Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:20, 12 May 2009

FlyingToaster

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (57/3/3); Scheduled to end 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) — Ladies and Gentlemen, Users, Crats and Admins (and Jimbo of course but I doubt he reads this), it is my pleasure to nominate FlyingToaster (to IRC people known as Boriss (for reasons that are beyond me)) for adminship.

Her first RFA was approximately three months ago and I'm afraid it's no exaggeration to claim that my personal opinions and !vote have been essential in its unsuccessfulness. But even at that time, when I was against her adminship, I knew she would make a great admin, she made only mistakes in the area that I hold dear on Misplaced Pages, which is WP:CSD. So, as she is doing a great work everywhere else, I will refer to neuro's nomination from the last time for a basic overview that is still valid today.

Now, some of you might wonder why I am nominating a user whose previous RFA I was essential in "derailing" (as Tan39 put it last time). Well, I'm a great believer that people can in fact change and learn from their mistakes. And FT has shown to be capable of it beyond my wildest dreams. I knew she would be ready for adminship sooner or later but I can honestly say that she seems to have learned from my previous reasons to oppose rather quickly. If one remembers my oppose from last time, she has made mistakes in the past that were really bad. A dozen grave mis-taggings in a week where a common sight. At her request, I have reviewed her taggings again these days and her taggings since the last RFA show none of those mistakes which last time were reason to oppose for me and many others who followed my reasoning.

I am convinced that FT has not only stopped to make mistakes but realized the very problem of those mistakes, i.e. that every speedy deletion tag might BITE a newcomer and that every article should be handled in another way if somehow possible. Her work in that area now reflects a much more careful approach to the issue and thus I feel I can honestly claim that she has matured from the last RFA already and is now ready to wield the mop. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Acalamari:

I'm delighted to have been given the chance to co-nominate FlyingToaster for her second request for adminship. First off, as SoWhy mentiones above, her CSD work has improved greatly since her first request, though in addition to her good CSD work, she is experienced in both vandal-fighting and in article-writing. This is evidenced by both her AIV/UAA reports (all the ones I reviewed were accurate, and she has over 150 reports to AIV) and her work in creating articles, and copyediting, sourcing, and keeping clean existing pages. People like to see candidates have experience in both those areas of Misplaced Pages, and FlyingToaster meets that standard.

As well as mentioning the good work she does, I'd also like to cover her behavior. I supported FlyingToaster's first RfA on the basis that I liked her positive attitude. FlyingToaster has not let me down since then, and in fact, she has impressed me with her seeking of feedback, her willingness to learn, and genuine good nature. I also understand that she has a sense of humor too, and that, as I've said in past, is an important trait for admins (and people in general) to have.

In short, FlyingToaster is a hard-working and friendly Wikipedian. She has been a great editor, and giving her the tools will be a benefit for us all. Acalamari 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Neurolysis

A little belated, I know, but I'm doing it all the same.

Boriss has experience all over Misplaced Pages, in content creation, maintenance, behind the scenes work, and communal interaction both on collaborative and personal levels. I find her judgment to be great at even the worst of times, and she is never slow to help out people that need it. As has been stated by SoWhy, she has rectified the issues that were brought up at her previous RfA, and with great speed too. I suggest that this speed indicates that she is not afraid to admit to and learn from her mistakes.

And yes, she has a sense of humour. I know that such a thing is not allowed, but nevertheless I strongly endorse this candidate's request for the bit. — neuro 18:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and thank my nominators for their very kind words. FlyingToaster 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: As with my first RfA, the main areas I'd like to jump right into are CSD and AIV. After that, I'd gradually widen the scope of my contributions (probably hitting UAA next), only using admin privileges in areas where I felt I had a thorough understanding of policy and practice. My ultimate goal is to be an admin that is competent and knowledgeable in most areas on Misplaced Pages, so I can be "on call" to deal with problems and backlogs as needed.

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

A: I'm proud of the span of my edits, which generally fall into two categories; content protection and content creation. On the content protection side, I've been Twinkling, new page and recent edit patrolling, wikignoming, and reporting vandals and sockpuppets. On the content creation side, I've been creating requested articles, adding disambiguation pages, making bold edits, fixing redirects, editing images, and taking photos for articles. While lately I've been getting involved in a few projects such as WikiProject Northern Ireland, I see myself as editing for Misplaced Pages as a whole rather than any part specifically.

Since my first RfA failed essentially because of mistakes made while new page patrolling, I've been especially focusing on improving in this area. To that end, I've done some new page patrolling nearly every day since my last RfA and have regularly sought the feedback of experienced editors. Because that feedback has been increasingly positive, I am also proud of the improvement I've made and continue to make in this area.

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: As at the time of my last RfA, I don't believe I've been in a serious conflict with an experienced editor. While I don't feel I particularly avoid conflict, I'm fairly low-controversy because my edits tend to arise from either vandalism, obvious article problems, missing information/citations, or requests. Certainly, conflict is more likely to occur as an admin. I don't generally lose my cool in a stressful situation, and my tack would be the same as I deal with conflicts in real life: keep emotion and anger out of the problem and focus on what is relevant to resolving the conflict peacefully.

Most of my conflicts on Misplaced Pages arise when newer editors are upset because an article they created has been marked for deletion. They often feel singled out or insulted if their topic has been marked not notable. In these instances, I aim to AGF and explain Misplaced Pages's policies for notability, NPOV, what WP is not, etc. Often, these early editors are far from vandals, but simply unaware that articles need to meet certain criteria. Plenty of them go on to be valuable editors, so we have every reason to err on the side of not biting. After the feedback from my first RfA, I have also tried to prevent even speedy deletion from being bitey where possible. For instance, I avoid a vandalism rationale where a notability rationale will do instead, and give editors enough time to add content before marking a page for deletion as content-less.

Optional questions from  Skomorokh 

4a. How would you describe the concerns raised in your previous request for administratorship?

A. I’d summarize the concerns of my last RfA as concern over my errors in tagging pages for speedy deletion. Like many, I got involved in new page patrolling fairly gradually, by watching the edits of other new page patrollers. However, I would’ve done better to wrack the brain of an experienced admin - marking pages for deletion too quickly and with the wrong rationale is very common on Misplaced Pages, and can certainly be biting to new users. Because I stated then, as now, that I was interested in patrolling new pages as an admin, the mistakes I made were the cause of legitimate concern.

4b. Why do you think editors who opposed last time should no longer be concerned?

A. I suppose I’d say “look at my record.” I’ve worked to become a much better new page patroller, and for one of my tags to be declined is now extremely rare - usually done because the editor decided to rewrite the article rather than because the rationale was incorrect. To make sure I was on the right path, I asked many editors for feedback on my new page patrolling, and also did an editor review. As J.delanoy said in that review, my speedy deletion accuracy rate is now just over 99.5%. Also, the fact that SoWhy (my main opposer last time) so kindly offered to nominate me this time I hope will give editors confidence that I have genuinely improved.

Optional question from S Marshall /_Cont

5. Scenario: You're closing a contentious AfD for a BLP. The subject is the bassist for a marginally-notable, but bluelinked, rock band, and there are thirty !votes to take account of. The article has exactly one reliable source, which is a fairly in-depth interview with the band members (including the subject) in a music magazine.

The nominator states: "Delete--the band may be notable, but the article subject is not because notability is not inherited." Nine editors agree.

An administrator states: "Merge and redirect to the band name--while the subject is not notable enough for an article, reliably-sourced material should not be deleted outright." Seven editors agree.

The other fourteen users have !voted "Keep", mainly on the basis of WP:PRESERVE.

In your judgment, the "Keep" !voters are generally less experienced Wikipedians than the "Delete" or "Merge" ones, but you find no evidence of sockpuppetry.

Please explain how you would close this debate, giving details of your view on the interplay of policies that support each position.

A. From the details you provided and assuming I had given my own careful assessment of the discussion, I would merge the bassist’s information with the main article for the band and redirect there. Since many newer users are weighing in on this AfD and may not be aware that AfD’s are not a pure vote, and many would argue that the discussion should be closed as ‘’no consensus,’’ I would also be sure to carefully explain my reasoning and be available to answer questions.

My reasoning is that while on the surface my decision might seem contentious, actually I believe a merge is the best way to reflect both consensus and policy.

Reflection of consensus:

The fourteen keep !votes did so on the basis of WP:PRESERVE, meaning they feel that information should not be deleted if there is a viable reason for it to stay. Merging is, until the bassist is notable in his own right, the best way to preserve this information until he is independently notable. What the keep !votes seem to be objecting to is not a separate article for the bassist, but the deletion of information about him. Thus, I would be sure to preserve the relevant, sourced information in the main article, and be clear in my closure about where the information is.

Reflection of policy:

The administrator above is correct in that notability is independent and not inherited by subordinate topics. The subject must satisfy the notability criteria individually, which in an interview ostensibly about the band does not seem to be satisfied. It is the case, according to WP:BAND, that a musician can be notable if they have been the member of two or more notable bands or a band which has two notable members. Assuming this was not found to be true within the interview, the musician's membership alone would not be enough to assert notability.

I should note that many administrators would likely close the discussion as no consensus and delete the article as a BLP of a relatively unknown, non-public figure. While I feel this is an acceptable interpretation, I personally see no need to delete reliably-sourced material when a merge would work while preserving the information.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

6a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Unless the page was obvious vandalism, and assuming the user had been properly notified, I would not delete the page for a full week. I know that’s a bit longer than many admins would keep such a page, but I don’t feel there’s much to lose by giving what’s likely a newer editor as much time as the under construction tag would allow for anywhere else in Misplaced Pages. That said, I would watch the under construction page, and in all likelihood, if the subject were notable, turn it into a stub to give the user something to start with.

6b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: My answer would be the same in this case.

6c. Given a choice, should Misplaced Pages(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?

A: I don’t think I can or would want to answer this for every Wikipedian, because I think retaining newer users and longer-term users require different skills that different people people possess. For instance, we have a very active welcoming committee full of people who are excellent at being a friendly face to new users. Our newest administrator, Rosiestep, is an example of a person who is very good at welcoming newbies. For me personally, while I enjoy helping new users, I find that I’m better at retaining longer-term contributors. That’s because I very much enjoy building working relationships with other Wikipedians, through vehicles such as project collaboration and adoption. I would hope to continue to do this as an administrator, and would try to make myself as available as possible to help both new and old users.

6d. In closing an AFD, all the comments and analyses of regular AFD participants and long time editors more weighty than those of newbies and anons?

A: I would try not to give any extra weight to experienced users simply by virtue of them being experienced users. An AfD closure is an assessment of the consensus of the discussion, so weighting “consensus” towards experienced users seems both an unfair and opaque practice. A large concern I see in weighting is that it seems to nod to some of the worst criticisms of Misplaced Pages: that we have the appearance of openness while in reality are caballing in the shadows.

That said, in assessing an AfD discussion, I would look at the strength of arguments presented. While I wouldn't give experienced users extra weight for being experienced, their extra experience should serve to make them better assessors of a subject’s notability. If an admin recommends a keep because of reliable sources presented and a newer user recommends deletion because “lol they suck,” I would judge the admin’s argument with more weight - but because of its content, not its author.

And, as much as I would try to assume good faith, AfDs can unfortunately attract canvassing and sockpuppets, so I would always try to assess that the newer users coming to the discussion were doing so of their own volition.

6e. If an athlete biography is nominated for deletion and the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE but fails WP:BIO, which governs? Is your answer the same if the athlete passes WP:BIO but fails WP:ATHLETE - assuming no other notability except sport?

A: In both cases, I would keep the article. I like to default to keeping content if it can be justified, and passing either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE is enough for me.

Optional questions from User:Apoc2400

7a. What articles have you written or significantly expanded?

A: I've created 155 articles and thrown them up here. I'll expand this answer later with highlights (some of those created are stubs) and examples of significant expansion to existing articles.

7b. You say you want to work at Usernames for administrator attention. Why is that? Disclosure: I think UAA should be abolished.

A: My interest in UAA is a reflection of my desire for Misplaced Pages to be an environment that fosters cooperative editing. I believe that usernames should generally be a platform of free speech, and as a result I think you'll find that I'm fairly liberal about what names I find acceptable. The reason I feel UAA can be useful is in preventing names that are outright attacks on other editors and blatant advertising. Just as a vandalism edit which attacks a particular editor is harmful to harmonious editing, so is a username which attacks a particular editor. I do understand your point of view, which is probably that if a user is here to vandalize it will be clear within four edits anyway. However, I don't feel a particular need for User:J.delanoy_eats_babies to be given that chance.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

8. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?

A: The first thing I would do is ignore all rules and contact the editor directly as fast as possible. Suicide threats, which should always be taken seriously, are potentially a ticking time bomb. If I'm the first one that saw the threat, I'm the one that can respond the fastest (Note: I've had some experience with suicide prevention and feel confident being in this situation). Where appropriate, I don't have qualms about giving my contact information or making a phone call. It also would likely be appropriate to direct the user to a professional hotline, such as World Suicide Crisis hotline.

What I wouldn't do is use the suicide response template, and I'd be extremely unlikely to block/lock their pages. If someone is threatening suicide online, there's a good chance they feel isolated and lonely and require a human response. I find the template approach to be cold, and perhaps a reminder of how dehumanizing online life can be. If the user was being aggravated by interaction and attempts to help, I would contact those trying to help and politely tell them to hold it.

I would also alert WP:AN of the situation, and contact the user's local authorities and tell them everything I know. For this, I'd first do some Googling to see if I could find information about their location and identity, and perhaps utilize CheckUser.

9. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: I would contact law enforcement if I saw an intent to commit violence. At worst, it's a hoax and someone's wasted their time. At best, a tragedy could be prevented. There's been enough instances of violent acts being described online first for most law enforcement agencies to take such threats seriously. As far as under what circumstances - I'd apply common sense here. For instance, I would report "My life sucks and I plan on gunning down everyone in geography class" but not "lol i'm gunna make sausages out of rush limbaugh."

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I’m not sure “rights” is quite the right word (if I’m wrong and you want to debate Rawlsian ethics vs utilitarianism, we should totally throw down on my talk page)... maybe a way to frame this is to ask what protections users of Misplaced Pages should expect and what they should not. There’s many of these, so I’ll point to a few that I find personally meaningful:

Editors should expect:

• That they will be able to edit free of harassment and attacks (WP:ATTACK)
• That their actions will be assumed to be made in good faith (WP:AGF)
• That they will be judged by their actions and edits, not their age/nationality/gender/browser of choice (WP:USERS...ish)

Editors should not expect:

• That any subject will be protected from criticism or made to reflect their point of view (WP:NPOV)
• That an editor’s personal/cultural/religious sensitivities will be catered to, or that material they find offensive will be removed (WP:CENSORED)
• That Misplaced Pages articles can be used as an advertisement, soapbox, personal ad, in-joke, etc (WP:NOT)

I see administrative tools as useful for protecting Misplaced Pages content, but also protecting Misplaced Pages users. For instance, personal attacks often lead to the offender being blocked. However, I try to also keep in mind that everything we can rattle off about Misplaced Pages's policies and protections are unknown to most users. That’s why in instances when a policy is violated, it’s best to explain the policy and the problem kindly well before going anywhere near the block hammer.

Additional (optional) questions from Gggh:

11a. Are there any Misplaced Pages policies that you disagree with? If so, what is an example and how do you think it might be improved?

A:

11b. How do you identify pages that need semi-protection?

A:

General comments

• Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster
• Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2

• Links for FlyingToaster: FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for FlyingToaster can be found here.

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - as nominator. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. In addition to all the great things people said about her last time, and the new information above, I can testify that she's been one of the most reliable CSD taggers over the past few months. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
3. We use to fight often (I'm not around anymore) and I am 99% sure she hates me, but she always seems to do a great job, gets involved a lot, helps out when people need it, etc. So, personally feelings pushed aside, she seems like she is quite capable and would be a good addition. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm 99% sure you're being facetious, but nonetheless of course I don't hate you. :P Thanks for the support, Ottava. FlyingToaster 16:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Regardless, we did fight -a lot-. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Support. Took a sizeable sample of speedy deletion tags, AIV reports, and UAA reports. Found nothing of concern. She has improved since her last RFA, and I think she'll do fine as an admin. Useight (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - supported last time, nothing has changed to make me change my mind. //roux   16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
7. I don't believe it matters how long it has been since the most recent RfA, but whether the candidate has learned since then. I believe the candidate has, so I support. NW (Talk) 16:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support seen her around, she's always polite and helpful. Looking at her editing stats, she seems to do good work at WP:Usernames for administrator attention and I've seen her doing new page patrolling. If this passes I'm sure she will make a great admin - Kingpin (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Excellent user who will make a great admin. Majorly talk 16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
10. The correct time to run for adminship again after an unsuccessful bid is "after you have rectified the concerns of most of the opposers". This has most definitely happened. I wasn't convinced either way last time; but with the great contributions continuing and the deletion problems clearly solved, I am happy to support. ~ mazca 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Why the hell not? I don't much care about the time between consecutive RfAs, as long as you have improved significantly, which you have. AvN 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per above - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - Like last time, a good candidate that has the right attitude and can learn from mistakes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Would-have-happily-nommed-again support - You bitch, starting the party without me. — neuro 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. She's okay. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support due to marked improvement in the areas which plagued her last time. Also, the 3 months time frame is a guideline, and as it's been almost three months (just shy of it by about 10 days), I think that's long enough. There is nothing anywhere that says you must wait 3 months to try again. I see no evidence the tools would be abused. ···日本穣 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Supported before, support again. I just miss the dragon story... But seriously, I didn't see CSD a problem last time and it has improved even more. I also want to note that it took 3 edit conflicts for me to submit my !vote. Valley2city 18:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Supported before, support again. I stand by what I said the first time, which is why I'll just copy and paste that opinion. I'm not happy about the sloppy tagging but I still believe sysoping would be a net positive. I know this may be a weak excuse but FT does a lot of newpage patrol and mistakes are inevitable. I also trust that she understands that speedy tagging and speedy deleting are different things. Sloppy tagging is basically newbie biting. Sloppy deleting is newbie biting, chewing and spitting out. Pascal.Tesson (talk)
20. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate helps out new users as an adopter in the adopt a user program (being helpful and a mentor is a great asset for admins whom editors regularly turn to for assistance and experience) and as the candidate has never been blocked, not even accidentally! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I thought she was ready before, and I think she's even more ready now. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support From the I already thought she was an admin. Good luck! America69 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Concerns alleviated from last time - unless there's a bunch of admin links I can't see. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support no worries here, fly high little toaster ϢereSpielChequers 20:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support No reason to believe she'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support User has been around since March 2006 and checked the track and find the concerns of the previous RFA have been overcame.The user has overcame the concerns like in deletion tagging and further the conerns raised by User Sowhy which made the previous RFA fail is the nom of this RFA shows the user has worked extremely positively towards overcaming the concerns .Further fully trust the judgement of Acaramari who is the co nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support-Supported the 1st RFA, can't see why I shouldn't support the user's 2nd attempt.Smallman12q (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Sure, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shappy (talk • contribs)
29. Strong support A strong record of good judgement, collegiality and a willingness to help out. Will be an excellent administrator. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I feel comfortable offering my support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per the answer to my question (number 5). This candidate displays a subtle, nuanced and clueful understanding of policy and consensus.—S Marshall /_Cont 21:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I thought you already was an admin. Lucifer (Talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I supported last time and nothing has changed since then.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Good editor. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support per my criteria and per my !vote last time around. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Definitely! I still think you'll be a great admin. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. Learned something about Disneyland, thanks to the candidate. Great contributions, Friendly and drama free. The community told FlyingToaster to work on her skills at her first RfA; She has convinced her nominator and meets my opinion of what it takes. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Sounds good, we need sysops like flying toaster. ⊕Assasin Joe 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support per SoWhy, and my comments at her recent editor review. J.delanoy_adds 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong support - FlyingToaster's edits are praiseworthy. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support per arguments above. meets my standards. need more qualified, civil, helpful sysops. recall positive encounters in past. Dlohcierekim 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support a good candidate --Stephen 03:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Absolutely - Fastily (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Strong support. Wizardman 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support this time around. Improved where she needed to be. I'm glad I had not discouraged her. DGG (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support I'd have been an oppose in the last one, in which I didn't !vote, the RfA's being not too close, but, per, most prominently, SoWhy, I now conclude that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 05:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Just like last time. Keegan 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
52. You should have bloody told me you were running! Strong Support. User needs to work on her communications skills in future, though :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well excuuuse me for not WP:CANVASing, woman. :D FlyingToaster 05:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

53. Support I've looked at your recent edits and previous RfA; I think you should be speedily promoted PirateSmackK 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support FlyingToaster is by far one of the best CSD taggers I have seen. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support--T'Shael MindMeld 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Delete, clearly nn :) Stifle (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support this time. No lingering concerns. I believe she'll use the tools well. --Moonriddengirl 11:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Last RfA was less than three months ago, almost half of this user's edits are to User talk, and although registered for over three years this editor only really became active towards the end of last year, presumably in preparation for his/her first RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually (from my knowledge) she became active towards the end of last year because she started involving herself with many people (Julian Colton as an example) that encouraged her to be more active. I think she went from a casual user to a dedicated user based on their encouragement, and not necessarily because she wanted adminship. (She also started attending Wiki events and the rest after that point, and there are pictures somewhere on Wiki with her in them, heh). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   You may well be right, but I'd also like to see a bit more interest from the candidate in building content instead of deleting it. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think you and DGG could be great friends with that philosophy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I like to see an interest in both, just as i try to do both myself. Alas, it's inevitable that an Admin will do more deleting than writing, as with myself. DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually she does a lot of content work, although on some fairly bizarre articles. You seem to be grasping at straws - "Oppose per X. X isn't good enough? Fine, also Y" and so on. Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose, but mainly because it's been so soon since the last RfA. Provided that this user's good activity continues (which I don't doubt that it will), I'd gladly support in another couple of months. One (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Changed to neutral. One (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Could you explain why the last RfA, which was a couple of months ago was too soon (and is why you're Opposing), and why you would support another RfA in a couple of month. Nick (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   After I nominated Boriss the first time, we discussed the possibility of another run once the issues brought up had been sorted. The only issue that was really pointed out were CSD issues, and if it is evident that she has corrected the issue, I see no reason why needless bureaucracy should stop her from doing so. — neuro 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Nobody has tried to stop her from doing so. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   After considering the supports and everything a bit more, I've decided to switch to Neutral. One (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Little in the way of audited content work, WPspace editing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. --DougsTech (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
4. A very poor idea. This editor is naive, uniformed and has an appalling record regarding content. One wonders why these people come here, any fool can sit and talk all day, and many do. Giano (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral This second RfA seems too early given that the first one was just held 2 months and a half ago. SoWhy's long opposing rationale at that time was undoubtedly a hammering factor to fail FryingToaster's adminship, but he is the nominator this time. That is a very positive sign that FlyingToaster has improved herself. I have no doubt that FryingToaster is a good editor, but is she changed in such the short time? I would like see some visible evidences from the nominators.--Caspian blue 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, I wanted to present evidence but the problem is that the good taggings are deleted and thus not visible to non-admins anymore. I can only point out to check how many of her requests for speedy deletion (as she uses Twinkle, they all have the same edit summary) still exist and then compare how many of those few which still exist were really bad taggings. Unfortunately it's always easier to present evidence for bad actions than for good actions, at least when it comes to CSD. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Awaiting answers to questions. I worry that FlyingToaster is too much of a "button-pusher" --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Caspian blue. One (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)