Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BethNaught

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

BethNaught

Final (179/1/2); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 19:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 18:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

BethNaught (talk · contribs) – It gives me great pleasure to present to you BethNaught as a candidate for adminship. I have now looked through BethNaught's edits in quite a bit of detail, and I think that they would be an ideal candidate for the admin tools. While the majority of BN's contributions have been gnoming and administrative edits, they have done a decent amount of content work, and the work that I have seen shows that they have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia's content policies and of everything else that goes into making an article. BethNaught's most notable content contribution is probably Jessie Bonstelle, which they brought to GA status, and they are also the author of nine DYKs. In addition, BN has done a lot of work at Articles for creation; in fact, they did enough to get on the leaderboard for the June 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive.

The administrative areas that BethNaught is most active in are speedy deletion and recent page patrolling. For a small idea of the work that they do, I recommend checking User:BethNaught/CSD log, which weighs in at an impressive 1,157 entries. Most of BN's recent speedy deletion work has been in the file namespace, which I don't feel qualified to assess, but there is an awful lot of earlier speedy deletion nominations of articles, and the ten or so that I spot-checked were all unambiguously good tags. Their recent changes work is also prolific. According to Xtools, they have 6,184 edits using Twinkle, 4,911 edits using Huggle, and 182 edits to WP:AIV. The Huggle edits that I spot-checked all looked good (and made me thankful again for all of the patrolling that BN and others do after seeing what exactly was reverted). BN would undoubtedly benefit from being able to block vandals directly instead of having to report them to AIV every time.

On checking BethNaught's AfD stats I was slightly concerned at first because there were too many times when their vote matched the final outcome (113 matches, 5 non-matches, and 5 no consensus outcomes). Sometimes this can indicate that an editor is only voting on AfDs where the outcome is certain in order to boost their statistics. However, after looking at BN's comments in individual AfD discussions, I was pleased to find out that not only was there no evidence of voting only on “dead certain” AfDs, but also that they have an excellent understanding of the notability guidelines and that they always leave well-reasoned comments explaining their decision. So I had nothing to worry about - BethNaught's AfD record is simply very, very good.

After looking through BethNaught's talk page archives, the impression I get is of an editor who is helpful, knowledgeable, and a very good communicator (an essential quality in an admin). Some investigation reveals that they have strong opinions about Flow,[1][2] but I imagine many other editors feel the same - and this is the only evidence I've seen of BN coming anywhere close to losing their cool. I've tried very hard to find other reasons why BethNaught might have a hard time at RfA, but I just can't find anything. So I can only conclude that they should have become an admin a long time ago, and hope that you will all join me in supporting their nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Co-nomination

BethNaught's experience has already been articulately summarized by Mr. Strad's statement, so I will endeavor to keep my co-nomination brief and to the point. I have noticed BethNaught helping out newbies and adding sensible comments around the project numerous times. Speaking of things that are impressive, I should repeat what Mr. Stradivarius already noted, BethNaught's outstanding knowledge of deletion policies which is evidenced from their clueful comments at AFD and this long list of their CSD tagging, it is already clear that they are extremely well versed in deletion related areas. From my experience, it seems that BethNaught puts care into every edit they makes and that's a desirable quality in an administrator. BethNaught has also got a backbone, and they are not afraid to share their opinion. But BN is mature and knows when to contain themselves. BN is calm and level-headed demeanor full of trustworthiness, competence, intelligence, and experience. In working with others, they are always kind, thoughtful, and helpful, and never gets upset. In deciding whether they would be a good admin, BethNaught has it where it counts: plenty of good contributions on Wikipedia, excellent knowledge of policy, enough number of high quality content creation, plus very good judgment calls and lots of experience in the area of TFD and AFD, as already mentioned. Given BN's experience and their obvious clue, I'd say there's no harm—and an awful lot of good—that could come from giving them those tools. I think we'd be doing ourselves a favor by giving them the tools. Jim Carter 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Having the admin tools would help me to be more effective in the work I am already doing. On vandalism patrol, I have not infrequently come across vandals who have been reported, or who I have reported, but have not yet been blocked due to WP:AIV backlogs. As an admin I could block them myself, and I would help out at WP:RFPP and AIV. Being an admin would also enable me to carry out delete closures at WP:TFD, where I have performed some non-admin closures in recent months – including delete NACs, a method not available at AfD, where a non-admin closer tags the template for speedy deletion by an admin.

I also work in the file namespace. Firstly, I patrol file uploads to tag obvious copyright violations for speedy deletion and dubious files for WP:PUF or dated speedy deletion. I would like to be able to actually delete copyvio files (according to process, of course). Secondly, as a file mover I often rename files which have the same name as a file on Commons. In order to "unshadow" the Commons file, it is necessary to delete the resulting redirect. (I will point out here, this is why there are many bluelinks recently on my CSD log: the Commons file makes the link blue although the local page has been deleted.) I may also help out with CSD in general, since I have previous experience in New Page Patrol.

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

A: In terms of content my best work is definitely Jessie Bonstelle, which I created and brought to GA status myself. (Thanks go, of course, to the GA reviewer and to those who pointed out typos.) In addition, I have eight other DYKs, concerning either British MPs or female scientists. As Mr Stradivarius said, I have done much WikiGnoming, such as typo fixing and red link repair. I have a lot of experience in counter-vandalism, and since August I have been active in closing TfDs, helping to keep the once-egregious backlog there under control.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: As a newbie I got into a couple of scrapes. For example, there was an argument over "State anthem" or "National anthem" of Uzbekistan. I prematurely took that to dispute resolution. If I were in that situation now, I would consider making a move request. As noted, I have strong opinions about Flow and I became agitated during mid-2014 at the height of the MediaViewer/Superprotect controversy and the arguments about Flow that precipitated. I still make comments criticising Flow and the WMF's handling of it from time to time, but everything is more calm and considered, if still to the point. For a recent example of stress, one of my TfD closures got taken to DRV. This gave me some nervousness about what the result would be, even though I trusted my judgement (which the DRV endorsed). However I believe I acted reasonably civilly. Having been there once, I know how it works, so if I were to be taken there in the future it would cause me much less stress.

Additional question from Esquivalience

4. Editors who work at TfD should know how to handle templates and template responsibilities. Because I can't see many non-TfD contributions to templates or Lua modules, do you nonetheless feel that you are reasonably proficient in handling templates and modules?

A: It is true that I do not know Lua and am not fluent in e.g. parser functions. For this reason, I would not use administrator access to edit modules or templates with non-trivial programming. When it comes to closing TfD debates, it is frequently the case that the debate has no aspect about coding (for example, sports team navboxes), and I can close these confidently. When a debate hinges on technical aspects or programming, I would use my judgement to avoid closing that debate unless there were a clear consensus.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

5. I have created pages that were deleted as “vandelism” , so I would like to know what is a vandal in your opinion ( I have not infrequently come across vandals who have been reported…)

A: WP:VAND defines vandalism as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia (emphasis original). I think this is a good general definition of vandalism (and to answer your question exactly, a vandal is a user who performs vandalism). When patrolling new pages or recent changes, there are several types of edits that are revertible, such as addition of personal biased opinions and copyright violations, which are not vandalism if the user doesn't know why they're wrong. These edits should be reverted and warned using specific messages (possibly templates) which explain why the edits are wrong instead of branding the user as malicious. In short, vandalism requires mens rea, and good faith editing can't be called vandalism.

I hope that gives you a sense of my views. If I haven't been clear in some way, please ask for a clarification.

Additional question from Reyk

6.- Under what circumstances is it appropriate to block an editor for not answering a question on their talk page?

A: I find it difficult to imagine a situation where blocking for that alone would be appropriate. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive, so if the editor's not causing disruption, there shouldn't be a need to block them. Perhaps if an editor with a clearly inappropriate username (such as a seriously offensive username or a promotional one implying shared use) continues editing despite a reasonable request to change username, then a block may be appropriate, but that would be for the username violation instead of the lack of reply per se.

Additional question from Rubbish computer

7. You go onto RPP and notice the following page protection requests. How would you respond to each of these?

A town, somewhere – Full protection - Vandalized 128 times in the last hour.

Joe Bloggs, Sr. - Semi protection - Persistent edit warring between 14 users, most of them substantially experienced.

Greenish (color) - Semi protection - Got vandalized by 2 different IPs on the same day.

Crayons, Inc. - Creation protection - Unambiguous advertising speedy deleted 4 times in the past week, also no indication of notability.

Internet vandalism - Move protection - Has been moved without consensus.

Vfggfsaygtshbykags - Creation protection: why create this random string of letters? (Has never been created.)

Foo - Move protection - Persistent move warring between autoconfirmed users.

Graphic graphs- Semi protection - Vandalized by several IP-hopping vandals over the past month (but the two main contributors are IPs, who have reverted most of the vandalism before anyone else.) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!)

A:

• A town, somewhere: this would depend on the nature of the vandalism. If it's just one or two users, blocking them and monitoring the situation would be a more appropriate first step. If the vandals are many and non-autoconfirmed, semi-protection would suffice in the first instance. Per WP:FULL, Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article, but full protection is too much if this is not the case.
• Joe Bloggs, Sr.: This sounds like a content dispute. With large numbers of (auto)confirmed users edit-warring, semi-protection would be ineffective. Full protection for a moderate period (I have seen one week used before) would force the users to discuss on the talk page. This is likely to be a more productive outcome than dishing out 14 edit warring blocks.
• Greenish (color): If the IPs have been blocked and the situation has been resolved, monitoring the situation may be preferable to protection. If it appears to be an IP hopping vandal, and vandalism continues after blocks, protection may be in order. This would be an exercise of discretion.
• Crayons, Inc.: In that situation, creation protection would be an appropriate action to take.
• Internet vandalism: Depends on context. If there is persistent move vandalism or an ongoing dispute, move protection would be appropriate. In general, consensus is only necessary in advance if it is reasonable to believe a move would be controversial, so "moved without consensus" does not automatically require protection.
• Vfggfsaygtshbykags: Salting would be inappropriate, given that the page has never been created, and there's nothing e.g. blatantly obscene.
• Foo: Similar to the Joe Bloggs edit war, if it's a just couple of users, edit-warring blocks would be in order, but if many experienced editors were involved, protection would likely be a more productive solution.
• Graphic graphs: We have significant, productive IP contributors here, so semi-protection would be bad. Pending Changes Level 1 would be appropriate in order to allow productive IP editors but screen out vandalism.

Additional question from Rubbish computer

8. You go onto AIV. There are 7 reports there, all from different users. How would you respond to each of these?

User:4Funn5 – Vandalized an article.

User:SomeUser44 – Vandalism after final warning. (8 mins ago)

IP:1.23456789.12 – Called me an idiot on my user talk and told me to shut up.

User:U wot m88884 – Vandalism after final warning. (9 hours ago)

User:$$£$YEPP – Admits to editing with a conflict of interest for cash.

User:Hi98 – Edit warring.

User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc. – Blatant violation of the username policy. (Has not edited yet) --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A: These answers assume claims of vandalism are true. If vandalism has not actually happened, investigate further, take appropriate action and explain to the reporter why a vandalism report was inappropriate.

• User:4Funn5: more investigation required. If they haven't been warned, warn them. If they have received a final or immediate warning, and vandalised after receiving it, block them.
• User:SomeUser44: Recent vandalism after a final warning will most likely merit a block.
• IP:1.23456789.12: (This is an account pretending to be an IP but getting the format wrong. Anyway,) this isn't vandalism. A better venue would be WP:ANI if there is a dispute with personal attacks occuring. Alternatively it may be that the user needs a stern warning to play nice. (Of course, check the reporter isn't a pot calling the kettle black.)
• User:U wot m88884: depends. If there is recent vandalism, block. If the user has by now stopped vandalising and has made some productive edits, I may be more inclined to monitor the situation and block in the event of any further vandalism.
• User:$$£$YEPP: This isn't vandalism. Refer to talk page discussion, WP:COIN or if there is disruption occuring, WP:ANI.
• User:Hi98: Again, wrong venue. WP:AN3 is thataway. Still, if the case is clear, there's no need to be bureaucratic about it: block the reported user and explain the correct course of action to the reporter. (As before, check the reporter isn't also edit warring.)
• User:Rubbish computer Industries, Inc.: wrong venue. With no edits so far, refer to WP:UAA and monitor the situation.

Additional question from Spartaz

9. I see that you been active at DYK. Many users feel that DYK is broken and should not be on the front page. Do you agree or disagree with this position. Extra points for providing a detailed explanation of your reasoning.

A: With respect, I don't see how this is relevant to an RfA, given that I am not interested in being involved with the administrative side of DYK. Also I can't say I have ever given this issue in-depth consideration. However, it's clear, even from just skimming the WT:DYK archives and reading Fram's recent Signpost op-ed and the comment section, that it's a highly controversial topic... If you are really keen to hear an answer, send me a message and I'll consider it, but I couldn't give you a properly informed answer at this point.

Additional question from Leaky

10. There is much to appreciate in your background and the manner & style in which you go about your work. Unless something spectacular turns up I will be adding my support but I hope you will indulge my question anyway! If, as you go about your Admin. work, you came across an identifiable pattern of patronizing and off-hand behavior by a colleague what action might you recommend? Is a long-term pattern of such behavior even an issue as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned? Should it be simply put down to the diversity of our editor base?

A: Civility and respect is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia for good reasons which I hope it is not necessary to explain, and WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Harassment are all policies. "Patronising and off-hand behaviour" as you have asked about may well not come within WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, but it is rather dickish; moreover if it constitutes newbie-biting or a breach of administrative accountability, those are serious problems.

The way to respond to these issues depends on their nature. Biting or failures of accountability should be addressed first with the user, and then if necessary escalated, say to WP:ANI, until a solution is reached. For other issues, it may be appropriate to leave well alone if it doesn't cause any real damage, or alternatively discuss without taking to a noticeboard.

It is worth saying that different people have different personalities and come from different cultures. It would be nice if we could hold ourselves to a better standard of civility, but as it stands, civility enforcement in medium cases is basically non-existent here, and me taking unilateral action with the tools would be foolish and futile. I'm not that way inclined.

(I feel like this is such a difficult topic I've probably messed up what I wanted to say somehow. If you want clarification, please just ask.)

Great answer and thanks for the links. No further clarification needed. Indeed, it is such a pity that many people disregard so much of the material you identify as not applying to "them" due to their perceived status. Best of luck!

Additional question from The Pancake of Heaven!

11. BethNaught, do you have a strong password? (For security reasons)

A: My password is strong. Moreover I do not use the same password anywhere else.

Additional question from Ottawahitech

12. Under what circumstances are ADMINs allowed to delete pages created by others with no notification? If you see evidence that fellow ADMIN deleted content in a manner not conforming to the first part — what would you do?

A: I am aware of the current proposal at VPP to require deletion nominators to notify the page creator. I will answer from the status quo.

• WP:AFD states While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.
• WP:PROD states The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s).
• WP:CSD states in general the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified.

The take-away is that notifying authors is good practice but not mandatory. Clearly the propriety of not doing so will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content of the page, but generally deletion without notification is not prohibited. On the other hand, a pattern of doing so is undesirable and in that case it would be a good idea to bring it to the attention of the adminstrator in question, and if necessary to escalate the issue to appropriate venues if there is the appearance of abuse.

Other venues are similar, I think: MfD requires that the owner of userpages be notified, and TfD strongly encourages notification, whereas otherwise it is encouraged but a matter of discretion.

Additional question from Atcovi

13 [I'm a noob to Wikipedia RFA's so please excuse me if I did something wrong] A young editor (young, like young) repeatively creates an article about himself/herself, even after being warned several times to stop doing so. What would you do in this situation?

A: As we're talking about a young child, I would see this as a safety isue rather than a COI issue. If the child in question is not notable then the article should be deleted (per WP:A7 or just IAR) and referred to oversight for their own safety. If they are notable, this might be done if the article contains sensitive personal details, or alternatively the article could be stubbed and previous revisions RevDeleted pending oversight. The child should be given an explanation of why posting their personal information to Wikipedia is bad (if they haven't received such already). If the article has been deleted, salting may be appropriate. If it unfortunately becomes necessary to prevent the child revealing inappropriate personal information, they might have to be blocked, though this is a last resort.

Discussion

• Hi all. I understand why there is confusion, but I'd rather not let this catch on in a wide venue: as I have a userbox saying, I don't want to reveal my gender identity on-wiki. Beth naught is a number: $\beth _{0}$. I would appreciate it if you would please refer to me as "they". Thank you! BethNaught (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Links for BethNaught: BethNaught (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BethNaught 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 Absolutely no qualms. BethNaught would make a great admin. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support, as promised at the trial.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Widr (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Editor exceeds my RfA standards and I have no reason at this time to oppose. Mkdw^talk 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Summed up perfectly by the nominators, BethNaught is a brilliant editor and would make a fine administrator -- samtar ^whisper 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
6. —Kusma (t·c) 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Very good editing record. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, obviously. I've seen a lot of BethNaught's work at TfD since the NAC process was introduced and have been consistently impressed. BethNaught is confident, clueful, and already skilled at judging consensus from discussions. Well qualified, except for not having come to RfA a long time ago ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

   PSA: the correct response to discovering you've been misgendering someone is "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that" and no further commentary or speculation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

9. Support Appears to have excellent knowledge of the necessary policies. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
10. Support - As I said here I actually thought she was already an admin so was rather surprised to see she wasn't, Quite honestly I couldn't think of anyone better to be an admin!. Obviously great candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    One small point: BethNaught hasn't identified as a "she", so using "they" is probably the safest bet. Check out User:BethNaught#My name for some more details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion moved to the talk page. -- samtar ^whisper 14:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

11. Support ticks all the boxes, needs the tools and their history suggests they'll use them responsibly. Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
12. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
13. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
14. Support .Of course. I have recently reviewed this candidates work with a view to adminship. I can honestly say that it is rare for me to come across a user who so adequately fits the profile of an ideal admin.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
15. Support absolutely. I asked them to run. Strong contributions across the board, talks sense. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
16. Support. I'm glad to finally see this RfA. BethNaught is level-headed, well-rounded, and a near-perfect admin candidate, in my opinion. Biblioworm 22:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
17. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
18. Support- seems an excellent candidate from what I have seen. Reyk _YO! 22:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
19. Stephen 22:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
20. Support. This editor has shown sound judgement in non-admin closures of discussions and responded with civility and eloquence when challenged. I'm also very impressed by the answers to Rubbish Computer's test-case questions. I dare to say BethNaught will make a better admin than I. Deryck C. 23:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
21. Support. I have seen plenty of very good judgement from this candidate. Their communication skills are excellent, and their experience is ideal. I am confident that BethNaught will make fine use of the tools as an administrator. Begoon ^talk 23:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
22. Support - looks like a great candidate, and good answers to the questions so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
23. Support No worries here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
24. Support. I think that in almost 2 years of editing, the candidate has done pretty well and shown a need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
25. Support as co-nominator. Jim Carter 01:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
26. Support – net positive. sst✈^(discuss) 03:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
27. Support - Clean block record. As with some of the above editors, agree that this editor's responses to the supplementary questions were very good. Particularly liked their response to Reyk's question #6 regarding talk page blocks. Can see no issues with this person getting adminship. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
28. Support, nothing worries me about the candidate, and I can see no reason why they shouldn't be granted the bit. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
29. Strong support — long overdue. David Cannon (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
30. Support Right temperament, and sees the problems with Flow! Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
31. Support I have seen BethNaught's work in areas with which I am familiar and I agree the candidate does good work in those areas, has a good editng record overall and has a good temperament. Also, BethNaught writes clearly, has answered the questions posed to this time well and has a good temperament. I am glad to add my support to BethNaught's candidacy. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
32. Support - the closing of the TfD BethNaught mentioned in Q3 and subsequent comments in the deletion review were a pleasure to read - all comments were clear, well supported, and civil. It would be nice if all discussion participants were like this. "Pepper" @ 05:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
33. Support - Meets all criteria I can think of. Good answers to questions, sound judgement, call-mannered. An ideal candidate — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
34. Support Very pleased with the thoughtfulness behind BethNaught's responses, and I have no concerns about their behavior. I'm glad to see they've done some non-admin closure work, which requires a bit of discernment about when knowing when to jump in and when to hold back. I am confident they will be able to contribute a lot of important efforts towards some of our less-patrolled areas like Template for discussion and Possibly unfree files. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
35. Support - . I have checked through the contributions and their work and the user has a strong record. They writes in full clear sentences. I can fully trust them as an Admin. For the short time they has been on Wikipedia they has shown to us that they have the right to the mop. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
36. Support. I don't usually comment on responses to questions when I voice my opinion on RFA, but I want to take a moment to let BethNaught know that I really appreciate the maturity and self-assurance I see in the response to #9. It is possibly the best answer I have seen at an RFA in quite some time. Risker (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Ironically I edit conflicted with Risker saying the same thing but she said it far more eloquently then I did. I liked the confidence in which they decided not to answer the question and the fact that they took time to research the issue before making an excellent call not to answer such a tricky question. I have no doubt that they will be one of our very best admins very quickly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
38. I offered BethNaught a nomination, how could I not offer support? Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
39. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
40. Support Absolutely, I was hoping this would come soon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
41. Seems to have somewhat deliberately ticked all the RfA boxes, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing – there's nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin. In any case, any mild concerns that I might have about that are far outweighed by what I have seen from BethNaught around the project. They consistently make sensible comments and decisions, and it is clear they will be an active user of the admin tools. The sole oppose is unconvincing to say the least. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
42. Support As I said in the optional poll, 91% of nearly 150 AfDs called correctly and the majority of edits are in mainspace, and he has unsolicited messages asking to run for RfA. All good signs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
43. Support looks to have a good handle on the requirements and an excellent candidate with runs on the boards in areas that often contentious. Also, no big deal. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
44. Support giving this experienced and diligent user administration tools would allow them to more effectively continue their valuable service to the project. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
45. Support - A very productive contributor whose experience and wisdom will greatly benefit the admin corps.- MrX 12:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
46. Support They seem a good candidate for the tools. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
47. Support as a quality candidate. No evidence whatsoever that they would abuse the tools. I see lots of good work here, and this candidate easily passes the Net Positive test. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
48. Support as I cannot see any reason not to hand them the mop. Responses to Rubbish computer's questions are excellent. Eman235/talk 13:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
49. Yep. Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 14:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent candidate. Mr Stradivarius summarizes their qualifications well. Their record indicates a good understanding of content creation and of deletion policy. Clean block log; always polite and civil as far as I can see. I see they have been doing NAC closures and a kind of informal clerking at TfD, as well as a lot of work in files; these are areas of expertise that not many candidates bring to the table and would greatly strengthen our admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
51. Support. I have noticed BethNaught a few times during discussions or general editing, and what I saw always struck me as constructive and well reasoned. Coupled with the current lack of relevant opposes, I see no reason not to support this RfA and plenty of reason to look forward to a new good admin. Fram (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
52. Support for a candidate with the temperament to be a good admin and who will make good use of the mop. Lone oppose carries no weight here. Miniapolis 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
53. Support – I was very impressed with this user when I first encountered them and introduced them to Twinkle, and my opinion of them hasn't changed one bit. Graham87 15:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
54. Support Unreservedly. HiDrNick! 15:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
55. Support. This is an easy decision for me. As soon as I saw the RfA, I knew that I was going to support, even before reading anything here, but I did read everything. I agree with all of the positive things that others have said before me. I will also add that the plans to work with file deletion are well thought out, and fill a significant need. A very strong candidate, whom I support with no reservations. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
56. Support. Reasons stated and responses to lines of questioning were all sound. Icarus of old (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
57. Support Seems like a good candidate. I may reconsider if there are any sensible reasons for opposition given, but currently there are none. HighInBC 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
58. Support Gave excellent answers that were well thought out. I would see them serving well as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
59. Support. Quality candidate. APerson (talk!) 16:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
60. Support I was referring to this discussion through the watchlist notice. We always need more administrators and I am happy to see someone interested in the job. Harej (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
61. Support. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
62. Support The user's contributions to the file namespace mostly look good. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
63. Jianhui67 ^T★C 17:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
64. Support I was particularly impressed by their answer to question #3 and their behavior at DRV. They are both communicative and calm, and a boon to the community. NekoKatsun (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
65. Support Seem them around and seen no problems. Good nominations. Personally, I couldn't care if they are fourth gender Martian. There's no obligation to disclose gender, orientation, name or age. (I decided to come out as male to save pronoun problems - people still refer to me as 'they' anyway... I don't care.) Peridon (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
66. Support What an excellent candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
67. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
68. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
69. Support. Everything looks good to me. Tellingly, the biggest stumbling block seems to be a lack of publicly disclosed gender identity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
70. Support Wholehearted support Aparslet (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
71. Support - I look forward to having more eyes in the vandalism-reporting forums. No concerns. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
72. Support cheerfully and genderlessly Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
73. Support Will make a positive contribution with the tools. JMHamo (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
74. Support Absolutely no reason to oppose from pre-RfA or the evidence above. And we need new admins. We are losing them like subalterns on The Somme at the moment..Irondome (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
75. Support. Calm and level-headed person. Pldx1 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
76. Support I fully expect BethNaught to be a level-headed admin. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
77. Support not a single drop of concern here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
78. Support I am especially impressed with question answers. Mamyles (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
79. Support per comments by Mr. Stradivarius, Opabinia regalis, Kudpung, MelanieN, Jenks24 and Tryptofish. High praise, indeed, from persons I trust. Candidate's AfD record is a mainstream body of work. Temperament is excellent. Demonstrated understanding of policy and guidelines is solid. Good sense not to over-reach when unsure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
80. Support Per Stradivarius and User has been editing Feb 2014 and has created 23 articles.Feel the Project will gain with the User having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
81. Support After reading through the nominations, I thought "This is too good to be true". So I went looking for the usual indications of natural short-temperdness with newbies which I often find in our star contributors and found only better than expected civility and a really well rounded editor. I still can't believe it, but it seems to be true. I am amazed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
82. Support. Strong track record, excellent answers to questions. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
83. Support Good head on their shoulders. Welcome to the mop corps. Katie^talk 22:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
84. Support Agree with the above. Although this person's only been on for 1 and a half years, there is no reason not to support this candidateClass455fan1 (talk to me) 22:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
85. Support - I couldn't care less what gender you are. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
86. Support Excellent candidate with an excellent record. Gender, or gender disclosure, doesn't matter (and we may all be better off if we were all theys here). TheOverflow (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
87. Support Sterling work, well done :) Orphan Wiki 23:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
88. Support An ideal candidate. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
89. Support. I've interacted with them from time to time, and have seen no problems. If there was a concern in the past couple months, I wouldn't know, but I don't see any objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
90. Support. Contributions, attitude towards the project, and projected use of the tools all look good. Others' questions here about personally identifying information are completely irrelevant and borderline violation of WP:OUTING. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
91. Support Looks good to me. Should be good with the mop! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
92. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
93. Support. The editor demonstrates not only understanding of policy but ability to explain their decisions clearly, coupled with sufficient substantive editing work. I am finding the discussion of their name/gender rather disturbing; it appears completely irrelevant to work as an admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
94. Support I'd also be happy to see the candidate closing AfDs (and I work more at AfD than any other admin-related value.), based on a gut reaction from long-term observations plus a review of both randomly selected and "contrary" AfD opinions. --joe decker^talk 02:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
95. Support - After reviewing BethNaught's responses to the questions posed by other editors, I have absolute confidence that they will make an excellent admin. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
96. Support. Excellent candidate. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
97. Support Clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia to have BethNaught wielding a mop and bucket. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
98. Support Will be an asset to the project as an admin, has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 03:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
99. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and BethNaught is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 04:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
100. A fine nomination and no concerns after a review of contributions. I have confidence in $\beth _{0}$ to wield the mop well. — Earwig ^talk 05:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
101. Support A very well qualified candidate. As for the one "oppose" vote to date, it is . . . unconvincing. I am biting my tongue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
102. sUPPORT I like an admin that uses PC. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
103. Support A great candidate. Leaky Caldron 07:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
104. Support: Quite impressed with the candidate's answers. Good luck and thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
105. Support A brilliant candidate, someone's reluctance to disclose their gender should not affect something like this. Azealia911 _talk 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
106. Support likely to be net positive, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
107. Support I saw no need to offer my opinion until I saw the vote to oppose. Whatever happened to WP:AGF, Andrew Davidson? The question is rhetorical. I would not blame this editor for withdrawing after that single opposition, but would regret it if they did. Gender bias is alive and well, it seems. They do not need to declare any gender to edit nor be an admin here. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
108. Support, absolutely no reason to oppose that I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC).
109. Support. My support is really not needed at this point I'm sure, but I too want to try to offset a rather silly oppose based on the candidate's chosen username. Assuming it's a misleading female name rather than, say, based on the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet (or any number of other possible meanings), is bad faith. (I always guessed that BethNaught was based on Beth number#Beth null, which may or may not be correct). As for gender itself, all we should be interested in here is what BethNaught has in their head, not in their pants, and anything tending towards the latter I find disgraceful. In terms of support, I echo all the positive things others have already said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

     Ah, yes, just read explanation for username on user page - it's possible I was not actually so insightful and had read that before! But the presence of that explanation makes the sole oppose even sillier. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

110. Support per Opabinia regalis, MelanieN, Kudpung, Tryptofish and Dirtlawyer1. Well respected, level-headed candidate who is a net asset to the project. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
111. Support, by what Boing! said Zebedee expressed better than I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
112. Support — Absolutely. BethNaught is precisely the sort of person we ought to have as an administrator: patient, understanding, and kind. It's a pleasure to support them. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
113. Support Trenchant common sense shown in all contributions to discussions that I have checked. As admin BethNaught will have more power to protect us, if it is ever necessary, against WMF excesses: Noyster (talk), 13:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
114. Support – Based on how they currently perform I thought they already had adminship. BN is a fantastic example to follow; I wish it were possible to be that level-headed and respectful all the time. (Non-admin comment)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
115. Support – To all appearances, $\beth _{0}$ is the sort of individual whose thoughtful involvement I would be very happy to see in any dispute or discussion of importance to me. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
116. Support – No complaints on my end and I have complete faith in this candidate being handed the tools. More than happy to add my support to this nearly perfect RfA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
117. Support - I see no issues with this candidate, best of luck Beth =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
118. Support No issues here and I'm very pleased with their answers to the questions. Certainly a net positive. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
119. Support After reviewing random chunks of contrib's and talk page interactions, everything looks great. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
120. Seems fully qualified, level-headed, knowledgeable about content, and human. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
121. Support - sufficient experience, didn't spot any issues. Also only oppose at this point is borderline trolling.--Staberinde (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
122. Support Just like in improv, this project needs more positivism to keep going! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
123. Support It's about time, if you ask me! In any case, prior interactions with this editor, plus the answers to the questions above, show that the editor will not misuse the tools and will be a net benefit to the project. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
124. Support --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
125. Support as no reason to assume will abuse the tools. I would take issue with your assertion that aleph-null is always equal to beth-null, but I have no concerns whatsoever about supporting this candidacy. Great answers to questions and no red flags. --John (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
126. Support. Good answers. Glrx (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
127. Support with the utmost confidence BethNaught will make a fine addition to the administrative resources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
128. Support: All indications are that BethNaught is a valuable member of the community and is willing to do the work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
129. Pile-on support Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
130. Support. me too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
131. Support. Nothing worth adding to the above. Sam Walton (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
132. Support, no concerns at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
133. Support looks like a good candidate. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
134. Support - I so rarely bother to weigh in on RfAs but I've come across this candidate in several venues, including AIV and AFD, and their contributions and comments are intelligent and helpful to a fault. Would make a great admin. Keilana (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
135. Support good answers to the questions as well as my prior impressions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
136. Support. Very minor quibbles, such as the personalisation of the issue in this discussion - but we're all human, so such things will happen now and again. Otherwise, all loo0ks good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
137. Support' No problem reaching this decision. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
138. Support But of course! I've run into Beth a few times here and there while patrolling recent changes, and I can tell they're a prolific editor. As of this writing, the only oppose and neutral !votes are absurd in their reasoning, much like the last successful RFA. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
139. Support absolutely. Have always seen good things from this editor; adminship seems like a natural progression for their editing career here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
140. Support. Cogent answers to the questions above, civil comments in discussions throughout Wikipedia, and a clear understanding of Wikipedia policy. /wia🎄/tlk 06:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
141. Support Would be perfect for adminship.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
142. Support. Absolutely. BethNaught displays all of the right characteristics of somebody who can be trusted with the mop. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 10:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
143. Support per nominator and co nominator. Also, the candidate's work proves that they are worthy to get the mop. Good Luck. Ayub407^talk 10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
144. Support: Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
145. Support: seen around, always constructive; great answers; very easy call. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
146. Support - I don't want any "shocked" editors to discount my vote for "lack of transparency", so for the record, I'm male and "thewolfchild" is my real name. (my parents did a lot of LSD in sixties...) - ^theWOLFchild 13:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
147. Support - they seem like they'd be a great admin and help run the site well and with good judgment. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
148. Support wholeheartedly. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
149. Support this obviously capable and qualified candidate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
150. Support. I haven't seen this level of support at RfA in a long time, and I don't think it's just from the watchlist notice. Well done! - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
151. Support as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
152. Plenty of clue and experience, the candidate is not going to delete the Main Page, so i'm happy to support him; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
153. Support a good addition to the team. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
154. Support: appears to be a sound and sensible person who will be a useful admin. PamD 09:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
155. Support - per noms. WJBscribe (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
156. Support No concerns. Added later It is rather dispiriting to see editors who should be concerned about building the 'pedia getting into a flutter about the candidate's gender identity. It's been said many times above, but unfortunately bears repeating; it doesn't matter, and if Beth Naught wishes to be addressed as "they," then we should do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
157. Support - No concerns. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
158. Support, good editor, evidence of a sensible head on sensible shoulders. Not bothered whether they identify as male, female, animal, vegetable or mineral, they are doing a good job, and that's what matters. Harrias ^talk 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
159. Support. Go forth and do good.  — Scott • talk 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
160. Support Seems to be the right thing to do...Modernist (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
161. Support Don't even have to think about it. Enjoy your adminship! The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
162. Support. It's a formality at this point, so let me just offer my congratulations! Good luck with the mop, wield it well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
163. Support. I've had the chance to see her work and it's excellent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
164. Support Trusted & experienced editor. INeverCry 10:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
165. yup --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
166. Support, solid candidate who seems to have attracted some unusually silly oppose votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
167. Support. Welcome aboard. :) -- œ^™ 06:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
168. Support Pile-on. Will be a great admin. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
169. Support Everything I have seen has been positive. BethNaught is dedicated to serving the community. Alsee (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
170. Support - Solid contributions. Have been doing great work and I don't see any reason to oppose. They will make a fine admin. Good luck with the tools! Yash! 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
171. Support per all above. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
172. Support You have my support. Answer to my question satisfied me. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
173. Merry Support and a Happy New Year! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC).
     
174. Support - Not an admin yet? Let's fix that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
175. Support No interactions with this user, but I like what I see. No reason not to trust this user with tools. Good answers to questions. Satisfactory pagework. All in all a very good candidate. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
176. Support Went through their talk page history and AN/ANI, didn't find anything objectionable. Nothing brought up here that would be worrisome, so may as well support.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
177. Support per above.--Grind24 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
178. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
179. Support: Seems ok.--Human3015^TALK  17:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I like what I see of the candidate's work – quaint articles such as Alastair Simms. And I have a vague awareness of seeing them around and being generally sensible. But it's a shock to find that Beth is not a personal name and that the candidate is explicitly not saying what gender they are. I look at their early edits and these indicate that this is an experienced editor making a fresh start of some kind. The nominators don't say anything about this and seem quite tentative in their knowledge of the candidate. This doesn't feel right. Arbitrators have to declare exactly who they are and they only get a limited term of a year or two. Admin is a lifetime position and so similar standards should apply. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

   I would like to assure you that I am not a fresh start account. Apart from one inactive acknowledged alternative account, this is the only account I have edited with on Wikimedia. My initial edits can be explained by the fact that I started out as an IP for about two months before registering. As an IP I made gnomish edits, such as adding links and fixing typos, and indeed reverting vandalism, and I continued these things on registering. BethNaught (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page.

WP:DENY

Oppose You know, they say the past is etched in stone, but it isn't. It's smoke, trapped in a closed room, swirling, changing, buffeted by the passing of years and wishful thinking. But even though our perception of it changes, one thing remains constant: the past can never be completely erased, it lingers, like the scent of burning wood. As such, I cannot support someone for adminship who is clearly using a fresh start account and not being upfront about it. That is all. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion moved to the talk page. Now I've truly seen it all.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Trolling collapsed. Max Semenik (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Obviously a landslide and probably for good reason, but the very dramatic "I'd rather not reveal my gender identity, so call me they" bit is a good enough reason to land here. I hope they doesn't feel too badly that I am crabby and old and hate lack of transparency. They has a right to they's opinions on these things, as do I. Moving on. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

   ... and you know, this one doesn't provide useful input either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to the talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

2. Neutral – Others are OK, too less articles. 333-blue 13:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

   What do you mean? Could you explain your vote please? -- samtar ^whisper 13:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

   23 articles is too few? Seriously? sst✈^(discuss) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

   I only have 22... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

   Well, don't just sit there - talk them into standing too... Peridon (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

   @333-blue: If 23 articles is too few, I think others would like to get an idea of what your standard for article creation is. Esquivalience ^t 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

   No need to prolong this. The vote is clearly not objective and the user has been provided with advice on their talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment The way this discussion is going seems to suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll worked as intended in this case - namely, by encouraging a good candidate to go for it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I was going to remark to that effect too. I think we may be able to expect one or two more RfA's in the coming months as well thanks to WP:ORCP and some discussions there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Discussion moved to the talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think this quote is worth repeating: "Obviously a landslide and probably for good reason, but ...". I nearly premised my own reservations similarly, in the neutral section above, and would have, except for being dissuaded by the damn near narcissistic badgering that almost certainly would have ensued. Aside that, I wish BethNaught the absolute best! And fully believe all the good karma amassed above is well deserved.--John Cline (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: While I agree that gender is and should be completely immaterial for RfA (and for normal editing by non-admins), if this candidate is elected, I very strongly encourage them to choose a gender and stick to it. For several reasons: Admins are expected to be transparent and easily accessible, and hiding or deliberately obfuscating one's gender while using a screen-name that is assumed to be female is excessively confusing and non-transparent. This is confusing both to experienced editors and also most particularly to newcomers. Asking the community at large to refer to an admin as "they", "them", "their" is unfair, in my opinion, particularly as admin actions are frequently discussed, and because "they" and its constructions are plural pronouns, and thus very confusing and often misleading, and because newcomers, who are the people admins mainly have to deal with, should not be put through that communication difficulty. None of this would matter if the user were not running for RfA, but since they are, they need to conform to a higher standard of accessibility and transparency, in the same way that difficult or improperly linked signatures (or sometimes even usernames) are of little consequence in non-admins, but in admins need to be fixed for accessibility. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  Without wishing to stir up further drama that would have died down on the TP but for a couple of overly excited Admins who decided to throw petrol on the embers, I disagree. BethNaught will probably be referred to as "she" most of they time. If they are happy with that we have no good reason to dictate that they should reveal anything. Leaky Caldron 07:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to the talk page. -- samtar ^whisper 08:51, 17 December 2015 (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.