Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Monty845


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

Monty845
'''Final (85/10/0); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination
Monty845 is one of those editors that everyone thinks is already an admin. I still did when he asked me about his suitability a few months ago. He is a lawyer by trade, and is well respected here due to his thoughtful and helpful insights, and his calm and respectful demeanor. He has spent the last 5 and a half years in almost all areas, with a variety of interests, although most has been in the last year and a half. Never one to bludgeon or labor a point, he is well versed in policy and always willing to discuss or explain his perspective. He is an independent thinker who doesn't just "jump on the bandwagon", and knows how to politely express a concern without causing drama. He has over 24,000 edits to his credit and has solid AfD and copyright experience (a huge plus in my eyes). I am very confident he will be a smart, cautious and level headed addition to the admin corps. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Monty  845  20:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: First, let me mention that I move around from time to time, so I can't promise these will be the only places I end up; I would likely participate as an admin at AFD, CSD and WP:AIV, I may also be occasionally active at WP:SCV. While I have participated in threads on the main admin notice boards, I anticipate that most of my activity there will continue to be in a non-admin capacity. I would of course make sure I was up to speed in any new area before using the tools there.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I can't point to specific contribution(s) that I consider my best. While I have made some article developing edits, I think my best contribution to Wikipedia continues to be my gnomish activity. I consider myself well versed in the policies that govern article development (though less so with regard to the MOS), but researching and developing articles just isn't my cup of tea. Clearly article development is the core of Wikipedia, and so, to support that, I have generally focused on maintenance tasks, removing vandalism, and other things that need to happen to allow those who enjoy article development to focus more of their time on it.


 * 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: I have been involved in a number of conflicts, though in most (if not all) of the larger conflicts I've been involved in, I have not been one of the core participants. Generally the approach I take is to discuss until I think I've made my position as clear as possible, responded to any points I thought required responses, and then stepped back to give others time to provide input. Both when it comes to conflicts, and generally, I think it has served me well to remember that it is not my responsibility to single-handedly resolve every dispute, or fix every problem, there is no reason to get stressed over it, as there are always other editors around who can bring more experience, or even just another pair of eyes to a conflict/problem.


 * Additional question from Lord Roem
 * 4. Could you please elaborate on your answer to question #3? What specific conflicts have you been in where you "discuss until [you] make [your] position as clear as possible"?
 * A: To provide one example, the collapsed section on this user talk page. After my last comment, I thought my position was clear, the other editor involved clearly disagreed with me, and they continued to disagree in their next response. It seemed unlikely that I was going to sway their opinion, and at that point, rather then continue a back and forth, I thought it would be more productive to step back and wait for either someone else to weigh in, or, as happened, the editor whose page the discussion occurred on to sort it out. Monty  845  23:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the example! Lord Roem (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Rotten regard
 * 5. Why do you find any form of censorship offensive? Presumably that means you believe that a person should have the right to indulge in Hate speech?
 * A: I think its important to be clear that in my view, being opposed to censorship is not at odds with exercising sound editorial judgement about what content to include in articles or elsewhere on Wikipedia. What we should not do is say that Wikipedia should omit relevant information, that is reliably sourced, merely because some may find it offensive, nor should we give a great deal of weight to its potential to offend. Beyond article content, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for promoting hate speech, and it is entirely appropriate to sanction editors who direct hate speech at fellow editors, or try to promote it anywhere on the project. I realize that my response doesn't really answer the question you asked, and while I would be happy to answer any questions about how my views on censorship impact my editing and/or would impact my actions if made an admin, I don't think RFA is the place to get into a discussion on my general views regarding censorship. Monty  845  02:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from WereSpielChequers
 * 6. As a community we have some areas where we are in some people's eyes, censorious, Q5 and your userbox prompts me to ask for some reassurance in those areas. Admins have no special status in policy making, so I have no objection to an admin who advocates a policy change, but we do expect admins to use their tools in accordance with policy and set a good example in what they do. Could you reassure us that in the following areas you either support policy and practice or if you don't agree with the community that you would not edit against it as an admin?
 * Self disclosure by minors. Kids come here, some have not yet learned not to tell the world their DOB, school and real name. Admins and oversighters get to tidy up.
 * Personality rights. If a celebrity's ex releases a PD version of an intimate photo that the celeb objects to, should we include it in an article?
 * Real names of pornstars, even if their agency and maybe some fansites have outed them in the past.
 * People's ethnicity, nationality and religion. Some people self disclose all sorts of info, others are keen to out closet gays, scientologists, disguised seven foot tall lizards and members of all the various groups that are alleged to rule the world. If you become one of the new illuminati an admin what actions if any would you take here?
 * A: Let me say generally that I am will respect consensus even when I disagree with it. To respond in detail to the questions in order:
 * I support removing self disclosed personal information about minors that could be used by someone to locate them in the physical world or otherwise contact them off wiki, at least in the first instance. Removing DOB, when not accompanied by other identifying information is in my opinion a bit overzealous, but I don't think it is worth making a fuss over, again in the first instance. Where things become more complicated is where an older minor has been advised about the risks of self disclosure, and insists on doing so anyway. If for instance, a 17 year old, who seems to act maturely in other things, insists on self disclosing personal information, and there was no special circumstance to the contrary, I would likely support them in a discussion on the matter at an appropriate venue. In any case, I would not revert another admin's tool use with regard to the information, absent a specific consensus to do so, and would at most initiate or participate in a discussion on the matter.
 * In my opinion, such an intimate photo would be very unlikely to have encyclopedic value, and thus should not be included in the article. I would also most likely support deletion of the photo if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, an intimate photo of someone released without permission, is a much bigger issue then personality rights, as it is a severe breach of the person's privacy. Even if the photo and its release became widely discussed, it seems unlikely that the specific photo would be necessary for a reader to understand what happened.
 * Birth names of porn stars: First, I would need to determine if the information violates WP:BLP policy. I fully support BLP policy; requiring information, whether in the BLP context or otherwise, to be properly sourced before being included, is not censorship. If the information is not sourced to a sufficiently reliable source, it must be removed. Assuming the inclusion of the birth name of a pornstar passes BLP policy, it becomes a matter for normal WP:BRD editing practice. I will certainly respect the outcome when the question is discussed and a consensus is reached on a specific case.
 * Outing of public figures: As with the last issue, my first resort would be to BLP Policy. If the claim is sourced sufficiently to satisfy BLP policy, it becomes a matter for normally editing and discussion. As a general matter, I don't think ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation are automatically important for inclusion in an article even if they can be sourced. Ultimately, we must defer to the reliable sources to determine what weight if any those characteristics should carry in the article. For instance, if reliable sources generally don't mention that a person is gay, and if the few that do so mention it only in passing, I would have no problem deferring to a request to keep the information out. Monty  845  19:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Tomcat7
 * 7. How do you feel about using images that may fail freedom of panorama, like here? Are those copyright violations?
 * A: The United States recognizes Freedom of Panorama in the case of buildings, on the English Wikipedia we are therefor able to use it. As explained at Non-U.S. copyrights, while we prefer to use images that are free everywhere in the world, as long as it is free to use in the US, it may be used on en., and in this case any image of the church would likely have the same foreign copyright issues. I strongly support Wikipedia Policy on this issue. (My opinion is limited to the Freedom of Panorama issue, while the commons licensing tags appear to be in order, I have not investigated them)


 * As to whether it is permissible at commons, I have little experience with Russian copyrights, and will leave commons copyright enforcement to commons. Before uploading such an image to commons myself, I would research the applicable commons policies, as I know it could be an issue. Monty  845  00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8. If a user constantly reverts (and uses rollbacks) without explaining in the edit summary, and later guessing that it was vandalism what he reverted, but in reality was made in good-faith, what action will you do?
 * A: I assume we are talking about the use of actual rollback, and not a rollback substitute, as my answer would be different for such a substitute (for instance Twinkle). If the editor has not previously been warned, I would advise the editor in question that in this circumstance, rollback must only be used without an edit summary where the edit being rolled back is obvious vandalism. That in my opinion the edit in question was made in good faith, that it is important to assume good faith, and that the edit certainly was not obvious enough vandalism to justify a rollback with no explanation, and that the use of rollback was therefor improper. That by failing to explain what was wrong with the edit being rolled back, the editor who made the edit, who we should assume to be acting in good faith, will not understand what they did wrong, and may repeat the edit. Then I would ask the editor to review the WP:ROLLBACK guideline. Finally I would warn the editor that failing to abide by the rollback guideline can result in the summary removal of rollback. While the guideline does not explicitly require a warning prior to removal, in my opinion rollback should be removed without warning only when used in bad faith.


 * If the editor had been previously warned regarding rollback, or continued after the warning, I would remove the permission, explain why on their talk page, invite the editor to discuss it with me, and mention that they may also request review at WP:AN/I if they find the discussion with me unsatisfactory. I would prefer there be a consensus process for removal of permissions that are not being used in bad faith, but one does not yet exist. Monty  845  00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Monty845:
 * Edit summary usage for Monty845 can be found here.
 * Stats added to the talk page. — ΛΧΣ  21™  01:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the AfD Stats tool in the RFX toolbox below assumes that the creator of an AfD discussion is the nominator, in my case that assumption makes the stats inaccurate. Monty  845  20:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some explanation about the above comment. The AfD stats show a poor main diagonal. Looking at some Delete by Nom AfDs shows that Monty845 has turned some good faith IP comments that an article should be deleted into AfD proceedings. See AfD/Charles Meade and AfD/MMM-2011. At least some articles were nominated even though Monty845 believed keep would be likely; the tool would put Monty in the delete column. Glrx (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Support
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nominator. Some of the stats (NAC and others) are wrong, as I noted in my review of Monty back in Sept. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've been waiting for this. Automatic  Strikeout  21:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Hooray for gnomes and article development. &mdash; Hex    (**  ?!  **)   21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: I've seen Monty around a fair bit and have found them to be knowledgeable, professional, and agreeable. I don't think they'll have any problems transitioning into a more administrative role. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I've seen you around, and I like that you are someone who likes to start and/or engage in discussions, which at the very least shows you understand that this is a collaborative project as much as a bold undertaking. - jc37 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with the nom; thought he already was. Go   Phightins  !  21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Everything looks good. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Calm, responsible, civil, clear, and no hint of Chuck Woolery. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support no issues. --Rschen7754 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I've seen the candidate around a lot and they will make a fine admin. -> S s  *s . (Sigma) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support as there is no real reason not to. Diesel's oppose is unconvincing – administrators police behavioral issues, not content disputes. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless they are obvious personality clashes, disputes come down to editorial judgement: is source X reputable, is fact Y given adequate mention in an article, is comment Z about a living individual libelous or fair comment? One can't broker a dispute by saying "N used a bad word."  We have no clue how the candidate will behave because we haven't been given opportunity to observe.  This worries me. Diesel-50 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * His behavior in contentious RfCs and other debates was the primary reason I was eager to nominate him. He and I have disagreed in those debates as well, and I've never seen him lose his composure, instead staying calm and staying polite even when surrounded by chaos, even when consensus was against him. I won't ask for you to change your vote, but those that know Monty know his greatest strength is his calm manner under fire, which is why that dominated my nom statement.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Diesel, I fear you have a terribly misguided view of what administrators do. Administrators have no special authority in deciding which version of an article is better, or which sources are reliable. Admins are supposed to guard Wikipedia from incivility, edit warring, vandalism and other disruption so that article editors (including admins not wearing their admin hats) can get the important work done. Except in extreme cases such as ArbCom-mandated RfCs, they do not dictate the conclusion of a content dispute, although they are asked to decide what consensus is. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I suggest we move it to the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Editor has a good head on his shoulders as evidenced by the way he interacts with others, even in contentious discussions. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) "Monty845 is one of those editors that everyone thinks is already an admin" &mdash; Indeed! This is a no-brainer. Kurtis (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Another one to which I say "about time", this is one I was hoping would come soon. I have no issues with handing Monty the mop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Looks like a fine candidate by a fine nominator. Good luck, and remember to serve the community well. ~  GabeMc  (talk 01:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. What's not to like? As others have said, Monty is calm, knowledgeable, careful, and pretty much devoid of controversy. In my interaction with him, he's always been helpful and courteous. I also like his answers to the questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Good interaction style, and clueful answers to the questions. Q4 shows he knows when to step away - that's invaluable. Support, per nom and above comments. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Solid contribution history, mature answers to the questions and respectful of other users. He will no doubt make a fine admin. - MrX 03:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Excellent user. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I respect Dennis' judgement, and we can't have too many level-headed admins.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 03:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Came here to support since I've seen you all over the place and your work has always been good ... and now I see everyone else has seen you around too, so you must really be working hard. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - sounds good.  Swarm   X 05:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes, please. A rational, articulate editor who I'm sure would be a trustworthy admin. Glad to support. Rivertorch (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - note that bad AfD results in the tool are mostly the result of completing AfD noms for IP and new users. A spot check of the AfDs show they understand it very well, and a random check of other edits show no problems.  Monty is more of an editor than an author, to be sure, but such is life.  Wily D  09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Good contributions.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, I had many interactions with him at the AfC space and know that he is net positive. mabdul 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - administration (in the traditional sense) can be just as valuable as content creation. Not everyone can be Shakespearian, but everyone can be Wikipedian. I could be cheeky and suggest that especially applies to lawyers. Ha ha. Seriously, though, no concerns and he should make for a good admin. Stalwart 111  11:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - no serious concerns, he seems highly suitable.  Roger Davies  talk 11:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - seems like a solid candidate. GiantSnowman 13:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Support No concerns. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 14:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, based on review of history. Kierzek (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, seems to meet my criteria at this time. -- No  unique  names  16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Looks OK to me. There is a need for talk page work (referring to the oppose on this ground) - the main part of my visible editing work seems to be on talk pages. Explaining why things were deleted, encouraging them to try again after reading the policies, explaining the policies, or telling people that if they go on doing THAT they WILL be blocked, and explaining later why they WERE blocked. All part of an admin's day (and night). Peridon (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain this comment? You say there is a need for talk page work, and that is true, but the only thing the candidate has done there is housekeeping. There is no interaction with people, not a single example. Diesel-50 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Rotten regard       Softnow  18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Very Active Wikipedian tenure is borderline at right around 18 months once you strike the wikibreaks. Edit count is sufficient and a Dennis Brown nomination as temperamentally suited to the task is worth its weight in Faberge Eggs... Carrite (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Stephen 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support — stay ( sic ) ! 00:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 08:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support If s/he's smart enough to have gotten a JD then s/he's good enough to be an admin here. Sædon talk  08:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, why not?  Rcsprinter  (state)  @ 17:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support The candidate is already cleaning the floor, might as well give the mop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  20:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good candidate; I have no concerns.  Spencer T♦ C 06:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no reasons not to support. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Content creation is definitely important yet is not this editor's strength; that said, they've done enough to establish competency and their administrative contributions are valuable+extensive but currently limited by lacking the admin bit. Maturity is clearly established.  I see no solid reason to oppose.  -- Scray (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rzuwig ► 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support There are valuable tasks on this project that aren't article writing. This candidate does those tasks, and does them well. Therefore the lack of activity in article writing is not a concern.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support He's a mature, sensible editor. Definitely support.  --  Plasma  ( Talk ) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support...I'd like to see more content work, but since I don't see any evidence that they will misuse tools or position I'm supporting.--MONGO 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Long term Wikipedian with plenty of contributions and a clean block log. Thanks for your answers to my question, in light of them the censorship userbox doesn't concern me. We will be on opposite sides of some debates but I'm happy with most of your answers and reassurances; Though I will take the opportunity to point out that the community has long ago set precedents that even if certain porn stars are notable as porn stars we have usually respected the privacy of those who have left the industry and started new lives. As for the opposes, I agree that content is important. I consider that adding reliably sourced content to the pedia is a basic competency that all new admins should display, and I wouldn't have supported the candidate if I hadn't an example of them doing just that (hint to anyone considering running - make it easy for us to find that sort of stuff).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the example you found of the candidate adding reliably sourced content? As far as I can tell it hasn't been linked to from this page yet, and it would be a good idea to see what the candidate has done in this area, seeing as some of the opposes have been based on this concern. (On the other hand, I am not that keen to base judgements like this on just one example, as even the best editors make bad edits now and again.) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. By looking at the articles mentioned on Monty's userpage I found this from 2011. I don't know if he has more recent edits that add references, but as far as I'm concerned it is a basic skill that an RFA candidate needs to have demonstrated, so once I spotted an edit that referenced something to the LA Times I stopped looking for more examples.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I don't think that "content creation" is a requirement for adminship. Good judgment is the most important.-- В и к и  T   15:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Would like to have seen a lot more content creation but gnomes and fairies  deserve a place among the sysops.  Definite plus for the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Looks good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - No reason to oppose just because a candidate has different project-related interests. All of what we do comes together in the end. Michael (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This editor has worked primarily in admin-related areas, and has done so very efficiently. Comments in respect of his lack of content-building seem to ignore tha fact that working in admin-related areas is what it is hoped admins will do. There are absolutely no concerns here; he clearly knows what to do. --Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 10:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Trust Dennis Brown's judgement. Most of the answers look good. answer the answer given to question 5 is a bit of a dodge, but still covers the issue as it would relate to RfA. While the edits don't show much in the way of content creation, I'm not sure that I agree opposes that say it is necessary to make good decisions. The sampling of some of the contributions seem to be good to me. PaleAqua (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. This one's got it together. Answers to questions are sensible and clear, nom's statement is consistent with what I've observed, no serious concerns. Kilopi (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. In this, and any, RfA, I don't come here with a checklist of criteria to tick off, but instead I ask myself whether or not I would trust the candidate with the tools, and this time, yes I do. As for the censorship userbox, it's a non-issue for me, because it's clear that the candidate is fully capable of respecting consensus when it differs from his individual beliefs. As for the lesser amount of basic content work, that's something I consider carefully, but in this case I'm satisfied from my own experiences seeing the candidate's comments, that this is someone who is clueful, not given to fits of emotion, and able to listen to and respect differing points of view. A clear "support" from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Some of our best admins are content contributors, but it's not for everyone and sysops should not need this particular feather in their cap.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Why not? The user seems to be a good candidate hence I refer to my original statement: Why not? John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I see nothing that indicates he would not make a good admin.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I see no reason to oppose, answers are clear and outstandingly elaborate. hmssolent\Let's convene 01:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I normally oppose people who seem like they are only on the project to shovel more bureaucracy in... and that's the first thing I look for when I see someone that seems unusually predisposed to administrative tasks. I'm not seeing it in this case, however. The candidate seems to be level-headed and doesn't spend an unusual amount of time at noticeboards for no apparent reason other than to offer their OPINION! Aside from that, I would like to see some more content work, but it's nothing that I'm going to oppose over. Trusilver  03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support (moved from neutral) – Even though the user hasn't really done much content work, I think Monty845, with his experience in admin-related areas, would be a great admin. After all, maintenance stuff is what admins are supposed to do (content editing is recommended but should not required of an admin, in my opinion). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Few recent content contributions but broad experience over a long term. Always civil and logical. Net plus for WP. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Great editor that wouldn't harm Wikipedia. Definitely deserves the mop. Vacation nine 13:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I think Monty845 will make a fine admin, despite the lack of content contributions. S/he is smart, experienced, and a good communicator. I expect we will be rewarded with a lot of good admin work if this RfA passes. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I can see no reason not to. WikiPuppies  bark dig 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I'd like to see more article work, but seems reasonable enough. Intothatdarkness 17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support after a review of contributions. Gnomes are an essential part of the WIkipedia infrastructure, and many gnomish tasks require tools. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Nothing in the Q&A nor in the "oppose" section convinces me that Monty845 will not make a fine admin. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Enough WP:ABLs as it is, and don't see any disqualifiers --No qwach macken (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Some of the opposers seem to be taking up the "serial oppose" batton, sadly on occasion with valueless comments. Of the more thoughtful oposition, yes more article work would have been nice but nothing to indicate tool misuse hence WP:NETPOS. Pedro : Chat  21:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support See him around, good work, although the userbox gives me pause. Not the censorship one, but the "alot" one.  Have we really fallen so low?  that's mostly sarcasm . Hobit (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Support. The candidate is helpful, bright and experienced. However, the dearth of content-building experience is a weakness. That said, I suspect that Monty will make a good admin. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Solid contributor, long history of being reasonable and trustworthy. Good luck mate! Cheers! T.I.M(Contact) 03:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - 80! - Yes, I trust this user.  TheSpecialUser TSU 12:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support -- KTC (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I've always found Monty to be logical and calm, offering up clueful insight and being helpful in general. He will serve the community well.
 * 1) Support. I've always found Monty to be logical and calm, offering up clueful insight and being helpful in general. He will serve the community well.
 * 1) Support, per above and my personal observations of candidate. My 76  Strat  (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Appears to be a good addition to the corps.  To the opposer that said the editor's userboxes formed part of his decision, I say, get a life. Guðsþegn (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be me. What makes you think I have not already got a life? I very strongly object to someone with the "anti-censorship" and the "linguistic change" userboxes displayed becoming an admin. "Censorship" is too often misused when people have their proposed changes undone by others to have much credibility, and as a reputable resource we should strongly avoid being at the forefront of linguistic change, while accepting that it obviously happens. What was the need to be so rude in disagreeing with me? --John (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being rude. You're right; it wasn't needed. Guðsþegn (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support - Originally, I typed out an oppose rationale, then discarded it. Then I typed out a support rationale, then discarded it. Then I typed out a weak oppose, then rejected that too. I finally decided to end up here at the last minute given the clarity of your answers and that you aren't likely to cause issues. (Not that the outcome is affected. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I have been looking through the candidate's contributions to articles in the last six months, and there is not one single edit in there that isn't administrative. This is not a good sign.  Also, as far as I can see, until at least May this year there is not one single edit to article talk that isn't administrative.  At some point the candidate will take it on himself to arbitrate a dispute, and we have no clue how this is going to work out. Diesel-50 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't follow what you're saying. What do you mean by "isn't administrative"? Obviously, Monty is not an admin yet, so he can't have taken any administrative action. Then, your final sentence is equally mysterious (to me). What is the basis for your saying we don't know how Monty will handle (arbitrate is a technical word) a dispute?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's administration as opposed to creation of content - closing of AfD's, reversions of vandalism, that sort of thing. Housekeeping might be a better word. As far as handling editing disputes goes, please see my reply to Someguy above.  Going back to May there is no substantial interaction between him and any other contributor on article talkpages.  One would like to see how he comports himself when editorial judgement is called for.  But almost everything he does on talkpages is placing banners. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I have had a bit of a look at this user's contributions and do not see any non-administrative edits, all of his work is wonderful, but more content contributions need to be proven for further knowledge. I agree with . Sorry. TBrandley 00:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Diesel-50 was saying the opposite to you - that all of his edits have been adminsitrative (or housekeeping) in nature. So he would use the tools, but that he doesn't have experience in the other vital areas (dealing with disputes and creating content for example). Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Yup, not much edits that looks good to me. Just mainly in talk pages, user pages and project pages. Hey Monty, may I ask why was there an edit shutdown during 2007/07 - 2011/01 and 2012/01-03? Pits  Confer Guests 09:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions for the candidate go in the "Question for the candidate" section. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#227722;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#772277;">| spout _  15:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of the first period, I felt I was loosing my objectivity with respect to certain areas, and that it would be best for me to step back for awhile. In 2011 I decided to give it another go, and haven't run into that problem since. As for the beginning of this year, at the start of January I moved and started a new job, between the demands of both, I had to put Wikipedia on the back burner for awhile. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too little work upon content. Warden (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.239.63.5 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Virtually no content work in the last two months, not much evidence on candidate's talk page of recent collaboration work, the censorship user box is a red flag and the related Q5 answer is, candidly, nonsense. Too many unknowns here. Townlake (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- Similar problems as Diesel and Townlake. Content contributions are a must, and Monty's has only been doing stuff on the other side of WP in the buildup to this RfA.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Strong oppose I cannot see any non-administrative edits to articles in the last several months (I looked back as far as July). Admins should have some experience of content-building as otherwise it is hard for them to identify with the concerns of those who write the content. I also don't like the user boxes. --John (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC) and see also my response to support number 84. --John (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose A nice guy, but the near-complete lack of content work is a deal killer. Admins need to have some experience with what it's like for those in the trenches. Sorry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Little to no substantive contribution to article space. In my opinion, this is a deal-breaker for anyone looking to administer an encyclopedia. We have too many admins who have absolutely no idea about the content they are administering. The only way to show that you do is to contribute to article space. My suggestion, whether this RfA passes or fails, is to spend a reasonable amount of time actually editing articles in an area that you have some knowledge -- Samir 02:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Fruitless Oppose Lack of content creation, but as always, it will be ignored by the closing bureaucrat and likely the candidate, even if this dropped to sub-70% approval. Pre-congrats to your promotion.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral – The maintenance-related stuff is great. But after looking at the most recent 500 contributions in the article and talk namespaces, I noticed that there aren't any edits that are content-related (all of them are maintenance/task-related, such as vandalism removal, AfD, and edit requests). The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Moved to support.
 * 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.