Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tokyogirl79: Difference between revisions

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

Tokyogirl79

Final (146/2/0); Closed as successful by (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp at 10:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Tokyogirl79 for adminship. When closing AfD discussions, I am always glad to see Tokyogirl's signature - her comments are always thoughtful and wise, she knows our notability guidelines back to front, and she is always willing to put in the extra mile to find sources for articles that might be saved. Her good judgement in this area is reflected in the 90.6% rate with which her comments match the discussion close.

Tokyogirl is also one of the best things to happen to book and film articles on Wikipedia. I knew that she was a prolific content creator, but when I investigated the list of articles she has started I couldn't help but be impressed. These are not just stubs, either, but are all fully-fledged articles that the project can be proud of. As if this wasn't enough, she also spends a lot of time fixing up both new and existing articles, and has a cool head under pressure. I'm impressed with the way she has handled the dispute at Bend, Not Break so far, although given the amount of praise for her work in her talk page archives, it looks like getting into a dispute is a fairly rare occurrence for her.

Tokyogirl has been around Wikipedia since 2006, and has been actively contributing for 18 months now. During this time she has proved herself an excellent contributor, and I am sure that she would do very good work as an administrator. It's about time we gave her the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TBrandley

Whenever I pass through article for deletion debates, I always run into Tokyogirl and see their excellent, wise comments. Usually, I'll be honest, are quite a bit longer than other comments proving that she can be dedicated to looking for sources and making the wisest argument. She obviously has an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines through experience, including notability, verifiability, civility, and such. With almost 60 percent of contributions to articles, Tokyogirl is an amazing content writer as well, with about 90 articles having created. And a number of these, as Stradivarius pointed out, are almost fully-complete articles. With her brilliant calm, mature behavior always, she is rarely involved in disputes. Having already maintained autopatrolled and rollback rights, I ask why shouldn't we grant Tokyogirl administrator rights. TBrandley ^(review) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Co Nomination by Secret

Sorry for the lengthy co-nomination, but I believe this is an exception. I am glad to have the honor to co-nominate, in my opinion one of the best available non-administrative candidates in the project today in Tokyogirl79.

Mr. Stradivarius nomination sums some of my feelings well, from the amazing 90.6 percent accuracy rate in AFDs to her lengthy list of articles she created. But wait there is much more to her!

Recently many people started to avoid WP:AFD for various reasons. It has become more of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT bloodbaths, and at times it is impossible to read consensus because almost every comment stated isn't grounded in policy, or in most cases no activity at all, even in rather "clear-cut" keep or delete commenting once you research the topics. But Tokyogirl79 is the rare exception. I first encountered her while participating in those debates in which we were occasionally on the opposite sides. I was extremely impressed with her dedication, a calm head dealing with newer editors, and her all around WP:COMMONSENSE that I offered a nomination back in December which she declined. However I decided to put this RFA on my watchlist in case she decided to change her mind, one of only two (now one) RFA redlinks on it.

Her knowledge of policies is clear, especially when it regards books and academic subjects, an area that always been undervalued in the project, despite being better topics for a global encyclopedia than other areas that people waste their time fighting with, like very specific fictional television elements, vague lists, and obvious news events. Tokyogirl79 is the type of editor who instead of simply “voting” keep or delete with some simple rationale, she would evaluate every source imaginable that might meet our criteria in reliable sources in attempt to salvage an article from potential deletion. [1]. Each AFD Tokyogirl79 participates in always have a clear policy based comment behind her rationale, [2] [3] [4] [5] and of course, using her knowledge in our policies and guidelines, she manged to rescue countless articles from deletion. Here before after are before after some before after (and she still comments merge and redirect!) examples, before after oh and prods too.

Quite a number of times after putting some work on an article, she would admit that it is beyond salvageable [6] or needs to be worked on further to see if potential off-line sourcing exists thus giving the opinion to userfying it or saving it on the Article Incubator , [7], an amazing trait I seldom seen from an editor in all my years working at AFD.

She is arguably one of the most respected contributors today in that subject area, and simply put one of the best AFD contributors I've seen in my eight years editing in the project and I'm sure most of you agree on this. I could probably write a book on how strong of a candidate Tokyogirl79 is for the tools, but considering this is a co-nomination, and RFA is WP:NOBIGDEAL. She has long earned our trust in this project, AFD needs more administrative eyes, and she is the best candidate available to deal with that task. Thanks Secret ^account 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Mostly maintenance and custodial work pertaining to WP:AfD, article creation for books (since some books have past article histories I couldn't access), and other aspects, but I'm open to looking at other things.

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

A: I guess I'd say my best contribution would be to take the article Strange Fruit (novel) from this (a stub) to its current state (B status).

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: Some conflicts, yes. It's unavoidable, I think. The most recent was the kerfuffle over the article Bend, Not Break. I did try to seek resolution after a while since I didn't think we were really getting anything accomplished and since more users are now active in the discussion, I'm taking a break from the editing on that article to sort of clear my head. Sometimes the best thing to do is to walk away when you know that you have others there to help keep things progressing, especially when you feel that you might end up holding up the other editors coming in with clearer heads that weren't active in the previous discussions.

Really optional questions for you to answer if you wish to answer questions from the one and only Bonkers The Clown

4. What do you consider to be an inclusionist and what do you consider to be a deletionist? What are you (inclusionist, deletionist, or neither?)

• I've grown to really dislike those terms in general because they're so easily misunderstood. People tend to use it almost as a way of saying that deletionists want to remove the articles on everything but the White House and Queen Mum (which isn't true), while others say inclusionist like it means that the editor wants to keep an article on Mary Smith, checkout clerk extraordinaire. But how I'd define them? I guess I'd say that most of the people I know that identify themselves as deletionists tend to focus predominantly on the articles that are particularly bad in some form or fashion. For the inclusionists I know, I'd say that they're the ones who usually want to give the article the benefit of the doubt when it has several decent sources from smaller RS that aren't as well known rather than sources from bigger and well known RS. I don't know that I'd identify as either at this point in time. Those terms are so limiting. Every good editor should be both.

5' Say I'm a 4-year-old baby editing here right now. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors (like the hypothetical 4-year-old me) that are under the age of majority (ala 4 years old), and how will you deal with such cases as an administrator?

• I actually had an article where a young boy in his early teens (about 11-12) was editing Wikipedia and put enough information on the page to where it would make it somewhat easy for people to track him down, such as his name, where he lived, and other things that were pretty revealing. I removed the information and left him a warning about posting personal information on the Internet. All we can really do is warn in those circumstances and hope they don't re-upload the information.

6 what is more important: Your family or Wikipedia?

• Wikipedia is a family. Hopefully I can have both, but if something happened to my IRL family I'd focus on them first. They know where I sleep, after all. (Answered this anyway!)

Additional question from Razionale

7 Would you have run adminship without having been nominated? Did getting nominated for adminship surprise you?--Razionale (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. I resisted against it for a very long time for the exact reasons that Scray brought up. I'm still slightly hesitant because I know that this is my biggest weakness. I know this might be shooting myself in the foot by saying that, but I think it's better to approach things like this by acknowledging your faults. It's when you don't do this or say you have no issues that people should really worry. Getting this nomination didn't really surprise me since people have been after me for a while now, though.

Additional question from Cncmaster

8. I see you are very active in cleaning up and writing articles, but I don't see you have very much activity in UAA (<20 edits) or AIV (20 edits). If you become an administrator, would you pay much attention to those noticeboards?

A: I'd try to, although I'd probably watch other people for the first month or so unless it was a fairly obvious case. I've not nominated that many people for either board because either someone has beaten me to it or (more commonly) the vandal or UAA hasn't edited for so long that it's not really a huge threat if a promotional username that hasn't edited since 2010/2011 isn't blocked. Sometimes I'll watch some of them, but normally the ones I come across are either inactive or usually content to stop after 1-2 warnings.

Additional question from Ritchie333

9. Although you've been commended already for your work at AfD, I also notice you've had time to contribute to articles, such as Witches of East End. Have you ever considered taking this (or, indeed, any other article) to good article status? If so, what additional work do you feel could be done on the article?

A: I have to say that I'm generally better at starting articles or adding minor details than expanding them to GA status. This is partially because many of the articles I contribute to or create tend to lack a lot of reliable sources to truly expand them as widely as they'd need to be in order to get to GA status. I could write more on the themes of the WoEE, but at some level it's OR unless I can back it up with a RS and while reviews can be used for this, I'm always afraid of it being seen as OR (at worst) or at best, a trivia section. I can't find things to back up themes for these types of books like I could for Strange Fruit. The other reason is that I tend to focus more on saving articles and plan on returning to flesh them out more, but never quite get to it since there are usually other things to work on or save.

;More optional questions from Bonkers The Clown... Again

10. Will becoming an admin distract you from what you are so far doing now?

11. Will you see adminship as a promotion?

12. do you believe in honesty? If yes, do you think admins should have the right to answer assholes in any way they want?

13. So Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In your opinion, is it true that only content matters?

Additional question from Northamerica1000

10. I noticed that you're a participant in WikiProject Books, which I commend. What are your overall impressions regarding the state of WikiProjects at this time on Wikipedia?

A: My basic impression is that while I like them, many of them are in need of some upkeep due to navigation issues on the page (ease of finding what you're looking for) and whether or not the member rosters are up to date to reflect on which people are active within the groups. These are easily surmountable problems for the most part and I've found many of the projects to be incredibly helpful. I have to especially commend WikiProject India, since I had to solicit help there because I was running into a language barrier with another user. After a very short period of time I had several users that were willing to help. WP is always in a state of "needing work", but that's sort of the nature of the beast, especially when you consider that many are fledgling groups and these are rather large undertakings.

Thanks for your insights, which are appreciated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Tokyogirl79: Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tokyogirl79 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats posted on talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Suggest striking Q6: the question strikes me as pointless. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree withstriking question 6.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Also agree with striking Q6. Seems completely off topic to me. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd go a step further and call it exceedingly inappropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and struck it, anyone who disagrees should feel exceptionally free to revert. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask Bonkers the Clown exactly what he is expecting to get out of the questions he has asked, and precisely how it will help make people's minds up which way to !vote on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes those questions Bonkers are saying absurd to say the least and won't help RFA in general in the long run. I would ignore answering those questions, or some crat to cross them out and remove it. Secret ^account 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and strike the lot. As Tazerdadog said, anyone who disagrees should feel exceptionally free to revert. Garamond Lethet
c 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Strongest possible support I'd have co-nommed this if I'd gotten here in time. Tokyogirl79 has been on my list of potential admins since before I was an admin; her contributions to book-and-author-related pages are first-rate and her tremendously in-depth arguments at AFD have always impressed me. I see absolutely no reason not to trust her with the toolkit; she's an assest to Wikipedia now and will only be more valuable with a mop. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. I spotted this nomination in the making over the weekend, and I was very pleased to see it. I've seen Tokyogirl79 around the place a lot, doing all sorts of great work. She's calm, collegial, friendly, understands all manner of wikithings, and I'm sure she'll make an excellent admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible support - thrilled to be near the top of this list. A friendly, collegial editor with a penchant for saving articles, an even-handed and logical approach to AFD, solid source-finding skills and a beautiful drafting style. Would have co-nom'd if I'd known this was coming. Stalwart111 09:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Full support. Widr (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
6. A big support! I'm not much working with Tokyogirl7. Nevertheless, I see that Tokyogirl is a very good editor and is rightful to have the mop. Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Support As per Secret and Yunshai. User has been around editing regularly since October 2011 and has created over 90 articles.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
8. A friendly, courteous and likeable regular at AfD; she has well knowledge of our core policies and guidelines. Has created numerous, substantial articles and I see no reason why I should not Support. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Support, no problems with this candidate. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Yes --Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Tokyogirl79 is a quality editor with a high level of both reasonableness and clue, and I would have no reservations whatsoever about granting her the tools. Honestly, I almost marked this as "Oppose: Editor's nominators went over their wordlimit telling how awesome the candidate is...", but I know some well-intentioned chap would just remove it as a misplaced oppose. You guys are no fun any more. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Is there a word limit? Don't remember seeing one for RFA :-) Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Not to my knowledge - that's part of the joke. ^_^ But from the comments above, it's a wonder she stopped at just a nom and two co-noms! When trusted editors are elbowing each other out of the way to get in a co-nom, that says something about the candidate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Dunno if I can post down here, but that would be one of the funniest oppose votes ever, especially considering how wordy I can get in AfDs and talk pages of various types.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

12. Support Longstanding editor with zero block log and (as far as I can see) no substantial disputes. Such editors should be given a support pretty much by default. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Support. Always impressed by the thought and research that goes into her comments at AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Support as an obvious excellent pick for admin. Wish we had a dozen more candidates like her. Dedicated, hard working, focused on improving the encyclopedia, and we know that she will put the tools to very good use doing what she is already doing. Very happy to hear she is finally seeking the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
15. Support - Seems to be a perfectly reasonable and good editor. However, I disagree with the nomination statement of "Her good judgement in this area is reflected in the 90.6% rate with which her comments match the discussion close." Some people (like myself) generally don't vote in AFDs that are obviously going one way, which would lower the metric. It is easy to get 90%+ "accuracy" if you go find AFDs that are clearly going to close one way and then vote "per everyone else". Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    Fair enough, point taken, and I agree that it's not a good idea to encourage people to play a numbers game at AfD. I meant it as more of a good sign, rather than a good thing in itself, but I probably could have expressed that better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

16. Support - I've always noted that Tokyogirl's arguments at AfD are usually among the most well-reasoned and thoughtful. I offered to nominate her awhile ago, before she felt ready for RfA. She'll do great. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Support - I'm familiar with her work, especially at AfD. She has also done some good article rescue work, for example, Dead Sea products. Definitely someone we can trust to keep the machinery well-oiled. - MrX 15:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
18. Support No concerns, great candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Support I've seen her work at AfD (and other places) - and been impressed by her attempts to find references and additional info for articles. Any delete !votes at AfD are because she's not been able to rescue the articles in question. Peridon (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Support What? No! I wanted to nominate her! :( — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Support no concerns. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Support impressive nominations; plus the areas the candidate says they want to go into (AfD) match their previous strengths as laid out in those nominations. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
23. As co nom Secret ^account 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Support - I've only ran into Tokyogirl recently as a volunteer at DRN but I thought she seemed like a level headed person willing to listen to the other side and make consessions. Happy to offer support Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
25. Support - Excellent contributor, good track record on AfDs and making sure article quality is upheld. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
26. Support Quality candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Support Another excellent candidate and Secret makes a particularly compelling case.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
28. Support - I think that improving an article is the best approach to settling an AfD, and I'm glad to see that she frequently does that. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
29. Non-contemplative support - I've run in to her enough times at AfD that I really don't need to think further as far as whether I think she should have the tools. Good contributor. Go Phightins! 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - I rarely get myself involved in RFAs; here, I'm making an exception. Tokyogirl is a fantastic example of what all admins should be: she works hard, she listens to discussions, and she has a grasp of policy. She's neither a deletionist, nor a keepist, merely someone who goes the extra mile (or several) to attempt to improve articles. I've never bumped into her away from AfDs, apart from occasionally on talk pages, but I've no qualms whatsoever with her. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
31. Support I trust bibliophiles. And she seems to have support from AfD regulars, which is where she intends to work. No red flags. The Interior (Talk) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Support - Has lots of common sense, especially on AfD posts. –TCN7JM 20:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Support Has plenty of clue. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
34. Support per noms. Great candidate. INeverCry 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Support, if only to find out what on earth a fish does with a mop. Joking apart, the closely argued AFD comments are excellent, lots of people beat a path to her talk page for help and advice, and you've got to like an editor who, improves a WP:TOOSOON article before turning it into a redirect, so that there will be useful stuff there when it's no longer too soon. Good answer to Q3, too. --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Support, certainly. I've seen her name frequently when I closed AfDs, always providing insightful comments. I'm sure she is more ready than ever to become an admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
37. mabdul 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
38. Support fully, with admiration for her willingness to look for sources and improve articles (if possible), before offering an opinion at AFD. Congenial and knowledgeable editor. Of great value to the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
39. Support From observations of her work at AfD. Abundant CLUE. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
40. Support Tokyogirl's comments at AfD are sufficient evidence that she knows the difference between thoughtful and useless !votes. AfD sorely needs more voters like her. She'll also do fine as a closer. Kilopi (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Kraxler (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
42. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
43. Amalthea 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
44. Just be wary of the tl;dr effect from now on. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
45. Support as co-nominator. Should have done this sooner ;) TBrandley ^(review) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
46. Support an extremely careful and conscientious editor, very helpful in dealing with problem articles. Willing to admit error or the rare occasions they occur, and not self-important. This is the sort of person we need as an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
47. Strong Support her ability to find and evaluate sources on tricky AFDs is amazing and has earned my respect many times. She'll make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
48. OK, I'm impressed Support — Ched :  ?  00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
49. Support; impressed by her comments whenever I saw them, I thought her to already be an admin. Huon (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
50. Support Yes please. No one works harder at AFDs than her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
51. Support - Great user, I have no concerns. ZappaOMati 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
52. Support. Looks like a very good candidate to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. I've noticed this editor's work (mostly around AfD) for some time. Her thoughtfulness and understanding of policies will make her a valuable asset as an admin.  Gong show 01:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
54. Support knowledgeable and tactful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
55. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
56. Support, with a suggestion I have a feeling might be necessary: when closing debates, try not to over-explain; if you address every argument made, you'll drown out the overall thrust. Chick Bowen 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
57. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
58. Support per Secret and Stfg. Tokyogirl79 looks like exactly the kind of sysop we want. Committed to core values, willing to put in the time and effort to improve the 'pedia, and calm and relaxed enough to not make a big deal of it. Perfect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
59. Support I've seen Tokyogirl79 around in AFD and to be honest I'm impressed with what she does. I think she'll make an excellent administrator. Webclient101^talk 03:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
60. Support Nice user. I'm sure user'll become a good admin.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
61. seems fine Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
62. Support obviously. No concerns here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
63. Support: Yes, sure! Excellent contributor! Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
64. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. It's terrific news for the project that TG79 has decided to run for adminship, and I'm delighted to support. — sparklism ^hey! 08:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
66. great editor --Guerillero | My Talk 08:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
67. Support: Yes! A dedicated editor, with a clear head and a caring nature. Will be a great addition to the ranks of administrators –
     – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
68. Support - No brainer. Probably one of the most consistently well-reasoned !voters at AFD, and she isn't afraid of elbow grease. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
69. Support after substantial reflection (see my earlier comments under "Oppose", below). -- Scray (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support -- We've crossed paths at AFD now and again, and I've always supported her stances and rationales. (Not to mention I have to support a fellow "90% success rate at AFD editor" too!). Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
73. Support. I know of Tokyogirl's AfD contributions--oddly enough in AfDs I put up, not so much from the ones I closed--and find their contributions invariably well-phrased, well-reasoned, and cucumber-cool, whether they agree with my assessment or not. Often they add relevant coverage, and more than once have given me serious thought. To my surprise I just discovered that they also wrote a fair number of articles; I looked at half a dozen and am pleased enough. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
74. Support - no concerns, seems a strong candidate who will be nothing but a benefit to the Project. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
75. Support Per nomination statements, and a pleasure to do so as well. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support No concerns, and you seem like a good person in addition to all of the technical details like AfD. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
77. Support No concerns, answers seem good. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
79. Stephen 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
80. Support: Tokyo has made many fine contributions, such as writing good articles and improving ones that need help. Tokyo also seems to be very knowledgeable with AfD, as their votes matched consensus 90.9% of the time according to this. I am semi-satisfied with the answer to my question Tokyo will make a great admin. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
81. Support Very helpful and friendly towards users I have seen Tokyogirl make alot of great additions to wikipedia, i think she would make a great admin ^-^. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
82. Support. I've seen Tokyogirl out and about in AFD and from what I've seen I have full faith that she would make a great admin. Ducknish (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
83. Support good candidate JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
84. Support this reliable candidate. I wish she could be a little less verbose without sacrificing content. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC).
85. Support I don't usually wander too much into AFD areas, but the one time I was, sure enough Tokyogirl was involved and my interactions with her were excellent. She has my full trust. Spencer^T♦C 04:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
86. Support I admit that I have visited AfD a few times. OK, a few thousand times. I can think of few participants there who have been as thoughtful, diplomatic, helpful and devoted to the improvement of this encyclopedia as Tokyogirl79. Except for me and my buddies, that is. Her balance between exclusionism and deletionism makes those categories obsolete, as they ought to be. Seriously, when I think about becoming a better AfD participant, she is my model. Support without hesitation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
87. Support, a competent editor. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
88. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
89. Support Good editor; will make a good admin. Miniapolis 13:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
90. Support. Solid editor, will be a reliable AfD closer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
91. Support - No concerns.--В и к и T 14:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
92. Very happy to see her here. Tokyogirl79 has consistently impressed me with her contributions notably at AfD.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
93. Support - Of course. Excellent contributor.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
94. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, adequate tenure, adequate number of edits with a nice percentage to mainspace. Bonus points for Dennis Brown endorsement. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
95. Support. No record by Chuck Woolery. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
96. Support. A level head at AfD, focused on policy and on improving the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
97. Support. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
98. Support Nice work at AfD, generally clueful and civil. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
99. Happily. Bags of clue. I've been trying to come up with a theory to rationalise the opposes, and my best guess is that they moved St Patrick's Day forward this year and forgot to tell me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
100. Bam 100 Pile on support.--v/r - TP 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
101. Support per Kilopi. Beagel (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
102. Support trusting this editor with the mop. I've seen her comment often at film-related AfDs, and she always makes sensible efforts and arguments about assessing an article for deletion. One commendable effort was her rescue of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby. Good luck! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
103. Wizardman 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
104. Support. Good editor, admirable participation at AfDs, positive contributor. — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
105. Support. Excellent contributions at AfDs, will make a great Admin. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
106. Support. I haven't crossed paths with the candidate much, but the nominations are very convincing. Looks like an experienced and careful candidate. (And Wikipedia needs more female administrators!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
107. Support. I have only recently taken notice of Tokyogirl79, but I have a favorable impression in that she appears to be calm, thoughtful, and tactful to others. I would feel comfortable approaching her for advice or other requests. Location (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
108. Support I have seen good work at DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
109. Support - Not really familiar with her, but seems like a good risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
110. Support Solid work on Strange Fruit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
111. support per Carrite.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
112. support Good judgement, broad experience, good contributions. TheOverflow (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
113. Support Based on my recollection, I have seen a number of times where someone has said "let's ask Tokyogirl" ... when you're a go-to resource like that, it says lots about your knowledge of the project. I have been unable to find any situations where she has shown any hint of inability to "keep cool". Obviously the editing stats speak for themselves. This is a pretty emphatic "yes", but I reaaaallly ask that there are times you might not want to use your admin bit so that you can keep using your strengths (i.e. your arguments at AFD often turn the course of the discussion - since closing them is not a supervote, your strong arguments might be more important than closing) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
114. I trust the nominator's judgment, candidate looks fine, no red flags pop up for me. Don't see the need to disagree with 110 of my fellow Wikipedians. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
115. Support Tokyogirl has been a great contributor and does the best she can for the pedia. I think that she would make a great admin and could work quite well in the AFD area for sure. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
116. Support, just hope her new role will not slow her excellent work as editor. Cavarrone (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
117. Support Sure. --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
118. Support About time. A very thoughtful, smart editor. Bgwhite (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
119. Support looks well suited all around. Few times I have personally seen her at AfD left very good impression too.--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
120. Strong Support! Tokyo is everything I strive for as an editor around the AFDs. Mkdw^talk 20:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
121. I've had a look at your contribution spread (very well-balanced between article work and WP space work), last several AFD votes (which show active attempts to research and apply policy, instead of merely voting with the crowd; I like that), and your talk page archives going back to November 2012 (which is populated with thoughtful and friendly interactions with other editors, as well as a considerable amount of awards and appreciation—which isn't necessarily a requirement, since low-key editors aren't always noticed—but is most certainly positive nonetheless), and everything looks good. You have a reputation as a friendly and productive editor, two necessities to perform well in the sysop role. I'm happy to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
122. I find it hard to believe that I've never heard of such a well-qualified editor. Nice work so far, and keep it up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
123. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
124. Support per noms. Seems well qualified for the work she intends to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
125. Support. I've been (mostly) pleased with the quality of her work at AfD. Her content work is solid, and she is a thoughtful, hard-working editor. She has my trust. Majoreditor (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
126. Yay. Deryck C. 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
127. Support – A well-intentioned editor that has done valuable work at AfD. I'm particularly impressed by this editor's mindful research regarding sources when contributing at AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
128. Seems like they'll do good work. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 12:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
129. Support Long standing contributor, lots of good work, trustworthy. What's not to like? :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
130. Support This is a superfluous vote at this point, but nevertheless I'd like to be on record as supporting this editor. I have found her to be skilled, enthusiastic, knowledgeable about policy, and generally a joy to work with. She is exactly the kind of editor who ought to be an admin, and I'm glad that my fellow editors overwhelmingly agree.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
131. Support Rzuwig^► 18:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
132. Support Seems like a good candidate. Nothing in the opposes below moves me to that direction. Agree with a lot of the supports above. PaleAqua (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
133. Support. I've seen her around at AfD, and as the supports and noms above describe, she is an incredibly diligent and policy-respecting editor. dci | TALK 19:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
134. Support Positive contributor. I am convinced she will use the tools properly. TempName1 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
135. Support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
136. Support. I am familiar with this user's contributions at AfD and am happy to support. J04n(talk page) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
137. SupportI have encountered the subject of this RfA on a few occasions, and in those occasions I do not recall any issues which would give me a reason to oppose this nomination. The editor, in those encounters, have been the epitome of civility.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
138. Support. Good contributor, no reason to think she will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
139. Support Useful addition to the world of admins.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
140. Support Squeaky clean (unless someone carps about only 85% edit summaries <g>) Collect (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
141. Support Positive contributor with enough experience and a clean history. - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
142. Support I reviewed this person's userpage and talkpage, as well as answers to the above questions. Tokyogirl79 seems polite and clear-speaking as an admin should be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
143. Support. Welcome aboard. -- œ^™ 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
144. Support - One hour left till this RfA closes. Putting my first ever RfA vote on this candidate as a support. :) XapApp (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
145. Last minute support - Good luck! —stay (sic)! 08:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
146. Support - Everything looks great to me! Inks.LWC (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose, very reluctantly. The strengths are highlighted by the nom and many support statements above, and my review of histories is generally very positive. In addition, I've never been the first oppose !vote before. That said, the candidate's opening statement herethis statement really concerns me. It is so far from focused and succinct that it raises questions of maturity. I need to look through more of the candidate's statements in other contexts to see whether this is an outlier or part of a pattern, and I'm certainly planning to revisit this. IMHO, a crucial skill is the ability to process information, place it in the context of policy and guidance, and then succinctly state a well-founded set of conclusions - this is what I've seen from the most effective sysops, and what I see lacking in the statement I've linked. -- Scray (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see great work but still get the impression of wordiness even when there's not much contention. I remain concerned about how the candidate will handle highly charged situations, which will be much more prominent (more difficult to avoid) as an admin. Clarity in the face of strife will be far more important when wielding the bit, and I'm not seeing evidence of that steely focus. -- Scray (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

She and I both started in 2006, and both of us have done a great deal of work at AFD over the years, although we have never worked on the same article that I know of, nor really chatted outside of an AFD template. One of the reasons I'm supporting is seeing exactly how she reacted in heated situations, keeping calm and on topic. I've never seen her get rude or mean at AFD, and it would have been easy to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have immense respect for your judgement with regards to RFA, and have seen no reason to doubt anything you say. I'm moving this !vote because after serious reflection (I opposed very reluctantly) I realized that I am convinced she'll do a good job, but I still think she'll be more effective if she addresses the tl;dr problem and finds her succinct gear. -- Scray (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suffered from TLDR, and still do some days. Getting the bit forced me to become more pithy. We all shortcomings, but I know she will do an excellent job at being fair to everyone and being reasonable in tone, all while striving to improve herself. I appreciate the faith you extend, and I'm confident we are all better off if she has a few extra tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Comment: I did some research, and from what I can tell, this user writes like a 13 year-old speaks, well sort of. I mean, is that what we expect of an administer? I don't think so. At least I don't. But then again, I may vaguewave at some guidelines and say a lot of words that mean nothing in the hopes that you don't realize that I actually have said nothing but typed alot. Sometimes, the contributions at AfD are outstanding, but sometimes confusing. Xe say that can come up with sources for an article. But then, most of the mentions in those sources are brief, or I don't really know if this qualifies for deletion or not. But I'll make sure to bold my vote anyway. Lke srsly, who does that? Xe had a recent speedy declined at Smoky Joe's, but I don't know, that might not have been xys fault. Xe also nominated the same article at AfD, which will likely be kept, but I think that the AfD nomination had merit. Also has a declined speedy at Jon Pastor, but two declined speedies in the last month is probably a fluke considering how long xe has been editing. Well, has really only been editing since 10/2010, but that's a long time in Internet years. What else, IDK, user has a habit of writing way too much for what, in essence, be said in a just a few, short words. At AFD, user will always mention that xe has done research. If xe has done a search, that will also be noted. Will almost always say something vaguely related, but not relevant, in what seems to be a concerted effort to appear smart. Well okay. I guess that's your style, but it's not for me. My concern is that xe will always find a way to be on the fence, even on non-controversial issues. I may or may not find other issues, but the concerns brought up here convince me that this user may or may not be suitable to be an administrator or hold other advanced positions. I will continue to look for issues and pass on them if this survives. Well, RfA is nobigdeal so I guess I'll support. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
   • What? TBrandley ^(review) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
   • So since you are supporting this why is it marked down here under Oppose? If you are pointing out tokyo's own MOS of typing, then I really dont how or why this would be a problem whatsoever. Based on her contributions it has not been an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
   • "administer", "vaguewave", "Lke srsly" (sic, all) and "I guess I'll support" (in the Oppose section). Happy hour somewhere? Stalwart111 03:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
   • To all commenting on this, this vote isn't counted since it starts with a bullet (star) instead of a number (hashtag)... other than that, this comment sounds interesting ... yeah. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
     • True but should'nt this be placed under the "General comments" section then or at the top under discussion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • If the editor's intention was to input a statement about the editor up for RfA, but not input a vote that would count and without asking the editor up for RfA a question, it would in theory belong in the "Neutral" voting section. But, from reading this statement, the editor seemed to have every intent to vote. In fact, it almost looks like that everything typed up there, including all the hypocrisies and the fact that this vote is not counted and the invisible text that can only be seen in the "edit" window, is completely intentional. Steel1943 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • It looks like you're right - he has now clarified his position on his talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
   • Also note the edit summary of "strongly oppose". — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • He starts off "I did some research, and from what I can tell, this user writes like a 13 year-old" and then continues to write like one, talk about irony. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Shouldn't this be moved to the talk page since it's really not a support, oppose or neutral? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Am I allowed to say that this is an utterly garbage comment, full of irony, and even appears to be on the wrong RfA? (speaks like a 13 year old - seriously?) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Okay enough badgering him (yes I know I did it too). Regardless of his comments this request will likely succeed so there is no need to call Nathan names and dwell on this. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Come back in a year please. I see overall similar things to Nathan, but a little extra example: I checked the AFD she had spent most time on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse. This is from last October. Tokyo seems to rebut many individuals with the same points (she has 24 edits to the page). As if she feels like the closer will not count votes that are individually rebutted. She also has a 960 word paragraph (1.3 pages in MS Word, single spaced) and a 450 word paragraph. Other than that, she seems sweet by tone and I can see why she is non controversial. If you pass, Tokyo...please learn how to hit the return bar twice to make paragraphs. And you can do it with indented text in this crazy talk system of Wiki where we don't have separate post boxes (just copy the stupid Wikicolons.)TCO (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   You're opposing because of one AfD where she was telling people popularity doesn't matter in AfDs and two tl;dr paragraphs? –TCN7JM 02:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   "I see overall similar things to Nathan, but a little extra example..." And I really despise how we have the inline commenting on people's vote-comments here. You want to make RFA better, just 100% eliminate the inline rebuttals. If it is super important, start a talk thread or use the discussion section. It never even really goes that well for the rebutters anyhow.TCO (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   I'm going to assume good faith here and hope that wasn't some kind of threat, but I was just wondering why you thought that was a good reason to oppose. I guess I see now that I misread your comment. –TCN7JM 02:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   Brief lesson in Wiki-manners: the word "threat" is commonly used only by disruptors. There was no threat here, and that you assume good faith is a given and shouldn't have to be explicated--it's like saying "with all due respect". Let TCO have their oppose, and leave it at that. Thank you, and moving right along, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   Saying it's not going to end well after I asked about his oppose is using good manners? –TCN7JM 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

   Frankly, I find opposes like this to be ridiculous. How do any of the examples in this oppose provide evidence that the candidate is not ready for adminship? We should be opposing only for valid concerns, not for personality quirks that you personally find slightly annoying. RfA is a simple application for a few additional tools, not a popularity contest or a political election. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

   I agree, in some ways this is like a jury hearing a case. It is best to try and go into the discussion with a neutral mind and look up the history for yourself and seeing the evidence rather than holding a grudge or disliking the person personaly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

   • Effective use of these particular tools requires effective communication. Being succinct is an important aspect of effective communication. Thus, there is a basis for the concerns expressed (they're not simply frivolous), and IMHO the !voter should be allowed to make their comment without having them called "ridiculous". -- Scray (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

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.