Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:42, 21 August 2008

Moni3

Voice your opinion (talk page) (28/5/3); Scheduled to end 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 (talk · contribs) - A few months ago, I asked SandyGeorgia for some possible recommendations for admin. One of the people she suggested would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. So I took a long hard look at Moni3. While talking to Moni about it, people crawled out of the woodwork encourage her to run. Moni is a hell of an editor. She has helped 10 articles reach FA status and 12 others achieve GA status. I was ready to nominate her when I asked her the fatal question, "Why do you want to be an admin?" Part of her response was, "I don't want this to have it - I would only want to do it if I'm needed, and I don't know that I am." If this isn't the humble attitude of a person here to serve, then I don't know what is.

Moni is probably one of the more colorful candidates to be nominated... just take a look at some of her edit summaries and you'll see what I mean. When I first met her, I saw more of her humor and less of her seriousness. Over time, I've grown to respect her use of humor and appreciate how her light heartedness doesn't reflect poorly on this project. In fact, I've grown to really respect how seriously she takes this project. She is straight forward and will call things the way she sees them, but she is civil and wildly respected. Just take a look at her talk page and you will see people from all over coming to her seeking help/advice. Not to mention the barnstars she receives (often with notes such as "including witty comments" or "Even better: your humor lightens the load on everyone") The fact that she tries to maintain a light heart doesn't mean that she doesn't take the project serious.

I've been watching Moni3 since then and have grown more and more convinced that she is ready for the tools. When dealing with somebody as thoughtful and concerned about the project as Moni it doesn't matter what they do with the tools, it will be a net benefit. I have zero doubt that when she does use the tools, it will be in a manner befitting our top admins.

NOTE: Moni set up an RfA when I first started talking to her, but didn't mean for it to go live and pulled when she realized it had. I deleted at the time because she didn't mean for it to go live.---Balloonman 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination. I have interacted with Moni3 for almost a year as a result of her nominations of ten featured articles and frequent thorough and helpful reviews of other articles at WP:FAC. I've also had her talk page watchlisted for many months. Moni3 is one of our top content contributors and even through a couple of stressful FAC noms, I've not seen her succumb to Wikistress or respond uncivilly to other editors. Moni3 is exactly the kind of editor I believe we should be entrusting the tools to: someone who understands how to build articles and how to treat other editors, but who isn't overly anxious to gain the tools or to use them and is unlikely to become embroiled in WikiDrama or to use the tools inappropriately. Moni3 approaches Misplaced Pages with a good sense of balance and humor, often decharging stressful situations with timely, well-placed and hilarious edit summaries. Her colorful edit summaries shouldn't be taken as a lack of seriousness about Misplaced Pages; she takes her work, her writing and the Project very seriously, is civil and assumes good faith, and her humor is often just what the Dr. ordered in difficult situations. With pleasure, I offer my co-nomination, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Because Balloonman has indicated my services are desired, I wish to be able to do something worthwhile, so I accept.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I plan to continue to write featured articles and review featured article candidates. In between, I hope to be able to impose make known my priorities within discussions regarding the encyclopedia, that nothing should diminish its quality. If there are any tasks I can perform that will make that process smoother, I will be happy to perform them.

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

A: I have so far ten featured articles and thirteen good articles. However, my best contributions have been my first FA, Ann Bannon, because of my interest in the subject; and To Kill a Mockingbird, because it was so challenging to do. When I mark my growth as an editor on Misplaced Pages, I look back to the process to get TKAM featured. I am also glad that I was able to take an uncited 9-paragraph disgrace that was the Everglades, and expand it to a suite of five articles, with the appropriate attention paid to the numerous details involved in the geography and politics of the region.

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

A: I am generally a very mellow person. I participate in Misplaced Pages because it is fun. Were it to become unfun, I would stop participating in it. However, one cannot remain on Wiki for long and not get into content disputes for whatever reason. Timely enough, I am now involved in a dispute about a sentence in the lead of To Kill a Mockingbird (can be found here). When it was on the main page July 11, an editor accused me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I found that unpleasant in the extreme, for I consider my integrity as an editor my highest priority and greatest attribute. I have also been recently involved, in several locations, in a dispute over how WikiProject talk page templates are to be placed and removed since WP:LGBT talk page templates are being deleted by editors uninvolved with the project, who don't consider them appropriate. I have sought Keeper76's assistance in mediating this, and possibly taking it to some kind of dispute resolution since the policies on talk page templates are unclear. I was tangentially involved in FCYTravis' ill-conceived deletion of an article that had gone through a controversial AfD.

I welcome your questions, in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia.

Beat-Kurt-Weber-Additional-Question-and-more from Erik the Red 2

4. What is your opinion on cool-down blocks?

A: By reading the RfA page alone I know that cool-down blocks aren't policy. Logically, I agree with that. People don't cool down by being forcibly ignored, but by knowing that they're being heard and understood. Users should not be blocked unless they become so disruptive that reasonable attempts to communicate with them fail to be productive. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: I didn't look this up, because I think I'm being tested (and rightly so) about my non FA experience. A block is temporary or with a set point in the future that the user can return to make constructive edits. It's also able to be overturned by a good argument by the user. A ban is permanent with no argument by the user allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

6. How would you establish notability in line with deletion?

A: I think you're asking about saving an article from being deleted by determining it is notable? It depends on the subject, of course. A band and a protein would have different criteria. But a general rule of thumb is that multiple reliable sources have reported on it in a significant way, it has been deemed superlative (the first, the most, the best, the worst, etc.), OR it is a concept or event of significance to many people. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Now for the story problem: 7. There is a large debate on a talk page about the inclusion of a topic in the article. The article is fully protected because of edit warring. The extreme majority favor the inclusion of one sentence, however, a lone dissenter favors a different sentence, one that is backed up by several reliable sources. The {{editprotected}} template is placed on the page and the majority asks you to insert their sentence, citing WP:CONSENSUS, but the dissenter tells you to put in his sentence instead, citing WP:RS and WP:V. Which sentence do you put in?

A: In watching a few arguments on ANI and other talk pages, it has become apparent that many disputes can be solved by cracking a book. Many editors argue passionately based on what they know, not what is available to be learned. If the issue is a matter of BLP, I might put the disputed sentence in a blind edit, read the sources in dispute for myself and determine that if indeed all sides present conflicting reliable information that it should be presented evenly. If it is not a BLP issue, and the sources are reliable, the material should be presented evenly again: "Theorist A has written that..., However, Theorist B argues that..." This is entirely dependent upon reliable sources, so I would want to see it for myself. If an editor cannot produce such a reliable source but swears it exists, I would try to find it, but at that point, I think the onus to produce a reliable source is upon the editor who says it's there but doesn't have it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases:

8. Why have you chosen to not customize your Misplaced Pages signature?

A: Now, this is an interesting question. =) Simply (pun) for simplicity. I would like my words to speak for me, not a signature. It makes it a little more difficult to find my comments on a talk page, but in line with the Quaker Testimony of Simplicity, my words and intent are more important than what I can make the signature line do. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 9. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 9a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Constant disruptions to the process of building the encyclopedia, uncivil behavior in the extreme (and by that I mean pulling out big guns with epithets, threats, and other comments that make talk pages very hostile environments—as opposed to what some editors take as uncivil behavior), violations to 3RR, and vandalism, plagiarism, or deliberately posting false information. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 9b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Frequent vandalism, edit warring, immediate quick changes (a living subject has died and huge amounts of edits are trying to be made at once). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 9c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: Is blatantly false, fabricated, a hoax, or such an obvious fan or smash page that no amount of reliable sources could save it to make it work within the context it has been written for. Non-notable subjects without reliable sources (which I felt needed a clarifier, since some subjects appear to be non-notable on the surface until more information in uncovered). --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 9d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: When the rules really aren't that clear and editors are stuck trying to figure out what to do, at an impasse, or seeing only two options. I hardly ever think there are two options to solve a single problem. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 10. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Well, this is like herding cats, isn't it? Determining consensus is so rare that there's a special page dedicated to the rare times 100 Wikipedians have agreed upon anything. But for simplicity's sake, in a yes-or-no situation such as an AfD, XfD discussion, as I understand it, consensus is determined by majority rule. In a case where there is no yes-or-no response and it is more open, identifying the problem to the parties involved, making sure that is, in fact, the problem, then coming up with three or four do-able solutions, then working with the editors to come up with the solution that seems to take into account most of the sides of the arguments. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 11. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Read the talk page, read the article history, if the reversions are happening in the present and have violated 3RR, protect the page until it can be determined which is the right one to be protected (may have to revert self, since I've never protected the right or wrong page before). My first priority would be the article itself. Once it has been stabilized, the editors who have violated various policies would be dealt with according to policy and procedure. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 12. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: To serve in the capacities that I am able. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

These responses are based on my experiences. Feel free to ask me to clarify or expand a response. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Moni3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for Moni3: Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Moni3 before commenting.

Discussion

• So Brad comes back and now we all have to be poets? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I raised the issue with my support !vote down below (the poems really are a nice touch) CL — 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  Nah, it looks like it started here. A guy tries, but...how can I compete with not one but two poems in one RfA??? Maybe I'll just double-!vote....  ;-)

  Oh, I thought you mean "Brad comes back" by this RfA alone. But by all means, he did start this "RfA poem" thing, not me. CL — 23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. naerii 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support without hesitation. 'bout time too. Ceoil 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. I disagree with nearly everything Ceoil says, but for once he's spot on. Simply one of the best editors on the project. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Record is impressive and solid. Deserves the promotion. Kazmarov (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support per all...the...FAs... something I have envied doing for a long time... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Total absolute support – iridescent 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Ardent support Unshakable integrity, down-to-earth, forthright speech, devotion to Misplaced Pages, incredible energy, good reader of people, noble heart. She has my utter trust. Willow (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I see Ryan's point below, but given the answer to question 1, the candidate appears willing to work slow and learn. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. So, the question then becomes: "can I trust the candidate?", and from what I can see here, I do. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Completely support this candidate, over-reliance on Misplaced Pages-space work as an RfA criteria is faulty in my opinion, and this candidate shows a cool head, when dealing with some tough areas. Cooperative work in spanning the divide between the LGBT wikiproject and other projects is especially impressive, and would be enough for me to support, even if the article work weren't so impressive. Keep up the good work, Moni. You'll make a great administrator. _D.D.J.Jameson 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Pretty much an ideal candidate so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Why not? Burner0718 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Co-nom support, Moni3 can be trusted not to misuse the tools; I'm always asking an admin to help move and correct malformed FAC and FAR noms, and the same 'ole same 'ole admins are probably tiring of my requests. I'm sure Moni will put the tools to appropriate and good use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Can't find any reason not to say "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah" ...  Frank  |  talk  23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. When evaluating candidates, I look for solid skills in communication and collaboration—both of which Moni3 has in spades. In addition, she has shown very evolved leadership skills (q.v. The Everglades project, where she led a large group of editors), respect and understanding of viewpoints different than her own (e.g., the LGBT work, where she has acted as a bridge between the wikiproject and other groups within the community), and an ability to de-escalate difficult situations. Her sense of humour never fails to entertain me. She has demonstrated the ability to learn new skills quickly and effectively, so I have no worries about her being able to master the technical use of the tools or the policies associated with them, and she has no trouble at all asking questions when she has them. At the end of the day, adminship is about trust, and I certainly trust Moni3. Risker (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but Awadewit led that project, whipping other editors to assist. I just did the research and most of the writing. Otherwise, thank you and please continue... --Moni3 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

15. Support per all the above. Awesome article work, deserves the tools. LittleMountain5 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
16. (ec)No Poems?-Support - Anyone who has contributed to that many FAs and GAs deserves the tools, although contributing to admin-related activities would be ideal. However I still can trust this user - CL — 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    A user who's called Moni3

    On her talkpage has pictures of trees

    She writes about FLA

    But might fail RFA

    Because some say the tools she don't need yes, I know I'm misrepresenting here, but "some say she's demonstrated an insufficient understanding of processes relating to the use of admin tools" doesn't scan – iridescent 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    You just made my day CL — 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

17. Weak Support I have to say I agree with Ryan, and I have great respect for his !vote, but after reviewing Moni's contribs, I think he is ready. Moni, if this RFA passes, I would strongly take to heart what Ryan said. I wish you luck in this RFA and as you continue in the project. America69 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support...

    Her username is kind of neat

    There's Moni (god) and Moni, Crete

    And then there's User:Moni3

    Administrator soon-to-be

    Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

19. Support I've seen Moni3 around, know her work. Content is just as important; a good content builder will be able to assist more thoroughly, especially with requests from newcomers. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I'm sure Moni will be a great administrator. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I got into a disagreement with this user on the Charlie Christ talk page over the placement of the LGBT project tag. Throughout this discussion, which must have been trying, this editor continued to respond constructively and civilly. Not for an instant did I feel like this person held me with disdain, even though I staunchly opposed their (at the time) position on this particular issue. Excellent admin qualities. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Um.... hell yes. —Giggy 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - I echo Giggy here. Like "duh, of course". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Support as a good and featured article contributor with whom I have had no memorable negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support In his studies, the Fat Man has identified no less than four admin archetypes, listed here in descending order of awesomeness: A) helpful, articulate and prolific contributor of content; B) dutiful custodian occupied with tedious but necessary drudgery; C) blustery, trigger-happy, bullying philistine; D) manipulative, scheming, partisan busybody. Moni3 clearly belongs in category A. It is more difficult (and in The Fat Man's mind, considerably less fun) to write a halfway-decent encyclopedia than to provoke, heckle and dissect the sundry amusing sideshows that our community can be relied upon to generate. Anyone who manages to engage in the former while not acting like a complete asshole deserve a few extra buttons. I also enjoy her edit summaries.The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I trust you with the tools in the areas that you will be using them in. But please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't move into gnomish areas like AIV without reading up on WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Paragon 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

    Point taken. --Moni3 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

26. Support per rather Brobdingnagian amount of FAs/GAs, and answers to questions 4, 6, and 7. Answer to 5 might warner a neutral or oppose if you primarily intend to work in AIV. But seeing as that clearly is not your primary reason for wanting the tools, I see no reason to oppose based on that. Cheers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Oh my god, yes, Moni is the best of the best, one of the top contributors here. I've been waiting for this one. Good luck, Moni, this is a torture zone, just look around. ;) --LordSunday 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support, Adminship is primarily about trust, it requires no great skill. IMO a moderately intelligent chimp would probably manage OK. I trust you and I think you're significantly brighter than the aforementioned chimp. RMHED (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A great article writer, but unfortunately no experience in areas relating to adminship so I’m not convinced she knows when to delete pages, block users or use page protection effectively. I’ve gone back to January, and the only XfD discussion you’ve participated in is this MfD. Her deleted contributions show that she’s tagged no pages for speedy deletion. I also see no reports to WP:AIV, or any other board to give an indication of where she’d block a user. This boils down to not having enough experience in my eyes to use the tools correctly, and there’s a chance she might hit delete or block at a time when she shouldn’t because she doesn’t know when to. When supporting a candidate, I like to see at least one area of admin related experience – even if it’s just commenting in a few XfDs and tagging some pages for deletion. Unfortunately there’s none of this in Moni3’s contributions. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   As a person who might make the same oppose, I have to admit, that in other circumstances, I might agree with you... it has been the root of some of my opposes in the pass. But the real question for me, is do I trust the user? Does the user contribute positively to the project? And does the user strive to build consensus/communications? IMHO, these factors outweigh areas where she might be lacking.---Balloonman 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Well, considering she's requesting administrator tools, yet has no experience in this area, I don't believe she should be given the sysop flag. Trust at FAC and contributing positively in this area does not make her an ideal admin candidate - I just want to see some experience in admin areas, there doesn't have to be loads. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   I am happy to answer any questions that might clarify my experiences and tendencies. I will freely admit where I am deficient in experience. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   The thing is, I want to see some first hand experience in admin areas (as I said above, it doesn't have to be a lot at all). You're a really cool woman, and a great article contributor - but in my eyes, that doesn't make you ready for adminship. I'm sorry Moni. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Switching to strong oppose - I’m sorry, but I’m switching to strong oppose because I honestly don’t think Moni3 has a clue about adminship – and it hurts me to say that because of her strong article contributions. The answer to question 5 is just wrong – a ban is enforced by the arbitration committee, or when no admin is willing to unblock, and a block is for varying lengths of time, up to and including an indefinite block sometimes supported by community consensus, other times at the admins discretion. 9a makes no reference to warnings – we should always try to warn a user before moving to blocking, and this often helps to calm the situation before escalating things further. Question 9c – When an article is a hoax, it shouldn’t be speedily deleted – it should go through AfD to determine if it is actually a hoax, unless there’s other serious concerns about it such as BLP violations. Question 10 shows a complete understanding of what consensus is – we don’t base XfD closing on majority rule, we use value of arguments when determining the close of a deletion discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose: I agree with Ryan Postlethwaite. It's not that I don't trust Moni3 it's just that I feel they're not ready to become an admin yet. I see that Moni3 is a great editor and in my opinion is trustworthy, but I feel that they are too inexperienced in admin related fields. If there was at least a months worth of work in admin related fields I would support your RfA but right now I don't think you need these tools since you currently only contribute to articles and you said in Q1 that you will continue to mainly edit articles. What I gathered from Q1 it seems that you don't intend to use these tools very often. I'm sorry but I don't feel like you need these tools. – Jerry 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Because to the answer given to #1, user does not seems to be interested in admin tools. Also per some of the comments given by Ryan Postlethwaite. Macy 00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
4. I know this is going to sound harsh, since Moni said she wasn't going to look it up because she thought she was getting tested. Moni, you're an awesome contributor, and I think you'd make a good admin. But the answer to Q5 worries me, because it looks like you haven't prepared for adminship. I've got nothing against on-the-job learning, but the block/ban question is almost always in RfAs these days, so not knowing the answer gives me the worrisome impression of a lack of preparedness. I would definitely support you, Moni, if you came back (soon!) and showed some more preparedness. Please don't let this discourage you, and happy wiki'ing! - Revolving Bugbear 00:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, it's a boilerplate question that indicates that the candidate does not hang around RfA often, which can be viewed as a good thing. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   What I hope it reflects is quite on the face. You're getting me and my experience, and it's up to you to decide if a content contributor would assist the cadre of admins the same way I might judge a vandal fighter's experience with content and sources. You are right that I have not prepared for this adminship, because you should be getting an honest picture of what I know, what I do, and what I have experience with. I've never blocked or banned anyone, obviously. It would not behoove any of us for me to memorize test answers without the application experience behind the memorized responses. --Moni3 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Just for the record: Excellent response. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose I'm probably reading Q1 wrong, but the second sentence "In between, I hope to be able to impose within discussions regarding the encyclopedia, that nothing should diminish its quality." makes it sound like you only want the tools to be able to "impose" on people. Adminship isn't supposed to grant you any extra authority, and being an Admin isn't supposed to add or subtract to the weight of your argument in any situation. And, while Q5 may be an overused question, I still think that an Admin should know that answer long before an RfA.--KojiDude 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'll clarify for you here, then I'll clarify the statement up top. Thanks for pointing out the vagueries. I don't participate in ANI much, but when I do I hope I make it a priority that the quality of the encyclopedia is the highest priority above individual editors' hurt feelings, lack of understanding, or whatever personal issue s/he has. This came to mind when I jumped into the CarolSpears plagiarism debates. Plagiarists, to my mind, should be dealt with as quickly and definitely as an editor who threatens another, or prints his personal information online. Plagiarism brings down the quality of the encyclopedia and hurts everyone. (Not to mention that the lack of originality is so tacky...) Off to clarify --Moni3 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, I'll strike that part of my oppose. Thanks for clarifying. I'm staying opposed though, pending an answer to the twelfth question.--KojiDude 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Dang-look-at-those-FA-contributions Neutral Moni looks like she would handle disputes really well. But I just simply can't tell how she would function in closing AfDs, blocking users, deleting pages, or applying page protection from her limited experience in those fields. So, a neutral until I can get out my quizzing book :) NuclearWarfare _{My work} 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Your contributions in the mainspace are great, but you have little experience elsewhere. I would suggest getting more experience at WP:XFD, and doing a little WP:NPP and WP:RCP. Just so you know, you can look up the answer to questions, and I am not neutral because you didn't answer that correctly. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
3. ARGHHHH!!!! neutral - Such many great contributions...but I'm on the fence due to Q5 and also because I don't see much admin area experience. Soxπed93 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

   With such an expression of frustration, that has made my RfA worth it already! =) --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)