Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta

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

Final(135/2/0); Ended 12:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Riana dzasta (talk · contribs) - Riana has been a model Wikipedia contributor for over eight months, joining us in mid-May of last year. During this time she has accumulated close to 10,000 edits^[1], with almost 4,000 of those in mainspace, over 800 in Wikipedia projectspace and a reasonable spread through all other spaces (even portal! More on that in a moment...)

I've been aware of Riana's great work here for some time, but her suitability for adminship became apparent when I had the pleasure of working with her as a "coach" in the admin coaching program last year. I use "coach" the in broadest sense of the word here, as it became glaringly apparent almost immediately that my services were not required; As much as I tested her knowledge of policy and process, including what was/wasn't vandalism, what was/wasn't speedy deletable, I could not fault her. She answered every question perfectly.

Riana is an active vandalfighter, new pages patroller and is also very active at XfD, however inclusionists need not be alarmed. She has started many articles, rewritten many articles, and is the major contributor to Portal:Chemistry, a Featured portal.

Riana is a responsible, civil, intelligent and trustworthy editor who really cares about Wikipedia and us, its contributors; I can say without a moments hesitation that both she and the project would benefit tremendously with the addition the tools, and ask the community to consider her for administration. Glen 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Sarah:I feel very proud and honoured to have the opportunity to offer a co-nom for Riana. I first met Riana when she dropped by my talk page to congratulate me on my own RfA in September last year [2]. Since then, I have come to know her as a kind, caring, intelligent and mature Wikipedian. She has assisted me with jobs that have arisen from admin work, most recently in helping to supervise a child editor undergoing a last resort mentorship. She has always been an editor I hold in very high regard as hardworking, dedicated to the project, trustworthy and reliable.

Riana is a regular vandal-fighter, she escalates appropriately through the full range of warning templates (eg: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). and, when necessary, reports vandals to AIV (eg: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13])

Riana is also experienced in projectspace with more than 860 edits across a broad range of WP areas and her contributions always reflect a very solid understanding of, and an innate ability to implement, policy. As mentioned by Glen, Riana has a lot of experience in XfD, as both a nominator (Eg:[14], [15], [16]) and a participant ([17], [18], [19] and her contributions are always grounded in the relevant policies and guidelines.

Riana's interaction and relationships with other editors is quite remarkable. She is always friendly, warm and caring, offering support and encouragement to other editors, whether she is interacting with friends or new editors. Her outstanding ability to relate to and communicate with fellow editors is a very valuable quality for a potential administrator.

I feel that Riana is an excellent candidate for adminship and she will make a fantastic addition to the administrative team. I have no hesitation in joining with Glen in asking the community to support this request for adminship. Sarah 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to my nominators, I accept. riana_dzasta 11:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I do a fair amount of NPP and RCP, as Glen points out, so I would most likely hang around C:CSD (which never seems to be empty) and AIAV, which is more adequately monitored, but there can never be enough admins helping out in that area. I would also try to keep an eye out for older prodded articles, and help out with the more clear-cut AfDs. My experience with AfD, while not entirely limited, is not as prolific as I would like it to be, so I'll probably stay away from the more controversial ones until my experience builds up. I'd also keep an eye on requests for unblock, requests for page protection and requested moves - fairly dry areas which don't seem to have enough admins working on them.

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

A: Well, I quite like Portal:Chemistry, and it seems other people did too :) I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an article-writer, but I'm happy enough with the two I have started. I do cleanup work on articles I find which aren't quite up to scratch, and I'm probably better at that than at writing articles. I'm also satisfied with my new pages and recent changes patrolling; I've rarely tagged/reverted in error, and I make sure to always notify the user concerned.

I'm also proud of having nominated two users who are now administrators, Daveydweeb and Husond, who both do their job very well, and whose opinions I respect highly.

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: Apart from the usual antagonism that any vandalfighter is bound to face at some point, I can think of one issue that particularly stressed me out. I had been "mentoring" People Powered (talk · contribs) for some weeks, who seemed to be a perfectly valid contributor, albeit with a much higher interest in RfAs and adminship than is usually seen in a new user. One day I got a message from him, stating that he had been blocked by freakofnurture. I asked freakofnurture to explain what was going on, and eventually found out from Choess that People Powered had been suspected for a while of being a sockpuppet of Karmafist (talk · contribs). A lot of back and forth conversation between myself, People Powered and Choess ensued, which ended with People Powered leaving this message on my talk-page. I replied with this, but he seemingly gave up.

I was mildly frustrated by the whole situation, mainly because I felt more involved than I probably should have, and because it was the first incident to cause me stress on-Wiki. Now that I've seen/read about worse, and understand a little more about how people operate when it comes to banned users, I can't really recall it without a touch of embarrassment :)

Apart from that, I can't really think of anything. It's pretty hard to stress me out to the point where I feel the need to be rude or resort to personal attacks, but as I have no doubt that issues like the one above will occur much more frequently if I gain admin privs, I will always attempt to reason with the user/s involved and try to reach a compromise. People are generally more reasonable than we give them credit for.

4. Do you consider yourself a proficient writer and have you completed any articles of which you are particularly proud of? michael ^talk 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Proficient, reasonably. Prolific, hardly :) The article I'm proudest prouder of is Katherine Knight, because I was genuinely surprised there was nothing here about her, and really felt like I was filling a gap.

5. What would you do if a banned user had been determined to have returned with a sockpuppet, and there was wide knowledge about their block, and it was very controversial, and some people had made it no secret that they would support this user coming back, and you were leaning towards supporting them as well. What would you do and why?--CJ King 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJ, thanks for the question! I would do my best to make myself as aware of the matter as possible, instead of going with instinct (which is what I did with the People Powered mess-up). After that, if the user had been banned I would probably not support their returning in the first place - I've learned enough about banned users, and witnessed enough of their actions, to know that we don't ban people lightly. It's about what's best for Wikipedia - and corny as that may sound, that's my first priority. I would never support sockpuppetry. If it seems as though I have done so before, my only defence is my inexperience at the time. That's not a problem anymore. Hope that helps! riana_dzasta 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from llywrch

6. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, thanks for asking. As much as I enjoy RCP, NPP, etc (yes, really!), I realise this leads to stress, so I take time off every one in a while to improve content. Quality content is what drives Wikipedia, not playing lasertag with vandals, so I try my best to pitch in once in a while. I enjoy taking a day off every so often to improve instead of delete (e.g. I'm now helping out with Portal:West Bengal, today I took an article from this to this). So, yes, I would definitely consider taking a day off from my tasks - admin burnout isn't pretty. riana_dzasta 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Riana dzasta's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Please note, this nomination has been made overtop of a previous nom that Riana declined in November.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support as nominator (of course!) Glen 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support. Excellent user. alphachimp 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, candidate seems a fine user - no reason to expect they'll abuse the powers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong Support A very trust-worthy user. Good luck Riana! · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Excellent user. Have caught her stealing my reverts. ;) James086^Talk 11:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, great user. Wasn't she one in the first place? Terence Ong 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good candidate. --Folantin 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support An excellent candidate. While she opposed my RfA, she did so in such a polite, friendly and constructive way that I felt actively encouraged by her comments. Has broad spread od wiki experience. Needs the tools.--Anthony.bradbury 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Full support. I know Riana has been sweating pulling the trigger on this, but I see a WP:100 coming on this one. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support A great contributor to the project. Here’s hoping you break WP:300 with this one. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 12:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes, please! – Chacor 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support a kind and level-headed editor who has demonstrated that she is ready to mediate or assist other users in trouble --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose sockpuppet or impersonator of Iana-ray Zasta-day. Low category talk and template talk edits.Strong support I find no fault with this user whatsoever. WP:300 please. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support a good, all-round contributor, would be a fine admin. The Rambling Man 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support per all above. No reasons to oppose. (Edit conflict - people are queuing up to support this RfA!) Walton monarchist89 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Good allround editor, thoughtful, will make a good admin.Fram 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Yo. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strongest possible support anything I learned on Wikipedia, I learned from this user. ~ Arjun 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support no question about it. -- Heligoland 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Ahh, well, it's about time. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. One Strong support and an about time, sister! Sarah 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong Support -- I've known her since I first came here (even before AndonicO and ST47). She was very kind, and I think she deserves it. RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 14:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
24. Strong support(edit conflicted) - One of those editors you think is already an administrator. This editor would be an amazing addition to wikipedia as an administartor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - excellent candidate.--Kubigula (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Unlimited supply of Strong Support! It was about time!! Good luck! Húsönd 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support, excellent candidate.--Isotope23 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - am sure will make an excellent admin. ^{Khukri -} 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Excellent, very friendly candidate. Xoloz 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support riana has been worthy for this role for quite some time, and it's nice to see a nomination which does her justice.--cj | talk 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support although it looks like this is going to be unanimous approval anyway!. Roadmr (t|c) 15:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. A first class editor who should make a first class admin. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I see no problems with this application - looks like a good editor. (aeropagitica) 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Amoeba-brainer support. Really, that easy. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Edit Conflict-Strong Support I've had some interactions with Riana before, and I found her to be helpful and kind. She is also, in my opinion, the kind of user you can trust. - Anas ^Talk? 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Strong support awesome contributor. Rama's arrow 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. While I would like to have seen a little more article writing prior to this candidacy, I think Riana is experienced enough to know how disputes can come out of the collaborative process, and how to avoid or resolve them in a civil manner. I don't believe I've ever seen her lose her temper. Friendly, knowledgeable in many areas, always willing to help others... yes, support. --Kyoko 17:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I was going to nominate her before Christmas for the position. She's a good user, and I love how she did the chemistry portal. Will ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Excellent candidate for adminship.--MONGO 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Being around so much, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I honestly actually thought she already was an admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I was under the impression that this civil, humorous yet helpful Wikipedian was already a sysop? My mistake. Well, the all-round attitude and admin-related contributions (including excellent RCP edits) do demonstrate a clear need for the mop and bucket. Low participation in the other types of Deletion Debates (TfD, MfD or CfD) does raise a few questions, but all in all Riana shows a requirement for the block buttons, and therefore for Sysop status - thus, I support her request for the extra tools. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Oliver202 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strongest possible support - user is a good person and has a variety of talents rather than being a one-trick pony. The single incident with the anon is hardly indicative of her usual attitude, and everybody has days they don't think before they post. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support per noms, great candidate. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Great user, great contribs, won't mess up.--CJ King 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support per noms.-gadfium 20:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Happy two-months-after-Festivus (for the second time)! Great user, no doubt will use the sysop tools well. –Llama man 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support per nom. Michael 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Great User. -Mschel 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong support - per above. Addhoc 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Strong editor, and I think the People Powered thing is a great example of learning from mistakes. I see no complaints since then, and so I'm happy to support. — coelacan talk — 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. You go girl. You'll make an excellent admin. =) – Lantoka (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Yep. WjBscribe 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support A fantastic contributor to the project, in all respects. I have no reservations that Riana will be a good admin. Nishkid64 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. WP:ADEL Support Need more Croweaters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - a person who will utilize the tools very well.Bakaman 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Obscenely strong support. Riana is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, and would be a very valuable asset if she were given the tools. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support across the board. I would trust her as an admin. --Bduke 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Weak Support per Freaktalk. Compassion should be rewarded, not punished. Still have a funny feeling though. If she removes her comment after the first oppose, i'd probably put the support from "weak" to "normal". Just H 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, for further discussion of this, see here. to avoid a possible threaded mess on this page. riana_dzasta 02:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

63. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support per noms, answers, and overall record. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Very Strong (and very late) Support per everyone's comments; nominators/nominations; and experiences with the user. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  P.S. Where did my co-nomination go? 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. YechielMan 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Affable, competent, experienced, and I've had good interactions with Riana. Dar-Ape 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support: per nom. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support: Walkerma 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support: per nom. Seems strong to me. Pigman^talk 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. All looks very much in order. Sandstein 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support per nom. utcursch | talk 08:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support per noms. Trebor 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support per nom.--D-Boy 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Conscious 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Exceedingly strongly support- dang, I was about to nominate you. This seems to be happening to me at the moment. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)10:55, Friday, 9 February '07
77. Support per RC and NP need for tools. Bubba hotep 11:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Can't think of many better suited -- I'm sure Riana will make a terrific admin. Shimeru 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Has always been very helpful and courteous.--Holdenhurst 12:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Strong Support An excellent editor and person, Riana is almost too good. She'll make a wonderful admin. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support per nom, co-nom and the eighty or so people before me—can't think of anything else to say now, really. Fvasconcellos 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong candidate, opposition raises no significant concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Strong support. The only thing that can be said against her is that she really spends too much time on wikipedia. --RF 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support per all the above reasons. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support -- per above. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Yanksox 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support, He really deserves mop. Would be a real asset to the project. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I prefer female pronouns, but I'll take what I can get ;) riana_dzasta 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

89. Support: Great Wikipedian. S.D. ¿п? § 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support a very level headed user as well as a valued contributer. She would use the tools just fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Bwithh 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support -- a great contributor and a kind and polite person. -- Black Falcon 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support per common sense :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Make sure you get the blue-handled mop; the red one isn't as good :) Daniel.Bryant 05:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - Definitely. Good luck!--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Won't abuse the tools. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Anyone with a good track record willing to help at AIV is right up my alley. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support, I worked with this user a few times in AFD a while back, and all in all I think she's a great candidate given her record and the answers to the questions. --Coredesat 11:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - I've seen Riana's work in many places across the project. Solid, dependable, deserves the nod. --Ckatz^chat_spy 12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Solid user. She deserve that. - Darwinek 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Pile on Strong Support — Lost^(talk) 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support - --SUIT^-n-tie 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Obviously a good editor. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Yes. Rettetast
106. Support instantaneously: this user should be an admin a long time ago. Causesobad → (Talk) 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Strong Support. Top notch user with great answers; we could use more admins who assume good faith on a routine basis. IronGargoyle 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. PeaceNT 15:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. That opose if quite convincing, but you'd still make a good admin, support.--Wizardman 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support excellent user.-- danntm ^T _C 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. dvdrw 05:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Strong SupportI tell you what, if this RFA failed it would be a dzasta. Eh? Eh? Ah, whatever. Civil, dedicated, committed, friendly. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Look mom, it's a bandwagon!! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. She sounds like a good admin material. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116. Strong oppose. Less than 4000 mainspace and 1000 Wikipedia space edits. Grandmasterka 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Did you mean to place your oppose opinion in the support section? —Doug Bell ^talk 07:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     I think he's joking :) riana_dzasta 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

117. Support Well shit, I was surprised to see this RfA; I could have sworn she was already an admin, given my peripheral interactions with her. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support I didn't put my name on yet? Well I had better! Captain panda In vino veritas 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - no real reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
120. Ding Dong Special Delivery! A new Mop from FedEx!! Support ;) --Wikipediarules2221 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support I thought she was already an admin. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
122. Strong support - If she's as good an admin as she is civil, she'll make a good admin. Soz for the earlier support... :) Spawn Man 08:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support excellent candidate --rogerd 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Can't find a fault at all!--Newport 13:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Jonathunder 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support, the sock story is part of the past.--Aldux 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
127. Ah hells yeah. I mean, support. -- Merope 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support I trust that the candidate has learned from her mistake and will not misuse the tools. Dionyseus 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
129. OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE I MISSED THIS support. Sorry, Riana, just noticed '_' ♥ Fredil 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
131. Strong support I am positive Riana is going to make a wonderful admin. Helpful, knowledgeable about policiy and editing processes, patient, and a dedicated contributor, I do not think she will abuse the tools and absolutely deserves them. — Editor at Large^(speak) 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Knowledgeable and helpful editor, I have no doubt she will make a fine admin. --Canley 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support Looks good to me. Particularly like frank acknowledgment of error in response to first oppose. Just what's needed in an admin. IronDuke 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support You can read my explanation of my role in the affair of PeoplePowered from the diff of her talk page, linked above. Personally, I think Riana's initial reaction, if embarrassing post hoc, was not unreasonable: she'd been mentoring someone who, without close examination and knowledge of l'affaire Karmafist, appeared to be a constructive, eager new editor with maybe an excessive interest in adminship, when all of a sudden, a block fell on him. You can see the other half of our exchange here. When I'd conveyed some explanation of the backstory and why people were out hunting sleeper socks of Karmafist, she was polite and receptive, and then PeoplePowered flew off the handle and pretty much put an end to things. My impressions of her since have been favorable, and I don't think the message mentioned below represents an act of ineradicably bad judgement. Choess 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support This page is 46KB long. That shows the support and praise she has received. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Actually, page length is a poor measure of support. An RfA with 20 supports and 20 opposes is likely to be longer than one with 135 supports and two opposes. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

1. Oppose. The comment at User talk:172.144.137.135 says it all. This user's apathetic approach to sockpuppetry and other forms of ban evasion causes me great worry. —freak(talk) 15:27, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)

   Fair call - as I've already admitted, I can't think about that incident without a great deal of embarrassment, and I don't believe I handled it well. riana_dzasta 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Karmafist would never tell me if it was him or not; but the user made productive edits. Dropping the banhammer with only circumstantial evidence of productive editing by the user is not a good ground for blocking. People Powered never came across as a POV-pusher or a disruptive editor and if he was helping the encyclopedia, why block him? You are only creating trolls out of misguided users in this manner and this kind of attitude never helps. Wikipedia is not a battleground to push sadistic goals. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose The comment about assisting a blocked user is not the issue. The issue is the overall comment, which seems to indicate a willingnes to subvert policy on behalf of others. KazakhPol 19:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Respectfully, I disagree. There is absolutley zero indication of that. Riana has already expressed that she made an error, and since has read up fully on policy and has learnt from it. This was a one off incident five months ago Glen 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral This user is an amazing editor, but I doubt in her ability to truly be an admin. I get an odd feeling with this one. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't put my finger on it, but something just doesn't sit right here. It seems almost too good to be true. I'm sorry, but I can't support. Just H 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to no vote.[reply]

This is actually funny. We need a page to enshrine the most unusual reasons given on an RfA becuase this would surely make it: Too good to support.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already began such a page. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just H's opinion needn't be ridiculed. He's quite entitled to his opinion, though I would welcome him to better explain himself once he figures out whatever troubles him. --Kyoko 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you're right. I'd love to see the page. I don't know what it is, maybe just some psychic vibe or something. I don't know. However, looking back, I don't think it's fair of me to judge the candidate on "a hunch". If I do happen to be right in the future, maybe I could start a psychic hotline, eh? Hopefully, i'm wrong. Just H 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Like a good editor but something really isn't right espically the message to the sock puppet that is pretty weird--St.daniel 01:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a big argument out of this like the oppose vote by Arjun01. RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 12:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.