Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Montanabw (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 17 September 2015 (Finishing that answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Montanabw

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (17/2/1); Scheduled to end 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Montanabw (talk · contribs) – Montanabw is a longstanding member of the community with a plethora of great content contributions under her belt. She has been editing since 2006, has been an Autopatroller since 2010, and has that currently fashionable combination of a clear need for the tools and audited content. If you check through her talkpage and other talk contributions it is easy to find examples of people asking her advice or collaborating with her. In several ways she is already functioning as an administrator - high time we gave her the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw is a long-time Wikipedian who has created quite a bit of featured content, where she has a good track record of collaborative work with other editors. She's an experienced DYK nominator as well, and has expressed an interest in helping out with admin tasks there. Her work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI will help her know how to check material in the DYK queue for copyvio. While her past has not been completely drama-free, she has a clean block log and a deep commitment to the project. She's a mature person who is intelligent, capable, and willing to learn. Montanabw would be a very good addition to the admin corps, and could make good use of the tools in her work on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for the gracious nomination. I accept. Montanabw 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ALTERNATE ACCOUNT DISCLOSURES: Per WP:VALIDALT, I have two alternate accounts. The first is User:MontOther, which I created in 2014 as a space for materials I use for testing, training and demonstration purposes. When that one got cluttered up, I created a "vanilla" sample user alternative account with default settings, User:Breadedchicken, in 2015, which I use to show new editors how things look to them when they begin editing and for viewing pages as they appear with default settings. I also changed my original username on this account to Montanabw back in 2006, within my first two months of editing because my first username incorporated part of my real name and I decided not to self-disclose my actual name on-wiki. I believe that the other user name does not appear anywhere on-wiki other than the rename request. Montanabw 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. From this experience, I wish to help address issues and solve problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. I think I could help the most with the perpetual need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, and, most of all, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks, particularly with the following administrative tools:

1. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
2. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
3. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.

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

A: Content! I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine. I enjoy creating and improving articles in other areas as well, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to eating Rainbow trout, to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Jackalope. In creating and editing content for nine years, I have had to spend time woking on non-content questions as well, particularly the behind-the-scenes work required for DYK, GAN and FAC.

• To give RfA reviewers a sense of my content work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related BLP article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and its talk page to see the details); the issues had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.
• Other examples of FACs where I worked with outstanding collaborators include Homer Davenport, where I had the honor of working with User:Wehwalt, and Yogo sapphire, which took a team of about six people, each with different areas of expertise, from geology to history.

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 been an editor for over nine years and most certainly have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences. I've handled many things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, thought I have not avoided drama, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed.

• One thing I know from the conflicts and stresses I have faced is that a crucial component to being a good administrator is to understand WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; when I am editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I cannot and will not use the tools. That said, there are thousands of administrative tasks and millions of articles on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

4. What is your view of Process is important?

A: There is an adage about the concept of process that goes, "those who love law or sausage should not watch either being made." Process is messy, but necessary. I am fond of the law, I am fond of sausage, and I am fond of wikipedia, so I guess my view is that I am willing to deal with messiness and to stay with the process and see if through. While process can be tiring, frustrating and time-consuming, the work done often results in a better outcome. An explanation of the stages of effective group development is "forming, norming, storming and performing." Process is what takes users through those stages and gets to the goal: Good, encyclopedic content. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the most unsatisfactory outcomes I have seen on wikipedia occurred because process was ongoing but it was summarily cut off before resolution was reached, or the process was hijacked by a group who had no actual interest in a solution other than their own, so engaged in pseudo-process with an actual goal of subverting discussion, prevailing not because the process worked but because everyone else gave up out of sheer exhaustion. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That said, there is also a need to be proactive in controlling the process, or even closing it, when it is clear that there is not going to be further progress. Montanabw 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

5. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: CSD is a policy. The policy page for CSD is a rather long and complex one, but in short, a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Therefore, the rebuttable presumption is that it should be applied as closely to the "letter of the law" as is possible. CSD is for obvious cases of articles where deletion is not reasonably contested. It is tightly limited to the specific types of articles listed and it should not be expanded beyond its scope. So I would apply CSD pretty "literally" and not abuse the policy by applying it to articles where it does not fit. If the situation is not clear-cut and/or there is any legitimate question of interpretation, it is best to use other methods to delete articles than CSD. Montanabw 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

6. What sort of thing constitutes a "claim of significance" in assessing an A7 or A9 speedy deletion? Can you provide some examples of things that do or do not constitute such a claim?

A: A "credible claim of significance" is a lower standard than notability; it's simply enough to survive speedy deletion, the article may or may not actually meet WP:GNG. I liken this to a Motion to Dismiss in a court case (such as a 12(b)(6) motion for those of you familiar with American law): If one accepts everything stated as plausible and potentially verifiable, is there a credible claim of significance made? As an example of A7, I recently de-prodded the new article Wiking (horse), "the all-time leading sire of Arabian racehorses." This is a good example of a stub by a new user that makes a credible claim of significance, even though the article is pretty rough. On the other hand, if I created an article about one of my own horses, such as the models for these images: File:BosalHorse.jpg or File:Green rope halter 01.JPG by saying, "Ally and Bella are Montanabw's famous wikipedia horse models," there is no credible claim of significance made (and I'd also deserve a trout slap). For A9, similar standards apply. An article saying "Joey and Jimmy have a garage band in Harlowton, Montana, would be a pretty clear case: Neither have a WP article and there is no claim of significance made. If it were a closer call, I'd look to past precedent and probably do at least a brief Google check to be sure that we didn't just have a new editor who didn't know that they needed to include in an article. If I had any doubts whatsoever, I'd use PROD or RfD instead of Speedy. Montanabw 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: IAR is a cousin to one of the "rules" of composition in George Orwell's famous essay on writing, Politics and the English Language: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." In other words, rules are excellent tools in most situations, but there are times when a rule does not actually fit the situation and blind adherence would result in something that is not useful, or unjust, or simply ridiculous. In such cases, there is a place to make an exception. IAR should be used when needed, but with caution and with a clear understanding of what the usual procedure is and why, in a particular case, the rule is going to be ignored. Montanabw 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A: It's something I'd like to do. I already enjoy directing traffic and suggesting solutions, as users such as SusunW can probably attest. I've done a little bit of work at DR/N, and found that even when keeping people at the table doesn't settle the dispute, at least no one gets blocked and it keeps the process going until tempers cool. With the mop in hand to calm disputes, one can step in with some authority and help potentially good, enthusiastic new users calm down so they don't get themselves blocked. One can also back off experienced users who should know better.

From my own experience, I think when there is a disagreement amongst editors who all are trying to edit content (as opposed to vandals NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia), it is important for an admin to first cool down a heated situation, not make a snap decision, and avoid a rush to judgement on any side. Then, even if the admin is forming a pretty clear picture of the situation, giving both sides a fair chance to express their views and then calmly explaining what the guidelines are will solve many problems. Often people start working together once their emotions cool. Even the most contentious editors usually come to the table once they realize that the other side isn't going away. There are always a few intractable situations, but those usually get that way due to user behavior rather than the content dispute at issue. If everyone can remember AGF and NPA, almost all other problems can be solved. Montanabw 02:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

9. As an admin, you are patrolling Category:CSD and find an article whose entire content is "In 1979-80 the <organization>, a feminist art center in <Major US City>, issued a nationwide call for lesbian artists to organize exhibitions of the work as part of <Event name>." It has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, no context. What do you do?

A: CSD#A1 states, in pertinent part, "Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles...If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, there is enough context that A1 is not appropriate." So first off, I'd see how new the article was, and then do a web search to see if it really occurred. If it was real, and could be expanded, then A1 is not appropriate and Speedy would, appropriately be declined. If it wasn't new, I'd probably still decline CSD#A1 if there was, in fact, enough material to expand the article appropriately. (If I had time, perhaps I'd even do so myself) If the editor who tagged the article for CSD wished to PROD or otherwise suggest deletion, raising an appropriate justification, they could do so and that request would then be reviewed on its own merits. Montanabw 03:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional questions from RO

10. At User:Montanabw/mopprep you offered "Blocking obvious vandals" as a primary reason for "Why do I want to be an admin?" In fact it's the second bullet point of your first reason for needing the tools. I agree that one of the more important things admins do around here is to protect articles from vandals. So will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?

1. September 12, 2015: ()
2. August 9, 2015: ()
3. July 31, 2015: ()
4. July 20, 2015: ()
5. February 28, 2015: ()

A: No, I will not. The relevant question for an RfA is if I would block a vandal under a certain set of conditions. And none of these diffs, taken alone, are conclusive for a block, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances involving any particular vandalizing editor. I also see this question is being challenged and discussed below by other editors, so I shall refrain from further comment on this question. Montanabw 03:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

11. Have you ever operated an account and an IP at the same time that edited the same pages? If so, did you ever claim the IP as your own? Did you ever make any edits with the IP that would qualify as vandalism? Have you disclosed it to ArbCom? If you used an IP and an account to edit the same pages, but never claimed the IP as your own, please explain here why it wasn't socking. If you haven't ever operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other, just state that fact clearly, and please accept my apologies for the tough question, but admins have to be tough. Don't you agree?

A: I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP. Those cases, therefore, were all presumably examined for evidence of socking or vandalism. I choose not to reveal my RL name or hometown on-wiki, but any number wikipedians know my RL identity and can address any concerns privately with ArbCom or whomever. No, I have never "operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other." That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny. If you believe you have a specific example involving me socking with an IP, please just go ahead and make the accusation with a specific diff so the CU folks can examine it. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever make edits with that IP that would qualify as vandalism? RO 02:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not vandalized wikipedia, (though there might be the occasional snarky edit summary from another user who thinks otherwise) and I most certainly have not with any anon IP. If you have any accusations otherwise, please provide the diff of the IP vandalism. Otherwise, I believe this question has been answered. Montanabw 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking/giving me permission to link you directly to the IP in question? RO 03:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion you are having with other users, below, I suggest that you raise your concerns via appropriate channels and they can email me with your diffs, the IP in question and so on. But for the record, I absolutely have not "concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time." Montanabw 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But beyond that, other RfA reviewers do need to know that you and I have "history," and some of that history does involve me having reasonable cause to suspect that you were socking. Others who looked at the case determined that you were not, User:ItsLassieTime (ILT), though a different ILT sock was uncovered in that time period and my understanding is that you disclosed a previous account privately to ArbCom. As a result of that, I recognized the need to submit Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and that LTA was approved. I learned a lot from the experiences I had with you in that situation and on your original, failed, Irataba FAC that Maunus was kind enough to fix and hope you take pride that the FAC eventually passed and that article has now been TFA. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, if granted the mop, I most certainly will never use the tools in any situation where I know you to be involved because I would be WP:INVOLVED as to you. Montanabw 02:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

12. Dianna mentioned your "work helping with copyright clean-up at CCI", but your first article, Equine nutrition, was tagged as a copyright violation within the first week of its creation: (tagging; duplication detector report). Unless I missed it, it seems you never admitted it was inappropriate. If you did, I apologize and request the relevant diff/s. If you didn't, will you please explain here why it wasn't a copyright violation? Otherwise, how do you see yourself as an admin dealing with new users who you suspect have violated copyrights? What approach would you take?

A: That's an EXCELLENT question, RO! Yes, in February 2007, (eight years ago when I had been editing about a year) in creating a new article, I too closely paraphrased and inadequately footnoted from a source and was slapped with a copyvio tag on that article by Cyclopia. I was terrified!! (And, (ducks head) a little pissed, too) As soon as I realized what happened, I acted, rolled up my sleeves, went to work, and within about five hours had it fixed and it was restored. I DID apologize to Cyclopia at this diff for my mistake, and also told him/her in turn that I forgave him/her for acting so abruptly. I was particularly proud that about one month later, this article became my third GA. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That case is, in fact, one reason I became interested in CCI and related issues; I learned a lot from that experience. I have since had other experiences that have further informed my approach to CCI. One was the famous User:ItsLassieTime sockfarm and subsequent huge CCI involving something like 700 articles, many cut-and-pasted, and which is still not totally cleaned up. I learned what a mess a single editor can make if they don't understand COPYVIO issues. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

12b. Above you said, "I forgave for acting so abruptly". Will you please explain why you think they were "acting so abruptly"? Here's the duplication report. There are nine hits of 30 words or more verbatim copy-pasted. Were they overreacting, if so why, and how would you react to a finding a similar duplication report in a new user's writing?

A: Be sure we are clear on the issue, your diff is not the version where the tag occurred. The actual comparison at issue are these two. Your diff is "17:12, February 9, 2007 (Creating article)." That was the very first edit. And yes, in 2007, I did create that article by first copy-pasting the Rutgers content and then copyediting it from there. At the time of that tag I still was working on the article; the diff shows I was down to 6 hits over 30 words, which was still too much material too closely paraphrased, but I was still constructing content. That is definitely not something I'd do today! I think this article was evidence that I learn from my mistakes and become a better editor for the experience. Montanabw 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What I would do for a current editor similarly situated today, and what I wished that editor would have done at the time, was to have warned me first and not just shut down the article with a huge "scare tag"—it was a new article, there was active work going on. A better approach would have been to notify me of the problem, perhaps with the dup detector results, letting me know that I had too much duplicate phrasing, and emphasize that I needed to fix it pronto, pointing to the appropriate WP policy of the time. I had the article recovered into a sandbox, I fixed the problems, and in less than a day it was reviewed and the new version restored. As I stated, I learned a great deal from that experience and have not made the same mistake since. Montanabw 02:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional question from Epicgenius

13. Do you plan on focusing in any one particular admin topic, or will all your admin activity be sporadic?

A: Because my focus is mostly on content, I suspect the answer is "sporadic." Most likely where someone alerts me to a problem where I can help, or when I come across an area where it looks like folks need a hand. I'll probably pop by DYK and RPP on a reasonably regular basis, as there always seems to be a need for extra hands in those two spots. Montanabw 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) To expand on this answer, I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop, so while I cannot use the tools where I am WP:INVOLVED, I feel that with the tools comes the responsibility to contribute to the community; just like my work on DYK in doing prep sets tends to correspond with my own DYK submissions, I have a strong ethic that where I ask for something, it is my duty to give back in return. Montanabw 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Support

1. Support Yes, please! Great content work, level headed. --NeilN 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support as per nomination statement. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support, well qualified candidate. --kelapstick 23:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Strong support. As a content creator, Montana has done exceedingly well. She is level headed, calm, and understands WP policies. She would be a huge asset to the admin group. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support - I have seen this editor around over the years, and trust her with the extra buttons. I was unaware of much of the content work, which is a plus. Proud to be in the first five supports. Jusdafax 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support. Honest, straightforward, intelligent, articulate, excellent content work.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
7. Support per Diannaa NE Ent 00:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
8. Support per nom. @Montanabw is: 1) a content editor, 2) a trusted user, 3) very useful in defusing fragile situations. Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Still support even though Montana doesn't intend to do admin tasks regularly (Q 13). Epic Genius (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

9. Support Need an admin like that. I do believe that she has the credentials of an admin --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
10. Support A user with over 70,000 is strong enough to become an administrator whom have good understanding in the Misplaced Pages's community and I believe she would use the admin tools to improve the community. Per as Diannaa nomination i support her candidacy. AYYYEEE! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
11. Support I think this may be my first time commenting on a RFA! Anyway, I've been coming across Montanabw's fabulous content contributions for years (one of my particular favorites is her work on Horse Protection Act of 1970). I too find her level-headed, and am pleased to see that she plans to help promote sets at DYK, as there tends to be a dearth of admins in that area. Ruby 2010/2013 01:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
12. Support Great content contributor, worked with them on Homer Davenport. Don't see anything "bar"ring them from being a great admin!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
13. Stephen 02:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
14. Support Montanabw is clearly an exemplary editor who has made large-scale content contributions and I have no reason to oppose. In regards to question 10, revert 1 removed a clearly satirical source, revert 2 was done to remove clear-cut vandalism, revert 3 was an instance where a constructive edit was made after someone had vandalized and Montanabw decided to revert to get rid of the vandalism but added the constructive content back in in a subsequent edit and revert 5 removed false information, inserted to deceive, from the article (Piebald, the article subject, refers to black and white, not blue as the reverted edit stated). The only error I saw in the entire list was revert 4, where Montanabw reverted vandalism, but apparently forgot to re-add a constructive grammatical edit. This was an incredibly minor mistake, and if this is the worst that can be dug up on Montanabw then I am even more confident in voting support. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
15. Support because I see no good reason not to. Both voters currently in the oppose section see to have a personal beef with the candidate, and I find their arguments unpersuasive. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
16. Support lots of content creation under his belt and experienced as well! -Euphoria42 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
17. The entertainment value of this adminship should be off the charts. Townlake (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have a major concern that she's been mislabeling edits as vandalism that aren't, and I think a good candidate for admin should have a strong understanding of what is and what isn't vandalism. Particularly when "blocking obvious vandals" is a primary reason for wanting adminship. Also pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12. RO 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

   I'm surprised that you are asking a candidate to explain what is clear, to almost any WP editor, vandalism or digging back to 2007 and a first article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

   But as I said the diffs you presented are quite clearly vandalism. She obviously knows what vandalism as as these diffs indicate. I don't like to create a lot of heat on an RfA but this question and diffs are misleading, in my mind. Something to think about. I won't add more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

   Is adding or removing a Wikilink vandalism: ()? RO 01:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   It is when the edit that removed the link actually changed "Jockey" to "horse ejaculator" - or don't you class that as vandalism? --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Me too. At the very greatest, this merits a "neutral" !vote, not "oppose". Epic Genius (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, You're right about that one. I'll strike it. RO 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   The questions are relevant. Please don't try to make this about me. A good candidate for admin should have no problem answering my questions. But I could certainly expand on the oppose, if that's what you're asking me to do. Is it? RO 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Then why not wait until the candidate actually answers the questions before making your judgments? Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. And yes, if possible, please elaborate on why you will oppose on the basis of "pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12". Epic Genius (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I have lots of other reasons why I opposed this candidate, but I'd prefer to keep my oppose relevant to adminship and policy. I can supply more problematic diffs if that's what you're asking me to do, but I suggest you don't and wait and see how she answers. RO 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)Rationalobserver, WP:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out reads: "There is no policy against editing while logged out. ... Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts ... editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki." (emphasis added) It seems to me that Q11, as currently written, violates this policy. I ask you to strike it, or reword it so that it asks only about use of IP editing for improper purposes, as listed in WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Editing an article is not such an improper purpose. DES 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   But can you edit an article with your account, and also argue against a copyright violation tag at that article with the IP that you never claimed was yours? Can you use it to vandalize Misplaced Pages? RO 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I was trying to be vague, so I wasn't ambushing with a specific accusation, which I'd rather not go into if possible. Lets she how she answers. RO 01:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Vandalism is wrong, via any account or IP. Using an IP to pretend to be a 2nd person falsely trying to gain consensus for any editing or policy position, including the removal of a copyright tag, is also wrong. But your question wasn't narrowly tailored to any such situation. DES 01:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   DES is right that IP editing while simultaneously having an account is not illegal. Also, as currently worded, Q 11 seems combative. Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   But can you edit an article with both an IP and an account, and support each other without ever revealing that the IP and the account are both you? RO 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   You know, you can disclose the IP to administrators privately without violating either WP:OUTING or WP:ILLEGIT, and without resulting in yourself getting blocked.... Epic Genius (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Rationalobserver has a right to express her opinion here without being harassed or badgered because of her opposition. She stated exactly what her opinion was, there was no ambiguity, and if you don't like it, then don't use it as a reason to oppose. I think she's wrong (I support the nomination), but she absolutely has the right to oppose the nomination without being hounded about it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   That's real sweet of you, GregJackP, but I'm a woman, not a dude. RO 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   My apologies. I've changed the pronouns, and I did not mean to offend. GregJackP Boomer! 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   {{pronoun}} and {{heorshe}} can be very helpful. DES 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   No offense taken, I just wanted you to know. RO 01:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Rationalobserver has a right to express her views of the nomination. She does not have the right to ask for information that policy specifically says need not be disclosed. Others have the right to express their disagreement with her views, or with anyone's views, either in hops of changing those views, or in hopes of persuading others not to adopt them. Doing so is not harassment or badgering. However, making such points over and over, to many different users on similar grounds, can become disruptive, in my view. DES 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   It works both ways. If you are going to try and shut up editors who are asking polite questions of supporters who put down no reason at all for supporting a nomination, then you should not be doing the exact same thing to the (currently) sole voice in opposition. When enough people do it, especially repeatedly towards the same person, it is both badgering and harassment. It is inappropriate and hypocritical, and you are a better person and admin than that. I expect better of you. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Asking someone politely, and away from the RfA at that, to stop making edits that I at least saw as disruptive is not "trying to shut that person up" in my view. There is a difference between attempting to rebut an expressed view, individually with arguments addressed to that view, and making repeated more or less boilerplate requests for editors to explain or expand on their views. That is how I see it. DES 01:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   @GregJackP: you are totally correct that RO should have the privilege to give her opinion. @Rationalobserver: I apologize if I offended you with my clarifying questions, but I was just wondering why on earth would you oppose before getting the information necessary to make a definite decision. Epic Genius (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks, GregJackP! But DES, I'm not asking her to reveal a specific IP address. I'm asking in a general way if she's ever operated both an account and an IP that edited the same pages and supported each other, but were never officially claimed to ArbCom. Isn't that required by policy? RO 01:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   If a specific incident is involved, then an IP address is in the history, and would be revealed by a "yes" answer as belonging to the candidate. That siad, a question along the lines of "did you use an IP address improperly on a page you were also editing with your registered account" would be different. And of course, one might not know it. I have often saved edits not realizing that my session had ended, and not noticed them until I returned to the page hours or days later. Probably there are some I never did notice. (To avoid this I now have css in place that turns the "save" button light green if I am logged in.) That may not be plausible in a particular situation, i can't say since i don' know the details. In any case there are I belive various legit ways to handle such a situation, not all involving arbcom. DES 01:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Sure, and again, I was really just trying to be less accusatory and more probing for policy based answers that pertained to adminship. I will say that if my suspicions are correct, the candidate concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time, but I'm still waiting for her answer! RO 01:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) There's nothing polite about Q.10 - that's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variant. RO asks "will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?" - making the implication that MontanaBW labelled valid edits as vandalism. But if you look at the sequence of edits prior to those diffs, you see where the vandalism occurred: This one at Piebald, for example, has an edit summary "OK, let's try that again, revert ALL vandalism" - the vandalism took place three edits earlier when 165.138.86.154 changed "black and white" to "blue". Is anyone seriously contending that making Misplaced Pages refer to "the distinctive blue plumage of the magpie" is not a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages per WP:VAND? Look at the Victor Espinoza diff (edit summary: Start to fix the vandalism). The vandalism was seven edits earlier when User:Slaymus changed "Jockey" to "horse ejaculator" - why isn't he permanently blocked? (because we don't have enough admins, I guess). Anyway MontanaBW was - as she said - making a start by restoring the wiki-link to Jockey that had been missed when another editor tried to fix the "horse ejaculator" nonsense. And so on. If RO had done her homework on those diffs, she would have seen that MontanaBW was fixing earlier vandalism or making a start on doing that. I am obliged to assume good faith and ascribe that to mere incompetence, rather than malice, but I'm finding that quite a stretch. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   You're still trying to make this about me, but it's not about me, it's about Montanabw. Is unlinking jockey vandalism: ()? RO 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Is adding a book to the bibliography of an article vandalism: ()? This edit was four days ago! RO 02:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Fact: before the vandalism, Jockey was linked . Fact: Slaymus changed "Jockey" to "horse ejaculator" (incontrovertible vandalism) and that's where the link was lost . Fact: two edits later an IP partially fixed the vandalism by changing "horse ejaculator" to "Jockey", but failed to restore the wikilink . Fact: MontanaBW restored the link that had been removed by the vandal with the edit summary "Start to fix the vandalism" . Look, we know you've had run-ins with her, but that doesn't justify pretending that MontanaBW was labelling just the removal of a wiki-link as vandalism. Even you can see that she was fixing the part of the vandalism that the IP hadn't corrected - and that's what her edit summary told you. When it gets to the stage that you are trying hard to make perfectly good clean-up after vandalism appear as something that it isn't, then it does become about you. Why not just have the good grace to admit your question was unfair and strike it? --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Was this vandalism: ()? RO 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   It's not even a real book. And look at the title and publisher really carefully—this looks like a high schooler doing you-know-what with Misplaced Pages. So yes, that is vandalism. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   The book in question claims to be published by "Precision Chicken" - something of red flag, wouldn't you agree? The book, the Bloviator, actually exists, but it's fiction. It was placed in the section that contains the books used as references for the article (the article uses shortened footnotes), but as a work of fiction, it was not used as a reference and had no place there. MontanaBW's edit summary: "Appears to be vandalism". Too damn right it was. Now, if that's the best you've got, how about you give it a rest, because you're just demonstrating how little you understand of article content and construction, when you're trying to find fault in this sort of clean-up work that MontanaBW engages in. --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   But shouldn't an admin know the difference between self-promotion and vandalism? RO 02:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   But shouldn't these types of edits be reverted anyway? (No sarcasm there.) Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Oppose The candidate has a terrible AfD record, and insufficient grasp of the deletion policies and guidelines. Also, she casts indiscriminately "keep" !votes at women's topics, and when in fear of not to get it her way, assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dating Violence Awareness Week. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning weak oppose. It's refreshing for me to finally see a nominee whose "User talk:" edits are not in the top 2 highest amounts of edits they have done; the nominee's top 2 are the "Article:" and "Talk:" namespaces, both valuable namespaces to participate in regards to ensuring that the main reason why we are here, content creation. However, in regards to this editor becoming a administrator: I'm not completely sold. Here's my main concern: "User talk:" edits are significantly higher than the amount of edits in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace. For an administrator, I consider experience in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace a very necessary trait. The "Misplaced Pages:" namespace is where most, if not all, of the WP:XFD forums reside. In addition, all of the "request fulfillment" pages (such as WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REFUND) are all in the "Misplaced Pages" namespace. Long story short, if one doesn't have ample experience in participating in consensus-based discussions or being a "requester", then I do not see supporting evidence to need to give them the administrator tools to close discussions to "delete", or "be the one fulfilling requests". Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   The answer to Q13 is putting me on the edge of changing my vote. If there is not a major drive or the need to use the tools, then why should they be granted? It seems that less than 5% of the existing administrators are active in performing administrative tasks; I'd rather not contribute to making that percentage lower than it already is. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   I am curious why you feel that the relative percentage is more important than the absolute quantity. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to meet certain admin activity requirements beyond a basic level required to maintain competence (awareness of policy developments, etc). She does indeed say, "I come across situations almost daily where I see the need for the mop". Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others. — Earwig  02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   The question is why would you give the tools to someone who will only need them sporadically. RO 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   My answer to that is, as above, "Even if an admin does not take action frequently, for every instance they do, they are lessening the backlog of work for others." The only exception to that I can think of is if their infrequent actions are poor (due to, e.g., inexperience) that they cause problems and other users need to spend time reviewing them. Given Montanabw's consistent activity over nearly ten years, I can't see that applying here. — Earwig  02:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) To me, stating that they have seen "a need" doesn't equate to them having the experience and knowledge of going through the proper channels and forums that exist on Misplaced Pages. If a need is found, it should be reported on the proper board as soon as possible so that an existing administrator can resolve the issue, and so its existence can be validated for our fellow editors who don't have the privilege of being an administrator and only have the option of reporting it. I'm honestly a bit tired of seeing an editor being granted the admin tools, but doesn't have the drive to manage or understand the boards that existing administrators monitor and assist ... which I have found is usually due to lack of experience participating on them as a "requester." Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

General comments