Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Keilana - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giggy (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 7 January 2008 (→Discussion: re. HUsond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:10, 7 January 2008 by Giggy (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: re. HUsond)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Keilana

Voice your opinion (talk page) (97/1/5/1); Scheduled to end 03:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Keilana (talk · contribs) - This is a reconfirmation RfA.

Keilana was mentioned in this discussion (see also this one) as an admin who had gained the bit under a former username. There have been some requests on her talk page and at other venues for her to resubmit to RfA or in some other way attempt to gauge community consensus. The aim of this RfA is purely to determine of Keilana, under this username, has community-wide consensus to continue her work as an admin.

If this request is closed as unsuccessful by a 'crat, Keilana will resign her adminship, and request its removal on meta. If successful, her adminship will be retained. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With great sadness, I accept. The community's support and trust is essential to my work as an admin, and as I indicated on WT:RFA, I would stand for reconfirmation if any member of the community requests it. Dihydrogen Monoxide requested it, and especially because he is a community member in excellent standing, whom I greatly respect, I accept his request for reconfirmation. This is in no way a pat on the back, I have made mistakes as an administrator. Just look at my talk page. Please do not oppose based on your dislike of the process, please ask yourself the only question that really matters: Does Keilana have my trust to remain an admin, and perform in that role? Thank you all for your consideration, and I promise to step down immediately following a 'crat's closure of the RfA as unsuccessful. If, however, the RfA is closed as successful, I will retain my admin bit and perform to the best of my ability in the role. Respectfully, Keilana(recall) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I suggested Keilana undertake this here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nota bene: See my comments under #Discussion; I was not at all forced into this. Please don't mention my old name, it's easy enough to find in my logs and contribs. Keilana(recall) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Well, my record as an admin should speak for itself. I'll outline my major admin activities though, for those who are unfamiliar with me. I do anti-vandalism work periodically (not as much as I did before becoming an admin), reverting edits, warning users, and blocking users that I find and that have been reported at WP:AIV. I have also deleted many articles at WP:CSD, performing (probably) over 500 deletions. Some of these have been contested by users on my talk page, but none has been contested formally at WP:DRV. I have also replied to WP:RFPP requests, and closed WP:AFD debates. This is just a summary, if anyone requests, I will go into further detail.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I have done both article work and admin work. I am currently collaborating with Dihydrogen Monoxide on a Featured Article Candidate (Odyssey Number Five) and have contributed in gnomish ways to many other article, including copyediting work. I am currently also working on Double Allergic, hoping to take it to FAC soon. Also, I've closed plenty of AfDs and deleted many article tagged for CSD. Again, I'll elaborate if asked.
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 an admin, I've been involved in many conflicts, mostly with people unhappy over my deleting of their articles. I have treated these users civilly and with respect, working out the problem in most cases. Places of interest may be User talk:Keilana/Archive1, User talk:Keilana, User talk:Tilleyg, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete), User talk:Reiskeks, and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Thank you.
Optional question from Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs · uploads)
4. Why do you want adminship?
Thanks for the question. I would like to continue being an admin because I feel that I can be of greater service to the community with a mop in hand. If the community decides that I am not doing the community a service by having the mop, then I will give it up. Best, Keilana(recall) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from Dlae

5. Why are you so secretive about your past on Misplaced Pages?
Real-life events have unfortunately affected my Misplaced Pages editing. I do not feel at liberty to say more. All of my contributions are still visible. Regards, Keilana(recall) 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was expecting this kind of answer.. Did you do anything on Misplaced Pages (an incident, perhaps), or did you just transfer your data under a different username?
No, I did nothing controversial on Misplaced Pages as far as I can tell, at least no one had serious problems with anything I did. No blocks or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilana (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A Yes/No question from Stwalkerster

6. Is your password secure?
A.Yes. Very. And if something happens to it, I have a committed identity. Regards, Keilana(recall) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

This RfA will not be speedily closed. Please don't suggest it. See Deskana's comments. Thank you, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The above banner is void by WP:OWN, WP:PATRONIZE and WP:READWELLWITHOUTBANNERS . Thank you, Húsönd 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The above banner fails WP:HYPOCRISY. I've watered down the original though. Thank you, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ermm, I'm not going to withdraw it unless it looks like it's going to be an utter failure, and Deskana said that they don't close RfAs early as success. Keilana(recall) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dihydrogen Monoxide, I ask that you withdraw your nomination. I imagine you know nothing of the no doubt stressful situation that would cause an /already/ trusted administrator to vanish. (S)he already passed an RfA before, why would community trust change because of a change of username? Sean William @ 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I would not have put this nomination up had it not been as a result of a request of Keilana's. I'm fairly certain I know more than many of the circumstances that Keilana finds herself in, and I do not intend to make them more stressful. I can say more via email/IRC — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is unnecessary. There is no evidence to suggest that the candidates prior username was involved in controversy related to the use of admin tools. Therefore, there is no reason in my mind to expect this candidate to again stand for RfA. 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I had been thinking about this ever since the matter was brought up on my talk page and WT:RFA. I had not decided, but was leaning to seeing if anyone asked me to stand again. Since someone did, I will stand again. I believe firmly in accountability, and want the full trust of the community behind me. Keilana(recall) 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"It shows the practically unanimous support of the community with an unusually high vote total" And that's enough to go by. — DarkFalls 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The results tally clearly links her old contributions to this account, given the harassment she recieved, this is extremely serious and would also make this RfA completely pointless given the fact that there would be no secrecy. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it be alright if this was closed early? I mean, not right now, but does it have to go through the full week? The issue (for lack of a better word) is clear cut, and any who want to oppose for it would have done it within 4 or 5 days. J-ſtanUser page 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it will run for the full week. The "all opposes come in the first half" argument can apply to any RfA, and is thus effectively moot. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No bureaucrat would close an RFA early as "success". --Deskana (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an unnecessary RFA. Keilana has never shown any signs of abusing the administrator tools, neither in this username nor her old one. There is no need to regauge community consensus simply because she's changed her username. I know for a fact that I'd feel a right fool if I opposed this then found out that I'd supported the last one, though that isn't the case with me. There's absolutely nothing different now apart from her username. --Deskana (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but I stated that if any member of the community stepped forward and wanted me to reconfirm, I would. DHMO did, ergo, I am standing again. Keilana(recall) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support - Whatever the past, my review of this editor's present circumstances is more than good enough for me. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Has my support. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strongest possible support. Dreadstar † 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Spebi 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per WP:AGF Darkspots (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. I have no reason to oppose. From what I understand, this is just about a confusion with usernames. J-ſtanUser page 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Haven't seen a reason not to support her. MBisanz 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. This really isn't the right way to do this. Keilana left her old account because of real life harassment - she then created this account to carry on her excellent work. The problem is, people cannot be expected to fully evaluate her contributions when they don't know her old account - it's not really fair on the RfA process. If her account was revealed, then it would mean this RfA was pointless - she's an admin in good standing and doesn't need this RfA. I strongly support Keilana on both her accounts, I just don't support this RfA process, but there's no need to be a dick as I know she does a fantastic job. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ryan, I'm not really sure that I should say this here for the sake of Keilana's privacy (for however it matters), but Keilana has used the one account. She hasn't stopped using one account, registered another and then called this RfA on. Spebi 03:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Echoed, and I'm sorry I didn't realize the source of the confusion here immediately and contact Ryan to explain. 03:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    sorry, I didn't realise that - this makes it even more pointless. I understand your point and won't bring it up here, but come on people, there's no secrecy involved at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Malinaccier (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. — DarkFalls 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Good to see an admin live up to their word SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Sure. Sean William @ 03:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support just like last time, although she does seem to be going down a bit lately... —BoL 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Definitely. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. No problems at all. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support, no reason not to. Wizardman 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Once again - Dureo (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I was only asking a question... Nick mallory (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. Solid admin, and changing her username should have no effect what-so-ever. Ferdia O'Brien /(C) 04:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support No reason to deny the tools. Four edit conflicts! --Charitwo 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. I strongly support this nomination, just like the last time. Acalamari 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. I don't know who Keilana was before, because I'm not going to go look. It doesnt matter, I think I've seen enough of this admin in action to judge without knowing. This is an admin who is so concerned about doing things correctly they opened a DRV on themselves, just to make sure no loose end was missed. WP needs more admins as conscientious as Keilana. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support I am glad to see someone actually go through with a recall process when it is requested. I see no reason to oppose and I think that I can be certain that Keilana holds to her word. Captain panda 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Per the facts that she's already an admin and has done nothing to warrant confiscation of her tools. --Dynaflow babble 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Unquestionable support - absolutely 100%. - Alison 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Lawrence Cohen 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Suggest being more cautious with WP:CSD#A7 than in the James Barker scenario, where the notion of asserting significance could be seen as controversial before the first deletion, let alone the second. For this case, I think it's pretty clear what Soleil was asking for, since the AfD had around half the people wanting to keep the article as it is, and around half wanting to delete or merge the content away. As an aside, the discussion around this RfA have in effect destroyed Keilana's right to vanish, which is unfortunate. She should not have been used as an example, and I hope other editors use more discretion in the future. –Pomte 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support, this user has my confidence to continue acting as an admin. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
  30. Support-No doubt will still stay a good admin...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Unconditional support; the name change was not under a cloud, there is no reason that our trust in her should be in any way weakened because she had to escape notice from unsavory characters. — Coren  05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Weakened support - per Ryan. -- Anonymous Dissident 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Why judge someone by their name when you can judge them by their actions? Your history looks good and you are (obviously) qualified for Adminship. --Sharkface217 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support this seems unnecessary. --- tqbf 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. I have some mild reservations about some of her admin actions. However, her clear willingness to be accountable for them, and her desire to correct any mistakes clearly outweigh this in my mind. Administrators who are willing to admit they could be wrong, and a desire to be accountable for them is a great one, and one we need more of. I (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support, not an editor I had even seen until quite recently, but having checked out the contribs seems to be a good admin and editor, and having also seen the previous username, no issues there either. Shame about the circumstances of this RfA.. -- zzuuzz 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Yep - All looks good, Tiptoety 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Strong Support If user is a good admin who has convincingly established that she was also another good admin, I see no reason why she should be standing for an RfA at all. Gromlakh (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support Midorihana 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I don't believe that this is necessary, but why oppose for that? -MBK004 06:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I dunno which past admin this is, but either way, this editor has been a fantastic sysop. Glad to give my support here. 68.148.134.201 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Anon IPs cannot vote... Jmlk17 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    You are correct, they cannot vote. However, it should be noted that they are allowed to participate in general discussion. Please take the time to let the 'IP' know these things. the_undertow 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Jmlk17 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support good 'pedia builder as well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good editor, good admin. Pastordavid (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Of course. faithless () 07:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support Yes! --Ouro (blah blah) 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support This pointless waste of time. DHMO should know better then to foist this nonsense on the community and it does not speak well of their judgement. The candidate on the other hand.... is an excellent admin. Spartaz 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support I don't see any problem if the name change wasn't of malicious intent. And no serious objection were raised that I'm aware of. Dr.Kane (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    This user had only 7 edits before voting here!--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm trying to be cool here, so let me just emote. Don't strike registered a user's votes. Don't strike anyone's comments. Even comments in poor taste are generally not removed. And as all here know, I am not a policy-type guy. However, 7 edits or 14000, all registered users can vote. You are not the moderator of edit count vs. voting rights. It's bitey, counterproductive, and the investigative skills are tired. Assume good faith. the_undertow 09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Kushan, kindly link me to where the rule states that a member must have X amounts of edits in order to vote? I've been a member here for a long time, and I generally don't make edits due to time constraint in my profession unless I feel that my contribution will be helpful to the community. If this is about having an X amount of edits, I can easily rack up 200+ edits in the next few hours by making tons of low quality edits by adding a worthless sentence or fixing very minor grammatical errors like many people out there, which I will not do. P.S. Thanks undertow. Dr.Kane (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support as affirmation of admin in good standing. Orderinchaos 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support ditto. Tyrenius (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  50. Strong support - a great admin under any name. :) krimpet✽ 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  51. Strongest Possible Support - Absolutely no concerns. Rudget. 10:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support → for the record, I don't like reconfirmation RFAs either, but I don't see any issues around here. Snowolf 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support, and congratulate on the terrific decision to resubmit herself. Dorfklatsch 11:56, January 6, 2008
  54. I'd be foolish to not support Keilana's continuation of Admin role. It takes guts, but you've definitely got a strong enough streak that I don't think you'll have a problem here. --rm 'w avu 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  55. Stronger support than the last time — excellent user and excellent admin ;-) --Agüeybaná 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  57. Absolutely Support and SNOW close as successful there is absolutely no reason for this RFA as hre rename was under non controversial circumstances and it's fine to move the bit in such a case. How do I know it was noncontroversial? Because I, at her request, helped with the rename/RTV process. This right should be respected and she should not feel compelled by others to do an unneeded RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    While the RtV is an absolute right and should be respected, there is no "right" to serve as an admin, or to continue such service after exercising an RtV. Adminship is a privilege, not a right; admins are servants of the community, and the community should have a right to decide whether it has confidence in them. Keilana has done the right thing in submitting to community pressure and going through this RfA. Walton 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    If that were true, that rename under non-contoversial RTV required a new RFA, the bcat would not have renamed her and moved the bit for her. She attained her admin bit privilege under her prior name and the community had their input then. This is no different than if I just now decided to change my name and the bit were moved--I would not need a new RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that a name change does not, in principle, require a new RfA. For the record, I also wasn't one of those who was pressing for her to go through this RfA - I never saw any poor conduct or judgment from her as an admin. And it looks like this RfA will pass with overwhelming support. But I also think that where someone has exercised RtV and is editing under a different username, with no links to their old name, it means that the community does not know who they are, and does not know whether to trust them or not - so I can see the argument of those who asked Keilana to go through this RfA. I also think that reconfirmations are a good thing in themselves, regardless of the reason; they allow the community to decide whether an existing admin still has their trust. I believe, on the basis of her record under her present account (I don't know her old username, and I don't plan to try and find out), that Keilana is trustworthy; and this belief is reinforced by the fact that she voluntarily submitted to this RfA. Walton 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  58. Pedro :  Chat  13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  59. Weak Support. Per Dorftrottel, I applaud her decision to run for reconfirmation. However, I looked through her recent admin logs, and although the vast majority of her admin actions were fine, I found a couple that I wasn't happy with. This page should not have been speedied (a better version has now been recreated, but the original (viewable by admins only) asserted notability and was not a legitimate CSD A7). Likewise, I wasn't impressed with her deletion here: . Her deletion reason read This is ridiculous. Why should some guy that gets in the Olympics and then gets immediately eliminated deserve an article? No way he's going to be covered in reliable, 3rd party sources; he won't satisfy WP:BIO. Chalk it up to WP:IAR. This is clearly an unacceptable use of administrative tools; such comments are fine on AfDs, but not to justify a unilateral admin judgment. (To her credit, however, she subsequently restored the page and took it to AfD when requested to do so.) I almost went neutral as a result of this; however, the question here is not whether Keilana's judgment is perfect, but whether she has done anything bad enough to merit desysopping. Considering that I only found two bad judgment calls out of several hundred, and both were reversible (and reversed), I don't think that she deserves an oppose; she certainly shouldn't be penalised for choosing to submit to the community's judgment when she could easily have not done so. I am very glad that she ran for reconfirmation and submitted to the judgment of the community, and that I have therefore had the opportunity to raise these concerns about her past actions; I hope that she will bear those concerns in mind in her future work as an admin. Walton 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support per all above. No reason not to let her keep the tools. EJF (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support - No problem for Keilana being admin.--WinHunter 13:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support - trustworthy admin. Addhoc (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  63. Strong Support Not, I think, a necessary process under the circumstances, but Keilana has, and retains, my fullest confidence. --Anthony.bradbury 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Weak support. Don't get me wrong, Keilana, you're a great contributor, but this RfA is completely unnecessary. I understand if you want to see if consensus is still in favour of you getting your adminship, but that could easily have been done on a lesser scale at WP:BN, and, if a number of people had opposed, it wouldn't have been performed by a 'crat. Thus, I'm only weak supporting as this is completely unnecessary, however, you always were a good admin, and I have no doubt you will continue that :) Qst 13:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    User later added comment to neutral, striking older comment. Prodego 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support process for process sake, rename shouldnt require an RfA. Gnangarra 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support, as the admin has made excellent use of the tools. I also think this nom was ill-advised, but I'm not familiar with the overall discussion that spawned it, so I'll simply voice my opinion without any particular facts to back it. Thank you, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support I;m just wanted to stress that I admire your guts, even if there is no chance of failure here. Being willing to undergo a new RfA shows that you're masochist enough to be an admin ;) -- lucasbfr 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  67. I support this excellent administrator. I also oppose this pointless process. east.718 at 14:55, January 6, 2008
  68. Support It's a shame what a few editors have put you through on all this.--Alabamaboy (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  69. Supprot the user - I see no reason for this pointless RfA. Will 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support This administrator has always done excellent work and should be allowed to do so in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support I agree with the other views above that this RfA is totally unnecessary and appears to be simply the product of over-thinking on the part of a few editors. Eusebeus (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support this completely pointless RfA. Good administrator, and what was the point in bringing up a couple of errors in hundreds of admin actions? No-one is perfect. BLACKKITE 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  73. Do not disappoint. │here 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support Yup! GlassCobra 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  75. Strong Support I don't know if I have a right to vote, since I rarely make contributions, but from what I have seen of Keilana, she is a great admin despite her youth. I recognized her immediately despite her "vanishing act", and give my full support to her excellent work. One of the most humble admins I have encountered. Eliyohub (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Of course you have suffrage, you aren't editing under an IP or a troll/sockpuppet. Best, Keilana(recall) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support Has been a perfectly good admin. RMHED (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support - no real reason to oppose has been given that I can see. Agree that the RfA is unnecessary. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support - already a good admin, it should stay that way.   jj137 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support While I like the idea of reconfirmation RFAs (they should be more regular, and from less popular admins), I feel this one is very unnecessary, for the following reasons: 1. She's an admin still. 2. She's been an admin only a few months, and passed her original without any problem 3. She was never controversial, afaik. I know I was, that's why I went through RFA, and lo and behold, I was opposed for good reasons. I messed up. This user hasn't messed up. However, you haven't vanished at all. I can still see who you are quite easily. If you are really concerned about your privacy, start a new account. I'm sure you'll live without admin privs for a while. Any user made an admin without an rfa will always be found, and so will their identity, so it isn't recommendable. Anyhow, I support you to continue doing the good job that you are doing, but this particular RFA is unnecessary - that isn't to say all reconfirmations are, just this particular one. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  80. 'n1yaNt 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  81. Golly, if she abuses her tools, take them away. But there is no evidence of that. Now, I can't see the prior account, but I can see that multiple editors have attested that there was no abuse or cloud with the earlier one. That is plenty for me to know. So, go for it. M-ercury at 19:33, January 6, 2008
  82. Support You have a lot of edits (to me) and many of them useful if not all of them. ^__^--Alisyn 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support Still mainspace edits, that's good. Drama with another RFA? More of a system problem. Archtransit (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support. Anthøny 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support. --Versageek 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support An admin who has shown appropriate respect for the delicate balancing act of being an admin. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support. I don't believe this is particularly necessary, but I appreciate Keilana being willing to follow up on an obligation she believes she has incurred. As her use of the bit has not been called into question, there's no reason not to support her continuing to have it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support From what I've seen from this user and his/her previous account, they are well-suited to the job. —Animum (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support Stwalkerster 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  90. Support John254 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support I don't even think I need an explanation. Jonathan § 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  92. Of course. - As it's only a name change, I don't think this reconfirmation was even needed. But since the ball is rolling, I'll kick it ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nice use of metaphor. :) Rudget. 22:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support. The community trusts the person behind the username, whatever that name might be. -- Ned Scott 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  94. Support, Yes I think this person who is an admin and has been an admin without issue should be an admin. I do not however support the idea of using RfA to determine if an existing admin should remain one. 1 != 2 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support. Where's the waste of time? This took me all of 3 minutes to evaluate. Keilana felt she had an obligation to keep her word and kudos to her for doing so. --JayHenry (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  96. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  97. Support per above. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose

Oppose The ideal RfA has at least one oppose - this RfA seems to be headed to WP:100 - possibly WP:200 - and that kind of pile-omn is ridiculous. To the lake (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Plus, I think this is a ridiculous RfA because the editor already has the tools. Reconfirmations are incredibly stupid. To the lake (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, this editor has been blocked indefinitely for operating a disruptive alternative account. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Keilana(recall) 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - sorry but no.. I don't even care to know who you are because this is one of those things that come with adminship "being able to counter all crap dished out to you and not run away with your tail in between your legs" when people begin to stalk you ..for whatever reasons..sorry I know this oppose means nothing but this RfA is more of a "pat in the back" than anything else..I really have to say nope..I have seen many admins leave quoting as "the Right to vanish" and then return with another name and ask for adminship from our gullible crats..nah..sorry, I'd rather not be a part of this but this kind of habit mainly by admins is getting a bit out of the hand..so regretfully ..I oppose...--Cometstyles 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've looked carefully at this situation and I think your characterization is not accurate. I agree with you that admins who start a completely new account and have it given the sysop bit are being unnecessarily secretive. But that's not the case here--this was just a name change. Chick Bowen 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Right to vanish" is what I'm really opposing on..its ok for normal editors to leave on RtV but It really shouldn't apply to admins since as mentioned above were chosen by the community to protect this wiki from trolls/vandals who is recent months have doubled and are getting smarter since previously admins were not that harsh. Since she is already an admin, this is pretty pointless and well just a waste of time...i believe reconfirmation of inactive admins should be done and not those active as well..--Cometstyles 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    For me, right to vanish applies to the user rather than the account, and should be intended as closing everything for good. As so, I do not recognize a Right to vanish to Keilana or whoever that comes back with another name. I do, however, recognize the sensibility of the stalking-issue, and as so, while still believing that RtV doesn't apply in this case, I have no problem in having admins reopped after a name/account change (spare me the discussion on the difference between the two, I value the user, rather then the name s/he uses). I do agree that this RfA serves no purpose, but whatever. Snowolf 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I echo some of Ryan's comment but I express them as a regular community user who has no idea what Keilana's previous admin identity was. Based on Keilana's contribution, I have no reason to oppose her but I also do not have enough established history to support her either. There are a lot of blank pages and I suppose all the community has is to take a far extreme adaption of WP:AGF in the case of admin tools. You don't really know this person but you are going to have to trust the judgment of the crats that give the tools back. To my knowledge, an RtV admin has not yet abused this system and the community has benefited from not losing these valuable contributors due to off-wiki harassment and the like. However, I admittedly do have some overarching concerns and reservation about the process itself. I wonder how obsolete and diminished in importance that WP:RfA becomes when view in hindsight of how RtV admins are handled. In theory, the RfA process is meant to be a community gauge of consensus and trust in the admins based on who they are and what they have done. Supposedly, this is an level playing field since any community member has access to view the same contribution history as anyone else. The case of RtV admins does make it less level since only a small group of people can truly see the "big picture" in order to make an informed decision of whether or not to trust this individual-something that the larger community lacks. Despite my philosophical concerns, I don't see a reason for Keilana to be "test subject" for the conflicts between RtV and RfA and would support this RfA (while made in good faith) to be closed, with Keilana maintaining her admin status, in lieu of a broader community discussion on the main issues. Agne/ 04:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Update After reading the comments above, I understand that this circumstance is a name change rather than a new account that a crat has given the tools back to. That does alleviate a few concerns and I have strike my comment that I do not have a reason to support her either since her contribution history is still in tact. There is the bigger issue of RtV admins in general but it is becoming even more clear that this RfA should probably be closed or withdrawn since this is not a good forum to tackle those larger issues. Agne/ 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    At this point, if I were to withdraw, I would have to be desysopped, as it would be closed as failure. Keilana(recall) 04:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well hopefully a crat will close it early. Agne/ 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's a horrible thing to say. --Charitwo 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    AGF, I think she meant it as successful. Keilana(recall) 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Um, yeah please AGF. As I mentioned before, I think Keilana should retain her admin status. Agne/ 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough, although the way that's worded is easily taken out of context. Apologies. --Charitwo 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. neutral Insufficient MediaWiki-space edits – Gurch 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Could you please clarify? I'm not a programmer or scripter, nor do I claim to be one (though I am trying to familiarize myself with such things). If I were to edit the MediaWiki space, it would do more harm than good. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Keilana(recall) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    As far as I know, Gurch likes to do joke neutrals, as they don't affect the RfA too much. EJF (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think that reconfirmation RfAs are a waste of time, but if I opposed for that reason I'd be blocked for RfA trolling again. So I'm neutralling with a stupid reason instead. Do you have a better idea? – Gurch 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate the consideration of me as an admin rather than the process. (You may read my reasons for starting a reconfirmation RfA at the top of the page). Best, Keilana(recall) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, and those reasons are silly. :) Unless you have people demanding your desysopping at the administrators' noticeboard, this sort of process is entirely unnecessary – Gurch 17:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    True, but I did make a commitment and someone took me up on it. Keilana(recall) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    In which case it's partly your fault for making such a commitment, but mostly DHMO's fault for (a) paying any attention to such a commitment, and (b) coming up with such a stupid reason. Since when is community consensus necessary for an administrator to be renamed? Your username doesn't violate the username policy; that should be the end of it – Gurch 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Please don't blame DiHy for this, I was going to do it if anyone at all requested it, and he was simply the deciding factor. Others indicated their low level of trust in "anono-admins" such as me, which was another reason for my going through with this. Best, Keilana(recall) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Anono-admins"? If by that you mean administrators who do not use their real name, well, I guess we'd better recall 95% of all administrators, then. If by that you mean administrators who changed their username... so what? A pseudonym is a pseudonym, it's not like the previous one meant anything either – Gurch 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think anything will be accomplished by this, it's her choice. --Charitwo 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, I was quoting W.marsh in the WT:RFA thread, saying that he had little trust in admins who changed their name and therefore had no visible RfA. Does that clarify? Best, Keilana(recall) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well it's not as though your RfA suddenly vanished from existence when you changed your username. A simple link from your userpage would suffice to make it easily accessible, no? – Gurch 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    (unindent) Unfortunately, that would completely defeat the purpose of the RtV. Best, Keilana(recall) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. At first I assumed good faith, but this RfA is an absoloute waste of time, especially as you were always a good admin, having this RfA go for no reason other than to get high votes is, in my view, a big no-no. Sorry, :( Qst 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    As I stated earlier, this is in no way a pat on the back. A user in excellent standing requested my reconfirmation, and as I made a promise to stand again if anyone had any concerns (see WT:RFA), I am simply standing by my word. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Keilana(recall) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, a user with an extensive history of username-changes (three? four?) asked you to stand down because you changed your username once. The correct response would have been to laugh at them and tell them to stop stirring up drama :) – Gurch 17:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    That maybe so, and for that, I admire you choice, but I think this is still unnecessary as if anyone objected, they could have easily said it on WP:BN if you requested it back quietly there. Qst 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I highly respect Dihydrogen, and have honored his request because of my respect for him. If some random vandal were to request this, then yes, I would decline because of an obvious bad-faith request. However, I feel that having the full trust of the community is essential. (Clarification: He didn't ask me to stand down, just asked for reconfirmation. I personally feel that there's a difference.) Qst, I have not been without my sysop bit, just for clarification. Best, Keilana(recall) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know which is the case, but presumably, he thinks you should be desysopped, or he doesn't. If he does, his rationale for doing so is ludicrous, and if he doesn't, then this whole thing has been initiated purely for the sake of bureaucracy. I really think reconfirmation RfAs should be prohibited; blatant admin abuse is already dealt with by emergency desysopping, and other admin abuse should be dealt with by blocks (and desysopping if said admin unblocks themselves) in the same way as any other abuse – Gurch 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think it was more of a trust issue than an abuse issue, and I am just keeping my word with this request, but I won't push the issue further. Regards, Keilana(recall) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    On Misplaced Pages, "I have trust issues with this user" usually means "I hate their guts, but I can't actually point to any specific examples of things they've done wrong" – Gurch 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Qst you supported above #64..fix it ...--Cometstyles 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    With all due respect to those who hold the opinion I am about to criticise, opposing somebody because they chose to go through process *rather than* opt for the easier route is flawed logic, in my book. Requests for Adminship is a stressful forum - more so than most others in the project - and a former Administrator seeking his or her tools back should be commended for choosing to bear its burden for seven days, in order to avoid receiving "special treatment". Just my thoughts here, but it seems a rather trivial and unimportant point to refrain from supporting the return of the administrator tools to a user who will obviously make great use of them. Anthøny 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Chrissakes, lads, it's only a neutral. Leave off Qst - his logic is fine. This is a pointless RFA and as such it's quite fine for people to feel uncomfortable supporting it. Moreschi 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral It doesn't merit an oppose, because Keilana has done just fine as an admin. However, while every user has the RTV, that doesn't mean every admin who invokes RTV should automatically get their tools back. I know this is slightly different because of the rename and not switching accounts, and Keilana has done a fine job, hence my neutral. Mønobi 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Protest Neutral - I'm sure you do fine as an admin (no idea, didn't look), but reconfirmation soley because of a rename is a waste of time and a dangerous precedent. If someone doesn't understand the rename process, they need to be educated, not force the admin to go through a needless process. --B (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Close
  1. I support this user but ask for this to be speedy closed, just like any other unnecessary reconfirmation RFAs. Húsönd 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Deskana said that no 'crat would close it early. Also, if I withdraw, I lose the tools. Just to clarify. Keilana(recall) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Why would you lose the tools if you withdrew? Sorry Keilana, you are one of my favorite users but these reconfirmation RFAs are becoming a much unneeded trend. You are open to recall and only a recall RFA should be in order. This is not the case. Húsönd 01:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Errm, it actually is a recall RFA - Alison 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is a reconfirmation RfA. Same diff. The result of RRfAs (as they are called) is that "failed/no consensus --> tools removed". — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed, thanks for clarifying, Alison and DHMO. This is a recall request, technically, and I would lose the tools if I withdrew because it would be closed as a failure/no consensus for me to have the tools, and I would have to ask for desysopping on Meta. Again, not a "I think I'll go through RfA to get a bunch of nice compliments" request, more of a "someone asked me to stand again" thing. Regards, Keilana(recall) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)