a point by abusing this landslide election as a platform for my rant. I'm an idiot. Apologies. Seeing how she behaves during this election session is truely impressive. --Ligulem07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
226. Strong Support.A little late, this one. Sharon had asked me to conom, but it went live without me. Then I was holding out for #200 but missed it. Sharon has done great work with her WikiProject and portal. She's also done more than probably anyone to foster a sense of community here. I have absolutely no hesitation at all in handing her the mop. --kingboyk11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
227. Support. Best answers I've read in a long time.Haukur14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
228. Support. Wonderful WikipedianWeird Bird14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
229. Strong Support with pleasure. probably one of the best noms wikipedia has ever seen.Stubbleboy17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
230. Support My pleasure.Blinking Spirit17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
231. Strongest Support Here I first came across her looking at the recent changes and came across her Wiki Soundtrack, and ILOVED THE IDEA. I have watched her super quality edits, she is so nice that I added her toUser:Kitia/Friends. Of that list,Mangojuice is already an admin,Computerjoe rejecte, and I will probably putAbdullah Geelah up in the future. I don't care wheather she is a sock of a banned user, she deserves my support. I would rather have her an admin than myself. --Kitia

     Kitia, I think you misunderstand. It isn't Phaedriel that is accused of being a sockpuppet, it is one of the oppose votes below --rogerd01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

232. Support. I know it's a pileon at this point, but seems eminently suited for adminship.Jayjg^(talk)21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
233. Support. --CharlotteWebb21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
234. Support, wonderful user. --King of♥♦♣♠22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
235. Support Even though the support column reads in part like some users mistook it forWikipedia:Requests for a Date, but reading the responses by the nominee it seems like she is very aware of her limitations and will use the tools judiciously. ~trialsanderrors23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Someone redirected that to Lar's userpage, mwa ha ha. —Deckiller02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Yes,some wanker certainlydid, but I've redirected it to a more appropriate place. ++Lar:t/c02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

236. Support - Whoever has such wide support from such an intelligent community, deserves my vote. I've seen your work, keep it up! --GODOFJUSTICE23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
237. Of Course Supporting this user is a no brainer.Jedi6-(need help?)05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
238. Support Glad I got here in time! -Baseball,Baby!^ballsstrikes05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     

239. The reminder... (yes, this is a support :p) Sharon, please try to improve on your situation under oppose and you shall no doubt be a truely great administrator. But even with your situation below, I can't help but to support. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Sharon would be a great admin. I'll even go out on a limb and say she is the most deserving person on Wikipedia for adminship. Sharon is a great contributor, excellent friend, and she has the time and dedication that goes along the responsibilities of being an administrator. She will absolutly not abuse the administrator tools and I think we can establish that she made her presence felt in the community by the number of voters at her RFA. I believe she's the greatest practitioner ofWP:LOVE of all time, she's always been there for me and she was the reason I came back to Wikipedia in June. ♥ Sharon, you are a truely amazing human being, a great friend and a general, all-around saint. I sincerely hope you enjoy your time with your new tools. Now, shoot forWP:300. Your friend forever —Moe Epsilon 05:35 August 02 '06
240. Support - Strong positive contributor on many levels, highly valuable to WP.Georgewilliamherbert06:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
241. Of course. This support is merely a drop in the bucket, and normally I wouldn't bother, but Phaedriel certainly has my support and confidence. She is definitely among those I admire for strength and courage (and overall kindness :]) and I think she'd handle adminship exceptionally well. Best of luck! --Keitei(talk)06:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
242. Support Of course.Carmelapple14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
243. Support User is very kind.GrasslandT/C
244. Support Will make a very good sysop.RainbowSwirl

     User only has three editsJaranda^{wat's sup}19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     And as such is eligible to participate. You can comment on a vote, but please don't strike one out unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry. -Taxman^Talk20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

245. Strong Support Don't know this user. Just looked over her contributions and talkpages and userpages. She is very kind.VanM
246. Strong Support User is very kind, knowledgeable, uses good edit summaries etc. She will make a very good admin.QuarterZ | *t* | *c14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
247. Very Strong Support I am going to nominate her for Bureaucrat if she wants it. If we had 1000 Phaedriels on this planet, there would be world peace. I am honored to know her and vote for her.Karmafist18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
248. We just beat CSCWEM Support. Kind, courteous, etc. per everyone else.Ian MankaTalk to me!19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     And that's it-Phaedriel now has the record.CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

249. Dammit Support I was shooting to be the record breaker, which is why this is such a late pile-on. Thoughtshe was one and all.Hipocrite -«Talk»20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Phaedriel is emphatically (and gloriously, vive le difference!) a she. ++Lar:t/c20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Vivela difference, if you please! :) --Guinnog20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

250. Support per nom. above. Great Wikipedia editor! --ADNghiem50100:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
251. not just pile onSupport, everything looks fantastic here. —xaosflux^Talk02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
252. Support Fantastic editor. She would be the model administrator. --DavidHOzAu02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
253. Support. Phaedriel is one of a rare breed of Wikipedia editor who is capable of being both affable and practical in terms of ensuring a better editing environment, and carrying on our principal goal of writing an encyclopaedia. I have always seen her to be extremely helpful and considerate in dialogue, and to have excellent judgement on matters relating to encyclopaedia editing. As such, I believe that Phaedriel, without a doubt, shall be an ideal admin. Keep up the excellent work, Phaedriel! --NicholasTurnbull |(talk)02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
254. Extreme HyperLesbian With Three Cherries On Top NPOV WP:OFFICE Verifiability NOR The Jimmy The Danny and the Holy Erik Moeller Support On Wheels Is Communism Squidward and every other prolific vandal you can think of I Won't Take No For An Answer!!!!! - See my nomination above. —02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Why didI have lesbian pile-ons for my RfA? Life is so unfair for us men sometimes... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?!02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

255. Very Strong Support, Phaedriel, in my opinion is one of the absolute best Wikipedians of all time. There are only a small handful of other Wikipedians that are comparable to her. Though she may have only ~5150 edits, she is kind and hardworking and definetly deserves the "mop." --EvanRobidoux03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
256. Support based on her user page's self-portrait alone.Anomo05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
257. Support clean record, extensive history with wikipedia, and judging from the other support votes, already extensive community support --Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) -Talk -Comment -09:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
258. Support per bandwagon. Besides, this nomination comes with impeccable credentials in every way.Metamagician300014:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
259. Very strong support. No reason to explain- the nom, answers to questions, and other votes say it all. --Gray Porpoise15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
260. Support --Ghirla^-трёп-16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
261. Support Good character, seems very dedicated to the project.JungleCattalk/contrib17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
262. Support (another edit conflict!) - Phaedriel is a kind user (though we've never actually chatted, she said some very nice things about me tomy boyfriend) and although I do worry that she may be unable to be "mean" enough to block a user and share a smidgen of the concerns below, I do think she'll make a good admin.Srose(talk)17:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
263. Support truly deserves adminship.--Húsönd18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
264. Support per noms, and the fact that I was about to tell Tango how his bot was clearly counting wrong...BryanG^(talk)18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
265. Support. August 4th support, the eighth and final day. It feels like the end of an era.NoSeptember 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
266. Support. I just read your user page on Wikilove, and am already eminently convinced that you are exactly the sort of person who deserves unfettered access to the technical innards of our encyclopedia. Hopefully this will be just enough to push you over the edge.--BigCow00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
267. Support (Not that it was needed.) I might be the only person on WP who has never dealt with this user; with that said, I'm not just incredibly impressed with her editing prowess, expertise, and answers to the questions posed, but I'm really quite touched by the outpouring of support for her by the many co-nominators. --Kicking22200:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
268. Support No Kicking222, I've never dealt with her either. But even after just a brief look at her contributions page, it seems quite clear that she has made some awesome contributions and that she deserves administrator status. --Nebular11000:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
269. Support!!! O my God. How could I not have known? I wanted to co-co-co-co-co-nominate too :( Wordscannot express Phaedriel's qualities, so I won't even try. Love u, you make Wikipedia worthwhile, and you'll make an exceptional admin.Orane (talk •cont.)00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
270. Support Meets --Wisden1701:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) my criteria.[reply]
271. Support. Every time I've crossed her path has been a positive experience. -TrevorMacInnis(Contribs)01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose (struck comment, this user is an obvious sock of indefintely band bannedUser:Thewolfstar and has been blocked. We don't consider comments from banned users whose presence is not desired here. Seethis AN/I thread and others onWP:AN/I for more detail. ++Lar:t/c22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate the effort but I can't honestly say that I approve of the answers. Your answer to my first question included this "I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result." That sounds okay except for one thing.

• That statement assumes that the newcomer is the one that needs talking to. From what I've seen it's frequently the other way round. A group of more seasoned editors harass a newcomer, or anyone who dissents the opinion of a group of editors at an article, an admin steps in, does not review the situation thoroughly, and then proceeds to put a block on the newcomer or just threatens the newcomer or continue the harassment of the seasoned editors.
• I see that much more often than not. I see that because that's what's there. This discouraging of editing, to put it mildly, of newcomers, and those who often try to round out an artilcle to make it more neutral, clearly goes against Wikipedia's Policy and Guidelines:Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and in most groups it's considered rude and unkind. Kindness and civility includes much more than just a superficial display of it. It also goes against theWikipedia:Harassment policy.

I also find this statement, "In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.", objectionable as hell. They already were Wikipedians and they had some legitimate defenses of keeping this article. Did I care for the topic personally? No. But I find this just as sickening, personallySCUM Manifesto. The reason for deleting it based on lack of notablility didn't cut it either as per the number of insignificant articles there are on Wikipedia and other generally dumb articles in existence..plenty.

The example you gave of talking to a newcomer was this:

Delete, per nom and Merovingian's research. Re. your questions, Osmod, I believe that any sort of independent, non-related mention is in order here, and in reasonable quantity as to establish notability enough to warrant the existence of this article. Side note: attacking users and posting his picture at the site in question is definetely out of place. I strongly urge the person(s) responsible for this webpage to remove it immediately, please. Thank you. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any policy concerning posting a picture of a Wikipedian on another non-Wikipedian website. Can you point me to this policy? Thanks.Shannon^{duck talk}20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved totalk page. Also, one vote by an anon moved to comments.Thatcher131 (talk)00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason my comments and responses to them were moved to the talk page. I still would like an answer to my question:

A general question is still where is this policy concerning off-the-wiki text or pictures or whatever? I was pointed to a couple of brief references to this topic but can someone point me to theactual vote and consensus that was reached concerning this issue? Thanks.Shannon^{duck talk}23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comments because the talk page is where in depth discussions belong. I'm not sure to exactly what you referring, but general policy questions can be asked at theVillage Pump. Someone there should be able to help you out.Thatcher131 (talk)05:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note thatUser:Lingeron (the actual username of the user who commented) is currently strongly suspected of being a sock of banned userThewolfwtar (talk •contribs •count) Should this be confirmed the comment will be stricken. ++Lar:t/c14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lingeron has been indefblocked for aforementioned sockpuppetry. Strike pls?207.145.133.3422:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. ++Lar:t/c22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Phaedriel's open letter to Brandt is mushy and wacky, and shows no familiarity whatsoever with the ethical standards expected from professional journalists such as Katefan0. Moreover, it was posted on the Talk page of Brandt's biography, which was inappropriate. Clearly it was an effort to influence his biography in a hostile direction. And even on this page, Phaedriel is pumping it for sympathy. This may sound like Wikilove to Phaedriel's supporters, but it looks like POV-pushing and manipulation to me.Talleyho03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of striking this vote due to consent that it is from a banned editor...see comments at AN/I--MONGO13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's 9th edit, and first in two weeks. All edits to Brandt-related articles. Username is "talleyho", a mockery of a common phrase used on RfAs. I recommend this vote be stricken to avoid making this RfA look tainted. —Deckiller04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Phaedriel is obviously an extraordinary editor and person and that is actually why I am opposing. I do not doubt her competence or trustworthiness at all (I'd be crazy to), but I do wonder how becoming an admin will compromise those traits that have made her, rightfully, the only Wikipedian that has her own fan club. The fact that she is using a reduced version of her lovely signature on this page (so as not to disturb the signature police, maybe?) somewhat worries me in this regard. Phaedriel has demonstrated herself as being capable of so much, both from an editing standpoint with her portals and wikiproject she has started, to her incredible interpersonal skills. I just think, with all that, why bog her down with the tedious and menial tasks of adminship that will occupy her attention and divert her from the truly great things she can offer the project? I really believe that if a user like Phaedriel is going to contribute to the "greater good" here at Wikipedia, it's not going to have much to do with her protecting pages, deleting vanity pages, and applying blocks to vandals -- she has advanced far beyond that. Furthermore half of "adminship" is really about the elevated status you receive. Phaedriel, as an ordinary editor, has achieved a level of community acceptance and respect that far surpasses what the "admin" label affords, so it's not as though the passing of this RfA will change anything in that regard. Besides, it's always really nice, especially as a non-admin and probably for new users as well, to see that a non-admin can carry just the same "weight" around here (if not more) that an admin does. Finally, before I get a barrage of angry comments, obviously this preceding comment is made with the full recognition that this RfA will pass by a record-setting landslide and my intention is not to hinder that with this vote - just adding my two cents as the process permits and encourages. —GT10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A barrage of angry comments? You asked for it buddy! You're such a....just kidding ;)Th Halo^Θ10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Grr! Mad reply! Terse comment! ...you're sure that's an oppose, right?207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Kylu@Work)207.145.133.3422:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Image issues.Kotepho19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A terse comment indeed!! --Lost^(talk)19:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Kotepho, could you please expand on what you mean?Th Halo^Θ19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A number of her image uploads have obviously wrong licensing tags, lack sources, etc.Kotepho21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for your reply. I thought for a second that it might be that you didn't like the way she did her hair or something ;) Is it possible to change you mind?Th Halo^Θ23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   (after edit conflict) Could you please be more specific? I've taken the liberty of going through the relevant upload log[10], and I find no reason for alarm. The images generally *do* list their sources and their copyright tags look ok. Many images simply fall into PD-old due to their age, and others fall into PD due to their date of first publication. A few images (colour samples) are tagged as GFDL and based on an Cc-by-2.0 image[11], but the original author is properly attributed, so I believe that is ok as well. I've found afew problems back in the uploads from December / January; two images (Billy the Kid[12] and a US politician ([13] lacking sources, but both are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880. I did find an image of Josef Mengele[14] incorrectly tagged as PD but to me these examples look like a few mistakes made by a beginner. I think quite a lot of us could plead guilty to having made few of those, one way or the other. :)Valentinian^(talk)23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Image:Blue-star.gif tagged CopyrightedFreeUse, but the license from the site only mentioned reproduction and requires attribution. Probably should be CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|Attribution and no dervis, and is thus unfree. We can't find someone to draw a picture of a star that is actually free? Not used in an article.
   • Image:Kevrichardson.jpg Tagged as a promo photo, but it looks like a scan of a magazine or something. Source is a blog?
   • Image:Twogunhart.gif Source is a random website, source says it was taken in the '20s, but the description says 1920. Doesn't say who the photographer is, when/if it was published, when the photographer died, etc. The claim of PD-US seems to just be a guess.
   • Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg Listed as PD-USGov-Mil, but AFIAK Flagg wasn't a US gov employee. Likely published before 1923, so PD-US would be fine probably. Commons also has this as PD-USGov-Mil, if someone does figure out what it really is.
   • Image:Meeker.jpg Had no source, still really doesn't. We have a source that says it is from LoC, but LoC has things that are copyrighted still. Likely public domain, but cannot be certain. Thesubjects's age is only of tagential relevance.
   • The Langs_N derivs are arguably gfdl because the author uploaded it, but that they are also cc-by-2.0 so that people know they can reuse it without the horrible monster that is the gfdl
   • Image:Mengeleold.jpg Was listed as PD, says it is the subject in 1971. No reason to believe it is public domain.
   • Image:Shffbadge.jpg No source, just PD.
   • Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg PD-USGov, but why would the federal government be designing patches for a city police department?
   • ...

   Kotepho01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Also note that photographs become public domain under{{PD-old}} when thephotographer (the "author") died before 1906, not the subject.Kimchi.sg09:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   According to{{PD-US}}, materials published in the United States before 1 January 1923 are normally PD under U.S. juristiction (and definitely if published before 1909), see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Footnotes.Valentinian^(talk)10:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   (resetting indent) You did say "two images... are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880", implying if the subject died in 1880, any photographs of them would become automatically PD. That cannot be assumed. The photograph might have been taken before 1880, but published after 1923.Kimchi.sg11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That is indeed possible, but it seems unlikely. Billy the Kid was a very public figure and the photo is listed as the only photo of him, so the original would have been very valuable back then. Furthermore the article about him states that this photo is the reason for a common belief that he was left handed, and Paulita Maxwell who died in 1929 critizised the image[15][16] The incident in which Meeker was killed caused an outrage in Colorado, so it would seem logical that the editor of at least 1 newspaper would chose to print his picture, but information on the latter image is more sketchy than on the former.Valentinian^(talk)12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per Kotepho. Improperly tagged images indicate lack of understanding of copyright policy. AlthoughImage:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg,Image:Shffbadge.jpg,Image:Mengeleold.jpg,Image:Meeker.jpg,Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg,Image:Twogunhart.gif, andImage:Kevrichardson.jpg were uploaded in the period from December 2005 to February 2006,Image:Blue-star.gif was uploaded last month (June 14), so I cannot excuse this as newbie ignorance.Kimchi.sg09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose due to image issues above, with regret.Jkelly 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I'm comfortable with the commitment to brushing up on image policy.Jkelly19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Please, if you don't mind, I'd wish to address these concerns. Like Valentinian and Kimchi have correctly expressed, almost the entirety of the images mentioned by Kotepho (out of around 100) were uploaded by me at the beginning of my wiki-life. You may have noticed that I've always tried to provide a source, and never left the tag space empty; I swear, I've never taken the matter lightly. The only recent image where I obviously messed up was with the Star one, which I never intended to use in articles, but in my "Today Star" campaign to award and cheer up other editors. I've contacted both Kimchi and Jkelly and I have compromised with them, as I commit myself here, not to take a single step in that direction without consulting with them first. I don't intend to participate in image-related chores, at least not until I learn more, so I apologize for that mistake, and I promise to be ultra super careful in the future.Phaedriel♥The Wiki Soundtrack! -22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. 1FA :-S --18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   1 FA isn't a reason to oppose anyone, and she does meet it anyways with her featured portalsJaranda^{wat's sup}18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   How is it not a reason? That's your own opinion. With 211/5/4 this RFA is a foregone conclusion.

   Anyway. One. Featured.Article. :) I have my own standards, different from Mailer diablo's. But to borrow what he said:Please do not take it personally I have opposed you under this criterion, especially if it turns out to bethat odd vote in the RfA. This is done ingood faith, and Mailer Diablo wishes all the best to all RfA candidates regardless of outcome. Sorry, my oppose vote remains. --18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Further discussion moved totalk page. (it was getting a little long ;)Th Halo^Θ12:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per Phaedriel's comment above. Phaedriel says she never intended to use the star image in articles; only in userspace. That's completely the opposite approach. Userspace should be held to an even higher image standard. A great user otherwise, and I know your adminship will pass, but it's important for admins to know image rules (at least to some degree).Ral315 (talk)05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you think she won't learn them, and soon? I do. She's said she would which is good enough for me. Holding future admins to a "must be perfect in advance" standard doesn't seem reasonable to me. ++Lar:t/c12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't hold them to a "must be perfect" standard, but with a history of bad uploads, simply "I'll learn" doesn't do much.Ral315 (talk)03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Per the (as of now) 257 supports, you mean? Wonder what you know that they don't? Or maybe... it's what THEY know that you haven't figured out yet... ++Lar:t/c12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Questioning / joking about an oppose vote in a 257-6 RfA is not necessary. --tariqabjotu(joturner)12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Opposing a 257-6 RfA for basically no reason (by an inverterate opposer, so inverterate that many wonder if it's justWP:POINT-ism on his part) is what isn't necessary, in my view. But then, I'm biased. ++Lar:t/c13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The exact same view could be applied to anyone who supported after the sixty or so support votes were already cast, so it's probably safe to say that most everyone who participated in this RfA had a valid reason for doing so^{Conas tá tú?}14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Wwell, no, not exactly the exact same reasoning. And I agree thatmost participants have a valid reason for doing so. But that's not to say that I thinkall of them do. ++Lar:t/c15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You all know how reluctant I am to comment Oppose and Neutral opinions on my own RfA, but I think must do so here. Dear Lar, I've said this at the talk page, and I'll repeat it here: everyone should voice the opinion they are inclined to, and I'm happy with that. If Masssiveego usually opposes most people's RfAs, I'm sure he must have his reasons, so I prefer to accept it and leave the matter be. Can we accept his position and leave him be... please?Phaedriel15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, while some could consider opposes to every RFA a violation of WP:POINT, at the same time, it's not arguing if this user is going to oppose every RfA anyway. —Deckiller16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. neutral per ligulem. Too much wiki love. Certainly i would not oppose based on this and love is great and all, but smooshing, hugs and kisses to an extreme start to get us a little off track from the goals here. Love the portals though.David D.(Talk)17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Readers can find my original rant on the talk page. I removed it from the neutral section and changed to support. See above. --Ligulem07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Phaedriel seems like a very nice person. Six co-nominators and 148 supporters agree on that point. But there's a little too much "happy fluffy bunnies in meadows under rainbows" for me. (As an aside, I'm not sure Ligulem's technical pointtotally applies here - Phaedriel's very nicely designed portals suggest good knowledge of wiki-markup, at least - but in general, I agree 100%.) Also, a quite minor point, but the "dear so-and-so" affectation in writing just sounds odd to me.

   The above was me, I got distracted and forgot to sign.Opabinia regalis00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmmm, I've seen reluctance in the past to support RfA's based on incivil behavior, but not for the candidate being excesively civil. LOL. :) Dlohcierekim

3. Neutral. Two things, and obviously neither is a very popular opinion. I'm not exactly sure why Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one more; an explanation wouldn't hurt. Secondly, I love the nominee's userpage as much as a lot of users here do, but I have but one issue with it, and that's the section labelled "Being Indian Is ...". I'm slightly worried about POV pushing, or even the appearance of POV pushing, on related topics, for much the same reason that a number of users here opposed a recent RfA candidate due to religious views expressed on his userpage. I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column.theProject22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   You say "I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column." Does this mean you are up for being convinced to support Pheadriel?Th Halo^Θ23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Dear theProject, I solemnly swear that at no time I have requested that any co-noms were authorized by me, as everyone who has been so kind to co-nominate me can attest. You must of course be referring to1ne's concern that his kind co-nom was somehow not authorized by me; I completely assure you this was but a small misunderstanding between him and Lar, that's all, and my message to 1ne is nothing but a light hearted comment in that sense. I am indescribably happy to be worthy of a co-nomination, and if I could, I'd like every wikipedian to throw in one, because such a measure of trust can only be a flattery to me. All this, I tell you from the heart.Phaedriel23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to interject here... Phaedriel has had a LOT of people wanting to nominate her as many of you know. Knowing that people do sometimes ding, or even oppose, for it, some of us counseled her not to have too many. Johntex, Blnguyen and I were chosen but others could have been. In the flurry when it went live, other people started adding co-noms. This is a relatively recent thing, I think, I first saw it only a few nominations ago (although I could be misremembering). Rather than start removing them, I thought it better to make it clear which ones were added on after the nomination went live, in order to possibly reduce the number of people that have issues with the practice. My wording choice may not have been the best, which I regret. But the intent was to both adhere to the norm of not having a lot and yet, not suppress those who honestly just wanted to show their support in a way more than just commenting support. Blame it on me if you must, but please don't blame the candidate. ++Lar:t/c03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding that section at my userpage: it is only meant to express the thoughts that, as a member of an ethnic minority, sometimes cross my mind due to real life difficulties and concerns. You may notice tho, that it's not a one sided view in any way. It alludes ideas regarding both White and Native American people, without speaking badly nor diminishing either group in general, but things that make me sad in my everyday life in my dealings with certain specific members of either group. As I say, this in no way is limited to interaction with White people, but with other Native Americans as well; for example, please see my opinion onthis AfD debate andhere. I understand your concerns regarding possible POV pushing, but I'd simply like to point at my contributions as means of putting your mind at rest. Last but not least, whenever I try to write something that could be even remotely controversial, like Indian wars, I always ask for input in order to be 100% sure I'm not inadvertently crossing the NPOV line. If you need any further clarification, I'd be more than happy to help. Warm regards,Phaedriel23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral Because of aforementioned image copyright issues. I can see people making fair use mistakes, but I do not like PD and GFDL mistakes that are recent. Though I cannot oppose as this is a good candidate. Please better yourself with some research into copyrights on wikipedia.Kevin_b_er07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Reluctant switch to neutral perUser:Kevin Breitenstein :) Dlohcierekim15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, inclined to oppose. Unless we have working deadminship procedures and the issue of admin responsibility is not resolved, promotion of new admins poses a threat to hard-working editors. We need to sort out existing admins before recruiting new ones. --Ghirla^-трёп-15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please leave the section breaks in this nomination, they are there for a reason, they make edit conflicts less of a problem on high traffic pages. (which this one is). note also that some of the co nominators who have chosen to add themselves (I've added a section break so it is clear which those are) were not approved by Phaedriel in advance. Thank you. ++Lar:t/c05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think doing that has broken Dragon's Flight's RfA counting tool, not just for this nom but for all current noms. Its expecting to see one nomination section and can't parse the multiple sections.Gwernol10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SeeWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Section_Breaks... at least one bot has been changed to handle it, but consensus there seems to be starting to shade towards this not being a good idea. ++Lar:t/c10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopydink and I are changing them back. ++Lar:t/c11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfA is currently thesixth most supported RfA of all time, at 148 support votes. It's currently just under 100 votes below the most supported RfA of all time, which wasCan't sleep, clown will eat me's at 246 votes. Congratulations, Phaedriel! :)RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!})00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: now thefifth most supported, and only two users short of fourth.RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!})04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who gets to add the 'RFA: Phaedriel beat your record :D' to CSCWEM's talk page :D --Draicone^(talk)08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Update: Fourth most supported, only two supports from AmiDaniel's! --Draicone^(talk)10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • This RfA is now the third most supported ever, equal with AmiDaniel. :ORandyWang (^raves/_{review me!})14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does this have any bearing on whether someone should vote for or against? —Centrx→talk •20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it has much of any bearing on whether someone should support or oppose at all. (unless you like helping set records I guess?) But Randy clearly is enthused about it and wants to share his exuberance... mostly harmless I'd say. ++Lar:t/c22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I saw a bit of fun in keeping track of this RfA's success, as was done atCSCWEM's.RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!})01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • #2 now, need 61 to tie CSCWEM.~Kylu (u|t)06:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) Now 41 to go, at 205:246 (P:CSCWEM). --Draicone^(talk)11:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently tied with CSCWEM at 246 votes, with 2 more days left in the voting period. --Tachikoma15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've officially beaten CSCWEM's record!Ian MankaTalk to me!19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "We"? I was under the impression that the candidate got credit for that. Or are you saying that you're part of a secret campaign team sending junkmail, working the phones, and spamming IRC channels to generate support for Phaedriel's adminship? I'd say sign me up, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it. ;-) --Spangineer^es (háblame)19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nah. The candidate's not even allowed to vote.Tyrenius23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm starting to have doubts as to whether this vote can reach 300 or not. There's only about25 24 hours (and counting) left and we're 46 votes short of 300.Editor8803:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On a separate note, Theresa knott's 2004 ArbCom campaign earned 265 supporting votes while Mindspillage's 2005/06 ArbCom campaign earned 299. I wonder if either of these marks can be reached...Editor8803:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• edit summary link

SeePhaedriel's_{(Talk ▪Contributions ▪Logs ▪Block Logs)} contributions as of04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) usingInteriot's tool:[reply]

Username PhaedrielTotal edits 5275Distinct pages edited 3184Average edits/page 1.657First edit 06:20, December 7, 2005 (main) 1598Talk 887User 360User talk 1465Image 114Image talk 6Template 52Template talk 16Help 1Category 32Wikipedia 707Wikipedia talk 37Portal 285Portal talk 51

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check outCategory:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page aboutadministrators and theadministrators' reading list.

A: As I experienced the interest in process most Wikipedians go through as we become more familiar with the project, I've tried to participate and make myself familiar with as many aspects of the process as I could. Of all these, I find myself returning often to recent changes and recently created pages patrolling - fending off vandalism in its multiple forms is a task I find fulfilling, and one where I feel very comfortable. I remember reading, months ago, the ways of dealing with vandalism properly; from that day on, I've constantly tried to remain within these guidelines, and I consider placing the adequate Test template at the editor's Talk page as important as the reversion itself. Tagging articles that unequivocably qualify for speedy deletion has also taken most of my RC patrolling, and until I was sure I had learned by heart the exact meaning of everyCSD, I always kept that page open while monitoring the logs - and I am happy to say that I've been wrong on very few occasions over nearly a thousand deleted edits. Many of you have experienced my requests for intervention atCAT:CSD andAIV; therefore, it will be my commitment to continue to take part in these important chores, with the ability to relieve other admins from taking action in those cases that I've been able to spot and detect.

I think it's important to point out that, nonetheless, it is also one of my main priorities to address edit disputes and incivility issues. As an admin, I feel I can be in a better position to intervene in such cases before they escalate in magnitude. In case it becomes evident at said situations that administrative intervention is the only way to proceed, I commit myself to use the abilities granted by the community with utmost responsibility, and with immediate report of any actions I take atAN/I.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I definitely feel that the creation and organization ofWikipedia:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America, which I started as means of putting order and unified criteria into the overwhelming amount of information available on the subject. I am happy and proud to have seen it grow from a mere personal illusion that I once held into a thriving and active community of over 40 dedicated members which covers nearly 1,500 articles. The creation ofPortal:Oklahoma andPortal:Indigenous peoples of North America are a close second; particularly the latter, which was for a long time a personal dream of mine into opening the beauties of Native American culture and history to the general community, which I currently maintain. It is goinggoing through the process of attaining Featured status as we speak (hopefully!). I can also point out several articles I am pleased with; you can consult a list that Blnguyen has so kindly compiledhere. As you can see, many of these articles deal with Native American topics, especially in relation to theIndian Wars. Since I am of Native American ancestry myself, it was a deep concern of mine to keep the articles truly NPOV, so I requested my work to be reviewed by more experienced editors; and I'm happy to say that I passed the test.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Leaving aside the usual bashing by assorted vandals, which many of us experience every now and then, I've been at the point where my communication abilities and will to compromise are tested. At all times I've tried to solve such disputes in the most civilized fashion I could, for (in my humble opinion) it is the only way in which peers who respect each other should behave in the first place. The only major dispute over my contributions that I recall involvedUser:Atlantahawk, and it motivateda post at AN/I - and sadly, dialog was not an option as this user chose to behave in a rude manner and closed himself to discussion.

Other than that, many of you may remember my name from the situation withDaniel Brandt that took place two months ago, after the forced departure ofUser:Katefan0; so, before being required to comment the matter, I'll simply sum it up for you myself. As you may or not remember, Katefan0 chose to leave the project after a dispute with Mr. Brandt in late May. Katefan, who had invested more than a year and a half of effort in WP, was also a friend of mine. I felt compelled to express my thoughts in anopen letter to Mr. Brandt. Unfortunately, instead of the desired result (of reaching some sort ofDétente), this simply led to increasing anonymous hostility towards me from a group of users of the Wikipedia Review forum, as well as some uncomfortable real life inconveniences. At no other point in my wiki-life I ever found myself truly stressed, for obvious reasons; but fortunately, and in great part due to the warm support that was kindly given to me, it is all in the past now. I'll gladly offer more details on the subject to those who inquire privately.

The following are someoptional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Johntex\^talk03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A: When dealing with new users who may be simply experimenting or conducting small acts of mischievery, I personally prefer to use the Test group in ascending order, mainly to inform them that they conduct is inappropriate. Meanwhile, I've used {{bv}} when a clear will to disrupt in a malicious way can be observed behind the edits of a particular user. Although a great number of these cases appear every day, I have found them to be rarer, and on many occasions I chose not only to place this warning but to attempt a more personal approach by urging the editor to stop, and explaining why his/her behaviour is disruptive. As with everything, I firmly believe that every case must be appreciated by taking the surrounding circumstances into consideration, since new users can't simply be expected to know all our policies and guidelines the very minute they start editing.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter ofWP:3RR.)

A: Without question, the appropriate immediate action is to dialog with this user. As such an action is still within the limits permitted by our policies, a block under these circumstances is per se not warranted. This kind of behavior is usually the most evident sign that there is a dispute taking place, and therefore, helping to reach a consensus and acceptable compromise should be the top priority. However, as I mentioned in the previous question, every case must be appreciated according to the circumstances. If a user shows a pattern of conduct in this direction, he/she is clearly gaming the system and disrupting the work of others. At such cases, and again taking everything into account, further actions as described atWP:DR may be in order. If I ever encounter such a case, it is my firm belief that a previous consult atAN/I is needed before taking any sort of measures.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: Quite a difficult one to answer indeed, and one that no matter what I say, can receive valid opinions against it. Frankly, I don't feel I can single out any aspect, just like this, out of the blue. There are many things we can improve; as the community steadily grows, new challenges and new needs arise. However, we have always faced difficulties, way longer than most of us even knew that Wikipedia existed; and yet, we have become a great project nonetheless. Magical solutions don't exist; simply changing something radically hardly proves itself useful. I'd rather look at our future with optimism and a will to share my ideas to improve the place when the needs arise, and hoping to hear others' with the same enthusiasm.

Optional question fromLar:

7.I've putthis set of questions on several RfA's now.. I think it's stirred some thinking. You're welcome to address them all if you like... but I guess I'm also interested in what you think of the meta-question; that is, of asking it, and of the notion of people categories themselves... I know you're perhaps not as big a fan of putting categories on people as some folk are... please share why with the rest of us, it's pretty profound stuff... Note, there's no wrong answer, after all I conomed you! ++Lar:t/c22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hah :) Oh well, if there was one moment I feared of all this, it certainly was the one when I got to answer this question. Let's go step by step, shall we?
I definitely intend to add myself to Administrators open to recall; this is an initiative that I personally find admirable, and I have observed its development since Aaron Brenneman first informed me of it (tho it may need some further work to turn it into an actually functional process). Just as I have never, ever tried to hide my actions, I expect the community to demand me accountability for any mistakes I may make. Being an admin is not a fancy and shiny badge; it is both a privilege, because good people has chosen to trustyou with tools that must be used with utmost consideration; and a responsibility, for which you must be ready to answer.
On to the rouge Admins category we go. I find it amusing; and more often than not, I find myself smiling, if not laughing openly with approval, at the words of some "Rouge" admins likeJzG. Personally, tho, I'd never add myself to it, for personal reasons. The today famous criteria of Rouge admins is simply not my style. On a serious side, deep inside of me, I hold a spark of concern whether or not the Rouge myth may eventually generate rash actions on someone who aspires to be worthy of the title. I have not yet witnessed such an event, tho, and I prefer to be optimistic and trust the good judgement of my peers.
Last but not least, and on to the meta aspect of your question we move. By definition, you're asking for an entirely personal opinion, which may and certainly will not be shared by many. As you correctly guess, I'm not a big fan of putting categories to people basing on their beliefs. I am a Humanist from head to toes, and I believe that the beauty of places like Wikipedia stems from the sum of our many diverse personalities and our different ways of being and thinking. I'm not like you, nor likeBishonen, norSango123, nor anybody else here - none of us are the same, yet we manage to share big part of our time and learn from each other... I cannot think of a better reason why I enjoy being part of this project as much as I do. Categories based on the way we think seem somewhat unfair and limiting to me; yet I completely understand their sense and the reason why they exist, and their usefulness to many. For all this, beyond my own beliefs, I don't object them... but well,you askedme for my opinion! :) I guess that's all - sorry about the lengthy reply.Phaedriel

Sorry for the lengthy reply? Those of you that know me know Ilove lengthy replies... There's nowrong answer dear Phaedriel... but some answers are justrighter than others!!! Remember how I said (above) that there's more to this candidate than mechanics? See what I'm talking about, guys and gals? What we have here is a very thoughtful candidate who is very possibly going to have a significant impact on how we get things done around here, just as I said in my nom... congrats on makingWP:100 already, happy birthday, and all best wishes for your continued WP career. ++Lar:t/c15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question fromShannon^{duck talk}: (User is banned as obvious sock ofUser:Thewolfstar ++Lar:t/c)

8.If you were asked to become involved in a situation that included many of your friends, that were harassing a newb or article dissenter at Wikipedia, would you blindlyback up your friends accusations, etc, or would you carefully review the situation and make a decision based on the actual situation? (By this I meanreading the content of the dispute and coming to an unbiased decision.)Shannon^{duck talk}16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I understand your concern. My personal beliefs, which I've always tried to uphold, is that dialog and consensus are the only true way tobuild our project. A fight in which one side overcomes the other, usually doesn't bring out the best of people, and in the end it generates more bitterness and stress. At the hypothetical situation you present, I must definitely say that I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result. I can provide an example that resembles this situation atthis AfD debate, where I was happy to meetMerovingian. Although we had not interacted much before, I hold him in the highest regard; and of course, I adhered to his position. An escalating hostility from these necomers towards Merovingian ensued; I tried my best to stop the arguments and head the agitated moods to a constructive effort instead, as you may seehere. In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.

Optional question 2 fromShannon^{duck talk}:(User is banned as obvious sock ofUser:Thewolfstar ++Lar:t/c22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

9.Would you use your sysops powers sometimes toblock a user who disagreed with your edits, or your friends edits?Shannon^{duck talk}16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: I can categorically tell you now, and I ask you to mark my words, that never, under any circumstances I will consider such possibility. Our policies clearly rule such actions out, and I'm nobody to challenge them so blatantly. Furthermore, a mere disagreement over edit contents is not in itself worthy of a block - I've always been under the impression that Wikipedia is not censored, and performing an act like the one you describe certainly qualifies as such. Even if I find myself directly disagreeing with the conduct of a user (and not just the contents of his/her edits), and I find that a blockcould be in order as consequence of it, the proper course of action is to request further input at the proper project page, likeAN/I orAN/3RR, and let other admins uninvolved in the dispute take the actions they deem necessary.

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 eitherthis nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.