Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maile66


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

Maile66
Final (175/5/3); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
– I would like to present you Maile66 as a candidate for adminship. Many of you will have seen Maile around the project - Maile registered in 2006, has been editing actively since 2010, and at present has made over 50,000 edits. I'm very happy to be able to nominate someone with this much experience and dedication.

Maile's content work is, simply put, top-class. Maile has three featured articles, four featured lists, and four Good Articles. A lot of these articles are focused on Texas history, most notably the topic of Audie Murphy, which Maile also brought to featured status. In addition, Maile is a regular participant at Did you know; they have 40 DYK credits and have reviewed over 300 nominations. You can see more details of Maile's content work at their user page.

While Maile is primarily a content contributor, they are no stranger to the administrative side of Wikipedia. On checking their contributions, I see plenty of anti-vandalism work using Twinkle, and 62 edits to WP:AIV plus 56 edits to WP:RFPP. I also see a lot of insightful comments in Maile's recent participation at AfD, and good recent tags in Maile's CSD log.

Giving Maile the admin tools would be a great help at DYK. Maile has made a total of 323 edits to the four DYK preparation areas, and with the tools they could help to update the DYK queues as well, and to make fixes to items on the Main Page. And of course, given Maile's experience on the project, policy knowledge, and participation in administrative areas, they would be a great help in any aspect of mop-wielding that they choose to put their mind to. I hope you will join me in supporting Maile's candidacy. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank for it. Also, I'd like to thank him for nudging me into more pre-nomination experience on AFD and CSD.  Specifically, because both of those processes require knowing and citing policies in a way that is pertinent to admin decisions.  I find AFD to be particularly interesting in that regard, because it encourages a healthy debate among participants about policy. — Maile  (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: AIV, page protection and vandal block. Admin tasks as requested at projects I am involved with.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My content contributions to Texas (history, parks, protected areas, museums, people, NRHP) and women's history (articles, lists). In those areas, I believe I have filled, and continue to fill, a need where Wikipedia has been lacking coverage.


 * But over the long haul, I think my gnome work has been a substantive contribution to Wikipedia. In particular, I'd rather search for a source to help an article, than tag the article for lack of one. I also try to fix little formatting snafus where I see it. Gnome work is under the radar, but at its core meets some of Wikipedia's greatest needs. In and of itself, gnome work doesn't result in individual accolades, and has no slot on the main page; however, many articles that do appear on the main page have benefited from Wikipedia's gnomes. For those of us who like to slip into our little gnome personas, there's a lot to be said for doing the unnoticed maintenance tweaks for no reason other than the article's need.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: To be a Wikipedian is to trip into conflict on occasion. I had for years been creating and improving articles in areas where there were few active participants; ergo, seldom a discouraging word. My decision to clean up all the tagged/sourcing issues on Audie Murphy led me on the path to my first FA and revealed an edit war that pre-dated my first edit there by years. I was in over my head, grasping at straws, constantly asking for help, and making a lot of mistakes. It was a steep learning curve that gave me a better grasp of Wikipedia policies and how to apply them, as well as what not to do again in similar situations.  And while no one is perfect, I try to get better, one human mistake at a time.  In July 2015, I was named at ANI Battle of the Alamo by an editor who had filed against someone else, and misinterpreted my article talk page comments as support for their position. I clarified my viewpoint at ANI, and ended up reporting edit warring.


 * I've done more than 400 reviews for nominations of other editors, at one process or another. I believe whole-heartedly in all the review processes, for the very reason that participation in them helps every editor hone his/her skills and knowledge. Nominators feel strongly about their work, and there are infinite variables for disagreements in article reviews, including the criteria differential between processes. More often than not, those disagreements can be resolved amicably.  But when they are not, it's the reviewer's call on whether or not to support a nomination.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional questions from QEDK
 * 4. How do you view the new page mover right and what do you believe should be the criteria for granting someone the right?
 * A: I have not been previously involved in a discussion about this right. Reading over the page, with the exception of when an editor's own user space is involved, I would feel more comfortable if this right was limited to admins. I've seen a lot of very heated talk page battles over the issue of page moves, and I've also come across some non-admin good-faith editors who dedicate themselves to page moves.  We assume good faith on everyone, I believe.  But I think circumstances covered by this policy leave room for non-good-faith moves if this right is too freely granted. — Maile  (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that the granting guidelines are already supposed to be rigorous, why would you be not ready to assume good faith (and readily suppose the possibility of bad-faith moves)? -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 16:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We should assume good faith at the get-go. But if you see enough hard battles on talk pages, it wouldn't be a bad thing to execise a little caution in assigning rights. — Maile  (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5. What do you think of, "Verifiability, not truth".
 * A: I'm glad you asked this, because I have a couple of examples that rest on that very policy.
 * When, and I were researching List of Alamo defenders, she was correctly adamant that we adhere to detailed verifiability and explain clearly in the article how the individual defenders were identified and verified.  Because there would be people who are sure we either left somebody out, included someone who shouldn't be there, or got a key detail incorrect.  And sure enough, people have posted on the talk page about that list.  Verifiability, not truth, is how we handled it.
 * I am similarly working in my user space on a famous person in Texas history to which a revisionist lore is attached to the point where today's public figures and some historians repeat that lore verbatim, as though it were historical fact. And, yet, nobody has offered proof.  All verifiable sourcing says it never happened.
 * Hope this answers your question, because I see '"Verifiability, not truth"' as the only way to construct an historical article, because everybody is sure their "truth" is what actually happened, but only verifiability can prove it. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Think of it like in the Gamergate controversy, the Wikipedia community (+ArbCom) was accused of gender bias by a Guardian article (which was amended a whole 5 days later). So, for 5 days, wrong information persisted, how suitable would it be if we applied the principle to that incident (i.e. suitable, not suitable)? -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 16:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had no part in that, and am only vaguely aware that it happened. I don't know enough about it to discuss it. — Maile  (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from BU Rob13
 * 6. What are your thoughts on ignoring all rules?
 * A: I see IAR as a loophole, to be used sparingly. If a given article is a net positive to the project, it isn't necessary to be a stickler about some minor policy that neither adds nor detracts from the goal.  I see this mostly at reviews, especially DYK where they have a rule that nominations of new articles must be made within 7 days of creation.  DYK allows IAR of a few days, in individual circumstances, to get a good nomination through the process.  What IAR should not mean, is tossing out the basics of things like verifiable sourcing, and eliminating any copyvio in an article. — Maile  (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Catlemur
 * 7. What makes Audie Murphy notable enough to have his own Template as well as separate articles about his songwriting, honours and film career?
 * A: Audie Murphy is a Featured Topic. But in answer to your question, the aggregate articles and how they came into being are the result of numerous individuals being involved in the process.  In his place and time, Audie Murphy was one of the most famous and respected Americans because of his military career.  However, the last 20 years of his life, he also had a fairly successful career as a popular movie star.  I personally would have been happy if this had stayed one article.  But its original size was too large for me to work with.  It was my idea to separate out a filmography.  Then there were those who wanted all his military and civilian awards listed.  Again, sizeable. So, at some point when we were working towards FA, another editor came in and moved the bulk of his military career to a separate article.  Balance, you know.  And then they just chopped out his song writing career altogether. I thought it was all relevant, but not necessarily that it all needed to be chopped up like that, and didn't want the song writing eliminated.  I worked with what I was given, and took it up through the processes, letting the reviewers decide if he was significant enough to pass.  And I'm the one who decided to take it to Featured Topic, and that's where the Navbox came in, as well as Book:Audie Murphy.  The book is a requirement of FT, but the navbox was just because of all the articles involved. — Maile  (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from kgosarMyth
 * 8. What edits would you put on a resume?
 * A: If you mean a specific individual edit or two, I don't know how to narrow the field after all the times I've clicked on "Save page". How about 1.  Really and truly, I don't know how I'd sift out select edits for a resume. — Maile  (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see your note below on the comments section. So, let me try again.  One of the things I would hang on a trophy is revamping the List of Alamo Defenders.  I made almost 500 edits between June 6 - November 2015, when it finally achieved FL. It was some of the most tedious and detailed work I had done up until that time. And I'm pretty satisfied with the results. — Maile  (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: KgosarMyth has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account .  Rebb  ing   03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
 * 9. Admins inevitably come across tendentious POV-pushing in the line of work. How would you deal with an editor who is repeatedly changing "Israel" to "Occupied Palestine" in various articles, some of which fall under ARBPIA3? They are not violating 1RR, since they are typically only making one edit per article, and their only responses to warnings and queries are monosyllabic.
 * I wanted to read up on this before answering, because the subject matter is not one I've been involved in. If this isn't the #1 topic of conflicts on Wikipeda, it must be close. For me personally, I would not get involved in this specific area of conflict.  Generally speaking, I would think ArbCom would be the place to discuss if discretionary sanctions can be applied, and if they should be. The lengthy sanctions log on this is amazing.  Not so surprising about the proliferation of socks, because it's a high profile topic.  — Maile  (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from TJH2018
 * 10. What does Wikipedia mean to you?
 * Well, on one level, it is exactly what Jimbo Wales intended it to be, a microcosm of humanity coming together to share the world's knowledge base. And in spite of criticism to the contrary, it must be working pretty well to be quoted (and plagiarized) so publicly and so often. And when you get the world's diverse peoples together, stuff happens that isn't always a love-in. My participation in the project has added to my learning experience in areas I probably would have not otherwise found through any other source. — Maile  (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from User:Amatulic
 * 11. Plausible scenario: Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than a week. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe averaging one random incident per week. The most frequent anonymous IP edits, however, involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
 * We don't know anybody's credentials unless they feel like sharing them, so being an anon IP editor is not in and of itself an indication of either knowledge or POV. If they have not already done so, I would suggest trying to engage this editor on the article's talk page. The established well-respected editor may, or may not, also be pushing their POV by keeping the IP edits out. But this really comes down to the admin assessing whether or not the IP edits are in fact POV pushing, and how long of a duration a semi-protected level is to be in place if it's added.
 * 12. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, etc.
 * a. Would you require escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
 * Requiring all four levels is a good idea, but that also requires other editors to take the time to put the warnings on the other editor's talk page. Not everybody bothers with posting a warning.  But if you see someone who is clearly a vandalism-only account, and/or is engaged in attack-only edits, I'd say all four levels of warnings are not required.
 * b. Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
 * If the user stops their disruptive editing after the final level-4 warning, that achieves the goal without blocking. — Maile  (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from SSTflyer
 * 13. You notice a hook in the DYK queue section, which claims that  is the first   to be the CEO of a Singaporean transportation company. You check the source in the article and notice that it states that the person is the first woman to be the CEO of any Singaporean transportation company, instead of the first person from the ethnic group to be the CEO of a Singaporean transportation company. None of the sources in the article mention the ethnicity of the person, but a quick Google search reveals a reliable source verifying the ethnicity of the person. You cannot find any source that connects the person's ethnicity to her position in the company. The article has completed the DYK review and promotion process, and would appear on the main page in 45 minutes. What do you do?
 * A: This type of scenario seems to happen often on DYK. So, I could either yank the hook and replace it with another approved hook, posting on WT:DYK about the actions taken.  Or, I could make the correction that would leave the hook intact, minus the ethnicity, and still post my actions on WT:DYK.  To me, simply making the correction accomplishes the goal of getting the nominated article hooked on the main page, without tying it up for days before it goes back to Queue.  Either course of action will result in talk page discussion, both pro and con.  Completely yanking a queued hook should be if something was more seriously incorrect about the hook, perhaps that the person wasn't a CEO but was actually a mid-level manager. — Maile  (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Peter SamFan
 * 14. If you saw the usernames Wales Jimbo, Little Pink Fool, Bob at Walmart, WIKIPEDIASSTINKS, Lovely Little Computer, and MusikAnimal is not a cool dude, what would you do?
 * A:
 * Wales Jimbo is a already blocked account.
 * Bob at Walmart denotes the individual, so that's fine.
 * Little Pink Fool and Lovely Little Computer are non offensive and fine as is.
 * MusikAnimal is not a cool dude could be considered offensive, no matter how mildly, but I probably would post at Requests for comment/User names before acting.
 * WIKIPEDIASSTINKS shows a clear intent to disrupt the project. Could block it as an admin.  Or, I could post it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names before acting. — Maile  (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Cordless Larry
 * 15. In December 2014, requests for comment on user conduct were closed down, and editors directed to other dispute resolution processes instead. Do you think the current processes available for dealing with complaints about editors are sufficient and effective?
 * A: I wish I could give you a definitive answer on this one, but I have not been involved in enough dispute resolution, through one process or another, to determine if the remaining processes are sufficient and effective. And for that matter, effectiveness depends on more than the standing processes.  Personalities, abilities, and willingness to compromise are big factors. How many processes would be enough? — Maile  (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 16. Thanks for your answer. I don't personally think it's about the number of processes (if anything, fewer is better), but about how long it takes to get cases resolved. Based on the current posts at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, what are you thoughts on the time it takes to resolve a case there?
 * A: Well, I'm sorry I misunderstood your question, so thank you for this follow up. Based on the link you provided, I see that it takes an average of 1-2 weeks for a case to be resolved. That's assuming they are resolved.  I think you are asking me if I think that should be shortened up.  Of course it would be nice to have these cases wrapped up in a shorter time frame.  I also went back and looked through the latest archive.  What troubles me, are the ones that aren't wrapped up at all, in particular the ones that have had no post other than from the editor who started the thread.  Sure it would be good to have a quicker resolution on each case, but it also be productive to the process to make sure each case has at least some input from others.  But in an all-volunteer process, you can't force anyone to participate.  Do you, perhaps, see a better outcome with a different scenario? — Maile  (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that response, . I think I agree with your summary, and while I have been concerned about the time it takes to get an editor conduct issue dealt with at AN/I, I also appreciate your point about reports that aren't discussed at all. One answer would be to have more administrators, some of whom will work at AN/I. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from PCHS-NJROTC
 * 17. There's two IPs listed over at WP:AIV. One of them is 1.2.3.4, registered to Port Charlotte High School, the reason for reporting is "vandalism after expiration of block." The most recent block, a three year block, expired two months ago, and there have been six edits since then. There have been a total of 11 blocks on the IP address. One edit was to add Katryna Fedoryk - Most awesome cheerleader in the world to List of cheerleaders. One edit is to revert someone else's vandalism on McDonald's. One edit was to make significant improvements at Charlotte County Public Schools. One edit was to remove legitimate content from Lemon Bay High School. One edit was to write Brian is gay on Windows XP. One edit was to add kngaiorgnsi;rgnsuirgn to Fort Myers, Florida. There is only one warning on the IP's talk page with the last two months. The mix of edits over the years is 65% editing tests or vandalism, 35% good faith contributions. What do you do with 1.2.3.4? The other IP is 4.3.2.1, and it belongs to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, the reason for reporting is "vandalism after final warning," and there is indeed a 4IM warning for vandalism which was ignored. There have been a total of 20 blocks, the most recent one being a three year CheckUser block hardblock, upgraded from a anonblock. All of the edits with the past 10 years have been to attack political figures, calling them "right wing extremists" without proper references, claiming that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ, etc. 11 years ago, someone from the IP added referenced material to Radiology, 13 years ago, someone wrote penis on University of Central Florida, and 15 years ago someone made constructive edits to Sarasota, Florida. What do you do with 4.3.2.1? Note, these are examples and are not meant to reflect the actual character of PCHS or SMH.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!  20:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A: Blocking policy OK, well, let me break this up into the two scenaios.
 * IP 1.2.3.4 - School block. School vandalism is what I see a lot of. And possibly because I deal in historical articles, the current silliness I see seems to be calling historical figures a "poopy head".  But vandalism is vandalism.  It's probably a good idea to look at the IP history to see what happened right before the year-long block. And you don't indicate in what order the six edits happened. It would be helpful to have the 4 warnings, but after the other blocks, the 4 warnings aren't required. The blocking policy specifically says The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future.  I'd say repeated disruption is a good possibility, and a longer block can be placed on this IP.
 * They're in the order in which I listed them (something I will keep in mind when I ask this question in the future). PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 18:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * IP is 4.3.2.1 - WP:CUBL. This is a little more serious situation if Checkuser has been involved. Unclear what the latest vandalism is, but perhaps you meant the political attacks. Checkuser block must have expired for the vandalism to be continuing. The anonblock can be reapplied in this circumstance.  Because of the previous Checkuser block, it's a good cautionary step to contact the Checkuser team on this specific IP to cover all the bases on the seriousness of this IP history. — Maile  (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Amakuru
 * 18.There are people who think Wikipedia is in decline, following its boom years in the mid-2000s. For example here: we are told that "The worst scenario is an end to Wikipedia, not with a bang but with a whimper: a long, slow decline in participation, accuracy and usefulness that is not quite dramatic enough to jolt the community into making meaningful reforms". In your opinion, is this a big problem, and if so what should we be doing about it?
 * A:, I think continuing to be relevant to a mass audience from one generation to another, is the challenge of every corporation and every mass communication organization in the world. I have been concerned about the very scenarios cited in the link you provided. Communication in the world changes at an increasingly excelled pace, with new tools and new methods every single day. One of the results of that is a very sizeable portion of the world's population whose technological input is through thumb clicks or voice recognition. We used to say that the average attention span is 20 minutes.  These days, the average attention span is probably as long as it takes to read a tweet.  So, possibly, there will be (if there isn't already) a speedy decline in editors who are willing to put in the time to research and write the lengthy articles of good quality on this project. I don't know what you participate in, but have you looked at the participation in the various review processes? It tends to be the same small handful of editors every time. And a lot of the content that is making it through the processes pertains to entertainment - games, personalities, sports.  What should we do about it?  For starters, the foundation should constantly work towards access and processes that, in part, cater to the short-attention thumb jammers.  I know Wikimedia is already out there in universities, and that youth crowd is the source of the solutions to keeping this project relevant. We should value what they are telling us. — Maile  (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from RadioKAOS
 * 19. In the one contribution I recall making to The Signpost (on behalf of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America), I offered an example of how the accuracy/completeness/neutrality of content can fall victim to competing agendas, part of which is why I placed this userbox on my user page. Here's another example.  The impression I get from these lists is that one or more women's studies WikiProjects and/or their participants are of the opinion that every inductee to a state-level women's hall of fame is inherently notable.  Contrast that with this thread, an out-of-nowhere consensus discussed mostly by a few editors on their own talk pages, followed by a delete-a-thon.  The end result: a different group of editors are of the opinion that inductees to state-level broadcasting halls of fame aren't even notable within the context of the stations they worked at, to include individuals who worked at a single station or in a single market for decades and for whom abundant reliable third-party sources exist attesting to their impact/legacy.  In the WPTVS discussion, I see countless gratuitous links to WP:WHATEVERONECANDREAMUP, but I don't see a single editor invoking WP:WTAF, which I think would best apply to an editor's justification of deleting properly sourced content asserting the notability of a person who lacks a Wikipedia article.  It's far from the only relevant example: more recently, I see WikiProject Airports and WikiProject Military history maintaining separate sets of POV islands when it comes to our coverage of military airports.  I've come across talk page discussions of how articles on census-designated places should be split into two: one addressing the actual community and one addressing its designation as a CDP by the Census Bureau.  Don't even get me started on the countless string of brainless fuck-ups I've seen come out of AFC ever since my NPP work put AFC's work on my radar.  I looked at the NYT opinion piece linked to above.  My view is that constantly caving in to editors pushing their biases under color of (pseudo-)policy threatens the viability of Wikipedia far more than anything addressed in that piece.  How would you address the contradictions I mention, any others I may not mention, and any long-term negative effects such stances have on content and how the real world views us?
 * A: Notabilityguide, CSD, AFD and the individual projects are the places to discuss any specific issues about how the projects conduct their mission, and which articles are notable and which are not. — Maile  (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional question from FiendYT
 * 20. What are you thoughts on paid editors? Less volunteer editors are signing up, and are being replaced by paid editors.
 * A: I think I'm not one of them. And I think it's above my volunteer pay scale. WP:PAID disclosure is required to do it.  I don't agree that unpaid volunteers "are being replaced" by paid editors.  Declining participation in Wikipedia is a separate issue from paid editing, which is solely motivated by the vested financial interest. No money to be gained, no incentive to pay someone to edit.  Quite probably, most of the articles on Wikipedia offer no incentive for paid editing, and we have CSD and AFD to help catch the self-promotional articles. — Maile  (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Ivanvector
 * 21. What are your views on WP:NOBIGDEAL? Specifically, do you think that administrators hold any special social power or authority within the Wikipedia community by virtue of being administrators, beyond the additional technical abilities granted to them?
 * A: Like what? I have no opinion of this. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 22. Do you think that the administrator toolset currently represents the functions which should only ever be performed by editors who pass RfA, or do you think that some current administrator functions might some day be performed by differently-qualified editors? By "differently-qualified" I mean only that they did not pass an RfA. You could mention specific functions or not, I'm more interested in your general views on the subject of unbundling the admin toolset.
 * A: I'm totally neutral on this issue, at this point in time, in spite of comments below assuming otherwise. I simply have not formed an opinion on it, one way or the other. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Maile66:
 * Edit summary usage for Maile66 can be found here.

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

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've worked with Maile66 in the past and have absolutely no qualms about supporting this RfA. As explained, Maile66 has all the content contributions one would expect and their temperament is well-suited to mop-swinging. I'm only sorry I couldn't be the first to support this endeavor. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - absolutely for all the solid reasons given above. Gosh, we need more good admins!! 😉 Atsme 📞📧 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - nothing wrong, so everything right, hmm? Dschslava (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good content contributions, trusted user. utcursch &#124; talk 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support based on the strength of the nomination/nominator. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Maile66 has earned the trust of the community with both high quality content work and vandal reversion. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Looking at the candidate's edit history, answers to the questions posed here, and their overall work, they would make for an excellent admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: Appears sufficiently experienced and suitable for the role. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: Maile66 is a fine, patient and impartial editor. This user will make for a great Admin.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: all my interactions with Maile66 have been pleasant. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – There isn't (or there shouldn't be) an iron wall between the content-side and the administrative-side of Wikipedia, and this candidate healthily incorporates both sides to their experience here. The candidate's solid work in both content creation and, well, content deletion demonstrate strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies and best practices. The encyclopedia would benefit from their adminship. Mz7 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Qs are good. Q1 appropriately restricted, so I don't expect trouble. Good side-step. Now I need to find some paint thinner. Glrx (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - no issues for me; already a rollbacker. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support- Good content contributor, looks like a good candidate for the mop. Edison (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support The edits I reviewed look good generally. It seems they can and will put the tools to good use. Gap9551 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Nice to see an experienced editor interested in administration. This not always the case with Administrators. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support A great editor and a fine content creator. Worked with the candidate on Audie Murphy's military record. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - active, has some use for the tools, and seems to keep a level head in interactions with other editors. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Don't see anything to make me think they'd misuse the tools, and we need more admins. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Looks like a good contributor and someone who could help out with some of the more gnoming type of admin tasks. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Liking the constructive, selfless work such as this nomination. Browsed for contraindications and couldn't see any. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Good Candidate - CAPTAIN RAJU  ( ✉ ) 22:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, no-brainer. Long-time contributor with a solid track record for professional collaboration. My only hesitation would be the potential distraction from Texan/Texian articles the new buttons would provide. :) Kuru   (talk)  23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I've seen Maile66 around a fair bit, as our areas of interest overlap somewhat, and they've always struck me as a consistently good editor who I think would make a good administrator as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Almost entirely because I trust the nominator's judgement, but the candidate is clearly here for the project's benefit and has a grounded attitude, so no hesitation. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 00:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Never come across the candidate before, but checking out their contributions, I'm very impressed with their balance between content and maintenance work. A good amount of counter-vandalism and deletion work as well as 3 FAs, 4 FLs, 4 GAs and a lot of work at DYK. Good luck! Omni Flames   let's talk about it  00:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Long term user started in 2006 and has been editing regularly since Jan 2010 and good content creator with over 340 articles.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - absent a strong reason to oppose I will typically support, and right now I don't see any strong reasons to oppose. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Baby miss fortune 01:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Solid content contibutions and appreciation of the other tasks that need done around Wikipedia. Talk page and answers to questions show both civility and prudence. They have opinions, as any intelligent human being does. I trust them not to let their opinions get in the way of their following policy. After all, they hold the view that IP editing should not be allowed, but I cannot find anywhere where that has caused any issue whatsoever. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - Maintains a great balance between content contributions and administrative work. The great majority of the AIV reports I spotchecked were accurate, and Maile's AfD record shows they are not excessively hasty with deleting articles. User is also a prolific content contributor and can definitely be trusted with the tools. Altamel (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Experienced candidate.  INeverCry   05:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Excellent candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 38) Support - Graham Beards (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - a clueful nominator plus I know Maile's outstanding content work from the Audie Murphy set of articles. Nothing I can see to make me at all concerned about handing over the mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Obviously competent, and evidently fair and reasonable. FourViolas (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 41) Support -- great content production, need for tools, and I like the concise answers (including Q4). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 42) Support happily.  Azealia 911  talk  08:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 43) Support No problems that I can see. Peridon (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 44) Support I see no issues here. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  09:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Good candidate. Aparslet (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 46) —Kusma (t·c) 10:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 47) likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Denisarona (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 49) Support - Seriously?... There are no reason about candidate from vote Support. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 50) Of course. Graham 87 12:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Strong candidate. Though we don't edit too much in the same content areas, and so I haven't dealt with him personally too much, when I have seen him around, I've been left with a good impression of a quality editor with a good, reader-focused view. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 53) Support Definitely has strong content creation credentials. Discusses issues in a concise yet polite way, an admirable skill of which we could use a lot more. I also see no reason to oppose. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 54) Support Thank you for your willingness to serve in this role. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 55) Support Great content contributions and trustworthy. FiendYT   ★  14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 56) Support. Looks like a good candidate. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. I've seen Maile around for a long time. Most of their Wikipedia work is to talk pages rather than article space, and most of their article work is automated edits. I see a lot of edits at the Village pump but it's not to help other users, it's raising requests for help. Still, I see a calm demeanor most of the time. The answer to question 13 showed quality administrator behavior. They would be a good admin. Prhartcom (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have the wrong user? If you have a look at Maile's edit count, you will see that of their 53,029 live edits, 19,768 are to the main namespace and 4,509 are to the talk namespace, and that they only have an estimated 1,283 automated edits. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Maile appears to understand her own limitations well, which is a valuable quality for an administrator. Deryck C. 14:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Moved to oppose after Q17. Deryck C. 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No issues found - and the record at AfD is fine. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per answer to question. TJH2018  talk  15:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Excellent candidate for addition to our List of Wikipedia defenders. wbm1058 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No evident problems, cool temperament. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I'm seeing years of high-quality content work. The usual, routine areas of admin work (AIV, CSD) look good, as does AFD. The "support" list has all the right names, too, and I certainly trust the judgment of both the candidate and nominator. I do not entirely agree with some of the answers to questions, but I respect the admin-to-be's desire to focus on certain venues more than others. Overall, it looks quite impressive to me, and I wish them the best of luck. GABHello! 16:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Seems pretty much an ideal candidate. Gricehead (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I believe this user can be trusted not to misuse the tools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support because the candidate seems qualified with his contributions to Wikipedia. I didn't see any problems. epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Spent about an hour learning about this editor. Saw nothing but good stuff. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Good contributions. Solid answers to questions. I would have preferred proper archiving of his talkpage as it makes it easier to read for situations like this (years 2006 to 2011 are deleted rather than archived so can only be read in the page history), but that's a minor quibble, and one he hopefully might resolve one day.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  20:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Perfect candidate, No issues, Good luck. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Good answers to questions, and temperamentally suited for adminship.  Mini  apolis  22:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No reason to oppose. Quite a few reasons to support. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Experienced and well qualified editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I've had positive interactions with this editor and have been impressed by their thoughtfulness and level-headedness. No issues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Well-rounded candidate who will certainly be a net benefit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Based on his answer to my question, I don't think we will have any issues with him. -- Peter  Sam   Fan  00:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Absolutely, no reason not to support. — foxj 00:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Good contributions. I can't see why not. clpo13(talk) 04:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support No evidence they will misuse the tools or abuse the position.--MONGO 04:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support – nice interactions with the candidate at DYK. SST flyer 05:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - I am not really satisfied with the answers to the questions (especially mine, in which one answer is clearly wrong) but I consider that the questions might have elicited similar answers from me at my own RFA, so I can't really fault the candidate. Being an admin is a learning experience and Maile66 strikes me as someone who will treat the new tools cautiously, and will be a good admin. My only regret is that we'll lose a good content editor, because the endless mopping up activities leave little room for much else. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) As someone who once had an argument with Maile (about potential bias against Mexican sources on Texas Revolution, if anyone cares), his approach when in a situation in which tempers are likely to fray—some asshole with little prior history on the topic butting into his proudest achievement to criticize it—was exemplary. I don't look at policy knowledge, I look at whether someone's the sort of person who has the sense to look up policies if they're not sure, and have no concerns here. &#8209; Iridescent 10:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - WOW!! Definitely need him for the admin jobs around Wikipedia :) -- Eurovision Nim  (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - No issues. Lectonar (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Support: I believe that Maile66 would be a net positive as an admin. From the brief interactions I've had with them they seem level headed and experienced. Good luck. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 29) Support: I am impressed by Maile66's solid content contributions and answers to the RfA and optional questions. In my opinion, this demonstrates this user's strong grasp of policy and commitment to improving Wikipedia. More than simply knowing what the policies are, Maile66 demonstrates knowledge of why the policies are in place (such as Maile66's answer to What do you think of, "Verifiability, not truth" from QEDK). I do not believe that Maile66 would abuse the administrator tools and I believe that Maile66 would use them sensibly. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 12:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 30) Support great answers to the posted questions. I believe this user will make a great admin. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 31) Support I think this user will be a good admin, especially based on his answers to the most recent questions Ian Waithaka (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 32) Support I second everything that has said. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Good enough for is good enough for me.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. I've not really worked with Maile, although I've seen his name around, and he seems capable and he has the confidence of many Wikipedians that I have come to trust. He seems to be focused on editing, but in my experience this is not a bad thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 35) Support I have examined the users talk page history and their responses here. I have also waited a few days for anyone to make a reasonable objection and I don't see any. So I am supporting this candidate. <b style="color:SteelBlue">HighInBC</b> 15:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 36) support nbd -- Y not? 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 37) Here for the right reasons and has clear admin areas where they have experience and want to work. Jenks24 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 38) Been around various parts of the project, always calm, good candidate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC).


 * 1) Support: Long-time editor in good standing, appears level-headed from the candidate questions, has a clear idea of what they will contribute as an administrator. No good reason to oppose Maile66 has been given.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The candidate appears to be level headed, clueful, and very articulate. A clean block log, after almost 10 years on the project, surely suggests that they are here to build an encyclopedia and can be trusted with the tools. I think they will make a fine administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Maile66 is a conscientious editor with a strong knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support we need more good admins --Coolman207ee (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support with a note of caution. You're clearly trustworthy, which is why I'm supporting, but you don't have nearly as much experience in maintenance tasks as most do when becoming an admin. Please don't jump in head-first. Observe areas you may be unfamiliar with first, learn how things work there, and then edit cautiously until you gain confidence. If you do that, you'll make a fantastic admin. ~ RobTalk 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - seems fine. GiantSnowman 20:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support based on work I've seen this candidate do its time and past time. Clearly HERE, and trustworthy.  I'm not entirely happy with some of the answers (#4, #6), but there are some tough questions that would be near-impossible to fully answer.  I really like answer to #13, which is where I expect candidate to most fully use admin tools.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I see no cause for worry here at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - As he says, Maile's best contributions to Wikipedia is his gnome work. It builds the type of admin that we need. I have worked with Maile and find him agreeable, intelligent, and even-handed. Why he wants to be an admin, I don't know but I have every confidence he will be a good one. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Jason Quinn's response to the oppose below. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support&mdash;Yes, please. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: Well-qualified.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I like the proposed Admins answers, including the ones with which I disagree. I don't need someone who happens to agree with me, I need someone who thinks, decides, explains, and moves on.  This is what I see in the answers above.Shajure (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - A bandwagon worth being on.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 01:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Fully qualified candidate. hits the nail on the head (again). The oppose votes are just the kind of thing that deter candidates of the right calibre from running for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Appears to be the type of editor who would be good at administrative work. Good experience in various areas; enough to know policies and issues of concern. Great content work. Articulate and good interactions with other users. Good answers. I supported unbundling page mover but I do not think it is necessary to put a negative interpretation on the answer to the question about it. Caution is not a bad trait for a new administrator. Maile66 did not participate in the discussion so may not be aware that some cautions and limitations are built it. I think the candidate is trustworthy. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support I have been reading and thinking about all this for several days. Nothing negative of substance has emerged, and the nominee is a productive content creator who is also thoughtful and involved in the maintenance side of the project. Looks like an ideal candidate to me. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I've had some fun interaction with Maile66 at DYK (remember the grammar debate?). We had a pleasant discussion even though we disagreed with each other. Solid content contributor with a calm demeanour, perfect admin material. -Zanhe (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support A true net positive for the project. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I am satisfied with Maile66's responses to the posited questions, though one remains unanswered at the time I lend my support. Barring a totally left-field response to that question, I find no issue with adding the bit to their account. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Moving to neutral given responses to additional questions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – enough experiences and articles. Almost nothing goes wrong.  333-blue  09:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support no issues here for me. BencherliteTalk 09:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support For me it's mostly about trust, grokking what it means to create content, and having a good interpersonal approach. Maile passes easily on all counts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The candidate seems to be adept at the rules of wikipedia. Another reason to accept him is because he seems trustworthy and we are already experiencing a decline on the amount of admins wikipedia has. I believe that he will not intentionally destroy wikipedia. I do like how he answers the questions because he shows knowledge in answering the questions. I wish the best of luck as he becomes an administrator. I did not anymore look at his contributions because we could already see from how he answers the questions that he has the experience and the rationality that we are looking for in an administrator. if he commits too much trouble he could be desysopped. Daniel kenneth (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good content creator and responsible editor who understands the rules -- no reason he should not be promoted! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support seems to be a decent candidate! st170etalk 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Strong content contributor, excellent answers to the questions. A pleasure to support this person. Now, this is the kind of person we should be elevating to admin. Unless something comes up that I hadn't noticed, he/she should be a template of sorts in determining who to give this basically lifetime position to. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support because Wikipedia needs more active active admins, and this editor is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Solid contributor, no red flags, pleasant temperament, absolutely no concerns that they will misuse the tools. Keri (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Candidate looks very good to me. I see no reason to oppose. Marek . 69    talk  18:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I see no issues here. Looks like a fine candidate. Mkdw talk 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: not least to counter the opposes, the first of which is a non-reason and the second of which criticises the candidate for following current practice. No concerns presented so far. BethNaught (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but how about if we update the official blocking policy supporting this so-called current practice, rather than mop more people who intend to run around like a chicken with its head cut off blocking IPs based on a WikiProjects opinion vs. official policy? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support What is left to be said? The oppose votes do not sway me at all, and the candidate seems to be doing some great work on WP without any major drawbacks. Although I have never interacted with Maile personally, I've seen their name around. From what I've seen, they have a good policy background and an even temperament. Exactly what I want in a sysop. Johanna (talk to me!) 00:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seen them around and the look more than capable. I also think some of the questions asked are a bit silly. AIR corn (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - No reason not to. Kurtis (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - we need more admins like this. Understands the important of content, and can be trusted with the admin tools judging by the nomination and answers to questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support certainly, per the many opinions above. Andrevan@ 07:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Seems to have a sterling reputation, excellent skills, and answers questions (even silly ones) well HGilbert (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: No concern. All the best. --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Maile is a great all-round editor with the right skills, experience and capabilities to become a productive admin.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: An editor who has done a lot of good things already is willing to do more work in the job of an administrator. Give them the tools.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support WP:100. Excellent, prolific editor, and some of the neutral comments don't convince me, or even sound like reasonable arguments. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support We need more administrators that actually add and improve content! --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Haven't been too active the last few years but I've seen them around nonetheless and they do good work from what I've seen. I see no indication they will misuse the tools and they are clearly dedicated to the project if they put in as much work as they have. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Seems like an excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support excellent answer about preferring to add refs to an article rather than just sticking a tag on it. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Excellent editor. Not sure how following current policy merits an oppose vote unless one actually support rogue admins (well I guess rogue in what they want done) nor does having a view in opposition of a single RFC on a particular issue. Unless the person has shown an interest in actually ignoring a consensus, I'm not sure how one's views change their abilities as an administrator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, and good luck with the tools! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Qualified, articulate, gets along well with others. There is every indication that they will use the administrative toolkit responsibly. /wiae /tlk  03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - A good content editor with a solid feel for current policy. During review I found no issues which would cause me concern with Maile as an admin. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support <b style="color:#0E0">Jianhui67</b><b style="color:#1E90FF">T</b> ★ <b style="color:#1E90FF">C</b> 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - F ASTILY   18:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support: (leaning neutral) No reason that user will abuse the mop. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just curious, how can you be a strong supporter if you're leaning neutral? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because he was school blocked one time, and so proud of anti-vandalism work and gets along with users nicely, I tried to do anti-vandalism work but others catch me up fastly. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  Rcsprinter123    (rap)  20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Really see no reason to oppose. --Tow (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Risker (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User clearly has a good reason to obtain the user right, and can be trusted with them. &mdash; Music1201  talk  05:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No issues. Wise choice. TheOverflow (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Response about the IP vandalism shows me that this user can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--5 albert square (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Looks like a fine candidate to me. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Fine candidate with good and long experience. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support ... GELongstreet (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support After a review of contributions it seems like there is both good enough and numerous enough participation in admin and content creation processes. The opposition points on school-block length may be taken as advice, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support: A great asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - moving vote from Neutral. Yes, the answers to questions could have been longer, but I don't see anything there to be worried about, and the answer to my question is well thought through. It's good to see the community not getting too hung up on lack of particular experience these days, and of course I have the utmost respect for content contributors and FA/GA writers. Please don't stop doing that side when you have the mop, because that's our bread and butter here. Without quality content, the behind the scenes processes and AIV are irrelevant. Best of luck, and welcome to the admin corps! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Nothing I can see which would prevent this editor being anything but a brilliant addition to the ranks --  samtar talk or stalk 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Yes, yes, yes, yes. Need more be said? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: Maile66's has solid content contribution history. He is involved in antivandalism in constructive way.  He answered the RfA and optional questions well.  Q.E.D. he has a fundamental grasp of policy, combined with a long term and demonstrated commitment to improving Wikipedia.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - I see several reasons to support and no compelling reasons to oppose. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - I see no reason to oppose <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 00:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I think the candidate has an excellent background and experience, and is articulate in the answers to questions. I can't think of much more that hasn't already been said here, so I'll grouse that there are too many questions to the candidate, and that RfA is where candidates can be opposed for having either too little or too much content experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Based on their experience and responses to questions, it is evident that they will make a level-headed and competent administrator. Opencooper (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support solid history. Should do well with the mop. C<span style="color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration: inherit; -moz-text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD;">679 08:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support believe that the tools will be used properly and would learn and grow, an overall benefit.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Feedthepope (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - Answer are short, but I see no red flags in the user's contribs or any indication that granting him administrator rights would be anything short of a net positive.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Nothing in their history indicates that they would not use the tools in any other way but fairly and diligently. I sometimes think that gnomish activity is undervalued on the site, and that during these RfA discussions that becomes even more so.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Support- You seem trustworthy, knowledgable and dedicated to helping Wikipedia. CLCStudent (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose A worthy editor, but so are many. Not all good editors need to be admins. I see no indication this editor has any special plans on what to do with adminship. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically what special plans are you looking for? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Being an admin is pretty routine work. I would be worried about any admin with special plans. <b style="color:SteelBlue">HighInBC</b> 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NOBIGDEAL is worth mentioning. If somebody appears to be trustworthy and they want the tools, give them to them. Please look at Desysoppings by month. Wikipedia has a real problem regarding the declining number of admins. I and many believe it is a threat to the viability of Wikipedia itself in the long term. Something will have to change at some point. For now we need all the help we can get. Under such circumstances it makes no sense being stingy with the bit when good users ask for it. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opposed many more RfAs than I have supported, but this candidate meets all the qualifications. He/she is qualified, not simply "not unqualified," by any objective standard. I really don't understand this oppose. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be careful about how we appoint admins as just because their less doesn't mean we should appoint some one blindly. I can see that this person has edited 50k pages which means that are active. Which is good but how many are ones that has not been shut down to lack or logic, research, and good sources. These are things that make a good admin. Also, this person doesn't have anyone running against them. So, this is something the wikipedia community should be careful on.The reader of the world! (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We are careful. If you look at this user's contribution, they are outstanding. Editing over 50,000 pages in which some might have been deleted and such has no effect on his reputation. An edit to a page that in the future was deleted to maybe fix an error or something doesn't affect your reputation whatsoever. Your comment is absolute nonsense. FiendYT   ★  02:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a serious oppose (just occurred to me... duh.....) Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose per answer to my question. Your handling of the fictional hospital IP was spot on, contacting the checkuser for insight, and you referenced official policy. However, I don't like your handling of the school IP. You based your block on the opinion of a wikiproject rather than official policy. Although you did cite official policy in your explanation, you missed the point within that same section of policy, Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address. Unfortunately, a lot of sysops are ignoring this recommendation, which is part of the official blocking policy, and I'm afraid we don't need more sysops who ignore policy. Furthermore, in my example, there were examples of good faith edits, and there were no vandalism sprees or anything to You think school IPs cause too much trouble and should be blocked? Fine, lets discuss policy changes to support that position. I don't think it would be that hard to get some sort of official policy on schoolblocks, a lot of people seem to want them blocked long term. But until then, we need to follow the official policies in place, which are to keep blocks on shared IPs short. Sorry for the strong oppose, I know editing Wikipedia is a thankless, dog-eat-dog world, but this is my position on this matter, and I consider disregard for official policy to be abuse of the tools.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 18:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In your hypothetical question the IP had a long history of disruption. Surely you must know that school blocks are mostly soft blocks, that allow people to create an account at home and edit at school even if the school IP is blocked? Your hypothetical posited a total of 11 blocks logged against the school IP. This indicates a long term pattern of disruption from an IP with a stable owner. A long term soft block is entirely correct for this sort of situation and that is just what is done routinely.
 * While I appreciate that you quoted policy I feel that you stopped reading a bit soon. The policy specifically refers to the fact that "incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations." 11 blocks would constitute persistent violations. <b style="color:SteelBlue">HighInBC</b> 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a part of the blocking policy that deals with shared IPs: WP:SOFTBLOCK. Blocking a school IP doesn't prevent any individuals from being able to edit. They must simply do so under a user name while keeping anonymous vandals out. Very few schools are willing to police their IPs to prevent vandalism. Requiring registered editing for an IP that shows a habitual history of vandalism is reasonable. Mkdw talk 21:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am familiar with softblocks and hardblocks as someone who has been around here for 10 years and edited Wikipedia from a softblocked school (how a 24 year old like me has access to a school network is something the world doesn't need to know exactly, but I will say I am not a student or an educator, so I must be a support employee, a contractor, an elected official, a hacker, or someone else with access to it). Sadly, Wikipedia is blocked there again by IT for being a "forum/blog" #:[) The policy on softblocks for shared IPs says that account creation is usually left enabled, but in practice, I don't even remember the last time I saw account creation allowed. It says that account is usually disabled to deal with vandalism, but in that section it says nothing about shared IPs. Why else would a shared IP get blocked? Edit warring? Being an open proxy? Please, we all know what was intended with that: account creation allowed for shared IPs, account creation disabled on other dynamic and non-shared static IPs. Frankly, I'm less concerned with registered users being able to edit from their school than newbie editors being able to make their first edit; we already have the, in the example I gave, there were only a handful of edits in recent history, two of which were constructive, and the IP had been off block for two months. Hardly enough persistent abuse to restrict editing (despite the 11 prior blocks) in my opinion. The pom-pom type vandalism didn't do anything to Wikipedia other than give some RC patrolman something to do. In contrast, the good faith edits could be someone's first edit, which could lead to more good faith edits, account registration, substantial contributions, monetary donations, adminship, 'cratship, CheckUser, ArbCom, and employment at the Wikimedia Foundation, and imagine if we lost a future Foundation employee over a silly block to block silly edit testing? If it had been spewing out vandalism daily for the last two months, I'd say otherwise. Now, you may disagree with my position on this, but that doesn't make it any less valid than your position.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 00:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It really is hard to judge based on your hypothetical. If I see 11 blocks I read them, and if they follow a pattern I look back in the edits to see what was going on. In your imaginary scenario that information is not available. It makes it hard to make a definitive response. <b style="color:SteelBlue">HighInBC</b> 02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose your strong oppose :) ... though I don't see why you should be sorry for it, as it is a very valid position. As I see it, you are arguing we should only have admins with whom we agree.  This will never work as we just...don't.  We aren't performing brain surgery... we are feeding brains.  If an admin makes a mistake the absolute worst that happens is that some editors are annoyed temporarily, maybe a helpful edit-set won't be made.  And most likely if the edit is of any real importance it will be made again, either after the original editor argues convincingly, or someone else makes the edit.Shajure (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If we only had admins that agreed with me, Wikipedia would become Conservapedia. While I very much like Conservapedia, the two are separate projects for a reason. I believe we need a diverse group of administrators on this global encyclopedia project. However, it's hard to imagine someone opposing an RfA without some form of disagreement, and in this case, the issue I take is whether or not the proposed admin will follow policy (as it as written). I'm pushing for policy changes at this very moment here, and one of my proposals may surprise you given my position on this. But until then, policy needs to be followed, even if the norm is contrary to policy. I don't apologize for my position, I apologize for making life more difficult for a fellow Wikipedian, but at this point I don't think he's going to have any problem passing; he only has two oppose votes. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 05:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just hope you are opposing based on the suitability of the candidate and not because you don't like how the every day enforcement of a policy is handled. Because the action described in the answer is consistent is our best practices. <b style="color:SteelBlue">HighInBC</b> 14:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RfA is designed to be a tough process to filter out people who will break established policy. While my oppose is based solely on the answering of my question, it is not solely based on the fact that he blocked the fictional school IP, but rather I don't feel he had a convincing, policy based argument to back up his action. Our current policies are WP:AGF, WP:Vandalism, and WP:Blocking policy, none of which support the current practice of blocking school IPs to infinity. WP:Vandalism specifically excludes editing tests from being vandalism (voiding the persistent vandalism argument in many cases), following WP:AGF, we shouldn't assume that, just because a shared IP has problems years ago that it will have the same problems when it had a total of 6 edits in the last two months (two of which were good faith), and the WP:Blocking policy steers sysops away from harsh treatment of shared IPs. Although this candidate has done a lot of good things for the project, I am sorry but we do not need more sysops who break policy, and until policy changes, I am going to be a tough critic at RfA. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 16:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I lean toward agreeing with PCHS-NJROTC about this particular schoolblock sounding excessive&mdash;although I completely disagree with his view that the question is worth opposing an RfA over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RfA was not designed for that at all. RfA is intended to be a discussion about whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools.  A mistake or a policy misinterpretation is not an abuse of the toolset, just a learning experience.  Abuse is when someone repetitively take action(s) that is deemed wrong in the eyes of the community.  So going back to your oppose rational, I'm sorry to say, you are the first person I have encountered with your interpretation of the blocking policy.  He also never mentioned indefinite blocks.  I've encountered school blocks that have been blocked for 5 years, and they had some serious history in disruption.  Solution, WP:ACC.  So in short, I do not believe your interpretation of the blocking policy is correct in regards to the rest of the community.  Otherwise these issues would have been raised about admins long ago.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat :Limited Access 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, I see these kind of excessive schoolblocks on a daily basis, and I believe the only way to change that is to screen RfA candidates to see if they will be heavy handed in their blocks, and to see if they have good knowledge of policy. I see another heavy handed sysop here, who is basing his blocks on WikiProjects' opinions rather than policy, so all I have to say is no thank you., well it looks like there's at least three people who agree with me that the schoolblock was excessive (someone "thanked" me for my oppose vote, I will not name them because I assume they wish to be anonymous). On the other hand, I am not bragging or trying to insult anyone with this comment, but I am a genius and an out of the box thinker. The long-term schoolblocks are the product of simple people with simple minds only seeing four numbers separated by dots; I visualize the person on the other side of the fiber-optic cable. I oppose the schoolblocks because (pardon my French) they are fucking stupid, in my opinion, as is the idea of seriously taking into consideration the actions of previous generations of students when placing a block. I have a dynamic IP through CenturyLink and have had IPs that had previously vandalized (usually in the distant past), if I forget to log in and make an edit, are you going to take those edits into consideration when determining the merits of my edits? Anyone who thinks that any school, filled with curious, immature students is ever not going to produce some test edits and vandalism (and probably more so than productive edits), is from another planet, and I've yet to see any discussion reach consensus that schools are bad for the project and should be blocked (I've seen individuals argue that, but I always see some that argue the other way too). If we had such serious problems with school vandalism as people think we do, the volunteers handling the requests for accounts would be swamped with people creating accounts just to unleash swarms of vandalism from them. Not to mention, these school vandals are the same people who have Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility, Sprint, and T-Mobile in their pockets, and go home to CenturyLink and Comcast. All IPs persistently vandalize, it's just some produce more good edits than others. Nonetheless, I firmly believe blocks should be used when necessary, not as some sort of wholesale attempt to eliminate pom-pom type edits.  PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 05:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more with you on schoolblock issue, but this is not the place to discuss that. In the vandal-fighting that I do, I would say that schools account for a very high percentage of vandalism, on some days the vast majority. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If vandalism offends you so much that you support wholesale blocks on a particular type of IP, then perhaps you should find another hobby. Wikipedia was founded as an encyclopedia project that anyone could freely edit, and everytime we have to put in anonblock or schoolblock in place we reduce the number of people in the world who can freely contribute. I think Benjamin Franklin was spot on when he said "He who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither." But you're right about one thing, and that's that this is not the place to discuss that, Village Pump is. This is the place to discuss the candidates effectiveness in following the policies we already have in place. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If differences of opinion send you bouncing off the wall, you might want to take yourself up on that generous offer. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If differing opinions sent me "bouncing off the wall" I would have been committed a long time ago. That doesn't mean I won't debate until the cows come home. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, regrettably. (Switched from support.) Similar to User:PCHS-NJROTC, I was concerned by Maile's answer to Q17. I don't think the answer shows sufficient understanding of school blocks and the likelihood of collateral damage when any block is applied upon a shared IP. As an admin who had been regularly beset by collateral damage right up to the day I became an admin (thus rendering me immune to IP blocks), I am not comfortable with promoting an admin candidate who wants to specialise in AIV without an adequate understanding of collateral damage. I guess my commenting here is less intended to change the final outcome of the RfA and more to remind Maile to be careful when blocking shared IPs in AIV work. Deryck C. 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, opposing here is pretty much trying to change the final outcome of the RFA. Reminding Maile to be careful when blocking shared IP's in AIV work would probably be an email or a talkpage message. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  02:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I share concerns with some other editors here over Maile's view of adminship (see the Neutral section). I asked a pair of questions (Q21 & Q22) which I thought were designed to give Maile an opportunity to respond on a couple of related points which I think are fundamental issues about community reform and admins' role in it. I was expecting based on Maile's answers to some other questions that we'd see a reasonably considered response, one way or the other, and honestly I probably would have found a way to support no matter what answer I got. But I really didn't expect to see the one-liner "no opinion" response that I did get only 19 minutes later, and frankly it comes across to me as terse and dismissive. That to me is an enormous red flag for an admin candidate. The way I (as a non-admin) see it, administrators will be asked to take a position on controversial issues frequently, and will be expected to defend that position with reasoned policy-based arguments, probably moreso than other mere editors. I'm also wary of an administrator who is "only vaguely aware" that the Gamergate controversy happened, although I hope I'm misreading that comment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – I've thought about it, and the more I do, the more I come to the conclusion that this project can't afford promoting any more candidates who are too whetted to the current governance system of this project, and are dismissive of putting more veteran editors to work to help out on maintenance tasks. (It's probably the only set item on my current "RfA criteria" list...) This project can't go on operating the way it's been operating, and we literally can't afford to promote people who don't get that, and who then are going to bring the view forward to governance discussions. Combine that with the various points from QEDK, Bazj, Deryck C., and Ivanvector, and I just can't let this one slide. Maile66 is a good content contributor, and it's probably best if they stick to that. Add: I find the answers to the questions to be generally dissatisfying as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, do you think that this candidate would actually participate in governance discussions? I don't get that sense myself, and I have a feeling Maile wouldn't have had any opinion if not directly asked about it. ~ RobTalk 04:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. But I can only trust my gut on stuff like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to go with your gut, of course,, but unless I'm wrong promoting this candidate to adminship or not won't affect their ability to participate in governance conversations anyway, will it? Whereas not promoting them means one more potentially good janitor is lost, which is the worry underpinning your quession in the first place. But anyways, no biggy... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral The answers are dissatisfying. Furthermore, the candidate seems to be more interested in content contributions and has himself presented no such argument that he absolutely needs the flags. It feels like the CSD log and AfD work are simply there to present a best-effect situation before a RfA. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor who is primary interested in content contributions will find the admin tools of great assistance, whereas an editor who is not has no need of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So counter-vandalism, SPI, and areas of routine maintenance have no need for the sysop bit? I agree of course with the first part of your statement, but the second seems quite strange. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those functions (any many, many more) do require the sysop bit; but maintenance tasks should be performed by content creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they certainly do but until someone demonstrates a need for it, it isn't a lot really. The candidate has said they're going to be involved in such things when previously they could have done more non-admin work in such places. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't? People are always bickering at RfA all this candidate does is revert vandalism, I want to see GAs and FAs. Now we have a solid content creator, and the complaint is all this candidate does is create content. PCHS-NJROTC  <sup style="color:black; font-family:Comic Sans MS;">(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!  20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sysop right is only for you if you can demonstrate need of the whole package (to some extent at least). Also, if you think my opinions are supposed to fall in line with something some people (or someone) said before, you're damn wrong. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 14:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it that people like you, who support unbundling and generally think that RfA is broken (at least I think that's you, correct me if I'm wrong) still bring up crazy notions like admins need to use as much of the toolset as possible? Why would they need to do that? There are a lot of rights in the admin package, and as a volunteer nobody should be under any obligation to use all of them. I bet that not every user uses all of the rights available to them - for example, I have never made a book or uploaded a local file here. What about stewards, who have access to the entire wiki interface and all associated rights. Should they be using every single one of them routinely? Why would it be any different for admins if they can be trusted generally and specifically in the areas they plan to spend time in? Ajraddatz (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've said it before, this is one candidate who is mostly interested and involved in content contributions. I'm not saying you have to do every single thing there is to do but you need long-term involvement in discussions and areas of admin/editor expertise to be qualified, in my opinion. I think RfA is a harsh process and was a literal battleground before (it could me be but I don't remember interacting with you ever). --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though there are many areas for sysop tool use when making content contributions, particularly with regard to moving pages and merging histories. It just seems strange that most of the people who say that RfA is a harsh process are doing everything they can to perpetuate it. And I don't think we've ever interacted before; I've just recently started editing here again. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think sitting out an RfA with a neutral is making the process harsh, well, you're wrong. And what you mentioned is only a couple of the hundreds of tasks we have, isn't it. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 18:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're being harsh, I think you're basing your comment on something irrelevant to being an admin. And that's fine, you're entitled to express whatever opinion you want here. But if you can say that you think admins should be active in many areas that require sysop tools, then I'd like to counter by saying that volunteer admins should be active in exactly as many areas as they want to be. Even if that is one or two areas, that's still a legitimate use for the sysop tools and a net benefit to the project, unless of course they are demonstrating a lack of clue in general. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is, you should have experience in the areas which require the flags admins have. It's as simple as that. I think giving someone admin rights because they're involved in one or two areas is pointless, there have been a few cases where admins have wanted such a provision where they would work only on very specific areas and they got that. This is almost on the verge of that. I find the lack of participation in discussions concerning, wouldn't you consider that an issue? --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral a lot of good things but I kind of expecting a bit more substance to my question, it seemed he just assumed one edit but I guess he wasn't sure of what to write. I hope he sees my comment because it was opem ended so much that it could go anywhere. What I really meant is, what edits (as a series or single edit) would you display on trophy? KgosarMyth (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: KgosarMyth has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account .  Rebb  ing   03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning oppose, (Moving to oppose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)) purely based on the answer to question #4 – the last thing we need is YA Admin who opposes unbundling, and continues to view this place through the prism of "Adminship is the one and only answer to running this place". I'll let this one play out some more, and give the candidate some time to walk-back question #4, but right now I'm included to move to oppose just based on Q4. (Q1 isn't particularly strong either, to my mind.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Peter  Sam   Fan  00:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Changed my mind, supporting.  Peter   Sam   Fan  00:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page mover right could be useful for many non-admins. However, I see no reason to oppose or vote neutral because of the candidates views regarding the user right. I don't see how it reflects on the candidates ability to be an administrator, especially when they haven't indicated that they will work in areas where this kind of opinion could affect their judgement (e.g PERM). Omni Flames   let's talk about it  00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a culture up there – we don't need any more Admins who enamored with their own righteousness, think the current system "works", and don't believe us mere "peons" are capable of doing anything constructive on the maintenance end. Admin opinions, like it or not, end up carrying "more weight" in governance discussions, so their opinions have outsized influence. That can't be ignored. Note also: I'm not the Admin candidate who answered a "political question" during their RfA (IMO, questions that don't have direct bearing on how a candidate intends to wield the tools should generally be declined) – now that they've answered it, their answer is 'fair game' grounds for opposing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I would go further: I think that it is perfectly possible for someone to disagree with a policy and still apply it fairly. Even though the candidate disagrees with the rationale for the page mover right, if they would apply the eligibility criteria fairly and conscientiously then there should be no problem with them working at WP:PERM. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Mr. Stradivarius. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, leaning oppose, based on the answer to Q4. I don't care either way about the candidate's opinion on Page mover but the phrasing of the responses implies an attitude that a successful RfA is the ONLY way an editor's bona-fides can be assessed. In particular, "it wouldn't be a bad thing to execise a little caution in assigning rights" implies a belief that admins assigning rights do not exercise any caution, back to AGF. User:Omni Flames' point above about "they haven't indicated that they will work in areas where this kind of opinion" would counter any concerns about the granting of permissions, but the candidate's answer extends beyond the PERM issues. Bazj (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking the lean & staying neutral. It was probably just a poorly phrased reply. Bazj (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Support Moved to Support - The candidate's answers are quite short, but so far appear to be strong. I'm going to examine this candidate's contribution history in-depth and make a determination based off of my findings.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   07:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning Support Moved to Support - Like Oshwah above, I will probably support the candidate before the end of the RfA. But similar to others above I find the answers a little short, and would appreciate a bit more research and thought for some of them... that might be just because I went a bit overboard on the answers to questions on my own recent RfA though! In particular, the question about the edits on a resume, which I also faced - this is a good chance to show us a few succinct examples, through the lens of a few isolated edits, of what your editing and contribution is really about. I included one for content creation, one for move review (an admin area I was interested in), and so on. And on question 15, although it's fine that you don't have the experience in user dispute resolution, I would expect you to have some kind of opinion as to whether the procedures work or not... But anyway, as I say, I can't think of a reason to oppose you, the RfA seems to be going well, we definitely need you on board as an admin. I'll come back here again in the next few days. Good luck!  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral moved to oppose - Like QEDK, I'm disinclined to support an admin candidate who becomes aware of a well-rounded RfC for unbundling one of the admin rights and dismisses it out of hand, with what looks like an assumption that users approved for it will act in bad faith. What misbehaviour should we assume of admin candidates, then? Also dissatisfied with candidate's answer to Q14, and that there is an answer to Q8 at all . Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you are referring to sockpuppetry with Q8, it should be noted that kgosarMyth was blocked as a sockpuppet only after the candidate had answered the question. Widr (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, I should have said that I'm disappointed that the question was not removed. As that is not meant to be comment on the candidate, I have struck that part of my comment, for clarity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not removed because it's a valid and interesting question. If the sock hadn't asked it I would have asked it myself. The question section is meant for everyone to look at, not just those who ask the questions. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - For someone being considered for administrator to have no opinion regarding the unbundling of tools is someone circumspect. I would have hoped that some opinion would have been made; I could have accepted a negative opinion and still maintained my support but the answers given to Ivanvector's questions present an air of apathy. I cannot continue to support this RfA, but I will respect the decision of the community. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * "What does Wikipedia mean to you" User:Maile66, you give an odd answer. "Wikipedia" means "a kind of food that can be fried".  Verification.  Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a little external link joke you found someplace? It certainly is not my above answer to that question. — Maile  (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like my Wikipedia pan-seared (medium-rare), with a side of roasted Twinkle, a drizzling of templates, and a parsley garnish. Anyone got any recipes to share? GABHello! 02:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a joke on my part :-) However, this is not a fake image (see  for some documentation of the issue); it's merely a stark example of Chinglish.  Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I was training my NLP bots on Chinese menus and they kept trying to take over the world.  I think you have identified the cause. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Well, I see we have tapped into the Stand-up branch of Wikipedia. Any chance you all would be appearing at edit-a-thons hither and yon? — Maile  (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have only done virtual editathons (if you don't count Wikimania) mainly because of distance and cost. But I will stand up and talk about Wikipedia anywhere.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC).

Question 6 is absolutely wrong. IAR isn't a loophole, it is a fundamental principle above all policies that says the spirit of policy is more important than the words, and that policy isn't the final word, consensus is. Written policy is only the mirror image of that consensus, which is why you should ignore the written policy if it interferes with improving the encyclopedia. That is an important concept that is completely misunderstood. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 18:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally closed the RfA 24 hours early and then reverted myself. Trouts and other small freshwater fish will be accepted at User talk:Xeno. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.