Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz

Edit stats

Extended content

Edit stats from here: Liz • en.wikipedia.org Block log · Global user contributions · Global Account Manager · SUL Info · Pageviews in userspace · General statistics [hide] User ID: 19404073 User groups: autoreviewer, massmessage-sender, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed First edit: Jul 25, 2013, 5:02 PM Latest edit: Jul 28, 2015, 1:14 PM Live edits: 44,229 Deleted edits: 1,580 Total edits: 45,809 Edits in the past 24 hours: 37 Edits in the past 7 days: 499 Edits in the past 30 days: 8,489 Edits in the past 365 days: 19,467 Ø number of edits per day: 62.6 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 24,161 Pages created: 1,846 Pages moved: 229 Ø edits per page: 1.8 Ø change per page (bytes): extended Files uploaded: 0 Files uploaded (Commons): 0 (Semi-)automated edits: 1,529 Reverted edits: 237 Edits with summary: 43,834 Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,380 Number of edits (<20 bytes): extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes): extended Actions: Thank: 124 x Approve: 60 x Patrol: 815 x Admin actions Block: 0 x Protect: 0 x Delete: 0 x Import: 0 x 过错: (Re)blocked: 0 x Longest block: – Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate): latest ► enwiki 45,390 +2 hours metawiki 71 +4 days commonswiki 42 +23 days wikidatawiki 40 > 30 days mediawikiwiki 24 > 30 days enwikinews 6 > 30 days enwikisource 4 > 30 days enwikibooks 3 > 30 days wikimania2015wiki 2 > 30 days wikimania2014wiki 2 > 30 days svwiki 1 > 30 days 43 others 7 > 30 days Total edits 45,592 bla bla Namespace Totals [hide] 일반 문서 12,364 28% Talk 1,245 2.8% User 809 1.8% User talk 4,841 10.9% Wikipedia 16,112 36.4% Wikipedia talk 1,366 3.1% File 35 0.1% File talk 2 0% MediaWiki talk 9 0% Template 176 0.4% Template talk 107 0.2% Help 7 0% Help talk 7 0% Category 7,054 15.9% Category talk 41 0.1% Portal 16 0% Portal talk 15 0% Book 1 0% Draft 16 0% Draft talk 4 0% Education Program talk 2 0% Year counts [hide] 2013 14,477 2014 10,297 2015 19,455 Time card [hide] Timecard Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki [hide] Date ↓ Wiki ↓ Links ↓ Page title ↓ Comment ↓ 2015-07-28, 13:14 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash Amending comment 2015-07-28, 13:12 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash /* 2015 Cirrus SR-20 Crash */ Delete 2015-07-28, 12:45 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Meetup/NYC /* Possible attendees */ Adding my name to the list 2015-07-28, 12:15 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Thegleaminureyes /* Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! */ new s... 2015-07-28, 12:15 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Thegleaminureyes Welcome to Wikipedia! ([[WP:TW|TW]]) 2015-07-28, 12:12 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision Enforcing section warning 2015-07-28, 10:41 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Liz Posting RfA notice 2015-07-28, 10:30 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Requests for adminship/Liz RfA/Liz goes live 2015-07-28, 10:20 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Proposed decision /* General comments */ Removing TRM header for pre-PD tim... 2015-07-28, 00:35 enwiki ( diff · log · top ) :Articles for deletion/PartStore.com Delete 2015-07-24, 14:25 metawiki ( diff · log · top ) Association of Categorist Wikipedians/Members 2015-07-04, 17:23 commonswiki ( diff · log · top ) :Wikimedia organizational and user rights hierarchy.svg Comment Month counts [hide] 2013-07 300 2013-08 1,363 2013-09 3,869 2013-10 4,281 2013-11 3,041 2013-12 1,623 2014-01 2,252 2014-02 2,034 2014-03 3,858 2014-04 678 2014-05 1,412 2014-06 51 2014-11 9 2014-12 3 2015-01 59 2015-02 1,662 2015-03 672 2015-04 3,213 2015-05 2,794 2015-06 2,935 2015-07 8,120 Top edited pages [hide] 일반 문서 29 List of redheads log · page history · topedits 15 Usher (singer) log · page history · topedits 15 Darius McCrary log · page history · topedits 14 Laurence Fishburne log · page history · topedits 13 Gary Coleman log · page history · topedits 12 Keith David log · page history · topedits 12 List of fictional supercouples log · page history · topedits 12 Judith Sargent Murray log · page history · topedits 12 Wayne Brady log · page history · topedits 12 Ranjana Khanna log · page history · topedits 11 Tahj Mowry log · page history · topedits 11 Gamergate controversy log · page history · topedits 11 Alfonso Ribeiro log · page history · topedits 10 Carlon Jeffery log · page history · topedits 10 Deaths in 2013 log · page history · topedits -More- Talk 91 Talk:Gamergate controversy log · page history · topedits 37 Talk:Hapa/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 37 Talk:Hapa log · page history · topedits 18 Talk:Ashkenazi Jews log · page history · topedits 15 Talk:Brianna Wu log · page history · topedits 13 Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe) log · page history · topedits 12 Talk:Leo Frank log · page history · topedits 12 Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 5 log · page history · topedits 10 Talk:Raul Julia-Levy log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Irom Chanu Sharmila log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Ave Maria University/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:David Ray Griffin log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Ave Maria University log · page history · topedits 9 Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state log · page history · topedits -More- User 269 User:Liz/CSD log log · page history · topedits 136 User:Liz log · page history · topedits 23 User:Liz/PROD log log · page history · topedits 17 User:Liz/Whiteboard3 log · page history · topedits 15 User:Liz/common.js log · page history · topedits 14 User:Liz/Whiteboard log · page history · topedits 7 User:Liz/Whiteboard2 log · page history · topedits 7 User:Liz/Whiteboard4 log · page history · topedits 6 User:Liz/Pej Vahdat log · page history · topedits 6 User:Liz/Whiteboard5 log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/monobook.js log · page history · topedits 5 User:Wik log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/Wikicountitis log · page history · topedits 5 User:Ruud Koot/Feed log · page history · topedits 5 User:Liz/Whiteboard8 log · page history · topedits -More- User talk 813 User talk:Liz log · page history · topedits 153 User talk:Jimbo Wales log · page history · topedits 60 User talk:Drmies log · page history · topedits 38 User talk:Callanecc log · page history · topedits 35 User talk:Gamaliel log · page history · topedits 34 User talk:BrownHairedGirl log · page history · topedits 34 User talk:Bishonen log · page history · topedits 32 User talk:Flyer22 log · page history · topedits 31 User talk:Ignocrates log · page history · topedits 28 User talk:Zad68 log · page history · topedits 25 User talk:Good Olfactory log · page history · topedits 24 User talk:Kim Dent-Brown log · page history · topedits 24 User talk:Obiwankenobi log · page history · topedits 23 User talk:Bbb23 log · page history · topedits 23 User talk:HJ Mitchell log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia 1107 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents log · page history · topedits 245 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard log · page history · topedits 133 Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions log · page history · topedits 72 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 70 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement log · page history · topedits 46 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion log · page history · topedits 36 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case log · page history · topedits 33 Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 30 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection log · page history · topedits 29 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions log · page history · topedits 28 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop log · page history · topedits 24 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 193 log · page history · topedits 23 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia talk 61 Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship log · page history · topedits 58 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests log · page history · topedits 42 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard log · page history · topedits 31 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee log · page history · topedits 31 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism log · page history · topedits 21 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention log · page history · topedits 21 Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost log · page history · topedits 19 Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report log · page history · topedits 18 Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 17 Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people log · page history · topedits 16 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop log · page history · topedits 16 Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion log · page history · topedits 15 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 log · page history · topedits 14 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council log · page history · topedits 14 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks log · page history · topedits -More- File 2 File:Tom Selleck - publicity - 1980-1.jpg log · page history · topedits 2 File:Irolas.jpg log · page history · topedits 2 File:Graph of active admins, edits, and ratio of active admins to edits for each September, 2002-2013.png log · page history · topedits 2 File:Graph of active admins and edit for each September, 2002-2013.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:Saint Maron.JPG log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal1.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:American Dream (film).jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:World-Fit-logo-childhood obesity programs - kids fitness programs - school fitness programs.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal3.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Admin-monthly.png log · page history · topedits 1 File:Justin Bieber Signature.svg log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal4.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Ludlow-miliitia.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:LudlowPostVandal5.jpg log · page history · topedits 1 File:Molly coffinnotice.gif log · page history · topedits -More- File talk 1 File talk:Edvard Munch, Loving Woman (Madonna), 1895–1902, lithograph. Munch Museum, Oslo.gif log · page history · topedits 1 File talk:Self Portrait with Skeleton Arm.jpg log · page history · topedits MediaWiki talk 4 MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist log · page history · topedits 4 MediaWiki talk:Bad image list log · page history · topedits 1 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist log · page history · topedits Template 17 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/CaseRequests log · page history · topedits 15 Template:Casenav/data log · page history · topedits 10 Template:Gestures log · page history · topedits 10 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/ClarificationAmendment log · page history · topedits 6 Template:Jews by country log · page history · topedits 4 Template:User Canon Law log · page history · topedits 3 Template:Ds/topics log · page history · topedits 3 Template:ArbComOpenTasks/Cases log · page history · topedits 3 Template:Retired Australian cyclones log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Religious Colleges and Schools in New Jersey log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Arbitration talk archive navbox log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Qual é o Seu Talento? log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Uw-cfd4 log · page history · topedits 2 Template:Demi Lovato log · page history · topedits 2 Template:User WikiProject Glee log · page history · topedits -More- Template talk 22 Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks log · page history · topedits 21 Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 19 Template talk:Religion topics log · page history · topedits 19 Template talk:Religion topics/Archive 1 log · page history · topedits 5 Template talk:Infobox royalty log · page history · topedits 3 Template talk:WikiProject status log · page history · topedits 3 Template talk:Infobox person log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Copyviocore log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Stock characters log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Modernism log · page history · topedits 2 Template talk:Infobox comedian log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Torchwood Task Force userbox log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Shades of color log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:Torchwood fan userbox log · page history · topedits 1 Template talk:User torchwood fan log · page history · topedits -More- Help 2 Help:User style log · page history · topedits 2 Help:Userspace draft log · page history · topedits 2 Help:Userspace draft/sandbox log · page history · topedits 1 Help:Using colours log · page history · topedits Help talk 4 Help talk:Wiki markup log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Preferences log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Special page log · page history · topedits 1 Help talk:Cheatsheet log · page history · topedits Category 11 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Interview archives log · page history · topedits 11 Category:American people of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 11 Category:Ashkenazi Jews log · page history · topedits 10 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Digital media archives log · page history · topedits 10 Category:Wikipedia Signpost coverage of women log · page history · topedits 9 Category:Wikipedia Signpost April Fools Day log · page history · topedits 8 Category:South American people of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Education archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Library and Museum archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost China archives log · page history · topedits 8 Category:Wikipedia Signpost Paid editing archives log · page history · topedits 7 Category:Argentine people of Oceanian descent log · page history · topedits 7 Category:People of Arab descent log · page history · topedits 7 Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent log · page history · topedits -More- Category talk 6 Category talk:People of Jewish descent log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Wikipedians log · page history · topedits 3 Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience/Move discussion notes log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Philosophers log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Wikipedia adminship log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:People of Arab descent log · page history · topedits 2 Category talk:Wikipedia archives log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:African-American players of American football log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Tibetan philosophy log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Wikipedia template categories log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Roman Catholic clergy in Argentina log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Defunct buildings and structures in Manhattan log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Jinn in popular culture log · page history · topedits 1 Category talk:Pivot original programming log · page history · topedits -More- Portal 4 Portal:Syriac Christianity log · page history · topedits 2 Portal:Narnia log · page history · topedits 2 Portal:Christmas/Calendar log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Television log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Music/Featured articles/Suggest log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Ohio log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Baptist log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Anabaptism log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:South Sudan log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Religion log · page history · topedits 1 Portal:Christianity/Related portals log · page history · topedits Portal talk 5 Portal talk:Current events log · page history · topedits 3 Portal talk:Dogs log · page history · topedits 2 Portal talk:Judaism log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:LGBT log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Transgender log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Asian Americans log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Mathematics log · page history · topedits 1 Portal talk:Ireland log · page history · topedits Book 1 Book:Wikipedia Manual of Style log · page history · topedits Draft 3 Draft:Location map Houston Downtown log · page history · topedits 3 Draft:Chairman (President) of the People's Republic of Bulgaria log · page history · topedits 2 Draft:Valerie Sutton log · page history · topedits 2 Draft:Sandbox log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Paola Bacchetta log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Jane Peterson log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Keystone Symposia log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Jem Jem Italia log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Roopesh Kumar log · page history · topedits 1 Draft:Uttarakhand Judicial and legal Academy (UJALA) log · page history · topedits Draft talk 2 Draft talk:List of churches in New York City log · page history · topedits 1 Draft talk:Cultural Marxism log · page history · topedits 1 Draft talk:STOP Bang Questionnaire log · page history · topedits Education Program talk 2 Education Program talk:University of Cincinnati/Philosophy and Women (Summer 2013)/Timeline log · page history · topedits (Semi-)automated edits (approximate) [hide] 1,228 Twinkle 273 STiki 28 Huggle 0 NPWatcher 0 HotCat 0 FurMe 0 Igloo 0 AutoWikiBrowser 0 Popups 0 Articles For Creation tool 0 WPCleaner

Worried

I gave glowing support. Now, after reading User:Iridescent's oppose, I am worried. I respect Iridescent enourmously. Before supporting, I spot-checked many of Liz's talk posts and found good manners. Maybe I was unlucky. Sometimes, it is necessary to read big discussions very thoroughly to know if someone is helping to diffuse and resolve rather than stir the pot and pick fights. I do not want to support an admin who has even a smidgen of those last characteristics. If anyone can provide diffs that conclusively show those, I will move to oppose at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Iridescent's oppose can be taken that way, Anna. If you're working in contentious areas, it's pretty easy for those on the opposing side to pick diffs and say, "See! They were stirring the pot here!" or "Everything would have been okay if they just gave up and stopped arguing". I think you need to judge what they were fighting for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anna Frodesiak, I posted that oppose as a token gesture when this looked certain to finish well above 90%, and will freely admit to not doing a full contribution history check. In light of your comments, and the fact that this could theoretically end up in the discretionary zone, I'm going to go more thoroughly through her contributions and see if I've just happened to only encounter her on bad days. (It won't be until tomorrow, though, it's 1:30 am here.) I can't imagine I'll be moving to support—I'm not one of those who expects admins to have written FAs or GAs but I do expect to see some interest in what Wikipedia is actually about, and 7% mainspace edits, almost all minor, makes Newyorkbrad look like Diderot—but I'll be more than willing to strike the oppose if I feel I've been unfair. (When an RFA candidate can't give a single example in their "best work" section, it isn't a good sign; writing adequate-quality articles really isn't difficult for anyone who understands the basics of essay-writing, sourcing and wiki markup. To put that in perspective, tomorrow's TFA took about eight hours start-to-finish to write from a redlink.)

It is possible that because of the somewhat unusual combination of pages on my watchlist, which by definition includes a disproportionate number of high-drama pages, I'm only seeing her in environments where people are unusually combative. (I don't automatically assume a tendency to get into fights is an automatic fail—I was one of the co-noms on Malleus's RFA—but it needs to be outweighed by positives elsewhere, and my impression of this candidate has been of someone whose history consists solely of a mix of unnecessary stirring of other peoples' disputes, and hyper-minor edits.) What I will say, just doing a quick skim of recent article talk edits (generally the best way to get a feel for an editor's interests), is that her edit count in that particular namespace is massively inflated through the pointless but edit-count-inflating job of manually archiving threads one-by-one which were about to be archived by the bot anyway.

I'll update here tomorrow with either a retraction or an affirmation. – iridescent 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm impressed. There is no way I could write a Featured article in just eight hours. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: 20+ sources were carefully researched, winnowed out, found, read, and synthesized; 7 images were researched, found, uploaded (some of them), and captioned; and 23,000 bytes of deathless prose, with 44 footnotes, were written, formatted, edited, and refined, all within eight hours? That is impressive. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm impressed too. A good article, sure, but to write it to FA? Wow. I could never do that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Iri is scarily quick, but, so not to dishearten others, he has been doing a lot of Etty articles, & was I expect already very familiar with all the sources, & some sections like the bio are largely repeats from his other articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That bio section does change between the Etty articles depending on which point of his career is being discussed, even if it's not always obvious. The time-saver here was having most of the bibliography already formatted and ready-to-go from The Wrestlers a couple of days earlier. A rough rule of thumb for how long something will take to write, assuming you have all the sources lined up and aren't going to spend time travelling to libraries, is 90 minutes per section excluding the lead for the prose, 30 minutes per image, plus one hour for writing the lead, formatting and a read-through for glaring errors. Obviously if you need to make a special trip to a reference library, or need to persuade someone to take a particular photo, the time shoots up. – iridescent 16:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Eight hours? That's it? How I wish I could do that; it took me days to write a 700-word GA... --Biblioworm 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) Aside from agreeing with that whole 8 hours thing, I did look through some of Liz's AN/ANI contributions and did not notice a pattern of making problems worse (or even one off incidents), which is part of why I didn't consider that. If this helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've just lost an hour of my life going through Liz's April–June contributions. (Going back further isn't usually worthwhile unless there's a specific concern, as people change; looking at the edits in the month running up to an RFA is also a pointless exercise, as candidates are generally posing for the cameras by then and avoiding anything contentious.) I'm going to strike that oppose, as aside from her baiting of Eric Corbett* I'm not seeing any major recent issues.

*The "content creators" diff everyone is raising can be discounted as a badly misfiring attempt at comedy, but I see no way to interpret her unsolicited comment here, which essentially translates as "we are discussing you in a publicly viewable forum but I order you not to read the discussion" as anything other than either intentional baiting to try to provoke a backlash, or spectacular cluelessness.

For the record, the (relatively minor) issues I did find are:

1. Removing a film's cover image from the article on the film, explicitly on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds that "I didn't feel like the image enhanced the article";
2. Making an edit which negatively impacted a BLP by downplaying the subject's importance (a feature dancer is a famous name, usually from porn or modelling, who makes one-off appearances in strip clubs as a highly-paid headline draw; a stripper is someone gyrates on stage while drunk businessmen stuff banknotes into their garter), with the somewhat odd edit summary of "ME";
3. This comment, which I'm sure is in the best of faith but shows a worrying eagerness to reach for the oversight button;
4. This rather odd commentary, which I can only translate as "I want someone else to write about this because I can't be bothered to check the sources";
5. This edit which can only be described as pot-stirring ("I know nothing about the subject of this article, but I'm sure it's wrong to list this many women"); five seconds background research would have shown that the notable figures in this field are disproportionately female.

None of these are any worse than I would expect to find if I went through the contributions of any editor with a fine-tooth comb. I won't be supporting for reasons outlined above—without the content Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people, and I don't consider it appropriate for people with no apparent interest in Wikipedia/Wikimedia's mission to be sitting in judgement over the people who actually do the work—but I won't actively oppose.

(Brief PS; that "eight hours" comment wasn't intended as the "hey, look how fast I am!" which some above seem to have taken it as, but as pointing out that "content writers" aren't some kind of supremely gifted elite. Anyone, working primarily from print sources on a topic with which they're familiar enough to judge reliability and relevance of sourcing, and where the topic is specialised enough that the article won't be a 10,000-word behemoth, can do the same.) – iridescent 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"with the somewhat odd edit summary of "ME"" — I found the edit summary "ME" confusing the first time I saw it but after a few occurrences I worked out it meant "minor edit". (If you knew that already but were trying to say that it was strange to mark the edit as minor, or to comment "ME" when it's fairly obvious that the edit was marked minor, apologies.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• iridescent, the way you've withdrawn your Oppose, without striking it but instead indenting it, makes your "I can't support this" a reply to M.Altenmann -- which is confusing at best, insulting to him/her at worst (if read per the indenting). Best to actually strike, rather than indenting.... Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point, forgot that MediaWiki screws with the indenting and double-indents when you indent a comment to take it out of the count. Fixed. – iridescent 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I'm not a perfect candidate. There are areas where I don't have experience that some editors think is essential. There are times when I should have refrained from sarcasm but that is not my typical style of interacting with other editors. If you scrutinize my edits, you'll find I've done a ton of work recently in project space which I know isn't valued as highly as main space.
I still think I can do good work in the areas I've outlined in my answer to the first question. I decided to have an RfA in part because of the continued encouragement of other editors and admins to do so and I'm grateful for their faith in me and support. I take each oppose vote to heart as areas where I need to improve. Whether or not this RfA passes, this is valuable, albeit sometimes painful, feedback. I know that every editor who is participating in this process is basing their vote on what they think is best for the project and I can't fault that. Now, I will stay out of your discussion unless I see there are specific questions for me to address. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

O-kay, I'd be happy to see some work in an area you have expertise in. Not FA-writing but maybe GA review, RfC, FA support/oppose. Surely there are some articles out there that you have more than a lay-person's expertise in and can give some expert opinion in. This RfA still has four days to run. Your time starts now......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I am sure you can find some area within sociology of race, gender and/or religion where you could do something to show your expertise, especially by providing quality sources pronto, which would not result in some armwrestle. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If I may just offer a counter-point here, I don't think the purpose of an RfA is to make people jump through hoops. I don't think this would serve anybody, or any purpose. Samsara 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You have your opinion and I have mine. My mind is open to be changed based on new evidence either way. If yours isn't then that is your issue not mine. I am sitting in the 'oppose' column as of now so telling her to ignore is not helping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is too late to jump thru the hoops during the RfA. This remark shows Samsara don't quite understand the procedure. -M.Altenmann >t 15:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I do. ;) Samsara 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't 2006 any more. For better or worse, the bar is a bit higher now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Look Samsara, I'll spell it out - If Liz won't edit in her field after specifically being asked by me on the promise of passing this RfA, then it means to me she can't. If she can't then she is lying about her field of expertise. If that is the case, then I think her persona is made up. If that is the case, then I think this needs to be exposed. I hope I am wrong. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa...I have an undergrad in Psych and a grad in Stats, and I edit mostly food. I don't think I've edited ANY psych or stats articles. This is a really serious accusation. valereee (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cas, I'm an attorney with two law degrees, and licensed in two states, but I've hardly touched law-related articles in my 6+ years on-wiki. I don't find it particularly relaxing to spend time editing legal topics after a contentious week of work. That said, is there anything specific that makes you think that the candidate's online persona, including academic credentials, is somehow inauthentic? That's a fairly serious question to raise . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A salient point that echoes my opinion. Wikipedia is for many, like myself, an off-duty volunteer project. There's no requirement that anybody tell you anything about themselves. Liz could have gone the "I'd rather remain anonymous route" (like myself) and an could still make a great admin. Why must she edit in her field of expertise to take up the mop? That's not reasonable. Casliber's argument is a false dichotomy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay there is context and there is context. If I'd seen Liz do some other content-work or given me some other reason to make me trust her (i.e anything that didn't appear as if it were carefully scripted to pass RFA and get to arbcom), then I wouldn't be here. I am also not influencing your vote. You can comment/vote however you like, it's a free 'pedia. I am clarifying what would satisfy me. e.g. @Dirtlawyer1: you made Fatima Island (New South Wales) (I keep meaning to take a photo of the thing each time I drive past :P) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Casliber, I'm really disheartened by the comment above. You have every right to oppose, but the accusation of lying about her area of expertise is bad faith exemplified. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing Liz of anything, just wondering as I can't imagine editing like that myself. And will be more than happy if my concerns are proven groundless. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate supporters who were annoyed by Liz's editing, dug through a chunk of her internet activity and personal info looking for dirt. If she was in anyway even remotely lying about anything on Wikipedia, they would be blaring at all over the internet. Your concerns are groundless. Brustopher (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, what do you mean by "internet activity and personal info"? You mean her user contributions and user page info? Or do you mean more personal stuff? If the latter, where would they get the more personal stuff? By just knowing her previous IPs? Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I mean the latter. The accusations of her being Essjay number 2 are incorrect. Perhaps you shouldn't be inquiring into how to pry into the personal identity of another editor though. Brustopher (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, and that is not what I was doing. I am well aware of the WP:Outing policy. I asked you a simple question (more than one) that does not require any reveal of personal information. And since you chose to attack me, including with your "shameful" edit summary, I will take your "internet activity and personal info" and "they would be blaring at all over the internet" claims with a grain of salt. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that I now completely understand where Brustopher was coming from, and we've made apologizes on this matter (on my talk page). Again, sorry for causing any trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that at RfA, there is no requirement to assume good faith and take things at face value (keyword Essjay, nuff said). However, I also don't think that her adding some references really proves anything. Added to that, I have concerns about the notion that RfA gives us an opportunity to force people to do things they wouldn't normally do. Smacks of a lot of things that I think we should avoid (playground mentality, old boys' club). If the concern is that this is an editor who has artfully crafted a wiki-career in order to ascend to ArbCom, then that's an entirely different concern imo, and a valid one. However, I don't yet find myself able to pick a side in that particular debate. Samsara 23:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: I have obviously left it open as I am concerned by not totally convinced and could still be proven wrong, which I hope I will. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this whole thread, Casliber, because I'd normally associate your username with good sense. You cannot lay out the chain of reasoning in this post above and then go on to say "but I'm not accusing her of anything!". You directly implied that it is reasonable to conclude that a fellow volunteer must be lying if they choose not to spend their hobby time as you would prefer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: So I'm not allowed to query anything at all even if I find an editor's overall pattern of edits something I feel uncomfortable or not-quite-right with? Am I just supposed to keep quiet then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

False dichotomy. There are options other than saying nothing, or posting a long, weird, baseless conspiracy theory implicitly accusing someone of dishonesty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: it's not that hard to remain anonymous if one is careful.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not thrilled with this either. Implies "if you get doxxed, you must not have been careful enough." Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: What the flying baloney was the point of this comment? I mean seriously? Why did you make this comment? What does it have to do with any of the supposed issues you've raised, even remotely? Your concerns are proven to be wrong, and instead of saying something like: "Well ok then, sorry about the false accusations Liz. I was barking up the wrong tree. Still not voting for you though, because you don't write content," you're making petty comments about how she doesn't hide her personal info well enough. I can only hope you're acting like this because of a bad hair day or something, because otherwise you're proving your own unsuitability to be an admin instead of Liz's. Brustopher (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(Sigh) that didn't come out right. Of course no-one deserves to get doxxed like that. So consider that stricken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that one doesn't don't find it particularly relaxing to spend time editing on topics with one works with after a contentious week of work, as Dirtlawyer1 said. I am landscape architect and I almost never edit those topics. However I do edit topics that are INSPIRING to my work, if you understand how I think. Arts, about colours, stuff like that. However I find this discussion a bit confusing, things were so clear from the beginning. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber, Essjay's offence was to claim false credentials and use the authority that gave him to give extra weight to his opinions. If Liz is avoiding the areas where she claims expertise then it is unfair to compare her to Essjay, unless you can cite a dif showing her arguing that her opinion on a particular matter should be given extra weight because of a qualification that she has but won't verify online; Without such a dif Liz is in the same position of many of us, keeping our hobby separate from one or more areas of our expertise. There are many reasons why people avoid particular areas, personally I don't trust myself to write neutrally about one of the subjects that I avoid, in a volunteer community it is unreasonable to try to require others to up their donation to things that they don't want to currently contribute. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

From the candidate

Hey, folks. I have stayed away from this talk page because, frankly, it's uncomfortable to watch editors scrutinize ones edits, experience, background and character, even though I know it is part of this whole process. I also think that editors who take the time to participate in an RfA should have a place to talk about the process that isn't a rebuttal of other editor's votes which can lead to long and unwieldy discussion threads.

All I want to say is that you have any questions about me, please just ask me, either here or in the question section.

To answer a question that has come up, yes, I was doxxed in December on a Gamergate message board called 8Chan and last year on Wikipediocracy after I made a statement about WikiConUSA that a member there took issue with. I think the first is what Brustopher is referring to. When I started editing the Gamergate article on Wikipedia around February, I removed all personal identifying information on my user page. I then put some of it back in anticipation of this RfA because I don't want to have anything to hide from fellow Wikipedian editors. I didn't get threats of violence from the doxxing but it's not pleasant to read through a message board, reading people going through ones LinkedIn profile and discussing contacting the places you worked. But, lucky for me, the Gamergate crew had more appealing targets than boring old me and they moved on. That was it, it happened, I consider myself fairly lucky and this is more of an explanation that an attempt to get anyone's sympathy. Bad stuff happens on the internet every day and hopefully little of it happens here.

I'll leave you here to discuss whatever you want and I'll just check by Saturday morning and Sunday morning to see if you have any questions for me that you don't want to post on the main page. Thanks for taking some of your precious editing time to consider my candidacy. Have a good weekend, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Liz. I'm sorry you had to endure all that. You were involved in some matters with Lightbreather, correct? I mainly stayed away from all that. Dealing with similar attitudes at the Sexism article, and all the other contentious areas I work in, is enough for me. What I wanted to know from Brustopher above is whether the harassers used information you shared on Wikipedia to try to cause you harm or whether they went some extra effort. Again, I'm sorry you went through all that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Flyer22, I only had casual interaction with Lightbreather, I might have posted once or twice at the Gender Gap Task Force page but I don't remember doing so. I am primarily aware of Lightbreather because I was an arbitration clerk on her ArbCom case. Through reading through the evidence and workshop phases, I'm aware of a little of what she had to face but most of the evidence was submitted privately to the committee.

As for me, I now am rethinking sharing this doxing information on an RfA talk page but even if I remove it, it'll be in the page history. So, it is what it is...it was posted in response to comments (above) and the 8Chan dox didn't have anything to do with my activity on Wikipedia. It mainly made me realize that if someone wants to find out your personal information, it just takes time and determination to do so. And that applies to anyone online. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions to Liz

I am trying to add the following questions to the RFA, but I cannot see the template:

• How important is it to contribute to wp:Categories on wikipedia? What can be done to improve the process at wp:CfD?
• Any ideas on how to improve partipation in wp:WikiProjects
• It appears that fewer editors are reading and commenting on the wp:Signpost. Should we care? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Those look like questions that could only be answered properly after a good deal of research and analysis. What makes you think the candidate should spend her wiki-time over the next couple of days (before the RFA closes) writing essays on subjects you've chosen? DexDor ^(talk) 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech! It's nice to see you back on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for the delay but I took a suggestion to take a break from this RfA. Let me see if I can address your questions.

I think categories are enormously important on Wikipedia but I know there are some editors who think differently. Categories, along with internal links, are a way to find related articles in the same topic area.

The big problem I see at CfD is one that is common to many areas on Wikipedia and it is that there is a small number of people who regularly participate in discussions. And often editors who know a lot about the categorization system on Wikipedia are not experts in the subjects involved. When I nominate a category for discussion, I notify the relevant WikiProject so that editors who focus their editing in the specific field can participate in the discussion. But there is often little response because of the varying levels of activity on WikiProjects. If we could get more subject experts to participate in discussions, I think that the results would be improved. The one advantage of CfD over AfD, for example, is that the discussions normally stay open longer than 7 days. Unless there is an obvious keep or delete result, they can be open for several weeks. Since people who, for instance, write about royalty or historical monuments, may not visit the category page very regularly, this allows more time for editors to see the CfD notice and can then weigh in on the discussion.

As for WikiProjects, I think activity promotes activity. Meaning, if pages at the WikiProject and its talk page are being edited, they will show up in ones Watchlist and this attracts more participation. When I was evaluating WikiProjects, I found one can get the best idea of how active a WikiProject is by whether questions or notices posted on to the main talk page are getting responses by members of the WikiProject. You can visit some WikiProjects and see two years worth of messages people have posted that have gone unanswered. To keep a WikiProject alive, there has to be at least one member who is willing to answer questions that come up about existing articles or articles that new editors think should be created. Conversely, if this minimum level of activity can't be sustained, it's a sign of a lack of interest and the WikiProject has probably come to the end of its productive life.

As for the Signpost, I don't think readership is proportional to comments posted. Stories that come up in News and Notes, which is about the workings of Wikipedia and the WMF, often elicit comments as people have opinions about what is occurring on the project. But you look at a beautiful page like Featured Content and usually the only comments are from editors who wonder why a particular FA or FP is missing from the page. It's the nature of online commenting that people are more likely to leave a comment if they see a problem than to say, "Beautiful pictures, you did a great job with the page this week." As you see with editing on Wikipedia, a lot more people will read than edit or comment. The only reason the good folks at the Signpost should be concerned about commenting levels is if it a sign that there are other subjects of interest to readers which are not being covered at the Signpost. But I know that is not an issue with the Signpost as they are incredibly open to suggestions from readers about other stories that should be covered and any editor can propose a new story and get feedback on whether it could be published in the Signpost and how that article could be developed.

Thank you for your questions. Let me know if you have any others. And, again, it's nice to see you back from your wikibreak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

In past few weeks, I never got any answer from Liz in teahouse as the nominator mentioned. Still, the way people are declaring her participation in ANI as ANI drama is a bit harsh. She is an arbitration clerk (her Userpage states). I disagree that Liz's contribution to ANI is bad. And to all those arguing about content creation,.. no one is master of all trades. --Aero Slicer 17:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't for content creators there would be no website and, as such, no admin's. This isn't a chicken and egg scenario; the answer in terms of importance is evident. Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay we get the idea......Now can you create a content as Gamma ray and let Kudpung create an article as Cell biology and then take it to featured article. Those who can create articles like that, i will challenge them to create an article like Microeconomics and develop it.

A Hospital needs doctor, but a doctor can't work without Nurse. A Nurse can't work without the ward boys. There are sweepers who clean the floor and remove medical garbages. There are physiotherapists and Hospital security along with the clerk who keeps tab on bill payment. Now I will ask you and Kudpung, to run a Hospital with only Doctors (you will not have any nurse, Wardboy, Cleaners, pharmacists, electrician, gatekeeper, janitor, management). --Aero Slicer 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't got a fucking clue what your on about, but thanks for coming. Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

He wants to say that you can't run a wiki on article writers alone; you need administrators to kick out vandals, mediators to solve disputes etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You do, yes, but it is essential they know how content creation works in order to police it. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And Liz chided me on some civility schtick while completely missing the real point, perhaps because she has so little experience of content work - the discussion spread across several pages eventually but the nub of it is here. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And its exchanges like that Sitush which makes me think further that Liz and people like her shouldn't be anywhere near a mop. I bet 100% of the supporters don't even know about that exchange. Will the last one out please turn off the light! Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Aero is saying that janitors perform an important role in hospitals, so hospitals should be run by janitors instead of doctors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got it in the end and feel desperately sad that that kind of thinking exists. His stupid analogy suggests that although we would all be working in beautifully clean conditions, death and disease among the community would be rife. Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, Hawkeye7. I am speaking as a guy who started out working as a janitor in a hospital in 1972, and ended up ten years later as the telecommunications department manager. Hospitals are run by hospital administrators, who are usually not physicians. The "janitor" analogy on Wikipedia has its weaknesses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought that to be a medical administrator, you had to first be a registered medical practioner.[1] But I defer to your knowledge of the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am baffled why a simple comment like the one I made has stuck with you, Sitush. In the areas you have edited in, you have fought so many battles with disruptive editors and have dealt with your share of vandalism and abuse. But a simple remark like "Has it fuck?" Not an ideal response to a question from another user about your edit, for some reason, has gotten under your skin because you have never let me forget it and you have brought it up repeatedly and made fun of me for posting it.

You have edited for over 8 years and have over 150,000 edits. Why would a comment from me, about WP:5P4 and editors treating each other with civility and respect, even make an impression on you? I respect the work you do, Sitush, and I am not your enemy.

As for your question, Aero Slicer, if you spend any time at the Teahouse, you know that there is a large pool of editors who answer questions and rotate in and out as their time and interest allows. If you had pinged me, I'm sure I would have answered a question from you. But it is likely that I didn't visit the Teahouse on the day you posted your question or that I had found another editor had already answered your question as that often happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware that I have raised it repeatedly and made fun of you for posting it. Perhaps I have but I think you might be over-egging that particular pudding. Yours certainly was a simple comment ... and that is the problem because it displays a lack of diligence and a desire to jump in any old way based on your own concept of how this place should be. And most specifically it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the crap we content creators have to deal with, and often do without admin intervention. That you still do not get it is extremely concerning and underlines the view of those who think you are perhaps here to express your opinions all over the shop (including, according to Johnbod on the Neutral section, in the categorisation issues) rather than deal with the big stuff. Admins have to deal with the big stuff and they have to take a lot of flak: I worry, amongst other things, that your take on civility is going to lead you to sanctioning a whole load of people for what is, in the scale of things, very little at all. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz ... you not addressed only civility, but you also said "The material looked like it was sourced to me" - which means you can't really have looked at it well - this was the edit which restored the contested information. Perhaps some of it was "sourced" - but things like Answers.com or this site or this site which appears to be self-published or this blog post that begins "an unknown friend ... told me over mobile that mother of Buddha was a Koli" are certainly not reliable sources that should be used. About half that edit is unsourced (at least). And the rest is very badly written - "Nayak is honorary and hereditary title of the Boya Caste People in India, the word boya spelled in few types, these words are Boyar,Boyer,Bhoya,Bhoyar,Bhoi,Boir and Bhoirs and they alias as Bedar, The Bedar means the hunters of mountaineers, so the mountaineers of boya people hold the hereditary title of Nayak." (which is also a copyright violation from here) or "Together, the parent this caste forms 13.52% of the Punjab's population." When someone is edit warring this type of bad edit in .. is it any wonder that someone trying to keep copyright violations, unreliable sources, and bad English out of the encyclopedia eventually gets tired of fighting and just says a bad word? So instead of supporting the editor who's working to improve content - you came down on them because they weren't civil enough. This is what I mean when I say that if you haven't had the experience of trying to fight for better content .. you can't actually know what it's like. That is why it is important for admins to at least have experienced a bit of what it's like in the trenches.. if they have, they won't expect sainthood .. they'll have some empathy for the people they are supposed to be supporting. I don't expect GAs... I don't expect FAs. I do expect that you can point to some sort of content that's been improved OR I expect that there is a history of supporting folks who do improve content. This kerfluffle with Sitush actually shows the opposite - you admonished the person trying to improve the encyclopedia and never once addressed the poor sourcing, copyright violations and bad English of the edit warrior. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK y'all, take it easy. This is the talk page, but some decorum would be nice here. If Liz didn't answer a question in a somewhat informal venue where no doubt she has made many other helpful contributions, this page is not the place to bring it up. Please don't make me act as janitor here. (Cullen, I was a cleaning lady in a hospital, a long time ago--anecdotes available upon request, in a different venue. But I respect the people doing the dirty work.) Drmies (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 Nowhere i mentioned only janitors run a Hospital. Doctors (Orthopedics, Geriatric , ENT, Cardiologist, Ophthalmology etc) along with physiotherapists,Hospital security,the clerk who updates bill payment on the server, nurse, Wardboy, Cleaners, pharmacists, electrician, gatekeeper, management, we need everybody to work together. Aero Slicer 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe next time, Aero Slicer, you could get to the point without analogising this situation with a rather complex story about a hospital. Cassianto^Talk 19:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended question for Mkdw

• Extended discussion moved to talk page. Mkdw^talk 23:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Strong support How were you not already an admin? I'm travelling overseas right now and I found an internet cafe just to login and put down my support. Mkdw^talk 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • You did? That begs the question of how you heard of the RfA. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • We are allowed to keep WP:RFA in our watchlist. Aero Slicer 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • Sitush actually raises a very good question. If Mkdw didn't have an internet connection to !vote, how did he/she hear about the RfA without an internet connection? --Tóraí (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • Mkdw is a very regular RfA commenter. Their Wikipedia space contribs show comments to six different RfA's since June 30th. The Interior (Talk) 18:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • Mkdw did not say that they had no internet connection but rather that they were traveling overseas. My good faith assumption is that they were reading Wikipedia on some sort of mobile device and chose to find an internet cafe to log in and vote. Questioning an experienced editor on this point seems pointless to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   • @Sitush and Tóraí: I have access to the Internet. Just not to a computer all the time (hence needing to find an internet cafe). I'm sure I could have figured it out on my phone but I find any editing on it is almost impossible for me. I noticed the RFA on {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} on a project space page I was looking at. You have my word I was not alerted to it by any off-wiki canvassing. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Mkdw^talk 23:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mkdw. FWIW, my initial query was a musing (rather than amusing). No accusation was intended. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad for that, Sitush, because I initially took your comment as being grossly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I love you like a brother, but I also didn't care for this. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it took on a life of its own. My apologies for that. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Q14

Additional question from Hawkeye7

14 A Wikipedian sneaks into a portaloo at Wikimania and removes the contents left by Jimbo Wales. A home canning outfit is then used, and the results are sold on EBay as "Jimbo Wales's canned shit." This attracts mainstream media attention. Can an article be created about the product? Which of our policies and guidelines apply here?

A: @Hawkeye7:, points for originality. First, I doubt that a story about anyone's canned excrement on EBay would be covered by reliable sources (WP:V) but since this is a hypothetical case, let's assume that the New York Times and the BBC publish a story about "Jimbo Wales's canned shit" rather than the incident being covered by tabloid sources (WP:BLPSOURCES) which would not be considered reliable. An article can be created on any subject but this one would be deleted due to violations of WP:BLP policy, specifically, "biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." While an argument could be made based on Wales being a public figure, BLP policy states that a negative allegation or incident can be mentioned in an article if it is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". In this case, I would argue that this incident isn't noteworthy or relevant when considering the entire biography of Wales and is a trivial incident that has little to no influence on his life, career or impact on culture.

Comment Artist's Shit - context is everything. Bazj (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't quizzing on knowledge of art. It's about our policies and guides. Liz demonstrates a good understanding of WP:BLP. She did not consider whether it falls under WP:NPA. I find the characterisation would be deleted unsatisfying. Does an article about a product fall under WP:BLP? Is the quoted policy grounds for deletion? What is the deletion process? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:BLP reads: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis in original.) WP:NPA is solely regarding fellow editors, not Wikipedia articles or article subjects. WP:BLP covers attack pages, etc. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) That's what BLP says, but does it not usually require removal of the offending material rather than deletion of the entire article concerned? (2) Isn't Jimbo Wales a fellow editor? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question was about an entire article, not just isolated offending material within an article. Whether someone mentioned in a Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia editor is immaterial; two separate policies apply: one for articles and persons mentioned in them, and one for Wikipedia editors. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

NPA is not "solely regarding fellow editors"; read it again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SM, it is. Read it again. I don't see the value of prolonging this discussion(s) on Liz's RfA, so if it is to be discussed further, it should probably move to the Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What trouble do you have with "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia"? That doesn't say "anywhere in Wikipedia except articles". While the NPA page has been massaged by someone(s) over the last couple of years to limit the examples to inter-editor disputes, it's been interpreted since it was written as also applying to content, that hasn't changed, and this interpretation is deeply embedded in WP:BLP, WP:AFD, etc. Just search the WP and WT namespaces for "attack page" for plenty of relevant reading material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved extended discussion here.

A:: Mr. Wales has suffered enough! He doesn't deserve to be treated like this. I'm invoking Wikipedia:Not a barbarian horde and strongly suggesting that questions here be a little more considerate. --Djembayz (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Q17

Additional question from IHTS

17. Explain please why you feel it is more important to keep your username physically larger than 99.9% of other users' user signatures, instead of shinking it sufficiently such that it doesn't perpetually throw off line spacing where ever your posts might be read. (It's a constant minor irritant that never goes away, since it's 99.9% unexpected, since is so unusual. Why is your personal signature size worth messing with line spacing for all readers where you might ever post? Each time it causes a flashed thought of missing a user post causing a paragraph break, a user forgot to sign in the previous paragraph, "is something wrong with my computer", etc. etc. These "flash-thoughts" are involuntary BTW, just like if I say "cow" you can't not flash-think of that animal. You never got this feedback from me, do you think I'm alone? Would it cause you to cry to shrink your username to not throw off vertical line-spacing? Vertical line spacing has meaning on WP, which other than images is all about text, sentences, paragraphs. If you think your username distorting vertical line spacing is "not disallowed", I'm not interested in hearing that because that isn't the point.) IHTS (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want insert myself too much, but this is ridiculous. Either ask a question or don't, and spare us the invective. If you feel the need to go on a petulant rant about the candidate, you can add it to the petulant rant you already posted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My Q isn't "about the candidate", it's clear I'm asking if she will do something about the size of her sig, and let her know clearly my issue w/ it. And don't go pretending your comment is face-value, you've been consistently harassing me at community boards when given the chance, ever since I posted to your Talk over three years ago [2]. (Meanwhile, I have consistently left you alone/never initiated anything with you.) Are you an admin?? (Very impressive.) IHTS (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A: I have to be honest, Ihardlythinkso, this is the first complaint I've received about my signature. My signature used to be in a cursive font and a standard size but, for some reason, that font is no longer available. I saw another user's signature I liked and borrowed this font from them. I'm sorry you find it so distracting. I will search for a font that is less oversized but still distinctive so you might see changes to it in the near future.

Thanks for being responsive to my Q, which of course was sincere. p.s. Looks like you've already collected an admin willing to be your "attack dog" (i.e. Blade). Have seen that before. He s/ get off my case. (Take a look at my Oppose. Nothing there other !voters have not also mentioned, no undue length, nothing unprofessional. Yet he characterizes as "petulant rant". [Do you see what snide *shit* admins are capable of!? In spite of "behavior at a higher standard"!? When you get the tools, warn him for me, then block his arse if he does again.]) Thanks again, and best of luck in your new role as admin. IHTS (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Liz, it isn't necessary to change your preferred font, just change the size parm 4 → 2, ala [3]. IHTS (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, noticed you recently reduced sig size 4 → 3. Not perfect, but vert spacing is distorted less, so thanks! ("[...] perfection is the province of the divine, not us mere mortals. Allegedly. Eric Corbett 19:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)") IHTS (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

IHTS, I reduced the size to 2 but it seemed to shrink the letter to smaller than regular font size so 3 seemed like a good compromise. I'll be keeping this change so thanks for telling me how to change it so easily. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, Bish's gets tiny, but I can read yours OK at sz 2 [4] (under my viewpreference settings); but am seeing lots more usernames now sz 3, so yours is in a comfy norm now. Thx again. IHTS (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso, I think your way of asking this question was asinine, but given your well-known dislike of almost all admins it was to be expected. Liz, this was not the first time: see Begoon's question to you at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_84, where you complied, at least for the length of the thread. While I agree with the general point, that your signature is a bit problematic, one can hardly take that as a signal that you're unfit to be an administrator. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You have a better memory than I do, Drmies.

As I was pinged, a response - Liz will make a fine administrator - she has common sense in abundance, and enormous commitment. Signatures which bugger up line spacing annoy me. They seem to say "look at me". It's no huge thing, just a personal preference. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, okay my Q could have been presented better, but I'm not the diplomat, you are. (Perhaps because this section requires items to be couched in form of questions, and mine was really a request, helped trip me up, too.) BTW, it was a simple request, not in any way an implication "unfit for admin". (As far as I knew, she was unaware. So I included some detail.) ¶ Re "disliking almost all admins", how about putting a plug in your penchant to stereotype/defame. (I always base views on anyone on one-on-one experience with them - admin or not has nothing to do with. I've noticed many really smart minds do this [e.g. Eric Corbett, George Carlin, etc.], they see individuals, only individuals, and hold behavior accountable, if appropriate, at that level. I try to emulate those role models. [If you think I've failed, then enter a discussion page you & me and we'll get to the bottom of it. Instead of throwing mud then skipping Dodge.]) IHTS (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved extended discussion here.

Q22 Follow-up

@Liz: Thanks for your speedy reply to my question. I'm neutral leaning support at the moment, and I have a quick follow-up if you have time.

• Would you be open to working with an experienced admin as a sort of mentor when eventually starting to close AfD discussions?
• Do you see yourself getting involved in content disputes, CSD, or RPP? If so, is that something you'd start right away or would you enter those areas similarly to how you've stated you'll enter AfD?

Thanks for taking the time to respond, and please don't let this RfA discourage you, whichever way it goes. The somewhat harsh comments aren't only a function of you; they're a function of the fact that the only method to remove a sysop is ArbCom, and as you certainly know, that can be an arduous process. ~ Rob^Talk 20:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, I'd love to work with a mentor. While I made a few AfD noms in the past, I'm a relative newcomer to AfD and CSD. I got involved over the past month because I knew editors would want to check my stats so I had to provide them with some information to check out. I know I'm no expert, I didn't even list AfD and CSD as areas that I wanted to work in as an admin.

I won't be jumping into disputes, if I pass, I intend to primarily use the tools for my work as a clerk and in CfD cases, both areas where I feel confident and have experience. There seems to be an idea floating around that once an editor is given the tools, they will go on a deleting or blocking spree. But I see great admins who have rarely deleted articles or blocked editors. Plus, why would any editor suffer through an RfA only to run amok and then get desysopped? It doesn't make any sense to me but people seem to have fears about the worse, most unlikely scenario coming true. I can reassure people that I will act cautiously but I can't combat fear.

I hope this helps address your concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

History in the making

No successful candidate has ever had more than 70 opposes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This RfA has the same percentage of opposes as many successful RfAs so I don't see this as anything dramatic. There was an above average number of voters here. Sam Walton (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, Hawkeye. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Don't know how I missed that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

All arbitrators elected in 2014 had 100 or more opposes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's the proportion that counts, not the numbers. I find the attempts by both supporters and opponents to bolster their case by referring to the exceptionally high number of !votes in their camp inappropriate. The percentage of support/oppose is in the discretionary range, so it will be up to the 'crats to decide on this, based on their reading of the arguments brought forward. That there were more opposes/supports than usual in the last couple of years is immaterial. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to bolster anything, I was trying to remind Liz that this awful experience has a positive. The 'crats will discuss and make a decision. I hope that they will look at arguments and discount some votes, but I'm glad it's not one I'm having to deal with. That said, I'm biased and I can see how I'd close it :) Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the proportions makes it worth: the best 345s to 100o, the last 227s to 154o, - we seem to ask less of a support factor for arbs than for admins, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We use very different systems to elect arbs and admins, the results are no more comparable than the results of driving tests for the competitors in a cycle race. If we started to elect admins on the same system as arbs then we would see voters opposing because they considered that there were better candidates available for a limited number of positions, I suspect that many of the oppose votes in arb elections would happily support if the question was should this person be reelected as an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Danny_2 would have been below discretionary today and Danny was standing to get tools back (he didn't have to). DAnny already passed RfA before and was also steward. He chose to stand for admin after resigning from WMF. It was not a normal RfA and not an initial RfA. Liz has better percentages than Danny. That said, there is obviously significant polarization with a large number of oppose !votes with similar reasoning. Earlier this week, Cyberpower was closed as "No consensus" with similar percentage but much less community attention (which I think shows more entrenched positions here). Also the trend was downward after the first day. Nearly the first hundred supports were in very early and then opposition grew creating a trend. --DHeyward (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The actual numbers S:100/O:7 first 2 days; S:98/O:64 !votes final 5 days. --DHeyward (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower had less than 74%.Aero Slicer 12:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower withdrew before the 'crats had made a decision. Worm^TT(talk) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz is less than 74% as well but same ballpark. The discussion for Cyberpower was split leaning very heavily no consensus: Closed as no consensus in light of split responses above. The withdrawal ended the discussion where it stood as NC and it was chosen to log as "no consensus" despite withdrawal with the discussion siding with Acalimiri that noted lack of article writing and large swing of momentum to oppose as it progressed. --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was my vote removed twice? Once under IP, and another under my account? AmericanEnki (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@AmericanEnki: Could you provide diffs that show your votes being deleted? See WP:DIFF on how to do that if you need assistance. ~ Rob^Talk 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13 I initially commented under my IP, here is the removal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz&diff=prev&oldid=674508906 Therefore no one could've known my personal opinions on GG. And though I may have an opinion on the matter, I'm not the one trying to give my opinion authority by becoming a mod. AmericanEnki (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@AmericanEnki: The IP vote was removed because IPs are not allowed to vote in an RfA. You also mentioned that you voted with an account. Could you provide a diff of that? ~ Rob^Talk 13:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

vote from my account missed time cut off. Not by much but it did.. AmericanEnki (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't a vote, it was a disruptive attempt to remove another user's vote (in retaliation for this removal of an SPA vote). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I opted not to vote because of my personal opinions and the fact my account is SP. PtF clearly is GamerGate SP only, and I used the same logic applied to the above comment. Why is mine considered disruptive? Because its using the same logic just for the opposing viewpoint? AmericanEnki (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because one was made by a bureaucrat, charged by the community to look after the RfA process, a person with years of experience and evidence of acting neutrally, and the other was made by an IP address clearly in retaliation of the first? (Note said crat removed both a support and an oppose) Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because PeterTheFourth clearly isn't a single-purpose account (whilst he's made some GG-related edits, he's also edited extensively on other topics), and because you persistently edit-warred while logged out to maintain your strikethrough? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of me edit warring while logged out, because if I was doing so even I'm not aware. And PtF isnt SP? Do a percentage of edits of GG related to nonGG and get back to me on that. AmericanEnki (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying this edit and this edit weren't you? Given that you've already admitted above to being the same user as 166.170.54.137, and that 166.177.184.174 is on the same provider and geolocates to the same place, I find that unlikely. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He tried removing valid critism to his vote. If someone thought it wasn't a valid criticism someone other than the user the criticism is directed at should remove it. Me and my friend revised. The IPs are clearly different, how is that warring? Warring is three or more revisions by the same person. Which clearly didn't occur. AmericanEnki (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You may want to brush up on your Wikipedia policies. Edit warring is repeated reversion, not 3 or more. 3RR is a brightline blockable offence. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. My criticism was removed without good reasoning and PtFs a single purpose account with clear biases and should not vote on this, just as Liz should not be a mod because they WP:PUSH. Still don't believe PtF is single purpose? Lookie here[[5]] AmericanEnki (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've explained what happened. You assumed that you could criticise by striking someone elses vote. That is not acceptable on RfA, except by those who are carefully chosen to do so. It's not about criticism, gamergate or the truth, you simply do not have the right to strike someone elses vote. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If I have criticism with someones vote and in order for the criticism to be heard what steps should I take? I'm sorry for my previous method but I think you'll find my point is valid. AmericanEnki (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses to any votes could be made while the RfA is live by any logged in editors. Look through the RfA, you can see it happening a lot. Worm^TT(talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13 I have zero knowledge about Gamergate, one vote was striked out as related to Gamergate. This user is having some relation with Gamergate -whatever this gamergate is. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi, User:AmericanEnki/sandbox/GamerGate Movement. Aero Slicer 13:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy gets it. Now apply this exact logic to PtF please. AmericanEnki (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• This RfA is a perfect example of why my past proposal to apply affirmative action to this forum should have been implemented. We have a female editor here who has courageously raised her hand to volunteer to be an admin on WP, a thankless and often tedious job, and her nomination is being torpedoed by sexism and misogyny. If WP is ever going to get a fairer representation of women in its admin corps, it needs to use affirmative action to help it so train wrecks like this RfA won't continue to happen. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect Cla68 - while I did see a support or two due to which referenced Liz's gender, I don't recall seeing ANY opposes due to gender. Adminship should have absolutely 0 to do with gender. I think you are WAY off base with your comment. — Ched :  ?  00:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cla68, you're giving concern trolling a bad name. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As well as venue shopping — Cla68 voiced this concern also on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, six minutes after this. Maybe you should complement those two with the cratchat talkpage too? Bishonen | talk 06:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC). Added: Sorry, I see you did, I was mixing them up. WP:BN is the one you haven't been to yet. Bishonen | talk 06:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

It's easier to make multiple talk-page complaints than a single !vote? Poe's law? --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

MastCell is spot-on. The concern is fake judging by Cla88's entire editing history, his role in the GamerGate mess, and contributions of pure men's rights POV gold like here and here. --SonicY (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Missed the boat.

For the record, I would have easily voted Support for this RfA if I had been paying attention to RfA. bd2412 T 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Another late support. I have come across Liz on talk pages, and noticed that she always handles things smoothly and competently. I find absurd the view that she hasn't created enough articles to understand how content creators work: she has shown excellent skills at dealing with them. And as for WP:NOTHERE: she is helping to create a better Wikipedia, in a more effective way than writing content herself. Maproom (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone engaging in pushing their agenda should not be a moderator. AmericanEnki (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Any administrator can find thousands of administrative tasks that are completely unrelated to any issue they might be involved with as an editorial matter. bd2412 T 17:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • "I intend to work in areas I'm familiar with" - Liz AmericanEnki (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The context for that statement is in her answer to Q1 which in full is "I intend to work in areas I'm familiar with, specifically, in my clerk duties for ArbCom and also in WP:CFD discussions. I'm becoming more familiar with deletion discussions and would start off cautiously with areas like WP:EXPROD, WP:EXPRODBLP, CAT:EMPTY,Category:Expired editnotices and CAT:G13. I'd also like to help out on noticeboards like WP:RFPP and WP:UAA. Aside from working in backlogged administrative areas, I also want to spend time discussing with new editors problems that might occur regarding appropriate usernames and user page issues like WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY" quoted out of context that might sound like an admin who needs a reminder about not pushing an agenda, putting the quote in context I see the usual sign of a good candidate wanting to start using the mop in areas where they are qualified to do so. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree. That is hardly a declaration of intent to mix editorial and admin hats. She also says, for example, "I would not leap into deleting articles. I'd continue to participate in discussions, then at some point start closing some uncontroversial, self-evident AfDs", which indicates an intent to use the admin powers to engage in what are very routine admin tasks. Also, some admin powers are entirely appropriate to use in an involved situation. For example, if I am involved in a deletion discussion, and another admin closes the discussion as "delete", I can (irrespective of my participation in the discussion) clean up stray redirects to the deleted page. As another example, I do a lot of work on articles about judges, and I would not hesitate to delete a redirect to make a noncontroversial page move for an article I have written on a judge. bd2412 T 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I guess we'll wait and see what happens if you give a pusher admin rights when all they do is monitor chats and push their POV, godspeed to the dissident opinions, as her will be official policy. My accounts one week old and I've already produced half the articles she has, shouldn't that be telling? AmericanEnki (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Your only article got deleted for being poorly written, not actually using any sources that mention the topic of the article, pushing a POV, and being an attack on Wikipedia editors you don't like. I wouldn't boast about that. You have also provided no evidence of Liz being an evil POV pusher who is ruining everything. Images of pots and kettles come to mind. Brustopher (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Where did I ever claim she was evil, you can civilly push your view. Im fine with that, and so is Wikipedia policy. What Im not ok with is giving a POV pusher admin status, I wouldnt want me to be a mod either. And attacking them? I wasn't aware facts are an attack. AmericanEnki (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi, User:AmericanEnki/sandbox/GamerGate Movement tell something, all right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Yup and heres an archive of the GamerGhazi article: https://archive.is/ZAaAs AmericanEnki (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AmericanEnki, from your recent edits you seem to have become obsessed with this RfA, even though as you know it closed a few hours ago. I suggest that you find something else to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nah, I'm ok. AmericanEnki (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, you're really not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ive admitted my biases and am not the one looking or admin status. AmericanEnki (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just drop it, AE. It is boring, no-one is going to pay any attention to you on-wiki, and you're potentially making matters worse for a lot of other people. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Registered 7/29/2015; 81 edits - GamerGate-related. Totally checks out. Why aren't we AGFing I say. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been away and less active due to travel. Had I noticed in time, I would have voted oppose, substantially for the reasons set forth by GregJackP. And I've not been thrilled about her tone in certain posts I've read. For anything it's worth, no. I need to check RfA more often. Or start watchlisting RfA redlinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Put this atop your talk page for a continually updated RfA tracker: {{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:User:Cyberpower678/RfX_Report|R}} > 1000|{{User:Cyberpower678/RfX_Report|align=left|duplicate=hide|time_format=G:i n/j/Y}}|No [[WP:RfA|RfA]]s or [[WP:RfB|RfB]]s reported by [[User:Cyberbot I|<span style="color: green; font-family: Courier">Cyberbot I</span>]] since {{#time:G:i n/j/Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:User:Cyberpower678/RfX_Report}}}} ([[UTC]])}}  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Or simply add WP:Requests for adminship to your watchlist. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• My goodness. I missed the boat too. All this time, I simply assumed Liz was an admin, and doing a fine job too. Choor monster (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Missed the boat too due to IRL business. Offering my support for Liz too. Deryck C. 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Also too late and also assumed that Liz was already an admin and would have voted support. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As a side note, it occurs to me that posting post-hoc "support"/"oppose" votes may be undermining the deadline just a bit ... but I'm sure the wiki will survive it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to bureaucrat discussion

The link to bureaucrat discussion is hard to see on the main page, as its text has been struck out. I'm adding it again here, in the interests of transparency for anyone who may be attempting to figure out how things are done on this site. --Djembayz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the strike out, as I agree this may be confusing. WJBscribe (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Liz!

--AmritasyaPutra^T 05:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2022

Hello, I have 6 lint error clearing requests for this page.

Requested changes

Please change this "wikilink in external link" error (one appearance): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Sudqi_Ayyash&diff=next&oldid=673890129 this [[WP:PROD]]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Sudqi_Ayyash&diff=next&oldid=673890129 this] [[WP:PROD]] Please change HTML5 Obsolete font tags (two appearances of this error): [[User:Liz|<font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">'''''L'''''iz</font>]] to [[User:Liz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: large; color: #800080;">'''''L'''''iz</span>]] Please change HTML5 Obsolete font tags (one appearance): [[User:Liz|<font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">'''''L'''''iz</font>]] to [[User:Liz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: medium; color: #800080;">'''''L'''''iz</span>]] Please change HTML5 Obsolete font tags (one appearance): [[User:Editorofthewiki|<font color="#F900">EDDY</font>]] to [[User:Editorofthewiki|<span style="color: red">EDDY</span>]] Please change HTML5 Obsolete tt tags (one appearance): <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> to <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp>

These stated changes will clear the page of the errors listed here Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done however, @Zinnober9: I unprotected this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I've made the above changes. Page is now clear of issues. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)