Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Figureskatingfan

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

Figureskatingfan

Final (29/27/17); ended 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate. Amalthea 18:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Figureskatingfan, aka Christine, at FAC. I was very impressed by her in 2009, when she nominated another article at FAC. The nomination was not successful, but Christine kept a positive attitude and worked diligently to understand the concerns of the reviewers and then implement them. I kept a closer eye on her after that, and have found that Christine is well-versed in policy (she now has 6 Featured Articles, 2 Featured Lists, and 7 Good Articles to her credit) and is very open to extending her knowledge. She invariably responds helpfully and patiently and is willing to provide constructive advice and solutions rather than just tell someone they are wrong or escalate a conflict. She understands the concept of consensus and how to apply it, and I haven't seen her complain when consensus is not in her favor. I think she has the right attitude to be a good administrator, and I think she has the policy knowledge to make wise and fair decisions, as well as an understanding of her own strengths and weaknesses and a willingness to continually improve. She will make an excellent administrator. Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for the nomination; I humbly accept. I'd like to expand my contributions to Wikipedia, and hope that being an administrator would help me do that. Christine (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination; the discussion has degenerated, and I certainly don't want my RfA to turn into something it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'll try again later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2012 (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: I strongly believe that WP's best resource are content editors, so the duties I'd participate in would be in support of them. I believe that content editors need as much support as possible because they're the future of this project. Improving articles (researching, writing, and editing) needs to occur across WP, and there needs to be as many administrators as possible willing and able to support and encourage them. As a content editor myself, I've been frustrated many times with trouble-makers--editors who need to be blocked and aren't, or aren't blocked quickly enough. I can see myself dealing with vandalism, page protection (especially BLPs, which are near and dear to my heart), and blocking. As Karanacs states above, I have a knack for consensus-building and conflict resolution, so I'd like to help out with incidents for admin attention and edit warring. That being said, I don't suffer fools lightly, but I think I'm fair-minded and able to listen to all sides, even if it's something I don't agree with.

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

A: I have two "niches" on WP: Sesame Street and Maya Angelou. In 2008, Sesame Street was delisted as an FA, and for good reason, and I took it on. It took over three years, but it was finally re-listed at the end of 2011. During that time, I not only rewrote and revamped it, but I also created and re-wrote 8 "forked" articles and 3 lists. History of Sesame Street is also a FA, and another article I'm very proud of. I could probably submit all these articles for GA and FA. Currently, I'm working on expanding/improving Maya Angelou, a GA. Before I began working on it, the only article about her autobiographies was I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which was in a pitiful state when I took it on in 2008; it finally became a FA in March 2009. Today, mostly due to my efforts, there are articles about all six of Angelou's autobiographies; 4 are GAs and two are FAs. I think that both topics improve the systemic bias and gender gap, even just a little bit, that's unfortunately a fact of life here.

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: One of my most recent stressful conflicts happened in just the past couple of weeks. My very first FA was The Wiggles; that was a potentially stressful situation because if took five times through FAC to get passed, mostly due to my inexperience as an editor. The group's lead singer Greg Page had to leave five years ago due to health, and was replaced by his understudy Sam Moran. Two weeks ago, it was announced that Page was returning. Talk about stressful! It was big news in Australia, where The Wiggles are from, which was reflected in their WP article and talk page. It took several of us a great deal of discussion and consensus building to figure out how to represent it, and as the article's main editor for many years, I led us through it. I think that the result was positive, and its quality was maintained, in spite of a lot of emotion and passion. There are other instances, of course (this is WP, after all), and I can discuss them if folks want. Christine (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ultraexactzz

4. What's the deal with your signature? I see from old edits that you used to use your username, before changing it to Christine. Is there a story there? If asked, would you consider using a signature that more closely matched (or included) your username? Or, alternatively, would you prefer changing your username? This is Hypothetical, and I'm not making such a request - but am curious as to your position on the matter, given that it's been raised below. Thanks, and good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A: I address this below; I responded that yes, I'd be willing to change my sig to "FSF Christine" or something similar. Since you asked, there are a few reasons I changed my sig. "Figureskatingfan" is historical, and reflected my interests in the sport at the time. I've never edited any articles about figure skating, other than Terry Gannon, who used to commentate for the sport, very early in my editing career. (Figureskatingfan was my username on YouTube, where I used to post figure skating clips.) I wanted to be more personal on Wikipedia, so I figured using my first name was a good choice. I wanted to self-identify as a female (I know, as if "Figureskatingfan" wasn't girly enough), since there's been so much discussion about the so-called "gender gap" in this project. My sig has never been an issue, but as I state below, I'm willing to change it if the community wishes.

Additional question from ImperfectlyInformed

5. Many of the most controversial and, in my opinion, important areas of Wikipedia involve science, law, business or politics. Do you have any expertise (formal or otherwise) or interest in these areas? Have you contributed in any of these areas? Do you intend to provide oversight in these areas as an admin, and if so which areas? Also, if you do intend to step into these areas, do you think your views on such topics are mainstream? Please note that although this question might sound like a litmus test, I'm not looking for a certain answer but rather how thoughtfully you respond. Thanks for stepping up! II | (t - c) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A: I have worked on Snyder v. Phelps, the 2010 Supreme Court case against the Westboro Baptist Church. Eventually, I'd like to work on the WBC article, because I believe that if something is despicable, shedding the light of truth on it with facts and reasoned arguments will demonstrate that. One of my FLs, List of people with hepatitis C is medical. One of my strengths is that I have a wide range of interests and experience. Professionally, I've been a sign language interpreter for over 25 years, mostly in the educational setting, so I've been exposed to lots of topics. (Currently, I'm interpreting first semester physics, second semester chemistry, Calculus I, architecture, psych, ethics, and Western Civ II.) I don't know what you mean by "mainstream", but I have a well-rounded education. That being said, I take slight offense with your characterization of "important areas". One of the objections that was raised during the FAC of The Wiggles was, "How are these guys notable?" To me, that's a ridiculous question, because in my world, they're very notable. (They only made $30 million last year, and their influence on my household, with my two severely developmentally children, is immeasurable.) I tend to work on articles that parallel my current interests: children's television shows and performers, and female authors. It's unfathomable to me, although no one said that Sesame Street wasn't notable because its influence on American culture is indisputable, that in spite of what author Michael Davis the "forklift" amount of research on it, that its WP article didn't reflect it. Currently, it's much closer, almost solely due to my efforts over three years. Before 2008, Maya Angelou's representation of articles was embarrassing. I mean, how could such an important writer be so underrepresented? Again, not so much anymore, due to my efforts. I believe these articles are very important.

Additional question from ItsZippy

6. In which situations would it be appropriate to block an editor for a content-related issue?

A: The easy answer is for WP:3RR, or for edit warring. I'd also block an editor for plagiarism, but only if it's intentional. I admit that I needed some education in my early editing days for close paraphrasing; another editor gently showed me the errors of my ways, and learned to improve my editing. My writing improved as a result. I think doing that is crucial, and not coming down hard on inexperienced editors. I'd also block a non-repentant editor: someone who is told about WP policies and who breaks them anyway, and is consistent in their disruptive behavior. Personally, and I know this has been controversial in the past, anonymous IPs aren't blocked quickly enough. I also know that civility is a big issue around here these days, but I think that too many people overreact to perceived slights in civility. Please take that with a grain of salt; up to this point, I haven't actively participated in the civility debates, so I could see myself change my position on it.

7. How should an administrator respond to a situation in which an editor makes disruptive edits(intentionally or otherwise) to an article that the admin has significantly contributed to?

A: Ah ha, trick question. I understand the policy that an admin should not use her tools on an article she'd worked on. I'd express my opinion, step back, and hope that WP's qualified troop of admins take care of the issue. I've certainly experienced this in the past.

Additional question from User:Surturz

8. Who should drive the Big Red Car?

A: Ha ha. The answer is the bloke with the yellow skivvy! When we saw The Wiggles in concert a few years ago, nobody did: the thing broke down and the other three had to get out to push! ;) Actually, this is kind of painful for me. I love Greg, but I suspect that poor Sam, who brought The Guys through a very difficult period, got the short end of the stick. I am glad that Greg is well enough to come back, though.

Additional questions from Franamax

9. You mention above that you feel en:wiki's "best resource are content editors, so the duties I'd participate in would be in support of them". Please elaborate on your definition of what a content editor is (i.e. when you review user edits, how do you make that distinction?) and what special support you feel these editors need. Additionally, you have self-identified as being among that group, can you point to a few of your mentioned instances of "trouble-makers--editors who need to be blocked and aren't, or aren't blocked quickly enough"? Franamax (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A: ::A: Content editors are regular contributors to Wikipedia who spend their time researching, creating, writing, editing, and improving articles. The best content editors find an article that needs improvement, whether that's finding reliable sources or copyediting, and improve it to the point that it successfully passes the GAC or (preferably) FAC process. These editors focus on the content of an article. Hopefully, a group of collaborators rally around the article and assist content editors in this task; I strongly believe that when that happens, an article can truly live up to its potential. When I talk about "supporting" content editors, I'm talking about creating an atmosphere that encourages more of them to take on improving articles. Reviewing and copyediting articles when asked is one practical way to do that. It takes lots of positive reinforcement and praise to encourage content editors to stick around. I see one of the roles of an admin is to be a cheerleader; to pat all editors on the back when they do well and to give constructive and useful feedback. I also think modeling that is important, and using one's leadership skills to provide a healthy, creative atmosphere. I strongly believe that if this project is to survive, articles must be improved and have a high quality. That requires the hard work of content editors, and there's lots of work to do and more of us that need to be willing to do it. I see my role as a content editor as a small part of that goal, and I'm proud that I've made a difference in a few articles.

10. You refer above at least once to "systemic bias" and twice to a "gender gap". Can you elaborate your thoughts on this? I'm interested here in what you mean in terms of both article content and editor behaviour, then after that some thoughts on how you would be addressing those issues as an administrator. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A: I think it's very well known that female editors are significantly in the minority here, and one of the natural results is a bias. There are more articles about military history than there are about female African American writers. I understand that there's more information about military history, but in my experience, the difference is startling. I mean, I am literally the only editor, out of thousands, who actively work on Maya Angelou articles. I am the sole reason why she currently has a more rounded representation of her work here. To me, that's evidence of both the gender gap and bias. I also understand that as editors, we follow our interests. For me, the solution is to encourage editors to take on more obscure and ignored topics, and to encourage more female participation. One way is to simply model it: to be an example of a girl who can write and manage wiki-code. As an admin, I can look out for other women, encourage them to edit more, and to help protect them from incivility, and to encourage a more positive atmosphere. There are some women here who "have my back", and some of them are admins, and I'd like to help other women in the same way.

Optional questions from jc37

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

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

• 11a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?

• A: Blocking isn't about punishing a user; it's about preventing disruption. Often, it's an effective tool in educating users. Its purpose is to protect other users from disruptive behavior, and to prevent future disruptive behavior.

• 11b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?

• A: A page should be protected when it's experiencing excessive vandalism or when it's the subject of edit warring or other content disputes. Administrators should never protect a page when they have a stake in the the article. Sometimes a temporary protection is all that's needed. For example, Blue's Clues and Steve Burns seem to be vandalized during school holidays. A temporary block for just a couple of weeks is usually all that's needed to decrease it. Maya Angelou, OTOH, requires permanent protection because of the type of vandalism (often defamatory and disgusting) it tends to attract, all year round.

• 11c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?

• A: I don't want to simply repeat the criteria for speedy deletion, but IMO, it should be used only in rare occasions, and when it's obvious that it needs to occur. I also think there needs to be consensus among admins. Everyone involved in its creation and all contributors should be notified.

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

• A: This is actually one of my favorite WP policies. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" is one of my favorite statements in all of WP. For example, one of my pet peeves is over-sourcing. Some editors seem to believe that you need to attribute every assertion made in an article, and the result is the over-abundance of superscripts. I understand the necessity of them, since another editor can come in later and add more content, but we need to be reasonable about it.

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

• A:

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

• A:

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

• A:

Additional questions from Salvio giuliano

15. What is your understanding of WP:BLP, and what further protective measures (if any) would you like to see the project implement?

A: As I state above, BLPs are near and dear to my heart. The majority of the articles I work on are BLPs, or they're connected to them. I think it's important that WP adopt measures that protect the subjects of BLPs from attacks and victimization. Perhaps one of the ways we can ensure that BLPs are protected is to ban anonymous IPs from them, something I know has been hotly contested here. In my experience, anonymous IPs are the editors who break WP policy and come here to attack the subjects of BLPs. I think that a stricter policy towards anonymous IPs would solve much of the problems these articles have.

16. What is your opinion of WP:NLT and how would you enforce it, as an admin?

A: I think that this policy is very well stated. My interpretation of it is that it's the responsibility of the WF to handle legal threats. I certainly don't have the legal expertise to handle them, but the WF does, and it's up to them to protect the community from them. As the policy states, if an editor comes to me with a possible legal threat, I need to bring it to the WF or to ANI. I also think that the role of an admin is to mitigate legal threats by helping editors resolve their conflicts.

Additional questions from User:Balloonman

17. Many of the opposes are attacking you for the use of twinkle and making hasty edits that might discourage new users by calling them vandalism. They say that admins should be able to welcome and help new users with the community. Can you give a few examples where you have worked with and helped a new user gain experience with wikipeida?

A: See below regarding working with User:Erp, User:ANTONIOROCKS, and User:Crazyseiko. I'm proud of the collaboration I've done with other editors, especially new ones. That's the kind of work I'd like to do here as an admin, and believe I can do well at welcoming and encouraging new editors.

Additional questions from PaoloNapolitano

18. I see that you are a good all-round contributor and an experienced writer. Do you still intend to make content contributions at an approximately equal rate as before if you are elected?

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats are now on the talk page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Excellent work on Sesame Street, with over 1000 revisions to her credit. Not sure if the "Wiggles Controversy" qualifies as a major conflict, though it was handled well. I see a lot of clue here, and what appears to be an editor who stays calm and works with other editors - not something you see every day round here, more's the pity. Not all that many edits to AIV, which could be a concern - so do tread lightly when it comes to blocking and such, at least initially. I don't see any reason to conclude that Figureskatingfan/Christine will be anything but a net positive as an administrator. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks. I brought up "The Wiggles controversy" because it was the most recent. Actually, another incident has happened since. of birth Here are others [1][2] I participated in a semi-contentious debate about the use of deaf vs. Deaf regarding Linda Bove in one of the Sesame Street lists, but with all the article re-directs with those lists, I can't find it. I also requested that a friend of mine be blocked for some disruptive editing, but I can't find that either. (If you want me to report on it, I can.)

   No, not at all - the intent here, or at least mine, is not to audit your conflicts. Rather, we need to see that, when in conflict, you handled it well. When you're able to block and delete and protect and infuriate all at once, you need to have a cool head about you, and I see lots of evidence that you have precisely that. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

3. Support - seems like a capable candidate. Don't see the username as an issue clearly linked to her account no evidence of using it to hide identity.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Incopetence reasons. J/K. Support because I like what I see from this user.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

4. Per nom. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Support per nom and UltraExactZZ. 28bytes (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Switching to neutral for now. 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Support - 15K edits, more than half to mainspace, no indications of assholery. I'm one of those who thinks content creation and quality control are two separate branches of Wikipedia, but I'm slowly coming to appreciate that there needs to be a pool of content creators like this with a toolbox they don't necessarily need very often to provide a pool of potential candidates for ArbCom. So, yeah, there's no reason to oppose here. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Christine works and learns. We all start at buttkiss nothing and many editors like to stay there. Christine does not. I respect her, although...heh...you want to be an admin? You don't get yelled at enough for writing FAs? Also, no spam please. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Support (supported initially, withdrew support pending consideration of oppose !votes, reconsidered carefully, and concluded with support). Christine needs to remember that vandalism is only defined as malicious; some diffs brought below in the oppose section are concerning, but I now trust it will not happen again. Best of luck. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Per my comment here. NW (Talk) 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Solid history of high-quality contributions to the project and seems quite capable of working well with others. Certainly appears to be capable of handling the admin tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Support - per Carrite. Swarm ^X 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (moved to oppose. Swarm ^X)

10. Stephen 02:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Support --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems to be a dedicated user who has worked hard in both the main and Wikipedia namespaces to improve our encyclopedia, and I believe her dedication would continue if she's approved. dci | TALK 02:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
13. D-O-R-O-T-H-Y I worked with Figureskatingfan back in 2008 when she pushed to have some dumb article that I was working on to be FA quality. I didn't think it would ever happen, but we worked on it (with her doing more than the lions share) until it passed FAC. I worked on it, but never thought it would actually get there. Still, I remember thinking at the time that she would make a great admin. SO I took a look at her edits and I was disappointed that she had very little exposure outside of The Wiggles. That was the only down side that I saw to her then. Now that she's had 4 years to grow and expand, so I will be brewing some Rosy Tea for her.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Good writer who shall be even more helpful having access to deleted articles and ability to fix broken DYKs on main page. Intelligent person who shall avoid stupid blocks for "incivility" and "disruption", e.g. provoking a discussion. Today 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I'll suggest that, if this does not succeed, then you should just be careful with Twinkle for 6 months and then reapply.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. What Mark Arsten said. Also, answers to the questions are impressive and I find the oppose rationales unconvincing. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Support As per User:Mark Arsten Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. A few revert mistakes don't outweigh the positive contributions and cluefullness of this editor. Also, comments above strengthen my feeling here. Lord Roem (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Christine has been very Supportive to me when I first started on Wikipedia she is a wonderful Friend and I know she will make a wonderful Admin!! Jena (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. Despite the concerns of the opposers, I don't see anything that would preclude becoming as much of a productive administrator as she is an editor. Deli nk (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Support My review of Christine's history on Wikipedia shows me that she is an intelligent, experienced Wikipedian and a talented writer and editor. The reverts cited by the opposition are a very minor aspect of the bigger picture here. And to the extent that they are problematic, I'm confident that Christine will take the opposition's concerns under advisement and modify her practices accordingly. Are you wondering how can I be confident of that? If so, please refer to the first sentence of this vote. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
21. Support, sounds good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
22. Support a few mistaken vandalism reversions does not an unfit candidate make. Especially on those kinds of articles, where there are real issues with OR and vandalism. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Christine's mistakes are there, sure, but admins are not expected to be perfect, just to listen and learn. That said, more attention to not mislabeling things as vandalism would be highly appreciated. Courcelles 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Having read the opposes, I think you will learn from this experience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
25. Support - though the reverts are concerning, this user is here for the right reasons. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - [moved from neutral] I'm certain Christine has heard the concerns about accuracy in assessing edits as vandalism. I don't have any doubts about her sincerity or ability to address the concerns. And she used humour in a very difficult situation - "I thought I was supposed to defend myself". That's impressive. I never had any reason not to support, other than the stated one, and I am happy to support a very promising candidate. I hope she understands why I felt I had to ask. Begoon ^talk 05:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
27. Support I agree that greater care is needed with labeling reverts, but I'm confident that Christine will do so now that it's been highlighted in this way. Given that her reasons for wanting the admin tools are sound and her answers to the above questions are sensible (and good humoured - which is an important virtue for admins) I see no reason why she shouldn't get the tools. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
28. Support No doubt this editor will use the tools wisely. Basket of Puppies 16:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
29. Support Per Kumioko's opposition. No further explanation shall be given. HandiGoatMasala (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do not believe administrators should have signatures unrelated to their usernames. I may change this vote if the candidate changes her signature. Keepscases (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Why not. She has her username and signs with her real name. My username is Cyberpower678 and my signature says Cyberpower. Would you oppose my RfA for that?—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   There's precedent both ways for prospective admins changing (or declining to change) their sigs and their usernames, but it's a fluid thing - highly dependent on the candidate and the name. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Carter - John Carter changed over from WarlordJohnCarter specifically to make the username seem less belligerent. Not that that's an issue here, mind, but this sort of thing comes up once in a while at RFA. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Having your signature being different than your actual username can be confusing to new and even experienced users, with whom administrators deal with on a regular basis. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   True but a signature is a signature and it's unique to every person.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   I agree with this sentiment: the sig doesn't need to be identical but it should be fairly similar. Of course, I'm a bit hypocritical in this regard but I'm not running for admin. II | (t - c) 21:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   See it this way. Would I get shot down for scribbling my initials in some obscure way that it isn't recognizable and use it as my signature. No. As long as I keep using or change it subtly it's not problematic or confusing. It identifies the person.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   I have no problem with changing my username to User:Christine, as has been suggested on my talk page. I changed my sig because I wanted to self-identify as a female, since I support more girls on this project! I wanted things to be a bit more personal here and my name is easier to remember than my username. Figureskatingfan is historic; it was chosen when I was more rabid about the sport than I am now and it doesn't really make a statement about my editing history and interests here. I've been Christine longer than Figureskatingfan, and no one's seemed to have a problem with it up to now. Wouldn't it be more confusing to either change my sig back or change my username? Christine (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   The concern, I think, is connected with some of the admin tasks you'll (hopefully) be performing. If I get blocked, and the block log says that Figureskatingfan blocked me, but my talk page has a notice from someone named Christine, I'm gonna wonder why some jackass admin didn't take the 30 seconds to extend the common courtesy of explaining why they blocked me. This ranges to deletions as well, as your sig does not show up in the log when you delete a page - just your username. So that notice from Christine might not be connected with the "Figureskatingfan deleted your article" notice in the Deletion Log. Procedurally, changing your username would edit all of your contributions, so that they'd show (in the article history, for example) as coming from User:Christine. But there may be alternatives, as well - changing your sig to something like "FSF Christine" might be a middle ground. There may be other options - no need to go charging off to WP:CHU just yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

   Seems more than fair to me. If the community is in consensus about me changing my sig to FSF Christine, I'm good with that. Christine (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Eh, Cyberpower, I find it almost impossible to read your signature. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

   I would never oppose Christine for her signature not being exactly the same as her username - it's not a requirement. Indeed, my sig used to be my initials. However, at the same time, I would oppose someone who had repeatedly been asked to change their signature to legible colours and without template transclusions, but who continued to do so :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Umm. Uh. Umm. I don't transclude my templates and I haven't had any opposition ever since I changed the color from yellow to gold. That pink is used for 7 days during the year and it's used around Valentine's day. I have one for Halloween, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Valentines Day, New Year's. I also have talkpage layouts for the seasons too but those seem to cause too much trouble and I abandoned them for now.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,280,128) 14:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose Surprising that this is my second oppose this week. And I hope I'm able to strike this off too pending the candidate's clarification. For a prospective administrator, it's quite disappointing that Figureskatingfan is classifying edits as vandalism when they are not. I just rushed through a few reverts and was quite surprised to find many mistaken reverts; I didn't go through edits beyond the last, I think, 3-4 months, and I hope we don't have similar examples; someone could check, if they wish.[3][4][5]. I'll request the candidate to kindly give her viewpoint on these, and many other reverts that I don't consider vandalism. I would surely take the clarification in good faith and reconsider my !vote. But currently, I can't have an administrator who cannot identify vandalism from what is not vandalism. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 03:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Revert one was vandalism, [6] the next edit from the IP address two minutes later, plus I don't see any hits for Sidney Crosby producer. I can't say about the other reverts for now. Secret ^account 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Secret, I think you placed your reply after the final update to my oppose note, but you were looking at a previous revision. Check the links that are there in my edit above. They seem to be not vandalism in my opinion. There are other edits too, like this. But I'll await the candidate's clarification. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I'm happy to address these reverts. I admit that I tend to be a little protective about my pet articles, especially some of the juvenile vandalism that tends to happen to some of them. (You should see some of the vandalism to Steve Burns and Blue's Clues, especially before the latter was protected!) I suspect that as an admin, with the objective-ness I'd have with other articles that aren't mine own, that I wouldn't be so quick to categorize something as vandalism. I also suspect that I won't be as quick with Twinkle, which makes things easy but can be problematic regarding categorizing certain edits as vandalism. Ref 3 depends on your perspective; I think that strictly speaking, introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism. I tend to be protective of Angelou's article because there has been some nasty, rude, and inappropriate vandalism there in the past. Ref 4 is obviously vandalism; the editor introduced clear typos and grammar errors. Ref 5 is also on-the-fence. Articles related to The Wiggles tend to have OR-type edits, or edits that "experts" make because they heard one of The Guys talk about something or saw on one of their shows. I tend to crack down on them because it's easy for these articles to degenerate into hearsay and rumors. Regarding the Sesame Street revert: I reverted that because it's unclear if the new content was correct, and again, there was no reliable source for it. Christine (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   How is Twinkle "problematic regarding categorizing certain edits as vandalism"? You choose which of 3 links to click - Rollback(good faith) / Rollback / Rollback(vandal). Twinkle doesn't make the decision. Sorry if you meant something else. Begoon ^talk 06:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   @ Wifione, yea I did the reply during your first reversion, so ignore it I been having iffy internet problems lately which causes me to lag. Christine, there is the rollback (good faith) for a reason, so you can leave an explanation why you have to rollback the edit, instead of clicking rollback (vandal). Clicking rollback (vandal) isn't the right course because it gives no explanation for your reverts on good faith edits. Even the simple rollback tool doesn't label any edits as vandalism. Labeling an edit as vandalism from an contributor with 8000+ edits like the editor in the Sesame Street article is obvious misuse. Secret ^account 06:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see how you can consider any of these to be vandalism, frankly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed. This is an attempt at a helpful edit, unless you are willing to make the case that the editor is spamming (but I can't tell if you hit rollback after looking at the editors' other contributions). If not, you could call it "unreliably sourced" or "not notable without third-party sourcing", but not vandalism. In this edit, your commentary actually has it backwards. "Self-deprecating" is a word just as "self-depreciating" is, and the editor might have been trying what they saw as a mistake--and for all I know, they may be right; after all, the Finch book is not available online. Moreover, one may quibble over the antecedent of "which," but "...assistant, who performs "ill-fated" experiments, which often result in him getting blown up..." is correcter than "results". Finally, this is vandalism? It's an unexplained edit, at best. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per Wifione. Another problematic revert: [7]. If it was just a few accidental button clicks back in the day that would be bad enough, but this candidate seems to think these were actually vandalism. Accusing editors, especially new ones, of vandalism is extremely antagonizing and downputting. Coming from an administrator, it is especially demoralizing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I'll address these concerns about my vandal-fighting. I admit that I might have been a bit overzealous in protecting certain articles. I don't really deal with a lot of vandalism, so I also admit that I could use some improvement in this area. One of the things I appreciate most about WP is that you're always learning, both about topics you take on and about policy. I think I've demonstrated that I'm willing to learn and to take constructive criticism, and to take action based on it. I think that I've also demonstrated that when someone confronts me, I listen and consider their viewpoint, and if he or she's right, I change my position. If the above-mentioned editor of the SS article would've asked me about the revert, I'd explain why it was done and why I categorized it as vandalism. That kind of edit--about NET as opposed to PBS--has tended to be vandalism in the past, and was made based upon past experience with that article. Up to now, I've behaved like a content editor alone, but I understand the difference. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Not even explaining to an editor why you called an edit vandalism is on a whole other level; sure. Nobody is accusing you of being a jerk; far from it! But the the way you phrased this is still troubling: I'd explain why it was done and why I categorized it as vandalism. But would you have realized it was not vandalism and apologized for accusing that editor of bad faith? Your observation that "that kind of edit... has tended to be vandalism in the past" is also scaring me. You appear to be simply noting a casual similarity to a category of vandalism and then assuming the edit in question is also in that category of vandalism without any close examination. And you don't seem to realize that this strategy is problematic, despite wishing to be an administrator in order to combat vandalism. I understand the difference—but I can't see any evidence here that you can see even now that it is pointed out to you that these edits that you reverted weren't vandalism; you seem to be defending the reverts. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   As I've indicated in my neutral statement, this is the only concern preventing me from supporting. I'd dearly like to support, but I really cannot do so unless the candidate can somehow demonstrate that she has read and understood WP:NOT VANDALISM. I don't want to oppose over one issue that the candidate is perfectly able and likely to correct, but there are enough concerns for me that I would need to be sure, and I'm not yet, sorry. Begoon ^talk 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I thought that I was supposed to defend myself! ;) Seriously, I have read the above policy, and I have followed many of its points. For example: [8] [9] I direct you here [10]; most of the talk page is full of discussion between User:Erp and I. She was unfamiliar with wiki-coding, and we worked together to incorporate the sources she found. (I eventually called her "my personal researcher".) It was a marvelous collaboration, and one I cite as an example of the kind that should occur here. I didn't revert her edits, or accuse her of vandalism. Instead, I worked with her and a beautiful article was the end result. I invite you to read my posts at User talk:Crazyseiko, especially the ones about Sesame Street in the UK and the SS template. I didn't identify any of his edits as vandalism, brought my concerns to his talk page as you're supposed to do, and created a new article out of it (Sesame Street in the U.K.). I'm sure I can find other examples of when I actually followed policy. I'm by no means perfect, and I've made lots of mistakes, but I'm teachable and learn from them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you. I moved to Support. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 05:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I do have concerns regarding the judgement of Christine. The diffs Wifione provided are indeed problematic, and the explanation given presents even greater concern. I was disappointed to read "I think that strictly speaking, introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism", "Ref 4 is obviously vandalism; the editor introduced clear typos and grammar errors", "The Wiggles tend to have OR-type edits... I tend to crack down on them because it's easy for these articles to degenerate into hearsay and rumors", and "I reverted that because it's unclear if the new content was correct, and again, there was no reliable source for it". Grammatical errors, original research, and poor sourcing do not constitute vandalism; a potential admin should know this. I also worry about the reference to "my pet articles" and "articles that aren't mine own" and the admission that " I tend to be protective of Angelou's article because there has been some nasty, rude, and inappropriate vandalism there in the past". This worrying interpretation of vandalism, coupled with what seems to be a tendency towards article ownership, makes it impossible to support this candidate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I hear you, and agree to some extent - but it bothers me not at all when an editor keeps an eye on particular articles they know to have been badly vandalized in the past. The problem comes in when other editors want to pitch in and they get "No. MINE!" as a response, and I don't see that here. YMMV, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I think that to a certain degree, content editors do "own" their articles. Let me explain, please. If I'm going to spend hours working on improving an article (in my case, thousands of edits over several articles about Sesame Street over a few years), I'm going to naturally be emotionally invested in it. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. What gets many content editors into trouble is when they're too emotionally invested, to the point that another editor can't touch it without getting attacked. Now, I tend to be protective about "my" articles, but I've never attacked someone harshly. Yes, I'm passionate and I care, but I'm able to step back and consider the perspective of others. I dunno, I think that's a good thing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Where such 'ownership' (used loosely to define articles which an editor has an attachment to) does not affect their conduct, I wouldn't see a problem. The issue I have is that you have reverted many edits on articles which you have a connection to, labelling them as vandalism. This I have a problem with, as it seems to suggest a poor conception of what vandalism is, which is made worse by the attachment you have to these articles. If the attachment simply motivates you to improve the articles, that is a good thing; however, you have gone beyond that with quite a few reverts, which I would not expect to see from an administrator. I do really appreciate the great content work you've done, but I cannot support giving you administrator tools until you can demonstrate a much stronger understanding of vandalism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I agree that there is a tendency to rush to revert without looking. Diff 4, for example reintroduced a spelling error that had been fixed (it's self-deprecating not self-depreciating). I'd like to see a little less knee-jerkiness. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose The mismarking of edits as vandalism and then blaming it on Twinkle is to much. I found another example of the problem, first there is a twinkle good faith reversion with an additional comment of "Sources say Harlem." Then 3 days later an IP comes back and makes the edit again but this time adds a source for the change, an interview with Stanley Greene. This edit is reverted as vandalism. How is the first one with no source good faith and the second one with a source vandalism? GB fan 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Notice that the two edits were made at different IP addresses; I found that a little suspicious, even with the source. The day after the second revert a registered editor asked about the revert on the article's talk page [11], and after checking it out, I added the information and made an apology. You'll find that's true about me: I admit when I'm wrong and do my best to correct it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   So are you saying that if two different IP addresses make similar edits a couple of days apart the second one (even with a source) is vandalism? Why didn't you watch the video that was provided as a source before you reverted it as vandalism? And finally because the 2nd IP editor registered and brought up the reversion on the talk page, that carries more weight than adding the source into the article? GB fan 05:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that I made an error, but then corrected it when I realized it. No, I didn't watch the video, at least not at first. It was a YouTube video, which I understand isn't necessarily an unreliable source, but you're right; I should've looked at it first. Have you watched the video? Greene disparages the WP editor who added the incorrect information about his birthplace. Instead of glossing over it and avoiding the potential embarrassment, I added the information and the disparagement for every future reader of the article to see. That should demonstrate that I'm willing to correct my own mistakes, no matter what. WP policy does suggest bringing up any major edits on the talk page, so yes, I do think it "carries more weight". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   Then I guess I just fail to understand why you would revert the second edit as vandalism. Up to this point the only explanation is that a second IP making the same edit is "a little suspicious, even with the source." This exchange just solidifies my staying right here. I was hoping that there would be some good communication skills but I haven't seen it in any of your responses to me or any of the other opposers. Yes I watched the video when I first saw the edit to see if it might not have supported the claim made in the article and that might have justified the vandalism revert. What I saw though was a video that supported the material in the edit and you reverting it as vandalism. Then you warned the IP user that they should add a reliable source when adding or changing content. Thankfully in this instance the editor didn't just drop the matter but came back and tried again. This could have driven away an editor and continued our propagation of this bad information. Good luck in the future. GB fan 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I think it is very important that administrators do not discourage new editors. The reverting of productive or good faith edits as "vandalism" suggests a lack of scrutiny unbecoming for an administrator. Sorry. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose with regret, because you are obviously an enthusiastic editor who cares about content. However, I don't see sufficient demonstrated understanding of site policy and guideline, and do see several misunderstandings and errors. I ran a uContribs report (here, the toolserver links don't work) and while the mainspace part is typical of a content-focussed editor, I see very little on the project side to indicate your involvement with policy and operations, so I have no way to evaluate your understanding. Your AIV reports look mostly good, but for instance here you say "multiple previous blocks" whereas I see only one previous block. Were multiple IPs involved, or were you tilting the playing field to get your desired outcome? Here you say "blanks her talk page to remove evidence of it" but an admin should know that blanking a talk page is perfectly acceptable and removes no evidence at all - and any admin working at AIV should already know how to check talk page history to see what's been removed. And related to the same case, here you file an MFD, apparently unaware of the {{db-user}} tag - and yet you are aware (admin-only link, adding {{db-u1}}) of that tag. I see 11 total deletion discussions in which you participated, and no project-governance (policy) page where you have more than 4 edits. Your audited-content project participation looks to be almost only oriented to your own articles as opposed to also reviewing other people's work (though I could be completely wrong on that, I wish Thebainer had kept his TS account active). The several examples above of your mistaken reverting of edits as vandalism lead me to question your understanding of policy in this area, and an admin unquestionably must be able to correctly identify vandalism, and never ever apply the label wrongly, I can think of no better way to drive away new editors than to revert their first halting efforts at contributing here as vandalistic. If your Twinkle edits are using the actual rollback mechanism, I would consider removing that user right from your account. I'm also not comfortable with your position on "support the content editors" (I've seen no evidence where you stepped in to help a content editor, both dialing them back from a confrontation and explaining things to the "non-content" editor on the other side) and "support the women" (there are far more males here than females, but the really top article "girls" here kinda scoff at the notion that they need special help, and my own chivalric instincts would have me already out punching the other guy in the face anyway). And your language above just feels like you have excessive zeal, and not enough actual project knowledge and participation to apply that zeal correctly. So I'm just not comfortable here, though I'll keep watching for a reason to change my indication. Please don't take this as criticism of you as a person, or dismissal of your very diligent article work, because I very much do support your idea that the article-focussed people are the only reason the rest of us even log in here. Lastly, I will add my personal suggestion that you try editing without Twinkle for a while and do like me - write it all out by hand, in your own words. I've always found that my own decisions on what to write and what project pages to link force me to consider what I actually want to say to that particular editor, and what policies and guidelines I'm using to back up my words. Sorry to oppose you, but hope that helps! Franamax (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   I think that I've already addressed some of these concerns. I've made errors with Twinkle (certainly not enough to remove the right), but I've also used it correctly. I can answer your issue with my friend User:ANTONIOROCKS. I've asked her why she blanks her talk page, but has never answered, even to say that she prefers a clean slate. Our "conflict" over her Wiggles edits are long-standing. I warned her time and time again about it, and she promised to stop, but kept trying it again. Eventually, I warned her that I'd report her, and I followed through when it happened again. We're still friends, and she has no hard feelings towards me. I knew her motivations for her disruptive editing because she admitted it to me. When her block was over, she continued to help me deal with the vandalism that plagues all Wiggles articles and I believe she learned her lesson. Please understand that I don't think the "top article girls" need any special help; I just want to watch their backs as so many of them have watched mine. I suppose I could've said it better. I think that more female content editors need to be admins, so that's why I decided to submit myself to this process. I think I do know a lot about policy, although it's true that I could learn more. If I become an admin, I'm sure that I will learn more, and I look forward to the challenge. I actually have reviewed a lot of articles, especially at GAC. My try to follow the self-imposed policy of reviewing an article every time I submit one of mine for GAC or FAC. I could list them if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose I think you are abusing TW according to its policy page, when you use it for edits like this. "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." The appropriate edit summary in this case would have been to not call it vandalism. If Twinkle requires you to label it vandalism, don't use Twinkle when the edit isn't vandalism. Also, you appear to have ownership issues. Pseudofusulina (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   About ownership: I've never seen a guideline so misunderstood as ownership, and no accusation as intellectually bankrupt as claiming that urging someone to read the sources in an article is evidence of ownership. I've been accused of owning articles dozens of times, and none of them were meaningful. Can you be more specific than "issues with ownership"? --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   "I admit that I tend to be a little protective about my pet articles, especially some of the juvenile vandalism that tends to happen to some of them." I'm going by the candidate's own words, "protective about my pet articles." Ownership that makes you call steady editors "vandals" when their edit isn't close, is a problem. Pseudofusulina (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   So this is an extension of misidentifying vandalism, not a separate issue with ownership. Is that accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   They're both problems; either one, in my opinion, sufficient grounds to raise concerns about adminship, and I think Figureskatingfan might consider whether article ownership is a desirable quality in an editor. Some of the best articles on wikipedia are group efforts among editors not in initial agreement. If you chase them away for good-faith edits to your article you run the risk of maintaining a low quality article. I bet Figureskatingfan can figure this out without a lot more discussion here. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

   I don't see any problem with being protective of articles you work on; I think the vast majority of users are. For instance, I check over the article on Zoya Phan every day because that's the best article I've written, and I want to make sure it's in the best possible shape all the time. I certainly wouldn't have any problem with another editor wanting to work on it, but I wouldn't want some sneaky vandal to mess with it. The latter is vigilance, and what Christine seems to be exhibiting; the former is ownership, which I don't think is an accurate characterization. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose per the repeated mistaken reverts. I don't think solid anti-vandalism work isn't a particularly demanding requirement to have. In fact, it's pretty much the most basic measure of competency there is for potential administrators. If you were strong or experienced in another "pseudo-administrative" area of some sort, I could probably overlook this, but from what I can tell, you're really not; you're mainly a content-focused editor. And don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect all the great work you have done, and that includes anti-vandalism work. I'm just not comfortable supporting at this time. Sorry. Swarm ^X 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose It is hard to see how the various edits can be seen as vandalism; if it is a problem with using Twinkle, then you should stop using Twinkle. Whether it is a case of not assuming good faith with someone's edits or failing to use a tool correctly, I don't know. Both situations are unacceptable for administrators, so I will have to oppose. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose per ErikHaugen. Whilst I find the vandalism-related opposes concerning, it is the candidate's responses to these opposes that give me greater concern. None of the diffs provided by Wifione are vandalism, yet the candidate defends each one, saying that "Ref 4 is obviously vandalism", when the first two edits by that user are spelling corrections and the third one could assume was an accidental reversion of the second. In ErikHaugen's oppose, the candidate defends categorising the diff as vandalism when it is clearly not. Later in that oppose, the candidate appears to provide three diffs by a user which clearly aren't vandalism and basically says "I didn't accuse her of vandalism". GB fan's concern also appears to be completely misunderstood - the candidate seems to think that the reliability of the source has an effect on whether or not it is vandalism, which in the vast majority of cases it doesn't. I'm sorry but this all shows a severe lack of understanding of the Vandalism policy, so I can't possibly support a candidate who wants to use the tools to deal with vandalism, but very clearly doesn't understand the policy fully. Mato (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    I hear you, and felt the same. But I also think there is a point where it's reasonable to accept that the candidate has got the message, and pledged to fix it. I don't expect her life would be very easy if she were to make lots of similar errors in future, and I'm sure she knows that. But more importantly I'm just as sure she doesn't want to make mistakes like that. The only reason for me not to support at that point would be to punish her, or to assume she's not good enough to make an adjustment. And I don't think that. I'm not badgering, because you're saying everything I said, I just wanted to share some of my "logic", if it's worthy of the term... Begoon ^talk 12:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    I see your point, but I see no indication that the candidate recognises that they completely misunderstood the policy and therefore no demonstration that they now understand the policy fully, so I can't really accept that she's got the message. Mato (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    And I would like to see some evidence that the candidate has understood, and that will only come with not repeating the errors over a period of time. If that happens, and she reapplies, I would change my vote. But like Mato I see no evidence of it. I see a lot of trying to justify the mistakes and lots of promises. That isn't enough for me to change my vote. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, what you both say is perfectly reasonable. I'm seeing the "trying to justify" now as more of a "thinking it through out loud" which wasn't probably very wise. But I do see a will to fix it, and I'm sure she can. But I've said far too much. I do that. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Begoon—you say "there is a point where it's reasonable to accept that the candidate has got the message, and pledged to fix it", and that makes some sense, but where do you see evidence here that the candidate "has got the message" and can see that these edits were not vandalism? I instead see only evidence to the contrary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Erik, I didn't want to add any more because I already feel uneasy about the amount of my words in this very long section, but that needs an answer. It's my judgement, from reviewing her contributions, and reading what she has posted here. I think she's a bit shocked and stunned at the reaction to this, and hasn't reacted optimally. Yes, it was a very concerning thing to be discovered at RFA, and generally I'd want to see some time to be sure the problem would be fixed, and another RFA later, but I'm personally convinced that there's the will and ability to fix this, from the amount of "clue" I see in Christine. I think that whether or not she passes, she will fix the problem, but I fully understand that many people would disagree with that logic, and need to see evidence of the change first. In reality, though, Christine has complicated the issue by appearing to defend herself rather than just acknowledging the errors - I think that's "thinking out loud" to a degree. So, really, it's my judgement, it's enormously subjective, and if others think it's too much of an assumption to risk, I fully understand. In fact that's what I'd expect. Sorry that was so long - hope it helps a bit. Begoon ^talk 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    I'm really at a lost about how to proceed from this point. It seems I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. If I defend myself any further, I'm accused of "not getting the point", even though I've said that I recognize and regret my mistakes, and that I admit that I've misused the tools. If I bring up counter-examples of biting newcomers, I get the same accusation. If I bring up evidence of instances where I've demonstrated that I understand policies, again, I'm defensive and haven't demonstrated that I "get it", or that I've learned from my mistakes, when I've said that I do learn from my mistakes. My tendency is to want to provide evidence for that, but it seems like that'll backfire on me, too. I suppose what "shocked" me is jc37's accusations, which I'll respond to shortly. If you guys say that I mislabel vandalism, that's fine, and something I can fix. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    I think, probably, Christine, responding to so many comments in the same way isn't helping. You don't need to directly rebut so many similar opposing comments in a similar way. It can look a bit insistent and defensive. Same reason I'm again uneasy about making another post here. Begoon ^talk 00:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Christine, I disagree with the idea that you shouldn't be defending yourself; I think it is fine to do that, and as a practical matter I don't think people are going to oppose you just because you engaged in a discussion about for example what is and isn't vandalism. I think one problem here is that we seem to be talking past each other. When you point out cases where you were helpful and encouraging to the n00bs, you are refuting a claim that nobody ever made, namely that you are bitey and mean all of the time. Nobody thinks that! "For every instance of my 'misusing tools', there are just as many instances where I used them correctly"—nobody is suggesting that your accuracy rate, if you will, is <50%, so nobody doubts this. I don't think you need to do anything more to demonstrate a solid body of work, either in contributions or in mentoring; everyone seems very happy with your contributions. The support votes above—and many of the oppose votes even—attest to that. The concern is a totally different one, which is why people are saying you are "not getting the point". To be specific, in case your note here is intended to be a reply to my question that it is indented under—there seems to be an assertion that you "got the message" about these edits not being vandalism, but you haven't as far as I'm aware agreed that any of them were not vandalism, for example you seem to be saying that this edit is possibly vandalism and that "introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism" and haven't backed away from those claims. I think if you want to address that that it is fine to do so here, despite what others have said. Of course, some people will want to see some kind of track record demonstrating your understanding, but some people might change their votes immediately per Begoon's support rationale.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks Erik - that's a much better way of explaining it than mine was. Begoon ^talk 01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose I am seeing issues with this candidate that weakened my support. I usually don't change my decision from support to oppose that easily but as soon as I saw how this user bites IPs and Redusers, it was enough to cause such a change.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 516,880,815) 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose Same as everything stated above. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    I am sorry but according to our rules an IP user can not have a numbered opinion. GB fan 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

14. Oppose, unfortunately. Vandalism is a word that should be used as little as possible, because it denies good faith. Vandalism is editing with an intent to harm the encyclopedia, and even a serious policy violation, if done in good faith, is not vandalism--even if it shows such a gree of misunderstanding as to call for a block to prevent further such edits. There is true vandalism. We see less than we used to, becausere the edit filters catch seem to catch at least half of it. Unless it is really obvious otherwise, the assumption is that anyone who has made an edit is at least trying to help; low quality contributors who actually are not helpting but want to help can learn to do so. The job of an admin is to teach them, not drive them away. (obviously, someone who refuses to lean is in another category, but even then its usually not vandalism, just pidheadedness. We must get them stopped, but we don't have to be nasty about it.) DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Very very reluctant Oppose (On a scale from 1-100, I'm like only 51% in the "Oppose" column) - Content creation is good, as is the understanding of some underlying issues plaguing Wikipedia, but the swing-and-miss on the WP:NLT question gives me pause. RfA is an open-book test (as is the actual using of the tools). WP:NLT is a huge policy, and its proper application is important for all Admins. Achowat (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Golly, I really don't know what you people want from me! J/K Seriously, some are saying that I bite newcomers, and I've cited three examples when I've actively supported new users. I could probably cite more examples of when I've mentored other users effectively, and instances where I've demonstrated a real strength in this area. I suppose I didn't give the "right" answer to the NLT question, or the one you were looking for. I did say the purpose of admins is to help resolve conflict before it gets to legal threats, and with my strengths in conflict resolution, I believe I can help out with it. For every instance of my "misusing tools", there are just as many instances where I used them correctly. I brought up two above, and here are some more: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] I am by no means perfect. I've made mistakes, and have owned up to them, but I think that I've demonstrated my strengths, which I hope outweigh my weaknesses. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    You are missing the point. The opposition aren't demanding perfection from you, but a high error-rate is a significant barrier to being a good administrator. Your "For every instance of misusing the tools, there are just as many where I used them correctly" seems to highlight that you are missing the point. Sure, making errors is fine. Making lots of errors and saying "Ah its fine I do lots of good stuff" is bad, ESPECIALLY as you will be the first feeling of Wikipedian leadership that many of these new users and IPs will get. Making lots of errors = Lots of editors driven away and irritated. That's bad. I apologise for my strong comments on your talk page, but there is already a huge problem on Wikipedia of assumptions of bad faith pushing new users and IP users to actively becoming trolls, sockpuppets and disruptive forces. It doesn't need any more members of its leadership who don't seem to appreciate that mistakes hurt newbies. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    I must be really misrepresenting myself here. I agree that pushing away new editors is bad, and by being rough on some of them, I hope that I wasn't doing that. My parents used to call that "tough love". ;) What I was doing above was attempting to demonstrate instances where I've been kind to newcomers and inexperienced editors. I assure you that there have been other instances. I'm not saying that misusing the tools is fine; I'm saying that I've also used them correctly. I hope that I haven't done anything to drive new users and IP users to become disruptive, and if I have, I'm truly sorry for that. I think I'm able to tell the difference between the juvenile user that tends to vandalize the articles I watch (I shudder when I think of Maya Angelou happening upon her article after vandalism like this, [18] before another kind admin protected it) and the newbie truly interested in making a contribution here. I'm thinking about Jena/ANTONIOROCKS, who really cares about how The Wiggles are represented here and who's basically a good egg. Or another friend I've met here, User:PeachStatePam, who can't edit to save her life, but has helped me with List of people with hepatitis C, a FL. (Pam's an activist who has used this list to help the hep C community.) At any rate, I don't know what else to say, how else I can defend myself. I'm aware of both the vandalism mislabeling I've done, as well as the newbies and inexperienced editors I've helped here. It's far easier to correct the misclicks than it is to be actively mean to fellow editors. You guys can decide which is worse, and which I've done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    I would recommend (as others have here too) that you stop trying to defend your actions and accept the suggested actions you need to take. You have given your explanations to the edits, and these have been reviewed and commented on. It occurs to me that each time that you try and defend your miscalling of good faith edits as vandalism that someone else will come back and point out that you are missing the point, or some other comment, and then you respond with more defending, and so on and so on (rather a simplistic explanation I know, but hopefully it will suffice). The more you try and defend yourself, the more scrutiny your edits between now and your next RFA will have (and I do hope you reapply in 6 months time). The longer this back-and-forth exchange goes on, the closer it is before someone links to WP:STICK and bad feeling starts to set in. Take heart in that it should be easy to pass your next RFA by taking a bit more care with your reverts. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose, Sorry, but I will have to oppose. I was wanting to support, and I agree with you that it appears to be a gender gap in both female editors and female artist coverage on the site. However, with the biting & the refusal to answer questions by jc37 because you had a negative experience with him (as hinted in his neutral comments below) shows attitude issues and I must oppose at this time. Regards. Cadonian (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Um, I haven't refused to answer jc37's questions; they were labeled "optional" and I've been busy with my busy life. It was my intention to answer them soon, really, after I addressed some other concerns that seemed more pressing to me. And I didn't respond to his comments because he changed to support. To be honest, I have no memory of any "negative interaction" with him and I was going to research it to remind myself, and then address it. Did I say that I was busy? We Moms do that, you know; we prioritize, and that's what I was doing here. At this sitting, which will last another 3/4 hour, I'll research my interaction with jc37 and tonight, after everyone's in bed, I'll answer his questions, even if other things come up here. If I sound like I'm making excuses, I apologize, but that's the reality of my life. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    (I saw my name and was just coming in to answer, when I see in the edit window that the candidate has already responded). I feel I should clarify. FSF was particularly civil in words. And if you go back and look at Sesame Street and the List of sesame Street muppets and other related pages and talk pages, it will appear civil. But it's one of those "you had to be there". It had to do with when the edits were, in context of the discussion, and the just "pushiness" of the whole thing. I really got the sense of rather strong ownership and possessiveness issues. In the end I pretty much saw that they were going to do whatever they wanted regardless of what I said, and since I wasn't "hugely" opposed the changes I just pretty much threw up my hands in the end and walked away. And I'll caveat with "It could just be me". So please don't oppose on my account. But as things stand right now, I wouldn't trust the candidate with the tools. And I have concerns about how newbies and anyone not better versed in policy and guidelines would stand up to this seeming gaming of things. And regardless of whether they answer my questions, I sincerely don't want to imagine the editor with the ability to block others, or worse - protect a page... I hope this helps/clarifies. - jc37 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Alright, if I'm still online at the time of some of the questions answered I'll consider an neutral vote. Thanks. Cadonian (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Jc, I'm a little confused about your obvious injured feelings during the process of improving the SS character lists, mostly because I didn't see it. This was actually one of the rare times that there was collaboration with SS articles/lists; a few of us discussed separating the lists, and eventually, that's what happened. I was opposed to the separation at first, but other editors talked me into it with some very reasoned arguments. I looked at your participation in the discussion [19], and your suggestion about how List of Sesame Street Muppets was followed. Not only that, it was eventually divided up into three separate lists! Tell me, how in the world is that pushy or exhibiting ownership? And what were you opposed to? I can tell you, if you had expressed it, we would've listened and encouraged your participation. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    (de-dent) Let me try to further clarify.

    One can have a negative experience and not have it anything to do with "injured feelings". We're all editors here, after all.

    And honestly, I didn't remember the link you just posted. I was talking about some earlier discussions. But regardless, as I said, it isn't so much the words you said - At face value, you were civil, and seemingly friendly. But to me it felt like the talk page conversation was just delaying tactics, and placation, while you did as you wanted anyway. I tried to keep it "light" and positive, but in the end, the talk page discussions seemed pointless to me.

    But anyway this all is just my "sense" to that past experience (since it was, as I said, in the past, and who knows you may have changed by now - hence why I moved to neutral to see if maybe things have changed over the intervening time). - jc37 12:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    I'm truly sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I was able to bring up the instance I thought you were referring to, would you mind doing the same for me? I'm a bit distressed that I would do that. What earlier discussions? I'm not placating or delaying; I honestly want to know what you thought I did so we can address it, even if we take it off here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    I do initially have a few thoughts now though:

    So which was it? because they were optional? that you had RL to deal with? or because you felt I moved to "support"? (I had moved to neutral, but easy enough mistake). The context of the last statement seemed contrary to the others. And seems to reaffirm my sense of talk page "gaming".

    I also am looking over the reverts you seem to be doing (using twinkle a bit less carefully than I think I would like to have seen). I clicked on the list of muppets diff that you use as a good example [20] (and a revert a few edits previous to it [21]), and was thinking that there wasn't necessarily anything wrong with the edit. Last I knew, we WP:AGF of edits, and if in doubt we don't revert as vandalism (or revert at all) we either find out the accuracy ourselves, or drop a note at their talk page to see if they can help source reference their edits, or even just tag the info as unreferenced so someone else can come along and help with it. It seems to me that a blank reversion of well-meaning edits (especially calling it vandalism) seems very contrary to the "wiki-way" of Wikipedia.

    Regardless, as I said above, I'm not suggesting anyone oppose based upon my past negative experience with you. After all, all things being equal, maybe this was just me misinterpreting your actions (though at this point I sincerely doubt it). - jc37 12:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    I appreciate that, I think. ;) Um, it was all of the above; I was going to address more pressing concerns and then return to your questions, and I haven't been able to yet due to RL. I assessed the questions as not as urgent because you had changed your support. All I can do is assert that was my intention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 12:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

17. Oppose. Figureskatingfan has a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of "vandalism". This is particularly worrying when she declares her intention to use the tools for blocking and page protection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose. The editor misunderstands "vandalism", and even setting aside the "ownership" issue (which I don't think is really a problem here) and the bitiness toward the editors she warns, this begs the question of how well she understands policy. There are tricky things here--when disruption becomes blockable, what's vandalism and what's boneheaded--and it makes me wonder if the editor knows how to adequately judge AIV requests or, for instance, speedy deletion nominations. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge and experience. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Sad oppose due to what I perceive as trigger-happiness – and, furthermore, your replies to my questions were rather unimpressive... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Really? I was quite impressed with the way that Christine answered your questions. Sure, one can tell from them that she isn't a Wikipedian who hangs around policy discussion boards like you or I, but it generally looks like she knows what she is doing with BLP and NLT... NW (Talk) 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, NW, my default is to always agree with you, but I'm not impressed with the comment about IPs. Stopping IPs from editing BLPs will not save them or keep them clean. On the one hand, there are plenty of registered editors who turn BLPs into puff pieces (there are two sides to the BLP coin!), and on the other, there are plenty of registered editors who are claimed by other editors to be violating BLP policies--see the never-ending discussion(s) over santorum. Moreover, I dislike this painting with a broad brush of IPs as vandals: that suggestion is made in the response to Salvio's question. "In my experience, anonymous IPs are the editors who break WP policy and come here to attack the subjects of BLPs"--that means one of two things, in my opinion: either the editor doesn't have that much experience, or some IP edits are not correctly interpreted. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Regarding the BLP answer, I agree with Drmies. Christine's answer shows a troubling approach to IPs' contributions, assuming they come here mostly with bad intentions. Now, it's true that most vandalism comes from IPs, but tehn again most (I forgot the precise figure, but it's something like 80%) anonymous edits are useful additions. Regarding the NLT answer – which I find even more unreassuring –, I honestly consider it simplistic. Lately, I'm sadly seeing a tendency to go "zomg, legal threat, kill it with fire" as soon as someone even utters the word "libellous". I was hoping to read a more profound analysis of the policy, explaining why it is important, but also when it would be appropriate not to be too fast on the block button.

    TParis quotes WP:DOLT, an essay that explains my position much better than I could: when it comes to BLPs, we should be as accomodating as possible, we should not come down like a ton of bricks on someone who, through no fault of his own, is being defamed by Wikipedia and, out of frustration, is blanking his bio or saying "hey, this is slander". After all, he (probably) never asked to be included in our encyclopaedia and it is our responsibility to make sure that his biography is not causing him real-world harm. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Re that 80%, I remember when I was a newbie here and doing some early vandal patrol, I thought "A quarter of all IP edits are vandalism - they should prohibit anonymous edits". And then the obvious struck me - three quarters of them are good! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

21. Oppose trigger issues which can potentially drive away wikipedians by 'mistakenly' labeling edits as vandalism. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
22. Sad oppose I strongly agree with Salvio and Drmies but I also agree with the trigger issues. I just hate to see an editor like Figureskatingfan come here as a good faith editor with this much experience and get turned away like this over a simple-to-fix issue and unfortunately, that's the nature of RfA. I am sure Figureskatingfan knows what real vandalism is, but he/she needs to spend some time demonstrating their intent to identify vandalism correctly. I agree with Drmies concerns about the answer to Salvio's BLP question and the other question about legal threats also concerns me. Besides WP:DOLT that came up when I went through an RfA (by Salvio I think), Figureskatingfan also didn't cover at all the chilling effect that legal threats have and the disruption to a collaborative editing environment. It's not just that we lack the expertise to respond to a legal threat, it's that we cannot work together when an editor is threatening legal action unless I comply with exactly what they say. That's not collaboration. So, sad oppose, and I hope to support the candidate next time.--v/r - TP 16:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Yep, it was me. WP:DOLT is sort of an idée fixe of mine... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

23. Oppose The edits in question are unfortunate, lacking fine judgement and giving an impression of thoughtlessness and aggression that is inclined to put people off editing; however, Christine could be forgiven as we all make mistakes, and working on Wikipedia is an ongoing learning curve - but, after they were pointed out, Christine defended them. The mind set that she was right, even when mistakes are pointed out in the intensive glare of an AfD, is disturbing. Under this level of scrutiny one would expect a candidate to carefully revisit those edits to check what the concerns are. That Christine was not willing or able to check the alternative spelling of self-deprecating, and then go - "Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll rectify that immediately and apologise to the people concerned" is a matter of concern. To date, User talk:Bolivianewtonjohn still has Christine's warning, that editor has not edited Wikipedia again, and mistakes that Christine's reverts put into the article, such as this italic formatting, are still there. I hear Christine saying she is willing to learn, but I see no actual evidence of it, even when under the spotlight. I think, otherwise, that Christine has shown that she is a good contributor, and is clearly interested in helping out on the project, so with a period of more care in the use of the reversion tool, in checking her edits, in reflecting adequately on concerns raised, and in being less hostile to beginner editors would mean that a RfA in six months time should pass. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose per SilkTork. Making mistakes is one thing. Not owning up to them and correcting them is another. I see more lip service to learning from mistakes than evidence that this is happening. WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
25. Reluctant oppose The answer to question 3 is (to me) not the type of answer I lok for in how someone resolves conflict. Most distressingly, however, is the jusitification of MULTIPLE instances of improperly labelling something as "vandalism" because they are "protective of their pet projects". Really, really, really, really cannot support with the tools based on either the misunderstanding of WP:VAND or the outright reasoning behind it. Based on some many other contributions, this should have been a wash of support (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose - Sorry, its just my opinion but we haev too many admins now. We just don't need more. --Kumioko (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    I propose this comment be struck as a WP:POINT !vote. The user has recently had a dispute with Admins and, likely, is blaming the Admin corps and everyone who would like to be a part of that. Achowat (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I know I'm not the first to tell you this, but this form of "protest" goes nowhere. You know that right? I've been outspoken at times about how flawed the RfA process is, occasionally chastised for my comments, but I've never honestly thought it had to do with the number of admins. In the right context, I think there's a broad community that recognizes the admin process is flawed. But I've seen a few editors come and go because of pedantic opposes like you're doing now. I'm not all that bothered by it itself, but I think that whatever your point is it is eclipsed by the ill will you generate making boilerplate opposes here. I'm just telling you what the perception is. Perhaps there's a better way. Shadowjams (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but apparently every policy, comment and rule can simply be ignored when we choose to do so. If you decide that my comment or oppose is unjustified, unworthy or unwarranted just delete it. But my opinion stands, with more admins comes more drama, more bickering and drives off editors who are typically just trying to make chanegs to articles and learn their way. Wikipedia doesn't need more drama. What we do need is more people with the tools to get things done. So I recommend giving the user the tools they need to perform whatever function they perform (vandal fighting, moving files, etc.). The administrative right seems to make people get the god complex and the bit goes to their head. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think you get it. I'm fairly certain that candidates with WP:BITE issues will tend to fail an RfA. The tools to delete, to protect, and to block only come with administrators. 1600 out of 15,000,000 (I believe) is not a lot. Candidates here are expected to create as little drama possible and as little disputes as possible. Being an admin does not give them the right to cause drama or disputes. They just tend to happen every once in a while. ArbCom has the power to remove the admin right from users who are causing a lot of issues.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,297,642) 16:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Another pointless WP:POINT vote. Sad that someone decides to rail against process, rather than do the right thing and fix their behaviours. Leave it in ... Bureaucrats aren't idiots. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Its ok if you think that but it doesn't make it true. I'm just saying what I think and the fact that I have more time now to participate in discussions rather than work on articles or WPUS has nothing to do with my opinion. I said before, count it or don't count it (we seem to ignore policies whenever it suits us around here these days) its fine with me either way. Even delete it if you think its so bad. But I stand by my comments. Its nothing personal to the editor. Just an opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    ...and there is where you become disruptive: RFA is about the editor, not your percieved injustices on Wikipedia, or how we "ignore policies". To make a !vote in an RFA that has zero to do with the editor in question is problematic (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

    Like I said before, if you don't like it, just remove it or ignore it. Thats what we do these days when we don't agree with a policy, just ignore it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

27. I was on the fence on this, because in the greater scheme of things, the mistakes weren't that bad, and because I'd certainly hope that anyone who gets called out on a specific issue during an RfA would be careful in regards to that issue in the future. What ultimately swayed me was SilkTork's comment. Making mistakes is okay, it happens to everyone. Mistakes, however, need to be treated as learning experiences, it isn't okay to pretend that mistakes were never made, and make no effort to remedy the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

[moved to support] Pending clarification on the edits pointed out by Wifione. That's the only thing preventing me from supporting. I am concerned if edits are being mislabelled as vandalism, because this is one of the surest ways to scare away new contributors, or annoy existing ones, and I'd expect an administrator to know this. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I could see evidence that this candidate acknowledges and understands the content of WP:NOT VANDALISM. Begoon ^talk 05:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Also awaiting answers per Begoon. I agree we all, including myself, are guilty of rollbacking non-vandalism potentially good-faith edits, but those usually involve badly unsourced BLP issues, NPOV, misinformation, very terrible and confusing writing and so forth, literally edits that hurt the encyclopedia more than it helps. But Wifione second and third links are a bit worrisome, reverting copyediting changes as vandalism, including one which left a warning on the user talk page? That seems completely strange to me. We need more article writers as administrators, and I highly trust the nominators. But rollbacking these two edits (the last rollback was the addition of a non-notable award that was deleted in AFD and the editor was warned against it, not-vandalism but not blatant use of rollback, a edit summary would have clearly been helpful though) is a red flag, and a source of potencial drama in the future, like what happened to YellowMonkey a bit over a year ago, and more recently Icairns. Will probably move to support with a valid explanation and a reassurance that it won't happen again. Thanks Secret ^account 06:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm not quite happy about the response to Q5. While I share the opinion of the WBC, I'm a little concerned about the wish to edit the article which seems to indicate a desire to attack them rather than to neutrally report. I could be misreading this. I'm afraid that I might also be misreading the latter part of the response, as I find it hard to understand. Might just need a proofread, might just be me... Peridon (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Let me clarify regarding the WBC. I think that if one does present information neutrally about them, it will shed the light on what they really are. It's about letting the facts speak for themselves. Currently, their article doesn't do a very good job at that. Actually, it could use some NPOV. I believe that education enlightens us, which is why I'm involved in this project. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose My experience with the editor during that forced split of Sesame Street, was a less than positive experience to my memory. Well- meaning and a good content editor in several ways, but I would not trust them with the tools. Sorry. - jc37 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   Struck my oppose. I'd like responses to my questions - consensus, and usage of the tools in particular - to maybe hopefully quell my concerns of possible future heavy-handedness, among other things. As it stands, I think User:Ultraexactzz hit it just right. I think the nom can have a tendency to ownership issues. And I'm concerned that that could potentially be a clue to future issues. I don't think any of us would want buyer's remorse if the nom becomes an admin. - jc37 18:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

4. From support; there is still lots to like about this candidate, but a statement like "I think that strictly speaking, introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism" suggests that more experience at AIV and a better understanding of the vandalism policy is needed. 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   The candidate is very likely to take the comments offered here as an opportunity to refresh an acquaintance with wp:vandal, and perhaps to develop a new editing technique when dealing with Reverts using Twinkle. Um, it is always possible to give an edit summary, to suppress template-sending if that is appropriate. Even when dealing with obvious vandalism, (My cat is cool LOL in Cat, using an edit-summary (rvv;welcome) (rvv;use sandbox) is more helpful, and just might avoid problems of wp:BITE and wp:Do not template the regulars. No doubt the candidate will respond somewhere to any of the similar concerns raised in this rfa. Not an !vote, either way. NewbyG ( talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Neutral, lean oppose Christine clearly has a lot of high quality contributions to Wikipedia articles, but reverting edits that are not vandalism as vandalism is a pet hate of mine. I'm going to take a closer look at these edits and make up my mind. Part of me would think that their contributions to featured articles would make one understand the importance of accuracy in things as mundane as recent changes patrol, but from their explanations I'm not quite sure that is the case. So yeah...at this point I am undecided. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Seems to be a good user. though the vandalism reverts are a bit worrying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
7. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral towards oppose because, like Steven Zhang, above, I really don't like edits being identified as vandalism when they're not. Coupled with the slightly 'ill-informed' reports at AIV, I'm not sure the extra buttons would be a good idea. However, other edits and the level of dedication appear to be brilliant, so I can't make up my mind... -andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Your intentions are marvelous, but per the repeated mistakes while on anti-vandalism patrol, I am not fully convinced that I can support. I cannot oppose either. --Bmusician 03:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Steven and the vandal taggings. The great content work is a plus. You sit at a net 0 right now in my book; true neutral --Guerillero | My Talk 05:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

    Really? A net 0? There's a lot of good content work here... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    on a -10 to +10 scale she sits in the middle. Yes there is lots of content work and yes it is very impressive. But, biting the n00bs is also a big deal in my book.[22] We are in need of more editors. In addition, I don't see any large number of RfP edits, an area that she wants to work in. Statements such as, "I've been frustrated many times with trouble-makers--editors who need to be blocked and aren't, or aren't blocked quickly enough," screams cowboy diplomacy to me. Something We don't need more of. There is a clean slate for her next RfA. I have an open mind. Do some work at requests for page protection, be mindful of the effects of huggle/twinkle, and rethink the use of the block button and you will be an easy support --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Others may see that differently though. That statement is what drove User talk:Giftiger wunsch away.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,195,536) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

11. Per 28bytes. --John (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Take the copious advice on this page to heart, come back in 6 months, and you'll be a no-brainer to support. —SW— ^express 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Neutral per 28bytes--though it is sometimes a fine line, well-meaning-but-misguided (or unskilled) edits are not vandalism. It is sometimes too easy when in a hurry to use tools that mark edits as vandalism, I'm sure we've all done it, but the candidate's explanations worry me. I love content editors (I am one) and I think more of them should have tools but per SW, above, please take the advice here and come back when you are ready. Valfontis (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Well intentioned, and I expect with a bit more experience will be accepted as a sysop. But it may well be premature; I'm putting myself in the neutral corner for the moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Neutral. There's a lot to like about this candidate - great content work and commitment to the goals of the project, and plenty of good interactions with others. The only thing that prevents me supporting is the "vandalism" reverts - but if we have another run in 6 months time, after no further similar mistakes, I can see an easy support. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
16. NeutralSeriously per the consensus above.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 11:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Neutral - But I think there are way too many pile on !votes here that don't really address some core issues. The criticisms about vandalism patrolling issues I think lack perspective. It's way too easy to pick out a few examples and hang onto them. That's not just unfair, but it's also bad for the encyclopedia. We must have editors that vandal patrol, and these sorts of tasks make up a good portion of the admin workload.
    
    In my experience, which has a lot to do with vandalism patrolling, a small set of admins provide the majority of blocks for vandals. I would love to have more good admins in this task.
    That said, the reason I'm neutral is because I don't think the breadth of experience is there yet. I take exception at the pile ons about one particular edit, but I do think some more experience is necessary. Interestingly enough there are quite a few vandalism patrol editors that are commenting that I think generally reflect my position. This is a good editor, but there needs to be a longer track record of vandalism patrolling. Shadowjams (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2012 (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.