Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Oppose I have a major concern that she's been mislabeling edits as vandalism that aren't, and I think a good candidate for admin should have a strong understanding of what is and what isn't vandalism. Particularly when "blocking obvious vandals" is a primary reason for wanting adminship. Also pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12. RO(talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you are asking a candidate to explain what is clear, to almost any WP editor, vandalism or digging back to 2007 and a first article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
But as I said the diffs you presented are quite clearly vandalism. She obviously knows what vandalism as as these diffs indicate. I don't like to create a lot of heat on an RfA but this question and diffs are misleading, in my mind. Something to think about. I won't add more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Is adding or removing a Wikilink vandalism: ([1])? RO(talk) 01:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. At the very greatest, this merits a "neutral" !vote, not "oppose". Epic Genius (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, You're right about that one. I'll strike it. RO(talk) 02:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The questions are relevant. Please don't try to make this about me. A good candidate for admin should have no problem answering my questions. But I could certainly expand on the oppose, if that's what you're asking me to do. Is it? RO(talk) 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not wait until the candidate actually answers the questions before making your judgments? Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. And yes, if possible, please elaborate on why you will oppose on the basis of "pending satisfactory answers to questions 10, 11, and 12". Epic Genius (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have lots of other reasons why I opposed this candidate, but I'd prefer to keep my oppose relevant to adminship and policy. I can supply more problematic diffs if that's what you're asking me to do, but I suggest you don't and wait and see how she answers. RO(talk) 00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Rationalobserver, WP:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out reads: "There is no policy against editing while logged out. ... Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts ... editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki." (emphasis added) It seems to me that Q11, as currently written, violates this policy. I ask you to strike it, or reword it so that it asks only about use of IP editing for improper purposes, as listed in WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Editing an article is not such an improper purpose. DES(talk) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But can you edit an article with your account, and also argue against a copyright violation tag at that article with the IP that you never claimed was yours? Can you use it to vandalize Wikipedia? RO(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be vague, so I wasn't ambushing with a specific accusation, which I'd rather not go into if possible. Lets she how she answers. RO(talk) 01:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is wrong, via any account or IP. Using an IP to pretend to be a 2nd person falsely trying to gain consensus for any editing or policy position, including the removal of a copyright tag, is also wrong. But your question wasn't narrowly tailored to any such situation. DES(talk) 01:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DES is right that IP editing while simultaneously having an account is not illegal. Also, as currently worded, Q 11 seems combative. Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But can you edit an article with both an IP and an account, and support each other without ever revealing that the IP and the account are both you? RO(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you can disclose the IP to administrators privately without violating either WP:OUTING or WP:ILLEGIT, and without resulting in yourself getting blocked.... Epic Genius (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver has a right to express her opinion here without being harassed or badgered because of her opposition. She stated exactly what her opinion was, there was no ambiguity, and if you don't like it, then don't use it as a reason to oppose. I think she's wrong (I support the nomination), but she absolutely has the right to oppose the nomination without being hounded about it. GregJackPBoomer! 00:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's real sweet of you, GregJackP, but I'm a woman, not a dude. RO(talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I've changed the pronouns, and I did not mean to offend. GregJackPBoomer! 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, I just wanted you to know. RO(talk) 01:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver has a right to express her views of the nomination. She does not have the right to ask for information that policy specifically says need not be disclosed. Others have the right to express their disagreement with her views, or with anyone's views, either in hops of changing those views, or in hopes of persuading others not to adopt them. Doing so is not harassment or badgering. However, making such points over and over, to many different users on similar grounds, can become disruptive, in my view. DES(talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It works both ways. If you are going to try and shut up editors who are asking polite questions of supporters who put down no reason at all for supporting a nomination, then you should not be doing the exact same thing to the (currently) sole voice in opposition. When enough people do it, especially repeatedly towards the same person, it is both badgering and harassment. It is inappropriate and hypocritical, and you are a better person and admin than that. I expect better of you. GregJackPBoomer! 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking someone politely, and away from the RfA at that, to stop making edits that I at least saw as disruptive is not "trying to shut that person up" in my view. There is a difference between attempting to rebut an expressed view, individually with arguments addressed to that view, and making repeated more or less boilerplate requests for editors to explain or expand on their views. That is how I see it. DES(talk) 01:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin, going to a user's talk page and telling him that he is "disruptive" at RfA is not a polite request, it is a veiled threat and is chilling to any discussion on giving someone a lifetime appointment to the bit and mop. And if you want to talk to someone about RfA discussions, look at this thread. RO has been hammered by about 2200 words (thus far) complaining about her position, and thus far only Epicgenius has acknowledged that (yeah, I know that you said that she could express her views above, right before you accuse her of asking for information that policy does not require). Everyone else is lining up to take a free shot at her, and as an admin, you should be putting a stop to this harassment and badgering, not encouraging it or participating in it. You're better than that. GregJackPBoomer! 04:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: you are totally correct that RO should have the privilege to give her opinion. @Rationalobserver: I apologize if I offended you with my clarifying questions, but I was just wondering why on earth would you oppose before getting the information necessary to make a definite decision. Epic Genius (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GregJackP! But DES, I'm not asking her to reveal a specific IP address. I'm asking in a general way if she's ever operated both an account and an IP that edited the same pages and supported each other, but were never officially claimed to ArbCom. Isn't that required by policy? RO(talk) 01:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a specific incident is involved, then an IP address is in the history, and would be revealed by a "yes" answer as belonging to the candidate. That siad, a question along the lines of "did you use an IP address improperly on a page you were also editing with your registered account" would be different. And of course, one might not know it. I have often saved edits not realizing that my session had ended, and not noticed them until I returned to the page hours or days later. Probably there are some I never did notice. (To avoid this I now have css in place that turns the "save" button light green if I am logged in.) That may not be plausible in a particular situation, i can't say since i don' know the details. In any case there are I belive various legit ways to handle such a situation, not all involving arbcom. DES(talk) 01:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and again, I was really just trying to be less accusatory and more probing for policy based answers that pertained to adminship. I will say that if my suspicions are correct, the candidate concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time, but I'm still waiting for her answer! RO(talk) 01:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's nothing polite about Q.10 - that's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variant. RO asks "will you please offer a policy-based explanation for why you labeled each of the following edits as vandalism?" - making the implication that MontanaBW labelled valid edits as vandalism. But if you look at the sequence of edits prior to those diffs, you see where the vandalism occurred: This one at Piebald, for example, has an edit summary "OK, let's try that again, revert ALL vandalism" - the vandalism took place three edits earlier when 165.138.86.154 changed "black and white" to "blue". Is anyone seriously contending that making Wikipedia refer to "the distinctive blue plumage of the magpie" is not a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia per WP:VAND? Look at the Victor Espinoza diff (edit summary: Start to fix the vandalism). The vandalism was seven edits earlier when User:Slaymus changed "Jockey" to "horse ejaculator" - why isn't he permanently blocked? (because we don't have enough admins, I guess). Anyway MontanaBW was - as she said - making a start by restoring the wiki-link to Jockey that had been missed when another editor tried to fix the "horse ejaculator" nonsense. And so on. If RO had done her homework on those diffs, she would have seen that MontanaBW was fixing earlier vandalism or making a start on doing that. I am obliged to assume good faith and ascribe that to mere incompetence, rather than malice, but I'm finding that quite a stretch. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still trying to make this about me, but it's not about me, it's about Montanabw. Is unlinking jockey vandalism: ([2])? RO(talk) 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding a book to the bibliography of an article vandalism: ([3])? This edit was four days ago! RO(talk) 02:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: before the vandalism, Jockey was linked [4]. Fact: Slaymus changed "Jockey" to "horse ejaculator" (incontrovertible vandalism) and that's where the link was lost [5]. Fact: two edits later an IP partially fixed the vandalism by changing "horse ejaculator" to "Jockey", but failed to restore the wikilink [6]. Fact: MontanaBW restored the link that had been removed by the vandal with the edit summary "Start to fix the vandalism" [7]. Look, we know you've had run-ins with her, but that doesn't justify pretending that MontanaBW was labelling just the removal of a wiki-link as vandalism. Even you can see that she was fixing the part of the vandalism that the IP hadn't corrected - and that's what her edit summary told you. When it gets to the stage that you are trying hard to make perfectly good clean-up after vandalism appear as something that it isn't, then it does become about you. Why not just have the good grace to admit your question was unfair and strike it? --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was this vandalism: ([8])? RO(talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a real book. And look at the title and publisher really carefully—this looks like a high schooler doing you-know-what with Wikipedia. So yes, that is vandalism. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book in question claims to be published by "Precision Chicken" - something of red flag, wouldn't you agree? The book, the Bloviator, actually exists, but it's fiction. It was placed in the section that contains the books used as references for the article (the article uses shortened footnotes), but as a work of fiction, it was not used as a reference and had no place there. MontanaBW's edit summary: "Appears to be vandalism". Too damn right it was. Now, if that's the best you've got, how about you give it a rest, because you're just demonstrating how little you understand of article content and construction, when you're trying to find fault in this sort of clean-up work that MontanaBW engages in. --RexxS (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't an admin know the difference between self-promotion and vandalism? RO(talk) 02:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't these types of edits be reverted anyway? (No sarcasm there.) Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion that continued after the one above was moved[edit]
Please note I have blocked RationalObserver for 48 hours for persistent badgering on this RfA after reverting a request to not do so. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolute crap, and another example of the harassment and badgering that go on to people that oppose a nomination. They say something that people don't like, so they get blocked, instead of being allowed to state their opinion on the nominee. GregJackPBoomer! 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree RO should tone it down a bit, but I was right in there when a lot of the issues she is bitter about were going on, and, pardon the pun, but her irrationatility should probably be tolerated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010: if you want Pokerkiller to add to their comment, why are you commenting on the Rfa instead of User talk:Pokerkiller?
Guerillero: a. do you sincerely believe the closing Bureaucrat is not going to count Pokerkiller's vote due to Davey2010's statement? So why not ignore it? b. If you wish to discuss it with him User talk:Davey2010 would be a better starting place. NE Ent 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP The comment was not polite and non-confrontational; "you need to" is imperative rather than polite, and if you call someone out on a forum instead of their talk page, that's confrontational. NE Ent 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it was polite and non-confrontational, unless one is overly sensitive. It is not some form of micro-aggression to tell someone that they should provide a reason to give someone the bit for life. Remember, I am supporting Montanabw for admin, but I am tired of anyone who dares to actually think for themselves being swarmed by those who cannot do so, and who depend on the groupthink hivemind to tell them which way to go. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Davey's question. GregJackPBoomer! 03:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because RFA seemed the correct place to ask ? ... It's no different to AFD - If someone says "Keep" without a reason you then ask why ....., As for my comment "not being polite and non-confrontational" - That's utter bollocks! - The comment was polite and non-confrontational. –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the longstanding convention at RFA and require Supporters to at least say "per nom" in their support then may I suggest you propose that change at WT RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 06:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In those two examples I don't see anywhere that she "assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women". I do see where she disagreed with your delete !vote, and you later withdrew that vote (because following article re-factoring you believed the subject might be sufficiently notable). I think if you are going to make a case here, you need better examples. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. After refactoring the article (Dating Violence Awareness Week) I reserved judgment, needing some time to re-evaluate the situation. I withdrew the !vote that was cast judging the article as it was at the time, and later re-instated my "delete" !vote with a different rationale, addressing the shape of the article as it is now. Check the editing history, at no time I cast a "keep" !vote. Kraxler (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't mistaken, that's exactly what I said happened; and you've not countered my concerns about your mischaracterization of Montanabw's actions. Softlavender (talk)
You wrote "you believed the subject might be sufficiently notable". I did no such thing. I suggest you stand by what you write or cease to take part in debate. As to her !vote at the Marta Urzua AfD, read Sandstein's closing rationale, Montanabw's !vote was so far off the guidelines, I can only hope she'll not be tempted (Iif this RfA passes) to close any AfD following that line of thinking. Kraxler (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Dating Violence Awareness Week AfD Montanabw wrote: "I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered." Now, Softlavender, you say "I don't see anywhere that she "assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women" Well, open your eyes. (Note: Article was deleted because it was a one-time event with only very little local coverage without lasting impact.) Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could ya'll (Kraxler, Softlavender) give it a rest? Kraxler has provided wikilinks to support their opinion; I'm confident Rfa voters are capable of reviewing the linked pages and forming their own opinion.NE Ent 12:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kraxler, in the AfD you wrote: "The article has been edited to completely change the scope and actual content, so I withdraw my !vote." The only reason to withdraw a delete !vote is the presumption that the subject might be sufficiently notable; as you said above, "I reserved judgment, needing some time to re-evaluate the situation." And as far as your claim that Montanabw assumes bad faith and accuses other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women, you still have not provided any evidence of any of that -- that is, no evidence of assuming bad faith, and no evidence of accusing other voters of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women. Nowhere did she assume bad faith about you, and nowhere did she accuse you of wilfully promoting systemic bias against women. In point of fact, she avoided accusing you or anyone of wilfully promoting anything, while at the same time reminding you that there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia against women and non-Anglophones that needs to be brought to light and avoided. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias can not be addressed by compulsive hoarding. I have written 46 out of 140 entries at Category:Women state legislators in New York. 140 is about the total number of existing women state legislators in NY where women conquered the right to vote in 1918. There have been thousands of male state legislators, so you see that "systemic bias" is a question of fact. To override the Wikipedia deletion guidelines and policies to forcibly change that is poor judgment. To write articles on really notable women (as I did) is the path to follow, not to (in the future) throw one's admin weight around to force non-notable subjects to be retained. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still making a lot of completely off-topic statements, and a lot of allegations about Montanabw not backed up by any facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken again. AfD has always been one of the most important RfA topics. Kraxler (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misdirection yet again. This is my last time repeating this: You have made a number of allegations about Montanabw not backed up by any facts. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facts speak for themselves, just look at the linked context and open your eyes. Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Man am I disappointed. Earlier today I was looking at your user page, thinking you might be a fun dinner date, feeling warm and fuzzy at the prospect that soon two of the four most recent promotions would be women (a 50% ratio!), but then a few things I saw started pricking some holes in my bubble. So I reluctantly concluded that I would need to do some due diligence. I'm truly sorry, my search of the Administrator's Noticeboard turned up 96 hits. I don't need to go into details, as the section headers speak for themselves. I didn't have the stomach to glance through more than a few of them. For comparison, searching on myself, I only found 15 hits. And mine are just mostly routine stuff: some testing that I mentioned in my RfA, a report about one of my bots' predecessors being down, adding a permalink for reference, etc. One substantive discussion I noticed was about conduct relating to my RfA, which I wasn't even aware of until I just looked at it. I can grant a few passes, but sorry, this is way more drama than I can handle. I hope the community doesn't hate me for this. SO SO sorry. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You judge the suitability of female admin candidates by whether or not they'd be a fun dinner date? Brustopher (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spit take. I had 689 edits to ANI when I had my RFA. You need to actually do due diligence to figure out what is drama, how many boomerangs occurred, and what is Montanabw seeking admin assistance. --NeilNtalk to me 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My similar search on you found 275 hits. What I was looking for was incidents, not individual edits. Your record doesn't have any "headlines" screaming at me, and appears like you patrolled for bad actors. Lots of "User x reported by User:Neil N." We're comparing apples and oranges. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent some time going into the details of your search, as the section headings do not speak for themselves, and I don't find Montanabw perfect, but I see nothing that indicates they shouldn't be an admin. I see that she has tangled with some tendentious people and supported some experienced editors, but when people have tried to say bad things about her, the conclusion has generally been that she is not the problem. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
section: Montanabw allegedly bites Bu************
section: User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark ********
section: Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?)
section Montanabw personal attacks
section User:Montanabw reported by User:Alv******** (Result: Both warned)
section Montanabw behavior
section Montanabw personal attacks
section User:Montanabw reported by User:Nom************* (Result: Article Protected)
section User:Montanabw reported by User:Sh***** (Result: Protected)
section Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw
and on it goes. I realize that these are just charges I'm looking at, and if these were brought before ArbCom they would need to be thoroughly investigated. There's just so many of them, from so many different editors. It's a lot of smoke, and when there's this much smoke, there's usually some fire. Y'all have a benign explanation for this? Why can't she stop these from escalating? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She can't control what other editors do. RFA candidates really are in a no-win situation here. Spend your time doing cleanup tasks and you have no idea what content contributors go through and out of ignorance will block them when they rise to some bait or argue too passionately for their edits. Be a prolific content contributor and you don't need the tools or you'll abuse the tools because you've been content disputes that have been escalated. If you're going to ding an editor for being at ANI too often then your view would have more weight if you provided specific instances where the outcome pointed towards their disruption. --NeilNtalk to me 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say when there's this much smoke, there's usually some fire. Then find the fire. I don't find blowing smoke or innuendo persuasive. I didn't read all of those 96 hits, but I didn't find reason to oppose in the ones I did. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at these a little closer. I am making some assumptions here but I think these are the threads, assuming they are taken in order from the search results:
To Wbm1058: As I noted (or at least hinted at) in my Support !vote, Montanbw is one of the fairly few editors who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of her time keeping the trolls (and their socks) away. The trolls and vandals fight back, and try to get Montanabw in trouble at ANI. She has emerged with a perfectly clean block log and a record and reputation for exposing and ousting the most problematic of trolls and abusers. Other Wikipedians are not made of such stern stuff. Your complete lack of due diligence and your basing on oppose vote on ANI mentions alone is way out of line and based on completely erroneous logic. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I wasn't going to go here, but SoftLavenders's last comment was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm sure she remembers this ANI (it was only five months ago) in which three editors, of whom I was one, were being harrassed with accusations of sock puppetry, and in which she (Softlavender) stated to one of us: ""TheGracefulSlick", if anything at worst you are just digging yourself in deeper and calling attention to your disruption and probable sockpuppetry." Outrageous. The reason this ANI was closed wasn't because there wasn't a raging fire burning, but because one admin decided to close it with a veiled warning. There was plenty of fire there. And, Wbm1058 asks a good question in "Why can't she stop these from escalating? It's because she goads her suspected socks or what she perceives as problem editors into taking her to ANI, hoping for a boomerang. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn, my opinion is you've done nothing but grudgematching on this entire RfA, unlike TheGracefulSlick, who is now a big Montanabw fan and friend, so I think your motivations and opinion here are a bit suspect. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your completely unsupported opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark ******** is the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238#User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Mark Marathon blocked). The other editor was blocked for one week for edit warring and Montanabw was not blocked. Date of thread: 2014.
That was a serious miscarriage of justice. In that instance, Mark got railroaded by Montanabw and her mates. (Don't read the various executive summaries on ANI or user talk pages; follow the actual dispute, diff by diff, on the article and its talk page.) This is my concern about this user and why I'm not voting. Undoubtedly bright and a strong-willed contributor, but heavily embedded in a mutual support group that get each other's back - regardless of who's in the wrong.
In the Mark Marathon case, he put 3 [citation needed] tags and 2[clarification needed] tags on one of Montanabw's articles. One [citation needed] tag was a mistake - the source at the very end of the paragraph supported the claim - but the other tags were all valid. Montanabw edit-warred all the tags off the article, at one point adding 20-odd tags to the article just to make a point.
At ANI, User:Wehwalt and User:RexxS (sorry man, you know I love you) and others backed her up; Mark was accused of "tag-bombing", etc. Dangerous Panda blocked Mark for the edit war then lied that it was for something else. It. Was. Appalling.
Call me a dreamer. I honestly can't say why - but I think/hope Montanabw is better than that, and can rise above the instinct to savage anyone who dares to challenge her perfectness. I also have a lot of sympathy for her and the others in her gang who have had to deal with some awful socks over the years. So, let's just say a little prayer together now that Montanabw won't be using blocking or threats of blocking to unduly govern topic areas she and her friends own. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean to ping Dianaa on this; I have not commented on the item(s) you are highlighting. My post was about the sum total of M's ANI results, not a particular one out of the hundreds dozens of results where she is mentioned or accused or where she participated in or opened a thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC); edited 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't disagree with the last part of that anyway. Were the substance of the rest even true, given that I do manage to get the occasional article through FA, I'm reminded of Lincoln's comment when told General Grant was a drunkard. A barrel of my brand of whisky, coming your way C.O.D.! I've worked with MontanaBW on an FA as I have many people, even people I deeply disagree with. Because content is what we produce and the reader doesn't care about petty grievances backstage. Which apparently you hold towards me, given your past and present comments towards me, though this seems particularly ... outlandish. I'm not behind the bush where you see the conspiracy. Any bush.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're trying to back up your "mate" Softlavender, but I'm not sure that by representing the number of times that MB has been brought to ANI as "hundreds" to try to make the number of times there was legitimate cause sound like a tiny percentage, is doing her any favors. But, I think it's a perfect example of her "heavily embedded in mutual support group" Anthonyhcole speaks of. I've experienced it myself, by some of the same people he has mentioned, and the way they will twist the story to "get each other's back - regardless of who's in the wrong" Is. Appalling. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm here after much hesitation, as I used to like Montanabw a lot — as somebody said, you get a warm feeling reading her userpage — and in many ways I still do. Several of my socks are fond of her.[9][10] But I had a contretemps with her in 2014 where I thought she behaved terribly — not towards me by any means — but IMO loyalty with a friend caused her to treat an opponent of that friend like dirt. I believe her actions were part of the reason the user in question left Wikipedia in frustration for a time, requesting a self-requested block from me (he has no other blocks, although Montana was under the impression he had, wouldn't check when he protested, and made much play with these imaginary blocks). An admin really shouldn't have friends in the sense of protecting certain people at the expense of running roughshod over others, and that's the reason I'm dubious about giving this candidate the tools: she's too loyal a friend. I don't like to oppose. She's a great content contributor and a very pleasant person to those she likes — but this is about adminship. I think Montana knows what I'm talking about, even though it was quite long ago. Montana, if you want to take issue with my description, I will of course give diffs so others can decide for themselves. It would be nice if anybody else who's curious took it to e-mail and I'll respond fully, but that's obviously not up to me. If there has to be detailed and inevitably painful discussion of the episode, we should probably take it to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Would you mind posting link(s) to the discussion that you referred to? Also, do you believe it is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behavior? I ask only because I respect your opinion, and would like to make sure I haven't missed anything important.- MrX 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're right. I've provided the diffs with some highlighting by me below, as I probably should have done immediately (it's painful, that's all, and also pretty old).
The user who Montana threw her lot in with was Littleolive oil, and the user she attacked was IRWolfie (now Second Quantization). The drama (as Montana belittlingly called it) is in thesesections on her page. Note especially Montana's "You were blocked for outing", followed by blowing off Wolfie when he corrected her — she actually, and wrongly, assumed lying, without checking, and immediately collapsed the evidentiary diffs he provided[11] with a self-serving collapse header, while she herself went on talking (note the edit summary, too). She accuses Wolfie of stalking her page, when he only came there after I pinged him. When she was repeatedly confronted with evidence and I advised her to strike out her mistaken assertions, she instead quickly collapsed the whole thing with another self-serving header.[12] There's a coda in this section on my page, rather long, I'm afraid, with several people chiming in, but if you read to the very end, you'll see a little minimal acknowledgement by M : "I acknowledge I erred in not checking his block log" … "in the spirit of AGF, I'll drop it". That's all. As for isolated incident: not exactly, even though I haven't seen anything quite this bad anywhere else — I don't follow Montana around by any means, and I have no other diffs. I do have a general impression of a lot of loyalty with wikifriends. Loyalty is a beautiful trait in some contexts, but I actually want to see as little as possible of it in admins. Compare also the opposes following mine. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for posting the links and for your deeper analysis. I struggle to fully grok that discussion, but there clearly are interactions that I would not wish to see from an admin on a regular basis. I will definitely be giving this some more thought and examining more of the oppose comments.- MrX 16:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Bishonen is calling loyalty is in actuality only a sense of justice, and that in any admin is necessary. In fact, Wolfie made one of the most vicious comments I have ever seen on Wikipedia [13] when Ched advised him to leave me alone following an AE. Bishonen you were on that page saw that comment. How could you condone it? I was sanctioned based on one copy edit error, and another editor's comments. When I later asked the sanctioning admin what I had actually been sanctioned for, he created another set of reasons. I didn't contest those reasons at the time; I suppose I was in shock given the sanctions and the AE itself. When I asked for an arb clarification, one of the arbs actually suggested I had done something I hadn't. It was clear to me that the arbs had probably not read the original case and why should they? It was a long, nasty business. I also came to realize an arb clarification may not even mean a review of the original case, but a review of the admins reasons for the sanctions. I later emailed two of the arbs I respected telling them what had actually happened in that case. I suggested they not respond; there was nothing to be done about it at that point.
I'm not going to lay our arguments against Wolfie and his treatment of me and other editors although I could now with emotional distance from my dealings with him. This isn't an AE or arbitration. If I ever see the need or have the chance I may. I have become used to the narratives that have been created about me on and off Wikipedia. (I was actually sent an email from a friend that quoted an admin who I'd had many dealings with as saying in a publication/book about WP that my user name was created so that I would look like a victim - a blatant untruth and fabrication. I actually named myself after a pet. Silly as that may seem.)
I will not get into a fight about any of this. I do not have the stomach anymore to defend myself, and am not a match for the efforts combined or otherwise of some of those I have had to deal with. What I would ask of anyone reading this is to consider, is it possible another editor viewed my situation and found it to be unjust and so set about about to see if she could adjust some of the wrong? I've watched Montana for years and what she is, is just and honest even at her own peril. If I had been in the wrong she would have let me know. She is straight and blunt. We need admins. with this kind of integrity and sense of fairness and justice. I am heartbroken that Montana's wish to help me resulted in this unfair labelling at a time when WP needs admins and when she after her years of good service should have a fair chance at becoming one of WP's admins.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I think I see what happened here. Montanabw failed to side with a member of the "pro-science" cabal in a dispute, so now it's payback time at her RfA. Great to see that political agendas are still affecting votes at RfAs. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Cla68...you never fail to provide evidence that many a man has more hair than wit. Hugs and kisses.--MONGO 08:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone find this massive post to be remotely appropriate for an RfA?- MrX 18:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She mocked me that it was only that one diff, but it was nearly one hundred diffs. And isn't using an IP and an account to revert at an article on the same day socking? RO(talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montana wrote that she edited horse articles logged out in 2007. The diffs I looked at were unproblematic. RO, you've opposed and you've explained why, so that's surely enough. Sarah(talk) 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's not get blocked again for POINTY editing. - MrX 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's socking if one person deliberately acts as if they're two people – for example, by editing logged out to violate 3RR. There's no suggestion of anything like that in the diffs you've listed. Sarah(talk) 18:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it's okay by you if I revert you with an IP that you don't know is me, then revert you against later in the day at the same article with my account? RO(talk) 18:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montana reverted at 01:25, 17 May 2007 as Montana, and at 19:22, 17 May 2007 logged out (see Thoroughbred). The second edit would have been the next day for Montana; i.e. there would have been a night's sleep between those edits – not that reverting logged out on the same day would necessarily be a problem either. Sarah(talk) 18:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, but even if it was socking, it happened over eight years ago. It has little relevance to the present and doesn't deserve nearly the prominence that you have given it. - MrX 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you offer a policy-based explanation for why your crusade of badgering every single edit this candidate has ever made is not WP:DISRUPTIVE? You've made your point, move on. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was Cas liber's accusations that Liz was a fraud appropriate? RO(talk) 18:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant contradicting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, you misunderstood. I don't give a crap about your crusade. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not intimidated by your rhetoric. RO(talk) 19:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should Montanabw be intimidated by yours? Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, and that's totally not my point. She was cagy about editing with IPs, that's in the record. She changed her story several times, and it's in the diffs for all to see. She's been lying. RO(talk) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a leap to say she's lying. Forgetting about edits one made while logged out eight and a half years ago through a dynamic IP assigned to a former workplace is fairly plausible. I would easily assume forgetfulness or inability to trace those edits before I would throw around accusations of malice. I mean, it's impressive that you were able to dig up those edits at all. I don't think I could find edits I made from an IP from before I created an account, nor anyone else's from nearly a decade ago. The edit itself is fine, and there don't appear to be any other edits that you've dug up that point to any pattern of wrongdoing. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's believable that she forgot she edited as an IP for two years before making her account, or that she periodically edited with that same IP for 2 1/2 years after making the account. Do you really believe she forgot? RO(talk) 19:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a shared IP? If it was, the last edits happened 8-10 years ago, so Montanabw could have accidentally logged out, or they could have forgotten. After all, ~100 edits in 2.5 years is not a lot. You'd have to average 3 a month (and if it's a shared IP, it's very likely someone else could have edited on that IP as well). I am neither saying that Montanabw is lying nor telling the truth. Any of my friends here who are jumping to conclusions should probably look at the IP's contribs again.Anyway, there is no evidence of policy violation on the IP's editing. Epic Genius (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But did you see this one: ([14])? Yes, the diffs are old, but she's lied about it during this RfA. That makes it a current, and relevant line of examination. RO(talk) 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Maybe she lied, but maybe she just forgot about it. Anyhow, WP:GF applies. Unless Montanabw said explicitly that "I lied about these diffs," then no accusation should be made against them without evidences. Epic Genius (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But she did say "No, I have never 'operated both an IP and an account that were never connected but helped each other.' That is socking and I have absolutely, positively, never deliberately edited under an IP to evade scrutiny."([15]) So did she really do this accidentally twice in the same day and twice in the same month at Arabian horse? She used her IP and her account to control content. That's socking, and it's relevant to how trusted she should be by the community. RO(talk) 20:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They also said, I have, occasionally, edited logged out by accident (as have most of us), and in most cases I have asked an admin to revdel the edit so as to hide my IP (emphasis mine). I'm willing to give 'em the benefit of doubt here. Unless Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montanabw turned something up by a checkuser, we can't know for sure whether the IP is @Montanabw. Epic Genius (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe you missed it, but she admitted that the IP was her's: ([16]). Those reverts are totally her using an IP and an account to control content. RO(talk) 20:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally missed it. :( Also, @Montanabw said: I did make my first edits from work at the (utterly miserable) job I had back then! (I worked for the state, though not in the town the IP currently geolocates to). It does show the first four edits I ever made on wikipedia, the day before I created my account! So they made their first four edits from the IP. It could be dynamic, given how few people actually live in Montana (just joking). Although the edits may incline you to believe that they were using IP sockpuppets, and this could be a violation of WP:ILLEGIT, this is not illegal if @Montanabw already disclosed this IP before. Per WP:ILLEGIT, Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Anyway, this was eight years ago, so again, the user could just have forgotten about it. Epic Genius (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying this, but yes, the diffs are old, but her deception about using IPs is new. SHe's been dishonest during this RfA (see question 11). I asked her that to give her an opportunity to come clean, which she didn't. And had she ever claimed the IP as her own she should have done so at the IP talk page, but no such declaration happened there: User talk:161.7.2.160. RO(talk) 21:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Action Hero has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Undertrialryryr. It's not clear to me whether this means all of his contributions to this RfA need to be deleted but I trust that you know the answer. LizRead!Talk! 22:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BANREVERT; they don't need to, but they can be. So I did. (Unless I missed one?) NE Ent 22:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, block-evading socks are never been allowed to vote in a RfA.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw here: making one comment - and pinging Bureaucrats[edit]
Hi everyone, most of the discussion at the RfA I am not going to step in and debate unless someone posts a question for me in "my" section, but the Oppose !vote of Rjensen requires an answer and explanation from me because he raises a real life matter at the diff here: [17] The words "strange and very unpleasant" apply to my view of the situation as well, but nothing else. The workshop he mentioned was one where I saw discussion about it on Mike Cline's page and he emailed me a notice of the Bozeman program, thus I believed I was invited, and I was very interested because it sounded like fun and a chance for me to meet other Montana wikipedians. I applied to attend, I offered to help, had some very cordial emails with the other organizers, and ultimately was registered for the event, received confirmation, then a few days later was told I could not attend because the workshop was full, but privately told that this was upon the demand of Rjensen. The details are documented in emails that are TMI for public on-wiki discussion, but I will provide them appropriate parties upon request. At the end of the day, what's relevant here with Rjensen's comment "She demanded and threatened to be admitted to the closed workshop. The library director alerted campus security to keep her out" is that on July 17th I expressly emailed one of the library staffers with whom I had been communicating to say that I was NOT going to be there. So I think that all RfA !voters do need to be aware of the actual situation. I would be glad to share the emails in question with appropriate Wikipedia bureaucrats or ArbCom members if requested. Montanabw(talk) 05:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your response is that Rjensen is lying? Okay, but you didn't address the other stuff he said, such as deleting the expert's additions. Is he also lying about that? RO(talk) 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
at issue are the edits of 10 July 2014 followed 2 hours later by her revert and her insulting edit summary. see History of Montana: Revision history & check out the credentials of User:KingJeff1970--we were helping him & this was I think his 2nd edit to Wikipedia. It was the kind of bad faith editing that disqualified Montanabw:
18:54, 10 July 2014 KingJeff1970 (88,438 bytes) (+3,158) . . (→First settlements: Renamed this section The Fur Trade and Indians and added material describing and explaining the fur trade; more to come!).
21:14, 10 July 2014 Montanabw (talk | contribs) . . (85,280 bytes) (-3,158) . . (Reverted good faith edits by KingJeff1970 (talk): Inappropriate wording and far too limited. (TW)) (undo | thank) Rjensen (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen, the issue is the claim about campus security. That comment goes too far in my view, and it's at odds with Montana's description of the same situation. It would be very much appreciated if you were to strike it. Sarah(talk) 18:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Rjensen, you could contact the person who called campus security and ask them to email ArbCom their description of what happened that day. RO(talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask Rjensen to strike and request revdel of his accusations about the workshop. His comments about on-wiki matters are all in history for all to see, so as long as that is within policy on WP:OUTING and WP:NPA, he has a right to speak his mind here. But the Real Life material is inappropriate. Consider this my first official request that he strike this material. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you all may note that at WP:GLAM/Montana history, KingJeff1970 and I (as MontOther) were just co-facilitators of an Editathon about two weeks ago. I think he's over it. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He might be over it, but you still haven't explained why you reverted a good-faith edit: ([18]). So will you please explain that here? RO(talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
since the workshop episode was about Wikipedia but outside it, I will strike the refs. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to any more of your questions, RO. Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to say something since I have been mentioned: I do recall my early edit being reverted and how surprising it was. I had quite gotten over it as Montanabw correctly points out. I have always appreciated people forgetting "past wrongs," especially among friends, and that's what I try to do. So maybe Montanabw should have assumed more "good faith" in my early edit. It's really not a big deal in my book. I kept editing and received much good help from Montanabw once she realized I meant no harm. BTW, I also appreciated the training from RJensen, so there! So I leave you with my favorite quote of the late 20th century, "Can't we all just get along?" -- the late Rodney King. --KingJeff1970 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this belongs here but it seems like it might. Ihardlythinkso is engaging in an edit-war on Montanabw's recent FA, California Chrome, repeatedly removing things he claims not to like without discussion or consensus. He has made the removal 5 times in the past 27 hours, despite an edit-warring notice on his talk page, repeated reminders by other editors to observe BRD and establish talk-page consensus, and even finally the opening of a discussion by someone else (me) on the article's talk page. Coinciding with this RfA, this seems to be a pointy case of harassment (see User_talk:Montanabw#Cutifying_California_Chrome), barely skirting 3RR and deliberately antagonizing and distracting the candidate of this RfA. I thought that it bears mentioning here. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about that I've always wanted to make this change, but due to the candidate's personality and WP:OWNership presence, has put a chilling effect on me to do it, until now, when she is behaving with some decorum due to the current RfA!? IHTS (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blatant and persistent edit-warring and reversions against clear consensus and repeated reminders of policy is the issue, not your change. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a soul-less argument. (And boring to boot.) IHTS (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It seems it is. Amazing. The only reason you're still here is no one can be bothered to make the case against you. Yet. One day you'll do that to the wrong person with some time and energy to spare.
That's what's wrong with this place. We put up with your kind of crap because it's so damn tedious to get rid of you and after hours or days of research and diff-gathering and arguing and you finally being shown the door, we all know you'll probably be back under a different user name in five minutes.
I don't know much about Montanabw and the mutual support group she's a part of but I'm beginning to see how a kind of siege/protect-our-own group mentality can arise in a milieu peopled by you, ItsLassieTime et ad infinitum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know nothing about my values, but it is easy to know about yours: full of all kinds of wild suppositions, accusations, insults, threats. Maybe you should zip your lip? IHTS (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question. I have seen references such as "support per name" and "oppose per name" (interesting that some opposes name people who support, isn't that misleading?), but I haven't seen "see also oppose no. and no." (each with a diff, which is needed as numbers change). - I don't think it's a good idea. What if I'd say "Support by nos 83, 84, 99, 100 ...", and we all did that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when a numbered support changes to neutral or oppose? The number is deleted, the sequence changed and the numbers would then be incorrect. Leaky Caldron 11:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned that, but not my question. My question is - a bit more specific - if opposer #1 is well advised to point at #41 to be also studied. Apart from #41 being a particularly questionable entry which has nothing to do with Wikipedia and therefore has to be believed or not, should this kind of selected guidance of attention be permitted? Instead of every comment speaking for itself, referring only back and by name if needed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a specific actual example of what you are talking about and questioning? It's still a little confusing, at least to me .... If you are talking about Lynn's oppose, well, that's her prerogative to point to another !vote rather than reiterate it or quote or repeat the whole thing, and she can use a number rather than a name or link if she so chooses; I don't think that's a problem (unless the number were to change, which opposes do not often do). Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't because I used the actual example: #1 (where people look who look at opposes) linking to #41 (and #44), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about RO's oppose (#1), she added those two diffs later. (And as of 10:13 21 September UTC she has removed them as they referenced now-stricken and presumably false information.) In terms of whether she is (or should be) allowed to do that, I think she is: To my mind it's not considered a breach of policy or guidelines to post a "selected guidance of attention" if she is using those diffs to bolster her argument. We all do it if or when we do not want to repeat or reiterate other people's points, or when we want to give examples. Whether that overly influences other editors is sort of beside the point, even if they are extremely biased or cherry-picked or even ultimately fallacious. That's part of the reason these RfAs can be so harrowing for the candidate -- people can and will say anything, if they've had or seen what they personally consider an unfair experience and hold a grudge. It's also sort of why !voters should take good care to examine all the facts of the case rather than jumping to conclusions when one single diff or oppose or example jumps out at them. I do probably agree that that edited oppose !vote, being #1, probably has more weight than it should. Are you asking if it should be modified by an admin? Maybe so, since those two vote-diffs were added so much later, and added to the front end of the very first oppose, instead of at the end of her !vote. In theory she should have added a new paragraph or sentence to the end of her !vote, and written "Edited to add" or something similar prior to the new paragraph or sentence. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting or opposing per a number as Leaky points out can result in confusion as the numbers change if any preceding votes are struck. Doing so per a person at worst means you really ought to keep an eye on the RFA in case that person changes their position. !Voting per someone else's example but in a different direction can sometimes make sense, especially if you or they are going neutral. When one of you supports and the other opposes then it looks odd, but can make sense if the support is "despite this incident which I trust won't recur" in that case I'd assume that the oppose takes the incident more seriously. As for amending votes other than by strike through, I think it is better and clearer if that is done by raising additional indented points under your own, doing so by amending your position may mean fewer people read it, and would be very odd to anyone who had supported per your argument as you've just changed something they've agreed with rather than adding a separate note that has a later datestamp. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
24."But for the record, I absolutely have not 'concurrently operated an account and an IP for a significant period of time.' Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ([19])
I sincerely hope that's true, and I'll be the first to apologize if I'm wrong about this, but I've uncovered two different IPs that can be irrefutably connected to your account and vandalism. One predates, then overlaps with, your account, and the other vandalized an article on May 6, 2015 and last edited on September 4, 2015 (diffs available upon request). You might not want to respond to any more of my questions, but I really think the community deserves a straight answer to why there are two IPs that edited Wikipedia for a combined 5.5 years that appear to have been used by you and vandals. For the record the vandalism is super minor, but it's still vandalism. Plus you said you never used IPs and accounts except for a few accidents that were revdeled: ([20]). Is that accurate? I promise this is the last stand-alone question I'll add here, so will you please offer the community an explanation? Have you been using a shared IP for years? Attribution: see contribution history of main RfA page. Esquivaliencet 01:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hmm. You have given me a good smile, as when you said "predated your account", I looked at the Arabian horse article (where I began in March 2006) and I'm betting you found this IP: Special:Contributions/161.7.2.160 (all edits from this IP here). That is/was a State of Montana IP, and I did make my first edits from work at the (utterly miserable) job I had back then! (I worked for the state, though not in the town the IP currently geolocates to). It does show the first four edits I ever made on wikipedia, the day before I created my account! I forgot that, but of course, I would have tentatively tried to edit WP before realizing that I needed an account! That was a cool find, RO! I am impressed that you have been so thoroughly digging through every edit I ever made! Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I made some subsequent horse article edits without logging in up through December 2007 too (which is when I left state employment, FWIW). I doubt I knew revdel even existed then and I obviously didn't pay much attention that I had edited logged out! I certainly was not "concurrently operating" accounts to vandalize or evade scrutiny! - just editing logged out and not paying much attention to that fact! Totally forgot those ever existed. Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that, Montanabw. I guess you forgot that you've made dozens of IP edits that were never revdeled. Those are some interesting co-workers you had! A follow-up question that seems needed here is that you say this: ([21]) is a shared IP from a former place of employment, but I noticed that several edits were made from that IP at 4 am Mountain Time. Many others were made as late as 9 pm. Those are odd times for an office with advertised hours of 8am to 5pm. Will you please explain? RO(talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::Yeah, email me the the other diff with the IP and the vandalism. If it's me, I'll explain. I have edited from within the State of Montana's firewall since leaving state employment and also have edited from inside the Montana University System's firewall when I've been teaching as an adjunct. I also edit wikipedia from the road, motels, coffee shops, airports... lots of shared locations. ( I have email enabled, so shoot me the IP and what article was allegedly vandalized). Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I found the other: Special:Contributions/161.7.59.15, also within the State of Montana firewall. No, the vandalism on May 6 was not me; I wasn't inside the State of Montana's internet firewall on May 6 at all (I don't work for the state now, but I have done some wikipedia training for a couple different agencies there), I'm also not a kiddie vandalism type anyway. There is a research center and a library open to the public within the scope of that IP address. I made two edits logged out on November 3 when I was doing a demonstration of wikipedia editing for some state employees. One was obviously just editing logged out right before we got started, and thus I was a space cadet not to have logged in. The other one [22] was an example where I hit a random article, made an edit, then showed people what an anon IP edit looks like and why it's a good idea to get an account, showing how the IP is revealed ... I remember joking with the group, asking who the Camper Van Beethoven fan was who had previously been editing from that IP, and got a good laugh! (and you have caught me red-handed, I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel.) The anon IP edits to Rose Hum Lee in August were probably were done by one of the participants at the Montana History Editathon we had that day; I was one of the facilitators and that was one of the articles we worked on. Have I now identified and explained the two IP addresses you found? Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and you have caught me red-handed, I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel.
So first it was "I never edited logged out except a couple of times that were revdeled" Then is was "I knowingly made one anon IP edit that I didn't revdel", but here are 94 edits, some of which show you reverting people at articles with both your account and your IP, which you had never claimed as your own until this RfA. Sure, these are old and stale, but your fresh explanation of them is lacking, IMO, and this speaks to your current level of honesty with the community. This is a huge red flag for me, so please explain why you reverted people with your anon IP and your account at pages where you never disclosed that the IP was you.(Note that all of these IP edits came after Montanabw registered her account in March 2006) RO(talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver, Montana said above that she made some horse-related edits from that IP. I haven't looked at all your diffs, but the ones I looked at aren't problematic and in any case are from 2007. Sarah(talk) 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Moved from above] But aren't these ones also you? Some of them show you reverting people with both your IP ([25]) and your account ([26]) at the same article in the same day. Can you please offer a policy-based explanation for why this isn't socking? RO(talk) 18:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You asked this question on talk and it was answered there. Montana reverted at an article one day, and the next day (for her) reverted at the same article logged out. That isn't a problem (and it was in 2007). Sarah(talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thoroughbred May 17, 2007.pngscreenshot Montanabw reverted with her account at 01:25 on May 17, then 18 hours later reverted with her IP. She returned on May 23 to again revert with her account. Is this really allowed when nobody knew this IP was her? RO(talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a problem if there's an issue at the article, such as 3RR violations or something contentious happening. But there was nothing like that. You're pointing to three reverts within one week (eight years ago), one of them done while logged out, probably by mistake. Sarah(talk) 19:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But editors can edit war without ever breaking 3RR, right? Doesn't this look like controlling content with both an IP and an account that were not publicly linked? She restored the same version of the page once with her IP and twice with her account. RO(talk) 19:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can edit war without breaking 3RR, yes. But whatever this was, it was very very very very long ago and I find it difficult to hold this against the candidate. —Kusma (t·c) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are old, but her denial about them is not. She's clearly been dishonest during this RfA about her past use of IPs. She has changed her story more than once, because if you read above you'll see she told everyone that she only edited logged out a couple of time, and those were revdeled. Can one really forget using an IP for 2 years before making an account and 2 1/2 years after? Is it realistic to believe that she completely forget 4 1/2 years of IP editing? RO(talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some IPs made inappropriate edits at Thoroughbred. Montana reverted using her account at 01:25, 17 May 2007. [27] An anon added a half-sentence in an odd place. [28] Montana reverted logged out at 19:22, 17 May 2007. [29] Some other IPs added unsourced material. Montana reverted it as Montana at 03:28, 23 May 2007. [30] There is absolutely no problem with those edits, and they were eight years ago. Sarah(talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sarah. The diffs are old, but her dishonestly about them is current. Here's more of the same at a different article, Arabian horse. At 05:22 on March 5, Montanabw reverted an edit with her account:([31]). 13 hours later she restored the same version she reverted to earlier with her account using her IP:([32]). Then, a month later at the same article she reverted an edit using her IP: ([33]), and returned there 30 hours later to revert to the same version with her account: ([34]). Are these all accidents? RO(talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RO, they are all unintentional, save for the one to Australian Raven that I did as a demo. I apologize that I forgot about that one. I also apologize that I stated that all accidental IP edits were revdeled; I certainly do so now - at least the once I know of; obviously I've missed a few. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back at the state, I habitually would log out of everything every day at the end of the day (always potential there for shared computer use or the gnomes to replace your machine over the weekend); when I'd go to wiki the next time, looks like I'd sometimes forget to log in and just start editing; I do remember (now that my brain has been pinged) sometimes going "d'oh! Forgot to log in!". That's not socking. The definition of WP:SOCK is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose ... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." So once again, I have NEVER, EVER socked. Period. End of story. I have never edited in an attempt to evade scrutiny; I behaved the same way all the time; I acted like I was logged in whether I was or not (even signing with four tildes, thus revealing my IP to the whole planet!) If you analyze my Montanabw edits from 2007 and before, I had over 7000 edits under my username by December 2007. So, according to RO's analysis, I edited logged out 94 times out of 7000. That's a 1.3% brain fart rate, not bad! Not bad at all! Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I did not "use an IP account for two years before making an account." The State of Montana is a big place and the IP addresses go to various servers, serving multiple buildings and users. The building I worked in probably held several hundred other workers. As I pointed out above, if you look at the 161.7.2.160 IP, the only edits that could be mine are in 2006 and 2007, I clearly behaved the same as when logged in; I started editing WP in March 2006 (the pattern is obvious, horse articles) I didn't work for the state after 2007 (thus no access to that IP) so none of the 2008 edits are mine, and even in 2006-7, there clearly are edits in areas where I have ever edited nor have I any knowledge (e.g. Pepin Garcia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia ). The other state IP shows I've made perhaps 3 or 4 edits, all linked to specific wikipedia training activities. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RO can discuss this further with other users at talk. I shall answer any appropriate questions regarding this matter from other users here if needed (but best to ping my talk page, it's now a wall of text here.) I am now finished dealing with RO. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this discussion to the talk page; the QA section is not the proper place to chase the candidate for answers. Esquivaliencet 01:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jasphetamine's account was created five hours ago, and they have made four edits, one of them on namespace. I suggest that this !vote be stricken and the page semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Chillum 06:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're considered involved (at least as far as the striking would go), being as you !voted in the same part. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably true. However I prefer to err on the side of caution. Chillum 06:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I don't know that any non-!voting admins are watching this at this point .... plus it's one thousand o'clock on a Sunday night .... Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Like, Bbb23 is probably in mourning over the Tide loss.... Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it on the admin IRC channel. Chillum 06:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck it. There's an IP oppose vote now. [35] Would someone else like to maybe just delete it with an informative edit summary? (It could just be someone who forgot to sign in.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That one's been removed now. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the new account, a CU may be relevant. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, a CU won't be run on an IP address re WP:OUTING. Although I always wondered why the IP couldn't be oversighted and then it's invisible come the CU. Oh well. I haven't suggested that as far as User:Dennis Brown's commment, that there is circumstantial evidence elsewhere, although WP:BITE probably still applies. FortunaImperatrix Mundi 14:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found myself in an edit war with another editor last year in the Talk of Tibetan Buddhism [36]. It started on 12 October 2014 when I politely reverted an editor who didn't like it. I resisted from retaliating in the warring and it progressed to RfC [37]. Finally on 22 January 2015, after 3 months during which collaboration had been wrecked, the war ended with my revert becoming consensus, but the scars of the war on the Tib Bsm article remain in the form of painful dysfunction in the collaborative process.
At the height of this war on 6 December, the other editor then involved created a talk section called "Moonsell replacing reliable sourcing with nonreliable sourcing" [38], where she pinged Montanabw to join in. Montanabw had never before contributed to the article or its discussion and still her only contributions there have been reverts. From that day Montanabw became her enthusiastic partner in the war for over two months more.
I don't ask others here to take sides in that war, but just to look at how protracted Montanabw's part in it was and what those parts were like (above all, chronic wikilawyering). I became physically and emotionally ill with trying to cope with these things. Montanabw has not been prepared to provide me with any reason to think they may not occur again. My readiness to keep contributing in WP has been inhibited by fear of this ever since.
At the height of the war, just after Montanabw joined in, I was blocked for contravening the 3R rule. I had put new material into the article — the same material — multiple times on the same day [39][40][41][42][43][44].
The war had gone on for two months. I had kept trying to discuss and just got stonewalled.
In calling for me to be blocked, Montanabw and the other editor involved misrepresented the new material I had put in as reverts, while repeatedly reverting it themselves in turns. I did not know how to defend myself and was blocked. I had had no experience of such warring, despite 6 years of proud contributions. I had even forgotten what 3R involved.
She proudly says she has not been blocked herself, but while calling for me to be blocked [45], Montanabw herself alone cynically reverted the new material I had added, three times in one day: [46][47][48].
Anyone who checks what went on here will notice a feature that sticks out: the harping by Montanabw and the other editor involved on claims of inadequate sourcing as a license for destructive editing. That thread had already run throughout the edit war. It continued for another month.
Montanabw finally retired from her attacks only after I spelled out what the WP policy said about sourcing [49]. For over a month she had refused to get it just on a commonsense level, that quibbling over that can't be used to stonewall discussion — especially to evade having to justify when what you do as an editor is challenged in other ways [50], [51] and misrepresented WP policies as allowing that [52], [53]. The way she did this could be patronising [54] and inflammatory in other ways. [55][56]
Montanabw was also prepared to stonewall discussion through sheer wikilawyering [57], even going as far as to brazenly play with WP processes in the course of censoring discussion [58], [59].
To summarise, Montanabw is no naive stranger to disruptive editing, chiefly in the form of gaming the system. Three things in the Tibetan Buddhism article have been involved: the "Bon" section, the "Origins" section and the use of the terminology, "foundation vehicle". Consistent strands have been:
refusal to "get the point" (undue weight, unverifiability)
stonewalling discussion (refusing to discuss content, trivialising my insistence on it as mere "debating" and "long diatribes at the talk page trying to argue [my] case" [60]
abuse of process (distorting guidelines on verifiability to make a point)
spuriously and knowingly claiming justification under the words of a policy, for a stance which actually contradicts multiple policies
wanton disruptive editing with pettifogging
disruptive editing with wikilawyering (verifiability)
filibustering the consensus-building process by removing a large addition for a minor error (quibbling about sourcing the "Origins" section)
mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem improper (refusing to discuss content until I studied policies that Montanabw was misinterpreting).
I'm impressed by the way Wikipedia involves a minimum of regulation. Although I don't understand all the ramifications, I have a gut feeling that there must be ways, though, that it is prevented from descending into mere tribalism.
Ultimately, this is not about me. It's not about her either. It *is* about Wikipedia. This lady says she shoots from the hip, or some such thing. This is no laughing matter. She means it. It chases good people away. Moonsell (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moonsell, do you honestly believe there is such a thing as a "polite revert?" Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do. It sounds like you haven't read any of the material I pointed to. Please do and think it over.
Oppose - After reading numerous discussions linked above and some digging around myself, I have to admit lack of confidence in her having sufficient calmness and caution to be given the blocking button. As secondary less important issues, the AfD record raises some doubts, and it is a questionable decision to post a message [32] that could be interpreted as thanking RfA supporter with very highly watched talk page while RfA is still active.--Staberinde (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC) <copied from main page>
This is disturbing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked at my RFA for simply mentioning my RfA on Eric's page, and he did it in a very neutral manner. The block was overkill (and I got it overturned) just as any action would be here. An email would have been the correct way to communicate a thanks, or better yet, waiting until after the RfA. Maybe Montana's motives were as pure as the driven snow, I don't know but I'll assume good faith here and just say that if you are an admin, you are expected to not do things like that simply because it gives the impression of WP:CANVASSing/advertising, by demonstrating an endorsement on one of the most read user talk pages on Wikipedia. So even with the best of intentions, it was incredibly bad judgement. I'm still neutral, but this is the kind of thing that could push me to oppose outright. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view as an admin for 8+ years(I only mention this because you say an admin should know not to do that) I would say that post was completely innocent and did not even superficially resemble canvassing. There are many good reasons to oppose but that is not one. Chillum 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will strike my comment and just say that if she had already been an admin it may have raised eyebrows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. While in my opinion it seemed harmless I can imagine how someone may think otherwise. Is that really one of the one of the most read user talk pages on Wikipedia? Do we keep such stats? I wonder how he compares with Jimbo. Chillum 22:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric would likely be around the top 5, around 1/5 that of Jimbo. The old counter didn't get moved, so no way to count exactly that I know of, but that is where he was. So yes, that is one of the most heavily watched user pages on the Wiki, which is why so many use it as a place to bounce ideas and the like: they know hundreds will see their post. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good guess. Currently 20.2 centijimbos. I put the details on Chillum's talk page so as not to clutter up this RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chillum, Dennis Brown, and MelanieN: More hyperbole, vicar? The database report no longer auto-updates, but is unlikely to have changed substantially since it was last updated a year ago, and Eric doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of most-watched userpages, and in terms of most watched pages as a whole he doesn't even make the top 1000. Eric would likely be the first to agree that he's nowhere near as important as either those who see him as god's gift to the 'pedia come to show us all how to write, or as an agent of darkness leaving a swathe of destruction everywhere he goes, sometimes appear to think. ‑ iridescent 14:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see he was #14, with over 600 watchers, plus whatever stragglers he picked up since then. At least I was in the right neighborhood, being off by less than 130 watchers. Regardless, we are still talking about a good deal of watchers, and the real question isn't whether Eric is #14 or #12, it was the judgement in offering thanks during an RfA, something that has previously discussed at WT:RFA and found to be a bad idea. Ironic, but it was the nom here, WereSpielChequers, that offered: "As long as you don't send the thanks out until after the RFA, I see no problem in only thanking supporters." [61], and of course I agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, but why don't we hat this entire discussion about Eric (WTF?!) just to try and keep User:Montanabw's RfA on track? FortunaImperatrix Mundi 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My dispute resolution noticeboard search on Montanabw got ten hits (which is 10 more than you'll find searching on my ID). I'm not really that familiar with this corner of Wikipedia myself, so clearly participation here is not a prerequisite to a successful RfA. That said, seeing the depth of the hole that BW has dug for herself, a hole that will be difficult – but not impossible – to climb out of, I think that successful participation here could go a long way towards ensuring success in RfA #2. Taking a closer look at the ten hits:
She has been an involved user in six disputes here. Bad news: four FAILED resolution. Good news: Two were Successfully Resolved!! so there is hope.
Two hits from her signing up to work as a volunteer in this area on April 5, 2015. A good positive step.
And two disputes she moderated, unfortunately both closed as failed, but good attempts.
Going forward, if she can come back and show us several disputes SUCCESSFULLY RESOLVED (both as participant and moderator), that would help a lot. Bonus points for successful resolution of horsey topics.
Just a thought, but I think this project area is probably an excellent training and proving ground for potential Arbitration Committee candidates.
So, this is winding down, and it's getting late in the process. I'm thinking it's about time to call it a day, and have some Toast and Marmalade for Tea→ then maybe go for sailing on Flathead Lake out to Wild Horse Island. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, Montana is a great editor but there are clearly areas where she needs to focus on. I hope she will take the opposition's constructive criticism and put it to good use. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt about that. It's hard to become an administrator because it's even harder to remove one. Change that and the process will improve. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a qualitative standard for new adminship, then wouldn't the great divide in !voting witnessed in this particular RfA, be impossible? (And since there is a great divide in !voting based on value differences re admin qualification, am I concluding correctly that really there is therefore no guiding standard in existence!? [I know there are some simple quantitative guides like number of edits, minimum time editing, experience in more than one adminy areas, etc. But that's not what I mean.]) I'm sure this topic has been discussed elsewhere by lots of others. Did those discussions all stymie!? (Thx for input if someone knows the history.) Ok, IHTS (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the reading reference! (The fact there *is* no qualification standard then, seems to doom all future RfAs to same repetitive battle on values witnessed in this one. Without even a chance of resolution possible. [Does the idea of guaranteed endless thrashing on values, without even a theoretical end to same, smack a tad insane {as though some sort of Hell}? {And if that's true, isn't participation in future RfAs equivalent to voluntary self-insertion into Hell!?}]) IHTS (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yeah. RfA can be a masochist's dream at times. There are far too many ways to evaluate potential admins for concrete standards to be established (from what I've gathered). Some people create their own checklist for potential candidates and vote accordingly, but most people go by the seat of their pants. There are the "unspoken rules" about tenure and general editing quality, but when it gets into the nitty gritty details with long-term editors such as what happened here, it's anyone's guess as to where things will end up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't resist popping by. I was thinking it more like this. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be checking sources to prevent this territorial stuff ... adding some equality drama [62] My cat is black and my horse is a hot bloods bullied appaloosa, that kicks back for me. Wishing you better. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IHTS Yes one of the main reasons why RFA is so toxic compared to other userights areas is that we don't have a set criteria, and yes there have been numerous attempts to set one or part of one at WT RFA. Without a set criteria we get all sorts of !votes at RFA, including as in the current RFA people who disagree with a policy which they think the candidate will follow. Until we agree and set a criteria then the de facto criteria change not by consensus but by achieving a blocking minority. Once you have 30% who will oppose for say less than a year of tenure then that defacto is added to the criteria. So one of the problems in setting a criteria is that the existing blocking minorities might not have consensus for their particular hobbyhorses and that might explain why it is so difficult to achieve a consensus for a criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
