Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Travellingcari

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

Final: (90/2/4); Ended 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Travellingcari (talk · contribs) - I have had the good fortune of working with TCari for a few months now, and for those few months, I've been pestering her about trying out an RfA. Seriously, I've asked many times (usually after she asks me to perform some admin task that she needs done:-). And all along, she kept saying not yet, not yet. TCari is a stellar Wikipedian. Her contributions in the world of WP:AFD, where I first crossed paths with her, absolutely blew me away. Always thorough, always policy based. I'm pretty sure she's never typed the words "per nom" on anything. TCari is not shy about nominating articles for deletion that fail our inclusion guidelines, and she's also not too stubborn to withdraw if shown an error. Excellent admin trait! All that to say, and as exemplary at discussion as she is, it is not her primary focus. Travellingcari actually started a WikiProject, (how many of you can say that?) and a successful one at that, because she is primarily an article builder. WP:MUSEUMS is an extremely well organized project aimed at enhancing and building our encyclopedic coverage of notable museums around the world. TCari is an article builder, article rescuer, article cleaner, and article starter, and project organizer. She clearly know what Wikipedia is all about, she has a firm grasp on our policies, and knows where to go to get help if she doesn't. And, she has (finally!) agreed that the extra buttons would actually be useful to her in her endeavors. I'm thrilled to have gotten to know TCari over the last few months, and happy to nominate her for adminship, something 5 or 6 editors have attempted to do! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Wizardman: Travellingcari is a user who I have seen around plenty. If I'm busy nomming or closing at AfD, that is a name that frequently pops up, always with a good rationale on what should happen to the article. She definitely does great work there. Her 6k edits are very balanced throughout the main, talk, and projectspaces, her article writing is great, and most importantly her demeanor is great. Just based on all this I think she would be a great admin. Keeper has said things in a lot more detail than I'd be able to, but quite simply I see nothing to lose and everything to gain from her havign some extra buttons. Wizardman 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, both of you. I gratefully accept _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: I'm an article writer, first and foremost. That said, I also know there are ways we can all help improve the quality of Wikipedia and I plan to help by:

• participating more in AfD, I'm already quite active there but there's frequently a back log and having admin tools to evaluate consensus on discussions (of course those I have not participated in) to close them appropriately. Following with that, I would monitor the backlogs at WP:CSD and PROD to ensure those that can be fixed are, as well as delete those who meet one of the speedy criteria and/or who's five day wait have passed.
• participating more in WP:UAA and WP:AIV. I currently report users who are vandals (found mostly through edits to my watch list, I'm not a recent changes patroller) or those whose usernames are cause for blocking but would like to be able to deal directly with these, as well as with the backlog.
• Having experience in article writing will also help me with RS Noticeboard, COI issues and other aspects of dispute resolution because I know where information can be found to address editor questions related to article writing and editing.

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

A: Probably the creation of the Museums WikiProject. I began working on improving museum coverage out of my own personal interest and the fact that I believe them to be notable and encyclopedic but soon realised that the work to be done was far beyond one person's scope. The project is still fairly new and we're working to expand the coverage, but I believe some very good work has come from the project. My personal top-line museum contributions include Historic House Trust and adding the houses which were not yet covered, two of which resulted in DYKs. There are a number of other articles I hope to help bring to GA, if not FA, status once they are ready. Outside of the museum arena, I have worked significantly on Backpacking (travel) (my first real Wikipedia work}, Go Fly, Independence Air and 2002 European floods. I tend to have a lower edit count because I try to make good use of preview and complete work in one go, see this edit, for an example, but I don't think quantity matters as much as quality in that case.

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: Wasn't strictly a conflict over editing but when WP:MUSEUMS first launched, we used a list of articles in Category:Museums and did not clean it up as well as we could have before asking a bot to tag those in the category and a number of errors were made. I took responsibility for the mis-tagging, let others know we were aware and trying to fix it. I think communication solves 95%+ of problems that occur on Wikipedia and all but the worst trolling/spam can be solved via acknowledging an issue and working toward resolving it. The same applied to an issue at Talk:Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art where the museum's curator did not want the article to reflect something she found in her research to be untrue. While it has not necessarily been resolved, all parties communicated throughout the process to try and find an appropriate solution.

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod

3. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?

• A: I think it's what I eluded to above, communication. While WP policies/guidelines exist for a reason, simply saying that an article/topic meets or doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N, etc. doesn't really help the solution. Taking a few minutes to explain why a change is being proposed, an edit won't work or an article might need to be deleted, etc. makes for a smoother experience for all involved. Also because consensus can change, discussions about why a particular guideline does or does not apply to a particular situation might help develop a new understanding and or highlight a misunderstanding. If we operated soley by policies/guidelines and not interaction and communication, Wikipedia would not have evolved as it has and this evolution is part of what has improved the project.

4. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Fengin354673 requested that you:

• 4a. Need to block a certain user?

• A: I would look at the user's contributions to see which, if any, policies, guidelines or norms they are breaking to form my own assessment rather than relying on the user-provided one. I'd also look at the two users' interactions to see if they were currently in a dispute that might have led to this block request and/or to see if the other party is equally culpable. If the reported user is breaking a policy, I'd look to see if they had been warned appropriately. If they had, I would give a situational and escalation-appropriate (depending on past incidents) block. If they had not been warned, I'd give an appropriately escalated and situational warning depending on the infraction and continue to monitor the situation. I'd also advise Fengin354673 of WP:UAA, WP:ANI and WP:AIV as appropriate channels of asking for a block rather than relying on a particular admin to be online at a given time (unless contribs show present activity).

• 4b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?

• A: This issue actually came up recently when Israel was on the main page. Articles are not protected pre-emptively (sp?) and require vandalism before protection. Generally main page articles should not be protected hampering the main focus of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia anyone an edit, but having a heavily vandalized main page article that cannot be kept clean despite a number of admins watching and reverting does not present a good face of Wikipedia. In the case of an article such as Israel which is semi protected anyway due to long term vandalism and other issues, it is acceptable for the semi-protection to remain without new vandalism being required in order to re-instate it. There was a recent ANI thread on this issue, especially discussing the Israel example, but I cannot find it at the moment.

Comment - I'm glad you mentioned that, actually, since what happened to Israel was the reason I put this question here ;) Nice work. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

5. The word 'traveling' is normally spelled with one L, at least in America--is there any particular reason you have chosen to spell it with two?

A: Oh that's an easy question seeing how many times I've answered it in other situations. I've spent a deal of time living overseas in Australia and other places where British English is more common - Spain, Prague and some aspects of my life in Japan - so in many respects I tend to use the British spelling. My mixed use does not affect me much on wiki as I do my best to be cognizant of the location of the article's topic and use the appropriate English variation. Except for artefact, that one befuddled me, but I learnt a new spelling. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Will this really have any effect on your vote, Keepscases? If not, probably best to ask on her talk page. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Gtstricky^{Talk or C}

6 Please take a look at meta philosophies. I am interested in where you fall in the Eventualism vs. immediatism philosophies.

A: I seem to fall somewhere between "Moderate immediatism" and "Moderate eventualism" as I support tenets of both. For example: "Articles should be in as good condition as possible when they are live."/"It is worth maintaining articles in good condition, but not to the extent it would stymie their organic growth through the Wiki process." I think this is where biting comes in. I'd venture a guess that none of us knew the ins and outs of every Wiki policy when we first edited. It's a curiosity to see 'can I really do this?'. I think that improving an article is wonderful as well as a means of educating new editors, but that can be done without telling the editor off for a simple error, misunderstanding of Wiki guidelines, etc. A good example of this is Ernest Sipes. A new editor is clearly working very hard on an article but isn't familiar with Wiki guidelines. That said, the article is improving and there's no BLP reason to "fix" the editor's work and the subject appears notable so there's no reason not to let it grow. Not every article needs to be a GA/FA "right now". Regarding: "Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate. Cleaning it up would be too tricky and take too long."/"Poor and biased writing should be addressed, but unless there is no content should not simply be erased." I'm more on the side of the latter for the reasons shown above, Wikipedia is evolving and there's no reason to rush for perfection right now. Other than trolls, eds are likely to get discouraged if everything they do is immediately reverted so it's best to use whatever is usable from their contribs and show them how to develop it. At the least, you stand the chance of encouraging a new editor who wants to contribute.

7 and on Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism.

A: Probably closest to Rehabilism. While there are some clear trolls who's sole purpose is to troll and nothing else, and who should be dealt with appropriately, I think most users can be reformed if they're educated and someone shows an interest in trying to help them. See the history of User talk:Community service for my involvement in a situation like this. It was a frustrated user with a potential COI who was not happy with the deletion of an article s/he had a connection to and no doubt went about dealing with the delete !voters the wrong way. However s/he expressed a willingness to change and after User:Hersfold gave the user another chance, it appears to have worked. So long as the damage done by a troll/vandal/POV warrior can be dealt with in a manner that does not undermine the work of Wikipedia, I think all efforts should be made to work with rather than against the editor.

Optional Question For Zginder

8 What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and Why?

A: Verifiability, without a doubt. If the project and all of our work is to be taken seriously then what is included in the articles must be verifiable. Very little else matters if the content cannot be backed up by a reliable source. This applies not just to blatant hoaxes which don't fool people but rather cases where Wiki content might be taken as gospel and when it comes out that it wasn't sourced well (Either not at all or to a non-RS, not speaking about cases where mistakes happen) then it doesn't look good. We need to do whatever possible to keep that from happening. I place this ahead of WP:COPYVIO simply for the reason that I believe copyvios can be fixed more easily than verifiable ones _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours}

9. How would you handle a rather established user vandalizing (sockpuppeting, attacking a user, etc.) once or twice?

A: All editors are expected to behave appropriately and obey established rules. In the case of sockpuppeting I'd look to the contribs to see a) if it's an accepted second account (bot, public computer use, etc.) or of thereis another explanation. If necessary, I'd request a check user and block the 2nd account appropriately. I'd warn the user, but not via template as that doesn't accomplish anything but escalate the situation, to stick with one account. In the case of personal attacks I'd remind the user (not via template) of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and see if there was anything I could do to diffuse the situation or refer the users somewhere that could. WP:30, WP:DR, etc. If the attacks persisted despite warnings, I'd block accordingly. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Travellingcari's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Travellingcari: Travellingcari (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/Travellingcari before commenting.

*Support. Superb work. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I moved this from discussion, I presume you meant it to be here? Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've moved it back. IPs cannot add to the support, oppose and neutral sections, but may voice their opinions here. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I registered. Will vote when I login. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just linking this discussion since my comments on that AfD came up a couple of times. No, it might not have been the best wording, I admit that. Looking back, and if the AfD occured now, I would probably !vote merge to "Murder of..." (where the article now stands) because of WP:NOTNEWS and the sentiment of WP:ONEEVENT that holds true even if they're no longer alive that says "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Note a Keep !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Nardoni case, because it was covered in a discussion of the case and not a non-notable little girl. This is also what I did with Murder of Jaidyn Leskie, which I created from three articles about parts of the murder, so you might say I've learned from previous !votes. The fact of the matter is, if she hadn't died, she would not have had an article at this time because she was a non-notable college student per the generally accepted guidelines of WP:BIO. Avoided a speedy due to her title, most likely, but very unlikely to be notable simply for being Student Body President. Some of these have been deleted in the past, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson was one that I remember off hand, Cyrus Belt was anoter, so while I don't think there is a large consensus on this I would probably phrase the !vote differently _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Enthusiastic support as nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as nom. Wizardman 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Absolutely, I've been waiting for this. Great editor at AfD and I have had good interactions with her in the past. Doesn't lean towards deletion too much, and has sound policy knowledge and judgement. EJF (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Have come across this user several times (although never directly interacting) and been impressed by contributions in AfD. Looking through all her contributions last night, seemed to be a good user to be trusted with the tools Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per excellent responses to my questions. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per noms (and Kurt). Seems knowledgeable enough. Epbr123 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I've-been-waiting-on-this/edit-conflicted support. --jonny-mt 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support- Ive seen this user around lately and must say that she(?) is very civil, cool headed and knowledgeable. Full support. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Great answers to questions, contribs looks solid, I've had a few positive interactions with this editor.No problems here - Tan | 39 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support All around solid contributor, very good understanding of policies, no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support A well-qualified candidate. Keepscases (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. A reliable candidate. Axl (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support from me and the otters. I've seen this user in AfD a lot, and she really seems to know what she's doing overall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Speed CG ^Talk 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - Extremely impressive, well rounded. Excellent work at AfD. I see the candidate there regularly, and they seem to have a good understanding of policy. You have my support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Nice work at AfD. Just remember to never delete the main page... ;) Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Put some time into answering my questions. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Seems to know policy, and there is no evidence that having the tools would lead to misuse of them.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. (By the way this is another editor I was keeping an eye out for, but clearly, my nominating days are over). Rudget (Help?) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. support sane and reasonable contributor, a credit to WP, valuable and constructive work at AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, absolutely. I consider both opposes rather poor, and the noms say it all. I have bumped into the user once or twice, and I actually thought she was an admin. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Per 'WTHN?' asenine ^{say what?} 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, seen the user around, wouldn't abuse the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Duh.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support the candidate clearly understands Wikipedia policy and appears to have the right demeanor to properly apply it as an administrator. Good luck, Gwernol 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per EJF. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I've seen Cari around, and have been waiting for this RFA.  :) Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support for knowing what a typewriter is. SilkTork *^YES! 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support I've seen this user around quite often. Travellingcari has helped me a bit in the past and would be a better help to the community with the tools. Cheers. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Why not? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong Support As per above. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 02:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Seems to know policy well enough and seems civil and experienced enough to be trusted with the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per my personal interactions with Travellingcari. I found Travellingcari to be polite, willing to discuss points of disagreement, and generally an asset to Wikipedia. I have no doubt Travellingcari will be an even greater benefit to the project as an admin. - auburnpilot talk 05:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. I'm glad to see this nomination since I don't normally vote in or follow RFAs. I'm happy to support Travellingcari for adminship. I've only come across her work in AfD's (and I don't think we've ever interacted directly), but as a rule have been quite impressed with her comments there. Her answers to the questions above are also quite strong. No hesitations in terms of support—I'm confident she'll make a fine administrator.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Very knowledgeable editor. Good experience - Perfect for the mop. Five Years 08:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support evidence of 'pedia building and some keep votes show a (hopefully) net positive effect. I'd like to see some more article work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support -- per both the nominators = ). Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support For a good answer to my question. Zginder 2008-05-16T12:24Z (UTC)
39. Support No problems here. -Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I tend to agree with Les Grand in regards to incorrect reasoning on AfDs... the Eve Carson one sort of makes me cringe. However, I find it much more concerning when a candidate is showing evidence of simply not looking into the AfDs at all, not a problem with this candidate. Also, some of the policy surrounding those votes is poorly written and actually causes a lot of community disagreement. I trust nom's assertion that if Cari is shown to be incorrect in an XfD, she won't make a fuss, and think that she'll be fine finding consensus in a neutral way. Other contributions and interactions look good, highly civil. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support seen her around, excellent & pleasant editor. i'm a bit concerned by points raised by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles below, too, but I believe Travellingcari has the project's best interests at heart, and she'll be a fair admin when it comes to judging consensus in debates. Support. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Very strong support One of our best editors, with an excellent ability to write succinct articles and to find good sourcing even if difficult cases. Good in discussions, understands the situation well, and will be a reasonable admin generally. Much of what she is best at doesn't need the tools, but I am one of those who suggested to her that she apply, because they would help in some of it--the ability to see deleted articles and revisions is a great assistance in dealing with deletion questions. I think she'll also be very valuable here in dispute resolution, particularly about sourcing--that's the other reason I suggested she apply, because the tools are handy to have in reserve for that. I think she'll use them very judiciously. I'm not happy with everything she says at AfD, and vice versa, and she & I have had a number of discussions about it on my talk page--but I find her flexible, willing to adjust her opinion in accordance with the evidence and the policies. It's the people who don't discuss who are the problems. Being an admin takes the ability to communicate, and she does that very well and willingly. I see no sign whatever that she'd push her opinion in closing AfDs. DGG (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Excellent candidate, will be good with a few extra tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Respect the nominations and like the answers to the questions. Also prejudiced towards those who know what a typewriter is. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Enthusiastic support. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.) I see her often at AfD, and can always count on her for a thoughtful, policy-driven opinion. I may not always agree with it, because there is often more than one way to interpret policy, but I know the mop will be in excellent hands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support -- Ready to handle the mop. --Sharkface^T/_C 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Strong Support, I-thought-she-was-already-an-admin-support. My interactions with and observations of this user have been without exception positive. With respect to some of the arguments against, expecting someone who contributes to as many AfDs as Cari to be correct 100% of the time is pretty unrealistic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
49. Support - Per Kurt. This editor shows a desire to build a verifiable encyclopedia, but not an indiscriminate collection of information. They have knowledge of policy, guidelines, essays, the acronyms that are used to point them. Their response to questions six and seven show a positive attitude with respect to others. These two AFDS (1, 2) show keeping a cool head, an ability to work with others (especially new users), and the skills to develop material they are unfamiliar with and may not even like. Their ability to coordinate the museums project without it turning into social networking is a strong skill as well. Their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior all appear positive in relation to Wikipedia, and they have a demonstrable need for the tools. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support for this model Wikipedian.  Frank  |  talk  02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, no good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. I trust the candidate. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Would like to see more experience in main space (image/portal/category) edits, but this candidate has basic requisites. Didn't know about WP:Museums until this morning. Very cool. I have disagreed with this candidate, laughed about it, and learned something. That's always a good sign. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support I don't always agree with her AfD contributions but they are always well argued and she is always willing to discuss issues in good faith. there is no reason to believe she would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support (non-admin) I think Travellingcari would be a great administrator. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:59 2008 May 17 (UTC)
56. Support. Very good choice. - Darwinek (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Excellent, responsible editor who will put the admin tools to good use. Smile a While (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Why not? --Appletrees (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I've no previous interactions but nominee looks like a good one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Looks great, I've seen this candidate around. Good luck! GlassCobra 13:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I'd thought I'd already !voted here, but, anyway, extremely trustworthy nom, extremely trustworthy candidate.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I see no problems with the candidate and I think she'll make a great Admin. --Rodhullandemu 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support She'll be great. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. DGG doesn't give out endorsements like that to just anyone. Combined with good articles, good answers to questions, and intelligent and kind discussion? Happy to support. --JayHenry (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Fine editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. An expert editor. Bwrs (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support She's a good editor, and meets my standards for sysop. I have no major concerns. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support No reason to think she would not do a good job. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Good communication skills, works well with others, and did a wonderful job of improving this article on a noteworthy gallery when it is currently under discussion at WP:AFD. Risker (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support, seems to be dedicated to article building as well as adminy tasks, which she appears to have good familiarity with. She also seems very civil and open to communication, both defending her viewpoints rationally and able to admit when she may have been in error. -- Natalya 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support It takes three supports to cancel one Kurt. I counted two so far. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Looks like she will make a fine admin. the wub "?!" 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - a random sampling of talk posts shows this user is a dedicated problem solver. The Transhumanist 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. I'm uncomfortable with the answers to 7 and 8, but overall I think she'll be trustworthy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Excellent candidate.--Hu12 (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. jni (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Normally I'd prefer longer experience on the project, but Travellingcari has already shown that she knows what she's doing. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support I believe that even though this user doesn't have longer experience on this project, but I believe that this user has shown that she knows the policies well enough. Cheers, Razorflame 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support →Christian.И 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support See no problems. Hobartimus (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Stupid2 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support -- has solid experience in article building, and she's also not afraid to say that some articles don't belong. Also, the nominator is always right. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support I don't see anything wrong, and I think she'd make a great admin. nneonneo ^talk 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Candidate is an example excellent of how an administrator should be. Just ignore the troll-ish oppose at no. 1 ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support - Seems OK. Lradrama 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — User believes that verifiable existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion of an article on a given subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So do most of Wikipedians. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I could swear you do this only for attention, Kurt? ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just let it go, people. I doubt that his rationale will prompt any oppose per Kurt votes. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   She's not a self-nom at least, Kurt :) Wizardman 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   What's wrong with a self-nom? It's a "verifiable existence."  ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Stop trolling RFAs, Kurt. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, come on, I'm sure he didn't mean it exactly like that, probably a missworded opposition - but at least it seems to be a real one. He probably mistated the verification policy. Verification is important, but so is notability. He might have meant it in another way. And I don't think he's trolling so much as joking with his self-nom opposes - speaking of which, for a change this isn't one. Valtoras (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per weak arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit Mundi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of motorcycle clubs (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment, thanks for your input. We tend to see different sides of AfD but with regard to Brenda Biesterfeld, I'd just like to comment that WP:ONEEVENT, which is now part of the policy says, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." I haven't seen any coverage of her outside of the library incident so I'm curious as to why you see that as weak. With the others, agree to disagree. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Please expand on the arguments for the List of Motorcycle Clubs--you seem to be saying that if a list contains a predominantly redlinks, it should be deleted--for reference, the link to the list at the time of the AfD is [1] and presently [2] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

   I think redlinks are wonderful for article development. See List of museums in New York for one example I'm intimately familiar with and eager to turn blue. (I'm happy to use an example outside my standard scope of work, this one was just at hand and one I know well). I think museums are inherently notable and therefore a list of them within a certain geographic area is a well-defined list with specific inclusion criteria. I don't think motorcycle clubs are inherently notable and without set inclusion criteria, I'm not sure how well it can be managed and developed. Is it all motorcycle clubs anywhere in the world? What sets inclusion? Notability standards? I think in order for lists to be a useful tool, they need a scope. While I have no inherent bias for or against lists in general, I tend to think link farms and list of red links where development is likelt to add to red link farms and not help navigation don't improve the product. I accept that that lists can serve to enhance categories and vice versa, I don't see how the current list is providing anything not found in Category:Motorcycle clubs. What purpose is it serving? Further, it's almost redundant to Motorcycle club, in that it is no longer a comprehensive list. While I don't intend to take it back to AfD because I don't have a particular interest in whether the list exists, I don't think it's a good use of lists as a separate tool to categories and articles. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose candidate is an editor, therefore can't support. Al Tally (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Vote striken out. The user is parody of User:Kmweber; WP:POINT troll. Icewedge (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • If anyone has any sense they won't reply to this at all. Please don't fan the flames guys. Stay out of it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Stricken per [thisBalloonman (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Awaiting answers to optional questions. See support. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - After reviewing her contributions to AFD I noticed that User:Travellingcari has a habit of avoiding controversial AFD's and just "jumping on the bandwagon" so to speak. I do not find that adding a sixth delete when the tally is already 5 delete, 0 keep[3] or voting to keep when their have already been 4 keep and and no delete votes[4] particularly helpful. If I had the time to do a full research into her contributions then I would probably end up voting support, but I don't and so based of her tendency in AFD's to add what basically amounts to a meaningless comment (the outcome was obvious before she cast her vote; the outcome was not changed) I must vote neutral. Icewedge (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icewedge, I acknowledge your hesitation, but I would also encourage you to look deeper into TCari's AfD experience, if that's your hangup. TCari has numerous times been the initiator of Afds (also called the nominator), and has numerous times been the "first on the scene". Regardless of when she arrives, what is more important, IMO, is how she arrives. Find me one diff that says "per nom". TCari, in my research, always provides rationale for her decisions, always uses existing policy for her logical stances, and even when shown an error in her logic, always is willing to admit a mistake, or shortsight, or whatever. Completely admirable trait in an admin, who is a human being. To be right, and when wrong, to be contrite. What else would you want then an admin willing to "undo" something he/she has done incorrectly? I encourage you to continue your searching, as I have done, and rethink your incorrect perception of this particular editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my neutral. After voting support on another RFA who, while a good candidate, had more serious issues that the one I enumerated in my neutral I realized that I was just being ridiculously fussy here. As she already has overwhelming support I won't bother wasting server space to add my !vote but I now support her 100%. - Icewedge (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral : She leans more to deleting articles . I am not sure whether she will take a neutral opinion while closing AFDs . I personally feel she should concentrate more to article editing before given a mop. I know that edit counts are not any indicative of quality, but I guess she should work more harder to be an admin -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Will make an excellent admin, IMO, with just a little more experience of a greater breadth of WP activity. While I am certain the candidate will not abuse the tools, there is not enough history for me to judge whether they can be trusted with them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral per LessHeard vanU.--Poetlister (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (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.