Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 10 April 2009

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

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

ChildofMidnight

FINAL (3/39/9); closed per WP:SNOW by EVula at 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present ChildofMidnight for RfA. Since joining in November 2008, he's racked up over seventeen thousand edits. He's a proficient vandal fighter, making sure to leave warnings. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would be a positive force with the mop. DougsTech (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you DougsTech for your nomination. Your selectivity and high standards are well known and respected, and I appreciate the confidence you have expressed in my judgement and good character with this nomination.

I am committed to improving Misplaced Pages and have worked in various areas to this end. I've done a lot of article editing, formatting and reorganization. I've made numerous content additions, including rescuing troubled articles and starting new ones on important but neglected subjects. I've done qutie a bit of work on new page patrol. I've participated in many AfD discussions and contributed to various notice boards.

Many editors will have noticed that I haven't shied away from controversial topics, and while I have certainly made some mistakes, I've tried to be accountable and reasonable in working through challenges as they arise. I always try to work in a collegial and collaborative way with my fellow editors, even as I've wrestled with some thorny issues and challenges. This has sometimes been challenging in subject areas where opinions and emotions are vigorous, but I think these experiences give me unique insights and a foundation of experience to be a helpful contributor to disagreements between other editors as I have a good understanding the dispute resolution process.

Thanks to everyone who has taken an itnerest in my nomination, and I'm sorry for the delay in accepting it. I know there's going to be an enormous rush to support but please take turns and try not to push ahead in line.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

I would like to focus on areas where I have some expertise. These are mostly in the areas of article creation and deletion procedures. I will use my tools to assist in reviewing speedy deletions, moving deleted articles to userspace when appropriate, assisting in closing AfDs, deleting non-controversial pages for page moves and deleting leftover talk pages after AfDs.

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

I'm most proud of my efforts to help editors that are having trouble and the work I've done taking on difficult and contentious subjects. Certainly creating articles and collaborating with others on non-controversial content and making improvements is also satisfying, but that comes easier. And I think the many small fixes are also very important even though they don't receive the glory of DYK honors or article creator honors.

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?

No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves? Seriously though, I've tried to make sure our article coverage is inclusive of content that represents notable viewpoints, including those in the minority. So, for example, I've been working on expanding the access to and inclusion of notable opposition and criticisms of Barack Obama. He's very popular and a lot of editors are protective of our content covering him, but I think it's important that contrary views and opinions also be represented. I've also been a party to disputes on other exciting subject areas like Ayn Rand, Barney Frank, and stick candy. I've also tried to lend a hand to editors who I felt were pushed into a corner (often by their own actions) but who I felt deserved a fair shake and an opportunity to become productive members of our community. I think diversity is important. And my candidacy is in some ways a test of whether editors who have opinions and who seek to resolve thorny issues can still be Admins. I don't pretend I've handled every situation perfectly, or even well. I've made some mistakes, but I've acted in good faith and in the interests of Misplaced Pages even where I understood it was going to be an uphill climb. I think that's valuable even though I think there will be legitimate concerns raised about whether I've been involved in too much drama.

Additional question from iridescent

4. Explain in your own words what's going on here (permalink in case it archives during this RFA; it's currently live on ANI)?

Barney Frank is a political lightning rod. He's a liberal Representative in the U.S. House and the leading Democrat on the Banking committee that oversees the financial sector including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I've been working to improve the introductory paragraphs to better reflect his life's work and the article contents. I've taken the same approach I use on every article I work on, but it's been very contentious. I like clear and concise introductions that cover all the bases. In this case there has been a lot of political passion and it remains unresolved, but we're working through it. Specifically, I think his career and major achievements need to be covered. There has been resistance to saying he's an advocate for gay rights and to mentioning his leading and controversial role in the financial sector. If one side of the partisan debate is included, I think it's important to provide our readers with the other side as well, not in equal portions, but so as not to biased or advocate one particular point of view. I've started an RfC and it's being mediated (it's the poor mediator's first time so he has his work cut out for him, but a second mediator has stepped in to assist). I'm always happy to compromise, and I think the consensus and middleground too often gets obscured by frustration and personal attacks that poison the discussion. That's where I think mediators and Admins can be helpful, although that's not where I will be working as an Admin since it's an area I'm involved.

Additional question from FlyingToaster

5. Given that DougsTech is arguably the most controversial user in recent RfA history, what led you to specifically ask for his nomination?

Essentially, I wanted to stand on my own two feet as a candidate. I appreciate the support I've received from other editors and administrators, but as much as teamwork and advocacy have their place, I'd like to be judged on my merits as an individual. I was curious what DougsTech would say if I asked him. I followed the controversy over the standardized wording of his opposition to RfA candidates, and I think both sides make good arguments. I do respect that he's willing to take some heat for a principle he thinks is important. I was also curious whether he would be willing to be a nom at all and how we would assess my candidacy in particular. Here's a link to our discussion: I removed my initial response shortly after posting it and made this comment instead:. I think my chances of passing an RfA are slim to none, and I'd be perfectly happy to have other good candidates succeed. DougsTech transcluded the nom right away. I would have preferred a bit more time to discuss and assess, but some good questions were asked and I think it's a worthwhile process so I'm going ahead with it. Some other issues arose at around the same time as the initial nom that were quite time consuming, so after being advised there was no time pressure I've waited until now to proceed. Although I have some concerns that my nom may be turned into a circus, I have no interest in promoting drama and I think it's reasonable for the community to have a chance to render a verdict on whether I'd make a good Admin. I'm confident I would, but obviously I've made some mistakes and I understand a reluctance to give the tools to someone who has been involved in disputes. As I said, I haven't always handled things perfectly, but having taken on some difficult challenges and taken a lot of heat, I think I've done a good job and demonstrated a committment to Misplaced Pages.

Additional questions from — Ched :  ? 

6. Given the link that Iridescent has posted, you've obviously attracted a following of dissenters in a short time. How would you be inclined to wield the admin. block powers should you become involved in a heated debate? Feel free to comment on both content debates and conversations on users talk pages.

I'm here to make the encyclopedia better. Any effort on my part to go after anyone who disagrees with me or to use my position to advance a particular POV wouldn't be helpful. I want to be an Admin for all editors, and I want everyone to feel that I'm on their side and pulling for them. I think it's very important that disruptions not interfere with the article building process, but it would be inappropriate to use my tools in any content area in which I'm personally involved. For the sake of appearances and perception, I would not use my tools in political arenas, even where there was a relatively clear cut issue. There are other admins who can handle those situations. I'm aware that my involvement as an Admin in political disputes could do more to cause drama than to eliminate it. I'm here to be constructive so that wouldn't be anything I'm interested in being part of. There are contentious areas where I hope to continue to work as an editor to improve the encyclopedia, but I will not use my tools in any conflicts that arise there. Impartiality and fairness are vital, and upholding high standards is important to me.

Additional questions from — rootology (C)(T)

7. What are your views on WP:BLP? Specifically, do you feel that the current usage of BLP to protect these articles is too strict, too lenient, or just right, and why?

We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf. So I guess I'm okay with our current usage, but bo system is perfect and I'm open to refinements and suggestions on how we can better prevent biographies from being abused to attack people. I'd be happy to help in that discussion if someone wants my involvement or input. :) At the same time I have no objection to fairly including notable controversies and well sourced statements on public figures, and I think our guidelines are clear and reasonable in delineating what content is appropriate. We certainly need to make sure we don't allow articles to be used maliciously for the purpose of targeting or tarnishing someone.

8. Do you support any form of controls on editing, such as Flagged Protection, Flagged Revisions, or any variant? Why, or why not?

I've followed the debate over flagged revisions, and I suppose it will come off as wishy washy when I say I'm just not sure who's right. I think some trial of flagged revisions might be worthwhile, but I share the concerns of those who don't want to overturn a culture of equal opportunity editing. There are a lot of anonymous editors who do great work, and I'd also be concerned about the time considerations and procedural issues involved in reviewing revisions made by anonymous editors. But I'm open to trying it on a limited basis.

9. What is the most valuable type of editor on Misplaced Pages?

I've been impressed with the diversity here. There are editors who do technical issues and a lot of clean up. There are people who work mostly on articles. There are those (especially administrators) who do the patrolling and maintenance. And there are those working to refine our policies and practices. My area of interest and expertise is mostly in article building. But it takes all types to build a great encyclopedia, and thank goodness we have people taking on the various tasks needed. It's sometimes a messy system, but we seem to get things right most of the time and there are processes in place to fix mistakes. I think the differing perspectives help make sure we keep content from reflecting any one perspective. It's great that there is international interest and involvement, and input from a lot of unique and interesting contributors.

10. If a user has a strong personal opinion or belief on something--politics, religion, anything--should you be able to detect any of that in the actual "Article" space edits of a user? Why, or why not?

No and yes. We're human. No two people write the same way. We strive to be neutral (or at least the overwhelming majority here does) and that helps make Misplaced Pages rigorous and useful. Collaboration and the wiki approach (constant improvement, at least ideally) also helps in that effort. But I don't think it's possible to strip the humanity out of the process all together. And I wouldn't want the article content written by robots. I'm committed to keeping bias out, but some color and character is part of all communication, and in some cases it can keep readers interested. There are judgement calls, word choices, and stylistic decisions. Whether we use color or colours and aubergine or eggplants, it's a melting pot and as long as we can keep the advocacy out, and make sure we don't let too much spice into any of the dishes, I think Misplaced Pages will live on without absolute uniformity.

11. Related to the preceding question, do you have any areas you have edited on this or any other Misplaced Pages username ever that you are especially passionate, fervent, or ideological about in real life? Will you be willing to list these here and publically vow to not use your admin tools in ANY capacity on these topics, and make that binding somehow, such as Administrator Recall?

Yes. Everything. I'm a passionate person. I love ideas. I love thinking about things, and wrestling with wording, trying to figure out how to organize and communicate information in the most coherent and well organized way possible. I've worked on contentious political subjects and I will not use my tools in disputes involving those subject areas. I can't think of anything else where perception or appearances of impartiality would make it problematic to use my tools, but I would certainly do my best to refrain from using my tools in areas where I'm personally involved in editing or in relation to subjects I'm actively interested in and working on. Frankly, except for vandals, I'm a very very cautious enforcer anyway. So I would try to use my tools only as a last resort where there isn't another way to help an editor or to resolve a situation so constructive collaboration can work. Protecting a page or polite requests and discussion or getting outside involvement can also be effective. Truly the thing I'm most passionate about is accuracy and making sure Misplaced Pages includes the variety of notable viewpoints that exists. So where there are strong political consideration and my aversion to censorship is strongest I've committed to not using my tools. Our policy is that Misplaced Pages is not censored, but sometimes it takes effort to keep it that way.

Followup question from roux

12. - in light of FlyingToaster's question, can you please explain this diff, specifically the fact that you are, quote, "counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me", especially considering that user is currently banned? Please likewise explain this and this (particularly, quote, "and how I haven't been blocked yet is in fact a bit of a mystery truth be told").

ScienceApologist and I were involved in a disagreement over content months ago. We eventually worked through it, and while our interests and opinions often differ, we have a respect for each other. I think Misplaced Pages should be fun. So even though he's blocked, I was posting a joke on his page out of friendliness. I do the same with other friends. Here's a follow-up post I made on his page if it helps clarify anything .

Questions from GlassCobra

13. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

I would ask the editor to show they are serious by working in their userspace for a while and listing proposed edits or starting an article. They need to take a break an their actions clearly indicate a block was warranted. So abiding by it without complaint would itself demonstrate some good faith, and I would encourage them to show some by acting in good faith.

14. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

I like the idea of accountability. Unfortunately sometimes well intentioned processes get abused. It seems that there are in place methods of weeding out the Admin gone awry. In the heat of dispute sometimes decisions are made hastily, but where there was appropriate deliberation and a reasonable request from well established editors I would certainly consider giving up the "bit".

15. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?

One of the areas where I've made well meaning efforts but soemtimes made mistakes is trying to help and stick up for editors in trouble. I certainly need to redouble my efforts to communicate in the most civil and respectful way, especially as an Administrator. Asking an editor to be patient so that any concerns can be discussed is reasonable. Encouraging an editor to take be patient after the initial block would have been better. It's important to step away when we're frustrated, doubly so as an Admin. There's no hurry to rush to judgement. Edits can always be reverted, so taking time to get impartial input and ensure that there has been appropriate discussion is important.

Questions from Grsz11

16. Under what circumstances would you block an editor on an article that you were involved with?

Basically never. Once I've taken a position and have a stake in something, I think it makes it difficult to be viewed as impartial and appearances are important. If my only involvement is in mediating a dispute, that's different. And even there I think caution and restraint are important. We all get frustrated, but that's a bad time to speak up and an even worse time to take administrative action. I think admins are most effective on subject they don't care about, so they can be totally impartial. Sometimes this creates a learning curve since they don't know the history or the content issues, but the rules for behavior and dispute resolution are clear no matter who is "right" or "wrong".

17. Under what circumstances would you protect a page that you have been involved with?

I wouldn't. I would request a neutral party be contacted to assess the situation, or let the parties know I was going to seek one out. Appearances matter and maintaining the highest standards of impartiality is important. Things don't always work out "right", especially not immediately, but we have to live with an imperfect world even on Misplaced Pages. :) "Knowing" the right answer isn't enough, and getting a second opinion is far better than leaving someone feeling slighted and abused. It sometimes takes time to work through a situation.

Question from Scjessey

18. Would you consider blocking an editor who accused another editor of homophobia? (diff)

I would ask them to refactor their statement and to refrain from making personal attacks. That was an unwise statement on my part, even though I did not directly accuse anyone of homophobia. My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute.

Question from Wikidemon

19. You recently commented about a block, and the blocking administrator, on the page of a blocked user. Do you stand behind those comments, and how would you handle the situation if you came upon it as an administrator?

No. I made a mistake. I had been following the situation and it frustrated me when an editor followed the advice of those disputing his edits and was then blocked for it. But I should have waited until I could discuss the issues more calmly and respectfully. My heart was in the right place, I was trying to stick up for someone and let them know that their contributions and efforts are valued. But I failed to take into account the effect my aggressive behavior had on the other editor, in this case the admin. Misplaced Pages should be fun, and while I will continue to try to help editors having a tough time, I am more aware that sticking up for someone having trouble must be done in a way that's civil and respectful of the other parties.

Question from Collect

20. Some have cast you as being partisan in political articles. Would there be any possibility that you would keep the administrator hat off when dealing with such articles, or at least refrain from using it in any conceivably partisan manner?

When you know someone's an administrator the perception of them is different. So the hat can never be totally taken off. That's why I think it's very important to be aware and sensitive to editors who feel attacked or intimidated. As I've said before, I wouldn't use the tools in any dispute or enforcement involving political content. I also think as an admin is "armed" in a way that other editors are not, that it's important to be especially sensitive and restrained in communicating when there are differences of opinion. I'm human. I'm not perfect, but I try to be accountable and to fix things where I've messed up and to learn for the next time. So some day in the future, admin or not, I will mess up again. But I will do my very best to maintain the utmost restrain and to refrain from using the tools any time I'm frustrated, and to fix any mistakes I make. I won't use my tools at all in relation to editors working on political subjects. I think that's only fair, even where there's a clear cut issue needing admin intervention, it's worth getting a second opinion from someone who is perceived as impartial so there won't be added drama.

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

21. Do you think we have enough admins?

I have worked with several editors who would make good administrators. I think it's helpful to have the work of admins shared among more editors. Occasionally there is a rift or a perception of a rift between admins and editors, so I think sharing the workload and easing the burden might be helpful in allowing admins the opportunity to do a bit more article editing and contributing without feeling that there's not enough time to do so, or that needed maintenance will suffer. Misplaced Pages is very communal, so I think it's good to share responsibility and prevent anyone from feeling they have to take on special responsibilities or deal disputes all the time.

Optional question from Tempodivalse:

22. What is your understanding of consensus? How, as an administrator, would you determine whether consensus does or does not exist? I'm asking you this because, as an administrator, you will inevitably come over a situation where you will have to judge consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in a deletion discussion, article content dispute, etc.

General comments

• Links for ChildofMidnight: ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ChildofMidnight can be found here.
• Promote ChildofMidnight (bureaucrats only)
• No more questions plzkthx. Let's hold off asking more questions for now. CoM's got a slew to work through and this hasn't gone live yet. Thanks! FlyingToaster 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Toaster, I don't mind the questions, if that makes a difference. They all seem like good ones so far. I'm a bit busy at the moment so won't get a chance to address them or proceed with the nom immediately, but I welcome anyone who wants to raise a question. I defer to your judgement, though, if you think allowing additional ones is inappropriate at this time. Cheers. And thanks to everyone for taking the time to drop in and take an interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification CoM - I didn't mean to speak for you, but was just worried that you might be getting a bit overwhelmed. But if you're good, so are we! :D FlyingToaster 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is perfectly okay for any candidate running for any election on Wiki not to answer or ignore to given questions that s/he considers inappropriate, baiting, insulting, uncontructive etc.--Caspian blue 00:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In theory, yes. In practice? Perhaps not. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• For those who prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Has done good work despite the topic bans. -download | sign! 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   What topic bans? I'm always the last to know about these things! :) Thanks for the support. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Support ChildofMidnight is an intelligent and sensible editor whose strength is building contents on cuisine and cultural subjects (look at his shinny 28 DYKs). He also has a decent sense of humor and suave/persuasive communication skills that could be de-escalating squally situations. He has meditated some cases with patience on difficult editors. (look at how he got the nomination from the rising RfA star) Although he took some straightforward approaches in dealing with tough editors for Oh! OMG Obama cases, I strongly believe that Midnight would not abuse the admin bits because he is a sensible editor. He is not afraid of getting himself muddy for disputes that need immediate attention. I think he is a qualified candidate than dramaboard residents who just sit and judge others.--Caspian blue 05:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support This is a tough one but, on the balance, I think COM will make a good admin. That COM has faith in the encyclopedia is well evidenced by the strong positions taken on balance in contentious articles. The answers to questions are excellent and I don't think that he/she will abuse the tools (see responses to q 16 an 17 in particular). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Experience with this user, in particular their actions at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama and comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerusalem21 and seeing their comments all over Talk:Barack Obama indicate that Child of Midnight would be a disruptive administrator, not follow the rules and guidelines, and let personal biases influence administrative judgments. He is too much of a loose cannon to trust with any significant power or authority, there would be nothing gained from having COM as an admin, and much to be lost. TharsHammar and 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeah, no - way too much drama, way too much pointiness, topicban, way too much editwarring, and utter non-answer to my question. Also the very odd asking for a nom, stating in various places that he had 'stumbled into' a nomination, then delaying it for weeks. Not admin criteria by any stretch of the imagination. //roux   04:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. "We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf." Need I say more? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose No. That was completely unnecessary and I could never support someone who goes about with this sort of mentality. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can you be a little more specific about what's wrong with that post? I know I've seen this diff before, but I don't remember the context anymore, and personally I don't see anything terrible in there (CoM has a sarcastic sense of humor, the meatpuppet comment doesn't mean anything). I haven't decided yet whether I will support or oppose this RfA, I just wanted to hear more from this because I'm not sure why exactly you're opposing. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think that it's becuase he asked SA to nom him? —Ed 17 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sure I'll elaborate. One, I'm not comfortable with this " If I go through with the nom I'm counting on you and at least one or two of your meat puppets to support me. " Second, the part about "I'm afraid there's not much left to cling to." To me it came off as rude, curt, and as if ChildofMidnight was trying to make a passive agressive sort of comment. Also, this was one of the things that I though was a bit over the top. I could point out a few more things that I don't care for, but most of the concerns have already been posted and at this point it would be overkill. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Beat the nom oppose Your answers to the questions were sufficient for me to oppose, particularly: No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves? I need not get into your tendentious editing style or your infatuation with drama. ThemFromSpace 05:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Not a chance — R 05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose: Based on this circular argument at Tina Turner, followed by a similar dispute at Michael Jackson (in which CoM attempted to gain the support of Raul to delist Michael Jackson as FA because they found "the procedure on the FAR page...very complicated") I am mortified by this user's conduct with other editors as well as their approach to biographies of living people. The user has shown an incapability to distinguish the verifiable definition of a single word from their own personal opinion. As such, I have no faith the user is capable of properly interpreting broadly worded policies such as WP:BLP, WP:PEACOCK, WP:NPOV, and most importantly WP:OWN. Due to a lack of understanding on how to open something as basic as WP:FAR and their history of aggressive, habitually Condescending attitudes, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust this user with administrative tools. In my 2-3 years on[REDACTED] I have never felt so strongly about opposing anyone. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The issues with POV-pushing and warring are disconcerting and enough for me to oppose. Besides this you also didn't do yourself any favors by having DougsTech nominate you. Valley2city 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   I think question 21 covers the Dougstech issue. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - As a productive editor frequently at the receiving end of ChildofMidnight's vexatious misrepresentations, edit warring, obstruction of process, accusations of bad faith, incitement and shielding of problem editors, and calls for my being banned or blocked, I hate to think what ChildofMidnight would do if actually given the power to do what he/she frequently advocates. COM edit wars has edit warred articles to the point of edit protection again and again, claims as a justification consensus that does not exist, accuses article regulars of disruption for disagreeing, and jumpsed onto pages of blocked and warned users to praise the problem editors while berating in harsh language the administrators trying to deal with them. I have seen editors do worse, but most of those editors are now indeffed or banned. Of those that remain, Of all the good faith editors here this one has without doubt been since the day they joined the most disagreeable biggest thorn in my side and waster of productive time here on the project. All in all, an utter misunderstanding or refusal to come to terms with Misplaced Pages's behavior policies. ChildofMidnight is a capable, intelligent editor with the skills to be a good Wikipedian. And I think ChildofMidnight could be a very good admin too. That he/she chooses has sometimes done otherwise, and the history and evidence of that, are best reserved for the ongoing Arbcom case in which they are a partywe are both parties. Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Lengthy unrelated discussion moved to talk. Landon1980 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Based on statements such as calling the leads of several featured and good articles "crap" and terrible , pronouncing other performers/producers to be peons , insisting that the article contents supported an unsourced use of the descriptor "icon" regarding a singer coupled with posting google search pages suggesting other editors use it to source the content he/she added. He/she then took the same issues to other FA/GA articles, including Michael Jackson, and even approached one of the heads of the WP:FA team to do a runabout to getting the Jackson article delisted. Much obstinance and refusal to cooperate, displaying even a basic grasp of citation formatting, and in the end, only getting around to an apology regarding behavior after the RfA began. What may have been the icing on the cake was the post made here, which ignored the points made by every person who commented on the issues, including that we challenged ChildofMidnight's insertion of the word "icon", not based on our personal opinion, but on lack of sourcing, and the dismissal of the entire issue because he/she "had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!)" - including the aforementioned attempted Michael Jackson delisting. He/she then proceeded to encourage us to read WP:LEAD, "so we're all on the same page as far as policy goes", despite our having tried for 4 days to make clear his/her changes were not in accordance with that. It all ended with encouragement to open a request for comment to resolve the issues - although it was only ChildofMidnight who was on one side, because "I can't do all the work myself after all". I'm still trying to figure that one out. One of my first impressions was "POV warrior" and I've seen nothing in the time since to change that opinion. Did I say oppose?? No? Oppose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose - Firstly I'm concerned about the user (DougsTech (talk · contribs)) that nominated ChildofMidnight. For the user to think that we already have too many admins, it's absurd that the user would then nominate someone. As to this nomination, secondly, I'm opposing this due to the blatant canvassing by ChildofMidnight not once but twice. How does one "stumble" into a possible run for Admin when one is THE one that asked someone else to nominate them? Additionally, ChildofMidnight's recent and multiple violations of WP:REFACTOR (on user talk pages; he calls it spelling corrections but when you change around someone's comment to something totally different than what they said.. well..), WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:OWN and WP:3RR as shown here prevent me from supporting this nomination. Tendentious and disruptive editing is unacceptable, even more so by an Admin. I have sooooooo much more I want to say about this user but I'll just leave it at this.- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose - I only ever comment here if I feel strongly, and I feel strongly about this nomination. I've only encountered the candidate at Tina Turner and Talk:Tina Turner and found the editing style tendentious and the conversation at the talk page very evasive in that the candidate did not particularly address the specific concerns of other editors. This editor continued to push a highly biased viewpoint which was opposed by 4 other editors, who all gave clear reasons which cited examples and relevant policies. This editor's responses demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise or any understanding of WP:CONSENSUS or for that matter WP:NPOV. The comment regarding WP:GA standards - "Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass." does not give me any faith that this editor respects other editors. Then, after this RfA began - a pseudo apology appears in the Talk:Tina Turner page in which the editor says sorry for the behaviour but maintains the POV stance. Usually I assume good faith, and I would like to here, but I see nothing to give me confidence. Question: "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past....." Answer: "No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :)" - the short and correct answer to the question is obviously "yes". I can't take this candidate seriously when even a simple and direct question isn't given a serious and honest answer. Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - My one interaction with the candidate was at an AfD a little over a week ago, where he did not seem to have examined the matter very carefully before commenting. That's not a particularly big deal, but the issues other users have raised are harder to ignore. I'm also perplexed by his answer to question 18: I can't see any way to read the diff that doesn't indicate that he directly accused another user of homophobia. —Emufarmers 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    1. Hi Emufarmers. Those seem to be the same diff. I thought the artist was marginally notable so I suggested merging the comic in with his article. I'm not sure why you think I didn't investigate carefully. Can you clarify? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose - This editor, from what I have seen of his interactions with the community, produces a great deal of unneccessary drama, and I believe granting him the admin tools would only exarcebate this drama. Skinny87 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per nom. But I do appreciate your thoughtful answer to my question. FlyingToaster 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
16. There are lots of things that I like about this candidacy. I think that asking Dougstech for a nomination despite not sharing his views on adminship was an interesting and amusing ploy; I respect having a clean block log despite some controversial work. But "Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass" was only in February and I don't want admins who talk about fellow editors that way. Also re Political editing, a classic political tactic is to stereotype an opponent as primarily representing one ethnic, gender or geographic community and by implication not representing a large part of the electorate that elected them. If you're going to work on Political biographies you need to be able to spot subtle attacks like that. ϢereSpielChequers 08:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose CoM's statemnt above "My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute." could apply equally to his/her involvement in the various Ayn Rand debates. There is no evidence that admin powers would not be used in support of a very clear political agenda or the trivial (the bacon cabal). The last thing you want is a player of games to have access to more tools. --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - But absolutely not bothered in the least by the nom, and I see absolutely no reason why anyone else should be. Seems drama-prone, and the diffs and comments above lead me to believe that this candidate would be an inappropriate candidate for the bit at this time. If you were to come back and demonstrate that you had a good understanding of consensus, had moved away from the drama, had better policy knowledge, had improved your temperament, and generally moved on from the issues being presented here, I would consider supporting a future request. — neuro 09:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose - Drama prone user who changes others talk page comments. As Neurolysis says, the diffs and comments make me feel that for the time being, he can't be trusted with the mop. I would suggest that he again reads Misplaced Pages's rules, understands them and probably re-nominates himself within 6-12 months. Pmlinediter   09:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

    Getting nominated by DougsTech is not a problem, but not getting his vote definitely is. Pmlinediter   09:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

20. As above. Majorly talk 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose I am not going to fill up these pages with diffs, so I am simply going to state that the candidate has not shown either the maturity or discipline to be trusted with the tools. Their judgement would also appear to be faulty in that they are proceeding with this request despite the obvious antipathy to them gaining the mop at this time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose per nom. AvN 10:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
23. No thank you - drama central as it is - would be even worse if granted the tools.Pedro :  Chat  10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
24. I have serious concerns over your ability to remain neutral when using admin tools - you haven't had a great record of that as a regular editor, and the amount of drama that seems to follow you everywhere causes further worries. ~ mazca 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose Recent events convince me this editor is not suitable. I had hoped that this RfA wouldn't take place as there has been enough drama in which this editor has been involved, and the outcome was never in question, even by the candidate. I'm not sure if this is faulty judgement as suggested by LessHeard vanU, or something else, but whatever, this RfA is unnecessary. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
26. BWAHAHAH...er, Oppose - But in all seriousness, really, no. Even if we set aside the questionable nomination by a controversial AfD participant and the nominee going about his merry business while the nomination festered for weeks before accepting, we're down to the main issue of behavior as an editor, which is IMO atrocious. Numerous AN/I filings on the nominee...and equally numerous, petty counter-filings in retaliation, the incessant edit warring in Barack Obama-related article space, leaping to the defense of some of the worst now-banned POV vandals. To avoid reinventing the wheel, many many links to diffs can be found at the active ArbCom case many of us are involved in. It appears that the nominee can be a productive editor in non-political areas, but even if we did not have all of the above self-created wiki-drama, I do not see a real rationale for why admin tools are necessary. This is not a user I would ever trust in a position of authority, one who regular users embroiled in disputes could turn to in good faith that they would be heard before an objective admin. Tarc (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose, Comments above by Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) and WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) raise some concerns, among others, however like Neurolysis (talk · contribs) I agree that the user does some positive work on this project in multiple capacities, and I'd consider supporting at a future RFA at some point. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Per above.--Giants27 /C 12:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Serious concerns about this user's judgement due to the two direct approaches to users the community obviously does not hold in good standing. I do not believe it would be wise to have an administrator who sees nothing wrong with an RfA nomination from DougsTech, Giano or ScienceApologist, all three of which have had genuinely worrying run-ins with the community.  GARDEN  12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose. From my own, limited experience with CoM, from reading the links provided here, checking CoM's credentials, contributions and from reading the contents of this page, I would not have confidence in CoM's ability to effectively wield the mop. Amongst my most serious concerns are CoM's involvement in the disputes listed above, in which CoM has taken a rather heated part, as shown in the links above- particularly as regards the Barney Frank article, where, without looking for consensus, CoM has repeatedly added in material known to be controversial. Next, the trivial attitude shown through comments such as let the opposers speak for themselves and the answer to the question concerning disputes leads me to believe that CoM has set out, at best, with no real interest in becoming an admin and, at worst, with the deliberate intention to deceive the community in the hope that nobody would bother to check credentials before commenting- in direct defiance of the guidelines which state that administrators "must have gained the trust of the community". One need look no further than the answer to question 3 in order to gauge the contempt in which this user holds the community whose trust has supposedly been earned. Further examples of the frivolity with which CoM treats this process are the blatant approaches of users canvassing for support and asking (of all people) DougsTech who is conspicuous at this debate only by absence for the nomination. Above all, CoM has deliberately avoided giving any solid answer to almost all of the questions, in particular the ones dealing with his editing. As such, I'm afraid I cannot possibly endorse this nomination- perhaps if CoM could keep his nose clean for a months, without causing major conflict and run for the right reasons, rather than the kudos, I could consider advocating his adminship. HJMitchell You rang? 12:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose According to some of the other opposes you have been very disruptive in the past. Maybe if you had a time of about 9 months of no conflicts and then went to RFA maybe. You seem like a strong vandal fighter and have done lots of article work but like lots of editors have told me, it's not about the count.--(NGG) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose per the above opposes. Sorry, but I can't trust you with the tools. Timmeh! 13:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oh, Come On Joke nom from the start. PhGustaf (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

    Remember to assume good faith — care to back this up? I see no evidence that this is a joke. — neuro 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

34. Well now. After reading the brouhaha that ensued over this before transclusion, I am surprised this went live-- bad judgment? 19-- admitted bad judgment just this month. Too soon. 18 dropped the "troll" bomb. Too likely to fuel rather than extinguish a blaze. 1. Running through CSD to unilaterally reverse CSD's? We have DRV for that-- too likely to wheel war. I could be wrong, but I have the impression that the candidate is someone whose temperament is unsuited for adminship. Dlohcierekim 13:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose. Research of the above comments and even a quick glance at the Nominee's talk page produces a result contrary to the end goal. I give ChildofMidnight by strongest support to continue where he does his best, providing great content. He is a capable editor, full of energy, and needs to stay focused on benefiting the encyclopedia. I would suggest that his engaging in dramas and jabs, no matter the principle, results in a depreciation of his overall efforts. ChildofMidnight, please accept my comments as constructive criticism, and an effort to encourage your continued positive influence in the main space. --Preceding unsigned comment 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Extremely poor choice of nominator. Tan | 39 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose - Yes, I'm piling on. I am utterly baffled by the choice of nominator - and the nominator's willingness to boot. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose — silly nomination in the first place. ► RATEL ◄ 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
39. The judgment and behavioral issues are one thing, but the nomination leads me to question how seriously CoM takes this. –Juliancolton |  15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Already seeing from these supports and opposes, I cannot go either way. On one end, he has done good work, but his attitude leaves much to be desired. Until It Sleeps 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak neutral - I came here to support, but the oppose arguments have me worried. Will return in a few days. —Ed 17 05:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I realise some editors hate this section, but I hate piling on with opposes to RFAs that are obviously going to fail. I don't think ChildofMidnight should be an admin at this time, but I don't think he deserves the fiercely negative reception he's got so far either. When I saw how many opposes this RFA was getting, I assumed ChildofMidnight must be some kind of vandal or tendentious editor; but having taken a look at his edits, that doesn't seem to be the case. What I see is a user who has good intentions and does genuinely want to improve Misplaced Pages, but keeps getting into disputes and isn't very good at resolving them. Those disputes - for example, the edit-warring at Barney Frank - are enough to stop me from supporting this time. However, I recognise that ChildofMidnight has apologised for his past mistakes, and seems to be making improvements already - as shown, I think, by his answers to the questions. My advice to him would be: don't get too put off by the level of opposition here, but understand that you don't need to be an admin to be an effective contributor to Misplaced Pages. Moreover, not everyone who might make a good admin passes RFA. Basically, I think ChildofMidnight has a low chance of passing RFA, based on his previous behaviour; but that shouldn't stop him trying to be a good editor. What's important is not who has the tools, but who acts like an admin, in a calm, reasonable and collaborative manner. If you keep up to admin levels of behaviour, then people will admire and respect you accordingly; and who knows, maybe you'll eventually pass RFA after all. You're not there yet, but if you take the time to learn the rules and skills of working cooperatively, one day you might be. Robofish (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Moral Support Basically Not now. I like the breath of fresh air, I like the devotion and full-steam-ahead boldness, and indeed I intended to fully support the candidate in the beginning. I'll try to avoid a "tldr" post, and simply say that Child's response to Black Kite's deletion of the RfA, and a few of the ensuing comments left me doubtful of Child's judgment. I admire the desire to improve articles, and I think the project has benefited from your addition to our collective; however, I think you need to learn how to work from within the community more. It's good that you stick up for others, and that you don't get vindictive, but I think you need to learn that when the community as a whole has achieved consensus on a matter - it's best to accept that. We're not here to provide an amusement park, or your own personal fun-house. It's good that you enjoy what you do, as volunteers, we all should do likewise; but this isn't a project designed as a playground, and I think your lack of experience clouds your judgment at times. I encourage you to continue, and I won't pile-on oppose, but I think it's obvious that you're not ready to be an admin. yet. You don't have to go-along just to get along Child, but you do need to learn how to avoid going against the grain. I understand that your's is not the path of least resistance, but you don't have to alienate folks just to get to where you're going. Best of luck, and I look forward to working with you in the future. — Ched :  ?  07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: I do like your responses to some tough questions too. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   OK, you basically said what I was trying to, but put it better. :) I won't say more for now, except that while I do think ChildofMidnight might have what it takes to become an admin one day, I also hope he understands why this RFA is failing - and recognises that his opposers, while not particularly civil, do have legitimate complaints. He's going to have to accept that and work on his problem areas if he wants to pass RFA in future. Robofish (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   Which of the opposers are you accusing of incivility? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral This is obviously not going to pass so I'm not going to oppose, but I don't feel that he would make a suitable administrator. GT5162 09:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I'm uncomfortable with the level of drama, that's all. Malinaccier (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral I would certainly have preferred a more absolute answer to my question, and WP definitely needs admins, and some of the opposes are not necessarily based on the issues we ought to be considering. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   What do you believe they are based on then? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral Opposes give me pause. Meetare Shappy 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral - Even if a miracle were to take place, this RFA will fail. So, I'm not going to oppose. Please work on your problem areas. AdjustShift (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Law

Nomination

Final (101/23/4); Originally scheduled to end 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Law (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gents, I'd like to present Law for consideration for adminship. Since joining in September 2008, he's racked up over five thousand edits, nearly half of which are in the mainspace. He's a proficient vandal fighter, always making sure to leave warnings, and has over 60 reports to AIV. Law is most frequently seen at DYK, verifying hooks and making sure that entered articles are up to every standard. He himself has six DYKs, all from articles that he created and wrote by himself, as well as several articles that he's saved from being deleted or otherwise improved. Furthermore, he is skilled at taking high quality pictures, and has contributed a good number to our articles, the latest of which can be seen at chocolate-covered bacon. He has expressed a very strong interest in helping the DYK process run more smoothly, continuing his work there and helping to update the template on time. Finally, Law has a fantastic temperament and sense of humor, with experienced and new users alike. This is a highly trustworthy user, who would undoubtedly be a positive force with the mop. GlassCobra 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I do accept. _shoot! 08:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The candidate may make an optional statement here.

I also want to make it completely transparent that I took over this username. I was XF Law before I was just Law. Also, my edit count, early on, was inflated by using Huggle. I found my watchlist to be so fascinating because I kept seeing edits made with (HG) and (TW). I came from another wiki, so had never seen these tools, and in turn, I asked for "rollback", in order to use Huggle. I was denied, but because I didn't have any experience in Recent Changes. That is simply not a concept I had seen. Eventually, I was trusted with it, and Huggled quite alot from the get go. A few months in, like another wiki-buddy I have, I delved into article creation and then DYK. (I'd name the editor, but it could be seen as canvassing him specifically, so I should best leave that out!) _shoot! 08:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: DYK. We are all volunteers and I love working at DYK. One thing I like about it is how dynamic it is. Changing rapidly, I feel it gets new editors and readers alike, interested in something that may have never been available to them. I would also be willing to help at AIV, but to be honest, my primary work would be at DYK. I know a lot of candidates say they can clear up backlogs, but as adept as I may be with policy, I'm just loving my work at DYK. I know the "mop" would allow me further access to DYK, as I would love to participate in the queues, as well as minor tweaks. Usernames that are not suitable, as well as ANI do spark my interest, as well.

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

A: My best? Local talent. I love the fact that this wiki allows me to take pictures, create articles. and show others that I'm not just a taxation-lover, but I do think, Dick's Last Resort and Tilted Kilt are important. In all honesty I took this from PROD to a viable article. I'm just sentimental that way, as these are places I actually visit. My article creation is my best contribution, because I am excited to see how, in months, or years, they evolve as articles. Notability is a funny thing because it is predicated on reliable sources. One would think I would mention the Supreme Court cases I've written, but to me, every article that passes WP:N has its place here. My best contributions are those that I have created, expanded, or saved because notability is forever. I would not put this much time into a hobby if I thought they wouldn't be expanded, re-written, and more importantly, they will evolve. I am excited to see what my children have to look forward to.

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: Once a user used an edit summary that downed me. That prompted me to inquire as to why. We settled it. As far as stress, I think that if it isn't physical, I have no excuse to be stressed. I like it here. Stress is something I can handle, but wiki-stress should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, it's important, but stress? No. Get consensus and move on. That's not to say that WP couldn't cause me stress - it has. It probably always will. But I try my best to keep things in perspective, and if I feel stress coming on, here on WP, I will simply ask for another pair of eyes to see if my reaction to that stress was realistic. If not, I welcome all input because we all have different buttons that can be pushed. It's not realistic to say that I have zero stress here, because people will, and do have differences of opinion. As far as conflict -- I would rather get things out in the open, and settled as quickly and effectively as possible. I have no willingness to prolong any conflict. If we are all here for the same reason, then I find that almost all editors are willing to come to a happy medium.

Optional questions from S Marshall

4a. How strong's your password?

A My password is the same strength as my WPA encryption. DYK I have my MSCE certs as well? Lol. It's 61 characters to be exact. Have fun with that one! _shoot! 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

4b. You're closing an AfD. IThe article under discussion's about a subject you're not personally familiar with—say, for example, Rites of passage among aboriginal australians—and the AfD's a mess. There are twenty-six contributions. Fourteen of them are from IP addresses tagged as single-purpose accounts; of these, twelve say "delete per nom", one says "delete" without giving a rationale, and one says "delete because none of the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources". Of the remaining twelve, nine successive !votes are from relatively new editors (between 10 and 200 edits each) saying some variation of "Keep, because it would be racist to delete this". Beneath that is a remark from an administrator chiding one of these editors for canvassing (and he provides diffs to show that the first of these nine canvassed all his on-wiki friends on their talk pages). Beneath that is that same administrator's !vote ("delete for lack of reliable sources"), and then a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as inclusionist saying "Keep: it would be possible to write a reliably-sourced, encyclopaedic article with this title", and finally, a !vote from an established editor widely-regarded as a deletionist saying "Delete this original research".

Please provide your assessment of this debate and state how you would close it.

A I do admit that I don't plan to close an AfD, and as this is not linear (which makes it harder for me to grasp), I suppose that I should be able to grasp the concept of consensus. To me, consensus is not numbers, but viability in the strength of one side of a debate. In this case, it is a pickle. In fact, the 'deletes per nom' are hard to assess because there is no nom rationale provided. Assuming the nom was part of the canvassing (not sure), I still can't give any more weight to the deletionist, the admin, nor the inclusionist. To be quite honest, all I see are 2 valid !votes here. One says the article can be sourced (although that is most likely on the burden of the participant) and one that cries OR. In this case, I would close as no consensus, seeing as the 2 strongest arguments are pitted against one another. As of right now, it is my understanding that no consensus is equal to a non-deletion. In this case, I would not delete. _shoot! 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

4c. A new editor called Fluffy1339 has written an article about a corporation. The article is promotional, and is tagged for speedy deletion. The editor removed the tag, the article went to AfD, and was deleted after due process. The editor then went on to request that it be userfied so she could fix it, and another administrator did that. The restoring administrator has subsequently retired.

A few weeks later, you receive a note on your talk page from another editor, saying that Fluffy1339 has restored the article into mainspace in several different places, with titles that were slightly different to the title that was deleted at AfD. You verify that this is correct and remove the articles in question. Then Fluffy1339 leaves an insulting message on your talk page saying you're harrassing her.

As her next action, she proceeds to write a new article using slightly different wording about the same company. What do you do now?

A First, I think that speedy tags should not be removed by the creator, so it probably should have been deleted from the get go. However, in this example, it made it past PROD and to AFD. The fact that the admin who deleted the article has unfortunately retired doesn't exempt it from DRV, however. The alleged harassment by the author is nothing I would take into account, but it simply boils down to this - if this is an article that was deleted via consensus at AFD, and recreated, it qualifies for speedy deletion. I would, of course, go on to explain to the article creator how AFD is not a prejudicial process and urge them to re-create said article in their userspace with some guidance by stellar editors who encourage the editor to become part of the process, as I don't want to alienate an new user. _shoot! 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Q 4c followup that's not the policy. The policy for G4 is that it only applies " provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." One point of being an admin is that you can see the deleted content before carrying out the deletion. The editor placing the tag is normally having to guess. Second, it';s not the policy that anything from which a speedy tag is removed by the author is automatically deleted. they shouldn't do it, of course, but sometimes they are right about the article , and we consider the article, just as we do if they had properly placed a hangon. My follow up Q is, whether you think you understand the policies concerning the privileges you will be having? I don't think one needs to know everything, there's about half the potential functions I don;t know yet beyond the very basics, but any admin will come across articles that need Speedy deletion, even if working primarily elsewhere--its one of the fundamental areas. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in the hypothetical above, the article went to AFD, and was deleted. It was recreated exactly the same, only under different article titles. G4 mentions a copy, by any title. Unless we are getting our signals crossed, I will have to stick by my answer. I also didn't mean to imply that I would delete an article simply because an author removed a tag; I was indicating that the author should not have removed the tag, even when placing 'hangon.' Thanks. _shoot! 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Stifle

5. You have comparatively few deleted contributions, suggesting that you have little or no experience with deletion tagging. While you haven't mentioned that you intend to work in deletion, can you commit to informing yourself on policies before any future move to that area?

A. That I can. In fact, I find it a bit disheartening when articles are tagged for 'non-assertion of notability' when the 'tagger' misunderstood the tag to mean 'non-notable.' Same would be true for those who tag articles as 'nonsense' when they are not exactly a random sequence of QWERTY strokes. I think those tags are misunderstood by many people on Misplaced Pages, to be honest.

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?

A. If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image. I suppose the exception would be an inactive individual who is known for such an image, and not much else. In short, personally, I would rather be safe and not use any non-free image for any living person, regardless of the image exception. _shoot! 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Do you support the concept of a fused profession?

A. After reading the article I can only support the concept of someone sourcing it :) _shoot! 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Quadell

8. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. I really don't have much experience in this. One time (at band camp) Rutabaga was going to be moved to Swede (vegetable) against my opinion. But that's how consensus works. How did I react? I still eat rutabega, and would continue to edit the article kindly. Consensus is king here, so as I am a guest on Misplaced Pages, I abide by it. In my profession, we, as Americans, adhere to international consensus all the time. It's a learning process, and generally a good one. _shoot! 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Looie496

9. Forgive me for being a bit blunt. I see absolutely nothing bad in your record, but I do see that you haven't had time to develop much maturity, and haven't experienced much conflict. Why should we have confidence that when you do experience conflict, you will handle it appropriately?

A. I've been looking over the opposes about conflict resolution, and here is what I can come up with as far as my experience. I have not been involved in serious conflict because I don't let it escalate to that point. I have worked with other editors on article talk pages, and follow consensus. The areas I work in, are not generally prone to conflict, as I can see. For example, former Supreme Court cases are settled; not much room to argue there. Working at DYK and creating articles about pubs is not likely to lead to any conflict. To answer your question, I work (in real life) in an atmosphere that is very charged. If I may be so bold, there reason you see little experience of conflict is because I have become quite capable of working with others in an effort to avoid such conflict. It's my experience that tells me it takes more than one person to engage in a conflict. As in taxation, I abide by policies and rules set forth by the IRS. I have to because this is the profession I chose. With Misplaced Pages, I also abide by the same, because I'm a guest here. In addition, I suppose one could also surmise that my temperament is that of someone who can prevent a situation from becoming a conflict, and I hardly excitable. I have a very high threshold when it comes interpersonal interaction and I would say that my lack of conflict on this website is part luck, part of the areas in which I work, and part my reactions to situations. I simply don't lose my cool. It's tax season, I'm writing a thesis which will be put up for publication, I'm graduating and have finals soon. Hopefully that is a good indicator that I am extremely calm under fire. Thanks. I know this was long. _shoot! 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

10a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think that having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can pose a problem for any subject. In addition, it is especially devastating for the living because we need to respect their privacy, be accurate, stay neutral, and certainly we don't want to libel anyone nor damage them. I think there is a problem, and from just fringe interaction on WP, I think it a rather large problem, to be honest. It seems another problem is that the community is split on whether the problem exists, and to what extent.

10b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A:Hot water here - especially having seen your userpage several times, Jennavecia. I don't believe that flagged revisions are a good thing. I find that one of the greatest qualities of Misplaced Pages is that it is dynamic; almost organic and live. Having revisions goes against that and makes the site less fluid. For #2, I'm being honest when I say I don't like the idea of adding a 'reviewer' to the process. I do agree that BLP is a concern; I'm not convinced this is the fix. If consensus is to take this trial run, I'll be there to help. Like I've mentioned, I'm a guest here, and I abide by house rules. Liberal use of semi-protection is my recommendation. The disadvantage is that an IP may get discouraged from editing. The advantage is that an IP may find WP to be serious business enough to register an account and stay for awhile. In addition, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, as I respect IPs as much as I do any editor. In my experience, the amount of IP vandalism appears to me to be greater than vandalism caused by registered users. I think it's less likely that someone will register an account, wait patiently for days, and vandalize a semi-protected page. However, I've seen it happen.

10c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I will not be closing any AFDs. I have participated in very few. If I had to, I would abide by the current policy and keep when there is no consensus. However, I am also an individual who believes that no consensus on a BLP should be a delete. I will not invoke IAR if this case arise, I just wanted to make it clear that this is just one policy I don't happen to agree with.

10d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: First, I completed your question using another RFA - hope that is okay. This is such a difficult question. I have heard about this happening and seen accounts where this really serves to polarize editors here. My personal opinion - if it's a marginally notable individual who is being harmed, I have no problems with the deletion of the article if there is no consensus. Emotionally I try to empathize with this person, but the only consideration I can give them is the same consideration I would give to any editor that participates in a deletion debate. This is why I don't plan on closing AFDs, because the policy on BLPs and no consensus is something I would like to change. I would feel hypocritical enforcing a closure that I felt was a result of a policy I would like to help amend. Thanks. _shoot! 05:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 11. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 11a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:There are many reasons, I suppose. 3rr vios are not good for anyone. Gross violation of NPA and CIV would be another. General disruption would warrant a block, but none should be a punishment.

• 11b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: If there was clear evidence that an edit war occurred, or if a BLP was being desecrated by an IP, I would protect a page. However, I feel this would be a last resort in an edit war; I would rather confront the editors than lock down an article.

• 11c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: Nonsense, attacks, and copyright vios would not be taken lightly. I may work in DYK, but I have experience in this field. The aforementioned examples would merit speedy deletions. However, spam and short articles are things I would rather discuss with the author before such a speedy deletion.

• 11d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: This policy is a cornerstone, but should not be taken lightly. It was meant to be a caveat to general guidelines. IAR if you feel the rules prevent you from improving what we do here. Like I mentioned above, I would IAR with a marginal BLP that had no consensus at AFD, but that is not a field in which I have any interest. I believe there is no one great example to when IAR should be evoked, but if the occasion should arise, I would do so, and ask for consensus on my action.

• 12. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: I apologize if I am being terse, but I think that consensus transcends each example. I have looked over the link you provided, but I still apply consensus as I would to my own real-life work. If there is a better justification, provided by policy, then that to me, is consensus. It has less to do with numbers, and more to do with the strength of the argument. If an argument is strong, and backed by policy, it could be a dead heat, however I find consensus to be not a count, but the will of those who use policy as justification.

• 13. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: I would try and de-escalate the situation first, by asking the editors to take the discussion back to the talk page of the article. I would remind each editor that while I'm happy to mediate, it should be done with transparency and on the article page. I've found that before drastic actions are taken, eg protecting the page, it is much better to look at what has transpired, as far as 3RR, NPOV, and RS are concerned. I am convinced I can help those two users find a resolve before any administrative action need occur. In my experience, if it escalates to such a situation, odds are that one, if not both editors, have broken a policy or a guideline.

• 14. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I feel that I can better serve DYK by having access to facets that I do not have at this moment. Other than that, I could clear a backlog if needed, but again, that's not my reason for accepting this nom. _shoot! 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

• 15a Follow-up to 10d -- A few months ago I came across a paper on counter-terrorism. I looked up the author, so I could assess their credentials. I found that they had written other papers, and delivered speeches. They were a professor of law, specializing in counter-terrorism at the Coast Guard Academy -- and remained an active NCIS agent. I thought this was sufficient to justify starting an article on this individual. IIRC it was three or four paragraphs long, and cited half a dozen references. A couple of weeks later I found it had been deleted. I asked the deleting administrator for an explanation, and they told me the subject of the article had asked for its deletion, confirmed through OTRS. This administrator told me the subject of the article did not challenge the accuracy or neutrality of the article -- they just didn't want to be covered here. The administrator, if I understood them, thought that the subject was of marginal notability. And that BLP, when the subject did not want to be covered, authorized the deletion of articles when, in their sole judgment, the subject who complained was of marginal notability. Note: the article did contain an explicit assertion of notability. So, normally, it would have required a {{prod}} or {{afd}}. I asked the administrator in question to userify the article. And they declined -- citing BLP. So -- do you think there should be a loophole, where an adminstrator should be authorized to delete biographical articles that assert notability, on their sole judgment, when the subject has stated they don't want to be covered here? Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear as if there was a loophole here, but moreso an application of IAR. Did you consider a deletion review? I think I'm the one answering the questions ;) No, the specific loophole you mention is nothing that interests me. A unilateral decision like this, which circumvents important deletion procedures ignores consensus, and this project is predicated on community input. One additional problem is that you mentioned 'marginal notability.' In this case, who makes that call? I would, as a member of the community, liked to have been involved in the discussion as to the degree of notability, but there was none. That's a problem. _shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 15b. Related to above -- the deletion policies all recommend that the nominator leave the article creator (and possibly major contributors) a heads-up, on their talk page, of the nomination. One of my concerns is that when administrators exercise their authority to delete, on sight, articles that meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion, the policy doesn't assign anyone the responsibility to inform the person who started the article that it was deleted. My reading of the Administrator's guide to deletion was that it recommended that administrators reserve their power to delete on sight for actual emergency situations, and that, when they think they see an article that meets a CSD criteria, they should tag the article with a speedy deletion tag, just like everyone else, so the article gets seen by two sets of eyes. If you were entrusted with administrator authority, would you delete, on sight, all articles you thought met a CSD? Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and libel - like someone who has drawn something inappropriate on a classroom chalkboard, for example - should be deleted without having to wait for the tag. However, it is very important that speedy deletions remain this 2-step process in most other instances, so we don't end up with administrators playing the role of the tagger, and the role of the deletor. It defeats checks and balances. If I run across an article that does not assert notability, you can guarantee that I will tag it and wait for due process. Two sets of eyes can only serve to be better than one. _shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 16. In the oppose section another contributor wrote: "There is already too much disruption caused by editor lawmen who feel they have the authority to interpret copyright law for all of wikipedia." I don't remember ever working on the same page as you, or participating in the same discussion. So, are you a lawyer? I too have had concerns over the compliance of some other wikipedians who were lawyers with WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. There are projects, like the Citizendium, where individuals who are experts in real life are allowed are allowed to make contributions we would consider original research. But, here on the wikipedia, individuals don't establish their real world credentials. That is part of the reason why wikipedians who claim to be experts in real life are generally expected to cite verifiable, authoritative, reliable sources, just like everyone else. Do you think this same standard should apply to wikipedians who claim to be lawyers? Should the rest of us give any more credit to their personal conclusions and assertions on legal matters than we would to the conclusions and assertions of any other wikipedian? Similarly, do you think administrators who are lawyers in real life should base rulings, and make {{afd}} closures, on topics related to the law, based on their real-life interpretation of the law? Geo Swan (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm by no means a lawyer. 'Law' is the name of a character from a video game :) I'm not sure why the editor who opposed me made the assumption that I was interpreting copyright law; the consensus, even from another opposing voice, was that I was correct about that particular policy. I certainly wouldn't believe someone was a lawyer, just because they use that as their WP persona. To answer your questions, there is no profession that should trump another here. I'm in taxation. But should you trust me more? Absolutely not. You cannot be sure I'm telling the truth. And if I'm using apparent expertise to write an article, it's likely I'm taking my information from the same sources that are available to any editor, so there is nothing special about what I do. A lawyer should should not use legal interpretations on any closures, just as I wouldn't use personal experiences as a substitute for policy. We are equal here - profession is simply not an issue, because we are all encyclopedia builders when we login to this site. _shoot! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from rʨanaɢ /_contribs

• 17. You intend to use admin tools to help out at DYK, so I would like to hear what your stance is on several issues that have been controversial there in recent months (not necessarily controversial within the DYK community, but things that have drawn criticism or questions from outside:

no. copying from pd is not a new article. one thing that has been quite a source of contention is the use of public domain at DYK. While PD is quite fine for an existing article, we use DYK to attract new users as editors and readers alike. I would prefer that new information is introduced and exploited for articles at DYK. Public domain, while correct, goes against the train of thought that something new has been brought to light.

• 17a. Is it ok to feature articles that contain some text from public domain sources? What about articles translated directly from another language version of Misplaced Pages?

Again, many editors have decided to contribute because DYK is such a great invite for them. FA's are essentially great works, as DYK is an encouragement to help out. I have worked and seen my articles translated into other languages. But one thing, which may divide the community is that DKY and the main page is still en-wiki. If it is a strict translation from another language, or perhaps public domain, it does not lend credence to the fact that we are here at DYK to introduce NEW and interesting articles for the purpose of getting others interested. I think cross-translation is the best; I have a friend who does that from EN to Spanish. It should be not a translated article and something that is new to english speakers, as that is why we are en. Now, the articles may be great ones, but not ready for DYK.

same as above. pd is copy and paste. while it is acceptable for article space, not for dyk.

• 17b. Are there any topics or subjects that categorically cannot be accepted to put on the main page? Or certain kinds of hooks that are unacceptable?

not censored, but more important, tact. contentious terms, inflammatory pictures, although OK for commons, should stay off main dyk space. Defamatory hooks are out. BLP hooks, should be taken with a sense of caution. And yes, I get that WP is not censored, but that doesn't negate the fact that I feel that tact is imperitive when being on the mainpage of the most popular website in the world. To be honest, can I have a vagina on my userpage? Yep. Would I -- no. NOTCENSORED says nothing about an editor's ability to make a tactful decision. I'm all for freedom in this project. Freedom also comes with responsibility .

• 17c. How much inline referencing is necessary to pass DYK, beyond the reference used for the hook? Does this change if most of the references are from a single source or author? a contributor should realize that rules at dyk can be easily followed

I learned this lesson the hard way. If you have a hook, do the favor of sourcing it. That's not just a DYK rule, but all information should be adequately sourced.

• 17d. Does DYK have "too many rules"?

no. the rules at dyk are simple and more importantly they are good rules tha have evolved ovr time. <-- bad grammar on my part. but i still think the rules are good.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

For those that prefer them:

• • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Editing stats posted at the talk page –Juliancolton |  14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Did you know... ...that there must be tons of people not commenting this because they can't come up with a good DYK?  iMatthew :  Chat  15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a general note, I suppose that I understand the opposes regarding not enough conflict experience, though I'd just like to point out that we promote a high number of gnome admins on a regular basis. However, I find it pretty disheartening to see that a solid six or seven months and five thousand edits is now considered "not enough experience" or a long enough term on Wiki. GlassCobra 04:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I absolutely whole-heartily agree. WP:GOLDENTICKET. Keegan 04:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

my computer did not survive a six story fall. & as my father as gone into heart failure, I am not asking for sympathy. I am using the on screen keyboard to address any issues. i cant in good faith respond to my opposition and i cant a address other questions 4 the duration of rfa. base this on my experience & regardless of the outcome it is ok guys,

I cannot address all the opposers about my free image question (#6) but I would like to offer cut and paste policy v. my answer. I think it could shed more light that any rebuttal I may have:

Policy: Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

My Answer:

If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image. I suppose the exception would be an inactive individual who is known for such an image, and not much else. In short, personally, I would rather be safe and not use any non-free image for any living person, regardless of the image exception, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

I hope one can see that my answer was a summary of our policy based on my knowledge, and I can't apologize for my answer because I think it adheres to the goal of the project. _shoot! 10:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Did you know... ... that Law makes helpful edits, has polite interactions with other users, and would make a good admin? FlyingToaster 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Did you know... ... that the highly persuasive and quality nomination from GC, coupled with exceptional answers to the questions, persuaded Pedro to support this request?. Pedro :  Chat  11:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Did you know... ... that this user is extremely trustworthy, and doesn't give off any reason to not support them?  iMatthew :  Chat  11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Did you know... ... that Law is a clueful user who would be a benefit to Misplaced Pages as an administrator? Meetare Shappy 11:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Someone had to break the above chain. Seems to combine vandal-fighting with a decent amount of mainspace work and working with articles in the form of DYK. Net positive to the project, why the hell not. —Cyclonenim | Chat  11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Did you know... ... that Cyclonenim is a combo breaker? — neuro 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   :) Pedro :  Chat  11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Did you know... ... that Law has a good contribution history, is always courteous when communicating with other users, and can be trusted with the admin tools? --CapitalR (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Did you know... ... that the rule of Law is better than the rule of any individual? And how could anyone dare oppose that? --candle•wicke 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Y'all are a bunch of fools. –Juliancolton |  13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Eh, you're right. How dare anybody have a little bit of fun. Julian, I think you should get to blocking us all.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sure, alright then. Who wants to go first? –Juliancolton |  13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Is this the point where I raise my hand? — neuro 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Do I smell a WP:EFD nomination? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Did you know... that I support this request as the nominator? GlassCobra 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Did you know that Law has a clean block log and one of Law's barnstars is for rescuing an article? ϢereSpielChequers 14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Did you know... that Law is obviously a quiet and competent contributor, can be trusted to wield the mop sanely, and more importantly can be trusted to not use the mop in areas he is not familiar with? //roux   14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Did you know... that this is getting out of hand. But srsly, Law has been a net positive to the project, and I think we can only benefit from having another set of hands here as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Did you know... That Law does both article work and countervandalism?--Res2216firestar 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Did you know... that Pedro is right? At least in this case. ;) —Ed 17 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Did you know... that I'm happy with the candidate's answers to my questions? (There are things I could quibble--in question 4b, more than two !votes contribute to the strength of the argument, and in question 4c the candidate is arguably no longer an uninvolved administrator so perhaps should not delete himself; but I find the thought processes behind his answers clear and clueful.)—S Marshall /_Cont 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Did you know... that I can't believe I'm continuing this ridiculous trend? Did you also know that I've had nothing but positive experiences with Law, and that I think he'd make an extra administrator due to his maturity and good knowledge of how Misplaced Pages works? And did you also know that I feel like I'm talking in the Australian Questioning Intonation? ~ mazca 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Does good work, and no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
18. No I did not but hell why not? Go-ahead from me. NVO (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Did you know... that Law has done excellent work on a number of articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as Wisconsin_Department_of_Revenue_v._William_Wrigley,_Jr.,_Co., Golsen_v._Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue and Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Did you know... that Law participates in the WikiProject: Supreme Court of the United States? miranda 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Did you know... that starting their !votes with "Did you know..." was probably the most predictable way people will do it in this RFA?^^ Not that this will stop me from doing it myself. The oppose reasoning does not convince me, people can easily get knowledgeable in 7 months. Hell, I may have been registered for 4 years before my RFA but I did not start getting involved before May 2008. And I passed RFA in October, which is much shorter than Law was really involved here. And I have seen him around often, not once in a negative way. Will make a fine admin. Regards SoWhy 18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Did you know...that when I was up for RfA, all it took was a few thousand edits, a few months, and a cluebat to get a mop? Sometimes I like your style, SoWhy :) Keegan 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    

22. Did you know... that Mailer Diablo approves this message? (hand illustration pictured) - 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Did you know... that I have no idea what to write? But seriously, though the user has only been active for seven months, I've seen editors applying for RFA who have been around for years who have created huge amounts of drama and chaos. As such, and given that I fail to see any drama-making in Law's edits, I have no hesitation in applying AGF and supporting the user. Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Did you Know I'm still around? And did you know that I cant see anything wrong here and I found the guy very funny :)(not the reason I voted for him I hasten to add :D)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheWeatherman (talk • contribs)

    Did you Know ...that you should generally sign your votes at a RFA? Cheers. I' 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

25. Did you know... that laws, unlike rules, cannot be ignored? Good find, GlassCobra. Keegan 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Did you know... that I didn't know he wasn't an admin already? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Did you know... that a user doesn't have to be on[REDACTED] for years to make a good admin. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Did you know... That law is cool. LAWL. MBisanz 22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support No reason not to support Law. Good luck. America69 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
31. C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!! — Jake Wartenberg 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Did you know... that I am happy to support Law's bid for adminship? Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support because there can only be a certain amount of "Did you know..."s before the joke gets old. Tavix |  Talk  01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. No concerns about "not enough experience" for me. Dwr12 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Consistently solid talk page correspondence and contributions / collaboration. The dispute resolution abilities exhibited here are reassuring to me. One thing - a major reason WP has administrators is because conflicts come up that require resolution, so I hope you realize what you're signing up for. Good luck. Townlake (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh yes, I am well aware that I will surely face certain conflict. Like I stated below, I am adept at putting out fires before they start, and I see my lack of conflicts as a positive, and not a weakness. _shoot! 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

36. Support Answer to question 9 resolved my doubts. Looie496 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Did you know... ... that I want to start this ball rolling again? Law has proven himself to me not only from the content he has developed, but also from the great answers he's given in the questions above. Obviously has a clue about things, and is willing to help. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
38. I have no reason to oppose this. However, could we stop with the stupid DYK jokes? It's not funny and could be harming the candidate's chances. It's really pissing me off.  GARDEN  08:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, see Oppose 8 -- apparently the editor actually went looking for a reason to oppose just because of the DYK jokes, though for the life of me I don't understand why. GlassCobra 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    That is absolutely outrageous. We have some incredulous oppose reasons before but I think think takes the biscuit.  GARDEN  12:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

39. Support - looks fine to me, good answers to questions and a good contribution history. Camw (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Good answers to a particularly demanding set of questions, and a satisfactory degree of experience across the project. --Anthony.bradbury 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support on strength of answers and general tone of maturity. This will be a fine Admin. Good luck! / edg ☺ ☭ 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Eight months is long enough experience in my opinion, and for what he plans on doing as an administrator, I see no problem with giving Law the mop. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong Support - Candidate understands the BLP problem; gave thoughtful answers to my questions, explaining his views in detail, which I appreciate; and appears to have the temperament and knowledge to be a successful admin. Hopefully taking some time to attempt to change the policy he doesn't agree with. لennavecia 16:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to strong considering how well he handled the unnecessary dramatics in being taken to AN/I over his sig being small in IE8, and the fact that he's being opposed over something so epically stupid. لennavecia 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
44. I agree with Black Kite on the image question, Malinaccier on the time issue, and like what DFS454 notes. Law doesn't seem to be a dramamonger/attention whore. No thank you spam, please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I don't find many of the points brought up in the oppose section very convincing. So why not? - Fastily (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Did you know that a user with 5000+ edits to Misplaced Pages and no real objections should not be barred from adminship simply because 7 months isn't "enough time" for some people? Ray 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support while I have deep respect for Dr. Blofeld in the oppose, I think that some admins are content to not use their adminship to try to resolve conflict - there's lots of other work to be done. And given this candidate's choice to not seek out conflicts to solve them, I think we can tolerate the lack of battle-scars or peace prizes. Of course, nothing prevents the candidate once approved from working in those areas, but I will WP:AGF that the first few admin tasks won't be solving the Scientology tangle or Middle East peace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Did you know... his answer to Q6 demonstrates a good understanding of the Non-free policy? PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support, as a fellow member of the Halloween wikiproject, per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has User:Law/Awards and as candidate has never been blocked. Best, --A Nobody 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support Wizardman 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Know do you... I like the gnomes, and this clearly isn't someone who's going to cause problems. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong support Law will make a fine admin. hmwithτ 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support -- thanks for answering my questions. Good luck. Geo Swan (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support We can always use another pair of admin eyes at DYK. Experience is no concern for me - Law has 5,000 edits (which is the number I usually like to see) and two more months of eperience than I had when I became an admin. He has room to grow, but there are no glaring concerns here. faithless () 08:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. I was inclined to oppose at first, with an expectation that I'd probably support six months from now, but further reading of Law's responses changed my mind. — Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
57. FGJ – iridescent 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support We need more admins. We especially need help with DYK backlogs. Excellent answers. Royalbroil 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Strong mature reasonable candidate who will be an excellent admin. Dean B (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Support, no evidence this candidate would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
61. I did not know that Chocolate-covered bacon even existed, but the images this user created makes me want go out and eat some and share with the BF. Seriously folks, I support, because we need many more admins adept at law, especially SCOTUS matters, and images; and he fully meets my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Support, although my personal opinion is that DYK is highly overrated and actually serves to discount Misplaced Pages's reputation by pointing out trivialities as credible knowledge bits. At any rate, that's not the issue - the issue here is that we have a fine editor who has clue and clearly wants to help the project. Tan | 39 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
63. 7 months is plenty of experience. For goodness sake... Majorly talk 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Did you know... That Law would make a great admin? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Did you know... That this is the first RfA of a DYK specialist where I've seen the supporters making a bunch of comical supporting comments prefixing with Did you know... Being serious, I have seen Law around a good deal, and have had a good impression. He seems to have sufficient experience around several areas of the encyclopedia, and I have no doubt he'd be a great admin. The opposers leave me unconvinced that he lacks overall experience. If he's been here since September, then he'd have 7 months under his belt, which to me is plenty enough time to have gotten to know policy. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Good answers to a huge number of questions. Acalamari 15:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
67. This "Did you know..." Support business is kinda silly, but this user looks fine for me. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Not the strongest candidate but should be a net positive despite limited experience. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Critical question for me is understanding of recusal and dispute resolution. The rest can be learned, mistakes can be fixed, etc. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support – (switched from neutral) candidate seem very knowledgeable with the applicable policies and guidelines. Ensuing adminship would surely be more of an asset to the community as a whole. MuZemike 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support: I know that in years past more tenure was desired, but given the current speed of this RfA revolving door, I'll offer this: If I doubled the tenure, doubled the edit counts, I still doubt I'd find a reason to oppose. Law seems to learn quickly, and just because he/she doesn't go searching for drama and confrontation is no reason to doubt his abilities to use admin. tools in the areas he/she is interested in. Net positive? ... yep. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support He has enough experience. GT5162 11:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support per above. Has been here for over 7 months and has 5000 edits. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Did you know... that this editor is fit for admin duties, but this joke is turning into a boring cliché? —Admiral Norton 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Did you know... that if RfA was determining membership to this, the ability to do that, or success in attaining the other, I would have to post below. My thoughts of Law's Sysop potential, are that he has proven himself time and again, the man for the job. Specifically his maturity and calmness under fire continue to be demonstrated as recently as here. --Preceding unsigned comment 14:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Synergy 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support. Good luck. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Knows policies of the areas he works in well enough... hope this will pass! Ceranllama chat post 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support. Experienced enough and sensible. Axl ¤ 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Has good judgment. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Did you know ...that it was Aunty Entity who said: "You think I don't know the Law? Wasn't it me who wrote it?" ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Being a sysop would be a benefit to the project - always good to have people willing to work on DYK. I am very impressed in his ability to deal with the signature issue in a way that killed the drama. Fraud 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Did you know that a lack of conflicts in one's history is a good sign in a would-be administrator? And that's why I'm supporting. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Did you know... That im supporting this? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 03:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Did you know... that, unlike the opposes below, I think September 2008–April 2009 is plenty of time to gain enough experience for adminship. It isn't a huge deal. TheAE talk/sign 04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Support for constructively dealing with the nonsense over your signature gracefully, despite the fact that there was no consensus to modify your signature. seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Did you know... that I support this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 20, 2009 @ 06:16
88. Support Solid contributions, good knowledge of policy and civil in his interactions. J 06:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Quiescent, civil and clueful editor. decltype (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
90. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
91. Support (from Oppose) Though his edits to DYK and other wikispaces are relatively low compared to his peers, his corresponding rationale is very good and persuasive.. His humble and civil attitude to the request for changing his signature is impressive enough for me to change my vote. Personally, I like the candidate's sense of humor User:Law/NOODLE that could de-escalate fierce situations!--Caspian blue 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - Has the temperament and experience we need in administrators. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
93. Support I've seen the user around here and there, and he's left me with the impression of an editor who's careful, thoughtful, polite and helpful. All good things to have in an admin. His lack of conflicts only tell me that he will do his best to keep a cool head and encourage that in any disputes he comes across. Raven1977_{My edits} 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Support - I've noticed Law at DYK while browsing and learning about the DYK process. His low conflicts suggest that he is cool-headed and able to deal with others well. Seems like he'd be a great admin. CanadianNine 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - I've read after him a good deal since this RfA, and I see a level-headed editor. Law is a sensible communicator and especially experienced for his amount time on Misplaced Pages, and I personally have been impressed with his apparent ability to remain composed while under fire; including his comments where he reasons why this would be true. His lack of conflicts I actually see as a positive - fights, and differences of opinion that don't escalate, are separate things. I've taken a good look through oppose section, and nothing hits me as a problem. JamieS93 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
96. Support - Candidate looks fine to me, seems rational and polite. 5,000 edits and 7-8 months is plenty of experience, in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - I see no problems here. On a side note, my RFA passed with 99% after 6 months of activity. Has that much changed in six months? ~ Ameliorate! 06:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
98. Support - Good canidate, although he has never been in a conflict he will most likely help wikiipedia and improve it. ⊕Assasin Joe 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
99. Did you know that Law is one of the most impressive content contributers that I have ever met? Seriously impressive content contributions that improve Misplaced Pages.  Marlith (Talk)  18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
100. Did you know that I managed to sneak in a last-minute support? Until It Sleeps 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
101. Support per many comments above. And also, because the opposes are against the Law. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry to spoil the silliness. Not enough experience. I find it difficult to see how anybody can make a statement that the editor can be highly trusted when he has only been here since September and has not been presented with any real difficult situations to evaluate from. Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   So, if he carries on doing what he's doing until say, September this year you'd support then? To my mind we disadvantage ourselves by setting arbitary limits of time - surely better to grant the buttons now than wait x months simply because he's not been editing for "long enough". Quality - not quantity, not tenure.Pedro :  Chat  18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would give it a few months. I'd hardly call this editor experienced. The less time they've been here the less time they've had to be involved in potential conflicts. Somebody could join[REDACTED] and put their head down and several months later find themselves at RFA. Not saying he doesn't have potential I just think it is too premature to completely judge this editor. Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   In all honesty, after going on my eight month, this is a good indicator that another eight months is not likely to produce any more conflict or 'bloody' me in some fashion. As a stated above, creating articles about drinking establishments and working at DYK leaves me little chance for conflict. I could tell you that I'll be happy to participate in ANI discussions and other contentious areas that would surely give me 'experience,' but that wouldn't be an honest answer, as this, like other areas, are simply not ones that have interested me in my time here. Thanks. _shoot! 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Dr. Blofeld. -download | sign! 18:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Experience concerns. User has been in no real conflicts here. Also per Dr. Blofeld. I'd support another attempt in a few months. Timmeh! 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   It's advisable to avoid conflicts whenever possible... –Juliancolton |  20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Timmeh, I have been editing as an IP and an account for nearly six years, and I've never been in what I'd describe as a conflict. It's a good thing, IMO. I can see your point though, as to the test of the mettle. Keegan 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   How many discussions have you participated in? Surely, there were editors who had an opposing viewpoint to yours. A conflict is a good experience-getter, for lack of a better word. I have been in a few conflicts, all of which have helped expand my knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and make me a better editor. Editing conflicts and disagreements are inevitable, and if you can't describe at least one conflict/argument/disagreement you've been in with another editor, you don't have very much experience here, in my opinion. Timmeh! 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   My apologies, it seems we just have different definitions of conflict. I was reading it as a conflict more aggressive then discussion; ie some sort of editorial or personal dispute resolution. Not just plain old fashioned talk page stuff. I've got muddy boots from the trenches :) Happy editing to you. 70.11.237.210 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   That's odd, my browser said I was logged in. Ah well, now the world knows that I have an aircard. Keegan 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   My reference for conflict and how to deal with it can be found at My RfA, Q3. Keegan 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
5. 'Oppose per Blofeld, editor has not IMO been here long enough and for want of a better word bloodied Not enough experience. BigDunc 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Just slightly unconvinced as to admin-related experience, would almost certainly support a few months down the line. Non-free image answer was sound. Black Kite 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
7. oppose per question 6: "Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages? A. If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image." There is already too much disruption caused by editor lawmen who feel they have the authority to interpret copyright law for all of wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   WP:NFCC#1 very clearly states that non-free images should not be used when a free alternative could be created or found. What is open to interpretation, exactly? GlassCobra 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you don't think I was trying to interpret copyright law - that's nothing I am equipped to do! My answer was based on our policy for unacceptable use which is #12 here. I hope you take that into consideration. Thanks. _shoot! 05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   He's not interpreting anything; WP:NFCC#1 is very clear on this matter. Unless a free image of a living person would be very difficult or impossible to source (i.e. incarcerated criminals, Osama Bin Laden) then a non-free image is clearly deprecated. That's policy, not interpretation. Black Kite 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   But I took that answer as "never" which isn't the case (as you note). Hobit (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Dr. Blofeld said well. (guys, the silly repetition of "Did you know?" does not help for the candidate)--Caspian blue 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect, the repetition has nothing to do with the candidate. GlassCobra 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, honestly, I was very irritated by it, so quickly sought for a good reason to land here instead of joining in the march!. (and found)--Caspian blue 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Says more about your character than the candidates. I wouldn't be bragging about it. لennavecia 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry? So, you plan to help to deny what could well be the best non-admin we have (not saying he is, like) solely because you don't like how people are supporting? This defies logic. And "Per X" is not a "good reason to land here" but you are rather "joining in the march" in a different, blinder place.  GARDEN  12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Garden and Jennavecia have already said it well, but as the originator of the silly format I felt I had to pipe in and say... seriously? You're going to judge the candidate because of how people supported him? Absolutely unbelievable. FlyingToaster 12:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   GlassCobra, GARDEN, and FlyingToaster, I did not mean to make upset you, because I've highly respected your vigorous contributions in keeping the DYK system running. However, due to my lack of communication skill, you got the impression that I carelessly decided the vote merely by one glance at the both section. DYK related pages have been on my watchlist, and I've frequently visited there but I don't recall his activities unlike you guys and others such as Alansohn, Mattisse, rʨanaɢ, etc. I have had no interaction with him, so I did research on the candidate's contribution for about 40 minutes after finished to read the statement and answers. Still, the image of him was just plain to me except the impression on the user looking very comical per his essays. In that case, I usually tend to weigh in both comments, so make my final decision. If I have no time to read through all, just go to Neutral. But the "Did you know" repetition of the support section was too bothering for me to read their rationales, and concerns raised in Oppose section sounded convincing. In essence, I tried to figure out the validity of his candidacy, so don't be so upset about my decision. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Changed to Support.--Caspian blue 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Would like to see a longer term on Wiki, and perhaps more audited article content building. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Q4 and 5, not yet ready with respect to the admin policies and procedures. Unfortunately, we cant give permission just for DYK. DGG (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Would be possible to elaborate on Q4. In the hypothetical scenario, it implies that only the title of the article has been modified since its delete by way of AFD. If the body of the article remains the same, does it not qualify for speedy deletion? _shoot! 03:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   it does not say so. You made that assumption; skipping an actual check is where admins make errors. But I need to clarify:i am certainly not voting an oppose for a single mistake of that sort, but because on a wide variety of questions, various people here have pointed out errors in understanding. You may be a very good candidate, with some more experience. DGG (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

10. I don't think you have enough experience in XFD related discussions. --DFS454 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, Law says quite plainly in his answers to 10b and 10c that he doesn't intend on closing any XfDs. GlassCobra 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I have participated in 45 unique XFD discussions. I'm not sure if that helps or not. Some of the articles I have saved have come from those discussions. In fact Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kinobe this was such an interesting case because I wanted to delete, I was persuaded to keep, and rewrote the article to satisfy guidelines. The nom withdrew and I closed the AFD. I felt that I probably shouldn't have closed it, seeing as I was involved, regardless of the withdrawal, so I brought myself to ANI for administrative review! Thanks. _shoot! 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Not enough experience in my opinion, has only been here since September.WackoJackO 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Answers were troubling. Having a user follow the standard 6 month pattern, involved in very little, and keep to "vandal fighting" is also well known pattern given on guides to become an admin. I'm not saying that this user followed them, but in such situations we need to take a closer look. We've had too many people slip by. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose Not only lacks experience in terms of time and breadth of area (which aren't killer in my mind), but I feel that many of the answers were superficial and showed a lack of understanding of nuance. Strongly suspect I'll support at a later point. So basically not now. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
14. I really don't like his answers to (among others) S. Marshall's questions, and thus I must oppose. Sorry. DS (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to Neutral Regretful oppose right now, and support if you run again in several months. You do good work at DYK, quiet and behind-the-scenes (I've never seen you get involved in drama there) but I feel I still don't know quite enough about you. Also, I am not quite satisfied with your answers to questions 4b (would have liked to see mention of asking a more experienced admin for input, and more discussion of why the "nine successive !votes are from relatively new editors (between 10 and 200 edits each)" are invalid in your opinion), to 10d and 15a (granted, we wouldn't be able to delete Barack Obama if he asked for it...but in the case of marginally notable individuals, the person's rights are more important than the encyclopedia), and to the questions in 11 (specifically about page protection, but in all of them I think your responses were a little general). I know you're a conscientious editor and are good admin material, I just don't think you're ready yet; I would support without hesitation in several months if I see improvement in these areas. Also, I am leaving you a question above; you might be able to move me to neutral :). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I hope I can persuade you to look at my response, that as from my responses above, I would want that indicates a non consensus AFD, on a marginally notable individual is something that i would like to see deleted.

15. Oppose Does seem like more experience and more time is required....Modernist (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak Oppose Concerned by his answers, esp to #6. I'd be likely to neutral or support in a further RfA, but not yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Q6? What was wrong with it? I'm honestly curious, because that's pretty much what I would have said too. GlassCobra 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    I think the circumstances are broader. An incarcerated individual, for example. It was not merely number 6 that caused my oppose, but that is what I fixed on as an example before going to bed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose, concerns about experience and answers to some of the questions. Also, agree with points raised by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). Without prejudice to consider supporting at a future RfA - candidate indeed has some strong positive contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
18. 'Oppose. Only here since autumn 2008. Response to standard questions show a general approach that looks reasonable, but little actual knowledge of policies. Some of the answers also struck me as both hurried and flippant, and an earlier "oppose" complained about a flippant remark elsewhere. OTOH in 6-12 months Law might be a good candidate for admin, since his off-the-top answers to the standard questions were so reasonable. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Please note, if the answers you found "flippant" are Law's answers to 17a-d, apparently Law's computer is broken and real-life issues came up and he had to write those answers in a hurry and without a keyboard, so we can't really hold them against him (and that set of questions should probably be ignored until whatever is going on there is settled). If it was other answers that concerned you, then ok. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose. I have concerns about the level of eagerness this candidate shows (high) vs. the demonstrated knowledge of policy outside of simple vandal fighting (regrettably low). It shouldn't be this easy to get the bit. Skinwalker (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Blofeld and DougsTech, and due to lack of community spirit. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Lack of community spirit for fixing it when he found it was a problem? That seems to me like community spirit at its best. If you look at Law's contribs, it appears that he fixed his sig within 8 hours of his initial response. He played no part in the total drama at ANI, and he was courteous in his two posts about the topic (more specifically here and here). Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

21. Weak oppose Not enough experience, and the signature is a problem. AniMate 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, but what's wrong with the signature? –Juliancolton |  18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Apparently some editors using Internet Explorer cannot read the signature. The response to complaints is less than satisfactory, IMO. AniMate 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. –Juliancolton |  18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it really is unacceptable to respond "..i'll change it. I'll be happy to revert back to the the default. I will truly do so. In fact, it may be a problem, so I will bring it to another forum. I don't want to be obtuse about it," when somebody points out there's a problem. Surely there's fire wielding mob around here somewhere that will set him ablaze for such a 'less than satisfactory' response. We simply can't have such agreeable editors becoming admins. What will the public think? --auburnpilot talk 20:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it actually is inappropriate, especially for someone who wants to be an admin, to push a problem brought to one's attention off on other people, when the solution is simple and totally under one's own control. A more reasonable initial response would have been "I didn't realize it was a problem, I'll fix it." To his credit, Law has done that now, but the initial reaction was still unsatisfactory. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    My initial reaction was one of honesty. It is a double-edged sword, so to speak. If I changed my sig on command, I see it as doing what is necessary to pass this RFA. However, I was clear about changing it. I had no idea that it was a source of contention, so I did what I felt was the right thing to do. I think it is very important that one is transparent, and I am no different in real life, as I am here. I appreciate the time taken to dissect my initial reaction. My reaction was one of those who goes with the general consensus. In my own defence, my sig was a problem. Upon realising that, I did what I could to rectify the situation. Not because of this RFA, but because I didn't realise it was a problem. I am certainly not here to stir the pot. There was a genuine concern, I addressed it, and I feel much better knowing that those who wish to contact me can do so, seeing as my sig was not readable to others. Ignorance is no defence. I am happier knowing it was pointed out clearly and with reason. I appreciate those who pointed out that there was a problem, which I wasn't aware. Hopefully, it is fixed. Law (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    Well said. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose, fails my criteria, particularly lack of overall experience and "time served". Less than 10k edits, not even active a full year, and not nearly enough activity in the Wiki namespace beyond the AIVs. Beyond that, really not seeing a true need or desire to be an admin, as only seeming admin desire is to help more at DYK. Needs to learn how discern consensus, get more experience with conflict resolution (maybe by getting involved in WP:30 or Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts), get more comfortable with the concept of deleting/tagging articles, and just, overall, more activity in the Wiki. Also, not entirely satisfied with some of the answers given above, and just not enough evidence would not "abuse" the tools, even if no sign the candidate would. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Weak oppose My OCD-driven love for round numbers, and, more seriously, my general affection for the candidate, my (passive) encounters with whom have been universally positive, disposes me to be the WP:100th support, but even as I find that the candidate's demeanor, temperament, and sense of judgment (on the whole) well equip him for adminship, I am not convinced that his conversance with policy is such that he is unlikely to misuse the tools unintentionally by acting whereof he does not know, and I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive (I should, though, as others who oppose here, be happy to reconsider the issue in the not-too-distant future, when I hope to be able to support). Joe 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Law does great work, and I see no indication he would misuse his admin tools. But I don't see enough indication that he wouldn't. For Q3, he didn't provide a link, and I can't find links on how he has dealt with difficult users. He gave a good answer to Q8... but I can't be sure that if consensus went against him, that he would keep a level head. If Law or anyone could provide diffs of him dealing with tough situations that might cause a bad admin to act badly, let me know and I'm open to changing my !vote. All the best, – Quadell 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh my. Talk:Lipstick_on_a_pig#Article_needs_a_picture. may be the only thing I can find when it comes to an edit war - which was over a picture of a pig. LOL. I lost in the debate, however :P AND, i just realized that Townlake's support above is the example of the editor using an interesting edit summary. It was an edit summary that was condescending, followed by an implication that my writing may be an indication of my ignorant and uneducated nature. I'm sure you can tell that I was not pleased at all, lol, but I remained civil and it worked out. Isn't it better to put out fires before they start? _shoot! 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral (for now) - I have issues with several of the candidate's answers. Though I'm hoping that this is merely a case of "not explained enough". Would they be willing to further clarify. Though all seem at least a bit "terse" (to quote the candidate), and could use some clarification, The ones concerning consensus, and IAR in partucular could use clarifying. That, and "how" they expect having the tools would help them at DYK. And whether they "plan" to be involved in AfD seems immaterial, especially since the candidate also has said they intend to help with the backlog, so an expanded answer to those related questions would also be helpful. And I am not as enamoured with the answer to #9 as others seem to be, indications and the candidate's "tone" leave me with concerns. That said, I think further clarification should hopefully clear this up. - jc37 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   "Several" of my answers? Uh oh :) Hopefully I can shed light on a couple of them. At DYK, there are just simple administrative tasks such as loading and correcting errors in the daily queues. It's not about coming here to be a DYK admin; it's more about being invited to be an administrator, and being honest about where I plan to work. It's true that I don't plan to work at AFD, but it wasn't my intent to come across as if I need not be aware of policy. Having been here for awhile, I have come across policy for many areas, including deletion policy, CSD, and BLP. I see IAR as 'in case of fire, break the glass.' For me, it is a last resort. It is very hard for me to picture a time when my article writing is so hindered by guidelines that I need to ignore rules in order to improve Misplaced Pages. I was honest in saying that I can't imagine using it. I was serious by saying that if I applied it, I would still ask for another set of eyes. The construct in which I work, has rules and guidelines that I have found useful, and so far, I've no need to ignore them. If an editor with a DYK proposal has an article that is 3 characters short of the 1500 character recommendation, I'm quite comfortable invoking IAR in that case. As far as consensus goes, I truly believe I know it when I see it. If there are five users at AFD that want an article deleted due to the fact that other articles like it have previously been deleted, and I have only three users that want the article kept because the sources clearly demonstrate notability, I would find the consensus to be on the side of the three that cited policy - it is a stronger and more adequate argument. When it comes to article changes, I've seen consensus many times on article talk. In that case, like above (lipstick on a pig), it is not so much about policy but about what should be included in the article. Consensus, in that case, could be predicated on the majority. If 15 editors agree that X does not merit inclusion in the article, and 5 disagree, I'm inclined to say that the general consensus in that case goes along with the majority. If there is anything else, please let me know, and I'll be more than willing to expand any answer. _shoot! 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, so essentially, most of my concerns seem to be a result of inexperience (both at Misplaced Pages, and with the policies/process).

   IAR - Sorry, no. It has almost nothing to do with whether it's the first or last resort. The whole idea is that we often have to deal with situations on a case-by-case basis. And often some aspect of the "rules" doesn't well apply to the given situation at hand. That would be a moment to consider IAR. And you indeed come close to a (possibly appropriate) IAR resolution in your examples about consensus directly above. So it may just be a case of where you don't realise you're already using IAR. Another possible indication of inexperience.

   In addition to that, there is a "tone" in quite a few of your responses above that I don't find to be "engaging" (and indeed, that I find concerning). I was hoping that further discussion would help. But not so far. For another example, in the answers to #13 - "...I am convinced..." - And #9 - "...I don't let it escalate...".

   You seem to be a well-meaning, hard-working editor. But so far, I'm leaning towards opposing. As I said above, I'd like to support, and I'm hoping that further clarification will help. - jc37 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   What is it, exactly, that you seek further clarification on? He just accurately explained IAR and appropriate times to use it. Also, what do you mean by not liking his "tone"? What tone? It's in text. The tone is in how you read it. You say it's not "engaging", but you're in "discussion" about it. I guess I just don't get it. He's been here for eight months, writes articles and participates in DYK, mostly; but you can see in his contribs that he does other stuff as well; and his policy knowledge is evident from his answers to the questions. Yet you're basing your comments off of the "tone", as you take his words, as evidence that he lacks experience? You don't like that he said he's convinced of something. What should he say? He's the opposite of un-convinced? You don't like that he said he doesn't let things escalate. Do you think he's lying or do you just not like the wording... the tone? Perhaps it's just me, but that makes no sense. لennavecia 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   First, I'd like to wait for Law's response (since it's their RfA, among other things), rather than get sidetracked with someone else's question, though I'm more than happy to continue discussing this with you on the talk page.

   That aside, there indeed can be (and is) a "tone" to writing, as any good book on literary analysis or even writing in general, will likely inform you.

   That said, perhaps I was less-than-clear by using the word "engaging". (I honestly was unsure of it's use when I used it.) I was meaning how the user may "engage" other users in the future. Their interactions and so forth. As well as how they "come across" to others. I've already looked over their past, and am trying to get a sense of how (if at all) that may change in the future (as an admin), for good or ill. Especially when one considers how often admins may become involved in potential WP:BITE situations, or in WP:DR. There's more to it than that, but that should convey enough, and hopefully further expansion/clarification by the candidate should hopefully alleviate my concerns. - jc37 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   When I hear 'engaging' it makes me think of someone who is approachable. Someone who is sincere, and someone who is easy to talk to. I would actually consider myself this type of demeanor. Looking at my article talk contributions you will see that I am rather jovial, very open to others' opinions and would certainly not bite, as I would not appreciate being bitten. I look at things as more of a flow chart. So when I say last resort in regards to IAR, it would be a methodology that I would use. Is there a rule? If there is, how does it apply? Is the application preventing me from making Misplaced Pages a better place? If so, IAR. In that scenario, it's the last stop on the chart - or what I would consider the 'last resort.' I hope that makes more sense. Perhaps my choice of words (last resort) was a bit dramatic :) I understand that this is cold hard text, so I hope you can sense that I type this with a smile and a nice cup of coffee. When I say that I don't let it escalate I am speaking about my own behavior, meaning that I have self-control enough to keep myself from escalating the situation into a conflict. I hope that sheds some light on the things I have said. I appreciate your questions. _shoot! 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for clarifying, I was hoping that with further comment, some of this would be made more clear. (I especially appreciated the clarification concerning your internal flow chart, and also that you were indicating your own behavior.)

   And should this nomination prove successful, you may or may not be in for some surprises in how others' interactions with you may change in certain situations, and at times, not necessarily for the good. So you may find you're not as "in control" of a situation as you might like. There unfortunately can be times where even disengaging may cause more disruption than just continuing the discussion. (WP:AN/I can be a fairly helpful in those situations.)

   I still see quite a bit of inexperience, but that's not necessarily a negative. (In some ways, we're all inexperienced, as Misplaced Pages is an ever-developing entity.) It's just these are things fairly intrisic to adminship, and fairly common pitfalls.

   I'm no longer leaning towards opposing, but I somewhat think that this may be an example of: "Would support next time, with more experience".

   So remaining neutral at least for now.

   And thank you for all the responses, taking the time (and your subsequent "tone" indeed), was a fair part of dissuading my opposition. - jc37 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   You are quite welcome. Enjoy the weekend! _shoot! 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral for now pending on answers from the other questions. Leaning towards a possible support, however, due to the work at SPI (we always need more admins over there as SPI can, at times, get wicked backlogged) and good contribs to the mainspace and to DYK. MuZemike 18:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Are you sure about his WP:SPI contribs? I did not see any in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I may have commented on the wrong candidate as far as SPI is concerned. However, the answered questions look pretty good, so I will change to support. MuZemike 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral Per the opposes on experience. You seem to be a good candidate, and I wish you'd gotten a bit more breadth and depth before applying. I don't have any heartburn if you pass, but nor am I willing to support quite yet. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Changed from Oppose. The answers to some of the questions are still a bit vague for my liking, but Law's comment at the talk page is good—while he hasn't reviewed a ton of DYK noms and hasn't participated much at WT:DYK, he does review each nom more carefully, and takes reviewing more seriously, than many of us there (including me); as DYK is increasingly losing respect among Wikipedians and people are having more and more conversations about raising the standards, we will probably need more reviewers like Law. So anyway, while some things still make me think Law is not quite ready, his response about DYK shows good judgment and I can't oppose anymore. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

I have closed this RfA as successful because I feel that, despite significant opposition, there is a general consensus to promote the user. Orlady has enjoyed strong support, and, while the opposition is great in number, many of the remarks in this area would have benefited and would have been enforced by more solidified evidence, such as diffs. Further to and likely as an extension of that, a number of the oppositional remarks suffer from a degree of vagueness or lack of clear explication. Note that many do present such evidence and many do argue their case punctiliously; but a portion do not. Bearing these factors in mind, as well as the reasons of those on either side of the debate, I think this can be said to be over the threshold after due inspection. —Anonymous Dissident 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady

Nomination

(102/33/6); closed by Anonymous Dissident at 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady (talk · contribs) – Orlady has been a Wikipedian since 2004. During that time she has authored and improved countless articles (a few to featured status), fought off trolls and vandals, earned numerous barnstars, worked tirelessly to enforce Misplaced Pages policies, educated countless newbies, conducted herself in a civil manner, and just in general been a huge asset to Misplaced Pages. She usually works in lower traffic areas, so if you haven't heard of her, it isn't due to inactivity. It's high time she be given the tools appropriate to her level of Misplaced Pages experience and activity. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I appreciate Kaldari's confidence, and I accept the nomination.

I've been a fairly active "Misplaced Pages dilettante" since some time in 2006 (although I registered in 2004, I was not very active until 2006). I'm usually not very predictable in my activity levels or systematic about my contributions, I'm not a technically minded tool-builder or template-maker, and I'm not much interested in wikipolitical processes or wikibureaucracy. Mostly, I got involved to fix mistakes in articles and edit articles about topics I find interesting, I used to figure that I could leave the admin work to other people who are more dedicated and more technically adept than I am. However, for a long time it has been clear to me that much of my "work" here has been essentially admin-like, including reverting vandalism, warning and reporting vandals, ferreting out sockpuppets, participating in XfDs, trying to ensure that NPOV is maintained in various articles that I have watchlisted, and participating in featured list reviews and at DYK. I am aware that if I had admin tools, I could do some of these things more efficiently (for example, I could tell when a newly created article that looks like one I recall having been deleted earlier is truly the same as the one I recall) -- and reduce the workload of the administrators who I suspect might be sick and tired of responding to my requests for help with tasks I don't have the tools to perform.

If granted admin privileges, I can't promise that I won't make mistakes (heck, I know that I will make some mistakes; I will go so far as to PROMISE that I will make mistakes because people who don't make mistakes aren't trying), but I can also promise not to break anything intentionally -- and to try to clean up after myself when I do mess up. --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To be honest, I don't know what I will do. (I don't have a crystal ball.) I do know that when I notice errors on the main page, I will repair them myself instead of posting at WP:ERRORS. Also, when I find an article with a non-MOS title that requires a sysop to move it to the correct title, I will move it myself instead of requesting sysop assistance. Other areas where I am likely to help out are:

• WP:DYK - From time to time, I get involved at DYK (including reviewing hook suggestions, doing minor editing on articles proposed for DYK, and building hook sets for future updates). With admin tools, I expect to help with main page updates when the bot isn't working, and to move hooks into the queue for future updates to the main page. DYK is a very energy-intensive feature of Misplaced Pages (meaning that it requires a lot of volunteer energy to keep it running), but I think it is beneficial for bringing attention to a diverse variety of new articles and drawing people into helping to improve those articles.
• WP:AfD - My experience in AfD runs the gamut: nominating articles for deletion, participating in discussions, working to "rescue" some nominated articles, and participating in deletion review discussions later on. I have done just one or two non-admin closures, but if given the tools it is likely that I would use them to help out with AfD closures. I believe I have a solid understanding of most policies related to deletion, I can recognize comments and "votes" that are based on invalid reasons, and I can judge whether or not WP:consensus exists. As an aside, I think AfD is a very important process, not only for helping to rid Misplaced Pages of articles that do not belong in the encyclopedia, but also for causing improvements to be made that cause seemingly doomed articles to be kept, and for thoroughly teaching contributors (like me) about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

I would like to be able to help at WP:CfD, but my experience there (notably my experience with tagging large numbers of categories for renaming) leads me to think that effective involvement requires someone more technically savvy than I. As for other XfD processes, I might help at WP:TfD, but templates are of less interest to me that articles and categories. I would not take an active admin role at WP:IFD because I don't understand image-related issues as well as I do text-related issues.

• WP:AIV - Having warned many vandals and reported some at AIV (about 90, according to my edit count), I think I have a pretty good understanding of the accepted criteria for imposing blocks and other responses to vandalism, and I probably will help out at AIV.
• WP:RFP - The ability to protect pages is an effective tool for protecting the quality of Misplaced Pages, particularly until such time as flagged revisions are implemented. Having reverted a lot of vandalism (manually, using rollback, and occasionally using Twinkle) and having requested page protection on several occasions, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basis for judging when page protection is appropriate, and I would expect to help out here. A few weeks back (when Plutonium, an article on my watch list, was featured on the main page) I learned that the featured article of the day is not protected except in cases of unusually egregious vandalism; I guess I was sheltered from that knowledge earlier because there are few FA-class articles on my watchlist.

Having had long-term involvement with monitoring continued sockpuppetry by one certain banned user, I would like to be able to contribute to deleting the articles that emanate from this user's new sockpuppets, but I think that Misplaced Pages policies discourage that kind of involvement with a sockpuppet case that I am close to. Thus, I might still need to ask for a less-involved admin to help with clean-up. (I welcome discussion on whether my perceptions of policy are accurate.)

Additionally, I am likely to help with speedy deletions, particularly the more obvious varieties (such as school lunch menus, advertisements for local motels, pages blanked by the creator, and obvious copyvios). I've dabbled in new pages patrol a few times in the past, and would be more likely to contribute there if I could speedy-delete articles myself instead of placing db templates on the obvious candidates.

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

A: Unfortunately, I fear that my single best contribution has been sticking my arm in the dike (metaphorically speaking) in order to help stem the tide of vandalism, particularly on the set of articles that I monitor on my watchlist. A large fraction of my edits are reversion or repair of vandalism, and several of the pages where my edit counts are highest (for example, Purple drank and Amsterdam (city), New York) are articles where I have made few substantive contributions, but have reverted (or repaired the article in the aftermath of) large numbers of "unconstructive" edits.

Along the same general lines as reverting vandalism, I have somehow developed a specialty in what might be called the "Netherworld of Education" (specifically articles about diploma mills, other unaccredited universities and colleges, and schools/programs for kids with serious problems), and I take some pride in having contributed to creating articles that are sufficiently well-sourced and NPOV that they are no longer subject to frequent edit wars and WP:AFD nominations. I can't point to any masterpiece articles in this area, but I think both the world and Misplaced Pages benefit from the information content of articles like Columbus University (not to mention List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, where I've done both rescue work and continuing maintenance), and it is satisfying to be able to create articles like Elim Bible Institute as short-but-stable replacements for earlier articles that had been deleted.

However, just as Sisyphus surely wasn't proud of his progress in rolling the rock uphill, there's not much satisfaction in continually reverting vandalism or crafting short articles about "marginal" topics.

When I create articles, my usual goal is to create a "good enough" article to fill a void in the encyclopedia, so I don't have a thick portfolio of featured articles to point to. One of my best contributions is List of cities and towns in Tennessee -- I didn't start that one, nor did I do the work that took it past the bare-bones list stage (Kaldari did that before I got involved), but I greatly expanded the list content and took the article to featured list status, with help from other Tennessee editors and some regulars at WP:FLC. After getting acquainted with the FLC process, I contributed to a bunch of reviews at FLC, and through review comments and editing I have helped several other nominated list articles reach FL status, such as List of United States graduate business school rankings and List of National Park System areas in Maryland.

A few of my creations have been featured on WP:DYK (at last count, I believe I was credited for 17 DYKs: 14 for articles that I created or expanded, two articles by others that I nominated, and one for which I was granted "co-creator" credit because of the extensive additions I made after the article was nominated for DYK). One of my contributions there, Stroke Belt, garnered 14,900 hits during its short time on the main page.

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: Oh, yes, I've experienced conflicts in editing. The main thing I do to avoid stressful situations is that I generally refrain from contributing to articles on topics that I feel passionate about. In fact, I generally try not to read articles about topics I care deeply about. I have, however, encountered stressful conflicts due to (1) topics that other people seem to be intensely passionate about, (2) continuing altercations with vandals, and (3) the feelings of protectiveness and pride that most contributors have regarding their own work.

Type 1: At various times, various articles about controversial educational institutions have been subject to intensive editing activity involving both opponents and supporters of the institution. One particularly "memorable" series of experiences was at Warren National University, between about July 2007 and October 2007. The article history indicates that I was actually a relatively minor player in the battles over that article's content, but I still have managed to accumulate 139 edits in the article and 85 edits on its talk page, and I was the recipient of a fair amount of talk page abuse from one particular single-purpose account with strong COI before the account was finally blocked. I have learned a lot since that series of incidents. Other contributors and I spent far too much time and energy on minute-by-minute interaction over the article, endless arguments on the talk page, and a frustrating series of attempts to get help, including an attempt at mediation, a mostly inconclusive RfC process, and various WP:AN reports. It would have been far more effective to have requested full protection for the article early on in order to "lower the temperature" of the situation. It also would have helped to have been more assertive in reporting 3RR violations, instead of trying to "make nice" with the other "combatants." Since that time, I've also become much more familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, and (although it is against my nature to be someone who continually quotes rules) I've learned that it is often effective to cite relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It's definitely not wise to assume that all participants in a dispute are aware of Misplaced Pages policies.

Type 2: Average run-of-the-mill vandalism is annoying, but not a source of stress. However, I would be lying if I did not acknowledge that I experience stress as a result of continuing interactions with persistent vandals whose disruptive behavior includes personal attacks (such as the Jvolkblum sockpuppets, who have engaged in what might be called "character assassination by sockpuppet" by posting allegations and insinuations about me on other users' talk pages under a variety of different names and anonymous IPs). Sometimes I try to ignore them or stay away from Misplaced Pages for a while, other times I fight back by reporting the behavior (although there's not much more that can be done about a user who's already banned and blocked). The main thing is to have a tough skin and try to avoid reacting in anger.

Type 3: The most upsetting conflicts I have experienced involve a few good and well-intentioned contributors who were profoundly insulted when I said negative things about their work, and who continue to nurse deep grudges. Most notable of these conflicts is with Doncram, who seems to have been deeply offended by my objections to the WP:FLC nomination of an article in which he had a strong interest, and who has chosen to interpret our subsequent interactions as some sort of a personal war. Geronimo20 also apparently holds a grudge related to an occasion 5 months ago when I found a serious problem with an article he had nominated for DYK.(See DYK nom, my talk page, and Geronimo's talk page.) DoxTxob also seems never to have completely recovered from being offended by comments I made about assigning "importance" ratings to articles (here). I'm bothered by these conflicts because these are good people -- I can't shrug them off as vandals. When I find myself in a seemingly unresolvable content dispute with a good-faith contributor, I generally back away from the article, since the subjects of most disputes are usually pretty inconsequential. I believe that these particular disputes got elevated because I didn't engage in mutual backscratching ("you do me a favor and I'll one for you") and I was not prepared to say "He's generally a good guy, so let him have his FLC (or DYK) trophy even if the nomination isn't up to snuff."

Question from Ottava Rima

Q. 4: Why do you think that pages should be deleted before users are allowed "any more time to establish notability"?

A.: As worded, that's a question in the same form as "When did you stop beating your wife?" As it happens, I think that creators of articles about topics that are potentially notable should be encouraged to establish notability for the articles they created, and should be given time to address problems with the articles. This is especially true of articles created by newbies. There are some articles that qualify for speedy deletion (typically under G1 or A7) because there is not even a shred of evidence that the topics are notable. When I think there is a small chance that the article topic is indeed notable, I typically will "prod" it or nominate it at AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion under A7. Also, I sometimes have nominated an article at AfD with the expectation that the AfD process would spur the article's creators to address long-standing issues that had not been resolved by gentler means.

The example you cite actually shows that I give users plenty of opportunity to fix their articles. The situation involved an article about a family graveyard that had at most 25 burials in its history and was now abandoned, with almost all (or perhaps all) of the burials exhumed and moved elsewhere. I had flagged the article as an orphan and lacking evidence of notability 4 months before I nominated it at AfD. The article's creator had added many references to the article, mostly to personally maintained online genealogical sites (non-WP:RS). None were to reliable sources that supported the article's content, there was nothing to indicate that anyone buried in the cemetery had been notable, and after 4 months the article was still an orphan, although Jvolkblum (editing under an anonymous IP) had stopped by and removed the notability and orphan templates. I believe that the article's creator had ample opportunity to fix the notability issue before I started the AfD you cite in your question, and the AfD discussion led to a thorough investigation of the topic's notability (far more than I think the topic warranted, but YMMV). --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up Q did it occur to you to look for additional sources yourself, as explained at WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that I checked for sources (and found none) back when I first placed the "notability" template on that article, but I don't remember whether I looked for sources again immediately before I started the AfD. Frankly, I thought the article qualified for speedy deletion under A7 but for the fact that it had a large helping of references. The main problem with the article at the time I started the AfD was not a lack of sources (it contained 12 different external links as references, none of which were reliable sources), but an absence of any indication or evidence of what was supposed to be notable or significant about the subject. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Q. 5: Can you provide the link to where you contacted the "article's creator" mentioned above and when you discussed the issues with the content on the talk page? Can you explain why "needs improvement" is a legitimate reason for deletion?

A.: My response to the first part of your question is "Touché!" From a review of the history, I am embarrassed to find that I apparently never contacted the article's creator regarding either my concerns about the article or the initiation of the AfD. The article creator had no difficulty finding the "notability" template, because s/he returned ~4 days later to add many reference citations to the article. I don't recall why I did not notify the article creator about the AfD, but I have two theories: (1) I considered the article to be a clear case of nonnotability (an argument possibly could have been made that it qualified for speedy deletion under A7) and the creator had already made his/her best shot at fixing the problem, with dismal results. As I stated in the AfD: "... no evidence or indication of notability (for example, nobody notable seems to be buried there)...." (Although it might have qualified for speedy deletion, I thought it better to take it to AfD. At AfD, articles get far more attention than they would ever get from pestering an article creator to accomplish something that they have already tried to do and failed at.) (2) It is likely that I mistakenly recalled the creator's name as being one of the blocked sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, who cannot respond to notifications due to having been blocked. (Most articles about New Rochelle topics were created by users who were subsequently blocked, and the most recent non-bot edit to the article had been done from a blocked IP.)

As to the second part of your question, it's another case of "When did you stop beating your wife?" "Needs improvement" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have probably said those very words more than once in an AfD discussion. Lack of evidence of notability is, however, a legitimate reason for deletion, and I have observed that sometimes an AfD nomination provides the motivation that causes a recalcitrant article creator to (1) explain why their topic is notable and (2) provide documentation to support the claim of notability. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Collectonian

Q. 6: In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School, you appeared to display a poor understanding of WP:COPYVIO and general copyright laws. What did you learn from the AfD result and did you take steps after to correct your understanding of copyrights?

A.: Background: I recall this as one of those articles about a local church that appears to have been created by a proud parishioner, who in this case apparently copied the text from the church website. The article had been created more than a year earlier, but was essentially invisible because it was an uncategorized orphan. (I ran across it while searching for material related to an article about a New York area cemetery.) It appeared to me that the church might possibly be notable for its history, but I had not found evidence of notability.

I was called out for taking the article to AfD instead of asking for speedy deletion as a copyvio. As a result of that AfD I now now understand that website content is considered to be copyrighted unless it is explicitly identified as having a free license (regardless of whether the site owner claims copyright on the page). From a practical standpoint, I think Misplaced Pages needs to be far more concerned about copyright violations of content from commercial publishers and other professional sources than copying of this sort of website. It is highly unlikely that a local church will sue Misplaced Pages for harboring an unauthorized copy of several paragraphs copied from the church website for the duration of an AfD. However, given the copyvio and the absence of any indication of notability, AfD was a poor choice for that article; I should have requested speedy deletion.

Q. 7: How you feel there is a difference between determining consensus in an AfD discussion, and simply counting keeps/deletes? You noted that you feel you can tell which "comments and 'votes' that are based on invalid reasons". Can you give some examples of what you would consider invalid keep reasons and invalid delete reasons?

A.: Part 1: Ideally, consensus should be entirely different from voting (or even !voting). True consensus would mean that all participants in a discussion are listening to one another and weighing the arguments given by others, and that participants who initially disagreed have modified their views and recommendations to converge on a single solution -- or at least acquiesce to the recommendations of others.

That seldom happens here at Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons -- because discussion participants can't interact in real time (people come and go), because there's no eye contact ;-), because some participants never return to a discussion to see what has developed, because the participants are often strangers to one another and don't have a good grasp of the other paricipants' perspectives, because people often have radically different levels of understanding of policies, etc., etc. Thus, Misplaced Pages "consensus" is inevitably not true consensus. Raw numbers are often a strong basis for judgment: if 11 out of 13 Wikipedians agree, they probably have the right idea (assuming that they are independent players and not skewed by sockpuppets, people canvassed to participate, or the like). However, when the !votes are split (and even when they aren't), it's important to see whether people have been presenting reasons, what their reasons are based on (see below), whether they've been discussing the issue with one another -- or just at each other, and whether views have changed during the discussion. "Lack of consensus" sometimes means that there is a relatively even numerical split between the "sides," but it also can mean that both sides are strongly advocating their positions with seemingly reasonable arguments, and no minds are being changed as a result of discussion.

Part 2: You ask for invalid reasons for "delete" and "keep" votes. I've listed some examples, followed by (in parentheses) some commentary on each one.

Some examples of invalid reasons for deletion include: "the article is poorly written" (this can be a fatal flaw if the article is so incoherent that meaning cannot be extracted from it, but poor writing can be overcome if the topic is notable and the content is verifiable), "the topic is ridiculous" (this is not actually a reason), "the negative content in this article will be bad for our organization's public relations" (Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium; we judge content by whether it's verified and presented from a neutral point of view, not by whether it benefits the article's subject), and "the person who created this article had a conflict of interest" (COI is definitely a problem, but if the article has been rewritten from a neutral point of view, using reliable sources, it might belong in the encyclopedia).

Some examples of invalid reasons for "keep" include "it's interesting" and "it's useful" (maybe true, but is it notable?), "this church is notable because it's very large" (OK, but large doesn't connote notability -- is there any indication that it's in any way unique, and has it been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources documenting this notability?), "this person is admired by everyone in my town" (maybe so, but this is a global encyclopedia we need an indication that the person is notable by Misplaced Pages's criteria, not just in your town), "I found six other articles about similar topics" (the flaws in this argument are discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFF), and "the article is accurate" (that's important, but are there sources to indicate that the topic is notable?).

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

8a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: That type of page can be deleted instantly, in accordance with both A3 (no content -- what the page has right now) and G11 (blatant advertising -- what the page is likely to become when the promised construction is complete). Before deleting it, however, I would look at logs for previous versions of the article and I would probably take a quick look at the company website and do a quick Google search to see if there is any hint that the web company is notable. In almost all such instances, the company will turn out to be non-notable (I say that because the world is full of small web companies that want to use Misplaced Pages to advertise themselves), in which case I would delete the page without further ado. In the edit summary I would provide a full statement of the reasons for deleting the page (including the lack of evidence that the company meets WP criteria for notability and the WP policy against using the encyclopedia as an advertising medium), and I would send the page creator a message appropriate to the situation.

If I found evidence of possible notability, my action likely would depend on both what I found regarding the topic and the experience/history of the page creator. In some rare cases (for example, strong evidence of notability and a user who has previously demonstrated poor command of English and has repeatedly tried to start the same article) I might even remove the speedy deletion template and write sourced content for the article, based on the sources I found. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

8b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: That's a circumstance I've never seen -- a page with a title and no content other than the underconstruction template! (Does this actually happen?) In that type of case, I think I would look first at the page creator's history. If this is a brand-new user, I would move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content. If the user has a longer history, I would likely delete the page as "no content", with a note asking them not to re-create it until they have some content to provide. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup I've certainly seen it happen. it's routine for an inexperienced author to write the title, and the following minute (literally) someone at NewPages nominates for a Speedy. How would you deal with this?DGG (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Live and learn! I had no idea this happened -- presumably because I'm not a sysop looking at speedy deletion requests, and when I do new pages patrol I tend to focus on unpatrolled pages that are at least about 20 minutes old. (Someone else is usually busily tagging the most obvious issues with the newest pages, so I seldom attempt to try to deal with those, but instead look at the slightly older pages that often present more complex issues.)

Since I've never encountered nor thought about this question before, the clear first step is to ask an experienced administrator how they normally handle the situation. (How do you handle as this situation, anyway?) As for my general philosophy on how to address this, I believe that newbies deserve some leeway. Initial contributions that may have encyclopedic value (unfortunately, many first contributions don't) should not be deleted on sight. Instead the newbie should be given time to build the article, particularly if they have placed an underconstruction template on it. A new user should be given at least an hour to start the article, but if no content has been added within the first hour, my solution of "move the page to the creator's user space, with a note indicating that they can develop the page in their user space and resubmit it when it has content" might be the best approach. It's less important to make allowances for experienced users (those who have started articles before), as they should have learned that a new page in article space needs to have content. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I handle this by replacing the speedy tag with the one for "underconstruction", alerting the user to the problem & explaining the need to get things to a reasonable adequate stub state before leaving the article, reminding the person who put on the tag to give people a chance, and coming back in a few days--not just one hour--to see if the article is being worked on. some good admins use a Prod tag, which gives 5 days. But the essential point is to explain. Most newbies don't know about the underconstruction tag--some even place it and the holdon tag at the same time, which of course only lists the article for speedy deletion! There are a few experienced people who insist on creating unsourced ministubs, and they are a problem. DGG (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That approach makes sense. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

8c. Under your understanding of WP:BLP, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX".

A: All of those may be removed if not properly sourced, because Misplaced Pages should not report unsourced information about living persons. However, some items must be removed instantly (as soon as they are first "sighted") due to their potentially defamatory nature (in your list, the incest accusation is the most extreme example of this, but "gay", religion, ancestry, and "did not graduate" are very close behind it), and personal identification details such as dates of birth should not be included unless they are sourced. However, as a practical matter, information that is neither defamatory nor personally sensitive (in this example, this would be "XXX is a violinist") may be allowed to remain -- at least for a brief period -- to allow for verification.

8d. If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under WP:BLP, if the article meets WP:CSD#A7, would it be proper to speedy delete it?

A: Do you mean that the article is now eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7? Yes, it would then be proper to speedy delete it, but with a summary that indicates that the article could be re-created if the new article complies with WP:BLP. (I think it's important to document reasons for deletion so that prospective article creators are not intimidated by the article's deletion history.) If the article subject is notable, a better solution would be to create a properly sourced stub that indicates why the article subject is important or significant.

Follow-up question. Here is an example of an use of WP:A7, that I would like your opinion of. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on the efforts of our team of quality control volunteers. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Misplaced Pages continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started an article on The Political Quarterly. This speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky are prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In that example, I agree with Dick Poutain's assessment that Misplaced Pages has a problem with "quality control" by overly aggressive and under-informed users. That article should never have been tagged under A7 because it clearly indicated the "importance or significance" of its topic (in several ways, particularly by the journal's notable founder, the contributions by Mussolini and Trotsky, the sponsorship of the Orwell prize, and the journal's indexing by ISI). If I encountered that article in a collection of nominations for speedy deletion, I would remove the deletion template. Next, I would check to see if the article was copied from the journal's website. If it was, I would attempt a thorough rewrite to eliminate the copyvio. If it wasn't a copyvio, I probably would revise the wording to be a bit more encyclopedia-like (particularly the lead section), reformat the external link to make it into a link, look for sources for the article content, add some categories, and add appropriate cleanup templates based on my assessment of the article's condition after my quick and dirty cleanup. (Many of my article edits are like that. That is, I run across an article that's in poor shape, and I make modest cleanup changes, basically to salvage the article, but far short of what would be necessary for a DYK nomination, much less GA or FA status.) --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, it looks like the speedy-deletion request on that article was declined, indicating that the Misplaced Pages processes worked, after all. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

8e. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I don't think majority rule is ever the single best way to determine consensus.

In the ideal article writing situation, consensus regarding the content and structure of articles develops through an "organic" process that alternates between editing and discussing. Some of the various forms of this process are described at WP:Consensus#Consensus as a result of the editing process, WP:Consensus#Consensus building in talk pages, and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In my experience here, this works best when things move at a somewhat leisurely pace that allows all interested parties a chance to keep up with both the discussions and the editing activity. Most article writing does not require formalized processes for consensus development, but formal approaches (potentially including !voting) are needed for highly contentious articles.

Deletion discussions are different in that they are focused on a narrow question (usually it's "should this article be kept or not?"), occur in a brief time window (there's usually no opportunity to maintain a leisurely pace), almost always involve a larger and more diverse group of participants, and involve some participants to only a very limited degree. In this situation, it's necessary to have a formalized process, including (but not limited to) !voting. However, deletion discussions are most productive when they are truly conducted as discussions (with people introducing information and opinions, editing the nominated item to improve its chances for retention, and returning to the discussion periodically to see if their opinions are changed by the new information presented). --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Dream Focus (transcribed from "Oppose" section)

9. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in?

A: I copied out a list of the AfDs I participated in during approximately the last year. It's here (on the discussion page for this RfA). --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions from doxTxob

10. Can the sockpuppet investigation against Orlady, which was filed on or before Feb. 24, 2009 by blocked User:MagdaOakewoman, be un-deleted? (also see "Oppose" section)

A: That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup: 10a. Usually sockpuppet cases are named for the accused, not the accuser. From the history of both pages it is not obvious what led to the renaming of the case. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady does not link to the renamed case Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive nor is the latter case linked to the first. Can you provide any information about where the renaming of the case was discussed on Misplaced Pages in a way that the community could take part in the discussion?

Comment Closed sockpuppet investigations are "moved" (apparently copied) to /Archive by a bot, but you can find the history at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman. For example, here is where the case was renamed: . --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I had nothing to do with closing that case or renaming it. The case was investigated by a checkuser and renamed by another administrator. The user who had accused me of sockpuppetry was in fact engaged in sockpuppetry. Those who are trying to dig up dirt on me probably will be excited to know that earlier one of the sockpuppet accounts had accused me of edit warring in connection with an article where I had made exactly two edits three days apart. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Interesting, that user who dug up dirt on you is now also indefinitely blocked. doxTxob \  23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the conspiracy theories, DoxTxob (and please don't make another one of your comments relating Misplaced Pages to Nazi Germany). The accusation was ridiculous. There was no basis for it. It made as much sense as if you were accused of an edit war over Graceland because of your two edits to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no basis to the accusation and it is so ridiculous, why do you so intesively refuse and fight an independent opinon of your involvement in a sockpuppet case for which I have suggested a solution that would secure privacy? That looks suspicious to me. Are new admins not to be put under scrutiny to see it they are worth it or is the procedure more part of a campaign of mutual "back scratching"? You had editors banned ("shrugged off" as vandals, to use your own words) after three edits in which historical details were tweaked and things going on in your imagination and I am just wondering about the accusation against you. By the way, I was in fact accused of wrongdoing together with Doncram a day ago and asked for an investigation on myself and Doncram, demanding an apology by the accuser (who also happens to be a CHECKUSER), User:Deskana and I demanded that published here because I do not like stains on my record. I have not heard anything yet, I have left a note on Deskana's talk page, too, but still without any response. Is there anything to hide from the community? doxTxob \  05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You should link the source of my comment about Nazi Germany for the participants to know the whole context in which I drew that parallel. I did not compare Misplaced Pages to that dark time, I just compared certain development then to developments here. That's all. History is something you need to learn from to make sure mistakes are not repeated. doxTxob \  05:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are continuing to give far more credence to the bizarre theories of the anonymous creator of that angelfire attack page than you acknowledge. The principal basis for the supposed "outing" of Orlady is the strange theory that I was the true author of an insult posted on my talk page from an anonymous IP. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I don't recall where your comments about Nazi Germany first appeared, so I am not providing a link. I do recall that you didn't specifically use the word "Nazi," but instead talked about "75 years ago." --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, that is what I said. I appreciate the clarification. doxTxob \  22:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Followup: 10b. The page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive states that Orlady was not checked and the case was closed. For a proposed admin, the accusation of sockpuppetry is a very, very serious one. Would you agree to an investigation of the accusations made against you conducted by an independent party, to clear your record of any doubt?

A: The request is unreasonable. Do you not trust the findings of the checkuser process? Do you not accept the possibility that some vandals disrupt Misplaced Pages by filing accusations of sockpuppetry where there is no basis for the accusation? --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable and do not know if there is a basis because the report states that Orlady was not checked. (See Oppose section below to save some space here) doxTxob \  22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The following statements by Hans Adler may be helpful to anyone who is trying to follow this exchange. Hans Adler after DoxTxob asked to have them removed from "his" question section, but I am restoring them here because they are a useful supplement to my responses. --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your categorical "request" was completely out of order:

1. AFAIK the logs used by checkuser are deleted after a few weeks, so it's probably not even technically possible now.
2. It borders on insanity to suggest a connection between Orlady, Director Magda (a user who made 5 very clumsy beginner's edits in January), and Special:Contributions/161.45.203.38 (an IP who attacked Orlady and vandalised two other pages). There is no motive, there are no commonalities, there is nothing but an attack from a sockpuppet.
3. Checkuser is a privacy intrusion and must not be run without good reason. Its use for fishing in the way you demand would be a step on a path parallel to that of Nazi Germany. (Sorry; you brought it up first.)
4. Orlady is in no position to authorise a privacy intrusion that affects someone who is clearly not herself (Director Magda). Certainly not based on an insane conspiracy theory. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

11. You have been involved in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet investigation for a while and have reported many users as sockpuppets. Imagine the following scenario: One editor requests that you step back from the case completly and let other experienced editors handle the case, due to a concern that you might be biased by your long involvement in that very case. How would you respond to that request?

A: This is not a hypothetical question -- you (i.e., "one editor") have been asking me this question on various different talk pages. I have not answered because you don't "own" the situation any more than I or anyone else does. At various times in the past there were multiple users contributing and cooperating to take note of Jvolkblum socks, but several of those other users have disappeared from Misplaced Pages or moved on to other projects. If other people were to become productively involved in this area, my level of involvement would quickly decline. Contrary to Doncram's allegations, I don't enjoy playing "whack-a-mole" (I think it's a frustrating and unproductive exercise, but a necessary one).

I consider myself as "one editor" of Misplaced Pages, you are absolutely right. I have asked the question not several times but only twice to offer a solution that might be best for the Misplaced Pages project, and there was no response from you. I do not own the situation (and you don't either) but I am seriously interested in Misplaced Pages and seek the best for the project. The best for the project might be without you, doncram and doxTxob (myself) being involved in this particular case. As you try to diverge from the question, let me explain here to the participants of this discussion what my complete proposition was: All heavily involved parties in the discussion that got out of control, Orlady, Doncram and doxTxob (myself) would agree to not further pursue that case and let other experienced editors and admins take over as I am convinced that every one of these three (incl. myself) is too much involved to judge fairly, unbiased and for the best of Misplaced Pages. Refer to: User_talk:DoxTxob/Archive_2#Hello and there Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=281632533

The question becomes hypothetical when it is about your qualification for adminship, because this situation might happen again and at the cost of valuable contributors of Misplaced Pages. I formulated the question the way I did to find out what you would do if such a case repeats. I mentioned it before at a different place and I said that I was very, very impressed by User:Coren, who closed two AN discussions. At the beginning of the arbitration, Coren suggested he/she would reclude from the discussion at the request of any participant. Wow, that is the wood a good admin is carved from. I salute to Coren for this behavior that could be used an example for anyone, inside and outside of Misplaced Pages. If there is any doubt about your integrity, you (and anyone) should let someone else take over, just to make sure everything is judged properly. doxTxob \  06:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Quadell

12. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. One such instance is documented at Talk:National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. Here's the story:

I believed that the page did not belong in article space, in accordance with WP:NOT, but that it might be appropriate in wikiproject space or user space. I first discussed my concerns on the talk page, where the article creator participated energetically in defense of the page, and another user commented that a move to project space would be a good resolution. After almost four days had passed without further discussion activity following my last comment on that page (in those last comments I had responded to the creator's request to provide a detailed explanation of my reasoning), I concluded that the discussion had ended with acquiescence to a page move (if not a consensus), so I moved the page to project space. Thirty-five minutes later, the page's creator moved it back to article space, illustrating that he did not think that consensus had been reached. The page's creator (who is now vociferously complaining that I am a "bully") had earlier effectively dared me to take the matter to AfD, saying "If you don't feel like explaining, and if you feel inexplicably compelled to continue, then go ahead and raise the issue in AfD or wp:Requested moves or requests for arbitration or whatever other forum, and I will respond more fully to point out what I feel to be inaccuracies in your statements, and I will muster arguments for keeping this list-article where it is now." Seeing that talk page discussion had failed, a few hours after he reverted the page move I started an AfD discussion. After 3-1/2 days of lively discussion, with several users supporting either deletion or a move to project space and several others supporting retention, the AfD was closed as "keep." I accepted that conclusion (albeit reluctantly) and continued with other initiatives; I have had no subsequent involvement with the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd choice to present this incident. I freely grant, and did grant, that the article was in a gray area about being in project or mainspace, and it would benefit from some fixing up. It happens that having the article in mainspace serves purposes of the NRHP wikiproject in several ways and is proving to build a closer relationship with the National Park Service's National Register program people (Orlady probably is unaware of this further development). But, the NRHP wikiproject is the one that she has been most involved with / has posted the most at, per edit statistics, so repeating the example here as if she was right about challenging it, seems oblivious to the interests of one of the main communities to which she belongs. About "daring" her to take it to AfD: I asked her NOT to, because I thought it would (and did) take time away from better activity. This occurred, also, at a time when she was following my edits around, and I did experience it as antagonistic, just as Ottava Rima suggests (within Talk page attached here) describing her use of AfD's with another person she has followed around: "....simply put, if you are showing obsessive characteristics by countlessly following a person, then chances are there will be mistakes and accidents. Her AFDs are proof that she has pursued the person in an unreasonable manner and seeks to delete pages that could easily be fixed up. That is damaging to the encyclopedia. AFDs are not a tool to destroy one's enemy." For her to bring this AfD up as a positive example, merely because she did not revisit it more times later, and to repeat again her fantastic idea that I was daring her, shows obstinacy and non-acceptance of the fact that others views may be valid, more than any real acceptance of consensus. doncram (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram, I cited this situation as evidence of what I did when consensus went against me. I cited it because this happens to be the single best example I can recall of a situation in which consensus went against me in a process in which I was thoroughly engaged (and that occurred after I had a clue about how things are done at Misplaced Pages). --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional remarks to Doncram moved to Doncram's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically i think Orlady has been bullying, and amazingly to me she calls my generally polite request to her not to open an AfD as "a textbook example of bullying". In my request, i acknowledged some weaknesses in the article and I made some arguments against opening an AfD that I recognize are not valid within an AfD itself (such as the article "was not hurting anyone" and such as my personal reason that I wanted to work instead on a wikinews article about the first new NHL in New York State in more than 2 years, instead, right then). I feel her pushing to AfD right then, to seize upon and exploit weakness, is classic bullying behavior. My other more AfD-valid arguments as to the notability of the article later did in fact prevail in the AfD, and others did the development that i acknowledged was needed. The AfD appears to be have been inappropriate, then and now, to me. Q12 was about consensus. Orlady's response to Q12 here, her longer response on this page right here, which she moved with expansion to User talk:Doncram#Bullying, seem to show further obstinacy and disagreement with consensus, and difficulty to this day in accepting that AfD decision. It seems mostly like she and i butting heads, but in my view far more her bullying me. On a simple level, I think she thinks she was right all along about everything in this situation, and would like to be acknowledged for that now. So I interpret her complete response to Q12 as more or less saying that there is no valid example of consensus going against her. doncram (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I removed those comments from the RfA and moved them to your talk page before that remark appeared on my talk page. Also, you chose to reply here on my RfA page -- and hide the comment that I posted to your talk page -- several hours after I had moved the comments to the talk page. Did you think this RfA is about providing a platform for you? --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To see your comment on my Talk page, which you composed here as a response about Q12 here and which i collapsed (to anyone else, i did not hide it in a comment), please click "Show". If you are insisting that it is part of this discussion, so you want it displayed, please feel free to insert it back again here. doncram (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

True. As you say, you "did not hide it in a comment". Instead, as Orlady said you "hid the comment that posted" in a {{hidden}} template, whose colour you set manually to the colour of its "show" link. Not that it's particularly important, but it does seem to give some insight... --Hans Adler (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Hans Adler (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)]

I don't use collapse boxes often, and copied it from a FAC discussion for Listed buildings in Runcorn where i recalled seeing one used. I just changed the colors to improve readability, before seeing your comment here. doncram (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the (very plausible) explanation. I amended my comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 13a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: A block is a tool that can be useful in several different types of situations. The appropriate uses of a block are, of course, fully discussed at WP:BLOCK; I will answer your question with a discussion of general principles (as I understand them), rather than by repeating the specifics of the policy. Your question appears to focus on blocking of registered accounts, not IPs.

Registered accounts may have temporary blocks applied to them to stop some sort of activity that is disruptive (or otherwise deleterious) to Misplaced Pages and that has not been (or cannot be) resolved by gentler mechanisms. Perhaps the best-known example of a temporary block is the block for violation of the three-revert rule. A 3RR block has a duration of no more than 24 hours for the first instance. Ideally, when the block has expired the blocked party will be better disposed to engage in calm interaction, and the edit dispute can be resolved through nondisruptive means (if it isn't successfully resolved by judicious edits during the period of the block). Temporary blocks are also appropriate for repeated acts of vandalism, copyvio, WP:BLP violation, or incivility that have persisted in spite of repeated warnings. As I perceive it, this type of block is intended primarily to protect Misplaced Pages from the disruption caused by the disruptive behavior and secondarily to impress the blocked user that Misplaced Pages is serious about enforcing its policies. Some temporary blocks are solely to stop disruption -- for example, when an automated process appears to be "out of control" or when it is suspected that an account has been compromised.

Temporary blocks are appropriate when the assumption of good faith is still possible. In some instances, however, it becomes appropriate to block a registered account indefinitely. For example, a new user whose only "contributions" have been a series of vandalism edits that appear to be intentionally disruptive, and who has received a full series of templated warnings but has continued to make the same type of edits, may be blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism-only" account. Similarly, indefinite blocks may be applied to accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets (at WP:SPI), that have user names deemed to "have clearly been created only to cause trouble" (per Misplaced Pages:Username policy; please note: I have reported a couple of "bad" user names during me tenure here, but I have not been involved in arbitrating user names and have no particular interest in that area of admin activity), that have demonstrated severe and persistent incivility to other users, or that have persistently introduced content that violates copyright or defames living persons.

• 13b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Again, the relevant Misplaced Pages policy provides full details.

Most of my experience with page protection is with semi-protection. This prevents editing by anonymous IP users and newly registered accounts (not autoconfirmed). When a page has been subject to frequent vandalism (for example, for an article this might mean a dozen vandalism edits every day for several days) by anonymous users, semi-protection may be appropriate to protect it from continued attacks. It also may be helpful to protect frequently used templates to prevent accidental or intentional damage by inexperienced editors and vandals. I have noticed that some highly visible Misplaced Pages pages (such as noticeboards) are frequently semi-protected for brief periods after outbreaks of vandalism. Semi-protection is generally more appropriate for pages that have fairly stable content (and thus are unlikely to benefit from drive-by edits from anonymous users) than for pages that are not yet well-developed or that may require frequent updates because they deal with current topics. In my experience, this is an effective way to prevent much of the vandalism that would otherwise occur on highly-visible-but-stable pages such as the biographical articles for presidents of the United States.

Full protection restricts editing to administrators. Full protection, typically for a period of several days, can have the effect of imposing a "cease fire" when several editors are engaged in a content dispute over an article. Ideally, full protection of the article will lead to productive discussion among the editors. Sometimes it does not lead to discussion (all the participants may simply go away until the protection expires), but at least it should reduce the levels of stress that participants have likely been experiencing. Full protection is also employed for some critically important pages, including the main page and images that are displayed on the main page (including the current DYK image). However, except for cases of unusually high levels of vandalism, the featured article of the day is unprotected. --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 13c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: The criteria for speedy deletion identify the only circumstances in which a page may be speedily deleted. These include (for example) pages that are pure nonsense, blatant copyright infringements, articles that contain no indication or evidence of the notability/significance of their subject, and pages created by banned users in violation of their ban with no substantial contributions by others. Not all pages that are eligible for speedy deletion should be deleted; for example, instead of deleting the entire page about a notable topic because that page infringes on copyright, it may be possible to salvage a short stub (or even replace the copyvio content with a properly sourced article, as I did for WVOX). --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• 13d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: That question is somewhat paradoxical. If there were clear-cut situations where "Ignore All Rules" applied, then there would be rules for those situations, wouldn't there? Basically, IAR means that all specific rules should be understood and interpreted in respect to their purpose and the context in which they were created, and that the good of the encyclopedia should be the overriding consideration at all times.

The best examples of the application of IAR are actually embedded in the rules. For example, WP:V makes it clear that all articles must be "based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," but it also acknowledges that creators of inadequately sourced articles should be given "sufficient time to provide references" before content is deleted. This encourages the application of good judgment, rather than strict application of the basic policy. As specifically stated in the policy, unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons should not be allowed to remain in articles or on talk pages, but in many other instances Wikipedians are encouraged to apply good judgment in determining how to handle a situation of inadequate sourcing.

• 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: I have addressed the general topic of "determining consensus" in my responses to Q7 and Q8e (above), including examples related to articles and XfDs. Please advise if you want additional specifics.

As for deletion review discussions, I have relatively little experience with that process and, as a new administrator, I would not expect to get involved with closing deletion reviews. As I perceive it, determinations of the conclusion of DRV discussions should be based primarily on consideration of the reasoning that is presented, as it applies to the specific situation. In that context, "consensus" (or lack thereof) relates to whether (or not) multiple knowledgeable participants agree on the validity of the information and arguments provided. Since the focus of DRV is on whether Misplaced Pages process has been carried out appropriately, determinations regarding the results of a DRV discussion should be made by experienced administrators.

• 14b. - Followup question: In reading over the answer above, and the answers you note, you seem to be describing the process of discussion, and that consensus should (in optimum circumstances) involve discussion. Theorietical discussions of consensus aside, how would you close a discussion. What specific factors would you be looking for as closer in deciding what the "result" of the discussion is?

• A: Hmm... It's hard to answer this kind of question hypothetically. In practice, I think it is a matter of reading through the discussion, reviewing the item's history, and recognizing the conclusion that a discussion has reached....

Trying (anyway) to deal with this in a hypothetical manner, I'll start with the simplest situation, which is when all discussion participants have come to agreement. This happens particularly (1) when an "X" proposed for deletion has been sufficiently improved or new information has been provided that causes the nominator to withdraw the nomination and all other participants to agree on "keep", or (2) when all participants agree on a non-keep resolution (which is not necessarily a deletion; it might include something like "merge and redirect"), and no one has presented contrary arguments. If the nominator and all others agree on "keep," the XfD can be closed as "keep" without further ado. When all participants agree on deletion (assuming the item is not a clear speedy deletion candidate), however, it is important not to be hasty in closing the discussion as "delete." When a dozen people show up in the first two hours of an XfD discussion to say "Delete," there is a tendency to become impatient for the discussion to be closed as a snowball delete, but additional time is needed to make sure that users who might have other viewpoints have had a chance to weigh in and/or improve the item under discussion. If the creator(s) have been notified, the XfD has been appropriately categorized and listed on one or more deletion-sorting lists that have an active following, and the participants have given reasons that make sense (i.e., are consistent with policy/guidelines and are relevant to the item under discussion), it might be reasonable to close such a discussion in 48 hours or even less. However, as a general rule, Misplaced Pages will not collapse because an XfD discussion goes on longer than absolutely necessary, and it's important to give interested users a reasonable chance to participate. Also, as a general rule, there should be a total of at least 5 opinions on a discussion before it is closed as "delete."

Other situations are more complicated. If the allotted time for discussion has expired and there are fewer than about 5 opinions (on an XfD that is neither withdrawn by the nominator nor a clear candidate for speedy deletion), the AfD generally should be relisted for additional comment. (CfDs, TfDs, MfDs, and IfDs -- the last of which I don't intend to deal with -- generally get less attention, so they often may be closed with fewer comments.) If there are more than 5 opinions, the opinions conflict, but most of the comments are brief (without much in the way of explanation), then the XfD should also be relisted. (IMO, there should generally be at least five opinions and conflicting well-reasoned opinions on both sides to result in a "no consensus" close.)

This leaves the most important situation: the discussions with a sufficient number of participants with conflicting views. If most agree, with only one or two dissenters -- or no more than ~15% of the total participants (after discounting the effects of SPA accounts and canvassing), the majority opinion is almost always the consensus view. If opinions are split more closely than that, but the trend of opinion has changed during the discussion to one view or the other, the later opinions should get more weight than the early ones. If those later opinions lean toward "keep," then this is probably a "keep" consensus -- particularly if the article has been improved during the course of discussion. If those later opinions are heavily on the "delete" side and there is reason to believe that the earlier supporters of "keep" are aware of the discussion (but refrained from continuing to comment), then the consensus is likely to be "delete," but cases of doubt should lead to "no consensus" or "relist." If the trend over time is toward "keep" but there continue to be some well-supported arguments for "delete", "no consensus" is likely to be the "right" conclusion. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: The first step is fact-finding. That is, look at the article and its history to see what JohnDoe and JaneRoe have actually been doing (and what interaction JohnQ has had with them and with the article); look at the talk page to see what discussion has occurred; look at the users' histories to see if there are any single-purpose accounts and what related articles the involved users have an interest in; and look at the users' talk pages to see if they have discussed the article there.

The next step depends on the situation identified in the first step. The main possibilities include:

(1) Place messages on the users' talk pages warning them that their actions constitute edit warring and asking them to refrain from further reverts until they have discussed their concerns about the article on the article's talk page and reached consensus. This is particularly applicable if there is reason to assume that both users are acting in good faith and they have not previously received such a message. If this is done, monitor the article and its talk page to see what happens next.

(2) If the users have already been warned for edit warring and have continued, one or more temporary 3RR blocks may be needed.

(3) If it turns out that User:Doe is adding blatant advertising, POV-laden text, defamatory content, or similarly unacceptable material, while User:Roe is repeatedly replacing it with a neutral version, give User:Doe a "warning" about his behavior (type of warning to depend on user's history and history of past warnings; in cases of obvious COI, a user block might be appropriate).

(4) If option 1 has been tried and failed (or if there has been extensive talk page discussion that is leading nowhere), temporary full page protection on the article may be appropriate, in hopes of stimulating productive discussion on the talk page. In general, I think this is more likely to be productive than placing user blocks on good-faith contributors.

In every case, I would want for an administrator or experienced disinterested observer to continue to monitor the article -- and perhaps participate in discussion and editing in order to foster a favorable resolution to the content dispute. Often I would do this myself, but if the topic of the article is an area in which I don't feel particular competent to judge content but a topic in which many other admins and experienced users are competent (examples of this include professional wrestling, anime, and current popular music), I probably would seek someone else to take on the assignment. --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I don't actually "wish" to be an administrator. Rather, I think I could make myself more useful if I took on this additional responsibility. I am aware that if I had admin tools I could do some of these things more efficiently and help reduce the workload of the administrators (some of whom are probably sick and tired of responding to my requests for help with tasks I don't have the tools to perform).

Additional questions from Jennavecia

17a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I believe that there is a problem with BLPs and with content in general: there is insufficient oversight (and I mean "oversight" in the dictionary sense of the word, not the Misplaced Pages sense) of changes to prevent seriously inaccurate and/or defamatory content from being inserted into articles. It ought not to be possible for drive-by vandals to insert blatant falsehoods in articles about living people, and (in general) it is unproductive for volunteers to spend there time checking and rechecking factual details to figure out whether factual errors have been introduced into articles. (A non-BlP area where I frequently see factual problems is in numerical statistics in articles; for example, a user might change a town's per capita income, based on Census date, from $53,000 to $153,000 per year. Bots don't usually detect that sort of seemingly minor edit as vandalism, and human evaluation of the accuracy of these types of statistics can be time-consuming.)

17b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I think it is appropriate for any or all of these to be tried on an experimental basis, and I think it is necessary to try at least one of them. All have potential merit, but each has drawbacks. As I see it, the main drawbacks of the two "flagging" proposals are the need for extensive volunteer effort to patrol revisions and the potential addition of a new layer of bureaucracy related to granting of permissions for this new function. The main drawback that I see with expanded semi-protection is the possibility of discouraging input by anonymous newbies who might have good info to add or who might later become active contributors. Among the three, I would prefer expanded use of semi-protection (that is, semi-protect most reasonably stable articles), but I will gladly support whatever method is selected for a trial implementation.

17c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: It depends (is that a wishy-washy response, or what?). If the conclusion of "no consensus" is due to an issue potentially related to the personal privacy of the article subject (for example, this is often an underlying issue for people known for one event) or tha verifiability of the basic biographical information in the article, then it may make sense to default to delete. However, when personal privacy and verifiability are not central issues, then the usual default conclusion of "keep" makes sense, consistent with established policy. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

17d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: This is extremely hypothetical -- I do not expect to have access to OTRS information, and under current guidelines (as I understand them) the AfD no-consensus would default to "Keep."

If there were no guidelines, I'd say this should depend on the AfD outcome and the nature of the subject's concerns. If, in the absence of the complaints by the subject, the AfD result would have been a clear "keep", and the concerns of the article subject are related to simple vandalism by IP users (such as repeatedly replacing the subject's middle name with a vulgar word), I would be inclined to keep the article but apply long-term semi-protection to reduce repeat vandalism. If the AfD result would have been "no consensus" and the article subject is charging "vandalism" due to his objection to information that is apparently relevant sourced and factual content in the article, a different result might be appropriate. For example, if the subject of the article is CEO of a company and does not want the article to report negative information that the CEO says is wrong, if the article is of marginal notability anyway, it might be a good idea to honor the CEO's request that the information not be publicized. Most incidents likely require an outcome somwhere in betwee these two. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up:

The OTRS portion is just to say the subject's identity has been confirmed. No worries. Okay, so you start your answer with "If there were no guidelines". What about the deletion policy? I suppose, technically, there's no guideline on it. ;)

A to follow-up Q: My admittedly unclear reference to "no guidelines" referred to the current state of flux with respect to the matter of implementing flagged revisions or other measures for protecting BLP articles from vandalism. (I was writing late at night, and I fear that my fatigue showed in the writing...)

In my very limited experience with OTRS information about BLP concerns expressed by the article subject (most recently, this happened with Percival Davis, where I had recently made some drive-by vandalism reverts), the OTRS volunteers do not share information regarding the specifics of the concerns expressed. I would expect someone who had access to that information to remove any content from the article that had been reasonably challenged by the article's subject or was otherwise problematic with respect to WP:BLP. This would leave the AfD process to consider the article as it existed, without that OTRS content. If, based on review of the article in that redacted form, the AfD consensus is "keep" or "no consensus," then those conclusions should stand.

The wrinkle added in your comment is that the article subject complains of "vandalism." If this is garden-variety vandalism by anonymous IPs, it's not a valid reason to delete the article. However, since this kind of vandalism can be largely prevented by semi-protecting the article, I think semi-protection would be a reasonable action in respect of the article subject's reasonable concerns. There is, however, currently no policy or guideline encouraging the use of semi-protection in these circumstances (this is connected to the whole flagged-revisions issue).

If, on the other hand, the alleged "vandalism" is inclusion of reliably sourced content that the article's subject doesn't like, there are different nuances to consider. If the AfD is concluding with a consensus to "keep", the article should be kept, in spite of the complaints from its subject (but effort is needed to ensure that the article is balanced and does not place undue weight on negative info, no matter how well sourced it might be). However, if the article subject is only marginally notable and the AfD seems to be concluding with "no consensus," the objections of the article's subject might cause me to lean a bit toward the "delete" direction. This would be a good time to consult off-wiki with the OTRS volunteer, and "relisting" might turn out to be the most appropriate resolution (but XfDs should not be allowed to go on forever). --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The deletion policy states: Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

Additional question from doxTxob

18. You certainly remember the instance when I commented on your Request for Adminship when it was not yet opened. I did not notice it was not opened, because there were two support votes on your RfA already on March 3rd, more than five weeks ago. That made me think it was open for discussion already. (See this diff ) The mistake was only mentioned after I left my comment there (neutral at that time), the premature support votes had not been criticized. The premature voters excused themselves for their "mistake". They called this a "mistake", others might call it voting "irregularities" or even "fraud", I just call it "suspicious" collection of support votes. Is this your understanding of "mutual backscratching" to use your own words above? What is your position on accumulating support votes for a RfA before the discussion has started officially?

A: Orlady had nothing to do with "accumulating support votes" before the RfA started, so quit trolling already. She objected to your assertion that she hadn't filled out the questions yet, not the fact that you didn't vote in support. Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Orlady did not object support votes on this very RfA coming in as early as Feb. 28 (Diff. ), the votes were still present and not objected on Mar. 3 (Diff. ). During that time, Orlady was actively editing on Misplaced Pages. I see an imbalance if support votes are collected as early as 5 weeks before the RfA starts without any objection in an "inofficial" process, while neutral or opposing opinions are limited to just one week in the "official" RfA process.

I do not at all consider this request for her opinion as "trolling" as you chose to call it. Trolling is defined as "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages." (). I will leave the decision if my request regarding voting irregularities in the RfA disrupts Misplaced Pages to every particlipant in the discussion to answer that for themselves.

Acting inadequatly and not acting adequately when actions are required are not so very different, both result in an inadequate outcome. Thus, I deliberately and intentionally question Orlady's ability to use fair judgement by not acting adequately in a process which is essential to Misplaced Pages, which would cause a dispution of the due precess on Misplaced Pages. Voting in new Admins should be conducted in a fashion that is beyond any doubt about irregularities that would benefit the proposed Admin and no one else. I am interested in Orlady's position on this issue. doxTxob \  02:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A from candidate: I'm no expert on Misplaced Pages RfA protocol. However, in other RfAs I have seen other instances of people commenting before the RfA went live, so it did not seem unusual to me when this happened here. The two people who commented on this one before you noticed it because they (like you) had my talk page or this page watchlisted, and their comments were based on their knowledge of me and my work, so it didn't matter to them that the RfA was not yet live. They (and presumably you) were unaware that the page had not yet been transcluded to WP:RfA. I objected to your comment because it was not based on your past acquaintance with me, but focused on the fact that I hadn't responded to two of the three standard RfA questions. My response pointed out that I simply hadn't finished answering the questions -- and that the RfA hadn't been posted for comment yet. I was not concerned about the fact that you had commented, but rather about the premature nature of the basis for your objections. Also, note that no !votes were actually collected here until after the RfA went live; all "premature" !votes and statements were removed.

My remark about "mutual backscratching" relates to behavior in which users overtly or covertly "trade favors" (or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"). I have seen !votes on other RfAs (no need to name names though ;-) ) that said something like "I am supporting your RfA because you prevented my article from being deleted." I don't want to suggest that there is anything wrong with being grateful to other users for past favors, but I do believe that opinions should be rendered on the basis of objective evaluations rather than on "supporting my friend" or "helping the person who helped me". If you had voted "neutral" or "oppose" and explained your position solely on the basis of your past acquaintance with me, I would have been disappointed (just as I am disappointed by your energetic opposition now), but I would not have complained that you were voting prematurely.

I don't think it would be productive to get into a discussion of the definition of "trolling," much less an argument about motives. However, I think that someone inclined to engage in that sort of analysis and speculation could make a convincing argument that you and several other participants in this RfA are participating with "the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion" (see Troll (Internet)). --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people that responded to the RfA before it went live. I think that Doxtroxb is being silly rash to think that I was somehow connected with voter fraud. What could possibly be accomplished? It makes no sense to me what Doxtroxb could possibly be thinking that my actions could somehow be dishonest or sinister? I found the premature RfA page simply because I looked at Orlady's contribution history to see if there was something I could help with because I thought that she had been busy outside Misplaced Pages because she had posted a Wiki-break on her talk page. I don't know what caused the bee under your bonnet, Doxtroxb, but this accusation is going a bit too far. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse you, TallMagic, of anything and left an apology to you at your talk page. doxTxob \  22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I struck the word "silly" and replaced it with rash. Perhaps you didn't intend to accuse me of doing something sinister but I don't see any other explanation. Just because your intent was only to smear Orlady does not justify it, at least not in my view. It is clear that Orlady has upset you but, my view is that Orlady is a most excellent Wikipedian. Orlady and I have disagreed on so many occasions that I couldn't even count them all. She has always been very professional and focused on the good of the project in all our dealings. We have always been able to come to an agreement and contrary to some of the accusations that I've seen here, it has not always been decided to do leave the edit as Orlady wanted it in the beginning. As I say below, my view is that Orlady would make a fine admin. Anyway, I noticed that I messed up your handle, I'm sorry for that doxTxob. Peace, TallMagic (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not upset and do not want to smear Orlady or anyone. I just have serious doubts that she is fit for the admin role. doxTxob \  02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from BQZip01

19. Can you explain the difference between copyrighted images and trademarked images? Are they allowed on Misplaced Pages? If so, under what circumstances. The only reason I ask this question is because you have stated that you intend to delve into copyvio issues and I want to make sure you have a firm grasp on the concepts. Please take your time to research and answer these questions as you deem necessary.

A: Oops, but I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I don't intend to "delve into" copyvio issues, and I have declared that I have no intention of working with deletion discussions for images. I most definitely can't expound on the difference between a copyrighted image and a trademarked image. When I see an image that's identical to an image on another website or that I think has an unlikely or invalid licensing/ownership claim, I tag it (as a speedy deletion candidate, as needing source information, as needing fair use justification, or whatever is appropriate) or add the missing info (such as a fair use justification, source URL, or PD-US license if I think I've verified eligibility), but I have to leave the "heavy lifting" to people with more expertise in image evaluation and IP law. As an admin, I would expect to speedy-delete some copyvio images on occasion -- in easy cases when I can confirm where the image came from and when there's no hint of a free license (for example, if the image was copied from a website that clearly states that nothing on the site may re-used without permission) or a fair use claim. If it gets more complicated than that, I'll leave the decisions to somebody else. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Admitting weaknesses is part of being human and an admin. — BQZip01 —  21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Smallman12q

20. Is there any particular policy or guideline that you detest? If so, why?

A: Not that I can think of.

21. Is there any particular policy or guideline that you venerate? If so, why?

A: None.

22. Is there any case in which a vandal should be exonerated? If so, why?

A: I think that the use of the word "exonerated" is a bit odd in the Misplaced Pages context, since (to me) it implies some sort of a criminal proceeding. Anyway, here are some thoughts:

• Sometimes good-faith edits are mistakenly labeled vandalism. In that case, the user who is accused of vandalism may deserve an apology. If the user has been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for vandalism, the block or other sanction should be reversed.
• Sometimes good-faith users are mistaken for banned users and are blocked. If that happens, the block should be reversed and the user should receive an apology.
• Misplaced Pages does not assume "once a vandal, always a vandal." Users who have engaged in vandalism in the past will be welcomed as valued contributors if they stop engaging in vandalism and become productive contributors. (Sometimes it is best to do this under a new name.) I think this is a good thing in general -- because people are capable of change. However, I do not believe in infinite second chances. In particular, if a vandal's behavior has been so long-standing and/or egregious that vandal is indefinitely banned, it would be disruptive to Misplaced Pages to re-evaluate the ban on a frequent and regular basis. (As a general rule, the policy allows for reviews of indefinite after one year -- with the clock starting over if the banned user evades the ban. This time period is arbitrary, but I think it is sensible.)

23.In your own words, how would you define a "fringe theory"?

A: Misplaced Pages articles about "fringe theories" are articles that I stay away from, as a general rule. These are topics that many Wikipedians feel strongly about. I also have strong feelings about many fringe theories, but I don't care to get into disputes here about these topics. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Orlady: Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding anti-Orlady attack site

It has come to my attention (thanks to a courtesy notification by one of the people who is vociferously opposing this RfA) that there is was an anonymously-maintained misogynist attack page on the web about a chimera called "Orlady (a.k.a. )". On this website, my "Orlady" moniker is was erroneously connected with several other online personas, plus one real person -- whose personal welfare I fear may be threatened by this bilge.

I assume that the creator of that website had something to do with the strange "Magda Oakewoman" sockpuppetry case that has been mentioned here. I hope that no one else here at Misplaced Pages is connected with it, but I can't help but wonder if some of the people opposing me so vehemently here have been influenced by the vitriol there. If you are prepared to believe this garbage, please don't --Orlady (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you brought the topic up yourself here, please let the participants know that it was me who brought that site to your attention. I hate secrecy and I hate anyone anonymously saying bad stuff about anyone else, whether it is someone I like or someone I hate, in this case I preferred to let you know about it privately. As I state in that email, I am not your biggest fan (for those who have not figured that out yet) but I decided to let you know the bad stuff I found on the internet dragging your user name into the dirt. Because I find it disgusting to spill dirt on someones name anonymously. I have posted the text of my email to you ragarding this topic on the talk page of this RfA.

That site must has been created by someone who seems to dislike you very much and I am now convinced that the relations brought up there have nothing to do with you at all. But guess what, for a day or two, just for me and myself, it cast doubt on your reputation. That might explain my insistance on clearing your record of any wrongdoing and of any doubt, whatsoever. Good you brought that up. As mentioned, I do not think that you are in any way related to any of the accusations on that website. My vote would still be an opposing one due to reasons unrelated to this dirty website as outlined below in the oppose section. doxTxob \  06:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that attack site to my attention, DoxTxob. You are indeed the person who alerted me to it, and the fact that you were previously aware of the page does help to explain your earlier persistence about requesting an investigation of the "MagdaOakewoman" sockpuppetry allegations. For the record, the link you posted to your e-mail message no longer works because another Wikipedian requested that the copy of the e-mail message be "oversighted" (before realizing that I had posted the information here).

I cannot tell whether the attack page is directly related to this RfA. It was created some time between 17 February 2009 (the date when an anonymous user posted on my talk page using the IP that the harasser has inexplicably attributed to me) and 26 February 2009 (when Google last cached it), which happens to be the day after this RfA page was created by Kaldari. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note, there is an OTRS ticket on the subject at #2009041310004635. ⇒SWATJester 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was asked honest questions about a possible involvement in the attack page against Orlady and I provided honest answers to these questions. As this topic was raised here, I would like to provide the link to the relevant section: User talk:DoxTxob#Direct questions concerning Orlady attack pages doxTxob \  04:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If that link does no longer work I would be happy to re-send my email to you privately and you can use the link any way you want. Just let me know. doxTxob \  05:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I have seen Orlady around doing good work. Should do fine as an admin. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Orlady will make a great admin. She helps out at DYK by reviewing nominations, preparing sets of hooks, and alerting admins when the next update is due. She's polite, understanding, and helpful with newcomers. And she's been invaluable with debugging DYKcheck (also shows she's willing to try out new things). Shubinator (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Orlady's been here
   Longer than many admins
   More than qualified.  GARDEN  15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm abstaining; too many issues brought up in the oppose section that worry me.  GARDEN  21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Lots of good edits
   Vandal fighting for the win
   So why the hell not? FlyingToaster 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Orlady finally running for adminship? That's excellent news. I remember her as an admin or whatever they call it of the Open Directory Project, a bit less than 10 years ago, when I was active there. She absolutely had the right personality for her influential position there; and from all I have seen since I started watching her talk page about a year ago, I predict that she will be one of the best admins here as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Since there are a couple of oppose !votes, I think I should add: This is absolutely normal for an editor who has been an "admin without the tools" for a long time. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support. Orlady guards Misplaced Pages articles like a mama bear guards her cubs. She homes in on the singular goal of making the article better or more accurate, and doesn't relent until that end is achieved. Giving her admin tools is long overdue. Bms4880 (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. I wish I could right a haiku, but that's not my thing. So, I'll just say, looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. She should have gotten the tools long ago. Timmeh! 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - my experiences with Orlady have all been positive, she's been here longer than most of us and has surely earned her chance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Support, and not just for the Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet fighting. I think she's shown a lot of patience in this matter, but she has a lot of other great contributions all across the project. --Elkman 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I've been asked to remove this support vote per this edit. Apparently, there are allegations that I'm seeking favor from a potential admin (who I'm no longer supporting) to get support for a possible featured list that I'm working on (which I'm no longer seeking featured list status for). Sorry, Orlady. --Elkman 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Support I don't recall when I put this page on my watch list, but it was so that I could support this editor when and if the day came that they were nominated. That day is today. I've seen Orlady's work before and am supportive. GRBerry 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Looks trustworthy. GT5162 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Clearly trustworthy. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, unequivocally. bd2412 T 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Orlady is an asset to DYK, no matter what the opposers here might try to claim. Giving her admin tools will be a net benefit to the project and to the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to Neutral. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Neutral (moved from Support): My own interactions with Orlady at DYK have been pleasant and I've never seen this bad temperament people keep talking about, but the number of concerns that have been raised suggests that maybe I've just been fortunate in always being on Orlady's good side. I perused some of the diffs and AfDs that people linked in the Oppose section and, to be honest, didn't see a lot that concerns me (but I didn't really read through everything super-carefully, and I only glanced at a few links at random). Anyway, I wouldn't be comfortable supporting until I could look through these past issues more carefully, so instead I'm going to neutral. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Back to weak support. After looking through some of the diffs and pages linked in the Oppose section, I don't see anything that really offends me. There are opposes from several editors whom I respect greatly, but based on my own experience I can't really oppose. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Support - In addition to default Tennessee support, I've always seen Orlady as a strong contributor that has unquestioned zeal for improving the encyclopedia. TNXMan 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Strongest possible support -- #1 Orlady is an editor's editor. #2 She is judicious and diplomatic; in controversies, she always just takes the discussion back to encyclopedia-building and our editorial standards, thereby defusing behavioural issues. I've been asking her to stand for admin for a couple of years now. --A. B. 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'll add that looking at all the oppose comments and the links cited just reinforces my belief that Orlady would make a fantastic admin who would perform very well under fire. --A. B. 17:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    So, you mean all of those (17+) faulty AFD justifications that would only lead to more DRVs makes you believe she will make a fantastic admin? That is scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Whether they were faulty or not is a matter of opinion. Plus you seem to be implying that AfD is the equivalent of deleting an article. An AfD can only lead to a DRV if the article is, in fact, deleted, in which case more editors than just Orlady would have to support the deletion. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    One of her primary uses for adminship is to close AFDs. That means she will be deleting. With such a poor understanding of deletion policies there is no justification to give her the power. Combined with her aggressiveness in trying to get rid of certain pages, it is probable that she will CSD pages without taking them to AFD. We have enough admin with these problems now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    There's a detailed list of AfDs Ottava is disputing as well as a thoughtful analysis by another editor at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady#Other concerning AFDs --A. B. 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava, you have a perfect right to say whatever you wish here as long as you stay within the wide and easy boundaries of WP:CIVIL, which you are doing. Nevertheless, you may be undermining your own arguments here by the stridency of your opposition and your responses to various editors in this RfA. I think you've made most of your points already. --A. B. 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Support -download | sign! 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Has a clue, will travel. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Yes. America69 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support no worries here; longterm prolific and uncontentious editor with a clean block log, (the only block was an accident in 2007 that was reverted within three minutes). ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. I've often seen this editor doing good work. I trust her to improve the project with whatever tools she has.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Everything I've seen indicates this editor works in good faith and is a major contributor to the Misplaced Pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - A valued colleague and s good spirit, unflagging in her efforts to improve this project; truly worthy to wield the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Net positive and should help, plus there aren't enough admins yet. :D--Giants27 /C 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Aye Long overdue. Black Kite 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Sure- why not? Seems to have a good head on her shoulders. Reyk _YO! 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I've been impressed with her work on diploma mil^H^H^H^H^H^H *cough* unaccredited institutions. Skinwalker (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Strongest possible support Orlady is great improving articles as well as preventing vandals from degrading Misplaced Pages. My experience with Orlady is that she's very respectful when dealing with others and encouraging others to improve Misplaced Pages as well. Making her an admin will lead to making Misplaced Pages better. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    I have looked at diffs by Pastor Theo and others, and I'm still comfortable supporting. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

31. Support - Great work at SPI. KnightLago (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support This is an easy one. MBisanz 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support A tireless contributor and defender of Misplaced Pages policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - seems committed to the encyclopedia, patient in disputes, good contribution record. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Knowledgeable editor. The opposes are not persuasive. -- Mattinbgn\ 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Despite my shock that Doug is fourth opposer... --candle•wicke 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support, but remember that while it's nice to be important, it's more important to be nice. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Changed to oppose.

38. Support Eusebeus (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support in the Strongest Terms Possible Orlady is a great editor, is a tireless proponent and advocate for Wikepedia policies, and is highly respectful of other editors. Contrary to some of the arguments made below in opposition to her candidacy, she does indeed suffer fools gladly. She will make an outstanding administrator. Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I've now taken a look at most of the examples cited by the small but vocal "oppose" group. The examples cited are laughable, and that's putting it charitably. If anything, these examples strengthen my conviction that Orlady would be a fabulous adminstrator. Fladrif (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I find it troubling that you think a faulty understanding of our deletion policies, notability policies, and copyright policies as found in over 17+ AFDs with very faulty justifications is laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    No. I think that the claim that the examples cited evidence a faulty understanding of those policies is laughable. The examples show conclusively that Orlady clearly understands and follows those policies. The vocal arguments to the contary by a handful of disgruntled editors appear to me, as an entirely neutral and disinterested party to the particular disputes, to be completely unsupported and entirely divorced from reality. Fladrif (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    We have a "sofixit" tag for claims that a page does not have enough references. Most of the time, she didn't even look which was proven by others. This shows that she does not understand the purpose of deletion. Her failure to contact the creators of the articles she noms and even stating "I see no point in allowing the article proponents any more time to establish notability" is indefensible and 100% wrong. This is not about disgruntled people. This is about understanding policy, and your disregard for such is very troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Your out-of-context quote is a perfect example of why your arguments are simply foolish. I can read Latin, French, Italian and Spanish too...but I can also read plain English. Orlady did precisely what WP:FAILN contemplates in that PFD. She put a notability tag on the article in October 2008. FOUR MONTHS LATER , the tag had been removed by another editor, but no source to justify the notability of the subject was presented in the meantime. To conclude, at that point in time, that more than a reasonable time had elapsed for the article's proponents to come forward with the necessary support and that no further time was warranted is not a misunderstanding of the policy, it is precisely consistent with the policy. It is you that is misinterpreting the policy, not Orlandy. It strikes me that your stridence is at least in some small measure sour grapes over your own failed RFA and Orlady's even-tempered statement of opposition to it. Get over it. But, I will make a note for myself to be sure to express my opposition to any future candidacy by you, with your arguments here as Exhibit A of your own complete lack of understanding of applicable Wiki policies and lack of temperament to apply them. Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC

    No, that is completely wrong. You are supposed to do your own research. She does not. The links provided by people afterward prove this. The fact that she did not want to even notify the creator as required in an AfD only verifies that her actions there are completely troubling. You can do whatever you want to dodge from this fact, but she has made it clear in over 17 AFDs that she doesn't understand one of her core areas. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Au contraire. Reread WP:FAILN. In Latin, French, Spanish and Italian if necessary. Doing the research for the editors is NOT a requirement; it is an alternative. Notifying the original editor is NOT a requirement, it is an alternative. Putting a notability tag on IS an alternative, and the one Orlady chose in that case. She then waited four months, with no appropriate response, and submitted a PFD, which is also the appropriate course to follow. The links provided in the PFD did not support the notability of the article; rather, they confirmed the lack of notability of the article, and it was ultimately deleted. A word of advice: When you find that you've dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Fladrif (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I would suggest you reread the Notability statements yourself - Failure to do -any- research is not a justification to claim that such does not exist, and it is not appropriate to not contact the creator of a page and try to delete it before they have time to provide such. These are extreme abuses of the AFD process. It states clearly "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself". She did not do this. Your claims about Notability disgust me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    You really have a problem with quoting out-of-context, don't you? "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:..." "Or". It's such a short word. And yet, so packed with meaning. (In case it's giving you trouble in English, that would be "vel" in Latin, "o" in Spanish or Italian, and "ou" in French. )Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    And it says "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" rather clearly. I think it is obvious that the Notability guideline is 100% against you and Orlady, and your continued persistence only verifies that you don't understand it, which negates any support you may offer. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

40. Support I remember Orlady from the Open Directory Project, where she was invaluable as one of the more steady, patient, and even tempered editors, and eventually Meta-editors. Her work here seems to continue that trend. Probably the best evidence for that is the links her opponents seek to use against her, showing that she is able to change her mind and is diligent and thorough. If this is her worst, she'll make a fine admin. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
41. per above. --Kbdank71 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've encountered Orlady in a couple of articles and article talk pages that are on my watchlist and have found her to be an impressive editor and is able to back up potentially controversial edits with sources. --Polaron | Talk 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I haven't encountered Orlady much at Misplaced Pages. Only once or twice. However, the plaudits above seem persuasive. I did nose around a bit regarding the Jvolkblum matter, and cannot see that she's done anything wrong. Orlady may recall interacting with me quite a bit at DMOZ ages ago, and not in a very pleasant way, but that's water under the bridge, and anyway neither the water nor the bridge are at Misplaced Pages. Good luck, Orlady.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support excellent contributions and discussion at DYK. Your help will be appreciated! Royalbroil 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Kaldari appears to have hit the nail on the head below -- Orlady "seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism." Indeed. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support DGG is fairly convincing, but thinking about it some more reminds me that it's okay for admins to do a bit of learning on the job. Orlady has definitely proven her basic trustworthiness and dedication to the project, and I assume that she'll ask someone or look something up before speedily deleting things she's unsure of. Steven Walling (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Partly because she meets my criteria, and partly because I'm just not finding any of the arguments from the Opposers to be convincing. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Weak Support The oppose votes do sway me a bit, but not seriously. I still think that having Orlady as an admin would be a net positive. Foxy Loxy 10:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support- Orlady has been very helpful specially in articles about educational institutions, which seem to be his expertise. I believe that we need an admin with that kind of inclination as Misplaced Pages is a primary resource relied upon by people who search for information in that field due the scarcity of inputs elsewhere. People are being deceived into spending thousands on useless "degrees" from unaccredited or completely bogus institutions of higher learning and in this he can help a lot by confronting head-on and putting through the acid test the POVs of PR men and women sent by such institutions to create or whitewash existing articles. Orlady is a decent Wikipedian with a consistent record of adhering to guidelines and policies, he has been with us for many years and have contributed a lot. I would feel more confident if we have more administrators like him and fewer of those who hardly know what they're doing. – Shannon Rose (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Weak Support. Some people in the oppose section do have some points against you, but I think that if you are careful about your work as an administrator, there will be no problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support, an obviously qualified candidate. Everyking (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support vandal fighting in face of horrible abuse and handling it well shows she gets it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Sheesh, she's been around long enough so she understands the culture. And if she's battled vandals, she's done more than me on this matter. We needn't talk about whether she gets sarcastic or snide -- everyone does it once in a while. The question is will she abuse the admin bit, for example block people for petty reasons? I think not. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support -- dedicated editor, smart and committed; she's impressed me as an editor in the past; I looked at diffs and wikilinks that opponents brought up, but didn't see problems with temperament -- Reconsideration (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support good answers to the questions, and no indication that she'll misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support as in the six AFDs we both participated in, four of his arguments were strong, while only two were weak, but at least they were not “its cruft” in nature and four to two cancels out and supersedes the two. Also, as candidate has multiple barnstars at User:Orlady and only was block was apparently a mistake (quickly unblocked). Best, --A Nobody 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    You are saying that you are comfortable with a 33% error rate? So, for every two good closes they will have created one legitimate DRV? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't understand why you insist on equating nominating AfDs with closing AfD. They are NOT the same thing. Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    AFD closers have to balance rationales. She believes that completely wrong rationales that show a lack of understanding deletion requirements and notability standards as to be correct. This would mean that she could accept bad rationales from others. To close AFD, you have to have a strong understanding, not a completely faulty understanding. Over 17 AFDs showed errors in her understanding. Thus, she cannot be deemed trustworthy to close any AFD. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

59. Support. Some concerns, but none with strike me as dangerous. Wizardman 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Support I've worked with this editor on several articles related to higher education and found him or her to be level-headed, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. His or her work related to unaccredited institutions (like List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning) is particularly commendable given the contentious nature of such articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
61. She is a strong editor. Acalamari 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong support, having personally offered to nominate Orlady for adminship myself in the past. A sensible and articulate user with a good understanding of the issues affecting Misplaced Pages's hosting of article on controversial topics, especially biographical material. Orlady also has valuable experience of sockpuppetry investigations - an area that is time consuming and unpopular with many/most admins. There are good reasons put forward above why she needs extra buttons. I am not convinced that "a bit abrasive" is a reason why someone shouldn't be an admin. Sometimes points have to be made firmly - adminship isn't social work. Orlady is competent and has shown herself capable of taking on the extra rights on this project. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Regardless of abrasiveness, you state that sockpuppets is something that she would be good at. Would that not be a CoI seeing as how she has spent a lot of time fighting this sock puppet in particular and her judgment may be clouded? Also, there is a major issue brought up by many about her problematic AFDs and her ignoring the WP:NOTABILITY requirement to research for sources before listing something at AFD. One of the supports above says that she has a 33% problematic rate. Wouldn't both of these remove any reason for her to be trusted as an admin? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I've seen no compelling evidence that Orlady's judgement is clouded in any way, quite the contrary. BTW, WP:NOTABILITY isn't a "requirement", it's a guideline. WP:BAN is, however, a policy and trumps WP:NOTABILITY. You may want to refamiliarize yourself with those pages rather than continuing to spread misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Really? So, you think someone who has actively pursued "sock puppets" to the point of nominating several pages for AFD simply to get back at this boogyman along with fighting at least two definitely not sock puppets who are mentioned below is some how acceptable? Notability is a requirement for AFD. Your disrespect of it is the same as your nominee's, and your mutual lack of respect for it is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    This is ludicrous. You are seriously suggesting that the fact that Orlady is doing what all admins who have opined on the matter agree is excellent, responsible work fighting jvolkblum socks without the tools (give me a counterexample if I am wrong) she can't be trusted to do it responsibly once she has the tools? Is that what you are saying? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    CoI. Being actively against someone and then given the tools will mean that she will not be able to stay objective. Objectivity is a central requirement in blocking. She has nominated many pages in seeking revenge and has waged war against multiple users who are clearly not the socks. If anything, she should have been topic banned from NY related articles long ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    It is not Orlady's responsibility to vet articles created by banned users. If you guys want to rescue such articles, that's great, but it requires more work than just complaining. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Suddenly being banned does not mean all of their old contributions must be removed, and deleting potentially valuable resources would be harming the Wiki. If there was a CU statement proving that a page was created after someone was banned, it would have to be displayed at the AFD. I haven't seen evidence of this in any of the statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    OR, you are not making sense. It's like saying someone is disqualified from becoming a neighbourhood police officer because he has been showing civil courage in dealing with a member of the community who is publicly molesting women. It may be the case. But if he has acted within the bounds of what every citizen is allowed to do and as one would expect from an off-duty professional police officer under this constraint, the only reason not to give the person the job is to save the salary because there is already a volunteer doing it.

    It is getting increasingly clear to me that you are simply throwing random dirt at Orlady in the hope that some of it sticks. I agree with Harvester below. And you are making a fool of yourself. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Don't believe me? What about an ArbCom member - "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master. It is common to become too easily persuaded that new accounts are socks, and eventually there will be collateral damage. At some point, someone should volunteer to take over." Having admin tools will only put her further entrenched in something that she should not be pursuing in such an overactive manner. Other people can handle it, and her efforts have crossed the line beyond reasonable, especially when it affected multiple AFDs. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    This is a general comment, and there is no indication that it has anything to do with the specific situation. I will ask Carcharoth to comment here. Talking about Arbcom members' comments, how about this one: "Orlady is doing a stellar, difficult job of tracking down that vandal, and has the full support of the community." Well, obviously with the exception of a handful of editors who object to other editors acting like admins without the tools. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hans, thank you for letting me know that I was being quoted here. That comment by me at a request for arbitration was a caveat to a decline to take the request as a case. It should have no import here, and I would appreciate it (addressing Ottava in particular) if comments by arbitrators (or at least by me) were not quoted in this fashion (even in rebuttal, as Hans has done with another arbitrator's comment elsewhere). Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Comments by Arbitrators working in an official capacity are used in all discussions dealing with general themes. I did not quote the above as specific about Orlady, but about the mindset of constantly dealing with an individual sockmaster on your own and to a large extent. The reason why we have ArbCom is to be a final community voice on behavior, so such statements are utterly necessary when interpreting appropriate behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    You were quoting it as the only argument in support of the fantastic idea that because Orlady is dealing with jvolkblum now she is disqualified from being an admin. This suggests to me that you are the kind of person that cannot be characterised correctly in an RfA without being blocked. Perhaps it's just a communication problem, but by now it seems extremely unlikely. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    It seems a tad odd that I quoted -one- other reference to the idea and you seem to think it is the only idea. As an admin who has worked with banning someone at WMF projects and the events afterward, I have a lot of experience with the matter, and I can provide you with a list of many, many admin who will say the same thing as I have said - simply put, if you are showing obsessive characteristics by countlessly following a person, then chances are there will be mistakes and accidents. Her AFDs are proof that she has pursued the person in an unreasonable manner and seeks to delete pages that could easily be fixed up. That is damaging to the encyclopedia. AFDs are not a tool to destroy one's enemy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'll add to that that such quoting is generally unwise in most cases because the lack of context can remove important nuances. For instance, my comment to Doncram (which is what was quoted) is perfectly accurate but should not be used to endorse (or oppose) Orlady's RfA: I commented on only one aspect of her behavior but have not actually examined her contribution with an eye towards evaluating her suitability as an administrator. — Coren  14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks to both of you for your clarifications. Coren, I did not mean to suggest that you are endorsing Orlady's nomination. Since both of you agree it can be read that way, I am withdrawing that part of my comment. I suggest that OR do the same with his. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

63. Support. Not insane. Patient in the face of ridiculous questions, in fact almost too patient. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Support. I randomly looked over some of her edits/comments/exchanges with others. They seem invariably in the best interests of the project, even when putting a nose out of joint here and there. Admins aren't expected to be perfect. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Support, committed and hard-working, unlikely to damage the project with the tools (in fact, likely to be a net positive). Bencherlite 06:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Rami R 10:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support The few opposes that I consider legitimate - those based upon neutral observation rather than invested antipathy - need not make Orlady a poor sysop; Admins will make mistakes, as is evidenced by Orlady's block log ..cough.., but the primary criteria is trustworthiness. Orlady has demonstrated that trait to my satisfaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Has a large quantity of clue. Yes, some of the oppose votes do say things that are worth saying -- and I'm grateful that they link to such stunning sights as this (blackly hilarious, though not by Orlady) -- yet the negatives seem overblown. -- Hoary (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Aftre reading this RfA extensively, I do so for three main reasons: (1) she meets my standards; (2) she's been "outed" -- as a Wikipedian and otherwise -- and I feel a great sense of empathy here; (3) she's made some mistakes on AfD nominations, but none so egregious that they cause me to wonder about her use of a few extra buttons. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    She has been attacked but not outed; rather she has apparently been confused with some other real life person. Let's not imply she is in fact that person: that would be outing her if true and in fact it seems to be false. doncram (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

70. Support - great work in sockpuppetry cases and at afd, has been around forever. Let's stop wasting her time by making her find an admin every time she needs a page protected or a sock blocked. -- Vary Talk 19:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    The admin CoI requirements were put in place so that an admin would not be page protecting or blocking users involved in a page that they are involved in. Thus, Orlady would not be able to be objective enough to handle such things. With that in mind, your justification for her needing the tools falls flat. She will have to find another admin or she will be in violation and, if it happens enough times, will be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Your assumption that an admin can not neutrally handle the same disruptive user more than once is flawed. Thus, your opposition to my support falls flat.  :-) -- Vary Talk 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    As pointed out, she has listed many users that didn't pan out as the sock, has participated in AFDs and the rest in regards to the user, and has fought with other uses who edit those same pages. I think she is beyond an objective participant. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Well, you're certainly entitled to the opinion that she is no longer objective in that matter. I disagree, as do numerous other editors in excellent standing in the community. Hence, my !vote in favor of her candidacy. -- Vary Talk 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    If you think she is objective, please explain the large portion of her faulty AFDs relating to the subject area that the sock puppet use to edit and comments like not giving them anymore time to find references to make a page notable? Or how about her ignoring of the notability guideline which states that you should make a good faith effort to find references and people later putting forth references along with her admittance that she didn't look? Reputation is not an answer nor a legitimate justification for anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    All of those concerns have been amply addressed elsewhere, Ottava, and frankly, most of them are overstated here. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion that the nominee is not objective in the matter of the Jvolkblum sock puppetry case, despite the high praise she has received for her patient and responsible actions: looking at the same evidence as you have, I have come to a different conclusion. I see no point in further discussion of my !vote with you. -- Vary Talk 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

71. Support Another fine contributor. The AfD problems cited below seem arguable rather than showing significant misunderstanding of policy. Dean B (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - My review shows no cause for alarm. AfD seems like a third rail for some - agree with above - arguable, not significant misunderstanding of policy. Feel free to badger; made my comment, I'm done.King Pickle (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Strong support — I have never seen Orlady's signature and not had a good impression. I'm pleased to see they will be an administrator soon, this user deserves it. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per positive contributions to the project in multiple varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
75. I never take part in RfAs. I certainly had no intention of doing so while my own RfA was ongoing, but looking through some of the diffs provided by the opposers, I found something rather different to the claimed incivility and contentiousness. I found an editor arguing rationally and strongly from policy based positions for things to help and improve the 'pedia. If that's what the opposition are saying, don't see much point in reviewing anything else. Support, yeah, strong support. SpinningSpark 23:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support 66.28% of edits on the article main space, wow! Aaroncrick 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Multiple years of experience in the mainspace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - Every user and admin has their own communication style. Some walk on eggshells and some tell it like it is. True, the latter style may be taken more personally by users and those users can bring it up at the appropriate place if they wish. In any case, I think it is clear that Orlady is a hard-working, highly experienced editor on Misplaced Pages and other places (her work on the ODP is also extensive and long standing). κaτaʟaveno_C 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support I looked over the oppose !votes and couldn't really find much there that's worth opposing over. Since when has speaking bluntly been a crime? Assume good faith doesn't mean you have to lie to people, after all. Her contributions in SPI are stellar and she'd make a great admin there. ThemFromSpace 18:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support - Orlady is welcoming to new users and, in my experience, is a peacemaker in contentious editing spots. —Eustress 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Support We always need more vandal fighters, and her vandal fighting work is good. Comments are sometimes not as polite as they should be, but hopefully she will take the criticisms to heart, and refrain from any overly negative comments in the future. LK (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support. No problems here. One editor says in the oppose section that admins should somehow retain complete control in situations that "would make saints go ballistic". I refuse to think that a collaborative project needs such strict vetting standards. The White House doesn't do that. Tan | 39 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support The thoughtfulness with which she has answered the questions is impressive. And, clearly, anyone who involves herself so deeply in this project is going to make mistakes and upset some people so I'm not surprised at the oppose !votes but do feel that these !voters should consider what wikipedia's content would look like if everyone made nice all the time. I'm a little disappointed to see that this is a borderline RfA whereas those of other editors with less involvement with the project (mine included) were much clearer. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Since several editors are opposing based on her conduct in this RfA, may I add that I find it (her conduct) reasonably exemplary and admirable. In the face of numerous questions from people who would likely oppose anyway, she has given detailed and reasonably polite answers (faltering, perhaps, in one place, but then, one assumes she is human). We should, I think, respect the time and care devoted to issues raised by obvious opposers. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

84. Support Even when I have found myself on the opposite side of an issue from Orlady, she has never failed to earn and keep my respect as a solid, knowledgeable, helpful, and trustworthy editor. I believe she can and will use The Tools for the betterment of Misplaced Pages, and I feel wholly comfortable trusting that she will not misuse them, which is really what this RfA vetting process is all about. --Dynaflow babble 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions, good responses to controversy on this page. Has clue. Seems to have picked up a small handful of opposers who are very vocal at this RFA, but many of whose points (like AFD reasoning objections, clearing self from sockpuppet allegations) do not stand up to scrutiny and are more heat than light. (By this I'm not asserting that no opposers' justifications hold water, just that in my opinion those of some of the most vocal opposers are not valid.) Martinp (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
86. I knew this editor at ODP. Strong-headed editor that has a clear idea of right and wrong, which means it can sometimes be annoying to be on the opposite side of an argument with her. But that doesn't mean she'd be a poor admin; in fact, the opposite in my opinion. I fully trust her with the extra tools. -Atmoz (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Support I spent a significant amount of time reading through the issues raised here, from a nomination that has raised far more heat than I would have expected based on my experience with the editor under discussion. The Orlady that I've seen has been a thorough editor, by expanding, improving and sourcing articles including many that many would be happy to toss off the cliff. Orlady has received a rather thorough grilling under the various questions listed, and I wish the artificial standards being set for her were observed by all administrators, including some of the admins asking these same questions. The issues that have been raised here are issues that can be addressed by Orlady, and I hope that these recommendations are taken seriously regardless of the success of this RfA. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on their talk page. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

88. Support Conditional based upon answers to #19, but, in general Orlady knows what is going on and how to handle the situations appropriately. People here need to realize that this user is involved in the seemy underbelly of Misplaced Pages where WP:OR and lack of citations lurk. Those wishing to game the system eventually run into editors that won't take "I want to do it this way" as an appropriate solution to a problem. Good/Great editors piss off people. Good/Great admins do the same because there are some people out there that just don't get it. Merely causing or being the source of drama is not a valid reason for opposition, IMHO. Orlady and I have disagreed and still do on some subjects, but that isn't a reason to oppose. This whole thing is like the Senate approval process in the U.S. for cabinet members. Senators who oppose someone's nomination should only do so if they have grave concerns about the person's ability to do their job, not the political views of the individual. Some of the best people out there caused a lot of disruption in their lives (like Elliot Ness, Harry Truman, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi), but only to the betterment of society/niche. There is nothing wrong with being thorough. — BQZip01 —  19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on their talk page. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

89. Support She has a solid reputation for neutrality. Although she can be mildly abrasive, it's more like Comet cleanser than sandpaper. She always seems to be working from as genuinly neutral viewpoint as possible. What some don't seem to realize is that to achieve neutrality, sometimes you have to lean the boat one way or the other. Defending expression of different sides of a topic is not non-neutral - frankly, conducting a discussion in this way is an excellent way of reaching consensus. My two cents - it's hard to imagine anyone wanting this job - it's thankless hours of self-sacrifice and hard work - I say let her do it! --Caernarvon (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Just because. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - Whilst I am mildly concerned by the comments in opposition, that's how it is — a mild concern. I believe that Orlady would make a fine admin. — neuro 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - Orlady would be a tremendous asset to Misplaced Pages as an admin. --Ichabod (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    The above vote is possibly in response of a note left on a WikiProject talk page that they are member of. See here for more details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

93. Support A little wikidrama provides experience=D. She's done a bit of vandal fighting, so that would cause slightly more "aggressive" behavior. I also like the fact that she's put up a tough fight in a number of cases. I believe this shows the user has a genuine interest.Smallman12q (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Support I hadn't really clued into this until I came across the discussion on the RfA talk page this afternoon. I since took some time to look at the candidate, and I really have no major concerns. I prod'd an article that I think is ridiculous last night, and AFD'd it this morning. I could have just deleted it, but I'd be drop kicking a hornet's nest. Just because someone who nominates articles for deletion gets the mop doesn't mean they'll go nuts with the delete button. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
95. Support  It took me a while to check out a significant sample of her contribs. Overall, very positive. Some worries about tone when communicating. Her volume of work outweighs this in my mind. --StaniStani  00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
96. Support, (initially distracted by the vocalness above, below and elsewhere) per the facts and my humble opinion. Dedicated, consistant, responsible editor. Communicates well with those that ask for help or clarification. Far from concise, she is willing to fully explain the reasons for her actions. The flag would be carried responsibly and effectively. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
97. Support (change from neutral) Off the fence and shooting. I see nothing wrong with the responses Orlady has made in this RfA. She looks to be a fine editor who will make a good admin, and at the worst, she's brusque. Guess what, people, join the real world. She has been civil, for all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
98. Support: would be a great asset. South Bay (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
99. Support: While I dont always agree with Orlady, I've never found her disagreeable. I'm sad that she and other valued editors can't seem to get along, but so be it. I trust her judgement but I would caution her that by gaining more power, she has also gained the responsibility of being more even-handed than she was before. dm (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
100. Unconvinced by opposers (actually some of the oppose reasons a ridiculous). Viridae 05:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
101. Strong Support User has been around since August 2004 and has shown commitment,dedication and user is track and checking and rechecking clearly feel the project will not lose anything with the user getting tools.If the user has waited nearly 5 years for the 1st RFA it clearly shows the user is not after tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

     Support: I think she will be trustworthy with the tools and see no reason to oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.163.72 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

     I request that this anonymous, unsigned vote is not counted. doxTxob \  08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

     Indented. Sorry, anonymous users may not comment at RfA. Black Kite 09:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

102. Support I have been busy travelling and almost missed the chance to offer my support here. Do not judge my tradiness as any hesitance. Orlady can be depended upon to do necessary tedium.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - From her comments at DYK, I have not seen anything to suggest that she respects standard consensus procedure, tradition within DYK, nor would I trust her having access to update the mainpage in any way, let alone having the ability to properly discern what could go on the mainpage especially in regards to fairness, appropriateness, or monitoring for articles with plagiarism. I will add other concerns for other areas shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Lengthy discussion moved to talk page.  iMatthew :  Chat  12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady#Ottava's oppose lengthy discussion - Which has far more opposition points including her AfD record. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would prefer the lengthy discussion is moved back here. Ottava Rims's opinion is important to the topic. Just today, Orlady has added HER user statistics at the top of the talk page for this RfA and pushed Ottava Rima's opinion way down the page, I moved her statistics that are available to anyone here to the bottom of the talk page as it is the usual procedure to add new posts at the bottom. I do not like that information important to the discussion is displaced some place where no one finds it. Is my objection or doncrams the next that is going to be put on the talk page? I would suggest in that case that the unusually many support votes are put on the talk page too, just to keep the balance right! doxTxob \  04:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   This page is plenty long enough without including the full text of Ottava Rima's comments, which another user (not me) judiciously moved to the talk page. (It might be appropriate to move a few other conversations, too.) As for the user statistics, AFAIK the usual custom is for those statistics to appear at the top of the discussion page for an RfA. The talk page for this RfA had a heading for user statistics, but no statistics were displayed, apparently because the utility was down at the time the statistics were requested. After seeing that someone had cited insufficient experience with content creation as their reason for opposing this RfA (a strange allegation, considering that I have nearly 20,000 edits in article space), it dawned on me that the statistics were missing, so the user might have mistakenly thought (based on the talk page) that all of my contributions were to AfDs. Therefore, I took it upon myself to replace the dysfunctional empty template at the top of the talk page with an actual set of statistics. I am going to restore the list to the top of the page. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, move the valid arguments you don't like and the lengthy opposition far down on some talkpage where they are not read and dump your lengthy statistics on top of it. Just leave the support votes here and the nice comments, it looks that at least one supporter did not even sign their vote. Hey, that still counts as a vote? Wow! See Q 10c to see how Orlady got her first support votes for this very RfA more than 5 weeks ago! Support is welcome whomever it is from, opposition is nothing she want to hear about. doxTxob \  07:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   This comment is crossing the civility line, doxTxob. Please remember that this is supposed to be a civilized discussion, not personal bickering. Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Saw her actions at a recent AFD, and reading what she wrote about recognizing invalid arguments and ignoring the opinions of anyone who disagrees with her when forming consensus for an AFD, is rather troublesome. Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in? I think that is the best way to judge someone's character in these things. If the majority of editors in an AFD state something should be kept, they believing it meeting all requirements, would she ignore that simply because her opinion was different? We need administrators who listen to the consensus formed by editors, not just decide on their own straight away what should be done, and dismiss anyone else's opinion as invalid. Dream Focus 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   In response to this query, a few days ago I added a list of one years' worth of AfDs I participated in at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Orlady#AfDs. (I'm sure I left a note here regarding that list, but trying to figure out what happened to that note would be pointless right now...) --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   Considering how much of your userpage is dedicated to vociferously opposing article deletion, I have to wonder what articles you would actually be OK with having deleted. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have in fact voted to delete articles in the past. I believe in reviewing things case by case though, not just trying to delete something outright because it didn't get mentioned by a third party media source. The guidelines are just suggestions, to be ignored, if the consensus of the editors in the AFD say so. Only policies have to be enforced no matter what. People have to remember that, and accept the consensus of all editors, not just ignore them automatically, determined to delete something they don't like, no matter what. Dream Focus 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Stong Oppose - I intended to stay out of controversial issues on Misplaced Pages. As my username is mentioned above in the Type 3 conflicts I will take a few minutes to describe why I am opposed to Orlady's adminship. First of all I must say that I appreciate her contributions to Misplaced Pages and see her as one of the best editors we have. I cherish her skill with words, she is an excellent writer. When it is about conflicts, however, she lacks what it takes for an admin, in my opinion, to solve a conflict in a fair and neutral fashion. She stated her common practice herself, if she has a conflict with a Misplaced Pages member who is established, she cannot "shrug them off", like she does with new editors who have not established many contacts on Misplaced Pages yet and therefore no-one to stand in for them and support their view. Those newbies are bombed with WP policies or are shrugged off as vandals, their edits reverted and they leave Misplaced Pages discouraged. doxTxob \  20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Established editors who she can not easily shrug off are treated differently. She withdraws for a while and in later discussions she claims that these editors still have a "grudge" against her stemming from a former case. Thereby, unfairly and wrongly, implying that she was right in that former case. I am glad that she mentioned the case we discussed, about article rating in which she and I were of different opinion. I need to go into a little detail here, I hope you excuse that. When this occurred, I was very familar with the 2000+ Tennessee related articles because I had rated them for "quality" a while before this controversy. The incident Orlady refers to above started when I rated Tennessee related articles for "importance", following the written rules on the assessment page of the Tennessee project strictly and applying the standards for the importance ratings as stated on that page. The page states that every member of the WikiProject can rate articles, without prior discussion, and examles are given to make sure that the rating structure can be understood easily. I rated more than 2000 articles at that time to provide an overview of the quality and importance of all Tennessee related articles. Obviously I made a few mistakes, maybe half a dozen complaints came in which I fixed. Six wrong out of 2000 is not too bad in my opinion and in my ratings I relied on people watching the articles they have created to complain if my rating was too far off the point. Except for these six mistakes, the rest of the 2000 ratings are still like they are, showing that I could not have been so wrong, after all. In the discussion that followed, Orlady expressed her general opposition to my actions, accusing me of applying "blanket ratings" obviously after having only checked a few articles I had rated. I explained to her that not at all I was applying "blanket ratings", just to have the articles rated. I tried to explain to her that of 2000 articles, of course, the vast majoity will turn out to recieve a low ranking. Instead of considering my valid arguments and discussing a solution she claimed that she did not like the articles rated at all. In the discussion she did not respond to my arguments but stubbornly insisted on her opinion. During the discussion I had the impression that she did not even care to read and understand my objections. The problem was never solved, a solution was never found. Later, she accused me in another situation that I still had a "grudge against her" as if she wanted to imply that she was right in that old case and I was just pouting. Not solving problems does not bring Misplaced Pages forward.

   Orlady's way to respond to negative comments is done in a fashion that the thread of the discussion is concealed and very hard to trace. When a topic is raised somewhere, she likes to respond on the talkpages of the involved users and that destroys the thread. So if you want to follow one of her controversial discussions, you would have to stitch together discussion fragments from the article page, the talkpages of users involved and her talk page. This becomes increasingly difficult if the discussion is older and some fragments are achived already. Well, that bad habit can be changed if there is not a reason for this concealment.

   In a recent case of New Rochelle sockpuppets (discussed on AN) she accused User:Umbarella of sockpuppetry although no harmful edits emerged from that account.

   Summarizing the above, it seems to me that in certain cases Orlady takes personal possession of topics and articles without regard to the quality of material provided by other editors and discusses problems in a way that conceals her mistakes. Take care, doxTxob \  20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Regarding the importance ratings discussion on WikiProject Tennessee, it was you, not Orlady, who took the argument personally. Orlady was simply wondering if assigning importance ratings to Medium and Low priority articles was useful, and you somehow construed that to mean she was attacking your ability to apply such ratings. You then threatened to leave the project if she remained. Bms4880 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I left the project because the problem was not solved at all. I acted according to established, accepted and documented community rules as outlined on the assessment page, which allow every member of the project to assign ratings if the documented standards are followed, that is what I did. The standards do neither explicitly nor implicitly require or suggest a previous discussion because the standards are well explained and easy to follow. Orlady preferred to take the interpretation of community standards into her own hands and replace them by her own. Under these conditions I rather withdrew from the project than accepting Orlady's rules. This entry on my talk page documents that Orlady, called my 2000+ edits "arbitrary" and "meaningless" without checking them properly before commenting about them. You would not take that personally? I was also falsely accused by Orlady for rating something wrong that had been rated by someone else. Again, she did not check the facts before criticizing.

   No, I wouldn't take it personally. She simply misinterpreted what you were saying (I made the same error in assuming you had arbitrarily assigned these ratings, based on what you had written), and she apologized for it. It wasn't lack of fact-checking, it was misinterpretation. You communicate with long posts and responses, and you're easy to misinterpret. Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   That is incorrect: She only appologized for one rating I was falsely accused of, which was applied by someone else. You are right, I sometimes answer in some length to make all my arguments clear and easy to understand. If you don't want to spend the time to read and understand objections, what is the use of discussing them? That is exactly what I pointed out. I try to express myself in many words sometimes to avoid misunderstandings. She did not read my words, thus did not understand my arguments and preferred to replace my arguments with her imagination. I do not see any admin quality here (or I might expect too much from an admin). doxTxob \  04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   But that was not my point, if Orlady accuses editors of wrongdoing without checking the facts properly, she is not equipped with the right mind set for an admin, at least not in my view. She resopnds impulsively and judges prematurely without checking and thinking before criticizing, but is rather driven by an "impression" she has. Furthermore, the way she formulates criticism can easily be taken personally, I can list more examples here if requested.

   The key phrase is can easily be taken personally. Any criticism or questioning of one's actions can easily be taken personally, regardless of how many smiley faces and warm fuzzies are attached to it, and in that exchange on the TN project last year, no one could post anything without you flying off the handle. Huntster had to reassure you that no one was attacking you. Orlady has a dry, cold rational style that is mistaken by some (not most) as "confrontational." Through it all, her singular focus is on the health of an article or the encyclopedia, and in the end, that's what's important. Schoolchildren will be reading these article years from now, they won't reading about the egos that got bruised in the article's making. Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   My ego is not bruised. Hunster was not attacking me, he asked a question about my ratings and I answered it. Orlady's "dry", "cold" sarcastic style, as you perfectly decribe it, insisted on her version of accepted standards. I am bi-focal, as opposed to Orlady's singular focus: (1) To bring the Misplaced Pages project forward and (2) not to shrug off anyone whose opinion I don't like but to listen and find a solution instead. doxTxob \  04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   This is not a single occurance, in the Jvolkblum sockpuppet case Orlady is quick to add new "sockpuppets" to "shrug" new users "off". On Feb 23, 2009 Orlady presented this evidence against a registered user: "I just added MagdaOakewoman to this report. This user registered within the last hour, has a user name that appears to refer to my user name (compare "Oakewoman" to my user name "Orlady", which is short for "Oak Ridge lady") and has a total of four edits (...) I can't imagine who but Jvolkblum would follow me around in that manner." All four edits good additions to Misplaced Pages, in my opinion, and the alleged similarity of the usernames would require a lot of vivid imagination not to be called far fetched. Blocked indefinitely after four good edits for arbitrary reasons and something in Orlady's imagination. I do not see any admin qualities here.

   A sockpuppet investigation against Orlady was filed by User:MagdaOakewoman on Feb. 24, 2009 and quickly deleted without much ado, it seems: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orlady. Is it possible to un-delete that page so that every participant in this discussion can make up their own mind about this acusation of sockpuppetry against Orlady? This accusation was made pretty recently and before voting in a new admin it should be made sure that there are no skeletons in the closet.

   : "That case was not deleted. It was renamed, because the accuser was found to be engaged in sockpuppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman/Archive. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)" (PS - I added followup questions 10a and 10a to this question above. doxTxob \  06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

   Here is another example from the "Jvolkblum casefile", dated March 27, 2009: "I just added new user User:Umbarella to the case, based on duck-like edit activity. This user's 3 edits all have been to tweak minor historical details in articles about New Rochelle topics." This user was not blocked but reported after 3 edits for duck-like activities in a field of articles that Orlady seems to claim her own. For minor tweaking of historical details? I do not see the oversight necessary to become an admin here, either.

   These new users did not have a chance at all to establish a reputation on Misplaced Pages because they were appended to Orlady's sockpuppet case after 3 edits and shrugged off as vandals, as she formulated so perfectly herself. Change my "oppose" to "strong oppose" doxTxob \  00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Point of information for those who are concerned about the fate of User:Umbarella, that account is listed as part of a checkuser request, but it is not blocked, and it is not even labeled as a suspected sockpuppet. I have no idea whether a checkuser has looked at the accoun, and as far as I know, nothing prevents this account from editing and "establishing a reputation at Misplaced Pages". --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   In response to your followup 10a, you might want to see this edit; the edit summary explains the move was to reflect the sockmaster. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I see the edit summary but the change of titles was not discussed by the community to be shifted from the accused to the accuser. That would be like re-naming the "JFK asassination case" to the "L.H. Oswald asassination case" without any further comment. It does not make sense and it looks like there is something to hide. The question remains: Where was the change discussed in the community that so conveniently keeps Orlady's name out of the spotlight? I am curiuos to learn the answer! doxTxob \  07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   It appears to me that you are asking to have the checkuser results published here for the whole world to study. That's a bad idea. Checkuser data are subject to privacy restrictions, for valid reasons and in accordance with WP:CHECKUSER. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   The request might be unreasonable if it was about a regular editor who has an account in good standing. As you are proposed as an admin, I do think that an accusation of sockpuppetry against yourself is quite a serious accusation, and honestly - if I was in your position - I would want any possible stain on my record be checked, to make sure for everyone about my integrity.

   I do not distrust the general process, however, I am always suspicious if the facts are not laid out openly. Misplaced Pages is a cummunity of volunteers and I feel very strongly that secrecy needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum level.

   Look further down at Doncram's comment. There, User:Deskana who also is a checkuser, mentions my name and Doncram, implying improper behaviour or possible sockpuppetry based on uncommon formating errors without even bringing it to the point. Wow, that is bad! Is that a method to get rid of uncomfortable opponents? And as you asked about trust in the process, that user would be one I could not trust. I demand that this accusastion against me and Doncram is checked and cleared and I demand an apology for that. Here and ASAP!

   I do absolutly value the rights that every user has and I am aware that personal data can not and should not be made public, not here and not elsewhere. My suggestion would be that one or two users not related to this case get temporary checkuser rights. That could, of course, not be you, me nor Doncram. It should be someone who be both trust and whose word be would both be willing to accept. My suggestion would be User:Huntster, we both know him. My alternative suggestion would be User:Otto42, he followed up well on a disruption by an IP user on the Talk:Memphis, Tennessee article. I have no idea if they want to get involved and are willing to do that, but both seem to be technically savvy and established enough on Misplaced Pages to be trusted by the community to absolutely ensure the privacy of the results. Would you agree that this could be a solution to ensure enough privacy but still get an outside opinon? doxTxob \  22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   If the sockpuppetry charge were in the slightest way credible, Misplaced Pages has plenty of systems in place that could be used to investigate and adjudicate. The charge was not credible. As near as I can make out, the allegation was that User:Director Magda was my sockpuppet. That user's entire contribution history consists of this diff. If you can find a credible basis for linking those edits to me as a sockpuppeteer, I think you have a brilliant future as a fiction writer. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   I am not satisfied with your answer, your involvement was not checked. However, I consider the question as answered noting your refusal for a possible solution. doxTxob \  04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I prefer facts over fiction and over friction caused by sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm and friction does not bring the project forward. doxTxob \  05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Neither does beating a dead horse repeatedly. --Elkman 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   For the record: Note the candidate's answer to question 16. "Why do you wish to be an administrator?" "A: I don't actually "wish" to be an administrator." doxTxob \  07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   Are you trying to fit this extremely plausible answer (given that Orlady has been around since August 2004, making 29,000 edits in the time, and this is her first RfA) into you conspiracy theory? Or is there another reason for repeating that response here? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have been on Misplaced Pages since 2005 with 13,000+ edits so far. Does that allow me to voice my opinon? doxTxob \  07:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   This doesn't look like a response to the argument (proffered by someone with only half your WP editing experience) that an editor with Orlady's experience and background and no previous RfA obviously isn't particularly keen on becoming an admin. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   • I have come to this RfA from a matter concluding at ANI - the disruption that is centred around User:Jvolkblum, the editing of New Rochelle related articles, and too many editors ignorance of the situation relating to WP:BAN; Edits by or on behalf of banned users are summarily removed upon detection, and edits by new accounts (no matter how innocuous) in areas especially targeted by a banned user are to be scrutinised. Individuals who fail to understand that Orlady is abiding by policy in those actions in these matters are providing evidence they do not understand WP policy themselves, and thus diminish the effect of their similar complaint against the candidate. If, as is possible, one or two legitimate editors have been dissuaded from further editing Misplaced Pages because of Orlady (and others) correct application of consensus derived policy in having probable sock edits removed and accounts blocked, then the approbation should be directed at the puppetmaster and their divisive actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion relating to DougsTech's vote can be seen at WT:RFA--Iner22 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Strong oppose Orlady routinely deals with newbies and less experienced editors in rude, sarcastic terms and with the opposite of AGF. For one example, consider the treatment of relatively inexperienced editor who posted recently at User talk:Orlady#Suffield University. O's very first interaction was to assume bad faith and make an unjustified accusatory suggestion with this edit summary in this diff. In followup at User talk:Rumblebee she used sarcasm "Perhaps you are clairvoyant, but I'm not..."; she accused the person of edit warring (unfair in my view, the person suggested a Prod and reverted Orlady's rude dismissal once). In the Talk:Suffolk University exchange, O strongly objects to the editor posting some rewrite-needed-type tag, but, later in a separate section O acknowledges that some Yale Daily news material is indeed inappropriate to have included in the article (I agree with both Rumbletree and Orlady that the material should be removed). However the removal of that material is done in a way to negate any credit to the Rumbletree editor, and the net effect is that the editor has been threatend by Orlady and chastised by someone else for not assuming good faith. It is also ironic that Orlady's treatment of the editor is heavy-handed, while the editor explains he/she was trying to force some development/improvement of the article by a 5 day Prod, given that I have seen Orlady try to force changes of other articles by use of AfD nominations. This is just one small example of Orlady's participation causing bad feelings and collateral damage. Orlady is a powerful person within[REDACTED] already, as she has writing skills and attention to detail in sourcing, etc., as well as skill bringing to bear Checkusers and others to support her in enforcement actions. I consider her to be a bully, and while I don't myself need extraordinary protection to stand up to her occasional attacks at my Talk page or elsewhere, I think it would be a gross mistake to give her Administrative powers. Also, she is embroiled (as am I) in a running lowgrade war on articles concerning the New Rochelle, New York area, the subject of two recent wp:an discussions that i opened, here at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady and here) and a request for arbitration (that was denied as unsuitable for arbitration). The situation was not fully discussed in any of those, but relates to what is reportedly the largest-ever sockpuppet case in wikipedia, which has consumed a large amount of Checkuser and other administrative resources and has cost a lot of good will. Dispute about this has seems to have caused more than one good person to retire from wikipedia, at least temporarily. Others opinions may differ, but I blame Orlady for a large share of responsibility of aggravating and extending the situation. Her use of sarcasm and heavy-handedness and open scorn for the person or persons involved seems to encourage and perpetuate a big game. After a year of involvement in New Rochelle area articles, an area which she states at my Talk page that she personally dislikes, it seems reasonable to conclude that she is enjoying playing the whack-the-mole game and is proud of being involved from the beginning. The collateral damage involved seem unimportant to her and she seems to have disdain for whether or not there are more than one person unfairly caught up in it. An arbitrator, while declining the case, cited wp:DENY (which has to do with downplaying rather than exalting in size of sockpuppet cases) and commented "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master", which in context refers to Orlady's involvement. The final arbitration discussion is available here in this version of page (next edit was clerk's removal as rejected). I don't think it appropriate to promote her to Administrator at this time, without resolution of this problem, which she has, in my view, largely caused. doncram (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   P.S. She has a sharp tongue and a knack for insulting. I think her characterization of me in her Type 3 section is grossly insulting. Rather, as she speculated elsewhere, i am in fact motivated by her bullying. I am in touch with that and can sympathize with others damaged by her, because of her involvement with me and wp:NRHP in many matters, not just one featured list nomination. Unfortunately, to stand up to a bully involves, somewhat, being seen as negative and perhaps bullying back. I don't take on this role lightly. doncram (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   How curious that both you and DoxTxob have both made the same uncommon formatting error when expressing the same opinion. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I take it your comment is just a belligerent jab? To take away, in some way, from what i write about, above? It takes an extraordinary situation to attract my interest in sharing what I know about a candidate here, so I may not observe indentation formatting or some other conventions here. doncram (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Addendum Some reviewers here are not readily seeing the bullying which I and some others have noted and/or experienced. Reviewing past interactions which I recall as frustrating or annoying, I don't find single individual remarks by Orlady that are outstandingly uncivil. I can point to many individually sarcastic remarks, but they don't look that bad on their own. It's more a pattern of jabs in edit summaries and scattered across user talk pages, project talk pages, that is hard to reconstruct and to show. When you experience it, the simplest interpretation is that it is malicious, and you are getting a brushoff if you try to reason with her. I am a patient person, and I gave her AGF benefit of the doubt for a long time, but i eventually cannot do so any longer. So I realize I now interpret some of her new comments as snide or otherwise objectionable, but I see that they may not be so obviously that to an outsider. To respond to the reviewers' requests, three examples:

   1. this discussion at NRHP wikiproject. This was in the middle of a running discussion about a big issue for the wikiproject, a change in article naming practices. Search on "intellectual sloppiness" to see her repeating an insulting summary of the Featured list nomination of mine that her comments helped to derail, see her extending the insult to the wikiproject membership as a whole, at the NRHP wikiproject talk page, see my mild response, see her repeating the insult, see another person, Sanfranman59, coming back to comment on still being stung by her remarks. Orlady largely got her way in the naming convention decision eventually taken, but the process destroyed a lot of goodwill and drove several persons away permanently.

   2. Another interaction was about the naming of one article, William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures. This was at a time when Orlady acknowledged following me around, and she renamed, without discussion, this article which i had created earlier and had just touched. I eventually opened a Requested Move discussion at Talk:William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures, to bring in others' perspective and actually with hope to show her the wp:RM tool, which I had seen to work well in heading off disputes elsewhere. I was actually embarrassed at how it continued, with Orlady not budging. I think it was in fact obvious to her that the article was worthy as describing a U.S. National Historic Landmark district and that the only available name for the district, the title given by the U.S. National Park Service, should indeed be used as a proper noun title. No one remark of hers appears impolite, and I may have been too polite myself for it to be obvious now to others, but in this case O's obstinacy was frustrating and out of line with reason. Embarrassed to be exposing this in front of others from outside the NRHP wikiproject, and finding i could move it back without an admin's assistance, i myself closed the Request move discussion and restored the original name. There was some followup at User talk:Doncram/Archive 6#Confused.

   3. I opened User talk:Orlady/Archive 5#Tone and other issues between Orlady and Doncram and continued here: User talk:Doncram/Archive 7#Reply to your comment on my talk page. She acknowledges using sarcasm with me and at the NRHP wikiproject: "Yes, I have gotten sarcastic with you recently, (emphasis added) but I believe that your behavior toward me in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (e.g., changing the subject of the conversation) has been trolling, and that my response has actually been pretty mild." I expressed mystification that she would misinterpret what happened as she did, and she saw her way to reinterpret what i had said. Her apology was two-edged: "I now recognize that what I interpreted to be malice was merely lack of awareness." Reading the discussion now, it seems i got the brushoff in all that.

   My point is that she takes a position and will not back down. She always has some legitimate point, but in my experience she will not acknowledge others' legitimate views and she effectively derails efforts to find common ground for a solution. It's as if winning each fight is what matters. And she has increased her ability to win fights, and she has gravitated to areas where others are less powerful than her, and she often gets her way, at cost of feelings and normal consensus processes.

   I once suggested that she apply her skills at Peer Review, where editors were actually asking for others' opinions. She just replied back with some sarcastic remark. Note the RfA nominator suggests you won't know her work, because she works in out-of-the-way areas of wikipedia, often with new users and vandals. Note also the absence of support here from wp:NRHP, one of the wikiprojects where she has spent time (Elkman's support vote is an exception to note). I am not clear where the early votes of support were coming from. I suspect that a few were based on not knowing her, but seeing a lot of edits and no blocks on her record. It's certainly fair for people to make a judgment based on what they can see, but I think it would be a mistake to give her administrative tools, against the considered views of some who have had extended interactions with her. doncram (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose I've had disagreements with Orlady, but "disputes" that were just strong-yet-calm disagreements about how to describe different types of settlements on templates really aren't significant. Granted, they're more significant than the "too many administrators already" argument above (why shouldn't everyone be an admin who is qualified to be one?), but that's no reason to oppose. Orlady has been involved in enough situations that I've seen to make me uncertain: she seems to fit every positive bit that we need — experienced with Misplaced Pages in general, familiar with policy, firm in fighting vandalism, technically capable (probably more capable than I, an administrator, am), and likely to continue editing for a good while — but I'm uncertain about her being perhaps overeager/hasty to enforce policy. As an outside occasional-observer in this long-running Jvolkblum sockpuppet case, I've been concerned about her manner of seeking to enforce a justly-imposed ban: no complaints about her motives, but I fear that her methods made it more likely that innocent new editors could have been caught in the crossfire. Bear in mind that this is not a deep concern (otherwise I'd be opposing much more strongly), and I've not been closely enough involved myself to speak for certain, but everything that's occurred with this case has made me uneasy with enabling Orlady to have tools that might (I don't say "would") be misused. In conclusion, the fact that this good editor is receiving such strong opposition from other good editors means that her administrative actions might be fraught with controversy, and I don't think it would help Misplaced Pages at this time. If this case ever blows over, or if the disputes related to this case calm down, I'll be more open to a new RfA; but right now I don't think it's the best idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose - Unlike other opposing editors who have had long term experience of Orlady's style, I have had only one central encounter with her, which culminated with this exchange (bottom half). So the exhanges I am reacting to can be followed though from there. I notice that defenders of Orlady are defending her actions. I don't think her actions are what is at issue here; it is her tone. She has an exceptionally confrontative style, the style of a zealot who becomes swept away with her cause and feels no holds are barred. Once she gets her head of steam, she tries to flatten everything in her path. Orlady is intelligent, and if she becomes an administrator, I do not doubt that she will pursue transgressors relentlessly and run them into the ground, and do it in a way that does not violate the Misplaced Pages guidelines. But I think, and this may be a minority view, that an administrator should also posses some pastoral and communication skills, including core respect and sense of proportion when dealing with other people. I would support Orlady in a future RfA if she showed, in the intervening time, that she was aware of these issues and was making progress in that direction. In fact, if she developed more appropriate communication skills, she would make an excellent administrator. But as it stands, she would be a disaster, leaving a trail of unnecessary wreckage in her wake. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC). Addendum: Not to mention motivated sockpuppets. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose. I know this user does good work, and I believe she would defer to consensus when push comes to shove. But her abrasive and sometimes sarcastic style of communication make me worried she might misuse her tools if provoked. – Quadell 19:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Why does a "sarcastic style of communication" lead you to believe she will abuse admin tools? That seems to me a non sequitur. Have you seen her abuse Misplaced Pages in any regard, or do you simply have a problem with her style of communication? Bms4880 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've been on Misplaced Pages for five years, and in that time I've seen a number of admins do a lot of harm. Nine times out of ten, the trouble starts when a difficult user provokes an admin, the admin overreacts. In my experience, the way a candidate has treated attacks and accusations from difficult users is the best indicator of whether the admin will abuse their tools. – Quadell 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can you give an example from one of her posts where she uses a tone you find "abrasive," and thus indicative of someone likely to abuse admin tools? Bms4880 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I can't imagine Orlady ever interacting with another user with an "abrasive" tone. Indeed she seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Instead of imagining, you should look dispassionately at what she actually does. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have looked dispassionately at what she actually does, including the commentary of concern listed above, and I do not see anything I would find abrasive. Can you give us an example of her "abrasive" commentary, or evidence of her abusing Misplaced Pages in some regard? Bms4880 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   (In regard to Bms4880's question above) Yes, I think this (mentioned above) could be fairly termed "abrasive" and "sarcastic". – Quadell 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   If that's the worst you can find of her thousands of posts and the hundreds of conflicts in which she has been involved, you've got nothing. Bms4880 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, you are from Tennesse as well, and write Tennesse articles like Orlady, and she scratches your back and gives you barnstars. Bur this needn't blind you to the dark side of Orlady, her very different treatment of people outside her fields of interest. The most causal perusal of exchanges on her talk pages will provide you with many examples of her abrasiveness and lack of a wide perspective. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   You see, Geronimo, that is a personal attack. You're accusing me, who you don't know, of a quid pro quo, based on nothing more than the fact that Orlady gave me a de facto Barnstar last year. Thus, you've shown me you're willing to make personal attacks, but you haven't shown me Orlady does. I perused her talk page, and I still do not see any evidence of abrasiveness (or at least from anything she wrote). If you can find a few traces here and there out her thousands of posts, kudos to you, but such posts appear to be the drastic exception. Bms4880 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   So let's get this straight, Geronimo20 plagiarizes material from treehugger.com and spacedaily.com for an article that he wants to get featured on the Main page. Orlady brings attention to Geronimo20's shenanigans (rather than simply banning him from Misplaced Pages). Geronimo20 then announces that because of this he is going to oppose Orlady's RfA. If it had been me, I would have been a lot worse than sarcastic in that case. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Tennessee cabal. So this is the second time Kaldari that you have stated that you are more tendentious than Orlady. This raises issues about your own fitness to be an administrator. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Someone asks above why the use of sarcasm suggests someone would abuse their authority. Because there is a power imbalance between administrators and non-administrators, any administrator who is sarcastic, while exercising administor powers, is abusing their authority. Doing so is a lapse from WP:BITE. I would encourage all administrators who can't curb their sarcasm to consider resigning. Geo Swan (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could you guys take this somewhere other than my vote's comments? Thanks. – Quadell 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Strong oppose per comments above, does not appear to be admin material, nor have the temperment of a desired admin. Ikip (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Oppose, for example for her "understanding" of notability . NVO (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) wrong example, discard for now. NVO (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose moved from neutral. Three Two reasons a/ the totally unsatisfactory answer to my follow up Q at Q8. though she does not say she intends to work in that area, deleting articles by Speedy is such a basic function of any admin--because, do what ever you do, you will come across them. Rereading the discussion of the proposal for what areas the candidate plans to work in, I notice the "to be honest, I dont know what I will do." -- a good indication of insufficient preparation for this role, regardless of the skill in article writing. b/ the exchange with another editor, O.R., in the "neutral" section in which the candidate does not recognize having had any problems with him, though he keeps pointing them out--and I was quite aware of them myself as a bystander c/ the various answers unfortunately do show a tendency to push other people a little too hard. DGG (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Huh? Both Orlady and Ottava Rima denied having much personal interaction - and you are deciding for them that they did? I think you should reconsider that comment. Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    No. I stated that I never had a direct fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I would be very curious to see some diffs for this history of conflict that Ottava Rima and I are supposed to have. Other than (1) the one thread I posted a link to and (2) the fact that I !voted "oppose" on his recent RfA, I don't recall any direct interactions with him prior to his vociferous opposition in this RfA. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I may be synthesizing my impressions of other conflicts involving--quite separately--two editors who independently get into a good deal of contention. I've struck that reason, and my apologies, but my general view remains. DGG (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Aside from not meeting my personal criteria for content building, looking through some of the (occasionally overhyped) charges I do feel the user has a bit of an abrasive tone, and does not use proper discretion in being sarcastic or not. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    What is your "personal criteria for content building"? You realize she has nearly 20,000 edits to article space I hope? And that she's also contributed to several featured articles? I'm not sure I can imagine what content building criteria she could fail. Kaldari (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I've looked in vain for documentation of David Fuchs' "personal criteria for content building." Seeing his FA and GA work, my best guess is that he feels admins should have extensive experience with that type of content-building. --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose In my view, an admin needs to be able to communicate with maturity and respect, even when dealing with people that could make the saints go ballistic. However, Orlady’s putdown of Geronimo20 and her insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy are too obnoxious to be ignored. I am also getting the impression that she is very uncomfortable being called to task for possible faults in judgment, as witnessed by the flippancy in her answer to Question #3 when she claims three of her Opposers “nurse deep grudges” – which is strange, since none of these individuals have Wiki-histories of antagonistic behavior – and in her continuing refusal (as of this writing) to answer Question #6 about putting forth Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School – which not only shows a lapse in understanding copyright violations, but also finds her nominating an article for deletion because it is Orphaned and Unreferenced. Furthermore, her launch of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) suggests she would rather delete worthy articles in order to one-up a persistent sockpuppeter. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I really think this is too harsh. Orlady's "putdown" as you call it came in response to Geronimo's accusation of "extreme high-handedness" on Orlady's part - an accusation to which anyone would be likely to take offense. Orlady however did not engage in any kind of personal attack in response but just noted, as she was fully entitled to do, that she had raised legitimate concerns about the article in question and actually helped to improve it (which indeed Geronimo had earlier thanked her for doing). Characterizing Orlady's nuanced commentary about a particularly skilful sockpuppet as an "insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy" is also quite unfair in my opinion.

    I should also note that Orlady's nom of St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School was in fact successful, and that the nom of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) was perfectly legitimate under {{db-G5}} - ie deletion of articles by sockpuppets. In fact, Orlady was only obliged to nominate it for speedy deletion, but she arguably showed excessive caution in only nomming it at AFD instead. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I was just being polite about Orlady's improvements. She did fix a typo... so I was grateful for that. It was the one positive moment in all our exchanges. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    No, she tried speedy deletion first and was reverted. doncram (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I stand corrected. However, it doesn't alter the fact that she was entitled to speedy under the usual policies. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    For the record, Orlady put St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School up for AfD while another user gave it a G12 tag; it was speedy deleted as G12 within two hours of being tagged and Orlady was told in the AfD that she didn't understand G12 procedures. As for her exchange to Geronimo20, "taking offense" is the very worst response to a heated situation -- pardon the intrusion of my "day job," but the concept of turning the other cheek is not a sign of weakness. Orlady may not have started the fire, but she's not putting out the flames with sarcastic sneers that well-regarded editors "nurse deep grudges." Pastor Theo (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose I just do not feel confident at this time that this candidate has the necessary understanding of guidelines and policies at this time. The answers to both mine and others questions above did not increase my confidence any. Of note, I feel the candidate needs both a better understanding off and a respect for WP:COPYVIO and its importance. I get the impress the they feel its really only relevant for commercial interests, which is a slap in the face to many creative individuals (such as myself) who may not be commercial intenties but are still the target of content thieves and still copyright holders (by law) nonetheless of anything they post. While I do not share the concerns over some of the AfDs brought up above, particularly those where she was not the nominator, and outright over dramatization over the New Rochelle articles noted by others, I do feel that she did go overboard in trying to clean up behind a persistent sock and should have made more effort to evaluate the individual articles before trying to delete, particularly when the CSDs were denied. The Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) frequently cited above, would be an example of one where clean up/maintainence tags and appropriate project notifications requesting assistance would have been the better solution.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    You may be correct that clean/up maintenance tags in that particular instance "would have been a better solution", but I doubt there are too many users on Misplaced Pages who would be able to maintain total objectivity in the face of persistent sockpuppetry and harassment by one particular user. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    I've been there myself more than once (still there really), so yes, I know. However, for someone who is an administrator, I feel they should be one of those few users who should at least attempt to have enough objectivity to not "punish" articles on potentially valid topics purely because of the creator, without at least trying to ascertain if they are valid or not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    The reason I asked for speedy-deletion of that Holy Sepulchre Cemetery article (and later started an AfD after Doncram removed the speedy-deletion template) was to enforce WP's banning policy. This was not a situation of a newbie editor needing encouragement and advice on article cleanup. Instead, this was one of a large batch of articles about relatively trivial topics created and edited by confirmed sockpuppets of a banned user. I agree that AfDs such as the one for that article do over-dramatize the New Rochelle/sockpuppetry situation, but the best way to deny attention to the sockpuppets is to quietly speedy-delete the articles. I sympathize with the idea that every article deserves attention, but the large volume of material uploaded (repeatedly) by this group of sockpuppets and the complex ways in which the copyvios in that material have been disguised make it utterly impractical to clean it all up on an individual-article basis. These articles need to be researched and rewritten from scratch. When the major articles, such as New Rochelle, New York, that have been the focus of this banned users attention are full of content that is clearly copyvio but that volunteers have not managed to deal with, it is excessive to insist that volunteers devote time and attention to rewriting articles about marginal topics (such as articles about individual cemeteries) that were contributed by that same banned user and received no substantial attention from any other user (although there may be a half-dozen different user names in the article history to suggest multiple contributors). --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Persistence harassment from one user would be a strong enough reason on its own not to allow using of sysops because this user is more prone to reprisal and destruction resulting from that long term conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose, mostly per Q4-Q6 and Q8b (full disclosure: I am guilty of the same things myself when on NewPage Patrol). Needs more improvement in the deletion area. Probably also bad timing due to the recent Jvolkblum debacle. MuZemike 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Whilst others have raised valid concerns, I'm more concern about the inability to respond to the questions about determining consensus and BLPs, both of which, in my mind, are crucial areas. Minkythecat (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I am puzzled by your reasons. Are you talking about long response times or do you disagree with her answers? She has given "real life has been getting in the way of this..." as a reason for not responding immediately to all questions. She has answered one question on evaluating consensus (Q8e; note that Q12 is also related) and two on BLP (Q8c, Q8d). Open question Q14 relating to consensus and Q17a-17d relating to BLP were added by jc37 and jennavecia less than 36 hours ago. Given that Orlady is currently subject to an off-wiki harassment campaign connected to her admin activities at the Open Directory Project, do you think she is taken an unreasonably long time to respond? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry that I haven't responded to all of the questions yet, but (as Hans Adler has so kindly pointed out) I do have a real life (job, family, etc.) and I have been significantly distracted by the discovery of that attack page (including the time required to send notifications to the other people swept up in the attack, etc.). I expect to type up my answers to the rest of those questions soon. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    I just commented on her response to Q12 as an odd claim of consensus processes awareness. I don't think it has been asserted that the static attack page, which apparently has existed for a while, has cost her any time. I thought her posting its link here was rather more indicating that she wasn't going to do anything else with respect to it. doncram (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    To the contrary, Doncram. After seeing that attack page late last night (what DoxTxob had alerted me to was the hosting site for the images on the page, which was not nearly as disturbing as the complete package that I found on my own afterwards), I burned the midnight oil posting the link here and sending a message to Lycos asking for it to be removed from Angelfire, but I did not fully review the site, much less take all the steps that I thought appropriate to respond to it. (And, BTW, it's not a completely static page -- it has been modified since the Google cache version.) --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

    Having read the answers, I see no reason to remove the oppose. Using a non-BLP example of vandalism doesn't help... I personally find some of the answers too generic and wishy washy in an area that is THE biggest problem area Misplaced Pages has which WILL result in a user facing legal action. Minkythecat (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose In interactions that I've been involved in or observed, Orlady exhibits arrogant disregard for views in oppostion of her own, and I've never seen her back down and admit that the position she started with wasn't the only "right" answer. Lvklock (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    How about , , or ? Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you, Kaldari, for those examples. I did not claim to have reviewed her edit history in search of such instances, but stated that I had personally never seen them. With that said, the instances you provided do not change my mind. I read 11 as, yes I made a mistake, but it wasn't my fault. On 12, while she eventually conceded that it was notable, I would not call a "reluctant keep" for a "dreadful article" a graceful concession. I do very much appreciate that she took a great deal of time to improve that article to an acceptable condition, and do very much appreciate the work Orlady does in many ways. In 13, I read I made a mistake about the sockpuppet charge, but my opinion still stands. As I said, I do appreciate the work Orlady does in improving articles. However, I do not believe she has the tact or temperament to make a good administrator. Lvklock (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for explaining your concerns,Lvklock. I now recognize that you and some other Wikipedians place great significance on certain conventions of etiquette in talk page communications, and that I have inadvertently offended by making direct statements instead of including formalities. You have my apologies. With regard to the specific examples that have received much attention here as evidence of mistakes by me: (1) This (with an incomplete title and minus the citation error template, which did not exist back in January, but would now prevent the type of error I made) is what the Our Lady and St Margaret's article looked like when I reviewed it, a couple of days after it had been listed at AfD by someone else. I guess I did not see it necessary to provide an elaborate apology to Terriersfan for having overlooked that, and I think my subsequent actions in the AfD and the article spoke louder than words by helping out with rescue of the article. (2) The Tariq Farid article is another one that I did not nominate for deletion, but was aware of because of my encounters with the other poorly written and blatantly self-promotional articles that were being persistently created about this person, his business, and his personal interests. Although I found the spammy nature of the article annoying and I had "prodded" this article (hoping its creator would fix the issues with it), I actually was the one who removed the speedy-deletion template that had been placed on the article prior to the AfD, and I took it upon myself to "rescue" the article. (Earlier I had rescued Salma K. Farid Academy, but I recall that I had sought speedy deletion of Dipped Fruit and a couple of other contributions from the same source.) My comment about "reluctant" in connection with my "keep" vote reflected my irritation at having to defend the topic as notable and at going to the trouble to rescue it. (3) As for this diff, the pages have been deleted so I cannot provide evidence for why I was confused, but I recall that it was a talk page with a complex history of unsigned comments and page blankings, which made it hard to figure out who had said what when. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose pending further investigation. Looks like a good candidate at first, but the arrogant attitude and rudeness shown in discussions is a bit of a worry. Lankiveil 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC). Moved to Neutral.

17. Oppose. I have had very little personal dealings with this editor, so I have had to go into her edit history to get a clear idea of who she is. That combined with the information presented above does not give me a great deal of optimism toward this editor. The majority of her edits are excellent, but she has a troubling tendency to get rude and condescending, almost to the point of sheer comedy. We have too many hot-headed admins as it is, we don't need another. Trusilver 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose. This is about speedy deletion—there's the fact that she started an RFA without a clear understanding of the way speedy deletion works, and there's the fact that she seems to have answered a direct question about it at her RFA before gaining that understanding.

    I realise Orlady says she doesn't intend to do work with speedy deletion, but unfortunately, admins have tenure, it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a maverick one, and once given the tools, there's nothing restricting what work they do; so I feel it's only prudent to assess my !vote as if she were proposing to work with speedy deletion.

    To me, the fact that Orlady is trying to answer speedy deletion-related questions without understanding the consensus about how it works doesn't bode well at all. It suggests that as an admin, she would do as she feels is right rather than in accordance with the community's normal procedure, and I'm afraid that's a very grave concern to me.—S Marshall /_Cont 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose - Concerns about abrasiveness, sarcasm and arrogant attitude. My observations of her editorial judgment at DYK do not allay my concerns. Too many red flags in the comments of others on this page. I'm sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose. I've been going back and forth on this one for some time, over whether the concerns outlined above are really worth opposing over; Orlady is clearly generally a good user, with a decent understanding of the rules and a history of useful contributions, and that counts for a lot. Moreover, she has faced some truly unreasonable opposition above, which I don't feel too happy about joining. But I just can't get over my reservations about this user's attitude and manner of communication, as shown in edits like this one ; that's really not how an admin should behave. I think Orlady could make a good admin at some point, but from what I've seen I just don't think she's ready yet. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
21. oppose abrasiveness in writings on this page indicate to me a poor temperament for this role. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Per above combativeness in this RfA, but also the lone interaction showed a lack of knowledge or lack of conforming to a well established guideline. Either one is not someone who should be given the admin tools. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm curious to know what you identify as our "lone interaction," Aboutmovies. I've "seen you around" in a diverse variety of places. I'm sorry to hear that you remember me in a negative light, and I'm wondering what you might be referring to as our "one interaction". Was it this AN discussion?, this talk page?, or this discussion? Or was it a page we both edited? --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Here you reverted the removal of a category an artilce should not be in as the property was removed from the NRHP list. That is it violates WP:CAT (there must be support in the article to justify an article being in that cat, and here there is support in the cat for it not being in there since it is not on the list, as the category itself says for inclusion criteria is: "Properties in the U.S. state of Tennessee listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (emphasis added)). The fact that it was still in Category:Houses in Knoxville, Tennessee means it was still in a Tennessee category, thus defeating the argument given in the edit summary. I informed you of this and your first reply still shows you either didn't see the city specific cat or want the article in as many cats as you think is best. Your next reply is that you still think it should be in the category for articles listed (not de-listed) articles for apparently in part for your convenience. It may be convenient to keep the Sacramento Kings in categories related to sports in Kansas City and Cincinnati for some people, but we don't since they are no longer in those cities. Same thing with the Category:Living people category, once they die we remove them, despite anyone's convenience or how related the article was to the topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking the time to explain. I remember that as a confusing interaction. Interestingly, although that demolished house is no longer included in a geographical NRHP category, it is still listed in two geographical NRHP articles: National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee and National Register of Historic Places, Knox County, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose, changed from support, due to conduct in this RFA. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I have to echo the concerns others have raised about abrasiveness. Administratorship on[REDACTED] involves interacting with many new and troubled users, and it is very easy to escalate conflict unnecessarily or drive editors away permanently unless a patient and explanatory approach is taken. Orlady is a fabulous editor, so I feel bad about opposing, but I do not feel it would be in the best interest of the project to make her an admin at this point. henrik•talk 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose per above. Showing frequently rudeness, abrasiveness, arrogance is far from what I expect from admins. We have many such already.--Caspian blue 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose - per Stifle. AdjustShift (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose, moved from Neutral. Per Stifle and Henrik, among others; Orlady clearly does good work, but may not have the temperament for adminship. I feel obligated to voice this concern since this RfA seems to be coming down to the wire. GlassCobra 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    What has she done in this RfA that strikes you as combative? She's simply answering questions. Bms4880 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose - When I originally looked at this RfA I was not sure if I was going to go with an oppose, or a neutral. After looking over some of the other opposes, they seem to be concerned about the same things I am and as such I must oppose. Because this (like Cobra said) is coming down to the wire, I feel I needed to voice my opinion. Should this still be open when I get home today I will add more. For now, the basis for my oppose is based upon my overall impression of Orlady. That being, I fear she will be heavy handed when issuing blocks, protecting articles, and dealing with sockpuppets. Also, I get a feeling that she feels this site is a battle ground and to be honest I am a bit curious as to why Orlady posted a link to attack page about herself. On top of that some of the concerns brought up about her AfD participation worries me, and leads me to believe there is a potential for drama surrounding closures that she would make. Finally, Stifle brings up a good point. The interaction with others in this RfA only reinforces others concerns about temperament and abrasiveness. Tiptoety 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    I dislike drama, try to avoid it, and agree that it seems odd to have posted a link to a website created to attack me. I am pleased to say that the page and its associated files have been taken down by the free services that hosted this garbage, so I have now removed most of the comments I made here about it. I posted information about that page here because I learned of the page's existence from a Wikipedian who had found it when he "investigated" me on the web, which I believe he did partly in connection with this RfA. He was horrified by what he read on that site, but was prepared to believe that it might be based in reality and had made a couple challenging comments here that did not make much sense to me until I saw what he had seen on that website. I thought that if one Wikipedian had found the page in that manner and thought it was credible, others might do the same, so I posted about it in hopes of preventing other people from taking it seriously. I don't know who created the webpage, but I believe it is connected with some vandalism that I have "interacted with" here at Misplaced Pages (e-mail me if you want details), and I think it likely (this is based on the dates of some of its content) that it was intended to attack me in connection with this RfA. Whatever the motive, someone went to a lot of trouble to "out" and attack the character of my "Orlady" persona -- and along the way managed to libel an unassociated person who was identified by her real name. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose I'm concerned about your abrasiveness and conduct during this RFA and before the RFA as well. The link that Robofish provided above is a major concern. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

    FWIW, I mentioned that link (and the history behind it) in Q3. It's also discussed under Geronimo20's and Quadell's "oppose" !votes. --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Candidate doesn't have the attitude that I'd like to see in users, let alone an administrator. — Σxplicit 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose While Orlady is an asset to Misplaced Pages as an editor, however, her responses to other editors during this RfA raise concerns about her temperament when dealing with other editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose: Orlady does very, very good work and I have been vascillating for some time about where to voice opinion. I have had to decide on this section, however. I agree most with Pastor Theo, probably, and agree that this exchange with Geronimo20 is excessively antagonistic. Contrary to others who have said that Orlady was justified in responding testily to Geronimo20's "offensive" comment, the mistake Orlady made was in her assumption of what the problem was in the first place. She could have started with a question, or even an apology, without the sarcasm (it wouldn't have cost her much, I promise). I could have understood, perhaps, if her response were short, quick, and snappy. It's easy to be uninentionally sharp if you're saving your first, quick reaction. But her response is long, and she simply must have previewed, and searched for all of those diffs. That she didn't, at some point during all of that, think, "maybe this is just a little bit of the wrong approach . . ." shows a lack of restraint and self-awareness, in my opinion. Her answer to question 3 is troubling. And, for the record, I find Kaldari's actions regarding this RfA disappointing. I would like to support, but there is too much that doesn't seem right. Maedin\ 13:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose Some of the well reasoned opposes above concern me enough to oppose at this time.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I can not seem to decide if she should be an administrator or not. From the looks of it, it seems she would be a good one but then their are also things that others say that make me uncertin. so i am neutral.Hawkey131 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Pending answers to the questions above, for now I'm neutral, leaning towards oppose. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - moved to oppose

   Moved to oppose #It's not all that common that I agree exactly with Collectonian,but I do here, word for word. I'll just add that Orlady and O.R. have come into conflict a number of times; I regard it as a matter of two strong people pushing against each other in an equally stubborn manner, and I'm not sure either one of them has the temperament for being an administrator. I definitely do not endorse all of O.R.'s charges, but he correctly points out the general manner. DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Are you confusing one of us with someone else? I don't recall having conflicts with Ottava Rima. I've been aware of him (and presumably he has been aware of me) for quite some time, but I don't think we've had much direct interaction. We both participated in this this heated discussion about DYK, but I was a pretty minor contributor there, and that's the closest thing I can recall to a "conflict" with Ottava Rima. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   There have been no direct arguments between Orlady and myself. My comments about DYK dealt with her response to the consensus proceedings (a stray comment about unwritten ideas being consensus, which I find troubling) along with a lack of rigor in the areas that separate a reviewer from an admin who adds hooks to the mainpage. I am highly concerned about what admin put on the mainpage and have made an issue about many stray hooks that had major problems with them. I have not seen the same from Orlady, which is why I made the statement about not trusting them in such a role. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima, regarding quality control at DYK: In my activity at DYK, I focus on reviewing hooks before they get to the main page, although I sometimes have pointed out main-page errors at WP:ERRORS. If you don't believe that I have been involved in quality control at DYK, you might note that one of the people who has registered strong opposition here formed his negative view after I objected to a DYK hook due to serious problems with the article. (See DYK nom, my talk page, and the other user's talk page, and a more recent message on the same topic.)

   Many people have verified pages. I just haven't seen enough from you to make me feel as if you would be able to review for -all- of the very tiny stuff that is very important, nor do I feel that you have an eye towards spotting certain things. You have not spent a lot of time with high end contributions nor do you have experience in reading content of that type in which you can spot many of the problems - this is why Awadewit, Jbmurray, Mattisse, and myself are easily able to spot problems like plagiarism - we are able to see changes in language or things that stick out because we have so much experienced with the heavily polished pages. We need DYK admin with such ability. That is why I would easily support someone like Awadewit for the position, but I don't feel as if I can trust someone without her background. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2. I've seen impressive work from her and lean towards supporting, but some of the opposers allege incivility or heavy-handedness in incidents that look like they'll require a deeper investigation. So neutral until I get time to dig a little deeper there and see if there's anything worth being worried about. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Though others seem very impressed with the nominee's content-related work, various drama situations at WP:AN/WP:AN/I leave me with questions (beyond my regular ones). But as this RfA already looks like a run-away support, I won't bother asking. I'll be content if those "voting" support, will be on hand to help coach/council the nominee in the future (presuming the nominee is receptive to such), should the need arise. - jc37 02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Changed my mind and decided to at least add the regular ones. - jc37 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yikes, you certainly seem to have made some vociferous enemies, Orlady! Neutral per Olaf for now; seems like a good candidate intially, but concerns from opposers merit investigation. GlassCobra 11:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. GlassCobra 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral - Orlady is excellent with controversial articles, and she should be commended for her work in those areas, but the abusive and sarcastic tone pointed out by the opposers is too much for me to consider supporting. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Concerned about civility. Editor's excellent record otherwise balances that. And since I tend to be a bit sarcastic sometimes, who am I to oppose based on thatChanging to supportWehwalt (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

5. (Changed from support) Orlady is a dedicated contributor, but the concerns brought up in the oppose section are too strong to ignore, I'm afraid. Remaining neutral so as not to pile on. –Juliancolton |  16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral, having looked a bit further, the incivility appears to be isolated incidents rather than a constant feature of this user's editing. I hope that if promoted they will take the concerns raised here to heart and be careful about what they say and think about how their words might be perceived by others. Lankiveil 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

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.

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

Spinningspark

Final: (64/2/1); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Spinningspark (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure that I introduce my final coachee... I started coaching Spinningspark in early November of last year. I was very impressed by his thoughtfulness and answers that he provided. I also liked the questions that he asked. I was debating a December or January nomination, when he made a major blunder. At the time Spinningspark was only able to edit WP a few days a week. He ran into what he thought was a case of vandalism and went to fix the vandalism. Unfortunately, when he fixed it, he actually reverted to the vandalism that somebody else was trying to fix. When another user tried to intervene, telling SpinningSpark that he was wrong, SpinningSpark initiated a Check User and a Sock request against the other user. These actions were clearly incorrect, and were compounded by the fact that they occurred just before he was unavailable due to real life activities. As such, he was not able to reverse his own allegations when his error was pointed out to him and the seriousness of the issue was magnified by his apparent non-responsiveness. A summary of the events, including a statement by the accused party, can be found here. I told him then that the issue was severe enough that it probably ruined any chance at an RfA for several months---and that there was nothing we could really do except wait and let time heal the issue. A person should not be permanently barred for an isolated mistake half a year ago. EDIT: ironically about a week after this incident, the person SS requested a sock investigation on was blocked as a sock in an unrelated case!

I'll be honest, I lost some of my interest in coaching and didn't pay as much attention to Spinning as I should have, but he knew that he needed time to distance himself from his blunder. It has been 5 months since the incident. Many people run for RfA 5 months after joining WP, Spinning has been active on WP for 18 months and has just over 10,000 edits (including deleted edits.) 45% of his edits are in the article space, but he also participates in various reference desks, help desks, and editor assistance areas. He has almost 600 edits in the new file (formerly images) section, which indicates a strong grasp with images. Admins familiar with images are always a positive!

When I reviewed his edits while preparing for this RfA I couldn't help but notice how SpinningSpark has matured into admin. When I coached, my goal was to get people to act and behave like admins. The having the buttons is immaterial, one can be an admin without the buttons. SpinningSpark is such a person. He has also shown tremendous patience. Many people have a stereotype that people who seek out coaching want a fast track to the buttons, SpinningSpark didn't. Right from the beginning he indicated a desire to do it right... he has. I do not see him being one of the most active admins at , but rather contributing as it evolves from his participation in the various help desks/reference sections/editor assistance where he works.

---I'm Spartacus! 03:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination with great pleasure. SpinningSpark 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank I'm Spartacus for his nomination. Regarding my error of judgement in December, I offer no excuses, but ask only that you believe that I have learned from it (which I have, big time) and note that, although belated, I did finally make the right decision.

After several years of using Misplaced Pages, I finally plucked up the courage in 2007 to actually correct an error in a physics article, but only after weeks of doubt over whether or not I was actually right (at the time I was firmly convinced that there were no errors on Misplaced Pages), and only finally making the correction after another editor agreed with me on the talk page. Still, I was not heavily editing Misplaced Pages, there seemed to be articles already on everything I knew about, and even when I could not immediately see a relevant article that was only because I did not know how to search properly - or at least so I thought. In any case, I rarely looked up articles on subjects I already knew about, I looked up articles to learn something. Then, quite by accident, I discovered an area of Misplaced Pages that had practically zero coverage but which I had a great deal of knowledge and experience having worked in that little corner of telecommunications for several decades. I wrote one article - and then started churning them out - and suddenly found that I was completely hooked. This place is a drug and I am a junkie. I write on a wide range of subjects but it still stays centred on telecommunications and electronics. More recently I have slowly become more involved with the infrastructure of Misplaced Pages and it has become clear that I could make use of the admin tools. I hope you give them to me. SpinningSpark 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I am currently very active on Misplaced Pages:Editor Assistance/Requests. While this is mostly geared to helping editors, it does require the occasional administrative intervention on a regular basis. As my nominator has stated, administrative work will probably grow organically out of this rather than aiming at a specific task. However, one area that particulary attracted me to admin work is cut and paste move repairs. This regularly comes up with my own articles where I have constructed a substantial article in user space but there is already a stub or small article in mainspace so a simple "move" is not possible. If I were to gain the ability to fix these in my own articles I would also assist others with a similar problem. I am also willing to attack most administrative backlogs whenever required.

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

A: I don't know about best contribution, but this is my best ever edit summary. In terms of article review status, I should perhaps mention that I wrote Otto Julius Zobel and later brought it GA status. Small edits too, though, can be important contributions. I am particular proud of finding this previously overlooked (overlooked by Misplaced Pages that is) effect in the works of Albert Einstein.

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: I have never had a serious conflict with another editor (vandals and trolls aside) besides the incident already mentioned in my nomination. There have, of course, been occasions when there have been disagreements, but I will always go to the talk pages when this happens - experience tells me it is better to do this sooner rather than later. Occasionaly, I hsve raised an RfC to resolve an issue, but these are very much the exception and I am not at all sure they should be classed as conflicts - merely a disagreement that requires the opinion of others to move on.

Optional Question from your nominator

4. Five months ago you made a mistake and the mistake was compounded because you were unavailable to edit from Monday-Thursday. Are you still unable to edit on those days and if so, how will you prevent similar issues from arising should you become an admin?

A. That is still the case, although the period of absence is not as predictable as that and it does not happen every week. I can be offline each week for between 0 and 5 days. I had previously indicated to my nominator that I expected this situation to change before my nomination and I would have a higher level of availability. I am still expecting this change to happen but sadly, real life has its own agenda. Currently, my peak editing occurs towards the end of the week and weekends and my minimum availability is from Monday mornings (UTC) onwards. As for mitigation, the first, and most important, thing is for me to stay aware that there is a potential problem. Having identified that my absence may cause a problem I have several choices, amongst which is to decline to pick up altogether a controversial issue which is likely to go over into the period of absence. In some cases it may be enough just to inform the other parties that I will not be replying for a few days. In other cases I would consider asking another admin to watch over the discussion while I am away. On the other hand, it is not every conversation on Misplaced Pages that is likely to blow up into a huge controvery if left unattended for a few days, even though ANI might give one a different impression.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

5a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: The article meets criteria CSD 3a, no content, and so is eligible for speedy deletion. Whether I did so immediately or not would depend on the editing history of the creator. For a user with some history I would assume that they were about to create an article and wait at least a couple of hours for something to materialise. If a new user, it is more likely a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. In that case I would first check that they are not actively editing right now, then execute the speedy delete, but I would take the trouble to explain on their talk page what they need to do and offer help. Deletion of such an article with virtually nothing in it is not a great loss, the only danger is to drive off a potentially useful editor by not explaining. I might also choose to research the notability of the company myself and the result of this could influence my decision. One further possibility on the character of the creator is that it is the work of a single purpose account here only to spam the wiki. Those cases will get no leniency from me.

5b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: The template really makes no difference, it is inappropriately attached to this article in any case. The wording on the template instructions includes "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content". My answer remains pretty much the same, just that spamming is slightly less likely to be the motive if there is no external link.

5c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: The first edit by Editor1 is an edit, not a reversion and does not count towards WP:3RR. Re-adding by Editor1 would not be a 3RR violation but a further deletion by Editor2 would be. However, I am not very interested in legalistic counting of offences here. Both editors need to be warned right now not to edit war and pointed to the talk page. The difference made by Editor3 carrying out one of the reversions is that 3RR is accumulated personally, not by a group on one side of an argument so Editor2 would then not be in breach of 3RR with a further reversion. However, I would bear in mind that organised tag team might be going on. In any case, Editor3 makes little difference to my assesment that this should be taken to the talk page instead of annoying everyone else by filling up the article history with edit warring.

5d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Simple vote counting is never a good idea, at least for an encyclopedia, when it comes to decisions on content. To do so leaves us open to vote-stacking, sockpuppetry, external canvassing and other undesirable practices. There is a small difference, however, between deletion discussions and article writing. In a deletion discussion there is little room for compromise; keep and delete are binary choices (there is merge, but this is often little more than a thinly disguised delete). In article writing there is some possibility of accomodating two points of view without compromising the article's integrity. Indeed, it may be essential to this for balance if the article's sources actually disagree.

Optional question from Quadell

6. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. My reaction to a situation where consensus is clearly against me with no realistic possibility of persuading the opposition is to walk away. There is really no point in doing anything else, even if I feel I am still right there comes a time when you must admit defeat gracefully. However, in trying to find you an example, I have struggled to come up with a clear cut case where the result has not been at least a compromise I can live with or that I have actually seen some merit in the oppositions case. Even at AfD I can find in recent cases only this weak example and I suspect this does not really answer your question since AfD closure draws a line in a way in which a dispute in the article space does not. To find something in article space that seriously did not go my way I had to go all the way back to July 2008 where I had opened a RFC in the Newton's laws of motion article following a disagreement that was threatening to turn into edit warring. Although substantial numbers of editors were agreeing with me the consensus seemed to be going the other way so I closed the RFC then left the topic alone. But even this is not a clear-cut example because what is not at all obvious from the talk page discussion is that while this was going on (and an awful lot of editors took part) entirely different editors had been changing the article to something I felt was a fair compromise between the two positions so I really felt that continuing the dispute was unecessary.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

7a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think that the problem is pretty much represented by this complaint I dealt with at EAR. The complainant says "Ms. Stewart and our staffs do not have the time to read every day to see if someone has tried to edit what is already there with the kind of lies, attacks etc. that were their at the beginning". Sadly, neither do Misplaced Pages editors for the vast majority of minor bios. A high profile politician will be watchlisted by many, but cases such as these of a very minor politician may be watchlisted by only the article creator - or even no one. Yet we have a moral duty (besides any legal consideration) to protect our article subjects from attack. If we were a print media, the article is reviewed once, and then put out there. In our medium, constant vigilance is required, but this is not a reasonable expectation to put on volunteers. The complainant asks for the article to be deleted so that they do not have to watch it. If we do not find a way to guarantee that attacks are not inserted, or at least are not left, in articles it will become increasingly difficult to deny such requests.

7b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A1: I am going to reserve judgement on flagged revisions for now, I do not yet have a clear enough understanding of the mechanics of how they might work. You may find that I !voted against them in the poll but I have not checked back. I am not in principle against, but I want to see a workable proposal first. I have spent some time poking around in German Misplaced Pages trying to understand how it works over there, but have come away with some serious doubts and questions. Doubtless, there are some straightforward answers (which I may have found myself on German wiki if my German language skills extended beyond ordering drinks in bars) but at the moment I don't have them so it is "reserve judgement". One thing in particular that I was looking for was an unflagged revision which had not been subsequently deleted or amended. Despite inumerable random articles I could not find an example. This says to me that the German reviewers are keeping on top of the unflagged revisions. This is good for them but I suspect that that would not be the situation on the much larger English Misplaced Pages. So the difficult question, for me, becomes what happens to that unflagged revision as it slowly sinks lower into the edit history. If it forever remains undisplayed, I would see that as a problem, but that is not the case as far as I can make out; there is in fact a rather worse problem. It seems that the way it works is that if you flag a revision, you flag everything in that version as being ok. As I say, I could not find a clear-cut counter example but I think that's the way it works - someone here is sure to put me straight if I am wrong. For low traffic German articles, this is not so onerous a duty, but on English Misplaced Pages, I would not, for example, want to have to trawl through a couple of dozen recent IP edits before I felt safe to correct a simple typo. On the other hand, failing to flag it (presuming I am given that option) just makes the problem worse for the next guy. A further concern I had with German Wiki is that there did not seem to be any onscreen indication of whether or not the article contained unflagged revisions, but possibly I am not autoconfirmed on German Wiki and this will make a difference to what I see.

Request for clarification: So are you saying that you opposed a proposal that you do not understand? If it's just the mechanics you are wondering about, a working version is available on the Test wiki. A link is provided on the project page, I believe. I can find it if you are interested and cannot quickly locate it yourself.

No, I am not saying I opposed a proposal I did not understand. I am saying that I have no clear recollection of the proposal or how I !voted and have not looked it up. My current position I think is clearly stated above - I am undecided. To the best of my recollection, there were several alternate proposals for which polls were called for, I !voted in some of them, I read and understood each proposal before !voting. To the best of my recollection, the proposals were matters of principle and did not delve into the mechanics of operation. Thank you for pointing out this is running on the test wiki, I will look at it, but I am not going to make up my mind for the sake of providing an answer to this RfA. Sorry, you are going to have to make do with "undecided". SpinningSpark 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A2: A flagged protection trial seems like a good idea to give everyone hands on experience of the workings of flagged revisions. I still reserve judgement as I had not heard of this proposal until this question was asked and want time to think about it. However, it is appealing because it is limited in scope, so is easier to keep under control, and is directed at the group of articles which need it the most. Patrolled revisions sounds to me like an altogther sensible and uncontroversial idea - very similar to the flagging used by WP:NPP.

A3: I am absolutely against widespread unprovoked semi-protection. Effectively, this is pushing out IP editors by making life for them here next to impossible. This would be a major departure from the Misplaced Pages principle of anyone can edit as stated in Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. If there is a case for throwing IPs off the project, then that should be addressed directly with a proposal that clearly has that as its purpose, not by backdoor instruction creep that drives people away in frustration.

Request for clarification: You say "unprovoked". Currently, liberal use of semi-protection is for articles that have been the subject of specific, lasting vandalism. Those with a history that indicates they are not heavily monitored. Additionally, the question is specific to BLPs, so even protection for all would not result in "throwing IPs off the project". That clarified, would you be in support of either of these, or neither of them?

I would still be against. It is frustrating for an IP editor to be invited to edit and then find they cannot when their chosen article to improve turns out to be semi-protected. It is far better, and more honest, if this is desired to make it clear from the outset that an account is required to edit, then there is no feeling of being slighted when your attempts are frustrated. SpinningSpark 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

7c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Keep. No consensus means that there was no valid argument advanced for deletion. If there were it would not be "no consensus". "No consensus" does not mean that the votes were evenly split, it means that the arguments are not decisive either way. consensus is not voting. I am aware that this is a hot topic at the BLP project, but currently WP:DEP makes no distinction for BLP articles except in the case of articles that fall in to the category of your next question. As for my opinion, I think the currect policy has got it right, there is no good reason to default to delete for no consensus for BLP articles; if the article is a WP:BLP violation it can be deleted for that and the decision will not be "no consensus".

Request for clarification: You say that no consensus means "the arguments are not decisive either way". So, when keep arguments for a BLP are not compelling, you believe it is better to default to keep if the arguments to delete are deemed to not be compelling as well? This is not a question about what policy says or necessarily what you would do in such a situation. Feel free to elaborate with hypotheticals, but it's simply asking what your belief is. Admins aren't required to agree with policy, only to know, enforce, and abide by them.

I believe I answered this when I said the current policy has got it right, which is to default to keep when there is no consensus. You never know, someone might improve the article. SpinningSpark 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

7d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: That question took me on an interesting hunt through the archives. The current deletion process guideline states;

(For BLP deletions, the standards are currently under discussion. WP:BLP presently states "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to their discretion".

However the link does not go to any such discussion (long since archived) and the BLP policy says no such thing. It used to say such a thing but was removed in this major revision of BLP on 7th May 2008. Since that puts the guideline badly out of sync with the BLP policy I am going to be bold and go and remove it. I know I should not make any potentially controversial edits while my RfA is ongoing but it is so obviously wrong and I cannot help myself.

Ok, so the actual current policy statement is found in the deletion policy and states,

"Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete".

So having cleared up what the policy actually is, and finally getting around to answering the question, my personal criteria would be this: if there is no consensus and the references are only borderline meeting WP:V and WP:RS I would close as delete. If the subject is the president of a major country, then it is an obvious keep. Everyone in between is on a sliding scale and doubtless there will be really difficult borderline cases out there where I will have no idea what to do, I would tend towards complying with the subject's request in those cases, but I would also consider asking for another administrator's opinion. I would also be influenced by the extent of editor protection at the article. An article that is guarded by rottweillers night and day is going to steer me towards a keep. An article that is left undefended except by the occasional passing vandal fighter is more likely to be a delete.

Optional question from User:Climie.ca

8: In the event of them conflicting with one another, should Misplaced Pages's policy trump common-sense, or vice versa?

A: In real life, on Misplaced Pages, and just about anywhere else, common-sense trumps everything. This is what WP:IAR was written for.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

9. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Misplaced Pages continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started a short article on The Political Quarterly. It was promptly nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: Too right I would have declined to speedy that, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion under any criteria and certainly not an A7. This criterion is An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. No mention of print media in there so A7 cannot be applied to it, and there is no question of it needing to assert notability to avoid speedy. I am not so surprised that it got tagged, this kind of mistake happens way too often, but I am surprised at the admin who failed to decline the speedy. To be kind to him, he may have mistaken it for web content instead of print, but even so there are clear assertions of notability in the article as it existed at the time of tagging . A journal that claims to have stayed in print for 75 years is in itself notable in my book, the claim that major historical figures have contributed to it is notable (there is little danger that I would not have recognised these names, some of the works of Leon Trotsky sit on my bookshelf, but in any case, the names were wikilinked even at that early stage of the article so the deleting admin needed only to go read the articles to see how important these people were), the fact that it is currently edited by a British Member of Parliament is notable not to mention the string of notable past editors (not wikilinked true, but at least some have articles). How little a shred of a claim of notability would I require? in this case none at all, but in an article that was actually subject to A7, I would require only a shred, I am not actually permitted to speedy delete it if it has that much. When would I tell the nominator to prod or AfD? I wouldn't, prod is inappropriate following a declined speedy and the nominator can make up their own mind if they want to take it to AfD. I would not feel any compulsion to point them in that direction, although I might very well AfD an article myself after declining a speedy if I felt it deserved it (but let me emphasise, not in this particular case). The only slight qualm I have about the original article is that this subsequent edit suggests in the edit summary that the original text was a copyvio. If it was I cannot identify the source and the editor does not say, but in a case where copyvio (of the whole article) can be established speedy delete criterion G12 applies.

General comments

• Links for Spinningspark: Spinningspark (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Spinningspark can be found here.
• Promote Spinningspark
• I am now going offline. I will try and check in around 20:00, 14 April (UTC) but cannot guarantee that and any further questions will receive an answer. Thanks to everyone who has taken part so far. SpinningSpark 05:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Impressed with his work and his friendliness. Also, per nom. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm impressed with Spinningspark overall.  GARDEN  14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good, well thought out responses and from what I've seen the same goes for interactions with other users on talk pages. The mistake mentioned in the nomination is far enough in the past and Spinningspark seems to have learned the appropriate lessons from the incident. Camw (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nominator. GT5162 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - He's both learnt his lesson, and is a polite, friendly, and considerate user whose time would no doubt be more effectively used with the bit. :) — neuro 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per Neurolysis.--Iner22 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. It seems clear that he learned from his mistake. –Juliancolton |  15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. I noted Spinningspark's Admin Coaching page when I traveled to Balloonman's talk page a while ago, and I checked out Spinningspark a little then. I was very impressed with what I saw, and I don't think he would have massively messed up in the two months since then. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Whose page were you visiting?---I'm Spartacus! 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not the nominator's; I know that much. All I know of the nominator is that he is some person completely different from Balloonman. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Weak support I have to admit, in my interaction with SpinningStark at DYK I found him a bit abrasive (but not egregiously so...and in his defense, I'm sure he found me abrasive as well) and wished he would have assumed more good faith. But that is just one editorial disagreement, and looking at the above I don't see any significant concerns, and no evidence that he would abuse the tools or do damage to the project. And he has a valid and noble use for the tools, with his work at EA. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Well-qualified. -download | sign! 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I trust I'm Balloonman!'s judgement and apart from that a bit too colorful signature for my taste, I cannot see a reason not to trust this candidate. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I think we met at a London Meetup last year, sensible and thoughtful chap - will do well as an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No problems.--Giants27 /C 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Reading through an AFD he participated in, his comments throughout show his character. I think he'd be a great administrator. Dream Focus 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support per Spark's work at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Solid knowledge of Misplaced Pages, net positive. Also highly impressed with communication skills shown at editor assistance and the science reference desk. —Cyclonenim | Chat  21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Looks fine to me. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I'm satisfied with the answers and comfortable with him having the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Does plenty of work, image experienced admins are a big shortage, and certainly has leart from his mistake. I would strongly suggest that he makes it very clear on his talk page, as best as he can, when he is and isn't going to be available. --GedUK  06:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Good suggestion, I might do that right now. SpinningSpark 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

23. Support - Trustworthy, friendly, helpful. I think he'll make a good admin. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
24. A really great and knowledgable user. He will be an even greater asset as an admin.--Patton 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Wizardman 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, I quite liked that edit summary. --candle•wicke 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Seems to have learned his lesson from the slipup a while ago. Answers look good; candidate appears to be smart, helpful, and dedicated. Looks good. GlassCobra 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Of course. TNXMan 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I remember offering my opinion in the sockpuppet/checkuser/vandalism case; I'm impressed with how you've handled things going forward. Good luck. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I've seen Spark around on various help desks, most recently WP:EAR and I know he is willing to take his time to help editors figure things out. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Fleetflame 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Huge support Clueful image admin - more please. Black Kite 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Know him from EAR, where he's done great work. Definitely capable, and will bust his ass to the project's benefit. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support good answers to questions: well thought through and not cookie cutter. I like that! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Impressive and helpful user. FlyingToaster 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Nothing concerning, perfect edit summary usage; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. For some reason I recall seeing your work somewhere and thinking you would make a good administrator. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
40. support i think he's ready. DGG (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Per nom. Wronkiew (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - I liked the answers to the question I don't like being asked :)) NVO (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support per meeting my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Good luck. Dean B (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Majorly talk 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Of course, an easy decision. Spinningspark is a very friendly voice in any discussion with him in it (of what I've seen), and I think he'll do great as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Huge Support Initially he responded with patience to my early frustrations w/newbie questions regarding using Commons. His rapport, knowledge and detailed explanations are invaluable, and he remains consistently approachable for help.leahtwosaints talk 4:57 12 April UTC
49. Support, per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per great contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy, helpful and experienced. Majoreditor (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - Can't disagree with your nominator ;) Aaroncrick 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: I'll admit that I haven't researched this candidate as fully as I have others; but from what I see in a cursory glance indicates a clueful editor, a friendly contributor, and a capable candidate who could benefit the community with a couple extra functions at their disposal. — Ched :  ?  14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. No reason to believe the candidate will misuse the tools. — Σxplicit 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support (move from Neutral) I still disagree to the nominator's philosophy on the introduction and the candidate's acceptance speech (guys, first impression is very important). However, given the candidate's thoughtfully addressed answers, he proves his high understanding of various policies and seemed carefully re-examine them too. His responses on article talk pages are generally civil, so that meets my criteria. I'm concerned about his accessibility (he says he could be a only-weekend-active admin), but we have life too. To sum up, I think he can be a good admin to overcome past mistakes, and disadvantages. Good luck.--Caspian blue 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support No concerns for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Looks fine. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support no objections tempodivalse  14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
60. No More beat the nom supports!---I'm Spartacus! 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Drilling down, this incident, appears to have ended as a non-issue. I have to complement the nominee for his quick and full apology to the accused. From Analogue filter to Thigmorphogenesis, I find an outstanding combination of writing skills and referenced technical knowledge. Mature, friendly member of the community that would employ the tools in a fair and positive manner. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Support: no objections, no concerns. South Bay (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Support As per track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - Candidates grasps the BLP issues. Otherwise looks good. No overwhelming concerns. لennavecia 12:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   >_< - Fastily (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh not again! I'm sick of people opposing because there are "Too many administrators currently." Pathetic argument! Aaroncrick 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please, just drop this. There's plenty of drama elsewhere. A !vote is a !vote, regardless of what people think of the reasoning. — Ched :  ?  14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've since read that this has been discussed before. Aaroncrick 14:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Half-hearted oppose. I like to pretend to myself that prospective admins just wake up one day and say "I think I could admin", then consult their wiki-friends, discover support, and then get nommed or self-nomm for adminship. I know it happens more than I realize, but I get profoundly uncomfortable with extended admin coaching and grooming processes - reminds me of politicians and their handlers rather than people who can be trusted with mops. I have little insight into the nominee's behavior and whether he is trustworthy, but I find the nom itself to be quite offputting and the discussion on the page around the purported misjudgement too focused (already at the time - Dec 2008) on to what extent this puts the nominee's trek to adminship at risk. If this nom were currently in the gray zone, I would not oppose on these grounds (rather stay silent or neutral), but since consensus seems to currently be very positive, I feel I am not being unfair in explicitly raising my concern. I wish the nominee all the best of luck, but would be much more comfortable with his having the mop if he stopped being coached, just acted his natural wiki-self for a few months, and then reapplied. Martinp (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I looked at the questions and wanted to support. However, I looked at the nom to see who nom'd, out of curiosity. I'm sorry, but the nom statement -really- turns me off, and I would oppose because of those actions. A few months? I wouldn't be okay with such actions (especially with the immediate vanishing) after 9 months or so. An admin doing such things would be very bad. I'm not opposing as a courtesy to an excellent admin coach that was honest about their candidate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm Spartacus!, I've always appreciated your honest evaluation and assessment, but do you you really that your nomination statement secures the candidate's successful adminship? The first paragraph itself gives me enough doubt on his candidacy, but I will review his contribution with more time.--Caspian blue 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Responded on Caspian's talk page---I'm Spartacus! 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   After reviewing the candidate's contributions and question and answers, my uncertainty over his ability for admin duties is cleared. (though I prefer speaking "succinctly") I still have a homework to reply to the nominator. :)--Caspian blue 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Closedmouth

Final (94/3/1); Closed by Rlevse at 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Closedmouth (talk · contribs) – Today I present Closedmouth (talk · contribs) to the Misplaced Pages community for adminship. I recently noticed CD in my image tagging work, as he is highly active in sorting images on both Commons and En. To my surprise I saw he had 96,000 edits and was not already an admin, so I looked closer.

Closedmouth has been a Wikipedian since 2005 and could be described clearly as a wikignome. He goes about his maintenance work quietly and courteously. Looking at his contributions I see BLP tagging, a successful CSD tagging record, an excellent understanding of reverting and reporting vandalism.

If selected as an admin, I would expect that Closedmouth would be able to perform the deletions he does now without having to tag the page and wait for an admin to review. Also, his work with Huggle would reduce the need of other admins to review AIV, as he could handle the cases himself. I have every expectation that he will continue his good work. MBisanz 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom Closedmouth has been an active editor for 4 years without a single block, AN/I thread, reincarnation, or ArbCom case. He's a mature, stable editor who shies away from the drama, something the project needs far more of. I have no doubt he will use the tools in a level headed manner helping clear the backlogs and to assist with his excellent anti-vandal work. BJ 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Damn right I accept --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Anything I can sink my teeth into. We still have major backlogs piling up in places that people don't want to touch, and the times that I'm mostly active are not good times for most admins, so I'm always seeing vandals going unblocked, bad pages sitting around for way too long, things just not being done that could be done if I had the tools at my disposal. I want to help this place stay in shape, and it can be very hard to do that when you don't have the facilities.

Hey, that was pretty good!

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

A: It's very difficult to judge what my own "best" work is, but my work with AWB is probably the stuff most worth mentioning. I've done everything from fixing 5000 links to Buddha to typo fixing to attempting to format the dates for every single Australian biographical article (which was going quite well thank you very much until that injunction came along). At the moment I'm working on categorising BLPs which is apparently pretty important (crazy concept, I know).

I also work on shortening the short pages list, fight vandalism whenever I can get the chance (yes, I used to use Lupin's tool and popups, and I still managed to beat people to the revert. Those were the days...), and I've started moving free images to Commons, which having the bit would help me with.

That's good enough, right? Man, this is nerve-wracking; I've probably forgotten something, but if you want to trawl through my contribs looking for it, be my guest. Oh, and I should point out for the record that I am the worst factual writer in the universe, so my lack of content contribution is so our readers don't kill themselves trying to read an article I've written. (Answering these questions was hard enough, by gum.) Seriously, I don't write articles, and the pedia is better off for it.

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: No. If someone gets angry at me for something I've done, I usually run away and hide under my toadstool until they calm down or just realise why I was right in the first place. I don't hold my own opinion in high enough regard to get into a serious edit war.

follow up Q If you are active as an admin, you will not be as able to hide from conflicts. If someone challenges an admin decision of yours in angry terms, how will you deal with it? DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agh, yes, I just noticed I missed the second part of the second question. I'm a big fan of keeping a level head and not responding emotionally to challenges of my actions. Regardless of whether somebody is being angry and abusive toward me, if they present a valid argument based on policy, I am very much willing to revert my action(s). Why not? I'm certainly not infallible. And if somebody is just abusing me and calling me the worst admin ever and saying how they hate me because I deleted their page, well there's not really much to say to that, is there? Point out our policy, implore them not to attack others, keep emotionally detached from the situation, if it escalates, bring in a third party to defuse, step away. Pretty basic stuff.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Difficult questions. I think we have a problem in general with a lack of references. There is an attitude amongst the general reading public that Misplaced Pages is the place you go to plug in all the crap you know about something, and the hell with verifiability. Once it's on Misplaced Pages it's truth. So yeah, taking that through to its logical conclusion, the potential for abuse is severe, and its implications only just now being realised. Our job right now is to make sure that we don't just allow bullshit to creep in, pile up, and pull us down from the inside.

4b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I don't think semi-protection really solves anything, it just frustrates people who want to contribute genuine content. Some kind of flagging would make the most sense, as it would allow readers to edit but give the community a greater level of control over potentially libellous material, but I've honestly not been able to make up my mind on what I think would be the best way to implement it, so I can't give a definitive answer at the moment.

4c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Defaulting to delete puts the onus squarely on the keep voters to verify claims made in the article, so that's making more sense the more I think about it.

'follow up q there has been considerable debate over this, and I'd like an expanded answer to show you are aware ofthe arguments on each side. DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I gave such a short answer was because I am very uninvolved with AFD, and don't plan on ever closing a debate that could be defined as no consensus. Consequently I felt it was inappropriate for me to expatiate at length on a field in which I am very inexperienced and not very knowledgeable at all. I felt it was better to just stick with what I thought was and is logical. I'm sorry if this is inadequate.

4d. For BLP AFDs where the subject has weighed in to request that their article be deleted, how much consideration, if any, do you give to that request?

A: Assuming that the requester is actually the subject, and that the complaint is merely about the article's existence rather than any contentious or libellous content, you can't control public knowledge of your existence, so there's no reason to consider their opinion above the community's unless they present a valid reason. Some guy bursting in and shouting "Hey! Delete my god damned article!" at everybody just doesn't hold any water. (How's that for a crude oversimplification!)

Optional question from Quadell

5. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. I'm wracking my brains here. I'm pretty flexible, and I like to think I'm a reasonable person. If there are good reasons for me to change my opinion, I'm happy to. I guess the best example I can think of is the current date delinking nightmare. I was in the middle of a large AWB project and had to abandon it about a quarter of the way through. It was frustrating, but I knew that to continue in spite of the injunction would be foolishness of a grand scale, so I just swallowed my contempt for the ridiculous wikilawyering that was going on and found something else to do. Making a stand, getting pissed off, throwing shit around, calling people names...it's really not my style. There's so many better things I could be doing with my time. That's all I really have to say on the matter.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

6. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Misplaced Pages continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started a short article on The Political Quarterly. It was promptly nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A. I don't know why this has taken me so long to answer, it's a fairly simple question on a subject that I am relatively well versed in. Okay, making no judgements of character or motivation upon the users involved, the article should not have been tagged for deletion or subsequently deleted because a) speedy deletion criterion A7 does not allow for publications to be deleted under its jurisdiction...or whatever you call it, and b) even if publications were able to be deleted under A7, the initial article made several claims to notability which specifically disqualifies an article to be speedily deleted. Which ties into your second question nicely: any article with a claim of notability should not be deleted...speedily. (This does not include such claims as "John Doe is the greatest guy in the world" and "i pwn ur ass".) If there are claims but they can't be verified, prod it instead.

The End.

General comments

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

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

• This is more of a request to the candidate than a comment: please update this page, and others, when you finish going through them, to save duplicated efforts. Thank you. Majorly talk 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is not broken. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are still a load left that you still haven't removed. I was going to go through them yesterday but found someone had gone through them already - you. I'd appreciate a less sarcastic response next time round, thanks. Majorly talk 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't really understand what this has to do with my RFA. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Are you going to update the page or not? Cheers, Majorly talk 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

--Closedmouth (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As nom. MBisanz 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support As more sexy nom. BJ 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Yes, totally. More gnomeish admins must be good. --GedUK  07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --DFS454 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support absolutely - longterm good user with a clean block log and a sense of humour. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, he's a great user and I've often seen him around displaying it :). Good choice - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Absolutely.  GARDEN  08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak Support I've seen him active in image areas and he seems fine.--Caspian blue 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - (addendum) The mocking move summary of a Blp article is inappropriate but I hope it is an isolated incident and not happen again.--Caspian blue 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Duh. FlyingToaster 09:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I trust this user to act responsibly. ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per MBisanz. GT5162 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
14. the_undertow 10:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Per nom/above. FunPika 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Yes, I'm surprised he didn't try this before. -- Mentifisto 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong support - I, unfortunately (heh), know this user from elsewhere, and know that he is funny, well intentioned, and is a great person to be able to work alongside. Definitely. — neuro 11:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - no issues. Deb (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong support Wizardman 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per MBisanz. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Strikes me as a mature and reasonable person. I want someone with a sense of humour to have the tools, not some tightarsed twerp. I'm fine with administrators having a sense of humour; I wasn't aware there was an exchange policy "give up your sense of humour today and win a shiny new banhammer!". Not to go stereotypical or anything, but lol I thought he wuz one already. I'm done, now where's my coffee. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Get it yourself! --Closedmouth (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

24. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Looks fine to me.  Channel R   15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support avoids drama. Would use tools well without abuse.  Marlith (Talk)  15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. Timmeh! 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - obviously. Has clue, will use it, zero chance of tool abuse. //roux   16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Good clueful editor, I believe he will use the tools well. Cool3 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong support Reasonable person with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions. I do hope that being an admin won't change the pleasant person that I occasionally see on IRC. —Neskaya 16:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support - strong candidate, and not a newbie biter either, helping out newbies on IRC when they need help. Stwalkerster 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Strong support - Told him to run a few months ago, has gone out of his way to help me several times. — R 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support -download | sign! 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support bd2412 T 18:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. No problems - as I said in the oppose section, I don't like that userbox very much but it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Overall your edits are excellent and you seem to have a good clue of what you're doing and how admin tools will help you. Best of luck. ~ mazca 19:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong support - clueful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - A clueful CSD tagger, a very seldom kind of candidate here (just two mistaggings in the last month, and ). We need more admins at CSD and I feel Closedmouth will make a fine addition to the "team". Regards SoWhy 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Although he should open his mouth.--Giants27 /C 19:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Per nom. J.delanoy_adds 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support seen him/her around a bunch and seems fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support got a good sense of policy and nothing leads me to believe that you'll abuse the tools. What happened in the past was an unfortunate, but honest, mistake. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support don't like the userboxes, but have never seen a bad edit which is far more important. King of the North East 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - Grasps the BLP problem and is willing to work to fix it. لennavecia 22:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support →Na·gy 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support per King of the North East. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per MBisanz and a look through the candidate's contributions. --CapitalR (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - Has done good work, and shown a need for the tools. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe me may misuse or abuse the tools. Tiptoety 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - looks good. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support What!? not an admin OO didn't know that. - Fastily (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support primarily per WP:AGF, i.e. no memorable negative interactions, no blocks, etc. I can honestly see where the user below is coming from to some extent with regards to the userboxes, but again, I'm willing to assume good faith here. Best, --A Nobody 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support No reason to believe that this editor would abuse the tools. None of the opposes are in any way persuasive. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. Indeed. --candle•wicke 13:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Looks great! GlassCobra 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support I thought I did this already. Oh well, good luck!  iMatthew :  Chat  13:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - per nom. —Ed 17 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Weak support. Despite his long history here, I can't find any evidence of how he would react if he were in a serious disagreement with a highly annoying editor. I hope he wouldn't misuse the tools. But on the other hand, he's stayed the hell out of conflicts so far, despite his userboxes, and seems likely to make a good dent on the backlogs. – Quadell 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong Support: Excellent recent changes and new page patroller. Knows what he's doing, and should have got the tools long ago. Chamal 06:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Damn right I support. Daniel (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Nothing convincing in oppose section, good contributions; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. No real problems, but I would watch the edit summaries and block reasons you use as an administrator. The one brought up in the oppose section is not too bad, but as an admin your behavior will reflect on the entire encyclopedia. Other than that, there are no other problems I can see. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
64. 'Support - yes, the curved quotation marks are problematic, but we shouldn't use descriptives like that. However, I am sure that wont ever be a problem in the future, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    Heh, most certainly not. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

65. Support I'd like a somewhat wider knowledge of various admin functions, but I think he's close enough. DGG (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Looks good. :O hmwithτ 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support: Closedmouth has demonstrated that they are hardworking, have huge dedication to the project and that above all have a good sense of judgment, all qualities needed in an admin Spitfire 16:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Strong support - far surpasses my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Congratulations on your work so far - I'm sure you'll work well with the mop. Dean B (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. Net positive to the project. — Σxplicit 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Yeah, why not :) Steve Crossin /₂₄ 07:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - Absolutely. AdjustShift (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support: I like his approach to editing, and his sense of humour. I don't see a problem with the userboxes, though I can understand that one of them is borderline. Overall, though, I think the clue and intelligence and disregard for the drama boards speak well for his ability to be a fine admin. Maedin\ 09:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to multiple areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support per the other nominations as well his answers to the displayed questions. Peachey88 09:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support I don't care for the picture his choice of userboxes has painted, but the contributions indicate a strong net positive. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support User has been around since Sept 2005 and track is outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Looks like a good guy to me. Supergeo (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Nearly 100,000 edits, how can anyone possibly say no? Aaroncrick 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Closedmouth is a fantastic user who will do well with a few extra tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support - No reason to oppose Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - yes, absolutely Fritzpoll (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Support. Generally good contributions. Axl ¤ 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support to add to the pile-on. ThemFromSpace 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) You already voted, see #42 Tex (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

85. Support No concerns for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Support No worries after taking a few quick looks at random contributions. I find the opposes to be really shaky. That edit summary wasn't the kindest thing ever, but it'd take somebody with excessively thin skin to be seriously offended by it. Ray 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Good answers, good edit work, level head. Good admin candidate. LK (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
88. Much clue, and I admire the BLP work. Keep it up and good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Good answers to questions (particularly q. 3 :-)) and can't see why not. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Hardworking editor that has shown calm, mature, and intelligent contributions to the encyclopedia. Admin hat would allow for an increase in productivity. Noted his concise, yet kind mannerism in correcting new editors. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
91. Support - seems to do good work.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - looks good to me.  Frank  |  talk  02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - Per above.WackoJackO 05:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Good candidate, no reason to oppose. (Just at the last moment though). Pmlinediter   07:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I wasn't going to actually vote on this, but per the completely unnecessary sarcasm above, and this totally unnecessary edit summary, I have to wonder how seriously you're taking this. Majorly talk 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the sarcasm, surely the users talk page was a more appropriate venue for the discussion? Camw (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps - this does not explain the "majorly darling" response though. It was a reasonable request, responded to in a very inappropriate way. Majorly talk 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate has apologised to me privately, so striking - my sense of humour must have been switched off at that moment. This was an apparent misunderstanding. Majorly talk 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. This is only a weak oppose, but this move summary disturbs me. It's innapropriate. I also don't see many edits at all outside of vandal fighitng.--Patton 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I thought I should just point out that I've opened Huggle maybe three times in the last two weeks. I try to limit my vandal-fighting to when it's needed, say when there's a spike in vandalism, or there's nobody else doing it. There are plenty of other capable and experienced vandal-fighters out there who don't need me stepping on their toes. I do other things, I promise! :P --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   This RFA is going to pass, I am opposing to get my message across. The carts aren't going to count it. Please just don't use edit summaries like that in future.--Patton 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Candidate's selected userboxes paint a far different picture of him than what the nominators claim: that of a pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful user. No thanks. Keepscases (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Do his contributions suggest that he's a pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful user? If so, I may have to reconsider my vote. –Juliancolton |  16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Unless someone else snuck those userboxes onto his page, that's quite an easy question to answer. Keepscases (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I do see your point here, I've never noticed User:Infinoid/UBX/Antitheist before but the second clause in it does seem to cross the line from "stating your views" into "attacking the views of others". I may think about MfDing that userbox, but I'm not personally bothered enough to oppose this RfA over it. I'll look more at contributions later. ~ mazca 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Why delete it? I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I am also consistently amazed that some people believe they shouldn't actually be judged by what they choose to speak. The selection of a userbox like that one speaks volumes about a user; certainly indicates a lack of tolerance, humility, tact, and other qualities we should demand in adminstrators. Keepscases (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Which user boxes are you talking about? The history of his user page shows him using the F word, he a fan of casual swearing. "This user is an antitheist, and finds belief in a God unbelievably irrational." or the one where he isn't proud to be an Austrian? Which ones exactly bother you? He has a lot of them to look through. Dream Focus 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   These are the silliest opposes every DougsTech. We need MORE admins. Look at all the backlogs. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   There's no need to respond to his opposes. –Juliancolton |  03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can there be some rule, so you can't oppose someone because there is too many admins? Because I along with many others are really over it. Aaroncrick 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   Don't mind that last comment as I can see that DougsTech likes the opposes. Aaroncrick 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Some say their are too many administrators and some say their are not enough administrators. Also I seem to find contradictory stuff from both sides.Hawkey131 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

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

Bazj

Final: (18/20/3) Originally scheduled to end 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC); closed by non-bureaucrat Dylan620 per candidate withdrawal.

Nomination

Bazj (talk · contribs) – I've been active on WP for just over a year during which time I've been active in most areas. On the occasions when I've needed Admin intervention I've often had to wait for it. Obviously there's a need for more admins to help out with the mop & bucket workload. The time's come when I think I should offer to help out. Bazj (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accepted. Bazj (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn - This has turned into a review of my actions at Henrik Heftye, which I can't win. I don't want to waste anybody's time. Thank you to all who have taken the time to vote, whether for me, or against me with constructive comments.

I shall take some time to consider what lessons I should take from this. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To start off with I intend getting a copy of the dashboard and helping out where the workload demands for a couple of hours a week. As my experience as an admin grows I'll take on more and more of the Admin tasks. Much in the same way as I took 3 months or so as a newbie editor before I ventured beyond Articles and into Categories, then Templates, etc.

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

A: Depends what you mean by "best"...

Best research - National Land Company, I enjoyed looking into this obscure bit of history.

Best collaboration - Primary schools in Hertsmere, Kanguole prodded me into starting the article, and the two of us worked on it bringing it to publication quality quite quickly.

Best impact - a whole bunch of housekeeping at WP:SBS, upgrading pages to the latest set of templates, and putting the deprecated templates through TfD. Very rewarding.

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: The occasions when someone's slapped a speedy tag on an article moments after I've created it have probably been the most frustrating. Soon learnt to put more flesh on a page before hitting "Save".

When I've had to argue a case, I've argued it (and clarified myself if necessary) then walked away to let the argument resolve itself. After all, if I can't muster enough support through reasoning, then ranting and working up my blood-pressure won't sway the argument.

Additional questions from SoWhy

4. You reached approx. 1000 edits/month in August and September 2008, then went down to 6 in October, then up to 100/month for November and December after which your contributions dropped to 0 in January and now you hover around 350 edits/month. Can you explain this inconstant editing style and will you stop contributing for whole months again in the future (as far as you can predict)?

A: I took a couple of Wikibreaks when I felt WP was taking over my life, and used the Enforcer to make up for my lack of willpower. If I can keep my Wiki-habit under control I won't need to go cold turkey again. I hope. Bazj (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional rambling question from Cool3

5. Your most edited page (with 104 edits is Breweries of Watford (1700-1985), which I'm having a hard time figuring out. I see that you haven't really worked on it in a long time (which is absolutely fine), but it doesn't have any prose to speak of, and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm looking at. You moved it out of your sandbox with the summary "ready to go live", but to me that doesn't look ready. Could you just tell me a little more about this article? I'm not even quite sure what the question is here, and I'm certainly not criticizing, but you seem to have put a lot of work into that article, yet after moving it into the article namespace more than a year ago, you've edited it only once, and it's not exactly MoS compliant....

A.I'll agree, it's not beautiful. In my dreams it would look more like the Linux Distro graph at File:Gldt.svg. It's a timeline of the ownership of the breweries in Watford showing how they all ended up in the hands of Benskins. Since the last of the breweries shut down 20+ years ago, and Carlsberg owns the lot now, there's no ongoing ownership to record, hence no more edits.

Because I moved the article from my Sandbox the history's all there, including other stuff such as an explanation of the phrase "North of Watford", and an attempt to sort out a wikitable for List of Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds.

It took loads of edits because (1) I hadn't used EasyTimeline before and (2) it can't be previewed, and the rendering process was patchy, requiring an edit-save-nulledit-save cycle to see the change (or maybe it needed edit-save and a lot more patience on my part). In hindsight it would have been better to cut & paste the end result, but at the time I had no idea anybody would ever be interested in its edit history.

As for the MoS, is there an MoS section covering graphical timelines? The Misplaced Pages:Timeline standards only cover text timelines, not graphical ones. Bazj (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Seddon

12 What is the current situation with regards to admin workload and numbers? give examples

A: See Category:Administrative backlog. Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

13 Hypothetical situation which does not reflect on the candidate in anyway During an arbcom case in which your involved in, you stumble accross parties from both yours and the opposite side suddenly beginning to edit war on an unrelated article. How do you act?

A: Start with a {{Need-Consensus}} as a gentle hint to both sides. If that fails report it at WP:ANI stating my potential conflict of interest. And if I'm an admin at the time (which I presume is an unspoken part of the question) - refrain from using my magic powers - it's impossible to be (or to be perceived as) impartial in the second case while being an active participant in the first. Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

14 How many digits of pi do you know off by heart?

A: Ten. How do you number your questions? What happened to qq6-11? Bazj (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Quadell

15. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. As part of WP:SBS I made this change , which I wouldn't try now, {{succession box}} is used in way too many places to try replacing it with {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}} and {{s-aft}} (and I'm more house trained now, I'd add an edit summary). But as well as the template change I stripped the dates down to the year, after all the parameter name is "year". Seems like it's a huge deal to some LDS folks, compromise ended up with new templates and full dates, everybody happy(ish). Seems like some interpreted the exchange in far more dramatic terms than either side involved would have seen it - Talk:Brigham Young#Edit war on dates. It's more important that there's a general acceptance of an agreed solution rather than that I "win" (WP:OWN).

Looking for an example for this question I see that the compromise on Talk:Mark Durkan#Durkan's nationality? didn't hold. Will follow up with the editor who was going to the horse's mouth. Bazj (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A.2 I nominated Henrik Heftye for speedy deletion. The author removed the speedy against the rules. I raised an AfD in order to get an impartial opinion. The matter was raised at my RfA. I tried to justify my actions. I failed. In order to not waste any more of anybody's time I withdrew my RfA. Bazj (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Whichever way you vote, thanks for taking the time. Bazj (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Bazj clearly has the best interest of the project at heart. I agree with Wisdom89 in that more activity in the project space would be nice, though I'll support per WP:AGF. There is no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per WP:AGF as candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me. Best, --A Nobody 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support based on the assumption that the user will look over the relevant administrative policies before using the tool, which is really common sense, plus we need more administrators due to many admins on the project going inactive. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Bazj appears to be a mature and intelligent editor. While some opposers are counting the quantity of his edits, I am measuring the quality of his work, and I see no problems. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I have no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. — Jake Wartenberg 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per WP:AGF. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong support Wizardman 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support By the standards of a couple of years ago when RFA was working well you'd be a shoe-in. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support This user appears to me to have a perfectly well-rounded level of experience in wikipedia. He is predominantly an article-space editor, which I think is good, but some 25% of his edits are elsewhere in the project. I feel that if we are to set a minimum edit count (which we do not, and should not) then 3,000 is a reasonable figure which has, indeed, been generally accepted historically here. The suggestion, made below, of 10k is, IMHO and with all respect, ludicrous. --Anthony.bradbury 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. I think we all know it would be ideal if every administrator had 50,000 edits and 5 featured articles, but this is the real world. With 3000 edits and about eight active months (not consecutive, but I don't see how that's relevant), Bazj looks like good admin material. I am unconvinced by the opposes, and after all "adminship is no big deal". Cool3 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Who hasn't made a few mistakes? You'll do fine.--Res2216firestar 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - not concerned by the issues with editcount or activity, both are listed on WP:AAAD as poor reasons to oppose. I see no major issues here, so will default to support. Robofish (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Switched to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Support I trust him. prashanthns (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I'd prefer at least a year active on the project, but other than that I see no reason not to give him the tools. -Senseless!... says you, says me 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No alarms for me. --GedUK  08:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I don't see this passing, but you seem like your intentions are well. Per your lack of experience though, I may oppose if it looks like this is going to pass later on.  iMatthew :  Chat  11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support: still young in wiki-years but what the hell. Cursory investigation shows no civility problems. A definite asset to the project nonetheless. Also there is a backlog of monotonous cleaning that needs to be done due to the problem of not enough adminstrators currently. He'll be fine (and so will the project).--It's me...Sallicio! 21:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support although I can never think of anything original to say. It has already been said. Don't shoot the youngsters. There. --candle•wicke 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support No problems here as far as I can see. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)